Amazon.com

A shameful chapter in American history is powerfully dramatized in Rosewood, but moviegoers in 1997 may not have been ready for the African American equivalent of Schindler's List. And while the massacre that occurred in the nearly all-black town of Rosewood, Florida, in 1922 cannot compare in scale to the Nazi holocaust, it potently illustrates the same issues of racism and inherited intolerance that percolate at every level of human existence. An estimated 40 to 150 blacks were killed in Rosewood by an all-white lynch mob from the neighboring town of Sumner, where a white woman falsely claimed she'd been assaulted by a black man. The resulting mayhem ignited a tinderbox of resentment toward the flourishing citizens of Rosewood, and those few who survived were so traumatized that they remained silent until the truth was revealed by an investigative journalist in 1982.

The film is blessed with richly authentic production design, lush cinematography, and a subtly effective John Williams score, and director John Singleton and screenwriter Gregory Poirier embellish the truth of Rosewood with a fictional hero named Mann (Ving Rhames), who arrives to buy a five-acre plot coveted by Rosewood's white grocer (John Voight). The emerging trust between these two characters--and the fate of an extended family led by a defiant father (Don Cheadle)--gives shape to the movie's devastating depiction of racism and the courage of those who opposed the lynch mob's brutality. Singleton and Poirier fall prey to some bad dialogue and a broadly unbalanced depiction of bloodthirsty hayseeds, but the film's passion is maintained by its superb cast and the timeless echoes of history. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (30)

excellent docu-drama
What an excellent movie. A moving portrait of the 1922 massacre in Rosewood, Florida. Without shedding too much blood or jeopardizing the truth of the story through unneccessary action, director John Singleton narrates the tragic events over New Years' eve weekend, leading to the destruction of a peaceful black town. Ving Rhames & Jon Voight are the characters crossing the racial lines in their effort to save at least some women & children from the raging crowd. And all, because of a single lie.
Highly recommended for everybody interested in history.

Powerful Filmmaking, Sadly Overlooked
This tale of a Florida Black town and racism and hatred gone unchecked is one of the most powerful, emotional films I have ever seen. You won't hear about this tragic event in public school, that's for certain. A certifiable massacre, brought about by a WHITE woman's infidelities, this movie still resounds in my head after only one viewing. Ving Rhames as the heroic "Mr. Man" helps save some of Rosewood's citizens from slaughter, but he can't prevent the horror the white mob brings to the town. A haunting example of ignorance unchecked, it's hard to decide whether this is a drama or a horror film. Jon Voight's portrayal of the reluctant shopkeeper is stellar, and the entire cast is wonderful. John Singleton makes great movies that sadly get overlooked. This movie should be known everywhere for it's unflinching depiction of a terrible stain on America's history. A film that would be dangerous to forget.

Shameful Democrat past once again rebuked
This film reminds us of the horrors that the Southern Democrats inflicted upon African Americans. As Wayne Perryman reminds us in his book, "Unfounded Loyalties",

"One party and their abolitionist supporters believed the Bible instructed them to lay down their lives for the slaves, the other party and their supporters believed the Bible gave them the right to take the lives of blacks if they rebelled against being slaves.

"On the issue of slavery, one party and its supporters gave their lives to expand it (to Northern states) and the other party and their supporters gave their lives to ban it.

"One party was heavily influenced by the Abolitionists and the radical wing of their party ... and the other party was influenced by the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups.

"One party and its supporters started the Freedman's Bureau and other programs to help build communities for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices to hinder those efforts and to destroy those communities (Wilmington, North Carolina).

"One party and its supporters established quality schools and colleges for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices that attempted to close some of those schools or diminish their quality.

"One party passed laws and Constitutional Amendments (13th , 14th , 15th) to include blacks as part of mainstream society, the other party passed laws to exclude them from the mainstream (Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes). ..."

Sadly, many do not know that that "one party" was the Republican Party, while the "other party" was the Democratic Party. I myself didn't know at the time I watched this stirring film. I suppose burning crosses make us assume the bad guys are aligned with the religious right. Unfortunately, the "other party" used a nonsensical interpretation of the "curse of Ham" to justify slavery; fortunately, "one party" saw through it.

This film is also a great example of how history is being rewritten or dumbed down. While many films have shown lynchings and other abuse of African Americans, they usually leave you with the impression that the bigots were "Bible bashers" ... as you can see, this is only half the truth. Very rarely are we reminded that it was Republicans who laid their lives on the line to defend blacks, based on their Christian faith.

We are all sinners. Perhaps the shameful past that the Democrats are trying to forget - indeed, most youngsters today do not need to forget, they haven't even been taught - will spur them onto greater deeds that may even outshine the "one party".

Powerful Unfortunate History
"Rosewood", starring Jon Voight and Ving Rhames, is a gripping true story about an all African-American town that was burned by an all white lynch mob in 1923, which killed many. Its powerful message sends an eyeopening attack in audiences' hearts. The filmmakers deserve tremendous respect for deeply exploring these chain of events to such levels. This was highly necessary for people to understand the impact of violence and racism. The intensity is so groundbreaking that it forces audiences inside the movie. Their research is highly obvious, making it very educational. The movie plot is brilliant, keeping the heart and soul alive in every scene:

A small town, Rosewood, is usually a peaceful, loving town. In New Years Eve 1922, everything functioned as usual. Around that time, a woman from a nearby town, Sumner, falsely accuses a black person of raping and assaulting her (it was actually a white man, but there was no rape). Once word is out, all hell breaks loose.

The recreation of the town is perfect. Every detail is flawless, including the styles of the early 1920's. Every building structure and creation is flawless. The costume designs are as flawless, looking like actual 1920's clothing.

