Reviews

This movie proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no unified God of Movie Production. This movie had one thing (and only one thing) going for it -- it is the most hilarious, most badly written, and most poorly made movie in years. Most of the cast isn't bad -- actors that were obviously temporarily insane when they made the movie -- but Vanilla Ice is out of his overly-shaved mind. The clothes, the hair, the sunglasses, the "how's the hoise" accent...cheese beyond belief! Of course, it's true what they say -- you haven't lived until you've seen this movie, if for no other reason than that you will need something to compare other movies to. "Well, 'Wayne's World II' wasn't great, but it was nowhere NEAR as bad as 'Cool as Ice'."

Why were people in awe of this guy? I'm sorry, but "Johnny Owen" was a freak. If that guy showed up at my door, I wouldn't be amazed, or stand-offish. I wouldn't be able to talk, because I would be rolling on the floor in hysterics. It's bad enough the movie was a loss, but did they have to destroy every illusion I had about small town bands? The whole point of the movie seemed to be to bolster up Vanilla's dying career, and expose the world to phrases like "schling a schlong". I can't spoil the plot for you because, basically, there was none. A lot of dancing...or at least, what they apparently thought was dancing...well, at least Kristin Minter and Deezer D. went on to "ER" together.

All that aside, I have to admit, I watched this movie three times. I was laughing too hard the first, crying too hard the second, and watched it the third time to show someone else how inane it was. Stars? Two and a half out of five, less if VIce ever does a movie again.

And it's virtually guaranteed that Hitchcock is. This movie is a poor imitation of the original. The original "Psycho" may not have been the utmost of a psychological thriller, but the remake was a joke. Poor unfortunates all over the country who haven't seen the original are touting the remake as a 100% copy, scene-for-scene, word-for-word, idea-for-idea. Nuh-uh!

Anne Heche was tolerable in the role of Marion Crane, but Vaughn just wasn't even funny as Norman Bates. The whole point of the original was to set Norman up as the quintessential tragic hero. Vaughn is nothing more than a creepy, perverted little loser who lives with his mother's corpse. He has no personality, no zing, and no depth. Even Leonardo DiCaprio, over-used and under-talented as he is, would have been a better choice for the role.

Why even bother remaking the film? Did we really need a close-up of a dead Anne Heche with stab wounds yet no blood? An extremely graphic (as well as audio-enhanced) scene of Vince Vaughn masturbating while watching her in the shower? A shot of Viggo Mortensen's derriere and a semi-shot of something that usually nets movies an NC-17? The original was just fine without them.

Van Sant seemed to think that the public was ready for "Psycho" to be released again. Why not just re-release the original? They've been colorizing pictures for years -- if that was their major worry, I'm sure they could have managed it. We didn't need to see Norman Bates ruined by a bumbling Vince Vaughn, who managed to turn Perkins' sympathetic Norman into a the ultra-creepy village idiot. I find it interesting the two films managed to be so close together in the length of the picture, since the second movie seemed to obsess on things that never happened.

The only thing this movie is good for is tape space for something else. Sheesh, even "Psycho III" was better than this junk, and it was the worst of the lot. I shudder to think who they'd cast in Norman's role should they ever decide to remake "Psycho II". Maybe the character might look a little more like Perkins did. Perkins WAS Norman -- Vaughn's a guy who makes a great creep, and works okay in an action, but he should never be cast in a sympathetic role. He can't carry it off.

The makers of this movie ignored the middle four films, and it shows. (I also thank my lucky stars they did!)

Admittedly, there was no mention in this movie just what Michael was doing for the last twenty years, but I can forgive that. As long as they don't mention the farces that came between the second installment and this one, I'm the world's happiest fly fisher.

While a tad slow (there aren't enough good death scenes to make this a true slasher), the casting is excellent. Newcomers Jodi Lyn O'Keefe and Josh Hartnett prove they can more than hold their own, as do the more experienced Michelle Williams and Adam Hann-Byrd, and LL Cool J is well-cast (and under-used) in the role of the campus security guard.

