Amazon.com

Tom Selleck shows a harder side of his persona as a disillusioned Confederate who returns home in the waning days of the Civil War in this adaptation of the Elmore Leonard novel. His wife, Suzy Amis, isn't ready to forgive him for leaving his family behind for the "adventure" of war, and his children hardly remember him. Haunted by his actions in the war and caught in a power struggle in the Arizona territory, Selleck's soul-scarred survivor makes a last stand to protect the only thing left that matters to him--his homestead and his family. The film has its share of gunfights, showdowns, conspiracies, and Civil War rivalries, and even a runaway stagecoach, but its power lies in the somber exploration of how misunderstandings and conflicts tear at a marriage during such a volatile time, when ideals are set against duty to family. Director Dick Lowry's lean style makes the most of the gorgeous landscapes, and he creates a strong dramatic tension in the bubbling undercurrent between Selleck, who leaves behind the jovial character of his Louis L'Amour Westerns for a man hardened and embittered by war, and Amis, an excellent actress who brings to life a woman who shoots, speaks her mind, and harbors resentment just as well as any brooding male hero. Keith and David Carradine costar as Union wranglers who hold a grudge against the Confederate veteran. One of the most mature TV Westerns ever made. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (5)

One of the Best Westerns Made
I must say, this is one of my favorite Westerns of all time.Sort of like "Shane", it is full of emotion, and mood.When Cable comes home from the "Struggle", his wife is still resentful of his leaving her and the children, even though they had heard he had been killed. I love Harry Cary Jr's line, "Well I'll Bow" when he sees Cable riding up. And Cable's comment to his wife, I don't want to live with someone that doesn't like me, "I'll take you back to Texas if you want".Their struggle with their relationship, and the local Union Sympathizers is a great tale.I recommend this movie to all.Very true to life.Good Acting, Great Story.

Tom Selleck is the next John Wayne!
And I do not say that lightly. This is a one of his finest works. One I prefer over Monte Walsh ( 4 stars ). This is a gritty movie without all of the Hollywood enhancements. Coming back from the war, Cable finds himself disillusioned with the Confederacy cause, but ready to start his life fresh. But he finds it's not easy to start where he left off, due to Union loyalist and Confederate sympathizers. His primary problem comes from his own wife, who has her own issue with him leaving the family to go off to war and has yet to forgive him. This is a keeper. I hope Tom keeps up the great work!

Can't Wait for the DVD!
The television Westerns starring Tom Selleck are among the best of the genre. I think of them all, Last Stand at Saber River is my favorite. It's a great if simple story, but one so well done you can't help but enjoy the film. Selleck is superb as a cowboy and I hope he and the TNT network continue to team for more. The period accuracy is excellent, the variety of arms refreshing for any gun enthusiast. A wholehearted thumbs-up for Last Stand at Saber River!

Selleck rules the modern western
After reviewing Last Stand this week, and having thoroughly enjoyed Monte Walsh, I think Tom Selleck is the cowboy star of
the 21st Century. I mostly appreciate his attention to detail
in arms and cowboy gear of the period. Along with the great story
line and characters, this attention to detail is much appreciated
by a fan and student of the Old West and Old Western.
Hope for more from Mr. Selleck in the future.
P.S. If you read this, Tom, I'd give my eyeteeth to be an extra in one of your films

Excellent Western
Tom Selleck does an excellent job as a disillusioned civil war veteran determined to bring his family back together on their own land after he is wounded in the war.This is a western as westerns were meant to be made,not the Young Guns type of violence laden shootfest.If you are Westernfan that enjoyed Alan Ladd, Jimmy Stewart, Glenn Ford, Gary Cooper or JohnWayne, this is a Western you will enjoy. ... Read more

