Reviews

More accurately, the title is "Marvel Knights: Ultimate Wolverine Vs. Hulk". The story features Wolverine, hired by SHIELD, to hunt down Hulk. It shows Dr. Banner trying to come to terms with his demon. The animation is limited, however, I'm pretty sure this was done as a deliberate gimmick and not a money saver, as it still remains highly stylized. Still, if I wanted to experience a comic book...I'd buy a comic book. Not watch some peculiarly jointed animation on a screen. The story is vaguely interesting, as is the acting. They explore aspect of the Banner/Hulk relationship mulled on in comics, but rarely touched on once it hits live action or animation, which is a plus. But the visuals are very distracting, keeping from making this an enjoyable experience.

Imagine if a comedian who specialized in myelopathy humor--and only myelopathy humor decided to take his humor to the broad general audience that is the world, and you will understand the primary--and big--flaw of this movie.

This is a Mad-magazine style parody of more R-rated vampire horror movies. The characters play their parts mostly straight, except for the occasionally annoying pose as they wait for the audience to appreciate their brilliant quip (tips for next time, director--let loose the joke and keep rolling and let the audience mind try to keep up), and playing it straight with the ridiculous (deliberately) script helps a lot.

The movie does start off slow as the three protagonist have difficulty carrying scenes by themselves. Once they get to town, however, and the survivalist and family come into play the movie does well. The exception being is they really want to hammer a joke in over and over and over and over again...hey, we got it the first time, it was funny, now move on.

Laura Stone ('Lynette') deserves the most credit here. She gets the best, most shocking and humorous lines, and she delivers them like a pro.

One does have to wonder if the three protagonist (Bone, Sam and Carrie) awkward acting is a deliberate tribute to other lousy horror movies or simply a testament to their inability to act--it really is hard to tell.

So if you are looking for a rich and subtle clever comedy about vampire horror--then head somewhere else. You will hate it. If you are ready for a parody rich in brain-dead humor, then slide yourself up on the couch, and plop it in.

The movie starts with the rambling of a street-side preacher, and then cuts to Col J.D. Wilkes, the director, and a fascination with church signs, and how one of them stated that "There Is No Lie In What We Believe", but Believe was misspelled 'be "lei" ve'.

The Colonel's first interview is with an aged sign maker (who claims to know 47,000 jokes) makes him a series of signs with the word "BELEIVE" on them.

The Colonel then travels from location to location, placing the signs. They come across a gentleman who discusses the legend of a man in a run-down house, the man owned a monkey, and the legend that cropped up around that.

From there to a jamboree of older men trying to preserve a classical country musical style and Saturday night with a clean-cut moral center.

The story of the Devil Worshipper of Greensburg (with an interview with the actual 'Devil Worshipper') is perhaps the most touching piece of the entire work, with a particularly surprising admission.

Jamie Barrier, another country musician relates a story of pet cemetery that includes a series of ghost dogs chasing raccoons.

I Zombie, a horror movie host, who was horribly disfigured in a fire as a child recollects his career and people's reaction to his claims of Christianity and his career choice.

Scott H Biram provides a rousing point of view on religion, recollecting his last day as a church-goer in 2nd Grade, interspersed with him playing a thunderous little alt-country ditty.

Cedric Watson talks about the integration of the Creole communities.

This is followed by a bit at a carnival full of freak shows, with the host relating anecdotes.

A farmer talks about his job and the risk of being disfigured.

Jay Munly & Slim Cessna perform a wailing tune, while Munly relays the story of "Doder Made Me Do It".

The final bit is with a black man who works the street as a corsage maker. The thing is, he has lost both his hands in an electrical accident.

The movie ends on the performance of the Colonel and some other musicians cut with visuals of the South.

There is something more than vaguely exploitive and voyeuristic about this movie, but makes a ready attempt at sincerity.

The Colonel J.D. Wilkes is working on making himself a Southern Renaissance man, and the potential is there. Rent it on Netflix! I think you will be encouraged to buy it. Very similar to "Deep Blues" and "The Wrong-Eyed Jesus".

The Comedy Central Roast are usually just an opportunity to squeeze the lowest common denominator with the least amount of thought, and this proves no different. Firstly--the majority of the jokes just weren't funny. Of course, I've never been that impressed with any of the assembled comedians, anyway. And really, the roastee shouldn't be funnier than the roasters--and bless'em, the Shat-man truly was.