The acting was intensely great. Everyone offers their own heart and soul sense into this movie, making it more powerful. Jon Voight and Ving Rhames capitalize the acting talents. This is Rhames's best role in years. His tough warrior image never fades for a second, which is very convincing. His presentd talents were wrongfully overlooked in the 1997 Acadamy Awards for Best Supporting Actor. Jon Voight's role as a man who comes to terms of what a true ally is. His heartdrenching role forces audiences to feel his character's learning progress and emotions.

"Rosewood" is a great movie for those looking for an factual intense drama. This will surely educate audiences about reality. This movie will become a classic in the near following years as it deserves.

An excellant movie about what happened in Rosewood
I first watched this movie on HBO, after viewing it with my wife we decided to rent it so our children could see what realy happened in Rosewood and learn about history, we are a white family and I feel it is important for my children to learn what realy happened there. After watching the movie we took a ride to the site that was once Rosewood, the only remaining structure is mr. Wrights house, the town is gone, we walked through the area that was once Rosewood and tried to imagine it as it was in the movie, we then went to Sumner and saw the site that was once the mill,we found some relics there, along with some buildings that had housed the residents of Sumner who worked in the mill, we then visited Mr. Wrights grave in Sumner, all in all the movie was great as it taught my family and myself about the history of the town and how horrible racism was back then. ... Read more

Description

Hot stars Mekhi Phifer (8 MILE, SHAFT, TV's ER) and Wood Harris (REMEMBER THE TITANS) team up in an edgy, hard-hitting film with a slammin' soundtrack! Stuck in a nowhere job, Ace (Harris) is a restless teenager who envies the expensive cars, flashy clothes, and high-rolling lifestyle of his drug-dealing friends. Then when he sees his chance, Ace makes the move that suddenly changes his life! Drawn by the seductive lure of easy money in the illicit Harlem underground, he uses his skills to quickly take control of the streets and seize all the power than comes with it! Also starring rap star Cam'ron (WOO) and Chi McBride (GONE IN 60 SECONDS, TV's BOSTON PUBLIC) -- you don't want to miss this gripping look at chasing the American dream ... from the wrong side of the tracks! ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Definite Classic Movie!
I first saw this movie in the movie theater when it was released knowing nothing about the real story of the drug-lords being portrayed in the movie (Alpo, AZIE and Rich Porter) when i left the movie theater i thought this was the best movie i ever seen. Everything about this movie is perfect, the way the director and Damon Dash made the movie work out was perfect.

For those of you that dont know this movie was a true story about 3 Harlem drug-lords who ran NY in the mid 1980's at the age of 16 and 17. They would make $50,000 a day (selling 2 ki's of cocaine). This movie teaches u alot about the drug game, the good part and deffinately the bad. This movie being a true story is what makes it so good, knowing that these events really happened make you want to know more about the characters. This is the 2nd part to the life of the drug lords. To learn more about them get "Game Over (Part 1)" which is the real documentary on em.

Guarentee u will like this movie. 100% classsic

very entertaining, based on a true story
A well made movie about a young kid who finds himself right in the middle of a money making drug ring. This young man works at a dry cleaner shop untill he finds a bag of cocain in a pair of pants, when he trys to give the bag back to the owner he realizes the money he could make and soon sets up shop with this and begins buying large amounts of cocain from him. What started small has now grown into pounds,and pounds of cocain. But people soon become blinded by all the money this is where the movie gets interesting. The ring quickly begins to fall apart and people begin to tur on each other leaving people dead and broke. This movie is a real masterpiece and gives you a look into 80's drug dealing and the problems involved with it.

Classic Gangsters
My fascination with gangsters on film continues. In Paid In Full, the most telling scene is the Harlem young people in a movie theatre watching Al Pacino's, Scarface. They love that movie, cheer the crazy, bloodthirsty, self-made, only-in-America bad guy. When poor and black Harlem residents get a handle on the new drugs in the early eighties like cocaine and crack, money rains down. Wood Harris goes from delivery boy to kingpin of the Harlem drug trade. His buddies are more flamboyant than he. That youthful enthusiasm for easy money in the face of "The Man," proves to be our hero's downfall. This is a classic gangster story and it is very suspenseful and true to life.

Movie Good; Documentary Low Budget
I thought the movie was great. It was entertaining and and did not glorify drug dealing. Besides the lyrics we hear in rap music, Paid In Full showed the tragedy that happens to the majority who are deep in the game. They go to jail or are dead, they don't become rappers. Paid In Full was so moving I wanted to get a more accurate version of what happened and not jus the hollywood story, therefore I bought Game Over. Now that was disappointing! Although the Basically a bunch of people from Harlem talking about how the rap game is fake, AZ was very ambiguous, and Rich Porter's sister rambling on about things she had little knowlede of. Old news stories from Newsday and Washingtonpost of these tragic events gave of more documentary depicition.

REAL
This movie was very good, I think any teen who thinks the drug game is a fast way to make money should watch it and understand that you have no friends when it comes to drug money, and that everyone (even the youngest member of your family) is subject to anything.
I'm not an actor, but the movie was well acted out and Cam'ron did such a good job that you did not know he was a rapper.

All in All, it's a wake up call for youths!!!!!!!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

If Brian De Palma directed Mission to Mars for10-year-olds who've never seen a science fiction film, he can be credited forcrafting a marginally successful adventure. Isolated moments in thisfilm serve the highest purpose of its genre, inspiring a sense ofwonder and awe in the context of a fascinating future (specifically,the year 2020). But because most of us have seen a lot of sciencefiction films, it's impossible to ignore this one's derivative plot,cardboard characters, and drearily dumb dialogue. Despite an awesomeand painstakingly authentic display of cool technology and dazzlingspecial effects, Mission to Mars is light years away from2001: A Space Odyssey on the scale of human intelligence.

