Reviews

I really like this show. I can readily see how it achieved cult status. It's original, and thought provoking. For some reason though, I have never felt the kind of resonance from it that I could have. It doesn't pack the kind of open door, winter chill that was to be had from such an awesome premise. Each time I watch an episode, I find myself prodding, and pushing for it to answer some nameless, formless question.

Before continuing, let me preface this by saying that what follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. Different strokes for different folks.

I would have liked to have seen more scenes in "American Gothic" that were shot at night. There's too much daylight in this show, and I think it had a tendency to counteract the suspense. We're not afraid of the daylight, after all. We're concerned about what's in the shadows. The devil isn't always in the details. What we're not seeing is often the most frightening.

Second--and this is the one that's probably going to lead to tar, and feathers: Gary Cole is a tremendously talented actor...a character actor. I've followed his career from The Brady Bunch films on, which is why it pains me to say that he was probably miscast as Lucas Buck. He's almost too petroichan, too likable to be embodiment of evil, even by Biblical standards. Lucas Buck is a narcotic. He's Heroin. He's freebasing in a kitchen laboratory next to a gallon of Drain-O. You keep going back, even though you know the end will be madness, and death. He should be like the ultimate loan shark. He's a maker of book, but also of unspeakable condemnation. Sure. You've got the money, and before long you're also going to have broken fingers; a severed hand, a decapitated head, and eventually, a damned soul. Turning to Buck is an act of desperation, and whenever he's around, there should be some immediate, ambient finality--with interest compounded daily--in the air.

It's all largess, all strings attached, and by the time you realize that, you'll also know that it's too late.

Which leads me to three: they showed Buck a little too often. He's in most of the scenes, in fact, which may have caused him to lose his edge. The sheriff would be like the next door mythology. He's the apocryphal acquaintance. Many would know 'of' him, but only an unfortunate few would really know him. He'd be the stuff of flashbacks, and cryptic conversations, and the perfect person to deliver this plot exposition would have been the deputy character that Nick Searcy portrayed.

Four, the show could be very self-reverential--to a fault, some might say--and this is typified by the whistling of "Meet Me At The Fishing Hole" in the series pilot. I think we've already established that what Cassidy, and Raimi were shooting for was the anti-Andy Taylor. We probably didn't need the concept delivered to us via Fed Ex. I gathered that within the first five minutes so, for me, the piano on the head was unnecessary.

These remarks are all about what, FOR ME, would have made a good show great. I also understand that the producers had their own, unique style, and that there were many hands in the soup. In their everlasting quest for LCD programming, the network played a definite role in the demise of this series.

The least these jerk-off suits could have done was to air the episodes in order.

Get real.

Either way, it's a grievous loss to both genre fans, and casual viewers alike.

There really isn't much that I can add to what's already been said. This is a great movie, and the further back in time that Fincher takes us, the more dazzling it becomes--his use of colors, in particular. The sequences used to recreate the era of the early seventies was especially haunting--it comes across as surreal...as if it was extracted directly from our memories of that period, more so than photographs, or films.

This film has the walk, and it has the talk that makes for a memorable epic.

If I have any criticism, it is that David Fincher's characteristic impressionism--his mind blowing spontanaeity--is sorely lacking in the production. On the other hand, did we want a funky story, or did we want the facts? Fincher is into the realism of this, and it shows in each, meticulously crafted frame of this gruesome, spellbinding saga.

A formidable piece.

I admit to having some reservations about this movie...not that I dislike Superman. To the contrary, he's always been my favorite superhero. I grew up during the Man Of Steel's golden age era between the covers of DC Comics. No, I experienced trepidation because so much time had passed since the previous film, the horrendous "Superman IV, The Quest For Peace." Add to that, the fact that, with the exception of archival voice-over material from the late Marlon Brando, none of the original actors were returning to the franchise. I was not bolstered by the Prue-title sequence which seemed decadent, and shamelessly puerile considering that no one in the audience had any reason to have confidence in this movie.

I'm elated to report that my fears had no basis. Bryan Singer did one hell of a job bringing Superman back to life (or back to relevance, depending on how you view the situation). By the end, I came to realize what this movie was really about. The opening hook did have its place--it was not meant to celebrate the grandeur of an aging, long underwear hero. To the contrary, it was a reaffirmation--a rededication. Superman had lost his place. This film was about the painful journey we all sometimes have to make; it's about finding your place in a world where you no longer seem to fit in. Brandon Routhe emotes this well, both as Kal-El, but somehow, even more profoundly, in his alter ego, Clark Kent. It's in the crestfallen looks...the bittersweet caesura. The notion that he may not be able to reintegrate into society overshadows every scene in the movie in a way that's poignant, and significant.