Description

Dianne Parker (Kimberly Williams) meets and marries the handsome and charismatic Mark McCune (Eric Close), never noticing the quiet attention of his brother, David (Campbell Scott), a soft-spoken pediatrician.Their marriage seems perfect until the birth of their daughter, Julia, a baby with genetic abnormalities.Mark, who can't face the idea of a less-than-perfect child, walks out, leaving Dianne to confront the challenges of being a single mom.As the years pass, Dianne and her mother, Hannah (Blair Brown), remain selflessly devoted to Julia.David introduces Dianne to a young girl (Alexa Vega) from a troubled home as a "mother's helper," and things begin to change.Julia gains a best friend and Dianne finds renewed strength and hope, but David must wait patiently for a chance to reveal his true feelings.In the process, Dianne learns that love is more than what you feel for someone - it's what you're willing to give of yourself. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Great Movie, Filled with Unconditional Love!
This is a wonderful movie. It is full of the message of unconditional love. The love that is shown to the medically fragile girl in this picture is fun to watch because it is so sincere and pure. The movie gives one a feeling that no matter how bad it gets in one's life, there is always hope to see the situation in a better more positive light. This is a story about love, life and relationships. For once, a movie that doesn't have to have guns and violence to make an impact. I admire Hallmark for that.

This was a great family movie. As the father of a severely autistic child, I appreciate the kindness toward a special child shown in this film, a kindness that should be emulated across the globe.

Campbell Scott puts in a great acting performance in this one!

Jeffrey McAndrew
author of "Our Brown-Eyed Boy"

One of My Top 15 Favorites...
I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel. I saw Kimberly Williams on the commercials and I like her as an actress so I decided to watch it. This movie is a really touching story about a young mother, Dianne (Kimberly Williams) trying to raise her daughter, Julia, who was born with neurological and spinal damage. Her husband, Mark did not want a physically challenged daughter so he left Dianne to raise Julia alone. Dianne's brother-in-law David introduces her to a 12-year-old girl named Amy (Alexa Vega) who becomes Dianne's mother's helper. Amy has a special connection with Julia and understands her in ways even Dianne can't.
All in all, it's a great movie to watch. If you have kids, it's great to watch with them. This movie can help kids accept people for who they are and learn that everyone is special. The great thing is that there is no swearing, so it's ok for young kids to watch.(If you have young children be advised that there is a brief domestic situation-although it is only heard, not seen.) This is a wonderful movie and is one of my top 15 favorites.

Incrediably Heart Warming
This movie is so incrediably touching. Its also very realistic to peoples everyday lives. It givs a great sense of hope that no matter what the situation is, everything will work out. Campbell Scott ad Kimberly Williams were phenominal together. This movie is filled with so much love that I think we sometimes take for granted in everday lives.

Touching and Warming Movie
I first saw this movie when it came on T.V. I work with children and adults whom have special needs and to me this movie was so enlighting. It made me realize that a moment should never go unwasted because you don't know what tomorrow will bring. Kimberly Williams and Campbell Scott were both spectacular. It is a movie of truth, hope, dispair, and so much love.

I'm a straight guy...and even I liked it
I'm a "Enter the Matrix" kind of guy, but even I liked this movie. It is a very sensitive movie about 2 women trying to make the right decisions about their bad relationships, and how they are able to cope with their troubled daughters.

Great movie to watch with your kids. Buy it!!! ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Cheesy but watchable if there is nothing else on TV
Okay so this film was pretty cheesy but let's be honest there have been worse that have been screened and have even won Oscars, so lets not be judgemental okay?

Rob Lowe does a pretty passable job as the jaded Train Crash expert John Seager trying to hold his family together, rebellious teenage daughter Grace, shy and gentle step-son Chance plus a sassy young wife with a chip-on-his-shoulder Cop for an ex-husband.

The plot is fairly simple and perhaps a little long winded. Nuclear Bomb ends up on a train conveniently sitting next to some highly inflammable chemicals; train has a REALLY bad leaky break problem. Enter Rob Lowe, a bunch of army guys, a gung-ho General who wants to blow the train off the mountain (this actor plays General Hammond in Stargate by the way!) a rather goofy good hearted President of the USA and an assortment of heroes, heroines, goodies and baddies all putting in their 10 cents worth..

