Reviews (95)

Superb chick flick!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to admit that I was initially attracted to this movie because of the Enya music--there is no more romantic music to listen to when you are in love or to make love to than Enya's music. James Cameron realized that and tried to get Enya to write songs for "Titanic"--but it turned out that she did not have time to do so.

Regardless, this movie is a definite top rate, excellent chick-flick tear-jerker if there ever was one. Of course, what better city in which to set a romantic movie than San Francisco, which is where this movie occurs. Sara Deever, a quirky 90's style woman chases after Nelson Moss, a hard driven ad designer. After she sends him a cute little dog, he immediately returns the dog to her and, as she is cleaning up his left hand (that he had cut earlier in the day), he tells her about his day: "I got fired. They took the company car. And my GIRLFRIEND left me" "Perfect!", she says. "Define 'perfect'", he says angrily. Perfect in this case is the lead in to the rest of the movie, a series of romantic crises, wonderful love scenes, ultimately leading to a two boxes of Kleenex ending. This is my number 9 chick flick of all time (see my list of all time chick flicks). And if you end up liking this movie, you will love the soundtrack!!!

Charming, moving, uplifting, and surprisingly good!
Charlize Theron brings on her charm, and Keanu Reeves turns in a surprisingly worthy performance in "Sweet November," a movie that's as light as a fall breeze. Slammed by most critics as a soggy romance with no star chemistry, the movie's premise centers around two people who, through an unlikely series of events, fall in love, though not without hardship.

Let it be known, the movie is not that bad. In fact, when put in comparison with movies like "Bounce" and "The Wedding Planner," "Sweet November" is actually kind of refreshing in it's own little way. Yes, the way in which the two develop their romance is a bit tough to swallow at first, but if you can ignore that and allow their growing relationship to touch your heart, then the movie succeeds on those terms.

Keanu Reeves plays Nelson Moss, a man who is all work and no play (when leaving for work one morning, he tells his girlfriend, "I have a life, and I'm late for it") as a big ad executive. While taking a test at the DMV, he runs into Sara Deever, played by Charlize Theron, who gives him an answer and gets caught cheating. What does Sara do? She milks the situation for everything she can in order to get Nelson to her home.

Her offer? To allow him to live in her house for a month, no more, no less, in order to help him get rid of all of his life's stresses and restrictions. She takes it to the extreme, too, giving his clothes to a homeless man, telling him he cannot go to work (he got fired, anyway), and taking him out into the town to show him the ways in which life can be fun.

Like any movie relationship, there are complications. Sara is reluctant to reveal anything about her past or her family, or her reasons for taking in a new man each month. All she will reveal is what she does to help each one of them. Near the end, there will come a revelation that will put the stability of their bond in jeopardy.

It seems preposterous, but with a movie like this, the events come in such an order that you can forgive these little pitfalls. Their budding romance really does have a kick to it, and despite the outside criticism, Theron and Reeves do have some good onscreen chemistry that lights up the screen in moments and provides for some very touching moments.

The film also has a lot of warm-hearted laughs. A scene in which Sara stands outside Nelson's apartment and begins shouting risque comments at people in order to gain his attention will have you chuckling, while her neighbors, two homosexuals who host a dinner party for the four of them in drag, are a riot. And the overall sweet nature of the relationship between the two is something to smile about, as well as shed a few tears over.

In one of his better roles, Keanu Reeves is convincingly emotional as Nelson. In the beginning, her perfectly portrays the egotistical attitude and outlook of his character, and then makes a very believable segue to someone who is so in love he is willing to change his whole life. Charlize Theron is, as always, a gem, bringing a touch of warmth and cheerfulness to her role as Sara. Her acting embodies her character with the zest for life needed to sell us on Sara's motives, and Theron captures that completely.

While it's not on par with many other romances on the market, "Sweet November" is nowhere near as bad as critics have made it out to be. In fact, it's a charming movie that is very uplifting, due in part to the moving relationship that Reeves and Theron bring to their characters. It met all of my expectations, which were few, but the fact that it met them is enough to recommend the film.

the best movie ever
I have to say this is the greatest romance moive. It has it all; love, drama, and comedy. I dont want to give away the details but I cant help but love this move. She is beautiful and hes so lost. Everyone needs balance in there life and she gives it to him. Although the ending is sad i have to watch it until its over. I dont see anyone not loving this movie. In final words this is a great movie and everyone should own it!

Sweet sleep throughout this movie
The best thing about this movie is that it finally got me out of my insomnia spell. It was stupid and boring at the begining and so it didn't hold my interest enough to stay awake through the rest of it. Don't rush out to watch this - that's for sure.

Sweet November okay movie
I saw this movie and to be honest .To like the movie you are going to have to watch it over and over again. to like the movie its not a bad movie overall but , they tried and the effort was good enough for me. I liked it. ... Read more

Reviews (122)

O lente currite noctis equi! O softly run, nightmares!
It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Lolita 1998
Although Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a good film adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's superb novel, it contains fatal flaws. First I will say that the cinematography is glorious and the score by Ennio Morriconne lush and romantic. I expected Jeremy Irons as the obsessed Humbert Humbert to turn in a mind blowing performance. Unfortunately, he stands around looking glum most of the time. Dominique Swain as the nymphet Lolita does have several impressive moments, but ultimately is unconvincing as she comes across as nothing more than a 90s brat. I will say though that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita does have its very powerful moments, just not enough of them.

I don't hold these faults to the actors. I think Adrian Lyne, the director is responsible for the films flaws. For one thing, he seems to want to make Lolita look as unattractive as possible every chance he gets. She takes out her retainer before performing oral sex on Humbert, and is frequently seen munching on bananas and getting milk mustaches. Also in one scene, we see Lolita sitting diown, laughing as she reads a comic book. The camera moves away to reveal that Humbert is making love to her. This and other scenes make the relationship between Humbert and Lolita repulsive, and if you're going to make a film based on Lolita, their relationship can't be portrayed as disgusting. The audience must be made to feel the love that Humbert has for this girl. It only partially succeeds. Irons also fails most in the ending scene where Lolita tells Humbert that she never loved him. Irons merely cries for two seconds and leaves. James Mason in Kubrick's version is much more moving. I also have a problem with the fact that Lyne seems to have duplicated the Kubrick film shot by shot in that scene.

My last qualm is that this adaption is nearly completely devoid of humor, which is an essential aspect of Nabokov's story. Melanie Griffiths gives a fine performance as Charlotte Haze, but she is given far too little screen time. Frank Langella as Quilty is also quite amusing, too bad he only gets ten minutes to show it. Thus, when a 17 year old Lolita reveals to Humbert that it was Quilty who put her away, we don't care. It should be a revelation, but it is not. Quilty's death scene offers an infusion of black humor, but it is too little, too late. Jeremy Irons last few scenes as an emotionally broken Humbert are very moving though.

I give this movie three stars because for all of its faults, it is involving and does deserve to be seen and compared with Stanley Kubrick's 1962 adaption. Even though it falls short when compared to it.

Adrian Lyne, you do not compare to Stanley Kubrick
The original 1962 Kubrick version of this movie is so much better, he actually captured the essence of this film. The remake is completely cheesy; it pales in comparison. Shame on those who think this wannabe movie is better or even compares to the original.