I do enjoy some vulgar humor but it is over-used here to a non-impressive effect. Poor Farah Fawcett was out of place and probably just selected for an opportunity to be the brunt for some easy jokes. Kevin Pollak was probably the best, but it was just a recycling of Shatner jokes we've all heard before. Artie Lange and Patton Oswalt also lent a little to the proceedings, but really not enough to salvage this work.

I did at least learn how to pronounce George Takei's last name.

The Cramps are a great act. Really, I promise. Unfortunately you could never tell it from this release.

To it's credit, it is truly epitomizes the spirit of punk. A roughly shot video, audience participation at all-time high and Lux Interior giving it his best, howling, snarling and doing his best to maintain control (but simultaneously indulging) an audience that simply will not give it.

Firstly, it is way too short. At under 20 minutes of actual performance time, and quality of audio and video barely tolerable, 19.95 is way too much. Even Amazon's 17.99 isn't enough of an improvement. I could see maybe paying 9.99.

Now the concept is hilarious, and, as far as that goes, the video lives up to expectations. Lux frequently loses control of his microphone & Bryan Gregory seems to have a couple of satellite loons who are enjoying themselves. Poison Ivy and the drummer seem to get unfairly neglected (though it looks like the bass drum was kicked in before the show even started). As said, the entire band performs with incredible aplomb in spite of the numerous interferences. If you like the Cramps style before, you'll love it now.

But ultimately the video looses out due to quality of recording and far too short run time. Maybe if they had included the Mutants performance. As it is, the video provides some excerpts from what am I assuming are other punk video releases.

'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.

My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.

'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.

The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird.

Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.

A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.

Night of the Comet is about two females (Catherine Mary Stewart and Keli Maroney) left stranded on an Earth virtually annihilated of all life by a passing comet. It is, for the 80s styled, relatively low-budget sci-fi/horror that it is, a remarkably good movie. I'm even loathe to use the term 'cheesy', as it seems to strike an amazing sense of balance of when to take itself seriously and when not to.

There is a little fore-story, mainly to establish the comets coming, and the character of the girls, sisters. They are under the domain of a wicked step-mother, and a father who is deployed with the military. Through separate events, they find themselves saved from disintegration by being enclosed in steel structures. It is quickly established there are a few who were only partially effected by the comet and have turned into lunatic zombies with some cognitive abilities.

In an attempt to establish communication, they head to a radio station, where they meet Hector, the requisite handsome male for the movie. All of these scenes are interspersed with shots of a scientific facility and their crew preparing for something. The two groups come to meet after the scientist rescue the girls from stylish mall-zombies, and quickly the nature of their plot unfolds. The butt-kicking commences and shortly the movie concludes.

All of this is held together with a script that is only mildly hokey, a quick chase down the romantic lane, make up and effect that know their limitations and use them well, and use of isolated scene shots effectively.

There is plenty of errors in this movie for those ready to dissect those sort of things. Empty streets that should be filled with crashed cars, for one example. However, budget and artistic notions found better imagery with what the director is given.

All in all, a fun movie, equal parts camp, sci-fi and horror, and that will leave you feeling good at the end of watching it. Definitely recommended. 7 of 10.

I watched this movie on one of Mill Creek Entertainment 50 Movie Packs (Chilling edition). Even though the packaging advertises 126 minutes, this version is only 98 minutes. Supposedly, the longer, unedited version is better. I found myself growing impatient with this 98 minute version.

The core of the story is a musicians witnesses a murder of his neighbor from afar, and becomes involved with a reporter in the investigation. He comes clued into to an old piece of folklore, and tries to track down its roots, and death follows in his trail.

The story is not bad, fairly typical seventies fare, with a police tolerance for civilian interference in an investigation at an all time high. Cinematography and music are both OK, the primary flaw is the synchronization between the two. The Goblins are a lot of fun to listen to, as always. Dario Argento controls the camera in ways that would make modern directors envious (and he has surely been emulated since). It is however, not as cohesive as it could be. Plus, the liberties taken with suspension of disbelief are quite liberal.

The conclusion is not the most logical, but Dario A was always more about a bloody thrill weaved into a competent story line and not much else.

Overall, not a bad movie,though not terribly remarkable either. Certainly worth a watch on video, when you can take short breaks. While it may not entertain to mesmerize you for its entire length, it will have you coming back.

