Reviews (79)

Definitely worth seeing. Worth owning? Questionable.
Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

PEACENIK HOFFMAN GOES BONKERS
In 1971 Sam Peckinpah's controversial STRAW DOGS was censored by the British Board of Film Classification. The cuts made it even more provocative than Peckinpah intended. Consequently, Straw Dogs was labeled by the media as an obscene, misogynistic piece of filmmaking. Regarding the uncut American version, even the esteemed Pauline Kael said it's "the first American film that is a fascist work of art."

"Straw Dogs" stands as one of Peckinpah's best, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle between an artist's freedom and suppression by the powers that be. But more than that, it's a brilliant and harrowing exploration of man's primitive animal nature and its implied, inherent violence.

The transfer's clean and sharp. Extras include an 80 minute look at Peckinpah's films and a new interview with Susan George, who talks about her daring, controversial performance of a woman who for a few brief moments seemed to enjoy being raped.

What does "Straw Dogs" mean? Is it from the saying: Behind every coward's eyes burn straw dogs? If so, what does that mean? What are "straw dogs"?

Another thing. Recently (of this writingt) Dustin Hoffman has made a point of speaking out about certain military operations to free brutalized, oppressed people. Personally, I'd rather not know what an actor thinks and feels about politics. However, in "Straw Dogs" Hoffman shows what it takes to fight evil aggression. His screen performance will outlive his words.

Recommended.

HORRIBLE!!!
I agree with another reviewer in that you'll either love this or hate it. But I think most people will hate it. (Note: I have nothing against violence in films, and I liked the Kill Bill movies.) The main problem here is that almost every character in this film is utterly unlikable, and terrible things happen to the two characters who are likeable. But even that wouldn't be so bad, if the film had a message.

Dustin Hoffman's character is a whiney, wimpy, and mean spirited person who, when he finally decides to act, he does so for all of the wrong reasons & defends the wrong person. I end up hating him MORE than the bad guys.
I rank this as the most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even below "Short Cuts".
However, if you liked "Short Cuts", you'd probably like this, and vice versa.

A Remarkable Film Which Stands the Test of Time.
This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Another amazing masculine character study by Peckinpah.
It's not at all hard to see the connection between Peckinpah's two greatest movies: Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch. Both are studies of what it means to be a man, a look at the masculine and sometimes violent male nature. Basically, Straw Dogs is about an extremely timid American intellectual who decides to escape the Vietnam-fueled violence of the USA by moving into the small English town where his wife was raised. However, the man soon realizes that violence is pretty much omnipresent, when the men he hires to fix up his new home begin pushing him and his wife around. I won't give away the ending, but if you know Peckinpah you can probably guess.

of course, most people will probably want to see the movie for its infamous rape scene (which got the film banned in the UK, where it was filmed). Not only is the rape graphic, but the victim actually appears to enjoy it; at least at first. Here I must disagree with the lengthy rant of a prior reviewer when I say that the rape scene is not simply an exercise in mysoginy, but rather helps to show just how immasculinated the main character has become. Throughout the first half of the movie we see his wife slowly flirting with the contractors (at one point even letting them see her topless). This suggests quite obviously that she has become so disgruntled with her husbands lack of backbone that she is actively seducing the very masculine contractors, and the fact that she enjoys the rape is simply the logical extreme of her desire to have a truly "manly" partner. Of course, those who've seen the movie know that eventually she's punished for her covetry of man's aggressive nature.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. In fact, I'd suggest you get it ASAP, since the Criterion version has been out of print for months now and won't likely be available for much longer. You need a strong stomach to watch it, certainly, and the pace is very deliberate, but those who have patience and put effort into understanding the meaning of the film will be very well rewarded. ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Definitely worth seeing. Worth owning? Questionable.
Dustin Hoffman is a living legend. You can read any of the other excellent reviews here to get a good idea of what the movie is about, so instead I'm going to give you 'the truth as I see it' about why you should see this movie.
Obviously, Dustin Hoffman plays the role of David wonderfully. Susan George does a good job, although it would have been nice for this intended town hottie to have a pretty smile along with her pretty physique. But I guess that's the catch 22 in selecting a British cast, especially from that day and age.
The controversial rape scene in this movie, is almost paralyzingly disturbing. (Yes, paralyzingly...I don't care if it's not a word.) It's disgusting really. It was also very confusing for me, because of the fact that she was saying no, but the viewer actually does get the impression that she doesn't mean no. She kisses her 'rapist' and pulls him closer, and she invites him in in the first place, and then tells him not to leave. A very awkward occurrence. When the second guy rapes her, we understand clearly that she does not want him, but still she seems to have some strange bond with the first guy (apparently and ex-boyfriend or something) as they have a sort of strangely mutually understanding chemistry throughout the movie. This was one of the most disturbing scenes in any movie I've seen recently. It doesn't help that all the while we get up close facial expressions from her, showing a sense of horror and disgust, but at the same time thrilling satisfaction.
Basically, she gives in very easily when there is any sense of punishment as a consequence of resistance. She is trapped in a kind of school-girl mentality, playing childish pranks and teasing the men by showing her breasts and underwear to them. I'm guessing this is related to the way she was treated when she was that age. David, on the other hand, is a controlled, maturing man, trying to focus on his work. He doesn't give in so easily, and although some have said that he plays the role of mouse time and time again until he finally emerges as a 'real man' in the end of the movie, I personally feel that he is not the timid guy everyone thinks him to be, but rather that circumstance does not allow him to show his manliness (for example, when his wife brings in the bowl of milk with the beers). He is more confused than anything because he doesn't believe there is any real reason to confront the hooligans, until the execution of Kitty.
Anyway, like a lot of other people I was very confused by the ending. The implications of David defending his house, his wife, his honor, and his sense of manhood by protecting a man that actually was guilty of murder (albeit accidental), raise a whole other topic of discussion.
The violence, with the exception of the rape scene, is pretty tame according to today's standards, but the psychological horror is in full throttle here. This is a thinker's horror/suspense (not horror in the conventional sense of the word) movie.
The laughter of the crazy hooligan was really annoying to me. I'm sure many people will disagree with my views on the movie, but I think it's important to look at the movie for what it IS, as well as what it means.
I'm definitely glad to have seen this movie, and would highly recommend it, but I don't believe I'll be adding it to my collection. I might see it again one day, but movies this disturbing and confusing aren't usually on my list of favorite flicks to cuddle up to late at night.

PEACENIK HOFFMAN GOES BONKERS
In 1971 Sam Peckinpah's controversial STRAW DOGS was censored by the British Board of Film Classification. The cuts made it even more provocative than Peckinpah intended. Consequently, Straw Dogs was labeled by the media as an obscene, misogynistic piece of filmmaking. Regarding the uncut American version, even the esteemed Pauline Kael said it's "the first American film that is a fascist work of art."

"Straw Dogs" stands as one of Peckinpah's best, and a reminder of the ongoing struggle between an artist's freedom and suppression by the powers that be. But more than that, it's a brilliant and harrowing exploration of man's primitive animal nature and its implied, inherent violence.

The transfer's clean and sharp. Extras include an 80 minute look at Peckinpah's films and a new interview with Susan George, who talks about her daring, controversial performance of a woman who for a few brief moments seemed to enjoy being raped.

What does "Straw Dogs" mean? Is it from the saying: Behind every coward's eyes burn straw dogs? If so, what does that mean? What are "straw dogs"?

