Description

Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman play retired, down-on-their-luck outlaws who pick up their guns one last time to collect a bounty offered by the vengeful prostitutes of the remote Wyoming town of Big Whiskey. Richard Harris is an ill-fated interloper, a colorful killer-for-hire called English Bob. And Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner Gene Hackman is the sly and brutal local sheriff whose brand of law enforcement ranges from unconventional to ruthless. ... Read more

Reviews (175)

Clint Eastwood delivers a masterpiece
This film won the 1992 Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman) and Best Editing. Garnering three of the "major" awards is impressive and they are what make the film a memorable and enjoyable experience. Eastwood the director is in top form. He has always displayed a steady hand in directing his stories and actors and he doesn't disappoint here. Nothing flashy but it is his understated direction that leads this film to it's climax. In less capable hands, a director may be apt to moralize or preach. Eastwood capably lets the story (overlooked as an original screenplay) tell itself. His turn as the lead character -- William Munny -- is also an underplayed, nuanced part. I think it is one of his best acting jobs. He carries a grim outlook and those set, steely eyes convey all of the emotions the character feels. In a movie with so much else that is good, his performance is not to be ignored. Gene Hackman is outstanding in his portrayal of Little Bill Daggett, the sheriff of Big Whiskey, WY. His performance is both blustery and low-keyed. It is a credit to Hackman to know how to pull if off effortlessly. The movie itself is the real star. It plays on so many levels and gives a lot of shades of gray that really blow off the Westerns of old. There is no good guy in the white hat. In fact, there is little good to be found in the movie. Most of the men and women are scoundrels or people of ill-repute. However the general theme of reality that Eastwood conveys is what you will have to look for. Things aren't what they seem and this "anti-Western" shrugs off the myths of the Old West.

The Darkest Film Ever To Win Best Picture
Unforgiven you realize, a few minutes in, is not your typical westen. Nor is it your typical Clint Eastwood movie. And it probably surely isn't your typical Best Picture Oscar winner. Telling the story of Willam Munny (Clint Eastwood), a retired bounty hunter who goes on one last job, to kill the men who slashed a prostitute's face. Now doesn't that sound like a fun movie! Whoppee! Errr... Not really. Actually it sound's downright depressing. And it is. Along the way Willam meets up with his longtime partner played by Morgon Freeman. Together they set out to kill those above mentioned men. About this time we switch over to the late Richard Harris's character. Who also is after the reward money offered up by the town prostitutes for the killing of those men I've mentioned twice already. He isn't after them long as he gets beaten and kicked by the towns people, mainly thier crooked sheriff, Little Bill (played suberbly by Gene Hackman).
He isn't the typical bad guy, either, in fact he's almost good in comparison with other bad guys in other movies. All of this leads up to a spectacular climax with a showdown between Willam Munny and Little Bill. Unforgiven also convienently managed to snag 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (For Clint Eastwood's terrific directing), Best Supporting Actor (For Gene Hackman's marvelous Little Bill). All should see Unforgiven, whether all would enjoy it is another matter. But who can forget Little Bill's words "I'm just trying to build a house!"

The "Western" Everyman.
The most important aspect of this "Western" is its philospical and spiritual message about the universal condition of man. It is almost biblical in nature like the first chapters of the book of Romans in the New Testament. Man is aware of both good and evil but finally is caught up in evil and unless he is redeemed by the forgivness of God he will die in his sins. The title is very appropriate as the characters in the end are unforgiving and unforgiven. It is a powerful film in that there are certain aspects in the various characters the show they have a sense of what is good but they are unable of themselves to overcome the innate evil of the human heart. There are several classic lines in the film such as the moment the young gunslinger says to Eastwood's character "He has it coming" and the reply is "We all have it coming" The conclusion at the end is that both the man representing the law and the man representing the lawless are both damned. It is not a pretty picture of mankind but a true one and is the reason why the Son of God had to die on the cross that we might be forgiven. There is Evil in man, but goodness in God if we will turn to Him. If this film would have only included the forgiveness of God I would have given it twice five stars.

Wow
This western directed by Clint Eastwood is truly one of the greats. The story develops slowly, the viewer learning in small bits about the main character William Munny. The subtlety of the movie is its greatest strength. Gene Hackman is incredible as the town Sheriff and won a well deserved Academy Award. Eastwood also won a much deserved Academy Award for best director.

If you like westerns this one is for you. Its a classic.

Rather good
This film is very good. As you can tell from the rave revies it has on this website and the 4 oscars it won in 1992 for Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor and something else i cant remember.

The plot is convential - the hitman comes out of retirement after personal tragedy, but the performances superb and the charcetrs fascinating you'll be hooked. It's a great film and shows the acting talents of Clint Eastwood amount to much more than simply facial expressions, although they are spot on again here.

Gene Hackman is probably the true star here and his oscar was well deserved. The performance he gives as Little Bill Daggett is so three dimensional and you wonder to start with just is he good or bad? Nothing is made too obvious and you only find out later you should root against him. Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris have smaller roles but do their best and it all works well.

It's well acted, directed and boasts great scenery. This is the intelligent western and portrays gritty real charcters and makes you think. It's very grim and shows real hardness without being brutal - and that's hard to achieve.

Watch - better yet buy - this, you certainly won't regret it. ... Read more

Description

Johnny Depp ruled as TV’s hottest young actor in this third season of the hit series that shot him to stardom. Depp stars as undercover cop Tom Hanson, who along with fellow officers Harry Ioki (Dustin Nguyen), Judy Hoffs (Holly Robinson Peete) and Doug Penhall (Peter DeLuise), tackles tough cases of teen pregnancy, drug dealers, child molestation, army desertion, racism, homelessness, murder and more, including the introduction of Dennis Booker (Richard Grieco). Steven Williams co-stars as Captain Fuller in the Fox-TV sensation co-created by Patrick Hasburgh and Stephen J. Cannell (HUNTER, PROFIT) that Entertainment Weekly still hails as "too cool for school!" 21 JUMP STREET – THE COMPLETE THIRD SEASON contains all 20 explosive episodes – including the unforgettable two-part cliffhanger finale in which Hanson wages a one-man war against the street gang that shot Ioki – featuring such guest stars as Bridget Fonda, Peri Gilpin, Dom DeLuise, Larenz Tate, Christopher Titus, Mario Van Peebles and Kelly Hu. ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Great movie, not-so-great DVD
Peter Sellers was one of the most gifted comic actors of the 1960s and 1970s; Inspector Clouseau was his most beloved role. Blake Edwards, the film's director and creator, was a master of both subtle humor and slapstick. For these reasons, The Return of the Pink Panther is a true classic for many of us. It's a movie that never fails to leave me in a great mood. However, as other reviewers have noted, there are some serious issues with the DVD. I purchased it (and am glad I did) because I didn't have a VHS copy of the film. To be honest, I don't know what advantage this particular DVD can offer versus a VHS, since there are no real extras here, and no choice between widescreen and full screen (and no anamorphic widescreen!). I sincerely hope that this film is reissued in the future, complete with outtakes and remastered sound, and treated with the respect it deserves.

