Description

All eyes are focused on the Vatican, hoping to see the traditional puffs of white smoke that signal the selection of the next Pope. But this time, much more is at stake. The new pontiff may be the only person who can bring peace to a world hovering on the edge of nuclear nightmare. Year: 1968 Director: Michael Anderson Starring: Anthony Quinn, Oskar Werner, David Janssen, Vittorio De Sica, Leo McKern, Sir John Gielgud ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Great movie
Really interesting movie about the papacy, inner Vatican turmoil, philosophical aspects of Christianity, and maintaining your principles in a morally complex, often violent world. That might sound off-putting, but it's anchored by exceptionally strong, moving performances by the late Anthony Quinn, Leo Mckern, Oskar Werner, and others. Kind of old-school Hollywood, with bittersweet rewards--it's pleasing in the manner of 'Inn of the Sixth Happiness' or 'Ben Hur.' It looks and acts like a movie made in the late 60's, but that's a definite plus in my view. Leonard Maltin's review is unnecessarily harsh--he must have been having a bad day. Or sore at the pope or something. Don't let it deter you from enjoying a very colorful, well-acted, thoughtful and old-fashioned movie.

The Authenic Christian Revolution of a Russian Pope
This 1968 film, based on Morris West's novel, has Anthony Quinn as Kiril Lakota, released after twenty years in a Siberian work camp to become a Cardinal and then Pope at a time when the Soviet Union and a starving People's Republic of China are about to go to war. The idea that the first non-Italian pope in centuries would be from a Communist country certainly seems prophetic today. Lakota is released by the Soviet Premier (Laurence Olivier), who is taking a chance that a sympathetic Vatican might tip the balance towards peace. Lakota emerges from imprisonment as something of a saint, admired by the Elder Pope (John Gielgud) for having refused to deny the faith even when seven priests were brought before him and shot.

Although the obvious comparison is to John Paul II, Quinn's pontiff is actually more like John Paul I, who was considered a "pastoral" Pope, capable of relating to the people more on the level of a parish priest. When he is elected and has to change into his papal robes, he introduces himself to his new valet saying simply,"I am Kiril Lakota." The politically charged atmosphere is a bit melodramatic, but the strength of this film is in its portrait of the inner workings of the Vatican where both politics and personalities come into play. My favorite scene is when the college of Cardinals are deadlocked, repeated votes having been "insufficient for election," and one of the elder statesmen of the church stands up to declare his belief that God has sent them the man intended to be the next Pope. With growing horror, Lakota watches as the momentum builds for his stunning election (Now if somebody could just explain to me, when reporter David Janssen announces "They have elected a Russian Pope" is the word "Russia" an adjective or a noun in that sentence? This has been driving me crazy for other 30 years).

Of the two subplots the romantic estrangement of Dan Janssen, the reporter covering the Vatican and his doctor wife, Barbara Jefford, is trivial soap opera nonsense, although it does lead to a nice scene where the Pope sneaks out of the Vatican disguised as an ordinary priest. The doctor sends him to the pharmacy for medicine and is stunned when he returns and is able to do prayers in Hebrew over the dying man. The other, with Oskar Werner as Father David Telemond, is much more provocative and provides an interesting counter-point to the main story line. Telemond has written several books, none of them published, dealing with what he calls the "Cosmic Christ." A Pontifical Commission is investigating his writings as being heretical. Certainly there is a sense in which this film, in the wake of the Vatican II Council, was trying to confront the Catholic Church with certain issues. Ultimately "The Shoes of the Fisherman" is a much more subversive film than "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Quinn's dignified performance holds "The Shoes of the Fisherman" together, aided by Leo McKern and Vittorio De Sica as a pair of Cardinals seated high in the Church hierarchy. This is not a great film by any means, but it is certainly thoughtful even without the provocative final scene in which the new pope proposes to actually implement "the authentic Christian revolution: work for all, bread for all, dignity for all men." Certainly it treats it characters and its subject matter with great seriousness. Michael Anderson's direction is hampered by the film's 157 minute length, but it is still worth the viewing.