Another thing. Recently (of this writingt) Dustin Hoffman has made a point of speaking out about certain military operations to free brutalized, oppressed people. Personally, I'd rather not know what an actor thinks and feels about politics. However, in "Straw Dogs" Hoffman shows what it takes to fight evil aggression. His screen performance will outlive his words.

Recommended.

HORRIBLE!!!
I agree with another reviewer in that you'll either love this or hate it. But I think most people will hate it. (Note: I have nothing against violence in films, and I liked the Kill Bill movies.) The main problem here is that almost every character in this film is utterly unlikable, and terrible things happen to the two characters who are likeable. But even that wouldn't be so bad, if the film had a message.

Dustin Hoffman's character is a whiney, wimpy, and mean spirited person who, when he finally decides to act, he does so for all of the wrong reasons & defends the wrong person. I end up hating him MORE than the bad guys.
I rank this as the most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even below "Short Cuts".
However, if you liked "Short Cuts", you'd probably like this, and vice versa.

A Remarkable Film Which Stands the Test of Time.
This is a really interesting film on many levels. It's not perfect; but, few works of modern art are. Nevertheless, this work stands the test of time. Firstly, one of the most remarkable things about this film is the absolutely Hitchcockian editing, which is remotely primitivistic, but strangely compelling: the editing engenders a peculiar ambience to the film right from the beginning brawl scene in the pub. Then, from the denoument sequence--which begins with the equally primitive church function and runs through to the climax and epilogue--the editing is nothing less than fine art. Secondly, the sets of the pub and the farm house are very convincing and interesting in their own right: there's plenty to look at. Also, the outdoor scenes with the ocean in background and the Cornish village all have the verisimilitude of realism. Thirdly, the soundtrack is not at all bad. Fourthly, the acting is good: of course, Hoffman is nothing less than brilliant; Peter Vaughn is excellent as the burly boorish Englishman; and Susan George isn't bad: she begins weak, but by the middle of the film she's quite okay, and from the denoument mentioned above, she's fine. Also, David Warner as the half-witted cripple is excellent--though not given notice in the credits. Lastly, the story is fairly well formed and possibly plausible--though that's no recommendation for fiction! It is possible in realistic or naturalistic fiction that a university professor might get a grant and take a semester or even a year off to do research; and this professor might want to go to some remote European destination where his wife has ancestral property by the sea, to get away from it all to do his thought-work; and it is possible that this professor might have married the woman out of sexual attraction, fully knowing that she had much less education than himself and was his intellectual inferior. But the plot has a quasi-classical form of characters with flawed personality traits; tension and contentious issues; incident follows upon incident resulting in a shattering climax, followed by an ambivalent coda. What more can one say?

Another amazing masculine character study by Peckinpah.
It's not at all hard to see the connection between Peckinpah's two greatest movies: Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch. Both are studies of what it means to be a man, a look at the masculine and sometimes violent male nature. Basically, Straw Dogs is about an extremely timid American intellectual who decides to escape the Vietnam-fueled violence of the USA by moving into the small English town where his wife was raised. However, the man soon realizes that violence is pretty much omnipresent, when the men he hires to fix up his new home begin pushing him and his wife around. I won't give away the ending, but if you know Peckinpah you can probably guess.

of course, most people will probably want to see the movie for its infamous rape scene (which got the film banned in the UK, where it was filmed). Not only is the rape graphic, but the victim actually appears to enjoy it; at least at first. Here I must disagree with the lengthy rant of a prior reviewer when I say that the rape scene is not simply an exercise in mysoginy, but rather helps to show just how immasculinated the main character has become. Throughout the first half of the movie we see his wife slowly flirting with the contractors (at one point even letting them see her topless). This suggests quite obviously that she has become so disgruntled with her husbands lack of backbone that she is actively seducing the very masculine contractors, and the fact that she enjoys the rape is simply the logical extreme of her desire to have a truly "manly" partner. Of course, those who've seen the movie know that eventually she's punished for her covetry of man's aggressive nature.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. In fact, I'd suggest you get it ASAP, since the Criterion version has been out of print for months now and won't likely be available for much longer. You need a strong stomach to watch it, certainly, and the pace is very deliberate, but those who have patience and put effort into understanding the meaning of the film will be very well rewarded. ... Read more

Description

In 1958, the members of Team Daedalus, a group of top Air Force test pilots, were ready to serve their country as the first Americans in space but were pushed aside. Now, as a Russian satellite fails and is about to crash into earth, Team Daedalus is back in action in a rescue mission. ... Read more

Reviews (138)

A pleasantly entertaining movie.
Originally, I had no burning desire to see this movie. However, after a couple of friends told me how good they thought it was, I decided I'd better go see it. I'm glad I did.

The byplay between Clint Eastwood and Tommy Lee Jones is reminiscent of that between Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in the ODD COUPLE movies. They just can't help but pick at each other. I think Donald Sutherland and James Garner could have had bigger roles in the movie (i.e., more lines), but they did a beautiful job with what they had.

The story in this movie was engaging. I found myself asking the same questions as the characters. The action and the comedy were both subtle and more effective for it. I think the strong point of this movie was its characters. They were all vivid and pretty well developed. Their motivations were easy to understand. The one shortcoming was that there was no emotional attachment to them and so one part of the climax didn't have the effect it should have.

All in all, this was a very enjoyable movie. If you're looking for a good laugh and a sense of wonder, this will definitely satisfy you. If you're looking for slap-bang action, go somewhere else.

Better with Age
Great story line, great gags, great characters, great visual effects. True. But a true gem to see 4 great actors of our time perform together quite possibly for the last time. Americans extend the hand of friendship to the Russians before the breakup of the USSR to repair the "only" communication satelite they have. But things dont go their way when truths begin to unfold some beginning on the ground but the most dramatic ones in orbit. Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland steal the movie with their trademark charismatic one liners. Enjoy it with a big bucket of buttered popcorn.

The Ripe Stuff
Maybe this would not have done as well if it had been called "The Ripe Stuff" but I think it would have been a great title for this one. It certainly brings back memories and shows what can be done when you take the best entertainment ideas and put them all together in a beautiful experience.

This movie makes for a fun evening. I would have loved for Hawk to have set up a tent and cooking fire on the moon but that would have spoiled it.

Not Bad.
'Space Cowboys' is a decent fiilm about aging astronauts traning to go back into space. The plot is a little silly, but one should treat it more like a science fiction film than a serious drama. The high point of the movie are the 4 veteran actors. The bring delight to the screen.

Not bad for a bunch of old guys!
This film was one of the few that I saw on the recommendation of my parents, who saw the movie in the theater. I then went to see it a week or so later. My dad told me the truth, as he always does- when it comes to his ratings on movies. I later bought this film on dvd. I've been told that older actors are having a hard time finding work these days. Well, in my opinion, it takes a movie like this one to prove that the old guys still can make a great movie. Hat's off to Clint Eastwood for making a killer movie! ... Read more

Reviews (61)

Great movie to start off the series
"Lethal Weapon" pairs one of the best duos ever seen in a movie. A suicidal cop (Mel Gibson) and an aging veteran cop (Danny Glover) have to team up to investigate a case of a woman that jumped from a building to her death. They also have to battle some bad guys and catch other criminals on their way. However, not all is smooth sailing when the duo first meets. They must learn to get along and accept each other's styles if they want to get the job done.

"Lethal Weapon" couldn't have been done much better to start the series off at a fast pace. It has a lot of funny and action packed sequences in it. Some of the best are when Mel Gibson shows his ability to shoot a gun at target practice and the ending sequence.