A FASCINATING STORY OF OBSESSION
It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

As vexing as ever
Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it. ... Read more

Reviews (264)

Gate to the Kingdom of Disillusion
First, a few reasons why I bothered to see this movie:

1. Roman Polanski is one of my favorite directors. 2. The theatrical/tv trailer looked intense 3. Interesting subject matter (occult). 4. French actress/wife of Polanski Emanuelle Seigner 5. Emanuelle Seigner 6. Last but not least, Emanuelle Seigner

Now, a few reasons why I was left disappointed:

1. The ending 2. The ending 3. ...and the ending.

This film was excellent for it's spectacular cinematography and various global locations. The plot and story itself were easy to comprehend . The mood, setting, atmosphere was very creepy and at times Gothic. Yet, it was not enough to frighten or thrill. As for the climax, maybe some of us are lazy and lack imagination to draw conclusions;However, I still wanted to know what really happened to Johnny Depp's character Corso at the end ( and have it explained to me by the director and actors) The ending was too ambiguous and symbolic (though the movie was filled with symbols figuratively and visually). As for Emanuelle Seigner, she is one underrated talented beauty only known for her modeling and acting in Europe. I wanted to know more about her character; Was she one of Satan's dominions or Satan himself ? She was definitely not heavensent(only to the eyes)...

This movie gets 3 stars because it left me with more questions than answers; No closure whatsoever...and leaving the ending for personal or individual interpretation doesn't count Mr. Polanski

The Worst Movie I Ever Viewed
I made the mistake of seeing this in the theatre...DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE! It is far and away the most disappointing movie experience of my like.

2 hours of my life I wont get back.
Your time and money would be better spent if you were to commmit these rescources to the study of your own ass!

not a FLOP by any means
I'm currently watching the TRIO channel's disgusting butchery of this film as apart of their "month of flops" promotion. The only FLOP I see is their editing of essential footage. They have condensed the movie to under 2 hours...and have subsequently made certain scenes appear as "stupid" (for lack of a better word).

This movie grew on me. I was not intially impressed, but after viewing it with friends and family, I have become a big fan of its haunting yet calming persona. The subject matter deals with Satanic idolatry, but the movie is in no way "goth". It's the kind of film you could watch with your children and not worry about them being scarred for life.

As far as comedy, Johnny Depp's bad luck with women is hilarious. His facial expressions (even while killing "the albino") are a hoot.

As for the ending, after many viewings I believe Depp went to hell where he was praised for being the human father of the anti-Christ. All along, the lady in the sneakers was Satan.

YES, THE END IS A GYP. OTHERWISE A HAUNTING THRILLER!
The absolutely creepy yet sublime direction of this Polanski endeavour makes it a worthwhile watch. Almost Kubrick-like, wide angle shots and lax-paced screenplay and all.

I was riveted. Riveted, that is, right until the somewhat confusing fire and cobblestone ending, which admittedly leaves you with very little to chew on and instead of appearing clever and ambiguous, as it perhaps wanted to, mostly comes off as complacent.

Yet, the point of a mystery noirish film is to keep you intrigued through out, and the movie manages to do that quite successfully. The sleuthing process is almost done in tandem with the audience, which is fun. Johnny Depp is immaculate in his potrayal of a detached book detective and all others contribute richly. The music is tacky in bits, but not too distracting.

Recommended rental for haunting cinematography of Portugal and France, and a fabulously captivating atmosphere in general. ... Read more

Reviews (55)

A Presidential Comedy!
Dave Kovic runs a job placement agency. On the side, he does Presidential Impersonations since he bares a strong resemblance to President Mitchell. But when Mitchell suffers a life-threatening stroke, Dave is asked to step in to temporarily fill his shoes. After testing the waters, Dave begins to enjoy the job and eventually tries to get something done...

DAVE is a sturdy comedy that gets a lot of mileage out of Washington DC. Kevin Kline is just perfect as the everyman Dave and even better as President Dave. When he throws out the first pitch at a professional game, the reaction is happy and real. He becomes the President we would like to see, one that puts the country above all else. That's something I've never seen in my lifetime. Sigourney Weaver is the hard-edged First Lady who Dave is soon allied. Charles Grodin is very funny in a supporting role as a DC accountant with a fear of the government. Frank Langella is the villainous Bob Alexander, puppet master for the 'acting' President. He sneers here as much as he did in DRACULA. But, much of the fun in Dave comes from the many Washington insider cameos. These, in addition to appearances by Larry King, Jay Leno, Leon Harris and Oliver Stone make the story seem feasible. (And for once, Oliver Stone's conspiracy just might be right...)

Ivan Reitman handles this comedy masterfully and the story is filled with heart and a couple nice twists. The DVD has a pretty good video transfer and a standard audio transfer. But, this was an early DVD release so it offers little extra (There is a mightily short making of doc). Dave itself is a fun film that might ironically restore some trust in our government.

Whimsy & Intrigue in the White House
This movie is one of those gems that quietly grows on you -- each viewing creating anticipation and appreciation for its wit and style. The casting is superb. Kevin Kline doesn't know how to give a bad performance. Frank Langella's brilliant characterization of the ambitious, power-hungry 'man behind the throne' is perfect, and a wonderful contrast to his long-ago role as the cad/seducer in Diary of a Mad Housewife.

This is definitely a movie to buy because it needs to be seen many times. The innumerable funny pearls in this movie alone are worth the price of the DVD. For Minnesotans, one of the slyest gags was Dave's gig early in the moview, imitating the President at the grand opening of Durenberger Motors in his home town. The movie was released around the time that David Durenberger (Minnesota's senior senator) was embroiled in an ethics scandal. A personal favorite moment was the scene where Dave (with the help of his accountant buddy played by Charles Grodin) pares the federal budget to save a homeless shelter for children -- the cabinet members bemusedly participating just like a family sitting around the kitchen table wrestling with its own budget. Priceless.

GOOD DEMOCRATS, BAD REPUBLICANS, SAME OLD STORY
The film "Dave" went through a script change. The story of a Presidential look-alike (Kevin Kline) who fills in for the secretly deceased real thing, the original story featured a Republican who brought his skills as a small entrepreneur to the job. Hollywood turned him into a Democrat, but kept his G.O.P common sense, such as when he and his partner look at the Federal budget and balance it by using the methods any small businessman would use. Naturally, pet liberal projects are all interjected while "Republican priorities" are given the heave-ho. You can search far and wide, and you will not find Hollywood films that openly portray a Democrat as the bad guy. I wrote a screenplay a few years ago called "A Murderous Campaign". It had all the elements of a great script. A beautiful porn star has an affair with a Democrat Louisiana Senator. She overhears him plotting the assassination of a political rival, but they find out she heard the plan. They try to kill her, so she goes into hiding and hooks up with a crusty old Washington reporter who is considered kooky because he has been accusing this Democrat of these crimes for years. A retired FBI friend of the reporter helps them. The Democrat announces a Presidential bid. The porn star uses her considerable charms and discovers that the Governor of New Jersey is the assassination target at a Statue of Liberty rally. She saves the Governor, and the plot is revealed, but the Democrat candidate goes into spin control. Nobody can really prove the plan. It looks like he will win the nomination, having weathered the politics of personal destruction. Finally, the porn girl and the reporter find the old father of the Democrat's chief of staff, a former Ku Klux Klansman who wants to get what he knows off his chest before passing from this mortal coil. He tells them about the drug smuggling operation the candidate has been running in the Louisiana Bayou. The reporter's FBI pal arranges a raid. They discover all the "smoking gun" evidence of a series of political murders going back years. The girl is re-united with her family, gets out of the porn business, the reporter wins the Pulitzer, and it is jail time for the Democrat. The end.
Creative execs who loved the verbal pitch when I simply described the Democrat as a "politician," a "candidate" or the "Senator" all passed when they read the part in the script that identifies him as an actual Democrat. Pamela Anderson would be perfect as the porn chick. I could see Denzel Washington as the reporter, and Gary Busey as the Democrat Senator. I was asked if I would change him to a Republican. My answer was that I wanted to maintain the realism of the story. See ya.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

Light romantic comedy.
President Bill Mitchell is not exactly an ideal President. He looks after those who helped get him into office than the people and he is a philanderer. One of the ways that he keeps his amorous play a secret is to hire a lookalike to impersonate him. Now the man whom they have hired is Dave Kovic (Kevin Kline), a goodhearted man who likes to help people find jobs. After making his little exit, the real President suffers a stroke and is completely incapacitated. The corrupt and manipulative Chief of Staff, Bob Alexander, plans to use Dave to elevate himself to the White House. Unfortunately, he doesn't count on Dave enjoying himself in office, using his luck to make the country a better place and falling in love with the beautiful First Lady.