I'm not entirely sure what Kevin Smith has, but he definitely 'got it'. Anyone else revisiting a franchise the way he does would have depleted the energy at least one full movie ago. Not Kevin Smith. Unbelievably, he somehow manages to make this movie hilarious, moving and communicative in ways that no other director can parallel. Kevin Smith may not be the best director, but his unique style is unmatched in Hollywood.

Clerks II is a movie about two slackers--Dante and Randall--who have worked the same job for a decade, only to find themselves shifting to another job when their work place burns down. The movie details their 'adventures', as it were, in the fast food place, paced along side Dante's pending engagement and Randall's acceptance of the events around him.

For those familiar with the franchise, Jay and Silent Bob return. For those not familiar with Kevin Smith movies, they are a couple of drug dealers whose antics are the highlight of the movie.

There is at least one mild surprise in the movie, though it isn't the romantic arc, which is as predictable as a train on tracks.

After seasons of movies alternating between inane stupidity and bizarre complexity, it is refreshing to have a movie whose enjoyment is simultaneously simple and intelligent.

All of the talent here does a good job, from the minutest roll to the major. Musically it isn't quite as much fun as the original, but damn close.

The only negativity I can say--if you didn't like the original Clerks, you probably won't like this one any better. If you love the original, odds are good you'll like this one; and let me say there is nothing that improves the enjoyment of a movie like this than sitting in an auditorium full of fans. If you've never seen a Kevin Smith movie before--hmm. Well, I recommend it. It is a grand revelry in decadence and humanity. Sit back and enjoy. A 7.5 on a 100 point scale, and an 8 on a 10.

X-men 3: The Last Stand is a fantastic spectacle, an utterly worthy sequel to the first two movies. It will awe you with imagery, amuse you with character interaction, and tickle your intellectual and philosophical bones without over-burdening them.

For the new arrivals, the X-men movies are a series of movies featuring a group of super-powered beings (called 'mutants') who have to deal with the prejudice of humans against them. Additionaly there are a group of super-villains who are intent on becoming the master race and eliminating the humans.

The principal thread of this movie is that a "cure" has been discovered for mutants. The primary antagonist, Magneto, is ready to crush those who would create the cure and establish political and social dominance over the humans. As a parallel to this story, Jean Grey who died in the previous movie is seemingly reincarnated as the Phoenix, a telepath/telekinetic with overwhelming power. The Phoenix becomes entangled in the struggle between the good mutants, the bad mutants and the humans.

This movie knows its special effects and how to execute them. There is barely a dubious moment in the entire movie. You get a true sense of the awe inspiring power that these characters have.

On the more humanistic level, you get to see how many react to being a mutant and to the news that they may be able to fix themselves. Of note are Anna Paquin and Ben Foster (who was sorely under utilized) on opposite ends of the spectrum. There is much more, but seeing it for yourself is the best way to experience this emotional impact.

The script and plot are, for the comic vet, old ground; but, by movie standards this is quite fresh. Plus the dynamic presentation of a story that has been presented statically for so long is quite the rush. Most of the actors, from the principles to the tertiary, did excellent work. So good, in fact, I would feel shallow pointing out my one real disappointing character in the movie. Notable debuts (at least in this franchise) are Ben Foster, Kelsey Grammerand Dania Ramirez.

Overall, an excellent movie, that I recommend rushing out and seeing as soon as possible

I've sat through this movie a couple of times. Most recently was the other night as I did a marathon of all three King Kong movies.

Thismovie may have been excellent for its time, but I just don't think it has aged that well.

I think the strongest part of this movie are the special effects. Stop motion, or otherwise, the man in control of the effects had a good feel for his limitations and the audiences probable toleration for those limitations, and managed them well.

The weakest part of this movie is the acting. Really, this whole national fascination with Fay Wray still puzzles me. She started off OK, when she is the starving waif, rescued off the street by Robert Armstrong,and the subsequent conversation in the diner. Once she hits the ship and starts interacting with Bruce Cabot she gets shrill and only gets shriller as the movie goes on. If she's an inspiration for scream queens, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre owes her a debt of gratitude, because thats the only screaming that's ever come close to competing (at least that I've heard).

Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham is mildly interesting, but Bruce Cabot as Jack Driscoll is stiffer than dry oak. People thought this guy was romantic? For everything between good and bad, there was the script and plot, which have aged fairly well. Many people fueled on the nitrous pace of modern movies may find this a bit languid, but it still moves along reasonably.

For the feature attraction, King Kong (the ape,not the movie) is a decent experiment. There is care and love put into this, it is obvious. He moves fairly smoothly, and his expressions, while occasionally goofy and doll-like, are remarkably humanistic.