If you like the "Lethal Weapon" series or action movies with a sense of comedy in them, I recommend getting "Lethal Weapon."

A good film gets better
The recent release of the director's cut of Lethal Weapon add depth to the film by the inclusion of approximately 7 minutes of new scenes. The additions are in the beginning of the film when the characters are still being developed. In one scene, Gibson's character walks into the line of fire of a sniper, and in another he has a rather violent reaction to a commercial on TV. In the context of this portion of the movie, it further establishes the pain Gibson's character is going through and his mental state...is he crazy or just not caring what happens to him? Additional scenes also establish Glover's character's concern at growing old...does he still have it?

The balance of the film is pretty much unchanged. Lethal Weapon is a fun buddy action/comedy movie, but shines more than the sequels, which emphasized comedy and cartoonish action. Gibson and Glover actually act here, Gibson in particular in the scenes where he is struggling with his wife's death. The interplay between the actors makes this movie a cut above the standard action movie.

Lethal Weapon (1987)
Director: Richard Donner
Cast: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Gary Busey, Mitchell Ryan, Tom Atkins, Darlene Love.
Running Time: 105 minutes.
Rated R for cop violence and language.

The ultimate in the cop-buddy action flicks, Richard Donner's "Lethal Weapon" is still an essential part of the action-drama genre to this day. Mel Gibson stars as the unstable, suicidal cop who is still grieving the tragic death of his wife, but finds purpose when he is teamed with over-the-hill Sergeant Danny Glover to investigate the mysterious death of a small-time hooker that jumped/was thrown off a building.

As the duo dives deeper into the case, they realize they are in the middle of a tense, big-time drug traffic arrangement and they are up against some tough cookies (namely Gary Busey and Mitchell Ryan). Gibson is great as the reckless Martin Riggs, using his insane tendencies as adrenaline throughout the film, but often also showing a sofer, tender side that produces a lot of laughs. Glover is his equal as Murtaugh, who feels that he is at his last stand as a police officer, but tags along because he feels his duty as a cop is unfinished. An excellent script by Shane Black and an explosive, taut directorial effort from Donner. Has lost some of its mustard due to numerous sequels and imitations ("Rush Hour" anyone?), but still an extremely fun action-adventure that will delight all those who are Gibson fans and love to laugh and gasp.

One of the best of the genre
Lethal Weapon is one of the best films of the action genre, blending off-beat humor with surprisingly expressive acting and tense situations. Though much of the plot is over the top, and the casualness of the gunplay (as Danny Glover asks Mel: "have you ever met anyone you didn't kill?) seems like it should make the movie too unbelievable to be good, the humor with which the situations are treated pulls the film together easily. Even though the scenes added in the director's cut don't add up to a much longer movie, they do further the character development of Mel Gibson's character. Notably, the sniper scene shows the audience the extent of Gibson/Riggs' emotional disturbance, and lends a deeper character credibility during the confrontation between Riggs and Murtaugh after the rooftop jump, in which Riggs explains that the only thing restraining him from suicide is "the job." Riggs is seen more clearly in this version as a modern gunslinger, a victim of depressed and unstable victim of circumstance who decides daily to keep on living only because he stubbornly refusus to let the bad guys win. Glover plays well opposite, and he does a very good job interpreting a man confronting middle age, family responsibilities, and his responsibility and desire to be a good cop despite the changes in the world that are occuring around him.
The humor is, at the end, what ties this film together. the punchlines seem to come at the tensest moments, though for the most part they avoid the cheesy one liners before blowing the bad guys away. They simply arise out of the context, and do not feel artificial. Busey is also good, and he can really act the part of being one mean SOB. The action is spectacular, and the end fight scene is extremely well choreographed, as the crew hired one of the infamous Gracies (A brazillian family who define modern mixed martial arts) to help out with it. One of my favorite movies of all time, and easily the best of the series, Lethal Weapon defines the action genre in a way that hasn't been seen since.

The Greatest Action Film of All Time!!!!
This movie starts out the way all great movies should... From the moment you make eye contact with the nips you are sucked into it. And then theres the crazy awsomeness of Martin Riggs. The school sniper scene very cool. And then theres Roger Murtog a great character, we are introduced to him in the bath tub where his family seems to wind up hanging out with him every movie. Am I the only one who thinks they are alittle TOO loveing. All that aside Roger is an awsome character. The more these movies go on the more the better the chemistry between these two cops. By the time you get to the fight with Riggs and Mr. Joshua at the end you will be trying to keep from shouting at the screen and rooting Riggs on. Good stuff ... Read more

Amazon.com

In giving 1991's The Last Boy Scout a three-star review, critic Roger Ebert was properly performing his duty as an objective reporter, praising the filmmakers' professional skill while observing that "the only consistent theme of the film is its hatred of women." For the purposes of this capsule review, there's no such obligation to level-headed fairness; the simple truth is, this ultraviolent, action-packed vehicle for Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans is disgustingly rotten to the core. Not only is it fueled by a bitter and spiteful attitude toward women, it's also the kind of profanely vulgar movie that doesn't hesitate to put foul-mouthed children in the path of vicious thugs and potentially deadly situations. Willis plays an ex-secret service agent turned private detective who is hired to protect a stripper (Halle Berry) and then teams up with the stripper's boyfriend (Wayans), a disgraced NFL star who was kicked out of football for gambling. They catch on to a criminal plot leading all the way up to a corrupt football team owner who wants to legalize gambling on pro football. Willis and Wayans get in and out of all sorts of trouble along the way, and naturally there are plenty of explosions to go along with the brutal beatings, gunfire, and constant cussing. Shane Black (of Lethal Weapon infamy) set a Hollywood record (since broken, several times) for the sale price of his slick but vile screenplay, and Top Gun director Tony Scott handles the action with his trademark gloss and high-impact style. But, seriously, is this a movie that anyone could bear to watch twice? --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Much fun indeed.
Back in 1991 there was still only one way that studios could sell Bruce Willis and that was as various incarnations of his Die Hard hero. Even Eddie (Hudson) Hawkins had similarities to John McClane. Joe Hallenback is a sort of mix between McClane and Snake Plissken. Watching him mumble and grunt thru various near-deaths and close shaves makes for much fun.

Hallenback is a P.I. and scrounges for work wherever he can find it. So he takes up a job protecting a stripper named Cory and soon finds himself in a lot of trouble. Bad guys are trying to get him left right and centre and his bratty 13-year-old daughter tagging along doesn't help much. The bad guys are truly evil and Hallenback seems more like an anti-hero. This adds to the rough nature of the movie and heightens the sense of adventure.

Tony Scott's style of direction is best suited to this type of action flick. The flashy, exotic editing and cinematographic techniques lend a lot to the witty script and compliment the seedy or pretty locations. Shane Black has also written dozens of one-liners and riddled the script with funny dialogue and exciting situations. It's no surprise that this was once the most expensive script ever sold in Hollywood.

Some people say that this film is too violent and misogynist but I honestly cannot understand what they are talking about. I guess it was just a little out of the norm back in 1991. But still the tone of the film is so light and enjoyable you begin to wonder how this never made up for it. Check it out for yourself and I am sure that you will enjoy.