More Important for what it accomplished
The best thing about this film is that it returned Peter Sellers to the role of Inspector Jacques Clouseau under Blake Edwards' direction after Alan Arkin's single portrayal in 1968's INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU directed by Bud Yorkin. More importantly it did not only return Sellers but it also instituted the Pink Panther and Sellers as Inspector Clouseau in a legitimate film series instead of just a few sporadic sequels and it launched a huge cinematic rebirth and phenomenon. Unfortunately this film seems to lack the magic of 1964's THE PINK PANTHER and the sophistication of A SHOT IN THE DARK. Christopher Plummer replaced David Niven as Sir Charles Lytton in this film. Plummer is good but it seems a shame since Niven reprised his role later in 1982's TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER and 1983's CURSE OF THE PINK PANTHER, which were made after Sellers' death (in 1980) in an attempt to revive the series without him. Catherine Schell as Claudine Litton lacked the charisma of earlier leading ladies Capucine and Elke Sommer. On the plus side, Sellers is brilliant as Clouseau as are Herbert Lom as Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus and Burt Kwouk as Kato back and featured prominently in the rest of all the subsequent Pink Panther films. Much needed and returning is a score composed by Henry Mancini a very integral component of this series. THE RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER has some very good comic sketches and a very good opening jewel heist but the script just doesn't seem to be a very cohesive force. However, better things were yet to come. As for the DVD, the quality is just average. For me, the picture quality is just too soft. The MGM prints of the other Pink Panther films on DVD are much crisper.

DA DUM DA DUM, DA DUM, DA DUM DA DUM DA DUM...
Has there ever been a more catchy theme than Mancini's "Pink Panther?" I can't think of any off hand, and in this third entry in the Clouseau series, the music and the animated panther are back in fine form.
Mainly a vehicle for the superb Peter Sellers, this sequel is tired in plot, and struggles for some of its laughs, but one cannot deny the superlative hijinks of Sellers as the impossibly inept Inspector Clouseau. He has so many brilliant moments, it's hard to think of them all, but Sellers is in top form. Christopher Plummer and Catherine Schell do okay, but Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk as Dreyfuss and Kato are outstanding in their supporting roles. Lom's slow decline into mental illness is hilarious in its cartoonish way, and Kato's fights with Sellers are priceless.
It's an entertaining if inconsequential movie, but I had lots of fun watching it!!

Fair to middlin' sequel
The movie had a few humorous moments, but I found some of it tedious. Cato and Dreyfus are still a riot. though. Cato and Clouseau have their karate fights, culminating in Cato dressing as a Japanese waitress. Clouseau finally drives Dreyfus into the nuthouse after Dreyfuss repeatedly shoots himself with a cigarette lighter.

I still prefer "A Shot in the Dark" and think it is the best of the series. I did not care for the original "Pink Panther" as I found it unfunny.

Although the picture was not razor-sharp, it is not as bad as the one-star whiners would have you believe. With minimal extras, if you don't have high expectations, then the low-priced DVD may be worth your time.

Inspector Clouseau strikes again...

Peter Sellers is great as Inspector Clouseau, with his mispronunciations and bumbling, especially when teamed up with Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus (Herbert Lom), who hates him.

The wonderful David Niven, of course, is gone from the series, but is replaced by Christopher Plummer as Sir Charles Lytton (The Phantom).

Both Lom and Sellers are a great comedy team and provide a laugh a minute, as they try to catch a jewel thief in Lugash.

I suggest you see the whole pink panther series.

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

... Read more

Amazon.com

In synopsis The Sweet Hereafter may sound like a devastatingly unpleasant downer, but don't be discouraged. The real subjects of this luminous picture (adapted by director Atom Egoyan from Russell Banks's novel) are hope and renewal--avoiding the cheap emotions suggested by those clichéd terms. Like other Egoyan films (Exotica, for one), it's an intriguing sort of mystery, a puzzle in which the big picture is not revealed until the very last piece is in place. A metropolitan attorney (Ian Holm) travels to a small British Columbian town where 14 children have been killed in a school bus accident to prepare a class-action suit. With sensitivity and empathy, he approaches relatives with promises that the suit will give focus and closure to their grief. And as he investigates the circumstances of the accident, he not only uncovers a few local secrets, but dredges up some painful pieces of his own past. Slowly, deeper mysteries are revealed--eternal mysteries at the very heart of human nature: Who is to blame for a tragedy like this? And why do people feel such a need to assign blame? Is that how they give meaning to otherwise inconceivable events? How does one reassemble a shattered life? The Sweet Hereafter is too honest to offer bromides, but it shows how a few people struggle, as best they can, to answer these questions for themselves. DVD extras include audio commentary by Egoyan and Banks, a Charlie Rose interview with Egoyan, and a panel discussion with the filmmakers. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (108)