Admittedly the storyline is a little shaky. What IS it with Michael Myers and 17-yr-old relations? And did they forget that there is absolutely NO WAY that Laurie Strode graduated in 1978? She was still in school when the film was set, in October of 1978. While I seem to recall her being a junior, even if she WAS a senior, that's grad of 1979. Oh, but I digress.

Basically, this is a good movie, and an excellent end to the series. The end of the movie rocks, and hopefully means that there will be NO MORE SEQUELS. The Halloween series (and I don't count three through six, which were horrendous mistakes and not made by the original artists) is the ONLY non-supernatural and extremely successful slasher series to make a hit of itself. (Sure, there were four installments in the "Psycho" series, but most of those are closer to horror/suspense than thriller/slasher.) An 8 out of 10 -- despite being a great flick, there were still some dud lines. Kudos, though, on Sarah's death scene -- that was one of the best of the decade.

I'm sorry, but this is NOT a slasher film. Where was the gore? The blood? The decapitations? "Black Christmas" doesn't even belong in the horror section -- it should be moved to suspense/thriller. I realise we all have different likes and dislikes, and as a major horror buff, this didn't really match my likes. It had the potential to be a great film. The casting was good, the storyline was okay, and the camera-work was fabulous, but it just didn't work.

To start with, the film doesn't have the timeless quality that makes a true slash flick, or even a horror. In 1974 this movie was scary, but even by the time I first saw it (1981), horror (and in particular slasher) had been sculpted and re-done with the two "Halloween" movies, and even a couple of the Jason Voorhies flicks. "Black Christmas" tries to imitate the true slasher king, "Psycho", in its picture scenes and mystery, but the conclusion of the movie misses the mark by a mile. I won't ruin it for others, but I will say this -- if you aren't extremely disappointed, you didn't get the movie.

As long as you're not expecting a horror flick, you won't be that disappointed. Basically, it's not a half bad movie, but it's certainly not that scary. Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" is far scarier than this one. 4 out of 10, and that's only for the incomparable Olivia Hussey.

"Saving Private Ryan" is one of the best fictionalized accounts of war I have ever seen. The first twenty minutes (which will most likely be cut when the film makes its television premiere) are more than just war itself -- they are real. The real face of war, pain, death, and loss.

I loved this movie for the cohesiveness (seldom found in other war movies), but there was a major problem with it -- the claim that it was true. A little research into the situation soon shows that Spielberg took more than a LITTLE dramatic license -- the last two hours never happened. There was no major "rescue mission". Poor Pvt. Ryan wandered home one day, and they said, "Oh, hey, we were looking for you!"

As a movie educating people about the horrors of war, though, this is an excellent choice, provided the audience knows it's fiction. It's right up there with "Courage Under Fire" (also starring Matt Damon) as an excellent fiction resource. People wishing to check out a more realistic account of war will want to view "Thin Red Line" and the Canadian mini-series "The Valour and the Horror", both of which are more or less "true" accounts of wartime events.

Although an excellent movie, there is an inherent problem with using big name actors like Tom Hanks and Tom Sizemore. Not only are they far too old for the roles (it was highly unusual to find a WWII soldier over 25 -- most were between 18 and 21 -- and almost every soldier in this movie is late thirties or older), but viewers come in with an already formed opinion. "Tom Hanks? Oh, yes, he's the comedian who often plays an uptight neurotic who's likely to have a nervous breakdown." "Tom Sizemore? Cynical guy with a fairly crude sense of humor and an eye for the ladies." "Adam Goldberg? Ah! Chandler's freaky and psychopathic roommate on "Friends"!" Edward Burns, Canadian actor Barry Pepper, Vin Diesel, and to a certain extent Goldberg were far better for their roles than big time actors Ted Danson, Dennis Farina, Damon, Sizemore, and Hanks. It's not lack of ability, but rather lack of SUITability.

The movie deserves a high rating, but mis-representation (saying the movie was historically based when it was in fact fictional) and glamorizing (casting big name actors to draw viewers) detracted from the movie in some ways. It's got an 8.5 from me, and two thumbs up.