A fun Political Drama/Comedy!
DAVE is a great movie. It's fun to watch and is family friendly. At the same time, though, it has plenty of political jargon and Oval Office scenes to keep the political drama lover happy. DAVE follows a man who could pass as a twin of the President. He is recruited as a double for the Prez. for public appearances, but quite unexpectedly, gets a big promotion! Definately see this one. ... Read more

Description

Planet Eternia and the Castle of Greyskull are under threat from the evil Skeletor who wants to take over the planet.A group of freedom fighters, led by the heroic He-Man are accidentally transported to Earth by a mysterious Cosmic Key which holds the power to make Skeletor all-powerful.Once on Earth, He-Man joins alliances with two teenagers as they attempt to find the key and return home. ... Read more

Reviews (104)

By the power of grayskull!
Ok, so the movie did not stay true to the cartoon. This is still a kickin' movie. He-Man, the strongest man in the universe, and hero to all who live on the mystical planet of Eternia, comes to the big screen. He-Man comes from one of Mattel Toys biggest sellers in their history, and toy history. The line was called 'Masters of the Universe'. Mattel spun off the line into a cartoon for the small screen that was produced by animation group, Filmation. The cartoon and toys was so popular amoung youngsters and even adults, that a live action movie came about.

Now, I have read the original script for the movie. Much better than what actually made it to screen. The only fault of the movie is too much Earth. People want to see it on Eternia. But, the movie is still cool, with great effects and a nice score by Bill Conti.

The true highlight of the movie is Frank Langella as Skeletor. He was made to play the role. He is very scarey and at most very evil in the movie.

Also, Friends fans of Courtney Cox will love the movie too, she is in it as Earth girl Julie who finds the Cosmic Key and aids the Eternians on Earth.

I give the movie 5 stars because that is what it should get. I am a huge He-Man and She-Ra fan and this movie is part of He-Man's history.

By the power of grayskull.... YOU have the power!

Ehh... not as good as I remember.
I was a He-Man fan in the late 80's, so naturally I liked the movie as a kid. Bought it on DVD a while ago and it's not as good as I remember. Most of these reviews hit the nail right on the head: setting the action on Earth was a pretty lame idea. The special effects hold up pretty good, but according to the commentary, this film was a rush-job to cash in on the success of the cartoon, which might explain the absence of Orko, Battlecat and other characters.

Dolph Lundgren, despite his acting "talent," definitely LOOKS like He-Man, but gives a typically lumbering performance. In one scene, Skeletor commands He-Man to throw down his sword if his friends wish to see another day. After doing so, Teela says, "He-Man, NO!" Lundgren replies, "Teela, I have no choice. I do not want any more people to die." Skeletor says, "Well said, He-Man." Afterwards, you can almost see Frank Langella roll his eyes at Dolph Lundgren. Look for it.

Langella, as Skeletor, steals the movie. He gives a campy, terrific performance which gives some of the scenes a much-needed spark. Nothing more really needs to be said about him.

Warwick Davis is also entertaining as Gwildor.

The cinematography is good and the music score sounds like something that would be classic by now had it been in a better film, but overall, "Masters Of The Universe" is nothing really memorable. If you've never seen it, it's good for a rental, but don't buy it.

And, yes, that's Courtney Cox as the victimized Earth girl.

Pure Fun For Fans Of The Series, Or Fans Of Fantasy!
While I was reading the other customer reviews of "Masters of the Universe" on this page, I was shocked at how many negative reviews there were. I absolutely love this movie! It is one the most fun movies you could ever see, and has been one of my favorites ever since I was a kid. When I was little, I had all of the toys, and watched the cartoon series religiously. Now I know that the movie doesn't stay true to the cartoon series, but you have to think of it as a seperate entity of a central idea. The makers of this film were trying to appeal to hardcore fans of the series, and also to attract new viewers to the series. In one review by Access Hollywood in the 80's this movie was hailed as "The Star Wars of the 80's" I believe that this movie is as good as Star Wars when you compare them as fantasy films. The special effects are great in this movie, when you consider the time that this movie was made. And they make a stunning transfer to DVD! This movie looks as gorgeous as it did when I first saw it in the theatre as a kid. I also love the acting in this movie. Frank Langella as Skeletor is simply fantastic. He gives a very theatrical quality to the character, and has just the right amount of sinister evil, and operatic intensity that he captures the character perfectly, without going over the top. In my opinion Langella deserved an Oscar nomination for his role, he was brilliant. As far as casting He-Man, the film makers had a quite a task on their hands, because He-Man is the ultimate super hero. Dolph Lundgren was a great choice. He had the ripped, muscular body, but could also do the fight scenes, and act as well. Other great casting was Courtney Cox, now Courtney Cox-Arquette from "Friends" where her character Monica Gellar is my favorite! Cox plays the Earth girl Julie, who becomes entangled in this battle of the cosmos. Also Meg Foster was brilliant as the evil warrior goddess Evil-Lyn. She was absolutely spellbinding. She captured the icy wickedness, and also sultry, seductive, evil beauty of the character. If I were a member of the Academy, I would have also given Cox and Foster nominations for Best Supporting Actress. Unfortunately until the recent 11 Oscar wins for the most deserving "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" the Academy did not honor fantasy films. "Masters of the Universe" was just a little ahead of its time. Don't pay attention to the negative reviews on this sight, this is truly one of the greatest fantasy films of our time!

Its okay, but a big disappointment....
As a huge fan of He-man and She-ra, I was disappointed with this movie. The big problem- the setting! It was a big mistake to go with Earth. Personally, I wanted to see how the people live on Eternia. We could have also seen interesting creatures and learned about a new world. Some might want to claim lack of technology, but there were plenty of special effects films made prior to the computer animation we know today. If Yoda could be brought to life back in the first trilogy from 1981 surely someone could have made a realistic Orko. But back on the subject of MOTU on earth, they could have also made a more interesting storyline if they insisted using Earth. He-man's mother, Queen Marlena, is FROM earth! The movie team obviously had no problem making this a more ADULT oriented film by adding more violence and drama, so they should have gone all the way and made it even more dramatic. It would have been interesting to see had Marlena been with the group how she'd react to being reunited with her old family on Earth. It would have been a nice sub-plot. Another thing I hated was the costumes. He-man with a cape? Yuck. And don't get me started on Teela's outfit. Then there's the introduction of new characters as opposed to using our favorite ones from the cartoon. I'm not sure, but I'm thinking there were leftover toys that Mattel needed to sell so they pushed for the film to use these new guys.

Anyways, as a fan, I'll watch the movie sometimes when its on cable, but it was a disappointment then and its still a disappointment as an adult. The dialogue is cheesy and not in a good 80s way. The storyline lacks imagination, and one other thing to complain about...the laser guns! The people who made this film obviously didn't pay attention to the title--MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. There are good and evil warriors with specific skills and techniques they use for combat as any MOTU fan knows and for the characters to constantly use laser guns was just a slap in the face. Get this film if you're a fan one of the actors in it like Dolph, Courteney Cox, etc...but other than that, I don't find anything rewarding out of this film.