Quinn and Werner make this a winner
This epic film has a few bumpy moments, but overall, it's vastly entertaining, with its fascinating cast, interesting premise, excellent cinematography and art direction.
Anthony Quinn is fabulous as the Russian Pope. It's a powerful portrayal, and not the type of role one would normally associate with him. Oskar Werner, in a part based on Teilhard de Chardin, is absolutely superb.

Other notable performances come from Laurence Olivier (as the Soviet Premier), John Gielgud (former Pope), Leo McKern and Vittorio de Sica (Cardinals), and Arnoldo Foa (the Pope's valet).
The part of a journalist (David Janssen), is used as a narrator, to move the plot along, and explain certain Vatican procedures, like how a new Pope is elected. I only wish less time had been spent on his petty romantic problems...the film feels more like an "Airport" movie while these scenes are taking place.

This is a sprawling 60's Hollywood treatment of Morris West's best seller, and I think it succeeds. It's thought-provoking, good for several viewings, and Quinn and Werner are riveting.

A Movie Every Religious Person Should See
This movie was great and I am not a Catholic, I am a Protestant minister. Even though this was just a novel and pure fiction, I learned more about the inner workings of the Catholic Church than I had ever learned from my years of reading about all the "Bad Things" in the history of the Catholic Church. Protestant history, and no other religion's history is "pure white" either. I'm talking about such things and the Inquisition burnings at the stake, and other hedious torture methods that only a feind from hell could think of.

See this movie, meditate on it, and realize the horrendous impack all religions have on Planet Earth for both good and bad. It has been said that if you know only one religion, you really don't know much about any religion--- I agree!

See the struggle in the Church to know God, to understand God's will, to choose its leaders, to be loyal to its leaders, to reach conclusion about all moral, ethical, and social questions. All religions go thru this same process to one degree or another, even your local church. Compare your Minister and the problems in your Church to the the problems of the Pope and the Catholic Church. They are not really all that different. We all have a duty and a tremendous responsibility resting on our shoulders.. We must try to understand each other, love one another, forgive one another, pray for each other, and work together in every way possible......

.....If we will do this then we can help Planet Earth and its people take a "Quantum Leap" up and forward in spiritual consciousness and awareness - where The Word(or Love) becomes Flesh in us - which will usher in a New Day, a New Level of the Kingdom Of God On Earth, that is beyond words to describe. Planet Earth People, are you with me, will you join me in this glorious effort? We all have a Divine Mission and Destiny to fulfill while on Planet Earth. Ken Pamplin, 4504 N.W. 11th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73127

Favorite Movie
This film is inspirational. The scene where the new Pope is proclaimed, against his wishes, he only wants a humble servent life is excellant. To watch Anthony Quinn's expression change when he hears that the Cardinals are talking of him is a classic. lso, his roaming the streets of Rome in a black cassock shows is humanity, wanting to get to know his flock. I think is conseling David Jansen's wife is important. ... Read more

Amazon.com

John Lasseter and his gang of high-tech creators at Pixar create another entertainment for the ages. Like the few great movie sequels, Toy Story 2 comments on why the first one was so wonderful while finding a fresh angle worthy of a new film. The craze of toy collecting becomes the focus here, as we find out Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks) is not only a beloved toy to Andy but also a rare doll from a popular '60s children's show. When a greedy collector takes Woody, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) launches a rescue mission with Andy's other toys. To say more would be a crime because this is one of the most creative and smile-inducing films since, well, the first Toy Story.