Why "Broken Arrow" failed I will never know. It had a semi-decent cast (including Christian Slater and Samantha Mathis, paired together for the third time), but the kudos in this movie go to John Travolta. Slater's character was too nauseatingly good to be believed (Slater has two roles -- the wild child and the nerd -- and this one just didn't work), and Mathis' character should have been shot in the beginning of the movie. Travolta, however, got me through nearly two hours of a holey plot, and some of the worst special effects and action direction I've ever seen. The character of Vic Deakins is almost quasi-spiritual in its mania and complete delusionality, and despite being a truly forgettable role (not unlike the dirty cop in "Pulp Fiction"), Travolta made a movie that should have ended up on the cutting room floor bearable. Watch the movie once for Travolta, but never pick it up again.

While not having the yen for violence notable in "Face/Off" (the only decent Woo movie I've ever seen), also starring Travolta (this time in the "dual" role of a stiff jerk / sociopath), the shoot-'em-ups in this movie will keep you awake, and Travolta's shining star will keep you interested. Give it a 6 out of 10 for Travolta. Check "Face/Off" out for a MUCH better Travolta/Woo flick, or if you really DID like this movie for the qualities it had (because everyone has different faves), you might want to check out other stuff by John Woo, and possibly Tarantino as well.

Think of it as the Mexican feminization of "Child's Play". This movie has an incredibly slow start, but is a good watch for fans of movies like the "Child's Play" series, "Dolls", the "Puppet Master" series, and any other movie where dolls can walk and talk. "Dolly Dearest" is your typical, satanically possessed inanimate object movie, containing such well-known actors like Candy Hutson (some of the "Land Before Time" movies), Chris DemetraI ("Somethimes They Come Back") and Denise Crosby ("Pet Sematary"), and comedic favorite Rip Torn. Set against the beautiful background of Mexico, much of the plot of this movie was involved with an ancient black magic curse associated with a pre-Mayan civilization.

It takes nearly a half hour before the movie really starts to get juicy, but once it does, you can't take your eyes off the screen for a second, or you miss something important. Dolly is a terrifying creature, with a tiny, tinny laugh that makes the viewer want to crack up. If you're expecting intelligence and deep meaning to a film, this isn't the horror film for you, but it's an excellent slasher pic. It's not too bad, since there's only a small amount of gore (about the same amount you'll find on a TV movie) and absolutely no nudity, but the satanic overtones may have many viewers picking another movie.

The little girl in the movie, Jessie Wade (Hutson), is written excellently, both as an exuberant young child, and as a slightly satanically possessed creature. Her brother Jimmy (Demetral) is also equally well-written. Where the movie falls short, however, is in the characterization of the mother. Denise Crosby is wasted in the role of this paranoid, semi-psychotic mother who is convinced from the start that her daughter is abnormally obsessed with Dolly (a correct assumption, but a little odd), yet doesn't even notice when her daughter's personality completely changes and she starts acting like an automaton. And never mind that no one notices the few dozen satanically possessed dolls wandering around.

On a scale of one to ten, this movie rates about a six and a half. The storyline behind the movie is mediocre, but the walking and talking dolls make up for it. The young boy is obviously the smartest of the entire lot, something that is typical of horror movies with children. It has the standard horrible ancient curse, but almost any movie regarding satanism or Central America does. I'd recommend it to anyone who's a fan of cult movies or cheezy horror films, in particular "Child's Play" (the first one) and "The Lightning Incident" (with Nancy McKeon), which are both extremely similar.

You'd figure the thirtieth or fortieth movie about dolls that "live" would get stale, but "Puppet Master" has yet more to show you. They're not dolls in this movie, but rather five special puppets, crafted with love to be the companions of an old, lonely man. Jester, the quiet puppet, and last to be created, who sits back and watches is by far the most interesting. It's cool to watch his head spin around (it's made up of three distinct sections) when he changes his facial expressions.