The train ends up behind derailed and the bomb explodes, and the disaster movie becomes a disaster movie twice over.

The special effects are not bad, the acting ditto, a bit hammy but like I've said, there's worse out there in cellular city. The movie does however lack any real suspense, and of course you have the cheesy family reunions , rescues, tears and tantrums, plus the obligatory resentful step-daughter embracing her step-mother near the end of the film.

You also get some terribly embarrassing speeches from the President but hey why on earth not? You've got everything else in this kitchen sink of a film, why not some heart-felt speeches to give it a little patriotic zip?

All in all though, its not a bad little film to wile away a really boring evening, I've seen worse and at least with this film, I won't loose my way in the plot, so I can nip out and make a cup of tea and still know where I am when I get back!

Atomic Train was a surprise blast.
I took a chance on buying the movie Atomic Train. I have never seen it before or knew anyone that has. I based my decision on the title and the reviews I read on Amazon. Knowing that it was a made for TV flick my expectations was low. I have watched the movie twice now and I am glad I bought it. The basic story is a stowaway nuclear bomb on a runaway train. Will the train crash and set off the bomb? I will not give much away but to say there are a few surprises. Being a TV movie you have your soap opera elements but not as bad as I had expected. The special effects are good and the acting decent. There is a short making of the movie on the DVD. If you like trains and action you probably won't be disappointed.

Not bad, but not good, either
Atomic train is one of those "In between" TV films. It is not bad, but it is by no means good. The movie is about a runaway train heading towards Denver with a nuclear bomb inside one of its cars. The engineers an't stop it, so one man, a train wreck investagator, John Seger (Rob Lowe) goest out to try and get the situation under control.

Now, I just saw this on Sci-Fi a few days ago. The action scenes were well done, but some of the acting could have been much better. Also, there are a few holes in the plot that were extreamly noticeable, and during the course of the film there are many chances to stop the train that are overlooked. (i.e, when a crew member on the train is leaning against the hand break of one of the frieght cars and says "How the hell do we stop this thing"). But other than that, this was a good movie. If you like trains, you should see it at least once.

Make Up Your Minds, People
I am watching this movie on Sci-Fi as I write this. Not a bad movie, HOWEVER, atomic energy is not nuclear energy. The movie is called "Atomic Train" but the filmmakers can't decide if its an atomic bomb or a nuclear bomb. They're not the same. Atomic came before nuclear. And my mother hates Mena Suvari because she is a blonde. (I think she's cute.) And that concludes our lesson for the day.

Holy ... - a-zoida
WOW! What a movie. I've watched the movie probobly a 100 times it is so good. The plot is super and it is very true to the subject matter. Due to a great crew. SUPER MOVIE! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

SEND IN THE CLONE
MR. MURDER is an okay adaptation of Koontz's novel. It's biggest fault is actually the casting of Stephen Baldwin in the all important leading role. Baldwin's range is extremely limited, and sometimes there was little difference between the real writer and the clone. This is especially true in the first half of the movie; later on, he tries a little harder and he salvages what little he can of his performance. Other than that, there are some interesting suspenseful moments; Julie Warner tries hard as Baldwin's wife, but she has to overcome a lot of inadequacy from Baldwin; James Coburn is wasted but the pro he is, he puts more into his smaller role than Baldwin did. Thomas Haden Church was awful. Monotone, boring, he came off even worse than Baldwin!!!
The movie has some suspenseful moments, but it's not as good as the book. However, overall, it's fairly entertaining and not as awful as some may think.

It's pretty awful.
Stephen Baldwin is a horror writer who discovers he has an identical, murderous clone. This silly Dean Koontz adaptation is based off of his equally silly novel, so it's no surprise the script has all the typical Koontz plot elements: Government conspiracy, heroes going on the run, and a final fight in the middle of nowhere. The only difference is that the mystery is revealed at the beginning! Overlong miniseries (Which actually features nudity in the video version)features countless leapholes in logic, unconvincing special effects, and a hilariously wooden Stephen Baldwin as the writer and killer. You can count the number of good Koontz novels and movies on one hand (Phantoms, anyone?), and this sure as hell isn't one of them.