Although the toys look the same as in the 1994 feature, Pixar shows how much technology has advanced: the human characters look more human, backgrounds are superior, and two action sequences that book-end the film are dazzling. And it's a hoot for kids and adults. The film is packed with spoofs, easily accessible in-jokes, and inspired voice casting (with newcomer Joan Cusack especially a delight as Cowgirl Jessie). But as the Pixar canon of films illustrates, the filmmakers are storytellers first. Woody's heart-tugging predicament can easily be translated into the eternal debate of living a good life versus livingforever. Toy Story 2 also achieved something in the U.S. two other outstanding 1999 animated features (The Iron Giant, Princess Mononoke) could not: it became a huge box-office hit. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (453)

Toy Story 2 Is Better Then the Original!
I had expected a dull child's cartoon with a meaningless plot and dull characters...wow was I ever wrong! Toy Story 2 is funny, exciting, dramatic, and very entertaining! This time around, Woody is stolen by a greedy toy collector...why? Because it turns out that Woody is a valuable doll from the 1950's when he had his own popular TV show! As Buzz and the rest of the toys frantically try to find a way to rescue Woody, our cow-boy hero meets other toys just like him---Jesse the cow-girl, the Prospector, and Woody's hillarious horse. And all this time Woody starts to wonder if maybe he's found his rightful home...or has he? The animation is tops, the plot is engrossing, and the movie is excellent! If you think an animated feauture is just a bunch of interesting graphics then you're wrong! This is a heart-warming and wonderful family film.

Toys
Toy Story (1995, 80 minutes, Dolby Digital Surround; Audio Commentary, Interviews) As 6-year-old Andy's favorite toy, Woody (Tom Hanks), a take-charge, pull-string cowboy, is confident in his role as room leader. But after Andy's birthday party, newcomer Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), a flashy space ranger with laser action and pop-out wings, crash-lands into Woody's world.

Buzz instantly wins the admiration of Andy's other toys, igniting a rivalry that lands the duo inside the home of Sid - the toy-torturing boy next door. To escape Sid's evil plans, Woody and Buzz must work together and realize they've got the perfect friend...in each other!

Toy Story 2 (1999, 94 minutes, Dolby Digital 5.l Surround EX; Audio Commentary, Sep. Film Score Audio Track, Outakes) Andy goes to summer camp and the toys face a new crisis: Woody turns out to be a valuable collectible, and is kidnapped by an evil toy collector. It's now up to Buzz and the gang to find a way to save him.

Five stars for the movies, one star for Disney
Why must they stick to this archaic way of releasing their movies on video/DVD? I could understand discontinuing collector's or limited editions, but why discontinue entire movies? Well we all know the answer, I just hate to be jerked around like this. Disney is the largest movie company in the world but our enjoyment of their films is based around their idiotic release/discontinue schedule.
Well, with that unpleasantness out of the way, I must say Toy Story 2 is my favorite animated movie of all time and the Toy Story series is my favorite animated series (if you think about it, though, that's not saying a lot). Let's just do this in the order they came out.
Toy Story blew my mind, because the things they did in that movie (the first in particular) were so like me when I was a kid (at that age). Toy Story is sure enough my second favorite animated movie ever. It's funny, and colorful, and touching. I think all good kid's movies should have a sense of wonder, or delight, and it shouldn't be in either a cynical or naive way. They should show wonder in a way that can be found in the real world, which is a balance hard to find. The original Toy Story has all kinds of wonder and awe, both in positive and negative ways (some kids could be afraid of Sid but I bet they won't be able to stop looking at him). It's about finding your place in life, and what to do with what you've got. When Buzz happens upon a commercial for himself and then tries to fly through the window-well that is one of the most touching scenes in any movie I've seen. And the whole ending sequence is beautiful, from Buzz and Woody on the RC car going through traffic, or them being blasted from a rocket through the air. Not to mention it's filled with all kinds of toy-related jokes that any kid can relate to. I think it's safe to say it'll be looked back on like the very first full-length animated movie (it was Snow White, wasn't it?).
Toy Story 2 is nearly flawless. It has one of the craziest openings for a movie ever, and I love the way it can find a way to have characters with all kinds of motives. Al is driven by his greed, the Prospector is jaded but just wants to be loved, Jessie hasn't given up hope yet so is overjoyed when she can find a way to confirm her hopefulness. The movie uses the toys as a metaphor for growing up and moving on: or not. You can aspire for your dreams or you can realize you're happy with what you've got. Toy Story 2 is/was the last movie Disney made with Pixar before they got too smug and self-indulgent. They realized they had the power to stir emotions and awe (they also realized they could make a ton of money), but instead of giving us a sweet movie like Toy Story, we got the self-congragulatory Monsters Inc, with its obvious conflicted main character, and instead of a great secondary character like the Prospector, we got Boo. Finding Nemo was a step in the right direction, but in my opinion doesn't have the heart of the Toy Story movies.
I can actually think of one thing wrong with Toy Story 2, and that's that lame Sarah Mclachlan song. I'm not one of those people with a weird Randy Newman fascination, but his songs were so much better than that one Mclachlan song. I guess it's because the scene in which it's used is already so emotional, instead of Newman's weird but effective delivery we got Mclachlan hammering the point home with her yodeling. But I love that scene because it shows how the little girl grew up. Other than that, Toy Story 2 is great: funny and vibrant, even on my crusty old VHS tape.
I wish I had these movies on DVD. They spark wonder in me at my age just like they did when I first saw them. They have plenty of in-jokes and such but also have a timeless quality (and a strong sense of innocence). Five stars for the both of them, the best animated series of all time.