After dispensing with a few space-jockey clichés, the moviefocuses on a Mars-bound rescue mission commanded by Jim McConnell (GarySinise), whose team (Tim Robbins, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell) hasbeen sent to retrieve the sole survivor (Don Cheadle) of a tragic Marslanding. During the sequence en route to Mars, De Palma's in hiselement with two suspenseful scenes (including a dramatic--albeitsomewhat silly--space walk) that are technically impressive. But whenthis Mission gets to Mars, the movie grows increasinglyunconvincing, finally arriving at an alien encounter that more closelyresembles an astronomical CGI video game. But this is a $75 millionHollywood movie, and no amount of technical wizardry can lift theburden of a juvenile screenplay. Kudos to Sinise, his costars, and thespecial effects wizards for making the most of hoary material; shame onjust about everyone else involved. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (274)

GREAT SCENERY. BUT MARS MOVIE COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
The story and screenplay can be blamed on writers Lowell Cannon (story) and Jim Thomas. Their plot of MISSION TO MARS is about a rescue mission to find out what happened to a crew of astronauts that successfully landed on Mars, then suddenly disappeared. But in its concept, the movie's story has whiskders: it is a dumbed down, cut-and-paste assembly of Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," sprinkled with a little Robinson Crusoe thrown in. Indeed, diagnostic is that the best stuff takes place BEFORE the rescue mission even reaches Mars. The ending climax, therefore, is made to be anticlimactic! On top of this, the actors are burdened with banal, meaningless dialogue further adding to the movie's generic feel (example: "Are you sure you want to do this?"/"I'm not sure of anything anymore." ... Wow, how "original"). The cast includes Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle and Tim Robbins who never seems to take the movie very seriously. It is almost as if they were trusting director Brian De Palma to make everything come together in the editing room. Wrong!

To some extent in his rendering of this $100K (where did it all go?) MISSION TO MARS, De Palma showed nerve - while saving LOTS of money - by totally skipping the usual shots of spaceship blastoffs and landings. The audience is left to imgaine how the various space voyagers got into outer space. Also, he completely bypassed the transition from the astronauts' backyard family barbecue in the year 2020 (seems just like 2001) to hurtling towards Mars. He cuts away before each departure, then shows the spacecraft either on its way to or on one of Mars's rusty deserts. Once on Mars, title cards tell us how much time has elapsed [title cards are lots cheaper than FX!]. Eventhough MISSION TO MARS is often realistic, sorry guys but it blazes no new cinematic trails (at risk of mixing metaphors). On the plus side, this flick is more picturesque, efficient, and technically more convincing than many of its earlier counterparts. Seemingly reversing myself, its avoidance of CHEAP whiz-bangs is a plus, in a limited sense. Compared to the way overdone "Armageddon," the plainness of MISSION TO MARS is a pleasure.

Most of MISSION TO MARS is about the rescue mission. The second NASA team of astronauts to Mars is reluctantly sent to retrieve the unconfirmed sole survivor (of four) from the first Mars mission that was unexpectedly wiped out. The second team nearly fails to arrive for rescuing their possibly stranded buddy, and also to possibly find out what Mars is all about. The claustrophobia of the astronauts in close quarters is artistically contrasted with the vastness of the often deadly vacuum outside their spaceship. Some excellent effects are presented to us when co-commander Tim Robbins, and eventually the others, hover in zero gravity or gas propel themselves outside their ship to repair damage done by meteorites.

At its best, the scale and pacing and imagery remind us of "2001: A Space Odyssey." Thanks to De Palma deciding a lot of the action to unfold in silence, he gives us a feel for the remoteness and emptiness of space. Realistically, space travel is mostly long periods of uneventful floating after the blastoff. At risk of giving the movie's big finale away, I must say it is a silly montage of computer-generated special effects which accompanies a touchy-feely revisionist evolutionary theory of life. Evidently, MISSION TO MARS was written with impressionable 10-year-olds in mind. People who're committed to Creationism won't be nuts about the movie's big "revelation." In fact , if that's what evolution is all about (our evolutionary ancestors were UFO driving, bug eyed aliens who came from Mars) I'll take Creationism! But then again, science fiction and religion have never gotten along THAT well, anyhow.

By the way, MISSION TO MARS was produced under NASA's new Space Act Agreement for film and TV. This allows filmmakers to use the Kennedy Space Center for locations and shoot the NASA logo. Taking advantage of the U.S. taxpayers' largesse, that added a realistic look to the spacesuits and equipment used in the film. But, hey folks, these touches of realism couldn't rescue this slow-paced movie to nowhere.

Eh...
This movie doesn't amaze me, at all, but it didn't fall short of my expectations either. The special effects were good, in that they didn't take on a role of their own but still blended well with the movie. Now, putting aside the pseudo-realism (after all this is a sci-fi movie), the story was good at heart, but poorly executed. The acting, however, did not seem to be the problem. I thought Tim Robbins was excellent, Don Cheadle was good, and Gary Sinise was also good, if not great. The problem seemed to be the boring, lifeless dialogue and blocking. When they became trapped inside the face was probably the worst part of the movie. "We're Trapped, no don't take off that wait!" If you're trapped in a giant white face who cares whether you die of atmospheric pressure being too low (or high, if it even is a legitimate issue). This film could have been a great film on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the story and dialogue fell very short. It's a decent movie to watch, but worth buying the DVD? No. If you want to see it, rent it.

Hideously Horrible! 8-(
Why some people gave this stinker four or five stars is light years beyond me, and I love good sci-fi. I thought Red Planet was pretty bad until I saw this movie, and I realized that even Red Planet had some (not much) redeeming value by comparison. The negative reviews here accurately sum up the reasons why this is one of the worst movies ever made. I really struggled to stay with it 'til the end, if only for morbid curiosity.

Absolutely the steaming pile you've heard it is...