These puppets have been "lost" for nearly fifty years when the story begins, and a bunch of psychics come to investigate the hotel. The death scenes in this movie are unique -- no one can commit gruesome murder quite like tiny little people. But even though they're rampaging the hotel, these toys aren't evil. They set a standard followed in "Puppet Master II" (a movie that, while tolerable, is no where near as good as the original) in that the puppets have no choice but to follow their master, who will eventually reap what he sows.

It's a fabulous movie, from the scenery of the old bed and breakfast at the Bodega Bay house, to the almost sweet-looking puppets (who just happen to like to murder people), and all told, I think I would have to give this movie an eight out of ten. Sure, there's simulated sex, but it's not all that bad. The movie itself is pretty tame -- there's language, humor, gratuitous (and fairly strange) sex, and violence, but it's not marked by extreme gore (well, there's a questionable part right at the very end that is a little disgusting).

One of the best reasons for watching this movie is the cast, particularly Paul LeMat as Alex Whitaker. He's excellent as the peace-keeper in the movie, as well as the first of the psychics to have a really good clue what is going on in the household. Unfortunately, even he, in the end, jumps to the wrong conclusion.

Viewers who enjoy this movie will enjoy "Child's Play", "Dolls", "Demonic Toys", and "Dolly Dearest", among other horror films. Although "Puppet Master" isn't quite as demonic as the others mentioned, and has no aspects of Satan-worship, voodoo, or demonic culture, it's still another of those "inanimate objects come to life" movies. A definite hit!

Although this movie starts off incredibly slowly and at first seems like your typical annoying cult film, it picks up about 1/3 of the way in to be a great psychological thriller / horror. The cast of the movie (with the exception of a couple roles) is excellent. Jennifer Rubin is brilliant as always in her portrayal of the awakening Cynthia, and Dean Cameron is nothing less than breath-taking as he switches back and forth from delusional psychopath to happy camper.

The problem with this movie lay with the underlying storyline. As a 30-something woman having just awakened from a long coma, Jennifer Rubin is a little too young for the role. (Knocking a few years off the coma would have helped.) The viewer soon forgets that when they get caught up in the whirlwind of activities going on around. There's a little gore in some parts, but what's a good slice 'em and dice 'em up horror without a little gore?

If you enjoy Jennifer Rubin in this movie, you may also want to check her out in "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" (as well as the rest of the Freddy series), as well as a more serious role in the 1988 teen drama "Permanent Record". Any Cameron movie is worth the watch, but for Dean at his peak, check out the hits "Ski School" and "Summer School". The slow start doesn't hurt the movie at all, and the movie is worth at least a 7.2 on the ratings scale.

Another house, another set of house-guests. Although the first few scenes make you wonder if the movie was worth seeing, you're soon captivated by this movie. "House II" continues the comedic tradition set forth in the first "House". Arye Gross is as excellent as ever as Jesse, the new owner of the house, and Jonathan Stark, best known for his voice abilities in animated shows, is without equal in his role as Jesse's quirky and weird friend Charlie.

This movie will take you from the Wild West to the ancient Aztecs to the Crustaceous Period to the present time (October 30, 1986 in the movie). Charlie and Jesse get involved in one absolutely hilarious adventure after another. Like "House I", this movie is horror with a comedy bent, and doesn't have the nudity, language, or extreme violence that categorized most horrors of the eighties. It's good, clean fun. Sure, there's a few long-dead guests, but they're basically harmless. Add to the thrill some humorous, and well-done, special effects, and some interesting new pets, and you've got a winner!

If you enjoy "House II", it would be worth your while to check out "The Never-Ending Story" -- they work on a similar bent of fantasy and comedic special effects to catch your interest. Some viewers may also enjoy movies like "The Adventures of Pecos Bill". and more die-hard horror fans might also like "Tales From the Crypt Presents Demon Knight"

I expected "House", which I found in the horror section, to be the typical mid-eighties horror flick -- naked women parading around on screen, screeching as they are slowly sliced and diced to death. Instead, I spent the entire time laughing as the hero goes through one hilarious misadventure after another. Although the movie has its horrific aspects, there is no denying the comedic tone that is there for the entire movie. William Katt is a delight as Cobb, the horror author / Vietnam vet on a quest for his own personal self-realisation. He ends up in one embarrassing situation after another as he wages war against the house, and his own personal ghosts.