The DVD is in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen and is remastered in Dolby 5.1. Love that opening song, man

Great Trash Movie
This movie is one of those love it or hate it movies. I loved it. "The Last Boy Scout" is where Bruce Willis is a low down private detective who is hired to watch a stripper. When she is murdered, Willis and the stripper's boyfriend, a fallen NFL hero (Damon Waynes), track down the killers. The conspiracy is all about corruption and pro football gambling. The banter between Willis and Waynes is very funny, although very sexist and racist sometimes. They both are world weary, and have been burned and are disillusioned and cynical, which is where much of the humor comes from. But the action is fast, brutal, and angry. This fast paced thriller is in the vain of "Die Hard" (once again produced by Joel Silver, I love this guy!). Director Tony Scott's hyper speed dircecting keeps the pace in high gear at all times. But there are a lot of things people might not like, like the 12-year-old girl with a mouth like Andrew Dice Clay's. I really dug this movie, it's everything that a "guys movie" should be; violent, vulger, with really seedy humor. Enjoy.

Very trashy but still entertaining action flick
Tony Scott's THE LAST BOY SCOUT may be trash, but for an action flick it is very well-made, highly entertaining trash.

Of course, you could make a very good case against this film. Though I did not find it quite as woman-hating as some of the critics said it was upon the film's release, I would recognize that there is a subtle layer of misogyny throughout the movie---particularly with the two women characters in Joe Hallenbeck's life, his uncaring, cheating wife and his bratty, verbally abusive daughter---that might make some viewers more queasy than I was. And, objectively speaking, THE LAST BOY SCOUT is basically a retread of writer Shane Black's superior LETHAL WEAPON---a more foul-mouthed, ultra-violent retread with a lot of corny humor. This is an all-out testosterone-fest if I've ever seen one. If you've got a problem with people, just punch 'em in the "head or gut"---if anything else, that's the message of this movie. Really, Shane Black, where did your taste go since LETHAL WEAPON and LETHAL WEAPON 2?

Despite all that, though, this movie still delivers what matters most in this genre: thrills and exciting action scenes. Having seen this movie only recently, I must say that it is probably one of the most exciting action pictures I've seen in a long while, perhaps enjoyable because of its excesses. Tony Scott definitely knows how to film action scenes well (the climactic action scenes in the football stadium is a good example of his skill here), and of course he brings his customary slick style to the material. And its plot, involving a ruthless attempt to legalize gambling in pro football, takes some kinda intriguing twists and turns along the way. (It's like a hardcore action-film version of one of those hardboiled detective films of the '40s.)

In short, THE LAST BOY SCOUT is very trashy but still entertaining action movie that can be quite fun to watch, depending on whether you can overlook lapses of character logic (why on Earth is Shelly Marcone giving away his plan of framing Hallenbeck for Senator Baynad's murder just so Hallenbeck can outsmart 'em all?) as well as the more objectionable misogynistic aspects of the film. Personally, I felt a little guilty about enjoying it so much...but not guilty enough not to admit it. Marginally recommended.

The Last Boy scout says it best.
The best action movie of the 90's hands down! All this crap about the film being misogynistic is ridiculous. Willis' character is a burned out, embittered, down and out, has-been PI and former secret service agent ("a long time ago he saved the president's life" )who has seen too much and who has no faith left in anything. He is in a bad marriage, never home, drinks too much, a victim of marital infidelity. But he is still in love with his wife. ("I wish the sky wasn't blue, I wish water wasn't wet. I wish I didn't still love my wife.") He is a man's man of the old school; strong and ever silent with a black and white morality. He is loyal to a fault, taking on the case of the stripper and her boyfriend to avenge the car-bombing death of his best friend (who was sleeping with his wife.) His foul mouthed daughter is screaming for discipline which she finds (and drinks in ) at the end of the film. The one liners are great. The action scenes are awesome. The justice meted out in the end is fitting.

Not for the Faint of Heart
One of the most brutal, foul mouthed, and unrepentent action movies to come out of the early 90's. Adding the child to the action scenes and profanity laced screaming matches is gutsy, to say the least. Last Boy Scout is also smart, funny, fast paced & intense. Willis is a drunken P.I. & Wayan is a banned football QB. They're both losers. Most of the movie involves them running around L.A. shooting and punching people. The plot is some nonsense about legalizing sports gambling. Worth repeated viewings. ... Read more

Reviews (61)

Uncompromisingly a five-star flick...
Based on Joseph Conrad's book "The Duel", the true story of a 30-year feud between two Napoleonic cavalry officers, "The Duellists" was Ridley Scott's first major film. Starring Keith Carradine as the pompous D'Hubert and a particularly menacing Harvey Keitel as Feraud, the film climbs inside the minds of two men for whom honor is more important than life itself.

The two antagonists begin their series of bloody encounters when D'Hubert is ordered by his commanding general to arrest Feraud for wounding the local mayor's nephew in a duel. Feraud, in a hopelessly irrational state, challenges D'Hubert to a duel, which is carried out more or less on the spot. D'Hubert comes off slightly better in the initial encounter, which only serves to fuel Feraud's rage, and the course of the film is set.

The cinematography of this film, shot by Frank Tidy, is almost beyond comparison. The previous versions on VHS simply looked muddy and rather washed out. The colors lacked any real saturation, rendering Feraud's bottle-green dolman black and it almost looked like a poor quality black and white in some scenes, especially those set in Napoleon's abortive Russian campaign.

The DVD transfer, by contrast, is staggeringly beautiful and releases colors, which I did not realize existed in the original. I am, by coincidence, a professional cameraman and I rate this as the best shot film I have ever seen. The only criticism I have is a somewhat inconsistent use of graduated filters, which, whilst they were probably quite innovative for their day, don't always work well. Grads are always a problem and any film made since will tend to suffer the same way. A very minor point.

The costumes and settings; mostly in The Dordogne, make the film not only totally authentic but defy the viewer to believe that it was made on a shoestring budget. The visual splendour challenges any modern filmaker to create the same effect without spending a vault full of money to achieve it. That is only part of the appeal of the film.

The acting performances, particularly by Keitel, want for nothing. The scene with Feraud standing on a cliff overlooking the river valley, taken in context, makes you realise that his life and pretensions to honor have been for nothing. His mania for revenge has cost him everything. Melded to the other performances with superlative skill by Ridley Scott, this film is a masterpiece and has now gone from a film I liked a lot to one which is now firmly wedged in my top ten. Like as not, it will stay there for a long time.

An overlooked masterpiece
Ridley Scott's film The Duellists is due out on Region 1 DVD soon. I have been waiting for a DVD release for this film since I first got my player. It's due out on December 3rd from Paramount.
It has a widescreen anamorphic transfer and looks set to have loads of extras.

This was the first film from director Ridley Scott.
The story is about two Napoleonic officers played by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. One offends the other and so they duel. But there is never a conclusion to the duellists bouts and one of the soldiers demands satisfaction and will not let the matter drop. He dogs the other over the course of twenty years. The final sequence in the woods is played out to perfection and I think Harvey Keitel captures the soldiers feelings brilliantly.
The cinematography and score are amazing, performances are strong despite the two leads strained accents. This film is one of the most breathtaking to look at, it's shot on a beautiful landscape and I really liked the story. To offend someone then and for them not to take up the duel was the markings of a coward and not one of honour. I think The Duellists is an overlooked masterpiece.

VISUAL FEAST -
I enjoyed this film because the producers have captured the era magnificentley with respect to period detail as well as the language and of course the mood of the time.

I was captured by the opening scene and wasn't released till the end,as the story appealed to my interest in history in general and the film certainly fulfilled this aspect as well.