Worst Alien Ever!
*SPOILER WARNING*
How would you like to go through what the characters do in this film, only to come face-to-face with a technologically advanced cartoon? What were the filmmakers thinking?
Derivative and cliche-ridden as it was, the story is actually compelling. Fine efforts were made to replicate scientifically plausible scenes in space. Once on Mars, however, plausibility is virtually thrown out the escape hatch.
Using "The Face" as a plot point was ridiculous since by the time we send a manned expedition to Mars, the planet and its landmarks would have been thoroughly mapped. The characters' sense of surprise at seeing "The Face" was when the film lost its grip on me. Despite the odds against the characters being drawn to "The Face" on a planet the size of Mars being "astronomical", it still COULD be explained by extraterrestrial intervention. Let's forget the fact that "The Face" has already been scientifically dismissed as a natural simulacrum caused by light and shadow. Kids could care less.
Once inside "The Face", we're taken on the "mysteries of the universe" goose chase which made previous films such as "2001" and "Close Encounters" memorable, but here leaves us with a sense of the filmmakers simply throwing away an ending to what has been a compelling narrative. Kids could care less.
But what absolutely lost it for me was "The Alien". C'mon, people; if you can't come up with a scientifically plausible alien, don't give us a damned cartoon! I'm not sure even kids were fooled by this one...absolutely terrible! THAT'S what made this film a waste. It's a good example of how one bad but crucial decision turned a decent entertainment into dreck.
All that being said, the overall production values elevate this film to "guilty pleasure" status. Kids might actually enjoy it in toto. Adults, however, will not look back in fondness upon seeing it.

Worst movie I have ever seen
This is definetly the worst movie I have ever gone to go see in the big screen. I remember I kept wishing for the movie to end and I almost got up and left. Im not going to spoil the ending for you but I am going to say that in movie aliens do exist. This movie isnt worth seeing and definetly not worth buying. Which is why I give it 5 out of 5 stars for the worst movie ever made! ... Read more

Reviews (302)

Scream And Scream Again!
After the incredible, phenomenal success of the first "Scream" movie, a sequel was inevitable. Actually, it was inevitable from the start since a part 2 and 3 were already planned and part of Kevin Williamson's deal when selling the first movie. While many people thought this was only made since the first one was such a monster hit, it was not. I'm sure the box office didn't hurt tho!. Kevin Williamson is back with another sharp, fresh, and clever screenplay. Wes Craven is back in the director's chair and makes that screenplay into a stylish thriller that exceeds all expectations and puts the "sequels ..." curse to rest...for now anyways. It's been two years since the grisly murders and stalking of Sidney Prescott in Woodsboro, and now Sidney is enrolled in college and trying to put her life back in order. It's much easier said than done since she is now caught up in the frenzy of a new movie called "Stab", which is a film about what happened in Woodsboro based on the book "The Woodsboro Murders", by tabloid journalist Gale Weathers(Courtney Cox). Two young students(Jada Pinkett, Omar Epps)are killed during the premiere of the film in the movie's dazzling and well executed opener, and the hunt is on once again. A copycat killer dressed in ghost figure attire is jumping on the "Stab" hysteria and stalking Sidney and her friends. Returning is Gale, who is still the money loving, attention getter we loved to hate in the original, but we love more now here. Deputy Dewey(David Arquette)is back as well, having survived the stabbed in the back incident from the original. Unfortunatley, it has left him with a bad leg and limp. Film geek Randy(Jamie Kennedy)is back as well, and sets the tone for the film when he explains the rules of a horror sequel. Cotton Weary(Liev Schreiber)also appears in this one. He has a far more interesting and pivotal role than he did in the brief moments he had in the original film. We are introduced to a new pack of characters as well. Sidney's boyfriend Derek, who is played by Jerry 'O' Connell, film lover
Mickey, Sid's roomate Hallie, and Gale's new camerman Joel, among others. "Buffy" star Sarah Michelle Gellar also appears in one of the films's best moments. Former "Roseanne" star Laurie Metcalfe, and David's father Lewis Arquette, round out the great cast. The movie definitley knows that it is a sequel and is fully aware of how sequels usually go. There's even a great scene about students talking about film sequels. But what the first film did horror films, this one does with horror film sequels and gives it a fresh and clever spin. The scares are great and the suspense scenes are carefully executed and fully effecting. The movie still manages to be surprising and scary and catch us off guard, unlike so many sequels. Neve Campbell is a fabulous scream queen heroine. She does another solid turn as Sidney. Cox looks fantastic in this one. Gale is such an entertaining character to watch. Arquette has the Dewey schtick down pat, although it feels as if he wasn't given much to do this time around and was out of the action quite early than he should have been. While many horror films seem to only care about violence and a high body count, these films are about the characters. Not the killer or what he does and how he goes about doing it. It's about why it's happening and how these characters that we have come to love and cheer on will respond to it. Wes and company did something that many people didn't think they would. They made a sequel that is as convincing, smart, scary, and entertaining as the original. "Scream 2" is a follow up that not only does the brilliant original justice, but it also gives sequels a good name.

One of my favorite sequels
At the time of it's release a lot people I know didn't like it at all. I have no idea why either. The lines are funny, the cast good and it even has it's scary moments. I have no idea why they did part 3 without Kevin Williamson doing the screen-play. His scripts made the movies clever, funny and down to earth. Plus the cast in part 3 is laughable compared to the telented cast in 1 and 2. I mean in this one you got David Arquette "in no doubt his best role", Neve Campbell "in possibly her best role as well", Courtney Coxx, Liev Shrieber, Jamie Kennedy, Jada Pinkett Smith, Timothy Olyphant "Go!", Jerry O'Connell, Omar Epps and Sarah Michelle Gellar. Oh and Roseanne's sister from...Roseanne is in it too. Also look for Joshua Jacksan "Dawson's Creak" in a small role as a film class student.