This movie also has some excellent cameos and supporting actors. George Wendt (Norm on "Cheers") is excellent as the annoying next door neighbor who is always sticking his nose in Cobb's business. Also including Alan Autry as the local constabulary, Kay Lenz as Roger's estranged wife ex-Sandy, and Richard Moll as his Vietnam war "buddy" Big Ben, this movie has plot, talent, hilarious special effects, and some of the most excellent comedic twists I've seen in years. Whether it be Cobb beating a plastic bag to death with a shovel, or large Jabba-the-Hut type creatures jumping out at him, this movie will surely keep any viewer in stitches.

If you like this movie, be sure to check out "Little Monsters" and "High Spirits", which were written along a similar horror/comedy bent. "House" is like the "Star Wars" of the horror genre -- an innovative, thought-provoking film that will forever change the way you look at horror movies. The lack of nudity, violence, and coarse language makes this movie suitable for viewing by a much wider audience range. Without a doubt, on a scale of one to ten, this movie deserves an eleven!

This movie has its good moments and its bad moments. If you're looking for morality, ethics, or plot, you won't find them here, but if you're looking for a really short film with some excellent acting and cameo shots, this one's worth checking out. Not everyone who watches the movie will enjoy it, but almost everyone will get a few laughs out of it.

A warning about this movie to some, though, might be the basic premise. Four guys who center their lives around smoking weed. Everything that happens in this movie happens because the characters have severe drug problems. But it's the character-driven obsession with the weed that gives the movie it's flavor. Even if you're one of those people who doesn't approve of marijuana, you'll get a kick out of the flick because it does show that smoking weed is a bad thing to do, and will end up getting you in trouble. In typical movie fashion, all the characters end up alright in the end, but there are a few "scary" scenes, particularly the hilarious shower scene that takes place while one of the characters is in prison (he "killed" a diabetic horse while stoned).

I usually don't enjoy stoner movies (and often don't finish them), but this one was worth watching. (It did help that the movie was really short -- if they had tried making it longer, they would have lost the comedic element.) The cast of the movie does an excellent job in their roles, and there are some fabulous cameo appearances -- the two most notable were probably Canadian actor Tommy Chong (well-known to many fans of stoner flick from the "Cheech & Chong" series) and well-known comedian Bob Saget as a very out-spoken member of a narcotics anonymous group. Other celebrities you can see here include Janeane Garofalo, Stephen Baldwin, Willie Nelson, and comedian Steven Wright, as well as Canadian dramatic and comic actor Jason Blicker.

Viewers who enjoy the movie for the stoner aspects may also enjoy "The Stoned Age" (not as funny or as well-written, but along the same lines) or the cult hit "Pulp Fiction". If it's the comedy that gets you, it might be worth checking out the "Hot Shots" series, or various "National Lampoon" movies (particularly "Loaded Weapon 1" and "Senior Trip"). If you just want to see Dave Chappelle in action again, check out the 1997 hit "ConAir". No matter what, there's something for everyone.

I know many people didn't like it, but I thought it was hilarious. This movie was not intended to be some serious sci-fi look at mutated lizards, but rather a humorous look at the whole situation. Matthew Broderick did an excellent job in a character that seemed to be written for Jeff Goldblum. I can't say the same for Maria Pitillo though -- the role seemed to be perfect for Sarah Jessica Parker, but I don't think any actress could have saved this nasty little creature. It's best we ignore her and focus on the true comedic genius in this film -- Hank Azaria.