I've had a good time watching the movie, multiple times, and while I can't place it as a great movie,it has obviously inspired countless movies and monsters, and as such is innovative. Also, as the key word-multiple. I've seen it several times and yet to get bored with it, always a plus with any movie. Definitely worth a watch, at least once. I bought a single-disc edition, on the cheap, which I recommend if you are going to purchase it. A six on a ten point, 6.4 on a 100 point.

Underworld: Evolution is a spectacular display of special effects and choreography thrown over a reasonable story-line that embraces with enthusiasm the lore of vampires and werewolves.

I'll be honest, I didn't enjoy the first one; I'll even take it on the terms that it personally didn't appeal to me, as the original was technically quite competent. It just didn't hold my interest. I came into the sequel just to be with friends, and left the theater pleasantly surprised.

I think the strongest selling point of this movie is the special effects. Some FX may be better, but I've not seen a director who understands his limitations and capabilities and executes them so well. Not George Lucas, not Spielberg, or a host of hundreds of other directors. Additionally, make up and costumes created an environment of highly realistic appearing characters.

Secondly, the plot, while occasionally dizzying and burdensome, was far more interesting this time around. Selene and Michael Corvin are on the run after the havoc from the first movie, and their journey takes them on a discovery of truth about the origins of werewolves and vampires.

The combination of pacing, story, plot and special effects lead to an exciting story and quite a few moments of awe at the scenes of battle as the two immortal races tear into each other.

The weakest link in the "Underworld: Evolution" is the acting. While everyone does seem enthusiastic, at least, there is a few eye-rolling moments in the delivery of dialog, the worst offender being Bill Nighy's performance. Scott Speedman does a good job as the hybrid, but delivers his lines in a dull fashion. Either the director noticed, or he lucked out, as he did not linger long on either one's acting.

Certainly worth a check at the theaters, perhaps even at night-time prices. 7 on 10-point scale, 7.4 on the 100-point.

'Body Snatchers' (1993)is a moderate movie, with some decent scares, not quite held snugly together.

The movie, in fact, comes across as a reasonably well made piece of fan-fiction. Amateurish, but enthusiastic and mostly fun, without too much ridiculousness.

The title implies a sequel, and watching all three movies together, one could picture these stories occurring simultaneously across the country.

The director is smart enough to know the boundaries of his FX about 95% of the time. The only time he really over-extends them is a critical dramatic moment, but only those seeking to poke holes in the movie will hammer on this.

The acting overall is decent. Forrest Whitaker is the surprising weak link here, hamming it up to almost embarrassing levels. Meg Tilly is unremarkable, and Billy Wirth is stock hero. R. Lee Emery plays a toned-down version of his usual self. Gabrielle Anwar has the best lines, and the best overall performance. Terry Kinney does fairly well, as does Reily Murphy.

This is a movie with an 80's mentality made in the 90's, including some gratuitous T & A. Sort of a John Hughes meets Tom Savini. As a cheap rental or a bargain bin purchase, it is definitely worth considering, and will probably keep you reasonably well entertained through out.

A six out of 10, or a 6.4 on the 100 point system.

The pace of Bullitt is unlike most modern films, a curious piece of late sixties film-noir, evoking as much from footage and music as it does from dialog. At 113 minutes, the lead character probably has less than twenty minutes of lines, and those subdued and reserved, quiet-spoken; a shocking contrast to the brazen, loud-spoken, quip-uttering characters that have saturated the market since the eighties.

The chase scenes, also when viewed with modern work, are much more subdued...and include such obvious gimmicks as speeding up the camera. This movie is much more about the story-telling, and character interaction. The ending takes you to a point and then leaves you out to hang, wondering what is in store for Bullitt not so much as a detective, but as a human.

Bullitt is curiously filmed in that you can walk out on portions of it and not miss any plot points, but is filmed well enough to not be boring.

Some nice touches are appearances by Robert Duvall and Robert Vaughn (before he became the spokesmen for law firms across the nation). I had mostly seen these actors in their older performances, and seeing them youthful and vibrant and out to prove their chops was a pleasant change of pace.

I would definitely recommend renting it before buying it. It is a good movie, but again, I emphasize the pace and characters are different from to what most modern viewers are used, and you should see if that pace is good as a novelty or a permanent investment. A 7 out of 10.