Anyway this movie is a lot of fun and entertaining. Some things don't work of course though. Like how they use Han Zimmer's score from Broken Arrow whenever they show Dewey. Jerry Connell "singing I think I love you" to Sydney. Things that make it clever though for example, is when it pokes fun at other movies and even at itself. I like how Timothy Olyphant trys to come up with sequels that out-due the originals to Jamie Kennedy's character. It discusses sequels when it itself is one...trying to out-due the original and in some ways it does.

WHAT A DIFFRENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scream 2 is a million times better than the first Scream, which was teribble. The killer is no longer a wimpy teen like in the last film. This film is aimd to an older audiance( the first was aimed to the teens) which I think was good and it really worked for this one. This plot is about someone who saw a movie called Stab, a film based on what happened in the first Scream, and the film drives him mad and makes him turn into a killer. Okay, I know that sounds like a bad plot on papr, but it's much better on screen. They don't make fun of the old movies as much as they did in the first one( the( the orignal was trying to be serios, not like Scary Movie). If you enjoyed movies like Halloween, then you should like this. Much better than the first movie.

Sequel-itis
Unfortunately, Scream 2 falls victim to the oh-so-common sequel-itis that plagues many horror sequels. After the original redefined the term "sleeper hit" by grossing $103 million (domestically), Dimension Films rushed to release the sequel. Less than a year after the release of the original, Scream 2 opened to less than enthusiastic reviews, yet still managed to make a killing at the box office (101 million).
Was Scream 2 a bad film? Not really. In fact it is much better than most of the disposable horror trash on the market today, however it does not hold a candle to the original. The script and acting seem very rushed, and the film falls victim to many of the horror cliches that the original so effectively denounced. The film's biggest downfall is the identity of the killers. Part of what made the first film so great was that all the clues to killer's identity were there. The sequel however, offers no logical clues to the identity of the killers, who turn out to be somewhat minor characters who have played a very small partt in the narrative until this point. When they are finally revealed, it's like "Where did they come from?"
Scream 2 lacks the originality, script (though still helmed by Williamson), acting, and sheer terror that made the original such a classic. That said, it's still worth a rent, but think twice about buying it unless you are a die hard fan of the series.

good movie
Scream 2 is far from as scary as it's predeccesor, but it is still a good movie. Sydney Prescott is at college and having a good time, until a sorority girl[Sarah Michelle Gellar] is murdered. The survivors of the original movie are back, but Randy is eventually murdered, and Dewey hospitalized for being stabbed multiple times. Sydney once again suspects her boyfriend to be the killer, and upon this realization, Sydney and her friend is picked up by the dean to be moved, but the murderer is on their tail, and murders the dean, and Sydney's friend. Sydney then discovers the real murderer, and has the murderer arrested. Not very scary, but less gory than the original, and still fun to watch. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Excellent movie
This was an excellent must see movie. I enjoyed this more that Fried Green Tomatoes and highly recommend it. A must have.

Excellent Tale of the Times
Tom Rice and (the author of the original book) have captured a period, a place and a feeling that will take you back in time. A seemingly simpler place with the amazingly similar concerns of today. The relationship of two women portrays what is missing in all of us, and those too willing to judge our shortcomings.
With an amazing cast and wonderful period piece settings, the only thing lacking in this film was greater box office success. This movie shows that passion can more than offset a limited budget, with a resultingly wondrful postcard from the past.

Tyro Jones
One of the best movies I've seen in a long, long time. Very moving and beautifully filmed. Excellent. A must get and see.

Good but could have been better
I enjoyed this movie and particularly enjoyed that I could watch it with an elderly person without being embarassed.
Although the movie was good it could have been better. In watching the deleted scenes I think if those had been added we would have had a better picture of the father, played by Gary Cole. His part was largely cut out.
Music is good, too.
Watching the alternate ending, I feel the best ending was selected.

A reverie from the deep South
A RISING PLACE is a fine film, one that explores many aspects of adolescent America. By 'adolescent' I refer to the age of innocence in the 1940s when life in America moved slowly, emotions were tested by racism, the Pearl Harbor bombing alert and subsequent World War II, single motherhood, death of friends/loved ones, among other challenges. Director and screenwriter Rice has capably re-created the languid misty afternoons in Mississippi rural towns, finding actors who appear so natural in their roles that the film feels more like a memory that a story.

Through a series of flashbacks from the present to 1940 we are introduced to a beautiful young woman who falls in love with a pilot, becomes pregnant, is ostracized by the community for her indiscretion and finds solace in the strong friendship with a bright, knowledgeable African American woman unafraid of the racist slurs and 'enter through the back door' milieu of this town. The two girls align with another young male 'rebel' who is searching for his own identity in this stew pot of life. Slowly we discover that the story is that of one Aunt Millie who is failing and whose life comes floating to the surface to her niece as Millie approaches death. The background includes redneck white extremists, hatred of anything foreign (e.g. the Japanese invasion, whites mixing with blacks, unwed motherhood) and it is against this background that the three main characters search for and find the meaning of friendship, forgiveness, and equality.

Yes, stories such as this are familiar, but rarely has a director found a cast so strong, visuals so hauntingly beautiful, and a composer so in tune with the message of the movie. The members of the cast - all superb - include many well known actors as well as introducing some new faces whose presence is indelibly fine. Singling them out would be inappropriate in an ensemble effort as excellent as this.

The DVD includes an alternate ending and deleted scenes. View these, as it seems that the deleted scenes should have been included, so very fine are these moments. This is a beautifully touching film that deserves a wide audience. Perhaps that will come with the welcome release of this DVD. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

BRIAN"S SONG SHOULD BE HEARD...
This is a Disney remake of the 1971 popular film of the same name, which starred James Caan and Billy Dee Williams. It is based upon the true story of professional football players, Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo, who played for the Chicago Bears. They became fast friends and were rookie roommates on the road.