The question I asked myself after seeing this film was "...why can't they make films like this anymore?..." as I learnt of the paltry budget this film was produced from. Instead of overdone special effects and mindless violence which assaults us today more often than not, this genre/style of film is appealing and should be copied with more frequency.

Superb Keitel and good solid performance by Carradine.

Obsession
Driven by a compulsion to fight a duel at the slightest insult, Harvey Keitel plays Lt. Feurandin the French army during the time of Napleon who lives by the sword. When Keith Carradine's D'Hubert is sent out to convey a message from their French commander to cease fighting duels after badly injuring the mayor of a town, Keitel's character finds the message and delivery insulting enough to--yes--challenge Carradine to a duel then and there. Carradine ends the duel by knocking Keitel's character out with a block from the butt of his sword.

From there they both spiral into the madness and obsession of Feruand and D'Hubert's need to win at all costs. Fighting over the years, they lose loved ones and, in a sense, lose themselves as the passion for the fight becomes everything. By the end neither man understands why they are truly fighting or what they are fighting for.

Ridley Scott's first feature film was his fourth attempt at making a full length film. Based on a short story by Conrad that eventually became part of a much larger narrative canvas, "The Duelists" catches Scott in perfect form the first time out. While Scott expanded his scope in higher profile films ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma and Louise" and "Gladiator"), his visual and narrative style blossomed in his very first "epic" (made for a paltry $1 million)film.

The powerful performances by the international cast manages to overcome the minor differences in accents (Keitel's Brooklyn accent vs. Carradine's California twang vs. Tom Conti's British accent, etc.). Visually and thematically powerful, "The Duelists" remains one of Scott's best films.

The anamorphic widescreen transfer looks marvelous despite some minor blemishes. Paramount has Packed this film with extras including a commentary from Scott: "Dueling Directors" featuring director Kevin Reynolds interviewing Scott; Scott's first short film "Boy on a Bike" (featuring his brother and future director Tony Scott); isolated score and commentary by Howard Shore as well as the theatrical trailer. The sound although not quite up to the standard of current films (it was made, afterall, in 1977), has a splendid range and there's minimal distoriton.

This sharply directed and written film deserves as much attention as Scott's other more mainstream features. Although no Scott film is without merit (even "Someone to Watch Over Me" and the Hammer-like "Hannibal"), "The Duelists" deserves its spot as one of Scott's five or six best films.

Point / Counterpoint
The Duellists finally arrives on DVD. At long last Ridley Scott's first film is available to the public and it was well worth the wait. The skimpy $900k budget looks more like $60 million in the hands of Scott. Using only real locations and splurging on costumes, this Napoleonic epic looks as good as any other, if not better. This is an intimate story and not one of those sweeping, libertine war melodramas. The story and acting are good, but what really stands out about this picture is the jaw droping cinematography. Scott employed a special photochemical process to enhance the contrast of the film. This is most noticed in the velvety depths of the shadows, and darker tones. The end result is a film that, often, looks like a moving Rembrandt. The above average DVD transfer serves to preserve this. I may be crazy, but it seems to me that Scott may be trying to provide us with contrapuntal films to those of Kubrick. I think that, thematically and stylistically, the Duellists is simply a boiled down version of Barry Lyndon. I think that it could also be said that Alien was probably the reactionary product of 2001. Anyway, the DVD extras provide some interesting vantage into the making and history of this great film. ... Read more

Reviews (160)

Dumb but Entertaining Cart Racing flick.
An Talented Retired Veteran Driver (Sylvester Stallone) is been asked by his former boss (Burt Reynolds) to train, a talented but Unfocused Rookie Contender (Kip Pardue). The Rookie destructive behavoir is Slowly turned apart by his brother (Robert Sean Leonard), the girl-he's in love with (Estella Warren) and his primary racing rival (Til Schweiger).

Directed by Renny Harlin (A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master, Die Hard 2:Die Harder, Deep Blue Sea) made a familiar but extremely underrated (at time stupid) race cart film. Stallone wrote the Screenplay from a Story by Jan Skrentny & Neal Tabachnick. The film also stars:Stacy Edwards, Gina Gershon, Brent Biscoe & Cristian de la Fuente. This was a huge Box Office Flop but it did fine on Video & DVD. DVD's has an terrific anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer & an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD Extras are:Commentary Track by the Director, Deleted Scenes with/without Commentary by Stallone, Behind the Scene featurettes & more. This might be far from Stallone's best films but it's worth a look. Super 35. Grade:A-.

"Driven"...better than "Days of Thunder"!!
Do I love this movie or what?! When I saw Driven 4 times in a row at the theater 3 months ago, it kept my adrenaline pumping from start to finish! I loved the different racing locations such as Toronto, Chicago, Japan, and Detroit. Yet, "Driven" puts you (the viewer) into the driver's seat and pushes you way, way past the edge of your seat. Now, as far as the acting should go, "Driven" calls the attention to Sylvester Stallone as a retired race car driver that has been called back into action by his long-time friend and crew chief (Burt Reynolds) to help a rookie driver named Jimmy Bly (Kip Pardue from "Remember The Titans"), who is slipping in the ratings due to the number of races that he lost, thanks to his nemesis, Beau Brandenburg (Til Schweiger), who also has a very, very, very hot girlfriend (Estella Warren). The features on the DVD were extraordinary, like the deleted scenes with Stallone commentary, the behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Driven", and the trailer for the film. But all I have to say is that if you liked "Days of Thunder" from 11 years ago, then you'll definitely love "Driven"!

Gave it 1 start because 0 wasn't available
This movie would only be watchable by people who know NOTHING (and I mean nothing - like less then my wife - who I might add thinks that Formula 1 is abrand of baby formula). It is filled with absolutely laughable impossibilities (dozens . . . maybe hundreds) like being able to jump into an IndyCar, turn the key (connected to the non-existent built-in starter), and take off down city streets at 200+. A complete and side-splitting comedy for any race fan who was unlucky enough to buy (or rent) this piece of rediculous junk thinking they were about to watch a "Real Racing Movie". It get's my vote for the "Top 10 Worst" movies list.

Full Speed Ahead
Oh, come on guys; "Driven" was a good little sports-action movie, with a cast that fit perfectly in every role. Sylvester Stallone (who also wrote and produced) plays Joe Tanto, a retired Grand Pix race car driver. He is called out of retirement to help his former crew cheif (Burt Reynolds) train the new hot shot racer, Jimmy Bly (Kip Pardue), who has a lot of talent but little disciplin. Believe it or not, the movie is really about Bly, he is the one who changes through out the movie. In fact, the movie is really just a passing of the torch kind of material. But I think it is done well, a macho man's emotional buddy movie. Stallone is great as the world weary racer, those droopy eyes serve him well. Burt Reynolds is also excellently cast as the tough father figure. Gina Gershon is basicly making fun of her on screen persona here as a, well, horrible woman. Kip Pardue is excellent as the cocky young gun with a heart. Tig Schwiger is the cheif competetor against Bly, and he is good as the rival, not to be confused as the bad guy; he isn't. The rest of the cast is trivial. I guess I had a few minor problems with the movie. 1) Like I said before, the actors were perfect for their roles; maybe too perfect, like maybe the characters were written for the actors. 2) There is an accedent about half way through that looks way too bad for anyone to realisticlly get out of. 3) None of the characters seemed all that mad at each other. The end was resolved too easily. But for all that, "Driven" was cool, with lots of exciting race scenes (especially through Chicago), genuine respect between each other, and I liked how all the characters made up at the end, even if it isn't realistic.