Atom Egoyan's beautiful tragedy! Masterful filmmaking!
What can I say about "The Sweet Hereafter"? Well, without hyperbole, Canadian director Atom Egoyan has basically turned Russel Banks popular novel into one of the most touching and masterfully-crafted films ever made! This is the story of smalltown tragedy in British Columbia. Fourteen schoolchildren are killed in a freak school bus accident, and their families, friends, and neighbors, each devestated in their own way, tries to carry on with their lives. A manipulative laywer (played with stark intensity by Ian Holm) comes to the town to try to organize a class action lawsuit, but the lawyer is carrying some emotional baggage of his own, and Egoyan creates some beautiful plot "counterpoint" by weaving the townpeople's and the lawyers tragedies together. Egoyan takes what COULD have been fodder for another melodramatic Hollywood tearjerker, and turns it into a film of great depth and substance. Egoyan has a wonderfully lyrical sense of film composition, and he masterfully intermixes scenes from the present, with flashbacks to the past, and slowly unviels the the complex lives of his characters (including some even deeper tragedies than the bus accident!) Ever the innovator, Egoyan even manages to blend spoken poetry into the story, as Robert Browning's "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" is used as a powerfully symbolic conterpoint to the story we are seeing on screen. The whole cast is quite excellent, but young Canadian actress Sarah Polley (as the pivotal character of Nicole, a would-be rock singer and survivor of the bus crash) just about steals the show! I won't give away one of the film's most surprising plot-points (although some Amazon reviewers have already let the cat out of the bag), but I will just say that Polley's dazed facial expression near the end of the story is a beatiful piece of acting...and speaks volumes more than any big, convoluted Hollywood "comeuppance" scene could ever achieve! "The Sweet Hereafter" is a film that should not be missed by any film buff! I have seen this film at least five times now and I can attest that it only gets better with repeated vieweings, there is simply too much going on underneath the surface of the story to absorb all of it's issues on the first glance. This very "human" film is the complete antithesis of everything that is wrong with the current Hollywood scene, and with this emotionally gripping film, Atom Egoyan has cemented his place among the world's finest filmmakers!

Secrets and Lies
This quiet, subtle and gripping movie is an impressive work about death, grief, change, secrets and communities, a strong, moving and complex cinematic experience. Director Atom Egoyan handles a difficult subject and knows how to develop an interesting and thought-provocking approach.

The basic story is about the aftermath of a school bus accident that led to the death of 14 children. An attourney (Ian Holm) then tries to find out who was the responsible for such dramatic and unfortunate incident, looking for clear answers but failing to achieve them.
Was it really just an accident? Why did it happen? Was it that surprising and unexpected? These are some of the questions that the lawyer tries to find answers to, so he starts looking for them in the little, calm and peaceful canadian village where the disaster happened.

As the lawyer`s quest unfolds, Egoyan shows us his motivations, giving a glipse about his relationship with his drug-addicted daughter that he is unable to help.
"The Sweet Hereafter" is a powerful story about loss and frustration in a world where parents can`t seem to help their children, dreams start to fade and hope is destroyed. But it`s also a story told in a realistic and credible way, avoiding easy melodramatic devices and dramatic overacting. Egoyan doesn`t offer a tearjerker session here, given that his approach is subtle, letting hope and reconstruction unfold.

The storytelling techniques are unique, given that the plot development isn`t linear and mixes three different timeframes that are related and co-dependent. The movie also presents an ethereal, hypnotic and dream-like atmosphere, creating a particular and unique feel, although it never loses its realistic elements. The acting is overall convincing, especially Sarah Polley as the enigmatic young girl.

"The Sweet Hereafter" is not always an easy film to watch, as some of its plot points offer some ambiguity and uneasy answers. The characters are more than what they first seem, and Egoyan wisely covers a wide range of emotions without following a predictable and standart perspective. This is a slow, engrossing and captivating piece of cinema, one that makes the viewer feel, think and question, way above many formulaic fast-food flicks out there.
A remarkable achievement.

Stays With You...
This is one of those rare films which is at least equal to the novel's quality, even surpassing it in some respects. Subtle and moving, it is refreshing to watch a film that incoporates so much imagery and symbolism without beating the viewer over the head with a skillet. The commentary by Atom Egoyan and Russell Banks provided much insight into why the film had to be structured so differently than the book, and I highly recommend watching the special feature of Russell Banks reading excerpts from the novel.

Another Egoyan masterpiece!
The Sweet Hereafter is more a work of art than a film, and that in itself will put off some people. Its a slow moving, dreary, and depressing motion picture, full of real people, real struggles, and real dialogue. It's a profound experience that moves like a dream, slowly easing its way to an incomplete yet satisfying finale. Egoyan certainly knows how to work with his actors, as is evident by all the brilliant performances he has captured. This is a top-notch film, hard to love, and at the same time, very difficult to hate. Egoyan always has a way to make a challenging motion picture, allowing the audience to think and discuss long after the film is over. He continues to amaze me. This is one of those rare films that might move slowly, but is worth watching. It's a tough one to watch because of the subject matter (children dying in a school bus accident), but in the end, it is well worth it. Egoyan is a brilliant director and he is in top form here. Any fans of his other works who haven't seen this should definitely look for it. Everyone else should also give it a chance. They might enjoy it, or then again, they might hate me for recommending it. Either way, it's at least worth a look.

movie good; book a thousand times better
the commentary by russell banks made the movie more interesting and enjoyable. from the sound of the dvd, the director will be patting himself on the back well into his sweet hereafter. ... Read more

Reviews (528)

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

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

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

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (21)

"Don't worry...He knows you're an idiot!"
HE in this case is NAPOLEON of CRIME,Professor James Moriarty. YOU is "the world's most famous consulting detective",SHERLOCK HOLMES. Speaking is Ben Kingsley essaying the role of CRIME DOCTOR,John Watson.The case is WITHOUT A CLUE. Directed by Thom Eberhardt,WAC is a deft, wacky satire on Conan-Doyle's genius master detective positing what if Dr. Watson was THE MAN;and Sherlock Holmes was master of CLUTZ. Parody works because humor is arch but neither ham-handed nor condescending. Michael Caine (usually epitome of cockney cool from Super spy Harry Palmer, to Super thug Jack Carter)is Clouseau Goofy without overshadowing Kingsley who plays a genuine hero sleuth against England's most nefarious MASTER CRIMINAL. This is a very funny movie with excellent production values and superb(Victorian)ambience. And there is genuine mystery to solve. THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN is sure to revive interest in THE PROFESSOR if not Sherlock. WITHOUT A CLUE may or may not(like Spielberg's YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES)help much with its satirizing of the first League of Extraordinary Crime Fighters. But Doctor Watson's cloning of a Sherlock of extraordinary ineptitude and rank(though charming)stupidity is OXYMORONIC episode of Holmsian mythology in a Major League of its own.(4 & 1/2 stars)

This is a great movie!
Sherlock Holmes has solved unnumbered cases for Scotland Yard, but it turns out that Dr. Watson (played by Ben Kingsley) has a secret - there is no Sherlock Holmes! Having hired Reginald Kincaid (Michael Caine) to play the part of Holmes, Watson now wants to get rid of the man, as he is "a liar, a drunkard and a womanizer." But, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrives with a case that threatens the very existence of the Empire, and will talk to no one but the great Sherlock Holmes, Watson has to take Kincaid back for just one more case, and it's a whopper! There is a deep mystery here, one with Professor Moriarty (Paul Freeman) at it's heart, and only Holmes...er, Watson can possibly unravel it. [Color, released in 1988, with a running time of 1:47.]