Not like the cartoon,but okay.
I have to say that in a way this movie is half good and half bad.The actors did a great job but the story wasn,t mostly based on the popular cartoon.Movies like Ghostbusters are super spectaular.If I were to grad this movie I,d give it a C+.But it can be entertaining in a different sort of way.The ccastle greyskull looked very different and there were a lot of characters missing.So I have to give it a thumb up and thumb down. ... Read more

Reviews (38)

A rousing adventure tale! Highly recommended!
I was pleasantly surprised to find this version of JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS as a worthy successor to the original film starring Todd Armstrong.

I admit I was expecting some cheesy, low budget, badly-acted made-for-tv series but was pleased to find an entertaining film that stays faithful to the original myth. Add to that a strong cast, good production values and impressive special effects and you have a film that you will want to watch again and again.

The story centers on Jason (Jason London), who returns to reclaim his kingdom from his uncle, Pelias (Dennis Hopper). In order to regain the throne and save his mother's life, Jason agrees to sail to Colchis and obtain the golden fleece. With a crew that includes Orpheus, Atalanta, the mighty Hercules and the shipbuilder Argos, Jason faces many dangers on his quest for the fleece. The argonauts encounter the bronze giant Talos, the women of Lemnos (led by their queen Hypsypile - Natasha Henstridge), blind Phineas (Derek Jacobi) and the frightening harpies, the clashing rocks and more. When Jason arrives in Colchis, he falls in love with the lovely Medea (Jolene Blalock) but must face more challenges (including its ruler, King Aertes - Frank Langella) before he can leave the island with the fleece.

This version is more faithful to the myth than the 1963 film. For instance, Orpheus, Atalanta, Castor and Pollux make their appearance here. Also, this version shows what happens when the argonauts return home and has a better, more tightly woven ending than the original. The special effects are impressive and I enjoyed the behind-the-scenes bickering between Zeus (Angus MacFadyen) and Hera (the lovely Olivia Williams). I also thought that this version's Hercules (Brian Thompson) was a lot more convincing than Nigel Green from the original. This film also does a great job of portraying the role of the gods in Jason's quest.

However, there are also a few weaknesses. For one, I certainly miss the Talos of the original. Watching Talos first come to life on the 1963 film still gives me goosebumps up to this day. That Talos was definitely one of Ray Harryhausen's greatest creations. I also preferred the many-headed hydra to this version's giant lizard-like creature. Jason London is a passable lead but I believe the filmmakers could've picked a stronger actor. He certainly is nice to look at and the supporting actors more than make up for his shortcomings.

All in all, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to those who enjoy mythological, fantasy or action/adventure films. For those who enjoy Greek mythology, I suggest you also check out the 1963 version of JASON OF THE ARGONAUTS if only to see the fantastic Talos and the army of skeleton soldiers as well as CLASH OF THE TITANS (starring Harry Hamlin) and upcoming film TROY (starring Brad Pitt). Edith Hamilton's book MYTHOLOGY: TIMELESS TALES OF GODS AND HEROES is also a great introduction to the wonderful world of Greek and Roman myths and legends.

Despite weak lead, this "Jason.." still entertains.
This recent NBC mini-series covers the classic Greek myth of young Jason, who sought the Golden Fleece in his quest to be king. Unlike the classic Ray Harryhausen film of the 60's, this version is a little more grim and dark than usual for this type of film, but it entertains nevertheless. Brian Thompson (the alien bounty hunter from THE X-FILES TV show) is a hearty and jovial Hercules, while the kings of Frank Langella and Dennis Hopper and Natasha Henstridge's queen provide ample opposition for our hero. As the musician Orpheus, Adrian Lester delivers a thoughtful and solid performance. Robert McFadden is good as a petulant, yet puckish, Zeus. Unfortunately, where this movie falters is in the performance of Jason London as our hero. While he has the "angry young man" aspect right, he lacks the heroic passion and fire (that Todd Armstrong displayed in the 60's version) needed to be a credible leader of his Argonaut crew. Fortunately, there is so much action and special effects in this film that it can be overlooked to some degree. While not the classic that Harryhausen created, this is still an intelligent and solid film version of a favorite myth.

One of the Best Movies Ever Made
This movie is based on the classic Greek myth. As it begins, Iocles is being invaded by King Pelias(Dennis Hopper) and his soldiers. He defeats the defending army and marches into the palace, where he tricks his brother and murders him. He tries to kill the king's son, Jason, but a soldier of the king rushes in and saves him just in time.

Some years later, Jason(Jason London) awoke from a dream. It was a dream that he had many times before. It was the memory of the day Pelias invaded. He asks the centaur Chiron, who had been raising him ever since the day his father was murdered, what the dreams meant. Chiron told him that they were a memory, that the man who was murdered was his father, and that the man who murdered him was his uncle, and that the woman present was his mother, the queen, whom Pelias had taken as his wife. So with this information in minds, he goes to the capital of Iocles to meet his mother. Along the way, he loses one of his sandals.

The court seer sees Jason, and informs Pelias that a dangerous threat to his throne has arrived at Iocles, but that all he knew about him was that he only had one sandal. So, Pelias orders Jason to be brought to him. He speaks with Jason, and is about to have him killed, and asks Jason for one good reason not to, and Jason says that he will find the Golden Fleece, which Pelias wanted above all other things. Now, the Golden Fleece was said to be the Gods greatest gift to man, for it brought it's wearer his hearts desire. And Pelias's desire is to live forever, so that he may rule Iocles forever.

Pelias has ordered a ship to be built for Jason by the famous shipbuilder Argos. The ship is named the Argo, in homage of it's builder, especially as seen as Pelias had ordered Argos to travel with Jason under pain of death. Jason goes off to look for a crew. First, Jason recruits a former soldier named Mopsus, whom Jason recognizes as the man in his dream who saved his life. Then, they hire two blacksmiths named Castor and Pollux. Then, Jason hires a shepherd named Laertes, who happens to know how to bulljump. Jason also goes to the mapmaker's house, where he gets a map that will take him to the Golden Fleece. The unusual thing about the map is that it is not an ordinary map, but a map of the stars. Jason also recruits the musician Orpheus.

Jason finds the rest of his crew, but as he heads for the Argo, a thief steals the map. Jason chases him, but the thief is caught by the famous Greek hero Hercules,(Brian Thompson) who requests to be let a crewmember. Jason readily agrees.

Just as the Argo is about to set sell, four unexpected things happen. Jason finds his half-brother Acostes stowing away. Acostes wants to travel with Jason, for their mother's very life is at stake. The thief who stole Jason's map requests to be let a crewmember, claiming he has reformed his ways(the thief's name was never mentioned), the mapmaker's son Zetes hopes aboard offering his assistance, which is invaluable(he has eyesight tens times greater than an eagle; a gift from the gods, of course), and the great huntress Atlanta also requests to be let onboard. Jason agrees to all of the requests. At last they set sail for Colchis Along the way, Zeus, King of the Gods(Angus MacFaydon), and his wife Hera(Olivia Williams, help and hinder Jason and his crew as they sail across the seas in their fantastic search for the Golden Fleece...

Also starring Jolene Blalock, Frank Lagella, Natasha Henstridge, and Derek Jacobi. As an adaptation of the classic myth, this story is incredibly. The real myth was hokey and boring-definitely a myth-but this movie is fantastic. The special effects are great, the acting is great, the storytelling is great, and the movie in and of itself is great. It's one of the best movies I have ever seen, and an excellent version of a classic myth.