As a long time fan of the Hitchhiker novels, I'd really hoped for good movies, or at least a 'cult' style movie. Unfortunately Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy disappoints on both counts. The audience was a mixed bag, a couple of serious fans who loudly laughed at the smallest jokes, some who did a general low chuckle through the whole proceeding and one guy, I kid you not,loudly snoring for the last half of the movie. Now Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 2005 is not great, but its not that bad.

First the positives--top grade special effects and creature workshop. The only complaint there is Zaphod, whose double head is given short shrift.

The entire creative team does seem to want to make the movie at least in the spirit of Adam's work. I excuse most of the cast, as they do seem to be trying their best. Unfortunately they're not quite up to the challenge. There is virtually no comic timing, with the occasional exception of Alan Rickman, and even he is not at his best. Lines are rushed and mumbled. The characters are either highly diluted versions of themselves (Such as Arthur and Ford)or completely different (Zaphod and Trillian). Ford has none of the sense of casual sass and wisdom, and comes off as a panicky neurotic. Not a hoopy frood. Zaphod, likewise lacks all things that made him cool and amplifies his negatives. Picture all the worse clichés you have heard about President George W. Bush, magnify them times ten, and you have Zaphod-including a pseudo-Texan accent. Arthur is far too normal,or at least his neurosis isn't focused on, which is a critical weakness. Zooey Deschanel is pretty, but she does not convey the strength of Trillian's character in the book. Here she seems to be just a foil for love, and to create some unneeded tension. John Malkovich,usually a scene chewer, is quite unremarkable here.

Here is a single example that reflects the whole movie. In the beginning of the novel Ford Prefect persuades the person in charge of the demolishing team to lay down in front of the bulldozer in Arthur's place. In the movie,Ford plies the construction team with beer. The end results are the same, but the comedic delivery lacks. This persist through the whole movie. Additionally, the storyline, for those familiar with it, is far too rushed and compressed, moving character development far ahead of schedule. The original TV series, though operating on a fraction of the budget, preserved the spirit of the novels. If you have a chance, watch those. You'll be more amused. Overall, the only reason to see this in the theaters is the stunning graphics. Viewing priority: Movie rental, not as a new release.

7 of 10/70 of 100 I agree with many of the other reviews/comments posted here. The 'Jacket' is the kind of the movie that you can enjoy if you don't think about it too much. Unfortunately, many of the plot holes are doing the Lindy right in front of you, so disregarding them is no minor feat.

Adrian Brody plays an Army vet who receives a head wound that takes him briefly to the realm of death. It seems that he is discharged about a year later (minor flaw 1), and becomes a bum. He bumps into a little girl and her drunken mother on the side of the road and repairs their broken-down vehicle. The mother fears he's a pedophile and chases him away. He then is picked up by an outlaw who gets him involved in a shoot-out. The outlaw then vanishes, leaving him the only suspect.

He is admitted into an institution for the criminally insane, where he is experimented on by a doctor. The doctor uses a morgue drawer and a strait-jacket (thus the title of the movie). The set-up for this, while artistic, is more than a trifle unrealistic in the last decade of the twentieth century. While locked in the drawer, he discovers he can travel forward in time, where he meets the girl(now a young adult)and tries to rehabilitate her depressed life. Through-out this, the acting is fine, if a little uneven, and certainly takes large leaps of faith in the characters and plot plausibility.

The conclusion is very confusing as the director seem to be torn between make a dark, original ending or the happy Hollywood ending, tried making both and ended up with something that was just odd. Nothing about this movie really requires the large screen, so waiting for this to come out on video won't dampen the experience. If you can catch it on matinée or bargain theaters (if you are an ardent theater-viewer), that will more likely guarantee your money's worth. A flat seven on the ten-point scale.

For those who enjoyed John Hughes teenage angst movies such as the Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles and the raunchy trilogy of American Pie, this will be right down your alley. The leads Emile Hirsch, Elisha Cuthbert, Timothy Olyphant, Chris Marquette and Paul Dano carry themselves very strongly, almost to the disadvantage of the rest of the cast who become vital structurally, but otherwise completely unnoticeable. There is an occasional violent tone to this movie that clashes bizarrely with its otherwise comedic nature and the scenes are very disturbing. Additionally dream sequences are blended with real-time sequences, for occasionally comedic, sometimes freakish effect. Timothy Olyphant almost steals the show as a sociopathic porn producer who you never quite know if you want to cheer on or wish he were dead.