A decent made-for-TV movie
In general, Dean Koontz books haven't been translated to movies very successfully. This one made the transition better than most. ("Watchers", "Whispers", and "Phantoms" were appalling. The best adaptation, "Intensity", another made-for-TV movie, was never released after broadcast.) This movie follows the book rather well and, several times, generates a nice level of suspense. Obviously, much had to be cut or skimmed over to make it fit time constraints: better that than bogging down the pace with detail. Steven Baldwin wouldn't have been my choice for the lead, but he performs it adequately. James Coburn was wasted. As a made-for-TV, there isn't a widescreen version and the sound is only 2-channel stereo. I'm glad I saw it when first broadcast in two parts; it was good to see it uninterrupted when it was released, but I'm not willing to shell out the bucks to own it.

never again
never ever put any money towards this movie, i wish there were a rating less than one star cause this thing was horrible, talk about predictable i and everyone who watched it had the entire plot of the movie mapped out 30mins into it.

Koontz Fans Will Be Disapointed
I am a Dean Koontz fan and I have to say that this movie is one of the bad translations of his work. If you are not a fan of the book then by all means tell us what you think. I cann't be that objective because I am. So, if you haven't read the book, watch it. If you have read it, you will be disappointed. How does that saying go? It's never as good as the book. ... Read more

Amazon.com

You don't have to be a Kenny Rogers fan to enjoy his popular Gambler telefilms. Inspired by Rogers's 1978 hit song (which is replayed in each film) and beginning with The Gambler in 1980, this low-key series of two-night, four-hour broadcasts drew a majority of Rogers's loyal fans, and they hold up today as likeable showcases for Kenny and a lot of young 'n' old genre stalwarts.

The Gambler Returns: Luck of the Draw (1991) has an irresistible hook: As feisty Reba McEntire partners up with Rogers's Brady Hawkes, the hoary plot features a posse of stars from classic TV Westerns, from Gene Barry's Bat Masterson to David Carradine as swift-kickin' Kwai-Chang Caine, from the '70s ABC series Kung Fu. Hairstyles are wrong, production values are adequate, and the plot's disposable: On the eve of Congressional outlaw of gambling, Reba recruits Kenny to gamble cross-country from Mexico to finance a final championship poker match in San Francisco. Bloodless shoot-outs ensue as greedy villains follow their trail, but the relaxed pacing allows leg-room for multiple subplots and supporting characters, most played by still-ornery veterans of the genre.

Playing for Keeps (1994) is even lankier in its rhythms, and by then Rogers was comfortably wearing his role like an old leather glove. The plot drops Kenny and Mariska Hargitay (who'd later costar in Law & Order: SVU) into a languid rehash of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but its father-'n'-son reunion is played for keeps, as it were, and it gives this chummy TV movie some added dramatic heft. [Note: Although both films run 180 minutes, Artisan has inexplicably divided Luck of the Draw on discs 1 and 2; Playing for Keeps fits entirely on disc 2.] --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (2)

No surprises, but serviceable adventure yarn
There isn't much to say about this typical story of greed, intrigue, and jungle adventure -- this one takes place in the wilds of Borneo, for a change, and is set in 1955 although a lot of the film feels as if it's taking place in the 1930s. There's a sort of pre-WWII colonialism mentality about it that is jarring, and very little evidence of the modern world apart from some references to atomic bombs. Even the clothes, hairstyles, and mannerisms seem dated, archaic. Oh, well. The plot centers around a quest for a fabulous diamond and the romantic triangle (or is it?) between the married swells in pursuit (the oddly dyspeptic Carradine and an elegant Paris Jefferson) and their hard-scrabble guide (Billy Zane, good as usual in another cartoon role). There's a lot of running around in uncomfortable-looking surroundings, Zane doing a Bogart impression, and nasty natives of the sort normally encountered in vintage Tarzan movies. Very retro, but all in good fun, and the underappreciated Paris Jefferson -- best known perhaps as a radiant Athena in the "Xena" TV series -- steals every scene she's in, the perfect cool Britishwoman under fire. Who wouldn't steal a diamond for her?