The plot is a little weak admittedly in its use of "scientific facts", but come on -- "Independence Day" pulled some pretty big mess-ups too. For sheer comedic value, this is an excellent movie to watch, although it does lose some of the effects if watched on the television -- this movie should be watched for the first time on the big screen. For excellence of comedy, hilarious actors (including the shiver-in-his-boots soldier, played by Doug Savant), and basic on-the-edge-of-your-seat fun, I give this movie a 9 out of 10!

I tried and I tried, but this movie is yet another example of why "singers" should never try to make movies. No offense to the Spice Girls, but they act even worse than they sing. This movie does have some decent comedic value, but you can't hear most of the lines because of the loud Spice Girls music playing in the background, and the ones you could hear were almost indecipherable because of the strong accents (some of which just HAD to be faked). If you are a Spice Girls fan, you will probably enjoy this movie. If not, you probably will have trouble sitting through it. The sole thing the movie seems designed to do is prove one of two things: a) Posh Spice has no place in the group; b) when Ginger Spice left, so did most of the talent.

How many more movies are they going to make on what little plot this has? "Boy sees girl. Girl wants something from boy. Boy gets it. Girl is happy. Boy gets girl."

This movie has two redeeming qualities -- a high-caliber cast, and an excellent soundtrack. But even that's not enough to save the movie from being another flick obsessed with teenage drugs, sex, and violence. If the characters in the movie aren't drunk or stoned, they're trying to be. And the sole goal of all but two characters is to sleep with as many of the other characters as they can.

Thanks, but no thanks. Because of the cast and soundtrack, I can't give this movie a zero, but it doesn't pump it up to more than a 2.5.

Okay, okay, so this entire series exists solely for the purpose of putting Dennis Rodman and his multi-piercings on the air, but hey, it's not bad.

So you've got this team of five special agents that go around doing these international deeds of good will and shooting people for kicks. That's actually not that bad. Brad Johnson, Tim Abell, and Melinda Clarke bring the same brand of action and drama that was present in the cancelled "Soldier of Fortune, Inc" (a better title than what they've got now), and newcomers David Eigenberg and Dennis Rodman bring the comedic relief. How can you not get a kick out of Dennis?

On the down-side, the main purpose of this show seems to be Dennis getting rub-downs from beautiful, scantily-clad women. Ignoring the fact that a 6'8 man (with more piercings than some countries and flourescent hair) is trying to "blend in", there's also the problem that his character is identical to the one he's supposed to be replacing, who was a core member of the show's predecessor.

But back on the up-side, Eigenberg is brilliant in his portrayal of Nick Delvecchio. How can anyone not love this guy? Cross Gilbert Gottfried with Casper the Friendly Ghost, and you've got it.

This show has a chance, and possible staying potential, but it would be a good idea to see if former cast-mates Mark Sheppard and Réal Andrews can be lured back. The show has lost much of its appeal without the camaradie that marked the other series.

It's true -- a sequel is never as good as the original. And since the original wasn't that great...

This movie DID have a few good moments (ie. Jerry O'Connell's song and dance routine), but basically it was the same as "Scream" -- two hours spent hoping and praying that Sidney Prescott would get it. This girl is like the kiss of death! Everyone who hangs out with her gets killed. The end of this movie (although slow and repetitive, and TOTALLY ripped off of "Popcorn") was infinitely better than the end of the first one, for the sole reason that one of the killers actually had an interesting motive.

A request to Craven and Williamson regarding "Scream 3" -- please, kill off Sidney Prescott. I'm begging you. And whatever you do, DON'T KILL DEWEY!

This movie had to be the worst. Maybe I was biased because I like horror movies that are actually mildly interesting, but after awhile, I was tired of the spoof of it all. There is not a single original scene in this entire movie. Everything, from the death scenes to the motives to the killers, was a "been there, done that". This movie was so tired that I really didn't care if they hacked every single character to death. I was actually hoping that they'd finish me off before making a sequel. If only they'd gotten Sidney Prescott before the curtain went up...

The movie was great! It was moving, semi-realistic, and had a cast I could really get into! Unfortunately, that's overshadowed by the belief many movie-goers have that it is based on a true story. Very little (in fact, almost none) of the movie is fact. It's a great watch, though, for anyone who's ever wondered about the horrors that can occur in a war, and the devastation that families can go through.