It's Different.
It's different from your average animated film. So was Toy Story part 1 but this one is better. The movie plotting is a lot better in this part. I give it five stars(I'd give it six if it was in my hands!)

The secret lives of toys
Woody (Tom Hanks), who turns out to be a rare collectible, is stolen by an unscrupulous toy store owner and slated to be sold to a toy museum in Japan. Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and friends embark on a dangerous cross-town rescue mission. This is a very entertaining and perceptive film that remembers the guilt that a child can feel over outgrowing a favorite toy. Sammy the bear was my own constant companion when I was a young child. As I grew older, I sometimes felt a pang of shame when I would encounter him lying unloved and unplayed-with in the bottom of my old toy chest. I hope he's as philosophical and understanding about it as Woody is. As cheerful as this film is, it takes on an added dimension by honoring that first melancholy that a child feels upon outgrowing a formerly cherished plaything. The animation and voice talent are also top-notch. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

It's not Blazing Saddles, but there are some chuckles to be found in Mel Brooks's 1993 spoof of the Robin Hood legend. Cary Elwes is Robin (with a lighthearted jab at Kevin Costner's bad English accent in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves), while Richard Lewis plays an angst-ridden King John, and Roger Rees a snotty Sheriff of Nottingham. Comic David Chappelle has some good moments as the only black member of Robins's noble thieves, and Brooks does his own spin on Friar Tuck: Rabbi Tuchman. The song-and-dance sequences featuring a chorus line of the Merry Men ("We're men / men in tights") is vintage Brooks, but otherwise the film can't get any traction. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (115)

A spoof for people who hate spoofs.
If you're sick and tired of spoofs, especially the dumb ones of today, like "Mafia!" or "Scary Movie", this is the spoof for you. This movie has all kinds of crazy humor that doesn't offend anyone or go over the top, and has a mess of celebrities in it, like the main star, Cary Elwes, and a great supporting cast consisting of Amy Yasbeck, Dave Chappelle, Isaac Hayes, Megan Cavanaugh, and even Patrick Stewart, under the direction of comedy legend Mel Brooks, who also appears in the movie. This movie has all kinds of humor, from humor spoofing modern times, to "secret" humor, to metaphorical humor, and to simply wacky humor anyone can laugh at. Like the Monty Python movies and the Naked Gun trilogy, you'd have to be dead not to find this movie funny.

So in short, see this movie! You'll laugh till your sides hurt!