...

Jealousy, Greed, Jungle adventure and not-stop action!
Having read a little about Louis L'Amour and his early adventures as a merchant seaman at his web site (louislamour.com), I can see some of his own life in this story! From the absolute KING of the Western comes an exciting, jungle action adventure flick that combines Indiana Jones with Casa Blanca, Tarzan, and Romancing the Stone. Zane is the perfect down-on-his-luck adventurer, trapped by his bad luck, empty pockets and a haunting secret past. Carradine brings just enough stiff-upper-lipped genious to his role to make you love - hate - love - hate the guy. And Paris Jefferson is a sophisticated sensous Gwenevere whose romantic notions get the better of her. Yet when the chips are down, she turns out to be the stongest of them all! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and recommend to everyone. And if you want to talk to the writer (and Louis L'AMour's son) Beau L'Amour, visit the discussion forum at louislamour.com He has been very active with comments on the making of this movie! ... Read more

Reviews (2)

No surprises, but serviceable adventure yarn
There isn't much to say about this typical story of greed, intrigue, and jungle adventure -- this one takes place in the wilds of Borneo, for a change, and is set in 1955 although a lot of the film feels as if it's taking place in the 1930s. There's a sort of pre-WWII colonialism mentality about it that is jarring, and very little evidence of the modern world apart from some references to atomic bombs. Even the clothes, hairstyles, and mannerisms seem dated, archaic. Oh, well. The plot centers around a quest for a fabulous diamond and the romantic triangle (or is it?) between the married swells in pursuit (the oddly dyspeptic Carradine and an elegant Paris Jefferson) and their hard-scrabble guide (Billy Zane, good as usual in another cartoon role). There's a lot of running around in uncomfortable-looking surroundings, Zane doing a Bogart impression, and nasty natives of the sort normally encountered in vintage Tarzan movies. Very retro, but all in good fun, and the underappreciated Paris Jefferson -- best known perhaps as a radiant Athena in the "Xena" TV series -- steals every scene she's in, the perfect cool Britishwoman under fire. Who wouldn't steal a diamond for her?

...

Jealousy, Greed, Jungle adventure and not-stop action!
Having read a little about Louis L'Amour and his early adventures as a merchant seaman at his web site (louislamour.com), I can see some of his own life in this story! From the absolute KING of the Western comes an exciting, jungle action adventure flick that combines Indiana Jones with Casa Blanca, Tarzan, and Romancing the Stone. Zane is the perfect down-on-his-luck adventurer, trapped by his bad luck, empty pockets and a haunting secret past. Carradine brings just enough stiff-upper-lipped genious to his role to make you love - hate - love - hate the guy. And Paris Jefferson is a sophisticated sensous Gwenevere whose romantic notions get the better of her. Yet when the chips are down, she turns out to be the stongest of them all! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and recommend to everyone. And if you want to talk to the writer (and Louis L'AMour's son) Beau L'Amour, visit the discussion forum at louislamour.com He has been very active with comments on the making of this movie! ... Read more

Reviews (43)

Entertaining, yes, but...
It's such a treat to see a movie about this fascinating period of history that one hates to cavil, but if you're going to make a historical epic, why not get it right? I'm not talking about plot details -- to tell a good story you've got to make stuff up, like Attila going to Rome and boffing the emperor's sister -- but rather about the false picture of Roman society this film conveys. To begin with, the orgy scene: the idea that the Romans were wallowing in sensual pleasure while the barbarians were at the gates is utter nonsense. Roman morals were strict, especially once Christianity had taken hold. And speaking of Christianity, we get scarcely a glimpse of the now-powerful Church and its grip on the court, not even a hint of the Pope's famous embassy that kept the Huns out of Italy.