The movie is long, but don't let that deter you. There's a huge payoff at the end. You will be well rewarded for the time you spend watching it.

Kate Bosworth was awesome as Lois Lane. Perfect casting.

Frank Langella was amazing in the unusual role, for him, of Perry White.

Kevin Spacey is always top notch. He could do a commercial for Rolaids, and it would be a masterpiece.

What can I say, I'm buying the DVD when it comes out.

I gave this two stars--owing mostly to my naiveté; my belief that no film is awful enough to be considered a donut. This television version lacks many things. It has no scale; no suspense; no characters that we can relate to, or sympathize with. The music sucks. Likewise, most of the acting. There are no bravura performances, such as the one Gene Hackman delivered in the original with his portrayal of the radical, ultimately doomed, Reverend Scott.

What the film does have is a sophomoric script that is reinforced with layer upon adamantine layer of filler. The end result is less Poseidon Adventure, and more of a patriotic send-up of Homeland Security.

In truth, this was so horrible, I wonder if the production team ever saw (or cared to see) the original.

Such a waste.

This film gets ten, well deserved stars because it is one of the few science-fiction films I have seen which had the ability to draw you into its universe of story rapidly, and then keep you there. I've never seen the parody on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" all the way through, but the plodding, crap-heap those viewers was seeing was not the movie I remembered as a child.

Folks, _Marooned_ is a classic. I thought so then, and at age forty, I still believe that. Seldom have we seen so much dramatic talent put together in a single movie. Greg Peck was enough of a box office draw, but _Marooned_ has him, Gene Hackman, James Franciscus, Richard Crenna, David Jannsen--and they all deliver high caliber performances. Even those actors who have less screen time--such as the actor who played Wheeler, the flight controller at Houston--does a remarkable job with the few lines he's given. John Sturges was a venerated director at the time, and in this movie he continued to make epic use of his camera.

An earlier review compared the Mission Control scenes in _Marooned_ to those in _Apollo 13_, and observed that the ones in _Marooned_ are better, more realistic. I love both movies, but I wholeheartedly agree with him.

In the current age of space travel, one could only wonder what a remake of _Marooned_ would be like if they incorporated the shuttle orbiters, and the International Space Station into the story.

One more thing, and this is important. If you're a special effects nut; if you can't get enough of Lucasfilm, and any science-fiction film ever done by Steven Spielberg, then you're going to despise this movie..._Marooned_ is more on the tragic, introspective, narrative side of the fence. Time has not been kind to the visuals. In a perfect world, some ambitious corporation would see the potential in a _Marooned_ special edition with updated special effects, but let's face it, this probably won't happen. On the other hand, if you're interested in just a good story, and an interesting (too close for comfort actually) prognosticate about the perils of the early space program, then here is your movie.

Ambrose Aurealanus--the roman 'Count Of The Saxon Shore' (known to us through legend as 'King Arthur') perished during Britain's Easter Annals while fighting a terrible force that was led by an enemy named Mordor. The good news is, this movie doesn't end on quite such a depressing note, which seems like Hollywood, and it is, but this is also a breakout motion picture that attempts to treat this subject matter realistically, and historically.

It was a commendable attempt, and consequently, an excellent film. Clive Owen's Arthur was a warrior, and a visionary, but also a flawed, rather never human being. Guinevere was portrayed as lovely, and resourceful; strong-willed, and fragile; treacherous, and arrogant. There are also Grade-A performances from the actors who portrayed the knights.

I thought there was one, really rich irony that was left out of the movie for narrative reasons, and it's kind of shame because it really lends credence to the adage that there is no black, and white, only shades of gray. Arturus provided the legendary name, but it was another historical figure who actually embodied King Arthur's courage, and inestimable character. That person was (drum roll): Alfred of West Saxons--the King of England following the roman withdrawal from the British isles. So, a member of the invading army we saw in the film actually added to the Arthurian mythos. In the future, it would be interesting to see a drama that compares, and contrasts these two individuals who did so much to shape the face of British, colonial history.

I didn't have the chance to see this mini-series during it's initial, network run because of my work schedule, but praise be to Blockbuster Video, and a nifty thing called a free movie pass. On the whole, "Kingdom Hospital" is Stephen King on a totally different level. This is horror; this is fine storytelling; this is video art. What I admire most about this masterful weave of suspense, and the psychedelic is that the author/producer makes the material his own, never leaning on Von Trier's success, though it must have been tempting at times to do so.

Like "Cop Rock," and "Twin Peaks" before it, "Kingdom Hospital" is the type of series we don't see often--which is to say that it commits the heinous, unforgivable crime of allowing the viewer to think for themselves. Watch it while you can. All too soon we'll be rocketed back into the arms of the predictable, and the mundane.