It is not one of Mel Brook's best but there are some laughs
I read that Mel Brook's made this movie because he is facinated with the Robin Hood legend (In particular the Errol Flynn version) Remember "When things were rotten" back in the seventies. He did this movie to poke fun at the Kevin Costner version "Prince of thieves". Apparently Kevin Costner refused to wear tights and as far as Mel Brooks was concern Robin Hood wore tights. I remember one line in which Rabbi Tuckman said to Robin Hood. Robin Hood you just won the heart of the princess YOU PRINCE OF THIEVES YOU!"

Robin Hood is played the versitile actor Cary Elwese, who has done both comedy and drama. One of his most memorable lines in this movie was "Unlike other Robin Hoods, I have a British accent."

My main complaint his that many of the Jokes are recycled from previous Mel Brook's movies. The scene with Dom De Louis as a Godfather like character was funny. It was a pretty good immitation of Marlon Brando.

The actor who played hangman in this movie was also the Hangman in Blazing Saddles.

Of course Mel Brook's always played a character in his movies. He played Rabbi Tuckman who made money by going to differevt villages performing circumcisions.

Funny?
I saw this when it was released in theaters. I had hopes for quite a few laughs. Instead there were just a few. Very few. Ever see a "comedy" where you keep waiting for the funny stuff to happen, but it never does? That's what happens with "Robin Hood-Men In Tights".

A Classic Brooks Adventure!
"Robin Hood: Men in Tights" was the first of Mel's movies that I saw. It was also one of the movies that sealed me as a Brook's fan! Cary Elwes was the classic Robin, with fun pokes at all the various others who had been in the role. The merry men were the funniest group gathered on one screen and the raps that began and ended the movie were a different idea, but still really cool. This movie should be given more credit as a hilarious comedy. In fact, when my school did the musical "Brigadoon' (which takes place in Scotland), a bunch of the guy actors did a parody of "Robin Hood" as a school broadcast commerial. They changed the words of the famous song "We're men in tights!" to "We're men in Kilts". It was classic! If you are looking for a good film, this is it!

Where is the DVD?
This is one of the funniest movies ever made. If Dracula: Dead and Loving It can make it to DVD, then why not this? Not only that, but it is available in Europe and Australia but not in the US. What are they waiting for? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Although it's not as bold as Oscar darling Chicago, The Phantom of the Opera continues the resuscitation of the movie musical with a faithful adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's blockbuster stage musical. Emmy Rossum glows in a breakout role as opera ingénue Christine Daae, and if phantom Gerard Butler isn't Rossum's match vocally, he does convey menace and sensuality in such numbers as "The Music of the Night." The most experienced musical theater veteran in the cast, romantic lead Patrick Wilson, sings sweetly but seems wooden. The biggest name in the cast, Minnie Driver, hams it up as diva Carlotta, and she's the only principal whose voice was dubbed (though she does sing the closing-credit number, "Learn to Be Lonely," which is also the only new song).

Director Joel Schumacher, no stranger to visual spectacle, seems to have found a good match in Lloyd Webber's larger-than-life vision of Gaston LeRoux's Gothic horror-romance. His weakness is cuing too many audience-reaction shots and showing too much of the lurking Phantom, but when he calms down and lets Rossum sings "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" alone in a silent graveyard, it's exquisite.

Read our CD buying guide

Those who consider the stage musical shallow and overblown probably won't have their minds changed by the movie, and devotees will forever rue that the movie took the better part of two decades to develop, which prevented the casting of original principals Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman. Still, The Phantom of the Opera is a welcome exception to the long line of ill-conceived Broadway-to-movie travesties.

DVD Features
The two-disc edition of The Phantom of the Opera has two major extras. "Behind the Mask: The Story of The Phantom of the Opera" is an hourlong documentary tracing the genesis of the stage show, with interviews by composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, director Harold Prince, producer Cameron Macintosh, lyricists Richard Stilgoe and Charles Hart, choreographer Gillian Lynne, and others. Conspicuously absent are stars Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford. Both do appear in video clips, including Brightman performing with Colm Wilkinson at an early workshop, and Crawford is the subject of a casting segment. Other brief scenes from the show are represented by a 2001 production. The other major feature is the 45-minute making-of focusing on the movie, including casting and the selection of director Joel Schumacher. Both are well-done productions by Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group.