Another reviewer has pointed out the inaccurate picture of Roman warfare. I'd add that it seems very odd that the close-ranked legionaries with their rectangular shields -- themselves an anachronism -- break ranks as soon as they get within striking distance of the enemy, thus sacrificing all the advantages of their formation!

Still, it's fun to see the stuff they did get right. Aetius was indeed raised among the Huns and was a friend to their kings, and his remarkable career merits greater fame. Honoria did send Attila a letter with her ring, which served as the pretext for attacking the western Empire. Valentinian may indeed have personally murdered Aetius. Great stuff for a costume drama; I just wish they had gone a little further and shown the late Roman world as it really was.

A classic!
This movie is SO GOOD and is amust see for everyone, a total must see. Just GREAT!

Good movie, but lacking historical accuracy! Why???
Attila is a very good movie that brings to life the director's version of how he would have liked Attila the Hun's story to have been. The movie does not faithfully follow the original sources on Attila the Hun, rather it is INSPIRED by these, and therefore has a great deal of flaws and deviations from the real accounts. One could list one after another the discrepancies that occur, and for those that have read/studied History, you know the list would be very long indeed, some will say too long... From this very long list the most important alteration of course was when dealing with Attila himself, who is portrayed as "really nice guy" who is "determined" to have his way, when in actual fact he was one of the most brutal/lethal people to have existed (what so many tend to call a "butcher" and a "tyrant" these days...). Even though this is Hollywood and one should be more flexible and lenient when dealing with adaptations, one should also keep in mind that one must never do so at the expense of accuracy i.e. the truth. Why? Because Attila was a REAL person and a very important historical figure and not part of some modern twentieth century novel! Therefore, the only real problem arises when the majority of people (and most people have NOT read the actual sources) who see the movie start believing that events happened the way the movie depicts/portrays and not the way they actually did. Consequently, due to this distortion, the movie poses a very serious danger of producing armies of misinformed people who think they know Attila's history when they really do not. Not good!
On the positive side, the movie does succeed in transporting the viewer back in time when the Roman Empire had recently been divided into Eastern and Western parts, following Emperor Theodosius's death in 395 AD and the subsequent division of the Empire between his two sons: Arcadius and Honorius.
The film does a great job of presenting these times and therefore providing a very accurate and thus, contradicting Decadent West (Rome) compared to the Pious East (Constantinople).
The movie is action packed, the acting is very good and the cast are wonderful. The actors' performances are outstanding, especially Tim Curry playing the Byzantine Emperor, steals the show, but also the rest of the actors who have done a superb job of providing an entertaining film that can be watched over and over again. Hopefully, more movies will be made set in the ancient times, as the demand for them is definitely there. And hopefully they will be historically accurate as well!
In short, it is my belief that the movie deserves 4 stars for the top quality and entertainment it provides, but falls short of 5 stars for deviating so much from the original and creating a sense of confusion among viewers.

Pleasing to the eye, but that's about it...
Like many of the other reviewers I found this movie to be wildly inaccurate regarding the history of the Huns, as well as their depiction. I think the script was indeed poorly written & had there been more effort put into the writing then maybe the performances could have been better. Also, I think that the film's directors/producers failed to acquire more appropriate looking actors to depict the Turko/Mongolian group (Huns). Some of the characters such as Attila's brother (Bleda) looked right for the part, however Gerard Butler as Attila failed to fit the bill. Now I didn't mind him in the movie because as many women will agree -- he is a very attractive man -- but this role just wasn't right for him. Still, an interesting movie.

Great Adaptation!
Attila is one of the greatest history movies ever made like Braveheart. It has love, compassion, action, great costumes, and a magnificent plot. A great movie and a must see for everyone! ... Read more