Recommended age: 10 and up. PG-13. 2000.

More fidelity to the classical myth but no sense of epic
As someone who teaches Classical Greek & Roman Mythology it is impossible for me to sit through something like the 2000 mini-series "Jason and the Argonauts" without constantly thinking about its fidelity to the myths of antiquity. Certainly this new version works in more members of the Argos crew than the 1963 film version with its Ray Harryhausen stop motion animation that is one of the beloved films of our youth. This time around there we have not only the mighty Hercules (Brian Thompson) aboard, but also Orpheus (Adrian Lester), Atalanta (Olga Sosnovska), Castor (Omid Djalili) and Pollux (John Sharian). We also have Jason (Jason London) and the Argo visiting the land of the Amazons and other details from the epic poem written by the third-century poet Apollonius of Rhodes, as well as the relationship between Jason and Pelias (Dennis Hopper) taken from Pindar. There is also a hint of the Medea (Jolene Blalock) that Jason will get to meet in the tragedy by Euripides. The only complaint is that unless you know the background on most of these characters you have no way of appreciating who is sailing with Jason. A prime example is when Orpheus mentions losing Eurydice but does not tell of how he almost won her back from Hades. Meanwhile, Atalanta seems to be interested in Jason (what would Artemis say?).

But while Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet get credit for working the ancient sources into this telling of the tale, the problem is that the end result misses the magic of the Harryhausen version. The problem is twofold. First, the tenor of the story has contradictory impulses. On the one hand we have the active participation of the gods, with Hera (Olivia Williams) and Zeus (Angus MacFadyen) aiding and hindering Jason in his quest as they work out one of their frequent marital spats. But on the other hand there is an effort to make the story more realistic, in terms of the politics and relationships, which works against the idea of being the playthings of the gods. None of the actors strike heroic poses or speak in grand phrases and even Dennis Hopper is remarkable restrained in his performance. 'Jason and the Argonauts' tries to reconcile these two by having the gods work behind the scenes for the most part, but then Poseidon stands up and that idea is quickly dispatched.

Second, Jason London as the title character looks too young. I know the actor was 28 when he made this mini-series but he seems like a youth. One of the problems with the story was while the greatest heroes in Greece would come to sail with Jason, a callow youth, which Apollonius solved by having Hera make them all want to go. Instead Faulk and Skeet have Jason make up have the crew with undesirables, some of whom provide comic relief, helped because of the aid of the guard who saved him from death as a youth. In other words, Jason leads the Argonauts because that is what was written in the script. Granted, this is consistent with the tone of the mini-series, but you cannot help but think that when Jason meets Medea that she is going to eat him alive (of course, she does much worse, but that is another tragedy). The end result is a production of 'Jason and the Argonauts' that lacks the sense of heroic adventure that the tale personifies in classical mythology. It was okay and it should have been fantastic.

Jason and the Nonactornauts
True to the story, good cinematography, and nifty transitions however the acting by Jason and Pelias was downright painful to watch. King Pelias couldn't even pronounce Queen Hera's name correctly. Other actors were good. ... Read more

Reviews (89)

great cinema!
Ridley Scott directed this incredible motion picture about the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Not only is the film about his voyages but it also works quite well as a character study about Columbus. The Columbus depicted here is full of kindess,passion and warmth. He also can be a little selfish,arrogant and at times sarcastic during this film. Gerard Depardieu plays Columbus and he does a great job portraying him. I don't have a problem with him being from France. Afterall Columbus was European and so is Depardieu. The supporting cast is zestful with some excellent performances. Armand Assante was good playing Sanchez. So was Michael Wincott who played the evil Moxica. Also the score for this film was done by New-Age musician Vangelis. And his score is remarkable. Both the movie and the soundtrack go hand in hand. But this film is an acquired taste. Some might be turned off by it's subject matter. And some might be lured in by it. If Columbus interests you and you like films that look and sound good. This is the one you've been waiting for. The rest is common sense.

Stunning film, historically accurate
This is a must-see cinematic landmark of the 90's. There will NEVER be another Columbus movie to top this one. Gerard Depardieu is perfect as Columbus, his French accent helps illustrate the man's foreigner-out-of-placeness in mediaeval Spain. Depardieu's portrayal is very deep and thought-provoking, his eyes say it all. Every word is full of meaning, there is a sad sincerity to Columbus' character here; his intentions in the New World were beautiful, however, due to peer-pressure in the Spanish courts, he is too weak to stop the Conquistadors from marauding this fragile Paradise. Depardieu's character really shows how much Columbus was more of an explorer than a governor, but never got around to fulfilling his dreams due to his short-sightedness and stubborn disposition in relation to the Spanish nobles and those in power. The film is extraordinarily accurate in historical details, from the setting in the time of the harsh Inquisition, the costumes, and the characters in the film. Sanchez (Armand Assante), to history known as Gabriel Sanchez, grand treasurer of the crown of Aragon, was instrumental in convincing Queen Isabella (Sigourney Weaver) to finance the quest. Columbus actually sent him the very first account of his First Voyage to the West Indies on the way back home. Pinzon (Tcheky Karyo) was also the captain of the Pinta, as depicted in the film, and his ties to Santangel in the film are accurate (due to a debt he owed to the Crown through which Santangel was the financial mediator). The role of Adrian de Moxica (portrayed by Michael Wincott in grand form), Columbus' political nemesis during most of the movie on the island of Hispaniola, was also accurate. This movie's cinematography and the wonderful soundtrack by Vangelis are gorgeous and haunting, frightening at times. This is a great film, and ranks with "Blade Runner", "Alien", "Thelma&Louise", and "Gladiator" as Ridley Scott's best. Go to your local video shop and rent it right now.

Stunning!!
This movie is incredible! The score by Vangelis is
breathtaking. I can't believe this has not been
released on dvd. One of Ridley's best!!!!

Realistc or Idealistc Conquest?
We could clearly see that there were many occurrences that the writers left out in Conquest of Paradise. Here, we see an idealistic version of what occurred after Christopher Columbus discovered the New world. The writers produced a cross-word puzzle that, us, the viewers were able to put together before the climax of the movie developed with intensity. I enjoyed the money greatly, yet I was expecting to se the other side of the Conquest, the horrible side. I wanted the rest of the audience to understand that the results of the conquest was not as pleasant as we have told our children. In Conquest of Paradise Gérard Depadieu is portrayed as a hero, or so we are led to think, yet we don't have a chance to see the other version of the story. I was expecting to see how the indigenous culture basically came to be extinct; how their religion was disregarded and Christianity was implemented. We don't see this in this movie; we only see one side of the dilemma.

Ridley Scott's best film
Ridley Scott, best known for such films as Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, is well-known for creating movies that are visually stunning. A trained graphic artist, Scott has an understanding of composition, color, and lighting that few other directors come close to mastering. What Spielberg does for pacing and narration of stories that can be followed by all, Scott does for visual magic. And 1492 is arguably Scott's best work.

Unfortunately, this movie did not receive the popular nor critical attention that it so rightly deserved. There are many possible reasons for this: at the time it was introduced (1992) there was another Columbus film that was really bad. I'm sure many of the negative reviews of that film didn't help ticket sales for this one. Secondly, the political correctness of the time had cast Columbus into an unfortunately negative image. The Columbus in this movie is neither the hero nor the villian extremists wish to make him out to be, so the film does tend to alienate both extremes in its attempt to portray Columbus as that one kind of historical figure many people seem to have a problem with: a human being.

The film itself does have its flaws. The script is a little awkward, as is the pacing. But on the visual and technical side, this is a film that powerfully transports the viewer to that time. Every scene seems obsessed over. The costumes, the position of the sun, the light, even the food. You can feel the cold, the heat, the dust.