The deleted scene is a new song written by Lloyd Webber and Charles Hart, "No One Would Listen," sung by the Phantom toward the end of the movie. It's a beautiful song that, along with Madame Giry's story, makes him a more sympathetic character. But because that bit of backstory already slowed down the ending, it was probably a good move to cut the song. --David Horiuchi

More on The Phantom of the Opera

The Phantom of the Opera (Special Extended Edition Soundtrack) (CD)	The Phantom of the Opera (2004 Movie Soundtrack) (CD)	The Phantom of the Opera (Original 1986 London Cast) (CD)
Evita (DVD)	Andrew Lloyd Weber: The Royal Albert Hall Celebration (DVD)	Visit the Andrew Lloyd Webber Store

... Read more

Reviews (665)

...I don't get it
Seriously...what's the big deal?
I've never seen the stage show, but I bet it was a whole lot better than the film. I expected to be treated to a fabulous musical, much on the scale of 'Chicago' and 'Moulin Rouge.' Instead, I was treated to an ameatur technical filming of a fabulous set.
There are plenty of shots where you can actually see the shadow of the camera, and the editing and photography of certain shots left me confused and dissapointed.
The actors are too young, too bland for their roles. The music was overbearing and somewhat annoying. The plot seemed to draw out endlessly, the corpses of the actors didn't help. All of these actors are EXCELLENT actors, but their talent has been wasted on this film.
Joel Schumacher too is an excellent director, he just seemed to get lost on this one.
The sets and costumes are brilliant, I will say that. They're the only aspect that saved the production.
Meanwhile, I respect those that enjoy it so wonderfully, I just don't understand why.

Phantastic!!!
I did not get the chance to see the Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford version, so I can not comment on which one was better. I loved this version though, the music, the plot, the acting, everything was "phantastic". Although if you don't like musicals don't even try watching this film most of it is sung. I loved the entire movie and I don't think one part of it was out-of-step or wrong. Although I have never been a big fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber I was surprisingly pleased with this movie.

Horrendous
I was appalled by the general quality of the film. However, I was more flabbergasted by the ratings given. The jumping scenes are awkward, the acting (especially that of Emmy) is horrendous, and man, the singing, is even worse than being amateurish. Any member from my choir could out-sing Butler or Emmy. I stopped watching after 30 minutes through the film. Honestly, I RARELY give up on a film.

THE OPREA GHOST
THIS IS A GREAT FILM I THOUGHT THE SINGING WAS GOOD AND GERARD BULTLER WAS GOOD AS PLAYING THE PHANTOM WATCH THE MOVIE IT IS Maganificent.

If you love musical's you will love this movie.
I will not include what the movie is about but I will include my opinion of the movie. I'm 33 and my tastes in movies may differ from the younger generation.

Some people may say the play is better. But then you must realize the play is limited to singing and acting but lacks the magical aspect that is shown on the big screen. Modernized by the latest movie technology, this version is the best one yet. With stunning morphing scences at the beginning of the movie you will be hooked. In this movie the music is oprea style of course. But now it's mixed with rock witch gives it a new aspect. With both Joel Schumacher and Andrew Lloyd Webber helping with the movie. I don't think anyone else could do a better job.

-Side note- Now I was totally surprised on learning that Gerald Butler played as the Phantom. (From Laura Croft Cradle of Life.) And had no idea that he was able to sing. But I felt he did well as the phantom.

I watched the version from 1991 with Burt Lancaster as the father (of the phantom) and theater owner. What I didn't like was the Phantom being fatally wounded by police.