When Brian begins losing weight inexplicably and coughing up a storm, it doesn't look good. He finally goes to the doctor, where he discovers that he has cancer. Yet, Brian never gives up. He wills himself to live, inspiring Gale to be all that he can be.

The film takes the viewer through the beginning of Gale's and Brian's friendship, all the way through to the end. Along the way, it touches on many themes. When Gale reaches the pinnacle of success and stardom in the world of professional football and wins an award, he gives a speech that includes Brian. It is a speech that is guaranteed to bring tears to the viewer.

Mekhi Phifer is terrific in the role of Gale Sayers and Sean Maher gives a compelling performance as Brian Piccolo. This is a well directed, well acted film. It is also very sad.

a beautiful song to hear
Hard to believe I didn't recognize this movie until just the other day. What a beautiful movie with emotional depth and a great message about friendship. For anyone who might not know the storyline, it focuses on the true story of Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers, two former football players for the Chicago Bears with every difference you could possibly imagine keeping them apart, including racial differences and completely opposite personalities. Only by rooming together are they finally forced to truly enter each other's lives and help each other in many future endeavors, including a standout challenge in Brian's young life that the two must handle together, as only true friends could.

I have not yet seen the original of this film (which I hope to do soon), so I can't comment on any differences between the 1971 and 2001 versions. I will, however, say that judging from a trailer I recently saw of the 1971 movie, it seems like many similar and sometimes exact lines were used in both films, so I am sure that they both contain much flavor and depth. This 2001 round is an emotionally heartwrenching and altogether remarkable rendition of a true story that will never be forgotten by anyone who has ever followed the Chicago Bears over the years. Mekhi Phifer (Sayers) and Sean Maher (Piccolo) have realism in their acting and knowledge of their roles, thus enabling them to become these powerful and complex characters. I especially enjoyed the performance of Sean Maher. His smile, charisma, and endearing personality made the character all the more real and convincing. This is certainly a beautiful film that touches base with many deep topics (friendship, strength through trial, etc...) and will put many varying emotions to use. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll be touched. I personally don't typically cry at movies, but this one always hits me hard. If you don't choke up or at least feel touched when Brian finally truly verbalizes his love for his wife or when Gale breaks down at the end of the movie, there's something wrong. Honestly, though, this is an outstanding movie--an excellent message. Seeing as this 2001 movie was my first introduction to the story of Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers, I was impressed. Don't let the "trashy remake" title scare you off, because this new version has plenty of emotion and strength that has helped transform the story itself into what it remains today in the hearts of many.

matt b's book review
Brian's Song is about two amazing football players named Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers. One is black one is white. they are very different but very much alike. Both men are striving for the same job. Their personalities are very different, but their love for the game is the same. These men sooon become lasting friends on and off the football field, they help each other through some of the worst of times. I personally loved this book and it is one of my all time favorites. This book shows the lasting friendship between two very different people as they struggle through horrbile times. I reccomend this book to any teenage boys who loves sports and a friendship that can't be broken.

i loved both versions
I will always have a special place for this 2001 version in my heart because I saw it before the original, and it introduced me to two remarkable men whom I'd never heard of before. Of COURSE people are going to trash the remake; the 1971 film is excellent, and remakes don't typically go down well with viewers. I will comment that these versions are very different from one another. The 1971 film is more historical and passionately acted, whereas the one from 2001 strives to put somewhat of a twist on the original story without completely defacing it. This new movie shows more of a challenge that Sayers and Piccolo faced in the process of becoming friends; in the original, they pretty much always liked each other and didn't really have to develop it quite as much. Sean Maher and Mekhi Phifer certainly deliver, giving their characters a good degree of depth and passion. I will say that if you truly want to get the feel for every aspect of this remarkable true story, then go for the original. The new one is kind of a simpler recap to acquaint you with the story, although don't judge it too harshly because no matter which one you watch, you're gonna cry.

The horror, the horror
Brian's song, round one, was a perfect film. I am not even going to comment on it. I am simply re-submitting comments, the first sent hours before the premiere of this disaster, that have been thrice rejected by IMDB. (they have only my old e-mail address, so I don't know why)

In seven hours, I will hear familiar music in an unfamiliar arrangement and a voice other than Jack Warden's will tell us the beginnings and the end of the tragic and moving story of Brian Piccolo, lightly regarded blocking back to the incomparable legend that is Gale Sayers.

Well, Brian Piccolo ws an outstanding football player and, by all accounts, a good and admirable man. His death was surely a tragedy and the original still makes me, ME!, cry at the scene when B.D. Williams entreats the the team to play its best in honor of Piccolo.

After the foregoing voice, it will all go down from there, your teeth will chatter, your eyes melt and your ears will bleed. Good God, didn't you learn anything from the Black Odd Couple. Don't mess with perfection. You are not artisans restoring the Sistine chapel, you work in television, television!

Don't watch this and you will be spared the wooden performance of the dude who plays Sayers and the... one playing Piccolo.