Even the music is wonderful. Most of it is electronic based, composed by Vangelis who is best known for his theme to the movie Chariots of Fire. Some have complained this is a bad mismatch, as electronic music wasn't around in Columbus' era. However, neither were contemporary orchestras that drive the scores to many historical movies. While at first unusual the soundtrack for this movie is a perfect fit, serving to powerfully infuse Scott's brilliant visual composition with just the right emotional vibration.

Gerard Depardieu would not have been my first choice for this role, but his performance is certainly very impressive. While it's not the Columbus I was expecting, it is a wonderfully human performance. Many have griped about Depardieu's accent, claiming he's difficult to understand and feeling it's not sufficiently Italian. However, keep in mind that Columbus was from Genoa (and remember where that is). As all of the Spanish characters are speaking English in this film, Depardieu's French accent stands out from everyone else in the same way that Columbus' accent most likely stood out from his Spanish companions 500 years ago. What some people seem rather bothered by I actually found rather fitting.

So what do we have here? A movie that's visually stunning and a technical masterpiece, but a little awkward in the script. If you've been impressed by the visual aspects of other Ridley Scott films, notably Legend, Blade Runner, and Black Hawk Down, be sure to see this. Put aside your prejudices, forget historical authenticity, and simply enjoy one of the most visually impressive films available.

(I was originally going to give this movie 4 stars in recognition that it does have some flaws. However, the visual qualities of the film so make up for the shortcomings that I had to move it up to 5.) ... Read more

Reviews (65)

Rip-roaring Gothic melodrama
The first thing you'll notice about the DVD version of John Badham's "Dracula" is the almost total absence of color. In fact, to all intents and purposes, this Technicolor film is now a black and white production! Apparently, the director felt his movie would play better this way on TV. Go figure. Anyway, the film itself is a rip-roaring Gothic melodrama, designed and photographed with a visual flourish that may seem old-fashioned and melodramatic, but it compels attention in a way that almost completely eluded Francis Ford Coppola's take on the legend thirteen years later. The script retains the basic structure of Stoker's novel whilst adding enough fresh ideas of its own to keep boredom (bred of familiarity) firmly at bay. For instance, Dracula's comeuppance during the climax is a million miles from his fate in the book, but it works here on purely cinematic terms. Frank Langella's rather unfortunate pompadour hairdo detracts from the power of his performance as the Count, but his deceptively romantic interpretation is fully in keeping with the film's approach. Lovely score by John Williams, too.

Though the DVD packaging promises the film has been "Formatted for 16x9 TVs", don't be fooled - the disc is simply letterboxed at 2.15:1. It looks OK (except for that irritating lack of color, of course) and Gilbert Taylor's rich Gothic compositions are preserved with crystal clarity. Sound is Dolby Digital Surround. Be advised that Universal/Image STILL haven't sorted out legal wrangles over some of the incidental music in the original film. As a consequence, this is the same "home video version" as all the others, with some music rescored.

I Beg To Differ....
Ignore all the folks vetching and GET the DVD if you can find it...

I've seen every version of this thing from it's incarnation as a Bway play, it's airing as a film in the theatre, on cable, the VHS, and DVD, and there is NO difference in color or quality from the way it was done on screen. Yes, there was some BRIGHT color on screen but it was NOT throughout the whole film.

The b&w thing was done INTENTIONALLY and it was that way in the original cut. The revamped Hamilton-Deane stage play upon which the film is based had Edward Gorey type sets in B&W with touches of brilliant red. The film follows this in a smaller way with a more downplayed coloring scheme. The reason you see the brighter colors only part of the time is because it was the director's way of getting the same effect as the stage sets. Misty B&W period look for most part, then a sudden change to bright color...

IMHO, it WORKS. It's eerie, and it's effective...

As for Langella, I think perhaps of all his fine performances this is the one for which he will be most remembered and justifiably so. His was a unique Dracula, a passionate Dracula, and yes, IMHO,one of the BEST Dracula's I've ever seen, and I've seen them ALL. I like a lot of them, Lugosi, Lee, Jourdan, and Oldman in particular.

For Pre-CGI the effects are excellent and for once they do harken back to the folklore which inspires the vampire legend besides. The horse in the graveyard for instance is straight out of Rumanian myth...

(Mina's being a moldering corpse is intentional I think too. The director is making a distinction between "prey" and "love interest" here. Mina is basically FOOD, whereas Lucy, Dracula wants to make his bride. The inference here is that there is a difference and the blood exchanged between Lucy and Dracula makes her more like him. Mina, poor thing is simply destined to rot until someone stakes her....She's the "tradtional" vampire of folklore, and I was truly creeped out by her makeup job actually...It was unusually horrific for the time period in which this film was made...)

There are some nice touches in this film, and I honestly feel it holds up well some 25 years later. It's still a favorite, and justifiably so...In terms of acting it far surpasses the FFC 92" Dracula, and though it's not as showy it's still every bit as enjoyable to watch now as it was when I first saw it in the theatre.

It's a bit grainy in DVD, and I'd surely like to see a better transfer and maybe a cleaned up and completely restored soundtrack, but otherwise? I wouldn't change a thing, and I certainly would NOT want it colorized to make it all perfectly even.

It just wouldn't be the same "Dracula" at all...

Morrighan

Sensual, quintessential version of the lover Dracula
Yes, the umpteenth Dracula remake/vampire film, and I stumbled upon it one morning on a movie channel, and was taken by the title character...Frank Langella's Dracula is sexy and charming and it's easy to see how the undead keeps winning so many wives.

Pre-computer special effects don't really bother me: the bats are stock. The fog creeping under the door of Mina's room looks like film rewound. I DO think the mirror uses were clever, in scenes without the vampire reflections. The scene where Mina becomes herself a vampire is an ounce campy with some seventies stock film. I'm not sure if it's a volcano erruption, a lava lamp, or what, but the scene feels like the credits of James Bond movies past...aside from this there are so many romantic moments. The lava-love sequence and the vampire's seventies hair date the film a little but so what...it's a pleasure to watch and get taken in.

This movie is amour fou, as Lucy and the people in her life become aware of the danger that is the Count. Lucy is captivated by the vampire until the end, where she grieves for her dying lover (or-does-he-die), and she moans for him like a substance abuse addict in withdrawl. As for her father, fiancee, and friends are wounded and dying to get rid of the vampire Lucy is aware but has already accepted a new life (new lifetime, i suppose, as an undead life) and she doesn't care anymore. Lucy greives as the sun shines down, but her rescuers do not notice what she does, the figure of Dracula as a speck flying off into the horizon. The credits end in the sunny sea air-a new beginning for Mina and Jonathan, although we imagine it woun't be long until the vampire comes back to retrieve his new bride.

I think Frank Langella made his the quintessential Dracula, tall dark handsome stranger. His character is never frail, but tender as the lover. He's handsome still as he sneers and spews bile at Van Helsing and his crucifix. It reminds me of Marlon Brando's Stanley Kowalski: who knows why you find him, a gorilla of a man, sexy? The scenes of an angry monster shine but the love scenes radiate.

This film was made about the time I was born; the films from my vampire phase featured Gary Oldman and Brad Pitt/Tom Cruise (no wonder I fell into a vampire phase) but this vampire has me. I stumbled onto it and too bad the films's not in print and too bad I wasn't around for the seventies stage version. Maybe Frank Langella would think about reprising the role of Dracula with another stage company...