Good movie for racing fans
While everyone knows that Stallone has done both great and terrible acting and writing jobs in the past, this one is, shall we say, not his best or worst. I first saw this movie in theaters, and being an avid open-wheel racing fan, I enjoyed the true substance of the movie: the actual racing scenes. The problem is, though, you can't just have 2-hour movie with nothing but racing (just watch the SPEED Channel sometime). The racing scenes have to be tied together with some kind of a plot, and this one seems more like a soap opera than a real movie. If you don't happen to like racing, then stay away from this movie, but if you do, the great action with the cars definitely makes up for the lack of an entertaining plot. Some will tout that the racing itself is unreal, that the writers didn't do their homework. Well, without cooperation from ALL of the members of the CART community (which is now in SERIOUS financial trouble), you can't get everything you wanted out of a race series. Some say the chase scene through Chicago in prototype race cars is too over the top, but it's one of the more original movie chases I've seen. I mean, how many other movies have manhole covers getting sucked off by the car's downforce, or girls' skirts being blown up by the cars going by? That's all realistic, by the way. In short, the subplots suck, but the race action is definitely worth it for the race fans out there. ... Read more

Description

Episodes: "Steel" (Ep. 122, October 4, 1963) - In the future, only androids are allowed to box. Desperate to raise money, penniless manager Steel Kelly (Lee Marvin) must fight disguised as his own broken-down robot. "A Game of Pool" (Ep. 70, October 13, 1961) - Jesse (Jack Klugman) is a brilliant pool player whose dream of a showdown with the legendary (and dead) Fats Brown (Jonathan Winters) comes true. The stakes: his life. "Walking Distance" (Ep. 5, October 30, 1959) - Martin Sloan (Gig Young) is a frazzled executive who learns that you can't go home again after he steps back in time and meets his mom, his dad--and himself! "Kick the Can" (Ep. 86, February 9, 1962) - Has an old man at Sunnyvale Rest Home discovered a secret to regaining youth? After playing a simple child's game, he and the other residents are rewarded with rejuvenating powers! ... Read more

Reviews (10)

One Good Episode, Three Classic Ones
Vol. 3 of the Twilight Zone DVD series is one in which every episode is a winner. The worst of the four, "Steel," is a very good tale of what men think they can do themselves to bring themselves out of a difficult situation. "Kick the Can" is a touching episode that makes us reflect on fleeting youth and the idea that you are only as old as you feel. "A Game of Pool" is an example of superb acting. Jack Klugman and Jonathan Winters deliver more tension and excitement than any current television drama. Finally, "Walking Distance" is a brilliant look at trying to recapture youth and going home again.

On most other Zone DVDs, buyers are forced to stomach at least one lousy episode along with their favorites. This disc is an exception. Sure, the extras are not very "extra," but for your money, Vol. 3 contains some of the best Twilight Zone episodes on one disc.

Good acting but Volume 2 is better
This third volume of Collection One is not as impressive as Volume 2, but still features great writing and acting. "Steel" is a futuristic episode where humans are not permitted to box, but androids are. In "A Game of Pool," a poolplayer gets his wish to play the best pool player he knows. In "Walking Distance," an executive decides to walk to his old neighborhood where he learns that nothing has changed. "Kick the Can" is the final episode and features a group of residents at a seniors' home. One of them goes on a quest to regain his youth.

While Volume 3 has some fine acting and writing, the stories themselves are not Rod Serling's best work. Nonetheless, this DVD is still a good buy for any Twilight Zone fan.

Great DVD
I liked most of the episodes on this DVD.

Steel- Didn't like this one too much. I found it kind of boring. Maybe it's because I'm a girl and not really into boxing. (*)

Game of Pool- This was a good one. It kept my interest. (****)

Kick the Can- Another good one. I found it to be very sweet. (***)

Walking Distance- Wow, this was a good episode. Something about it nearly brought tears to my eyes. (*****)

If you can only buy one.....
then make it this one!

"Walking Distance" is probably one of the best 30 minutes of television ever filmed. Truly one of the very best episodes - and on most any TZ fans top 5 list.

The other episodes are not really great ones, but are also very entertaining.

'Walking Distance' and 'Kick the Can'
[a] 'Walking Distance' [Rod Serling's personal favourite episode - and mine too!] is an emotionally devastating and engrossing story of a disillusioned man who wanted to go back to his 'wonderful' childhood. Own it at any cost and watch it every few months for the rest of your life!!! The music was composed by Bernard Hermann who also did such fantastic scores for the films 'Vertigo' and 'Taxi Driver.'
[url] viewer rating 8.09/10

[b] 'Kick the Can' great performances and a beautiful story.

The remaining two episodes are not too bad and you may watch them once a year or so:
[c] 'A Game of Pool'
[d] 'Steel'

'Next stop, the Twilight Zone!' ... Read more

Amazon.com

The 1990 film Bullet in the Head engages at every turn. At once a political epic, a story about childhood friends and loyalty, as well as a tale of corruption and war, John Woo's action-packed face-off contrasts '60s idealism--the Beatles and Elvis--against the shifting tide in the East. It's plain that Woo has pulled his trio of heroes straight from Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America as well as Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter, but there are bits of Nicholas Ray's Rebel Without a Cause tossed in for good measure. The old Chinese way of life is fading in the face of the emergent Vietnam War and Chairman Mao's Red Army, and Hong Kong struggles under archaic British rule. Three friends--Ben (Tony Leung), Frank (Jacky Cheung), and Paul (Waise Lee)--rub up against gang warfare, capitalism, and opportunism in a life that is strongly tinged by Western culture. Ben falls in love and wants to marry Jane (Fennie Yuen). Frank has borrowed money from a warlord to pay for his pal's bridal bash but a rival group, led by Ringo and his thugs, are hell-bent on keeping loose-cannon Frank from keeping his promise. The boys kill Ringo in a face-off and the cops come looking for them, separating Ben and Jane. The trio escapes to exploited luck-of-the-draw Saigon to make their fortunes. Luck, however, isn't with them. In a violent, balletic dance to honor, greed, and a teenage pledge that is challenged with adulthood, Bullet in the Head is sentimental despite its exquisitely choreographed blood bath; it's steeped in the kind of code-of-ethics morality that has been the glue of buddy films since the beginning of cinematic time. Bullet in the Head is a tale of love and betrayal played out against a backdrop of wartime chaos, and while Woo had made other vital and vibrant movies--The Killer, Hard Boiled, and A Better Tomorrow--none were as impassioned as Bullet in the Head. That it retains its innocence at all is a tribute to this Hong Kong action auteur, who brands his movies with visual flair as well as a palette splattered with blood. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (33)