This series, and that rotten, minus-Johnson travesty, _V: The Final Battle_ were two of the lousiest shows in science-fiction history. They blow like the wind, friends, and neighbors. If you want to see what happens when a bunch of suits at Time-Warner fancy themselves to be literary geniuses, then watch "V: The Series."

It's tragic really. The dark beauty of the original series is ostracized in favor of Flash Gordon, and Buck Rogers antics (After all, the powers THAT BE know this is what you really want...you big goof....) that make the viewer want to commit suicide by jumping from a stack of mediocre _Star Wars_ novels.

!!!So that's how it's done!!! It had been so long since I had seen a genuinely scary horror movie. When I taped this one off of pay-per-view I was stunned speechless. This is a superb remake of the original William Castle film--superb because it doesn't really try to compete with the original. It does its own thing, and the result is outrageous, and genuinely creepy. I honestly can't praise the filmmakers enough. The movie has the look, the scares, the acting. The entire cast was very good, but particularly notable are the performances from Peter Gallagher, Chris Kataan, and Geoffrey Rush who appear to be having a blast with this movie.

The film also stands up to repeat viewing. It wasn't that long ago I watched it again on TNT, and it held my attention every bit as well as when I first viewed it.

If all you crave is CGI effects, go with Spielberg's expensive, bad remake of _The Haunting_. On the other hand, if you want to remember what it's like to jump in your seat, rent or buy _House On Haunted Hill_.

Heh-heh, it's preeeeeeeeeeeety scary.

In Northern Kentucky, this was released Direct-To-DVD, and I can see why. The story is vaguely of the Mary Higgins Clark, gothic romance school, which is fine if you don't mind waiting ninety, bleary, thankless minutes before you find out what the plot is going to be. Watching _Cold Creek Manor_ is like taking your 90 year old, great grandfather for a walk. You stand a mile ahead, waiting patiently for him to teeter around the bend; indulging him while he stops to catch his breath, every other step. Also, like Clark, we have the obligatory skeleton, with an impromptu mass murderer thrown in to cap the improbable conflict. The problem lies not with the cast. Dennis Quaid, a fine actor, did his best, considering the restraints of cliched geekdom that were thrust upon him. Likewise, Christopher Plummer, though they appeared bound, and determined to shoot his scenes in bright light, and in ways that absolutely were not scary. Sadly, this is one of Sharon Stone's absolute best performances, and it's doomed to collect dust on the Thriller rack at Blockbuster Video next to such immortal classics as _Striptease_, and _Carnal Crimes_.

She deserved better.

Likewise, I can't find fault with director Figgis. Just by listening to his commentary, you could see the amount of thought, and care that he put into this project--only to have the trolls smother it in laziness, and ineptitude. Disney screwed us again. I think they need to give up on this genre--frankly, they aren't very good at it.

The length of the movie gives us a clue. This was an editing disaster. I could trim about forty minutes more from this film, and believe me, you wouldn't miss any of the material that ended up on the cutting room floor; 'extraneous' is the word. The DVD includes deleted scenes in the special features package. Don't waste your time though; they're filler, and more filler, and about as interesting as watching paint peel from the gutters of your house.

In short, they had the budget; they had the talent; they had the direction, but that famous, Mickey Mouse lack of suspense made it a dud. The only thing that you'll see plummeting down the Devil's Throat is the money you spent renting this thing.

This movie is spectacular for its set design, and cinematography which is why I've heard so many people commending it. I also very much enjoyed watching Halle Berry testing her limits--seeing exactly what she could do as an actress without confinement to any cinder block "genre." Robert Downey, Jr was also excellent in his supporting role as Dr. Miranda Grey's sensitive colleague.

Charles S. Dutton is always a pleasure to watch, but he appears too infrequently in this movie, and his character has motivations that are improbable to say the least. Now, we get to the bad part, as you may have already surmised. The script needs another draft. No, make that three, or four more drafts. There's too little plot exposition to advance the story in the first reel, which causes the feature to drag quite a bit. When they do get around to throwing you hints, they're cliches. There are too few red herrings, and even worse, the viewer knows that. Again, Dark Castle Entertainment uses the long haired, psycho-revenant female as its primary symbol. The Freudian, femme fatale with a penchant for blood, and self-mutilation. This time, though--unlike in _13 Ghosts_, and _Ghost Ship_, she's not frightening. It's the curse of predictability--an inevitable problem when a backlog of material carries the day, rather than originality.

This was part of the problem, the scares leave much to be desired in this movie. They're too little, too late, and they're not photographed particularly well. There's also a chase scene throughout the penitentiary that waxes uncomfortably close to several scenes in _The Fugitive_.