This is a great movie! Turning the Sherlock Holmes stories any which way but loose, Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley make a great duet, battling crime and each other. The movie succeeds in being outrageously funny, and yet absolutely gripping. The movie is clean, though Leslie Giles' secret is enough to make you squirm in front of little ones. Overall, though, my family and I loved this movie, and highly recommend it to you!

Very clever, a lot of fun!
What if Dr. Watson (Ben Kingsley) is the real detective and Sherlock Holmes is his fictional alter ego whose name he created and uses to protect his medical practice? And what if, when pressured to produce Holmes to the public, Watson hires an out-of-work actor to pretend to be Holmes (Michael Caine). All Holmes has to do is what Watson tells him to do as he, Watson, does all the sleuthing. This is the clever premise of this film -- all the more clever if you know that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a doctor who wrote the Holmes detective mysteries on the side. Of course, things start to spiral out of control when "Holmes" tries to solve the mysteries without Watson and "Holmes" makes up a lot of the famous mannerisms.

Lots of humor, a good mystery and very nice repartee between the two men as Watson becomes increasingly exasperated with his creation. (This has an almost "Remington Steele" like premise if any of you remember that 1980s TV show staring Pierce Brosnam.) A very under-rated film with a top notch cast.

I have not seen this film on the new DVD so can't comment on the quality of this DVD. I'm just reviewing the film itself.

What a delight!
Although I'm a lover of Sherlock Holmes movies, I almost missed this gem. Everything about this film was wonderful, particularly the tremendous performances by Caine and Kingsley. You can see they're having fun with it every scene, and I loved being along for the ride.

The script is intelligent and witty, without getting goofy or slapstick. The plot is hilarious yet holds together as a "mystery" (kind of...). It is totally devoid of the offensive language that plagues so many movies, making it a great family fun flick (but it's NOT at all juvenile).

I just wish they'd made a series of these films -- I didn't want it to end.

"I've got it! His real name is Arty-Morti!"
Without a Clue (1988) poses an interesting and humorous take on the Sherlock Holmes mythos created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The film asks what if the character of Sherlock Holmes was truly a fictional character created by Doctor Watson, and is played by an actor, with Watson being the actual mastermind behind solving the various cases and crimes?

In the film, Ben Kingsley plays Doctor Watson, the man behind the deductive and crime solving skills of his fictional character, Sherlock Holmes. For reasons that are revealed within the movie, Watson was not able to take credit for solving his first caper, so he invented the character of Sherlock Holmes, but soon found his creation was in great demand, so he hired an actor, Reginald Kincaid (Michael Caine) to play the part of the detective while Watson stayed in the background continuing to be the 'brains' of the operation. Only problem is Reginald Kincaid is a buffoonish, womanizing, gambling, drunkard, and unable to, as he put it, '...detect horse manure if he stepped in it.'

After a falling out, Doctor Watson fires Kincaid, and decides to go it alone as 'The Crime Doctor'. Guess what? The legend of Holmes has grown so large and become ensconced so deeply within the public psyche that no one takes Watson seriously, and even his publisher threatens to sue if Watson reveals the truth of the situation publicly. Not only that, but a rather important case involving the financial integrity of the British Empire has surfaced, one involving the nefarious Professor Moriarty, and Holmes is the only man for the job. Watson finds himself in the humbling position of bringing Kincaid back for what will be one last performance.

Kingsley and Caine play their parts perfectly, and are supported by a wonderful cast including Jeffery Jones as Inspector Lestrade, Paul Freeman as Moriarty, Lysette Anthony, and Peter Cook. The dialogue is witty, and even though the plot a bit thin in some areas, the film works wonderfully as a farcical tale with just the right amounts of slapstick and tongue in cheek humor. A completely professional job done by everyone all around. My favorite part of the film was the notion of Watson using Holmes to keep Inspector Lastrade busy tracking down pointless leads while Watson performed the real detection at the crime scene. I was laughing hard when Holmes was on all fours inspecting the pattern of a rug with the baffled inspector right next to him, trying to get the jump on the master detective.

I was a little disappointed in the release of this film on DVD, as I thought the picture and sound quality could have been better. Also, why is there only a full screen release available? Special features are virtually non-existent with the inclusion of a trailer for the film. MGM usually does a pretty good job with their releases, but they seemed to have dropped the ball here. Anyway, this is a great little film, and worth watching if only to see two fine actors at work

Cookieman108 ... Read more

Description

From DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS to BEACHES, superstar Bette Midler has wowed audiences worldwide with her music, humor, and charisma! Midler now delivers a most engaging performance in her latest hit, STELLA! Tough and fiercely independent, Stella discovers that she is pregnant after a brief relationship with Dr. Stephen Dallas, but is too proud to accept a marriage of convenience from him or her well-meaning best friend, John Goodman (O BROTHER, WHERE ARE THOU?). Ready to face life without regrets, Stella single-handedly raises her loving daughter Jenny (Trini Alvarado). Through the years, the two share a very special relationship, until Stella faces the truth -- that she cannot provide her daughter with a life of advantages her wealthy father can give her. STELLA is a warm, humorous, and thoroughly entertaining film that speaks to the heart of all audiences! ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Not so Good as Beaches
The movie that followed Bette Midler's highly successful BEACHES, this doesn't work as well mainly because it is not as good as the original and it was set in the 60s when it could have easily worked in the time period the movie was filmed. Bette plays a mother who can't give the best to her daughter and slowly pushes her away which causes her daughter to go to her father to live. Bette doesn't seem to really fit this role as a more dramatic actress such as Susan Sarandon or Meryl Streep would have effectively fit this role. John Goodman and Trini Alvarado as well as Martha Mason and Stephen Collins all give good performances that very well keep the movie going. BUt the movie is too slow and too old-looking and there is only so much that anyone including Bette could do. See Bette's Beaches or FOR THE BOYS instead.