Hirsh and Cuthbert mix quite well, blending the finding and losing of innocence with a pleasant sincerity. Chris Marquette comes across as a young John Laroquette type character from "Night Court", and is entertaining. Borderline on visibility, but filling in when he does, is Paul Dano. Visually and scriptwise the movie is a lot of fun throughout, and tries to avoid wading in its own sincerity too much. The 'unrated' version hardly seems to need to be unrated, and I'm not precisely sure what separates this movie from a modest R rating. A 7.5 on a 100 point scale and a flat 8 on a 10 point.

Damion Crowley

I almost rated this movie a 5 due to the audio track being about one-two seconds out of sync with the video, but figured that would be a rating on the DVD and not the movie itself.

'Vulgar' attempts to be a dark dramady. Bryan Johnson incorporates the humorous stylings of its producer, Kevin Smith, with a sinister tale of extreme abuse, and a weak man's response to it. Johnson, in attempts not to rush the story uses lengthy character studies with the camera. Occasionally, this means boring. The shadowy realm that Johnson is attempting to create occasionally threatens to blot out necessary story-telling. Brian O'Halloran the under-employed resident of View Askew studios turns in a top-notch performance. All of the actors do give it their all and present a kingdom of mire and helplessness for Flappy/Vulgar. Nice touches are Kevin Smith's blessing, in the form of a brief appearances as a TV show producer (and his first appearance will cause many a double-take).

Overall a good movie, but not a great movie, certainly worth a watch on video. I'd rate it a 6 out of 10.

Damion Crowley

"50 First Dates" is a movie far better than I expected. It probably would have made an excellent date movie on first released, and certainly worth a trip to the new release section of your video store.

The basic premise (assuming you haven't read a thousand other post)is Adam Sandler, a Hawaiian ladies' man who tends to aquatic animals for his job and repairs his boat in his spare time, finds himself falling for Drew Barrymore, a young lady with short-term memory loss.

Perhaps most surprising is the movies unwillingness to compromise on the handicap, and working toward a solution that is realistic but sweet and romantic and occasionally heart breaking. It is comparable, easily, to "The Wedding Singer", and at many points shows the actors maturity, though Adam still seems to have difficulty with more extreme sincere sentiment.

I would rate the movie higher, but individual performance are sometimes weak. The total, however, is greater than the sum of its parts, and most people should stay moderately entertained through the movie. The only thing keeping me from rating it an eight is that it doesn't seem to have strong purchase power, though once turned on you're not likely to turn it off.

A 7 on a ten point system and 7.4 on a hundred points.

"Full Metal Jacket" follows a single Marine-nicknamed Joker(Mathew Modine)-through boot camp and a portion of his time in Vietnam. It is loosely based on the story 'Short Timers' by Gustav Hasford. It is directed by Stanley Kubrick, known for long, eccentric movies that weave surreal and super real characteristics blended together, creating nightmarish, hollow and disconcerting movies.

The boot camp portion of this film is what most people remember. The drill instructor is played by R. Lee Emery, and it is one of the most terrifying, moving, funny and convincing performances in movie history. Virtually a non-stop rant from his first appearances to his last he electrifies the performances around him and puts the viewer in boot camp with the rest of the recruits. Vincent D'Onofrio does well as Private Pyle, overacting in only one scene-though it is a critical scene. Matthew Modine's performance is almost tertiary to Emery and D'Onofrio's performance. We do get see him develop a little, the positive characteristics that will make him strong in Vietnam.

The second portion blends sixties rock n' roll and Vietnamese urban warfare to tremendous effect. The war effort is crumbling and Reporter Sgt Joker is sent to the front to support infantry and get stories for the "Stars and Stripes". There, Joker confronts the full effects of war on himself, friends and strangers. One is hard pressed to remember at points that it is just a movie, so comfortable and real are the actors in their surroundings. The Door Gunner ('ain't war hell?'), Animal Mother, 8-ball and Cowboy are consumed by their roles.

It is definitely not a movie for those easily offended by language. As an anti-war movie, it seems to have exactly the opposite effect. Nonetheless, it is a powerful performance, with the entire cast making it greater than the sum of its parts. It is the finest Kubrick movie that I've seen(out of eight). I recommend it for anyone over the age of sixteen who enjoys action or war movies. I rate this movie at nine stars out of ten. It truly deserves to be an American classic.

Purchased the DVD and rewatched the movie for the first time in a long time, and it is a movie that preserves its high quality surprisingly well.