This has been a LawDog "I have not and never will see this movie" review.
Not reviewed for typos. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Chris (Adrien Brody), an aspiring playwright, pays the bills as a bartender at an upscale New York restaurant and pours his frustrations into his work. Jeanine (Elise Neal), an aspiring singer from a musical family, is the newest waitress on the staff. He's Italian American and she's African American, but the chemistry is there. All that stands between them is Chris's unresolved feelings for his ex (pop star Lauryn Hill in a cameo), the reverberations of his blue-collar father's dinner-table racism, and the unspoken and usually ignored but unavoidable issue of race. Eric Bross (Ten Benny, also with Brody) has a light touch with his ensemble cast--which also features Malcolm-Jamal Warner as a well-spoken law student and Jesse L. Martin of TV's Law and Order as a philosophical line cook--and the thoughtful script. The issues simmer below the surface of the individual dramas, romantic complications, and personal struggles with self-esteem and responsibility that buzz through the restaurant, finally boiling over in a raw but dramatically restrained finale. Much of the drama floats between clear-eyed honesty and hip glibness, but Bross and his cast anchor the drama in vivid, complicated characters who bring the film to life. Restaurant, which sat on the shelf before receiving a short theatrical run, is no Do The Right Thing, but in its own respectful way manages to cast a fresh look at race relations. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Restaurant
This heart-wrenching drama focuses on aspiring writer Chris Calloway, played soulfully by Adrien Brody. His past love with an African-American women, played by the exquisitely beautiful Lauryn Hill, haunts his present life, interfering with his artistic creativity, friendships, and current lover. Shadows of racism hinder his ability to truthfully love, truthfully write, and truthfully live.

As we watch Chris and his friends pinball between the things they want to do, and the things they need to do, we begin to relive our own painful experiences in the field of love.

Tensions rise as Chris grasps to make decisions that will forever affect his happiness, for better, and for worse.

Adrien Brody, Elise Neal, Simon Baker, & Lauryn Hill give memorable performances.

Great Movie----- A Must See!!!!
I would have given it five stars, but in some spots the movie went off base. It is generally an excellent film. The entire cast fit their roles perfectly. Elise Neal and Adrien Brody were the perfect couple. Malcolm Jamal Warner was pretty impressive himself. This film was humorous, charming and sensuous. The director did an excellent job. At times I felt like I was actually in the restaurant with the cast. Rarely do you see a film that incoporates real life situations with a flawless script. One of the most believable films I've ever seen. A great cast, excellent script, and pleasing acting. You can't get better than Restaurant these days.

Hit&Miss Film
this film dealt with alot of Social Issues&while it has some solid Acting it leaves some spots in between.still it's a interesting film when all things are clicking.

Pretty good!
I'm not big on indie film but for some reason i notice this one when it was avalaible to rent through pay-per-view. it is a movie i really took time to understand the characters i thought the story was engaging..and of course the racial issIt was one ues was handle i guess the best way they could considering that it was shot back in 1998. The movie is full with fresh talent. I got to give it up to Adrian Brody an excellent actor i've seen him briefly in a movie called Liberty Heights but didn't think much about it until i saw his face. Elise Neal was pretty good along with Simon Baker. My only regret about this film is i wished they had elaborate the relationship with Brody character(Chris) and Lauryn Hill(Leslie) more in depth i felt there was so much to this story and can i say even though Hill wasn't there as much as i wish her charisma was bursting out all over the screen for the moments she shared with Brody character. Not too mention she was absoulutely glowing... Overal it is a great film one that i don't mine adding in my DVD collection.

Disappointing. Wasted Potential.
I love Indy films and try to support them whenever I can. I heard about this film after it showed at an Indy fest in New York. The reviews I read were good, so when it was released on DVD I bought it. Now, I am selling it. This film was very disappointing as it raised provocative issues, but basically glossed over them. The racial issues in the restaurant weren't thoroughly explored. Also, the character development of the workers was lacking. Interesting characters were introduced but never fully developed. The director and writer seemed to be going for the sappy, PC slant and that ruined what could have been a thought provoking, honest view of the complexity of racial issues in modern society. Another thing worth noting is that several scenes and lines of dialogue were edited out [deleted] from the DVD version of this film. The extras include deleted scenes but not the specific scenes of which I am speaking. One of the main reasons I purchased the DVD was because of the scene between Chris [Brody] and Leslie [Hill], but several lines of that scene were deleted. The director's commentary even states that they wanted to make the theme more human and less black and white or racial. It is obvious that this was their intent and it ruined the film. The final scene is just plain lame. The director stated that ending a film is the hardest thing to do and he proved it! There were some scenes/lines, but too few to recommend this film. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Fully aware of its status as the sequel to the surprise hit thriller of 1996, this lively follow-up trades freshness for familiarity, playing on our affection for returning characters while obeying--and then subverting--the "rules" of sequels. Once again, movie references are cleverly employed to draw us into the story, which takes place two years after the events of Scream, at a small Ohio college, where the Scream survivors reunite when another series of mysterious killings begins. Capitalizing on the guesswork involving a host of potential suspects, director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson have crafted a thriller that's more of a Scream clone than a genuinely inventive new story. But the shocks are just as effective, and escalating tension leads to a tautly staged climax that's simultaneously logical and giddily over the top. Background information for trivia buffs: to preserve the secrecy of plot twists, copies of the screenplay were heavily guarded during production and restricted to only the most crucial personnel. When an early draft was circulated on the Internet, screenwriter Kevin Williamson did rewrites, and subsequent drafts were printed with red ink on brown paper, eliminating the threat of photocopying. None of the cast members knew who the killer was until the final scenes were filmed! --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (302)