Bette Midler shines as Stella
STELLA stars Bette Midler. It's a touching movie about the bond between mother and daughter. After a fling with a doctor, she becomes pregnant, and refuses to accept any charity from him. As Jenny (her daughter) gets older, she allows her to have a relationship with her father. Stella and Jenny share special bond, and there is laughter and tears along the way. When Jenny becomes a teenager, and closer to her dad, Stella realizes she can't provide the life for Jenny that her father could, so she sends her off. I thought the ending of the movie was very sad, maybe not intended but I thought it was. Lots of laughs in between the tears.

a true heart-rending classic
This is an amazing movie that will keep you spellbound...seriously!!! If you have a heart, there is no way you won't be moved by this movie. It incorporates all the faces of Bette Midler as the protagonist; she is hilarious despite her loneliness, proud and yet humble, and selfish and yet so giving! Watch this movie!!! Trini Alvarado also gives a great performance!!!

OUR FAMILY'S FAVORITE!
This is one of our family's favorite movie. It's sad and funny and it just has always been there as a reminder of parent's love. Being two sisters we ove how the father always reminds his daughter that his shoulder to cry on is what she needs. Great acting! Highly recommended!

good actors, sad plot
This movie shows a mother's sacrificial love for her daughter, but overall I thought the movie was quite depressing. Although [bette midler] succeeds in raising her daughter alone, it seems to put her in a box as a loser who can't make it no matter what. I did like Stephen Collins in the movie (Midler's daughter's father) alot, and the acting was good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After a nine-year break from the genre that made him an international star (the Western just before this one was The Outlaw Josey Wales, from 1976), Clint Eastwood returned in this gritty Western, crafted in the tradition of Shane and High Noon. Eastwood directed and stars as the nameless stranger known only as "Preacher," because he rides into a beleaguered mining town wearing a clerical collar. He's either an agent of death or an angel of mercy, and the echoes of Shane ring loud and clear when he comes to the aid of independent miners who are being terrorized by a local tycoon (Richard Dysart) and his ruthless band of hired guns.Befriended by a miner (Michael Moriarty) and idolized by the miner's wife and daughter (played by Carrie Snodgress and Sydney Penny, respectively), the "Pale Rider" sparks the defiant spirit of the underdog miners and takes after the bad guys with single-minded purpose. Digital video disc offers standard and widescreen formats and a remastered soundtrack. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (31)

Pale Western
CLINT EASTWOOD returned to the saddle after almost a decade with the film PALE RIDER. He alternated duties between acting the mysterious dark hero only known as "Preacher" and as the films director. And in the end, PALE RIDER is a sturdy Western. It also tends to be predictable as most Western's are, since they travel by such strict mythic guidelines.

Land hungry villains relentlessly harass some prospectors. Just when their spirit is about to break, The Preacher arrives and revitalizes the village, giving them the desire to fight. Of course the powerful villainous leader, Coy LaHood (Richard Dysart) wants their inspiration wiped out so he brings in some hired guns to eliminate the Preacher. And, like so many other Westerns, it will all be sorted out by a gunfight in the middle of town.

PALE RIDER is a simple story with the exception of an awkward love triangle involving a mother and daughter. That alone is the only drawback to the solid storytelling. Clint himself emits extreme star power over the film, even with a minimum of dialogue. And of course, this is a must for his core fans and those who love westerns.

The DVD offers both a widescreen and pan and scan transfer which loses much of the beautiful expansive scenery. But in both transfers, there are problems in the dark end signaling a standard transfer. The audio is only sufficient for a DVD. But, the film doesn't play like a spectacle so none of that matters. There is nothing of major note in the arena of extra features except a text discussion of Clint on Directing and trailers for the film as well as Eastwood's next Western, the Oscar Winning UNFORGIVEN.

A Good, Though Cliched, Western. 3.5 Stars
The late 70's-early 80's were not very kind towards westerns, and it was feared that the genre might be gone forever. But then, in 1985, Lawrence Kasdan's masterpiece "Silverado" blazed across the screen, and westerns were back again, unfortuanately for a rather short-lived comeback (until 1994, with the last great western: "Tombstone"). "Silverado" was not alone, however, because that same year Clint Eastwood also returned to the saddle after a nine-year period (his last, "The Outlaw Josey Wales", was back in 1976). And though not among his best, "Plae Rider" makes for worthy entertainment. The story concerns a group of prospectors who are constantly harassed by the neighboring millionare and his thugs, warning the miners to clear out or else. But the prospectors have held strong, though none of them are sure how long they can keep it up. One day, however, a mysterious stranger rides into town (sound familiar?) and decides to help them out. The whole film is basically nothing more than a rehash/merging of "Shane" and "High Plains Drifter" (Eastwood's first directorial western), with Eastwood repeating his signature role (no, not Dirty Harry) of the mysterious gunman without a name. I know that critics have declared Clint Eastwood one of the greatest actors who has ever lived (and I fondly agree), this is getting a little old, isn't think?! I mean, the man has played the part a hundred times over! "A Fistful of Dollars", "For A Few Dollars More", "The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly", "Two Mules For Sister Sara", "High Plains Drifter". . . . . . . the list goes on and on.

Okay, those were the cons, and now for the pros. However unoriginal the plot is, it has little sprinkles of the supernatural here and there, and the film possesses the dark, errie atmosphere that was found in "High Plains Drifter". And this time, the stranger is a preacher (or claims to be). And, like Eastwood's first western, you never really can tell: is the stranger just an ordinary man out for revenge, or is he a shadow of the past from beyond the grave? Whatever your opinion on it, the whole feel of it is really cool. As usual, Clint is at his squint-eyed best, and the rest of the cast does an overall great job as well. It's really nice to see John Russell ("Rio Bravo") back in a western again. Just that whole thing with the Preacher and the teenage girl I found weird, out of place, and simply pointless. The climactic showdown holds some suspense, but it's nothing to get excited about.

"Pale Rider" has been placed under the awesome Clint Eastwood Collection brand of DVD's. But it's a bit of a disappointment, especially after buying/viewing the CEC of "The Outlaw Josey Wales". While that western received a seamless remastering job as well as special features worthy of the title Special or Collector's Edition, this DVD's picture and sound quality are only passable. It's a bit blury, and the darks (especially during the night scenes) seem more blue than black. And all you get is production notes and a trailer. Oh well; I guess the better the movie, the better the DVD treatment.