If there was a contest for worst movie sequel of 1995, this one would be in the top three. What were they thinking? Up until now, the Halloween series has been primarily non-supernatural. But in this one, we've got everything from Satanic rituals to possible incest. But let's be fair and discuss the other aspects of the movie.

Plot? There is none. Cast? Some are better than others. Paul Rudd does a good job, but I don't think he'll be putting this turkey on his resume. Connections to earlier and later movies in the series? None. This movie has absolutely no point at all, except to invent characters that shouldn't exist, and to make all viewers hate the entire series (like "Halloween 3" wasn't bad enough).

Would I recommend this movie? No. This movie should be buried in the deepest, darkest hole you can find, and never resurrected. Unfortunately, like Jason, Freddy, and Michael Myers, this movie will never truly be put to rest.

And not because the movie was a tear-jerker. This had to be one of the corniest, and worst, movies I've ever seen. I'm not completely sure what happened, and I watched it twice trying to figure it out.

Unless you have a lot of time and a lot of reference books on hand, it's not even worth the effort trying to figure out what's going on in this movie, which is yet another cheesy werewolf flick. The acting isn't bad, but even the unquestionable queen of the cheesy horror films, Dee Wallace (Stone), isn't enough talent to save this movie from the slaughter house. And they made sequels of this? If you want a werewolf flick, "Teen Wolf" is far more interesting than this one. Between the gratuitous sex and the satanic allusions, you get lost in the inconsistencies of this film.

On a scale of one to ten, this movie gets a two only because of Dee and some other excellent cast members.

The excellence of the cast, and the phenomenal Stanley Kubrick, combine to make this probably the most fabulous horror film of all time. Although it is integrally different from the Stephen King book which inspired it (which prompted King to make his own version in the 1990's), it remains a masterpiece in the horror genre.

Jack Nicholson is at his peak in this role, where he plays a man who, although he's basically a nasty individual, slowly descends into madness after going to the Overlook Hotel. The scenery shots used in this movie are breath-taking, and you have to stop just to look at them.

There are some things that could have been improved upon in this movie (Shelley Duvall would have made a great blonde, and could have used just a little bit of backbone), but it's basically an excellent film. It stands out from most horror films of the late 1970's and early 1980's in that it doesn't rely solely on nude women and massive gore to snag it's audience. Over two hours in length, it's also much longer than the usual horror film, which is about ninety minutes. What violence there is in the movie is well-played, and appropriate under the circumstances. There are almost no scenes where I was left wondering, "Now why on Earth did he do that?"

If you haven't seen this movie, it's worth the time, if even to just see the differences between Kubrick's version and King's version. A definite five star thriller!

While the movie has the same sense of mystery and intrigue surrounding the Mary Higgins Clark book that it's based on, the viewer sort of gets lost in the fact that they're watching a 40-something Connie Selleca try to play the role of a 25-yr-old. It's almost laughable that Beau Starr, who plays her father, looks about the same age. This movie is another great example of a fantastic book becoming a fantastic movie. Mystery fans will not be disappointed -- there's enough intrigue in this movie to keep you asking..."What happened? What's GOING to happen?" If it hadn't been for the miscasting (Simon McCorkindale and Connie Selleca are fine actors, but shouldn't be playing roles of people in their mid-twenties and early thirties), this movie would easily be a nine. Even with that though, the movie rates a solid seven as a good watch, and the beautiful scenery bumps the movie up to a nine. A must see for any Mary Higgins Clark fan!

This show has a wonderful cast of characters, fairly decent storylines, and is basically an all-round decent soap except for one major thing -- the main character, Ally McBeal. Never has there been a more self-centered, egotistical, nasty, and downright cruel vision. I enjoy the comedic interface in this show (which is what sets it apart in the category of "night-time soap opera"), but the show could stand to further develop some of it's other characters rather than focusing solely on Ally McBeal. Maybe renaming the show would help?