A collection of short horror stories, based on the old EC horror comics format, Stephen King and George Romero and Tom Savini seem to be have a lot of fun with this gore fest. The live action stories are briefly threaded, prologued and epilogued with comic book style panels and art. The stories are all very entertaining and picture a lot of early performances by now moderately popular actors, and some actors on the verge of retirement. The graphic were OK for the era, and most of the comedic elements of the horror are comedic on purpose. The stories are well written, and the odd balance between fear and hilarity is walked by the players and audience alike. Despite camp appearance, there is genuine horror in this movie and the cartoon-esque direction and comedy accentuates this almost perfectly. The only real complaints to be had are the remarkable similarity in story themes (two zombie shorts, two tales of being overtaken by something minute but unstoppable, plus one about a mysterious beast). The specific target audience that the movie is written for will probably also limit its appeal.

Using the whole number rating, I'd have to give it an eight, but if I could I would give it a 7.8 on IMDB.

Damion Crowley

Lion King 1 1/2 is a very fun and addictive sequel. Don't expect the production values of a theatrical release, but do expect the highest quality of direct to video release.

It is set up as Timon & Pumba begin watching the original Lion King in a darkened theater and abruptly switch tracks and begin narrating their own story. This is done with frequent comedic interruptions. For example, during one particular tense moment a home shopping commercial pops on and a chagrined Pumba realizes he has sat on the remote. These little moments pepper the movie, and whether you find them entertaining or not will greatly depend on your sense of humor. If you are particularly bothered by movies that deliberately remind the viewer is watching a movie, than this may not be your cup of tea.

Animation is the best they've invested in the Disney DTV line, and is integrated almost seamlessly with the original material. The newer, independent material uses a lot of the artistic style of the original. The voice talents are all well performed, though I couldn't help thinking of Marge Simpson every time I heard Julie Kavner.

Many of the jokes in the movie will be well recognized by viewers as recycled over the generations, but are presented more with the familiarity of comfortable quirks of old friends than annoyingly repetitive.

The music has made me realize how much I enjoyed and miss a good musical integrated with a Disney feature. The toe-tapping opening feature of 'Dig A Tunnel' is well choreographed and hilarious. Timon and Pumba's take on the Lion King's opening sequence and their introduction to paradise are also amusing. The only problem was the reprise of the 'Dig A Tunnel' at the end of the movie, switching its lyrics and tune from defeatist to uplifting.

Story line is pretty well done, and the integration of new plot elements is done almost perfectly, though the final bit during the hyena chased stretched the storyline credibility a little. The new story doesn't seem to handle saccharine or emotionally charged moments to well, and does better when it is resorting to full comedy.

Overall, worth purchasing. If you like all the bonus features that come with a typical 2-disc set, then go for it. For the penny pincher who still is willing to invest on a good flick, wait until it drops four or more dollars and go rent it right away.

Damion Crowley.

Make no mistake, this is series everything great and horrible in sci-fi simultaneously.

The whole TV series was a great idea in the wrong hands (or perhaps in hands that simply never got the support they needed). The series, I think was most loved and most watched by the 8-18 year old generation (I don't think I saw it until it was in reruns, at age 10 or older)of the late 70s-early 80s. Evidently a very small group, as seen by the show's short run.

Seeing it now I can see why it was canceled, but I also still see why I loved it. The shows were exciting, uncomplicated, sci-fi battle. And, as poor as the FX were, the model, character and set designs were and still are fantastic, fresh and contemporary.

For those curious, the FX were only slightly sub-par(and for TV, as good as it got--The problem when FX artist try to exceed their budget and capabilities) at the time, but the repeated use of the same scene over-and-over again was highly noticeable.

For the younger generation, weaned on TNG, Andromeda, etc., it maybe too distracting, but I remain a loyal BSG fan, and recommend it for those who still love the exciting rush of a sci-fi story and battle.

Hearts in Atlantis, an adaptation of 'Low Men in Yellow Coats', by Stephen King.

Stephen King vehicles have ranged from the horrid to the magnificent. Guessing which one will be which is something of a game of mine. My batting average on guessing has been so-so. I anticipated this one to be kind of average--King recent adaptations to the silver screen have been having a fairly good run of luck, and it was time for a slight stumble, if not outright collapse.