Conclusion: If you're an Eastwood fan, buy it. If you're partial to originality, go get "Shane" or "High Plains Drifter" instead.

an homage to clint westerns
yes the story is similar to shane (although the preacher was
(likely) dead before the film starts, compared to shane who
was (likely) dead as the film ends)

but if anything this was more like a retrospective of clint's
western characters, with a hint of Dirty Harry thrown in
for good measure

the parallel with High Plains Drifter is obvious; the ending
where LaHood gets shot is straight out of Joe Kidd. the character
of the preacher is a pastiche of the man-with-no-name; the way

the last deputy is dispatched looks like a scene from Hang 'Em
High (and after all, by then he had fired 6 shots -- or was it
only 5?)

High Non redux
Clint Eastwood appears - looms - in this gritty Western in the cowboy tradition of High Noon and Shane. Eastwood also directed Pale Rider, a movie in which he's known only as Preacher, because when he appears in town, he's wearing a clerical collar. Hard for the beleaguered miners (who are being terrorized by a smarmy land-grabbing tycoon and his band of local baddies) to figure out at first is whether Eastwood is a good guy or a bad guy. There's the requisite pretty woman and adoring child who belong to one of the miners, and it gives Eastwood to prove his intensions are high-minded.
Classic Eastwood, classic cowboy, classic classic.

Decent Eastwood Western is hurt in comparison to Shane
Pale Rider is worth watching, but unfortunately, it draws too heavily on George Stevens's classic western Shane, which just might be the greatest western ever made. It is well-acted and nicely shot, but it really can't hold a candle to Shane.

Three stars. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Cheesy But Fun
This is a good movie if you are looking to relax, have a few laughs, and not use your brain. There are some "cringe" moments which some consider funny that I did not like which kept me from rating this higher (and almost caused it to drop a notch). But moments like "doing the nasty" and the thing Keith David's character does to some cops is seriously wrong and funny. I enjoyed watching Emilor and Charlie work together. I'm glad Amazon.com has put this back out for sale!

men at awesome work
this move was the most funny movie and yet it was heartwarming in a way

Alot of laughs
This is a pretty funny story and has some great actors in it. Although it could be considered a little on the odd side it definitely will get you laughing. There's always something going wrong and the comedy never stops!

a comedy classic
I've been waiting for this to be released on DVD. The movie is a hoot!!! Especially love the "Louis" character. "I hate cops- I hate rent-a cops too". "Now if Mr.Sneaky-man would come up here and stand next to Mr.Bone-head". I just received my copy the other day, and was wondering if anyone else has this problem.......there is no chapter index sheet in the box. Just the DVD.

best movie ever
all i got to say is that this movie is so bad ass my buddy and i are going as sheen and estevez for halloween. ... Read more

Reviews (64)

The Innocents
That Atom Egoyan is one of the very best directors making movies today is beyond reproach. If he had only made the elegant and stunning "The Sweet Hereafter" his place among the pantheon of directors would be assured. So what happened with "Ararat?"
In a nutshell, "Ararat" is too complicated; filled with too many sub-plots and extraneous material not central to the plot. It's as if Agoyan, in his need to set the record straight about the Armenian Genocide says too much. The problem with all of this is that it takes away from the dramatic core of the movie: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
The Armenian Genocide by the Turks at the beginning of the 20th. Century is innately rife with sorrow, pathos and human despair but Atom Egoyan would have better served his people and his subject had he made a simple, straightforward dramatic film based on Clarence Ussher's Diaries, an American doctor and an eye-witness.
Several story elements do work, though: the story of Arshile Gorky and his mother become a touchstone for the entire film: it's emotional center. Also, Raffi's (David Alpay) plot line with the customs official (Christopher Plummer) though realistically implausible is nonetheless dramatically true. Some of the performances are also first rate: David Alpay, Christopher Plummer and Charles Aznavour as the director of the film-within-a-film.
As in most of Egoyan's films, events and how they are recalled and thereby inevitably interpreted by a group of people is at the core of "Ararat.": Recollection as a way of eventually getting at the truth of a thing.
For the most part, "Ararat" is well thought out and humane and it definitely brings to the forefront a piece of history many of us know nothing about. But ultimately "Ararat" does not carry it's grim burden well: telling the horrific story of the decimation of a people; a story too long hidden away in the history books (if there at all) of these heroic Armenians many of whom survive today and remain irrevocably scarred by it.

Remarkable and Multi-dimensional
This film is a work on many levels dealing with various social and political issues. The movie within a movie concept is successfully executed by Egoyan. There are also numerous talented actors in this film such as the main character David Alpay and even popular singer Charles Aznavour.

It seems as though some reviewers who gave this movie a negative review have not actually seen the movie. These are individuals who attempt to sabotage works dealing with the Armenian Genocide. However, a few Turkish scholars have risked their lives and accepted the Genocide and believe it is the first step to accept their history and actions of their ancestors. Also, contrary to what one reviewer wrote, this movie is based on a HISTORICAL ACCOUNT by the American physician Dr. Clarence Ussher who set up a hospital in Van and witnessed the horrors of Genocide.

The bottom line is this movie is very thought provoking as the New York Times reviewer wrote. This is one of those movies where you will find yourself trying to answer questions long after you've seen the film. Thus, one viewing will not suffice.

art or artifice?
Armenian-Canadian and Egyptian-born film director Atom Egoyan's film Ararat on "the Armenian genocide", while intricately constructed in his usual style, is a disservice to the ideals of progressive constructionism and historically faithful fiction. In this context it is important to consider how the Armenian propaganda machine and extremist groups regularly abuse Armenian art in order to reach their political aims. These fringe elements of the Armenian diaspora (especially in North America) over the 20th century have built the expat Armenian identity squarely on anti-Turkish feelings and this movie works to buttress that aim. The director's life and growing up in Canada as a teenage immigrant also impacts the movie in predictable ways, and is worth commenting on. Egoyan is essentially an identity-convert. He refused his Armenian identity as a teenager and made efforts to be a 'normal' Canadian. He did not speak Armenian. However in college, radical Armenian nationalists helped him rebuild his national identity on powerful anti-Turkish sentiments. Now they could bond around a common enemy. He was Armenian because he was anti-Turkish and vica versa. The nationalist trend in his character became even more significant when he married a beautiful but fanatic Lebanese Armenian, Arsinée Khanjian, who is cast as Ani in the movie. There's nary a single member of the cast who isn't caught up in the politics and this shows.