Scream And Scream Again!
After the incredible, phenomenal success of the first "Scream" movie, a sequel was inevitable. Actually, it was inevitable from the start since a part 2 and 3 were already planned and part of Kevin Williamson's deal when selling the first movie. While many people thought this was only made since the first one was such a monster hit, it was not. I'm sure the box office didn't hurt tho!. Kevin Williamson is back with another sharp, fresh, and clever screenplay. Wes Craven is back in the director's chair and makes that screenplay into a stylish thriller that exceeds all expectations and puts the "sequels ..." curse to rest...for now anyways. It's been two years since the grisly murders and stalking of Sidney Prescott in Woodsboro, and now Sidney is enrolled in college and trying to put her life back in order. It's much easier said than done since she is now caught up in the frenzy of a new movie called "Stab", which is a film about what happened in Woodsboro based on the book "The Woodsboro Murders", by tabloid journalist Gale Weathers(Courtney Cox). Two young students(Jada Pinkett, Omar Epps)are killed during the premiere of the film in the movie's dazzling and well executed opener, and the hunt is on once again. A copycat killer dressed in ghost figure attire is jumping on the "Stab" hysteria and stalking Sidney and her friends. Returning is Gale, who is still the money loving, attention getter we loved to hate in the original, but we love more now here. Deputy Dewey(David Arquette)is back as well, having survived the stabbed in the back incident from the original. Unfortunatley, it has left him with a bad leg and limp. Film geek Randy(Jamie Kennedy)is back as well, and sets the tone for the film when he explains the rules of a horror sequel. Cotton Weary(Liev Schreiber)also appears in this one. He has a far more interesting and pivotal role than he did in the brief moments he had in the original film. We are introduced to a new pack of characters as well. Sidney's boyfriend Derek, who is played by Jerry 'O' Connell, film lover
Mickey, Sid's roomate Hallie, and Gale's new camerman Joel, among others. "Buffy" star Sarah Michelle Gellar also appears in one of the films's best moments. Former "Roseanne" star Laurie Metcalfe, and David's father Lewis Arquette, round out the great cast. The movie definitley knows that it is a sequel and is fully aware of how sequels usually go. There's even a great scene about students talking about film sequels. But what the first film did horror films, this one does with horror film sequels and gives it a fresh and clever spin. The scares are great and the suspense scenes are carefully executed and fully effecting. The movie still manages to be surprising and scary and catch us off guard, unlike so many sequels. Neve Campbell is a fabulous scream queen heroine. She does another solid turn as Sidney. Cox looks fantastic in this one. Gale is such an entertaining character to watch. Arquette has the Dewey schtick down pat, although it feels as if he wasn't given much to do this time around and was out of the action quite early than he should have been. While many horror films seem to only care about violence and a high body count, these films are about the characters. Not the killer or what he does and how he goes about doing it. It's about why it's happening and how these characters that we have come to love and cheer on will respond to it. Wes and company did something that many people didn't think they would. They made a sequel that is as convincing, smart, scary, and entertaining as the original. "Scream 2" is a follow up that not only does the brilliant original justice, but it also gives sequels a good name.

One of my favorite sequels
At the time of it's release a lot people I know didn't like it at all. I have no idea why either. The lines are funny, the cast good and it even has it's scary moments. I have no idea why they did part 3 without Kevin Williamson doing the screen-play. His scripts made the movies clever, funny and down to earth. Plus the cast in part 3 is laughable compared to the telented cast in 1 and 2. I mean in this one you got David Arquette "in no doubt his best role", Neve Campbell "in possibly her best role as well", Courtney Coxx, Liev Shrieber, Jamie Kennedy, Jada Pinkett Smith, Timothy Olyphant "Go!", Jerry O'Connell, Omar Epps and Sarah Michelle Gellar. Oh and Roseanne's sister from...Roseanne is in it too. Also look for Joshua Jacksan "Dawson's Creak" in a small role as a film class student.

Anyway this movie is a lot of fun and entertaining. Some things don't work of course though. Like how they use Han Zimmer's score from Broken Arrow whenever they show Dewey. Jerry Connell "singing I think I love you" to Sydney. Things that make it clever though for example, is when it pokes fun at other movies and even at itself. I like how Timothy Olyphant trys to come up with sequels that out-due the originals to Jamie Kennedy's character. It discusses sequels when it itself is one...trying to out-due the original and in some ways it does.

WHAT A DIFFRENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Scream 2 is a million times better than the first Scream, which was teribble. The killer is no longer a wimpy teen like in the last film. This film is aimd to an older audiance( the first was aimed to the teens) which I think was good and it really worked for this one. This plot is about someone who saw a movie called Stab, a film based on what happened in the first Scream, and the film drives him mad and makes him turn into a killer. Okay, I know that sounds like a bad plot on papr, but it's much better on screen. They don't make fun of the old movies as much as they did in the first one( the( the orignal was trying to be serios, not like Scary Movie). If you enjoyed movies like Halloween, then you should like this. Much better than the first movie.

Sequel-itis
Unfortunately, Scream 2 falls victim to the oh-so-common sequel-itis that plagues many horror sequels. After the original redefined the term "sleeper hit" by grossing $103 million (domestically), Dimension Films rushed to release the sequel. Less than a year after the release of the original, Scream 2 opened to less than enthusiastic reviews, yet still managed to make a killing at the box office (101 million).
Was Scream 2 a bad film? Not really. In fact it is much better than most of the disposable horror trash on the market today, however it does not hold a candle to the original. The script and acting seem very rushed, and the film falls victim to many of the horror cliches that the original so effectively denounced. The film's biggest downfall is the identity of the killers. Part of what made the first film so great was that all the clues to killer's identity were there. The sequel however, offers no logical clues to the identity of the killers, who turn out to be somewhat minor characters who have played a very small partt in the narrative until this point. When they are finally revealed, it's like "Where did they come from?"
Scream 2 lacks the originality, script (though still helmed by Williamson), acting, and sheer terror that made the original such a classic. That said, it's still worth a rent, but think twice about buying it unless you are a die hard fan of the series.

good movie
Scream 2 is far from as scary as it's predeccesor, but it is still a good movie. Sydney Prescott is at college and having a good time, until a sorority girl[Sarah Michelle Gellar] is murdered. The survivors of the original movie are back, but Randy is eventually murdered, and Dewey hospitalized for being stabbed multiple times. Sydney once again suspects her boyfriend to be the killer, and upon this realization, Sydney and her friend is picked up by the dean to be moved, but the murderer is on their tail, and murders the dean, and Sydney's friend. Sydney then discovers the real murderer, and has the murderer arrested. Not very scary, but less gory than the original, and still fun to watch. ... Read more