It's Intense and excessive, but its John Woos best!
This rivals the killer as the best John Woo film. People say this one isn't his best but I disagree.
It's also one of the most violent Hk films I've ever seen, the shootouts are intense and well done, like the nightclub scene, it was very well done with the best part is when Paul guns down about 20 guys with a machine gun in a stairwell.
The acting is pretty good, the best performance goes to Tony Leung of course but Paul (Waise Lee) and Luke (Simon Yam) have some strong stellar scenes, and the so-so award goes to Jacky Chueng who in the POW camp scene makes you want to almost laugh at his suffering. However this version is cut about 18 minutes from what I've heard, and most of the subtitles are wrong and the audio is choppy. The extra 18 mins would probably explain some of the confusing scenes and scenarios (where did they learn how to shoot machine guns and shotguns with one hand?). Too bad this isn't A better tomorrow 3 because Chow Yun Fat would have been EXCELLANT in Luke's Character.
The story goes like this Three lifelong friends find themselves in trouble in 1967 British ruled Hong Kong when. On his wedding night Ben (Tony Leung) and Frank (Jacky Cheung) kill a gang leader in a fight. So they (Including Paul for some reason) get the idea to go to war torn Vietnam to sell illegal goods, but their luck turns sour when there stuff is blown up in a bombing. After that they meet Luke (Simon Yam) who puts their friendship in a downward spiral from there on in. Paul gets greedy when he takes a casket of gold leaves and turns him into a cynical, "stay-away-from-my-gold or Ill kill you" person while the friendships fall to pieces.
The action scenes while heartfelt (In a disturbing way) and gut wrenching are pretty senseless and over-the-top. The POW camp scene is absolutely disturbing almost to the point where I turned it off. To tell you the truth I'd rather see what's in this POW scene then what's in the uncut full POW scene (Yes its THAT disturbing). This film is NOT a heroic bloodshed film there is no heroes in this only people whose lives we must watch fall to pieces. You'll have to be pretty used to disturbing violence to see this so be very prepared. Very very well done and One of my Highest Recommendations ever!
P.S DO NOT let anyone under 12 see this

John Woo's finest to date?
Produced in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, John Woo's BULLET IN THE HEAD is both a response to the appalling violence that was taking place in mainland China at the time, and a pointed examination of the director's traditional themes of loyalty and brotherhood and the consequences of betrayal. For all its explosions and gunplay, the film is actually a very human drama, played out against the vast backdrop of the Vietnam conflict, and invested with such a palpable sense of love and compassion for its leading characters and their circumstances that it defies all attempts at categorisation. The cast is pure gold: Tony Leung (superb as the film's tragic 'hero'), Jacky Cheung (giving a revelatory, career-making performance) and Waise Lee play lifelong friends who flee from a murder rap during the civil unrest of 1960s Hong Kong, only to have their loyalties tested to breaking point by their experiences in wartime Saigon. Overall, the film is less an action-thriller than an operatic valentine to Woo's teenage years in HK and to the personal values which have shaped and defined all his films since A BETTER TOMORROW. Only HARD-BOILED comes close to it in terms of greatness, though many people - myself included - would argue that BULLET is not only Woo's finest achievement to date, but also one of the best films ever made, anywhere. In terms of content, the widescreen HK DVD version is virtually identical to Made in Hong Kong's uncut UK video release, though the familiar Golden Princess logo at the beginning of the film has been replaced by Media Asia's insignia. As expected, the increased resolution of the DVD format has yielded a visibly superior image, but the disc's muted color scheme is a disappointment, and the optional English subtitles - though reasonably coherent - are no match for MIHK'S definitive translation. BULLET's effectiveness depends on your complete comprehension of the dialogue, and Media Asia's clumsy subtitles often stumble over the dramatic highlights, thereby diluting their quite considerable impact. Sadly, Media Asia has also remixed BULLET's original mono soundtrack in 5.1 Dolby Digital surround, apparently for no other reason than the fact that DVD technology allows it. Aside from the newly-directional gunshot effects and the magnificent music score (which, amongst other things, transforms Jacky Cheung's poignant farewell sequence into an occasion of shattering heartbreak), the remix adds nothing that wasn't already conveyed in the original version. Bottom line: A fine film, and the DVD is certainly worth a look, but first-time viewers are advised to check out MIHK's UK video version before taking the plunge. Believe me, you WON'T be disappointed...

Best Film ive ever seen. MUST SEE. Trust Me
IF YOU LIKE GOODFELLAS, CON AIR, SCARFACE, FACE OFF, GODFATHER, DESPERADO, KILL BILL etc. You have to see this, im telling you.
I thought the best film ive seen were one of the above. But no. its defenitly Bullet in the Head.
IT HAS A BRILLIANT STORYLINE. The ACTING WAS MAGNIFICENT. Tony Leung (Hard Boiled/Prison on Fire)is Excelent alongside (Waise Lee (A better tomorrow) and Simon Yam (Full Contact) But The Outstanding Serious Performance which will get to you is Jackie Cheung (as tears go by/Jet Lis Meltdown). Its John Woos personal Favourite. Everybody i Lent it to absoulutely LOVE it. its a Hong Kong Classic which doesnt come on TV. If its available to in your local shops or ebay.co.uk I advice you to Buy It. you wont be dissapointed. If you are then You have BAD TASTE in Movies. No offence.PEACE

Exhausted
In "The Killer", perhaps the best pulp/asian thriller of all time, the violence felt full, voluptuous; its excess created a kind of operatic grandeur. In "Bullet in the Head" the violence is so over -the-top, so gratuitous, you want to run for cover (I might have blown up my tv if I had to watch another gangster do a cartwheel as a big explosion lifted him of his feet). This movie proves to me how repetitive a director Woo is, and I got a similar feeling from Face/Off - its like watching a figure skater do figure 8's all night - you want to shout "ok, I get it!"

Loud, irritating and chaotic. Jacky Cheung's shameless overacting and bulgy, beady eyes were as irksome as the excessive violence - give this one a miss - its a wet blanket of sentimentality and schlock.

One of the best
This is not only one of the best HK action films ever but quite possibly one of the best films ever. Period. ... Read more

Description

They left the nightmare...and entered Hell. Captured Union soilders cope with life inside the Civil War's most notorious prisoner-of-war camp. A powerful, compeling tale of war and will, with Emmy Award-winning direction by John Frankenheimer and a cast including Frederic Forrest (Apocalypse Now) and William H. Macy (ER, Fargo) Year: 1996 Director: John Frankenheimer Starring: Jarrod Emick, Frederic Forrest, Ted Marcoux ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Humanity at it's worst
If you are looking for a feel good movie,well,this isn't it.This film shows the horrors and despair of one of the most infamous POW camps in the Civil War,Andersonville. Once again Ted Turner has the insight to bring the personalities of the soldiers into play. This is the same formula that made "Gettysburg" such a great film. If you want "light & breezy" don't watch this film. If you don't mind a hard dose of cruel reality that war brings,this flicks for you.

Puts chills in my spine
Another great Civil War movie. Andersonville is a great historical and factual piece of work. It reveals how cruel men were back in the 1860's. I believe that the acting done by the cast was the finest i have ever seen. They truely made it feel like you were there in the prison

Worst of the Worst.......
After watching most movies, you absorb it and a day later it is more or less forgotten. NOT ANDERSONVILLE! This movie stuck with me for a solid week after viewing. Very similar to the way I felt after watching Schindlers List......

However, I think this movie should be viewed as a look into what all of the Civil War camps were like. The Union obviously had prison war camps also. Such as Fort Jefferson, Fort Delaware & Camp Chase to name a few. Many of the conditions in these camps were just as bad.......

However, Andersonville was the worst of the worst of all prison camps North & South. And this movie depicts the conditions extremely well. Great movie!!!!!!