A fresh interpretation of the classic story of the Nosferatu
I have always believed that at least part of the reason this movie isn't better known is because it is confused just as much now as it was in 1979 with the comedy "Love at First Bite" featuring supertan George Hamilton as Dracula released at the same time. It is a dreadful misconception as "...First Bite" was a cross between horror spoof and Disco exploitation flick...which was and is absolute torture to watch.

This addition to the "Dracula" franchise is my personal favorite of all that have been attempted. I don't rate it as being the most faithful interpretation of Bram Stoker's classic novel (Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" holds that distinction, obviously enough...though Coppola also added more of the real history of "Vlad the Impaler" to his movie for additional background; nice touch), but for the sheer gothic style that the novel used to shock and horrify Victorian England upon its first publication, this movie comes as close to Stoker's original intent without necessarily following his novel on a word-for-word basis.

Frank Langella's performance onstage had to be one for the ages if it at all approached the level of his portrayal as the Count in this movie. Ultimately he has never delivered a performance quite like it...and of course with opposing roles filled by Sir Laurence Olivier and veteran character actor (and overperformer of Shatneresque proportions) Donald Pleasance were definitely sufficent to insure that Langella brought his "A" game to the set for every shoot. All performances are superb.

Additionally, the originality surrounding the climax of the movie alone makes it worth a viewing; the old Hammer films had interesting ways for the Count to meet his ultimate demise, and the manner in which this movie ends is very reminiscent of those latter day classics. You almost wish Christopher Lee could have had a guest appearance in this movie a la Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck in the 1991 remake of "Cape Fear".

Regarding the widescreen DVD's color transfer (or lack thereof), I do think that the washed out tones (which are nearly black and white, as noted in a previous review) actually adds to the movie's atmosphere. This is, basically, the second great gothic love story of all time (with E. Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" being the first); the blacks and the whites SHOULD be more pronounced, the funereal elements of Carfax Abbey should be brought out (the dinner scene with the Count and Mina is one of the most beautifully shot scenes from any movie...romance just isn't done that way anymore), and washing the colors from a movie as easily as blood from a vein leaves the correct pallor for both a vampire's victim and a terrific retelling of the "Dracula" story. You can hold out hope that a remastered DVD will be released (as this version seems to be out-of-print presently) that will feature a better color transfer, but as this movie approaches its 25th year, hope for any such treatment fades.

The King of his kind
Ok, this version doesn't go along with the book, but it is worth while.
First of all Langella, Langella, Langella. He is 6'4" and has a voice to match. He is the only man I have seen that can place his hands on his hips and still make it look sexy! Langella had to tone his version of Dracula down (i.e. the R rating)...I had a teacher tell me how powerfull, sexy, and forcefull he was during the stage version...all I have to say is...WOW!!!

Second, he took Dracula to a new level. Before Dracula was this crude creature, who was loveless, mean, and wanted some blood. When Langella hit the scene, it all changed. Notice how each Dracula or vampire film has a sexy male lead? He broke the mold (thank you Mr. Langella)

Third, Langella didn't need red eyes, blood, fangs, and all the other stuff to make you think he was Dracula...you know by looking at him. One sceen which shows in hunger of blood is when they are at the Steward's house and the butler cuts himself with the knife. Dracula is telling a story, then he looks up and notices the butler sucking his cut finger. He was this look of hunger. His eyes widen with hunger.

The last is the famous sex scene. Just how he enters the room, the colors, and the music brings you closer to realizing he is not just a regular vampire, he is truly the king of his kind. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

WHEN YOU WISH UPON A STAR...
This is a very enjoyable comedy, starring the irrepressible Whoopi Goldberg in the role of Edwina "Eddie" Franklin, the widow of a New York City police officer. Following in her late husband's footsteps, she coaches basketball for inner city kids. She is also the number one fan for the New York Knicks, a team that, despite the talent on it, can't seem to win a game. Eddie loves the team, no matter what, and can be seen high up in the rafters of every Knicks game, rabidly and raucously cheering them on.

When "Eddie" wins the honorary coach for the day contest at one of the Knicks' games, she manages to get thrown off the court by the head coach (Dennis Farina), when she protests a ref's call. This causes the fans to go wild, chanting her name as she leaves the court. When the head coach for the Knicks gets fired by the team's owner, Wild Bill Burgess (Frank Langella in a ten gallon hat), he hires "Eddie" as an interim head coach, as it seems that fans of the Knicks love "Eddie" and respond to her very positively. After all, she was one of them. Burgess, however, has no expectations of "Eddie's" ability to coach the team. "Eddie", however, aims to do everything she can to bring the Knicks out of their slump. For her, this is a dream come true.

This is a feel good sort of movie. Whoopi is very funny , as she goes about setting right what has gone wrong with the team. Frank Langella is terrific as the deal making team owner whose folksy manner belies the fact that he has his eye on the bottom line. Dennis Farina is credible as the head coach with a mouth as big as his monumental ego. While the film is fairly predictable, it is quite enjoyable. The viewer is also treated to a few fun cameos by Donald Trump, sports announcer Marv Alpert, and former NBA star, Walt Frazier. If you are not a big fan of basketball, however, deduct one star from my rating.

Good, But Could Have Been Better
The Story: Whoopi Goldberg plays a fan of the NY Knicks who wins a chance to coach for a day. It works so well that she gets hired.

The story is interesting and the movie starts out with lots of heart and humor. Then, two things happen to spoil it.

First, a scene is inserted (and it really feels like it was inserted, almost as an afterthought) wherein Whoopi Goldberg has a heated argument with the team owner, with profanity inserted in what seems a forced and contrived way. I've seen this in other movies (e.g., "Magic" starring Anthony Hopkins), and it looks like the profanity is inserted just to change the rating to grab the attention of teens, who go to the movies a lot.

Second, the film loses it's way and gets boring throughout much of the second half.

Ms. Goldberg, I hope you redo this movie and carry the heart and humor of the first half through the entire movie. It could be a 4-star or even a 5-star family movie.

Stop Before It Hurts!
[Add a star if you love Whoopi Goldberg.]

OK, class. Once again. It's important to realize what our perceptions are going in to a movie like this before one starts judging it. My perception going in was that we have yet another sports fantasy from the Disney sports fantasy factory. These are the same people who didn't know to stop with The Bad News Bears. So, they gave us The Mighty Ducks, Little GIANTS, and Angels In The Outfield.

This time out of the box it's "the Bad News Bears play NBA Basketball". Subbing for the Bears are the New York Knicks. Believe me, it's definitely bad news to see Mark Jackson back in a Knick uniform. Anyway, these Knicks are hopelessly bad. They're in last place and they have no signs of getting better. However, every sports team, no matter how bad, has its loyal fans.

Meet Eddie Franklin (Whoopi Goldberg). Eddie is fanatical about the Knicks. She loves them. She loves them so much that she, a limo dispatcher, does play-by-play and commentary over the limo service's airwaves. Where Eddie's friend goes to Knick games to meet men, Eddie goes to see the game.

Well, the Knicks are so bad that they've been sold to a new owner, one Wild Bill Burgess (Frank Langella). Will Bill is one of those stereotypical Texan billionaires who does everything large. Langella plays him well, but I could have seen Dennis Weaver in this role. Anyway, Burgess takes a ride in from the airport in Eddie's limo, who is inexplicably driving that day. Eddie's been listening to the FAN (WFAN Sports Radio 66, NYC) and ESPN Sports Radio. Eddie hates the Knicks' coach, played by Dennis Farina; so much so that she calls up Burgess, who doing a radio call-in, without realizing that he's in the back seat behind the glass. Burgess spies Eddie at the game later and decides to fix the halftime "Honorary Coach" contest so that he can throw Eddie and Bailey (Farina) together.