While I agree Anthony Hopkins is a fine actor, as soon as I heard he was playing Ted Brautigan, I began to have my doubts. Hopkins has always been a strong presence of the screen, and I always pictured Ted as a smaller, weaker looking man whose aura, not his physical nature, gave him the presence where his body did not. Another strike I had mentally prepared against the movie was the title. While, admittedly "Low Men In Yellow Coats" is not a great title for a movie, the story I had associated with the title is completely different.

Directors, producers, brave or timid, none of them want to tackle the massive continuity of the Stephen King universe. Perhaps, one day, some fresh blood will attempt it. It would make a great HBO or Showtime series, to recreate the Stephen King movies, with the interlinking threads, and the Dark Tower at its core. Its a process I was expecting to be ignored for this feature, and more than willing to forgive going into this movie.

I am rather disappointed in how the Low Men where handled. Mostly invisible, and a barely perceivable menace. I think their supernatural element could have been integrated, even without the Dark Tower connection, but done is done, I guess. Other missing elements that would have improved the feature, was the 'Lord of the Flies' connection, Bobby's descent into crime, and the full brutality of the bullies (and Bobby's final response to it). The character interactions were also slimmed down to the minimum needed to tell the story. This, at least could have been the cornerstore for an excellent trilogy, or even a full four movies. But Hearts in Atlantis is a Stephen King novella pared down to its barest bones. And while it is not as bad as some, it is a far cry from greatness.

Perhaps the saving grace of this movie is the actors, who each turn out star performance, squeezing the most of their roles. A personal favorite was Alan Tudyk as the Monte Man. A little younger, and less greasy than portrayed in the book, but a character brought to rapt attention by a fantastic portrayal. Truly, none of the actors gave short shrift to their parts, and this prevents Hearts from being a bad, or just mediocre movie. Even the director does well. I simply perceive him as having been a little bashful of tackling the original text full on. I watched it, and thought it was two-dollars well spent (I would have been annoyed, I think, if I'd spent more). As a loyal Stephen King fan, I will probably end up buying it, but I will gladly wait until it hits the bargain bins. 6 out of 10.

I have read most of Stephen King's novels, and have seen most of his movies (with the notable exception of "Children of the Corn" and "Storm of the Century"). When I initially heard that the Stand was going to be turned into not just a movie, but a big 3 network TV movie, I cringed. At that point in time, I thought the only possible justice that could be done would be a series of three theatrical releases; and even that would be sparse. Additionally, my experience with "It" and the "Tommyknockers" made me look forward to the worst of King's theatrical releases. As with many others, I winced at the casting of Molly Ringwald and Rob Lowe as Fran and Nick. And my only reaction to Gary Sinise at the time was "Who?".

The beginning and end parts are handled very well. The points between have been paired downed--to no surprise--considerably. The movie is fleshy enough to not be considered a bare-boned adaptation, but their will be some inevitable disappointment at omitted scenes and shortcuts taken. Editing is sensible, and keeps the general momentum and background story of the movie rolling along with the foreground. A challenging task, and well met by the movies creators.

Molly Ringwald and Rob Lowe both redeemed themselves well in their respective parts, turning in what I considered the best acting jobs of their careers. Jamey Sheridan was irresistable as Randall Flagg. The finest portrayal of a King villain, ever. I could feel my heart race fast with fear every time he strolled on the screen, capturing the movements, the winking devilish slyness of the character. Perhaps the only time I was distracted from the evil of this character was when he performed the CG moprhing into his "true" appearance. I was distracted by the obviousness of the animation and the make-up. Jamey Sheridan, by himself, was far more fearsome as the Dude.

All of the characters, within limits of the movie, were well captured. Personal favorites: Glen Bateman, Trashcan and Tom Cullen (and, of course, Flagg),each captured to perfection. Perhaps my only disappointment in translation was Harold Lauder. Too old, not greasy enough, and (despite what was obviously the actor's best efforts) not quite sympathetic enough. The movie captured all of his negative characteristics well, but, perhaps due to time constraints, could not quite capture the conflict of character waging within the novel's Harold.

Most of the sets and the scenery were beautiful and well shot. Most of Mother Abigail's home and cornfield looked obviously like a set, but otherwise the scenery only added to the story.

Overall, a good adaptation and an excellent movie.

I re-watched the movie recently, and under the current circumstances the movie is more unnerving than ever. For those who never have seen the movie before, I definitely recommend it, but make sure you have 366 uninterrupted minutes. The movie is spell-binding, with only the minimal of repetitiveness that is deemed 'necessary' in a TV-movie that has frequent commercials in its original release. A DVD version of this would be excellent.