The 'genocide legacy' in particular has played a crucial role in Egoyan's self-identification like many Armenians in the diaspora, descendants of rural folk forced out of their ancestral lands as refugees by events beyond their control or comprehension. Though almost none of these millions of North American descendants of displaced Armenians had ever been to Turkey (or Armenia for that matter, though this would have been more difficult under the Soviets), many of them continued to believe and financially support the notion that the Turks had attempted to obliterate their race. Mind you these very same Turks and Armenians are descendants of Ottomans, a very genetically diverse and inclusive group (not to be dismissed by glib theories of rape and pillage - cf. Semino et al. Science vol. 290 10 Nov 2000, for an analysis of European Y chromosomes and human migration) who despite early military successes were unarguably one of the most tolerant conquerors in recorded history. It is deeply ironic that these people would nevertheless sabotage their own community after hundreds of years of peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and collaboration in art, philosophy, literature, and trade. Most of the fruits of this cultural collaboration is unfortunately unavailable on the web or outside the realm of academia, but not music- see "Istanbul 1925" (a compilation CD by Traditional Crossroads available through Amazon) for a delightful historical example, coincidentally reproduced from the original recordings in the US by Armenian-Americans.

In essence Egoyan has exaggerated the past in order to legitimize his identity, in the cultural obsession which is the primary trait of "modern" Armenian art.

Egoyan bases his script on the (1917) book by Clarence Ussher, who worked as an American missionary in the eastern Ottoman Empire during WWI. However, the script deviates considerably from Ussher's accounts, beyond the boundaries of artistic expression especially for such a politically charged historical subject. Egoyan chooses to focus in his film-within-a-film on the Armenian revolt in the Ottoman city of Van in 1915. However the script conveniently neglects the fact that the actual revolt ended with the victory of Armenians, when the Ottoman governor of Van was forced to flee and was replaced by an Armenian at the conclusion of a bloody joint attack by the Russian army, which occupied the city joined by local Armenian bandits and militia. This Armenian-Russian joint attack resulted in the death of more than 20,000 Van residents, none of whom were armed combatants. Of course these historical 'macro' facts also covered in Ussher's book did not fit well into the victim's psychology which pervades the movie.

Ararat, though I hate to say it, is a typical Armenian propaganda film (see also Midnight Express) and will damage the ongoing attempts for Armenian-Turkish dialogue for the benefit of humanity, ie. for the people who actually have to live in these countries and not kick back on their leather couch in a US/Canadian suburb and pop in a DVD for entertainment/shock value, or for self-serving members of the diaspora hungry for victim psychology consumables. As other unbiased movie critics will attest, Ararat is one of Egoyan's worst films in terms of art value. A good product requires effort, subtlety and meticulousness. Extreme prejudice, ideological perniciousness and cartoonish depictions of good and evil do not improve the artistic quality of a film. That's not to claim Egoyan made this movie out of sheer hatred. The point is that he is compelled to become the voice of the proselytisers and as such does not really attempt with his art to reach into the nature of societal and emotional tensions that underlie cultural obsessions. As he states in interviews he refuses to discuss 'the genocide issue'. When you reject dialogue or debate on an issue you can't claim to make a critical film on the subject. It's likely that extremist Armenian elements within the diaspora acting through his wife and friends (not to mention Bob Lantos) have put enormous pressure on Egoyan to make a film like Ararat. This pressure has been building from decades of frustration with other prominent Armenian diaspora filmmakers (see Mamoulian, Kazan or Verneuil). Several years before this film Egoyan had even mentioned in an interview that he was not a historical filmmaker and that he would not be making a film on the events of 1915.

It's clear that he eventually succumbed to the pressure. Still, external forces aside it does not justify this intentionally obscure and convoluted effort because as an intellectual and high profile Armenian-_Canadian_ artist, more so an Officer of the Order of Canada, he has a responsibility to probe the underlying elements with integrity and create a conduit to bring together Armenians and Turks through visual art in reconciliation and self-awareness. To build such an outlet would after all be in the spirit of the Canadian national character.

Deep, captivating, emotional!
Very few movies leave a deep impact lately, as this one did. Not only because of my armenian background, but the composition and the human interaction. I had to watch it twice to make sure I did not miss anything and still did not catch all the nuances untill I listened to the commentary. I'm swept away! Recommended it to all my friends and family and will share it at work with my non-armenian friends!
Atom, thank you!

The Complete Picture..
I liked this movie because unlike most movies about massacre and persecution in the Old World, this movie follows up on the persecuted peoples, in this case the Armenians, as they find the life in their new country-of-refusge, Canada. As is the case with real, live human beings, escaping persecution to safety and "freedom" is not enough to address the complexity of the human soul. All of the Armenian-Canadians portrayed in the film live in a New World context and suffer from New World problems along with the alienations and isolations of New World lives. As in all Egoyan movies, most of the film protagonists in this exsemble work do not exist merely as didactic sterotypes. They breath, their relationship to their heritage is compromised in the personal life, they suffer. They suffer in a way which is special to the New World, Canada and The United States alike.

Instead of bringing us a dry, linear account, the story of the Armenian massacre in Eastern Turkey is told indirectly, through the filming of a film about it. In many instances the viewer is confused, not certain if it actually is a flashback to the actual past or merely the scenes of the massacre being filmed for the film. Does it matter? What is the relationship between the actual events and the events portrayed in the film? One keeps wondering about that.

Like all Egoyan films, the production is professional and smooth. The themes of his earlier movies about emotional disconnection and the use of video and vice to overcome that disconnection appear here as well. That is perhaps what makes this movie special: In exploring his own Armenian heritage, he never drops the ball of his old themese and concerns. He never forgets or ignores thay they are all in Canada now and that the fact that the Armenians were persecuted in the Old World, does not solve their problems of existentiality and their own estrangement in a New World Society.