Excellent Civil War Drama
This fine movie focuses on one aspect of the war; namely, prisoners of war, and, therefore has considerably more substance than most Civil War dramas. The fact that I've viewed this more than once should speak for itself. The fine ensemble cast makes it work with support from hundreds of civil war re-enactors. As with any historical drama, it sometimes is loose with the facts as pointed out by other reviewers. If you want accuracy, you should consult as many sources as possible to negate bias. I do take issue with the idea that conditions at Andersonville were related to the southern war shortages. This same excuse has been used to explain away the treatment of allied POWs by the Japanese and also the holocaust. That part of Georgia had an abundance of corn and rice so there was no excuse for the starvation. As for Ted Turner's "yankee bias", in "Gettysburg" he was wearing a Confederate uniform.

Great Movie
This is a great movie for teachers to show for a U.S. History class. I am a student that has recently watched this movie and has thouroughly enjoied it. It was very informational and entertaining. It tugs at your heart a little bit too. By showing how Prisoners Of War had to live like animals really made me more thankful of the things I have today. ... Read more

Description

An ex-flyer who is a distress victim from Vietnam experience is ordered back into military duty to head a secret mission. His assignment is to sneak into Russia and steal a Soviet warplane which is far more advanced than any other air machine being used by the NATO alliance. ... Read more

Reviews (52)

Awesome! Firefox takes off with suspense and excitement!
This movie is one of my favorite movies. Eastwood is absolutely fantastic in his role as Mitchell Gant, and the scenes for Russian locales are very much how I thought the USSR would be like. The first half of the movie, with Gant sneaking into Russia, and the base where the Firefox is, is very suspenseful. The sleek, black, Firefox aircraft itself is an incredibly cool looking design, and one of the most realistic looking movie aircraft I've ever seen, both when it's on the ground, and flying in the air. The aerial sequences are great, and the dogfight at the end of the movie between the two Firefoxes, Gant's and a pursuing, Russian pilot's, is incredible, and as realistic as the ones in Top Gun. With all these great qualities, Firefox is a great movie that deserves far more than 5 stars. I would recomend this movie to any aircraft, espionage, or Clint Eastwood fan, and anyone who likes great movies.

"Go Ahead...Mig My Day."
If you liked "The Hunt for Red October" and you're a BIG Clint Eastwood fan, you're still not likely to cheer "Firefox". With lame-o generic spy genre characters, obvious "clip and paste" special effects and the burden of having to believe that Eastwood's character was born Russian, "Firefox" taxes the audience severely. The young Smithers-esque intellience guy that gets giddy as a school girl everytime Eastwood does anything and Freddie Jones who's character is completely unintelligable throughout the whole movie (even though he's speakin English) are as distracting as dancers with pulled hamstrings. Add a "psychic" Russian general who can predict Eastwood's every move and a "super jet" that appears to be as aerodynamic as a dictionary and you've got yourself one pretty bad flick. So why the two stars? Well, it IS Eastwood and he IS kicking Ruskie butt...

An adequate, unusual techno-thriller from Clint Eastwood
This was Clint Eastwood's second dip into the waters of the espionage thriller (the first was the awful "Eiger Sanction" back in 1975), and one of the few films he directed which relies heavily on visual effects. As a director, Eastwood seems uneasy with both modes, which go against the grain of his realistic, tough, and often stoic & silent directorial style. Nonetheless, "Firefox" works better than it should. Eastwood brings understated realism to what might have been a hopelessly hokey Cold War techno thriller, and the visual effects-laden last third is fairly exciting. However, the mixture of elements ultimately produces only an adequate film, a strange entry in Eastwood's long string of hits.

The plot is a Tom Clancy story before there were Tom Clancy stories (this is based on a novel by Craig Thomas). The Soviets (remember them?) have developed a super fighter jet, the Firefox, with thought-controlled weapons system. The Firefox threatens the balance of power in the Cold War, so NATO needs to get their hands on it, pronto. The only man who can do it is pilot Mitchell Gant (Eastwood). He speaks fluent Russian, can infiltrate the base with the help of Russian Jewish dissenters (played by Ronald Lacey, Nigel Hawthorne, and Warren Clarke), and has the skill to fly the Firefox. Only problem: Gant is highly unstable from his Vietnam experience, is prone is nasty flashbacks (a problem if you're flying a though- controlled plane!), and has done no undercover work before.

"Firefox" is overlong at 136 minutes, and tends to drag with far too many scenes of Russian and NATO boardroom arguments. The film works best in the early parts during the scenes with Lacey, Hawthorne, and Clarke, who all give fine, sentimental performances as double agents who know they are doomed but struggle on for what they know is right. In a few place, Eastwood shows traces of the later themes of the consequences of violence that would mature in "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River." Eastwood himself is fairly good in the role, avoiding any "Dirty Harry" clichés or relying too much on his tough guy image, but he does look rather silly in his undercover disguise scenes.

Nonetheless, it does seem to take forever until the last third, where the Firefox tries to blaze an almost hopeless escape trail out of the Soviet Union, with another Firefox prototype on its tail. The effects (by John Dysktra of "Star Wars" fame) are zippy and fantastic, but any human element left in the film pretty much bails out at this point. Enjoy the planes, enjoy the speed, enjoy Clint just staring out the window and not moving much. It's fairly exciting, but when it's all over, you'll feel a bit let down.

The DVD, like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, looks very good, and the sound is 5.1. But also like most Warner Bros. discs in the Clint Eastwood Collection, there are no extras.

Good, but not great
FIREFOX is one of those films made back when the U.S.S.R. still existed, and espionage is the key here. Clint Eastwood plays Mitchell Gant, a retired Air Force pilot who is resurrected to steal the FIREFOX fighter jet from Russia. Based on a novel by the same name, FIREFOX certainly looks like an interesting movie, and it is to some extent. It has a little James Bond flavor in it too. It is not great, however, and has many flaws.

Eastwood constantly changes deguise throughout the film as his allies seek to get him to the jet. The process is long and confusing, and the whole time Clint doesn't look like he has any idea what he is doing. Once he grabs the jet itself, and pulls out of the hanger, night suddenly changes to day! The special effects during the flying sequences are exciting. John Dykstra, who won an oscar for the special effects in STAR WARS, did the job on the effects here and the results are impressive, even though they look dated. The movie does drag, however, when the U.S.S.R. intellegence constantly is trying to figure out which direction he is headed. The worst thing about this film is the ending. After winning a dramatic dogfight with the other FIREFOX, the movie ends right there in the sky. It would have been interesting if Eastwood could have entended it a little more to at least see him land the plane in his home country. This was Eastwood's eighth time as a director as well. The movie is interesting, but the minor flaws, and flat ending are what kind of hold it back from being great. FIREFOX wass a good movie, but it could have been better, alot better.

Not a bad espionage thriller
I remember when I first saw this 20 years ago on cable TV. ... Read more

Amazon.com

It seemed like a pretty good career move, and for the most part it was.Demi Moore will never top any rational list of great actresses, but as her career stalled in the mid-1990s she had enough internal fire and external physicality to be just right for her title role in G.I. Jane. Her character's name isn't Jane--it's Jordan O'Neil--but the fact that she lacks a penis makes her an immediate standout in her elite training squad of Navy SEALs. She's been recruited as the first female SEAL trainee through a series of backroom political maneuvers, and must prove her military staying power against formidable odds--not the least of which is the abuse of a tyrannical master chief (Viggo Mortensen) who puts her through hell to improve her chances of success. Within the limitations of a glossy star vehicle, director Ridley Scott manages to incorporate the women-in-military issue with considerable impact, and Moore--along with her conspicuous breast enhancements and that memorable head-shaving scene--jumps into the role with everything she's got. Not a great movie by any means, but definitely a rousing crowd pleas