I know it sounds like I despise this movie, but I don't. At least two of the scariest movies I've ever seen were produced by through the auspices of this production company. With the talent that Dark Castle Entertainment is able to muster, they can't help, but produce quality; the biggest problem with _Gothika_ is that the project looks, and feels rushed ("The film is being released in two months!!! We've got to come up with something!!! Here, wet her hair down, and start turning the lights on, and off!!!" It has that feel to it, rather than being a careful meditation on fear, and horror.). It's clammy from the effort to get the job done.

I hope that in future projects (and I do very much want to see future projects from Dark Castle) they slow down, allow themselves to focus, and prove what really is possible in this extraordinary medium.

While I have great respect, and admiration for the 1933 Cooper, Shoedsdack film, I've got to say...this remake wasn't all that bad. As a matter of fact, I'm still bowled over with vertigo during the chasm scene. The movie ran into problems in the final reel where the greed, and vaingloriousness of the Charles Grodin character was a bit overemphasized (hyperbola, actually--then again, for someone in the oil business, his insanity may have been right on the mark).

Jessica Lange's sympathetic approach to the great ape was well meaning.

In 1976, this movie was very popular with audiences, if not critics who, if I recall, proceeded to bash it immediately, though the box office returns told another story completely.

Another user here at IMDB asked what a Main Bus-B Undervolt was. In the Apollo CSM's, whenever there was a substantial loss of power in one of the fuel cells, it would register on the panel as an undervolt. On Apollo 13, they lost two fuel cells. As a matter of fact, they lost four major systems--an unheard of disaster, and an outcome which could have rivaled the tragedy of Apollo One, were it not for the massive rescue efforts that were launched on Earth.

Yet they did make it back. And this docudrama by Ron Howard is one of the all time, great space epics.

One of the few times when science-fiction was taken seriously (though _2001: A Space Odyssey_ is another, beautiful, case in point. Ridley Scott once said that he aspired to be the John Ford of science-fiction in the cinema, and watching this film again makes me grieve that he shucked that ambition aside. Likewise, H.R. Giger--we would prefer to hear from you sooner, sir, instead of later. From the typewriter of Dan O'Bannon, the scenarist overcame the basic, B-Movie premise by being smarter, and more talented than your typical Hollywood screenwriter. The only sequel to come close to this tense, horrific ambience was Fincher's _Alien 3_.

Very close, actually, but still...not quite. Ten stars.

The above title says it all. Unless you're a special effects goober, or one who has a real jones for wizards, and elves, I'd run for the hills (and I don't mean Mount Doom). It's sad, to be so striking visually, yet to have a core of thundering mediocrity.

The film suffers from our acquaintance with the original. On the other hand, it has a first rate performance from Tony Todd, and the production values are staggering.

And...Tom Savini, and George Romero have stirred the pot just enough that you won't be able to predict everything. Definitely worthy of 8, out of 10 stars.

Before seeing this movie, all I could remember hearing was how frighteningly original it was. The success of B-Movies like this can be attributed, in part, to their socko advertising campaigns. In reality, the film is not very original. Actually, it's not a very good movie, period. It's the usual fare--physically perfect teenagers are lined up for slaughter in the knife wielding hands of an immortal mass-murderer. That's it. That's the plot for which Kevin Williamson deserves an academy award for best screenwriter, and Wes Craven for best director. Later, Williamson--who hereafter shall be referred to as Scribe Wunderkind--went on to achieve even greater fame with his equally horrible script for _Halloween H20_.

Slasher fans will embrace this movie for its gore effects. If you're a traditional horror fan like myself, there's not much here for you; if _Scream_ was intended to be a parody, then it succeeded beyond Craven's wildest dreams because it is not scary. For scary, you must go to John Carpenter, who already explored this territory definitively--even brilliantly--in 1978.

This one sucks. Tanya Roberts is one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. On "Charlie's Angels," she even upstaged Farrah for being curvacious, and endowed. This movie attempts to capitalize on that--to the exclusion of all else, I think. However, Roberts sexuality fails to carry the homicidal flamingos, and a male lead who is so horrendously dead pan, you almost wonder if the director kept a bottle of oxygen on the set to resuscitate him. The experience is made worse by Roberts' acting which is atrocious in its own right. Animal skins, blonde jungle queens in bondage, and bodacious mammaries are all very well, and good, but they're no replacement for good, solid acting.

The movie does boast some excellent photography, and for that I have to give it two stars.

This will always be one of my favorite films; _Silent Running_ made a very deft attempt to bridge the gap between film, and the more introspective, alienating world of the science-fiction novel. A worthy contribution from director Douglas Trumbull. The low water mark for this existential masterpiece would have to be the two, horrific, cornball songs by Joan Baez, which give me a splitting headache every time I hear them.