Eddie sinks the requisite free-throw and we're off. Franklin and Bailey don't like each other. (Bailey doesn't like anybody.) When Eddie steps on the court to protest a call, the referee assesses the Knicks a technical foul and Bailey has Eddie thrown out of the Garden to howls of protest from the fans. Seeing this, owner Burgess conspires to get rid of Bailey and hire a new coach. Meanwhile, he can hire Eddie as a one-shot interim coach until the dirty deed is done.

Of course, the plot is convoluted and full of holes, but the movie could still be entertaining if there were any energy on the screen. For the most part, there is none. The only chemistry I enjoyed was that between Franklin and veteran player Nate Wilson (John Salley).

As a native New Yorker, I especially thought it irritating that the movie's producers split up the announcing team of Marv Albert and Walt Frazier. Although both men play themselves, Frazier plays a sports-talk host rather than his usual (and colorful) role as Knick radio analyst. Anyone who has heard Albert and Frazier work together knows what I mean.

As in all these Disney sports fantasies, the Knicks start playing better under Franklin's coaching, but there's further trouble ahead. Actually, there's so much plot in this movie, they could have loaned some to Twister.

In conclusion, I'd wait for this movie to come to cable unless you just like Whoopi Goldberg films.

[Originally written 3 June 1996]

Good Family Fun
This film shows Whoopi Goldberg at her big mouth wise cracking best. The film is about a rich chairman who buys the New York Nicks and try's to turn a losing team into a freak show to make money. So he hires a big mouth fan as the head coach who he beleives can't coach. The first half of the film is funniest as Whoopi Goldberg tells the Nicks coaches what she really thinks of them. Some of the misfit players are quite good to. There is a Russian who can't speak any English, a great player except he won't pass the ball and a player who is more interested in his failing marriage. All in all, kids will love this one and adults should enjoy some of the humour.

Eddie was good.
Whoopi is one of my favorite actresses, so that might be why my review of this film is biased. Although rabid movie critics may disagree with me, I found the film to be rather enjoyable. It was fun watching Whoopi arise to the level of coach and turn around the fledgling Knicks. It's a light-hearted comedy with laughs and fun. Recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

A sexy film
Man,is this a sexy film. Rebecca DeMornay is Robin,a paroled convict who forms a band with some people who answer an ad she placed(she's the lead singer and rhythm guitarist). Upon her release from jail she marries the handsome man who bails her out. So Robin begins her new life with her new husband Billy(Vincent Spano) and his young son,Timmy,from an earlier marriage. Handyman Billy has a younger brother who's a musician also. He also works as a sales clerk at a fast food restaurant(he was fired from the restaurant after failing to show up too many times). Billy and Robin had affairs with others during their marriage which never ended. Robin had sexual affairs with governor hopeful James Tiernan(Frank Langella). They shot pool together and Billy went bowling with another woman. After Billy an Robin engage in a sexual activity on a bed inside a museum,they're photographed by a patron. The photograph is brought to the attention of Robin's parole officer. Now Robin's about to go back to jail. Billy gets a lawyer and fights to the finish for Robin's revoked parole. James even admitted,"Miss Shay(Robin) is getting too dangerous for me.". So Robin and her band perform in a nightclub and she catches the eye of a male sex fiend. Jealous Billy beats the crap out of the sex fiend. So to keep the marriage alive,Billy plans to go to Robin's jail(Billy confessed to her that he murdered another woman). Awesome film!

Somewhere between a guilty pleasure and an underrated gem
If you can forget the whole remake thing, this is a somewhat involving movie, with interesting plot twists, a great performance by De Mornay, nice supporting performances, interesting if corny character development, a nice sound track, Vadim's strange but unique visual style and it's very sexy. What more do you want? I think as time goes on and a new generation stumbles on this flick free from the hype about it being a remake of a "classic" it will be appreciated more and more as a nice offbeat B movie melodrama with lots of sex, some nice humor and beautiful photography.

And God Created Rebecca De Mornay
AND GOD CREATED WOMAN is a remake of the classic Bridgett Bardot film but in title only. The movie is pretty predictable, so it is only saved by just having Rebecca De Mornay heating up the screen. There is a hilarious chain of events near the beginning of the film. She escapes from a women's prison, hitchhikes a ride (from a man played by Frank Langella in the car), and the vehicle ends up at the prison she's escaped from. So, she has to sneak back into prison without being noticed. A contractor (Vincent Spano) helps her out while he's working on some construction in the prison gymnasium...The rest of the plot is not very memorable as she tries to start her own rock band when she's paroled and must sacrifice integrity and her marriage to get to the top etc. Overall, a movie that was made to showcase the "talents" of Ms. DeMornay and nothing else.

A different kind of view
I liked this movie because I could relate to some of the relationship problems in my past i.e. 2 of 5 women who first told me they loved me then told me I'd be a lonely old guy, I told them both,better than than being a miserable young man with them.Women I've known,they all think they're smarter than me always trying to tell me stuff I already know.Anyway I liked the movie and all the arguments and humor,a typical politician got have something on the side [...],but has to becareful of his image.Rebecca DeMornay was excellent as a free spirit,not a gold digger or typical hollywood bimbo, like those other hollywood bimbos. I thought she was great in this movie,the other actors were good too. I think because of jealousy by other people in Hollywood, Ms. DeMornays efforts are not recognized. This movie was very entertaing but see it for yourself [....]

For Rebecca DeMornay Fans Only
If you were hooked by Rebecca De Mornay's sexiness in Risky Business (like I was), this movie is for you. She is so beautiful and voraciously sexual throughout. The story has a few flaws (she nearly has her parole revoked for being photographed having sex with her husband??) but it is a worthwhile vehicle for doing what she does so well. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Stylish and self-conscious
This sexy, stylish thriller has a murky plot that plumbs deeper and deeper into corruption and double-dealing, bribery and murder. The plot has many twists and turns, some of which seemed contrived, but the film is interesting and the three principle characters make it work, even though the movie has a self-conscious look and feel to it. Ellen Barkin's Margaret Wells is a black widow, cold and calculating and personifies the film's title. She's tough, dangerous and not to be trusted. The wild card in this film is Julie Ames, the attractive mistress of a California State Supreme Court justice, and she's aware of the judge's gambling problems and his compromised ethics but nevertheless stands behind her man. The grateful, financially secure, globetrotting, wardrobe-conscious Julie disappears only to reappear later in the film with a very different attitude and purpose. None of the characters in the movie are likeable and all have different agendas, and in the end, everybody seems to get what's coming to them.

Barkin, Fishburne Out for Blood...
...forget the overused plot line of cross and doublecross in this 1990's noir like thriller. Watch Barkin and Fishburne do some serious sneering and smirking as the plot gets twisted and contorted and convoluted...Beach and the two gov't agents are so sleezy you can see the greed dripping from their pores. Good movie.

Something different
An interesting movie, interesting characters, beautifully filmed.

Nice Erotic Ellen Barkin Scene
If You like Ellen Barkin, and find her sexy, there is one outdoor sex scene that makes watching this travesty all worth while. Plus there's a cootch shot. Beautiful.

Masterpiece? It is.
This film has become the whipping boy and scapegoat of manyso-called critics. This effect -- the "let's join in andconform!" effect -- proves that most of these people really don't want thrillers which break the mold and offer something different than the average escapism. They want the same old thing, done with faster cuts, with more melodrama and less intelligence. This isn't the case here. The plot bears some resemblance to "The Day of the Jackal" in that they are both 'clockwork' thrillers: they show the steps and the pieces of their plots, and then construct the plot from these pieces before your eyes. It gives you a character taking an IQ test, then shows you the assignment, t