Egoyan offers us a new model for the making of films about cataclyismic, life ruining problems. I wish that movies of this type could have been made about the Jewish Holocaust and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. ... Read more

Reviews (528)

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

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

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

and yes it is escapist and all good fun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

In spite of its atrociously misleading packaging, Exotica is abeguiling mystery by enigmatic Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan, in whichpeople and their relationships are not what they seem. What at first appearto be disparate stories of a tormented tax auditor, a lonely pet-shop owner,and a sensitive stripper and her coworkers gradually merge to reveal alarger, interconnected portrait. The sequences involving Mia Kirshner'sschoolgirl stripper are particularly engrossing because of her character'sintelligence and the scenes' deeper subtext. Indeed, Exotica is lessabout stripping than about fragile human relationships, and it is not untilthe truly revelatory final scene that we are able to fully absorb the film'sdeeper meaning. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (51)

A fascinating and highly provocative mosaic
First of all, Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan's lavishly intense film is NOT to be mistaken for "Showgirls," nor for any triple-x movie (although it IS R-rated).
Although the film presents certain elements of mystery (and one must pay extraordinary attention to both detail and innuendo), the intensity of the characters and plot propel the film across several levels. The viewer hangs on every word, both to pick up (almost desperately) clues toward understanding the over-lapping stories, but also because the characterizations are so thoroughly riveting.
Bruce Greenwood displays excellent range as he portrays both a care-free young family man as well as that character in middle age, besought with layer upon layer of tragedy and "baggage."
Mia Kirshner similarly impresses as we see her character at various stages: as a troubled pre-teen, replete with pony tail and braces, and also as both a mature college graduate and, quite convincingly, as an exotic dancer.
Elias Koteas is stunning as an anguished and lost club DJ/poet.
Don McKellar and Arsinée Khanjian are also quite brilliant in supporting roles.
Be prepared to want to immediately view the film a second time -- to do so is not merely repetition but serves as an opportunity to continue to fathom the depths of the characters and the film's unrelentingly passionate intrigue.

Obsession and desire, Atom Egoyan's best to date.
An obsession is not unlike a dream, in the sense that you can find in both a very peculiar stance where sensibility and madness go hand in hand. But any attempt, by man or woman, to tread new roads to and from such places is often futile, simply because the journey to such underminded conditions is always one of self-discovery and self-torture.

Quite possibly his most sucessful movie to date, Atom Egoyan's marvelously written EXOTICA delves deeply into the world of pain and obsession, painting for us a canvas in which the characters and their stories are never static or cold, but organic and contrived. Painfully marred by their fractured lives and by their fears.

EXOTICA tells the story of three very enigmatic and confused individuals. Francis (Bruce Greenwood), an obsessed man who recently went through a very traumatic experience; Christina (Mia Kirshner), an erotic table dancer who has a very special relationship with Francis, and finally Eric the club's D.J. (powerfully played by Elias Koteas), who seems in turn to be obsessed with Christina.

As I was watching the movie, I quickly became enthralled with the story, if for no other reason simply because I was absorbed at how very well portrayed the characters were. It seems that at some point or another we all go through times when our own existance seems to flicker, something breaks inside which gnaws away our sanity. The only way to prevent our destruction is to see ourselves reflected in someone else's life.

This is the story told in EXOTICA. Don't be discouraged by the name, the movie is very enjoyable and fun. I was particularly amazed by Elias Koteas performance. The DVD edition is nicely presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1, the video transfer is solid throughout and even though there are no extras to speak of, I think the movie itself is worth its price (or at least a rent). Give it a try, I recommend it.

Shallow to deep.
One has to wonder if those who rated this movie poorly 'got it'. I gave this to a co-worker and he was highly confused at the end because he missed a critical link. For myself, I'm not sure what I expected. I knew I liked Mia Kirshner, and the pick-up of the DVD in a bargain bin was a "what the heck" purchase though I'd read reviews that seemed to promise a dark, disturbing, thought provoking movie.

Well, the packaging, as alluded to in the description, makes this seem like a standard erotic thriller. The addition of much of the action taking place in a strip club only seems to reinforce this as being standard, even shallow, fare. It's anything but. It might not be believable as a story, but the characters themselves are. Not only that, but fittingly enough, the shallowest seeming character through much of the film turns out to be potentially the most complex. It wasn't until after the end credits had rolled, and while still wrapping my mind around the whole canvas of the movie, it clicked as to why the character may have acted in a certain way.

I'll add a disclaimer here for anyone interested in the movie. If you are at all squeamish about the concepts of pedophelia, homosexuality, strip clubs, etc... well, just be aware that you might feel highly uncomfortable. I only plead discomfort to the first and parts were painful to watch even though nothing explicitly happens (and as is the case of the whole movie, nothing is anywhere near as simple or obvious as it first appears).

Highly recommended if you want a thought provoking, dark movie that at times makes you do a mental doubletake.

Don't waste your time with this trash
I was browsing movies on Amazon looking for something new and different to watch, using customer reviews to decide if it might be worth my time or not. When the movie started, I already knew this one was a mistake. I sat through the whole thing (another mistake) and in the end I felt very cheated out of a buck and a couple hours of my life I could of spent doing something else.

The acting, characters, script, and plot were pathetic. The climatic ending that people keep mentioning wasn't a big deal at all. This movie was not artistic as some claim. It wasn't thrilling or suspenseful. It was just a bad attempt at a bad story with bad actors. Move right along to the next movie.

Egoyan's swan Song!!!
O.K. this film sarts off with a elderly Kung Fu instructor that, at the end of his life, realizes that his five students could become evil. Each of the students has become a master Kung Fu fighter and has specialized in one of five deadly techniques. The problem is that the master has no idea who each of the " deadly venoms " are now that they have been able to leave the secret Kung Fu school......oh, wait! This is Atom Egoyan's Exotica I'm writing about. Sorry!

Exotica made me fall into a deep, deep sleep. I had a dream about a real strip club. It was NOTHING like Egoyan's over the top exotic wonderland. In reality strip clubs, strippers and strip club DJs couldn't be LESS interesting. The average strip club is , at best, entertaining. There is nothing exotic or entertaining about Exotica. I wonder if Egoyan has ever been in a strip club? Well, I'm sure he's too cultured for that kind of thing.

5 stars for the the Shaw Brother's Kung Fu classic Five Deadly Venoms! Top notch Kung Fu !!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

After the box-office success of Phenomenon, John Travolta continued to charm audiences with this 1996 comedy-fantasy in which he plays a grubby angel who's go