If you trully have a taste for all kinds of music. I trully hope you will enjoy this movie like I did. To me I think this movie surpassed all the movies I have ever seen including my favorites. ... Read more

Amazon.com

If you concentrate on the fact that Howard the Duck was a notorious box office dud (still brought up today) and considered one of the worst films of the '80s, it's entirely possible to enjoy this special effects piffle. Howard, played by a special effect puppet, lives on a planet where ducks evolved instead of apes, but one day he's sucked into a vortex and deposited on Earth. There he befriends Beverly Switzler (Lea Thompson), lead singer for the Cherry Bombs, becomes their manager, and, oh yeah, saves the Earth from the Dark Overlords. Jeffrey Jones is the villain and Tim Robbins (!) is there for comic relief. And who can resist the culmination of synthesizer pop, the Howard the Duck theme song, as realized by the Cherry Bombs? A midnight movie that your kids might watch more than you. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (96)

All Hail Howard the Duck!!!
(...)Howard the Duck is all of this and more. I first saw this movie in theaters and loved it. Lea Thompson and the rest of her band The Cheery Bombs are sexy, and the theme song is real catchy!

The special effects are up to par with the technology at the time, and the comedy is right on the nose. I mean c'mon those Dark Overlords were pretty cool looking. Anyone who claims to hate this movie is obviously an 80's hater. (...) This film defines great 80's cinema and I could never understand the backlash. Many great movies have bombed at the theaters only to become favorite classics (the original Blues Brothers and It's a Wonderful Life come to mind).

(...)I will defend this movie until my dying day. Howard the Duck is a great movie from the greatest decade of the 20th Century. Hail Howard!!!

An ILM Late 80's Audition Reel!!
Momma always said, "you learn more from your failures, than you do from your successes." I think Momma has a point. Sometimes failures can point the way to the future. The 80's were a good barometer for that, and no other movie has blazed the trail of failure quite like Willard Huyck colossal miscalculation HOWARD THE DUCK. A movie that is inept and pointless, and yet so full of innovative and yes even breathtaking special effects.

HOWARD THE DUCK tells the story of a duck named Howard (voiced by Chip Zein, and played by a bunch of little people in a duck suit) who lives on a planet much like earth, except Duck's are the top of the food chain. He's a failed rock musician who's finally given up that dream and has settled into the mundane life of an advertising copywriter. On one particular day, he's just gets home from another day of the daily grind, when he's sucked into a giant laser beam and transported to Cleveland, Ohio on our earth. Let the comic hijinks begin...well okay let the less than stellar puns begin.

Howard meets Beverly (Lean Thompson) a struggling rock musician and takes up "roost" in her apartment. After a day or so they fall in love. There's also a young Lab Assistant named Phil (Tim Robbins in a star-making performance) and Dr. Jennings (Jefferey Jones) whom want to help Howard get home, via the giant laser beam that brought him to earth in the first place.

I stop there because the second half of the movie has to do with this wild alien and I'm not quite sure I can do that part of the story any real justice. Suffice to say there's an alien threat and Howard is here to stop it. Actually he kind of runs away from it as the alien menace and the cops try to stop him.

HOWARD THE DUCK is based on a far more interesting and inventive comic book series created by Steve Gerber. This movie and that series have absolutely nothing in common but the name. In fact the movie ruined the comic book series that poor Steve Gerber sued Universal and George Lucas, and then killed off his Duck for a long time. How's that for fair.

Wait a second you say, go back just a minute, did you just say George Lucas? Yes ladies and gentlemen. George Lucas was the executive producer of this film and it shows. His fingerprint is on everything and more importantly Industrial, Lights, and Magic have designed this film as their audition reel. They throw everything into the pot, creature effects, stop motion, animation effects, makeup effects, an elaborate chase sequence (that I'm convinced was shot for shot re-created for the freeway chase in the MATRIX RELOADED, well not really but It's nice to speculate.) involving a small personal aircraft, and all of it is breath taking.

But why? Why did ILM and George Lucas waste all that time and energy? The only thing I can think is that they were doing tests for Lucas's next big project WILLOW.

You're probably now asking why doesn't the film work? The biggest problem is there is absoulty no screenplay. The first 20 minutes of the film fly by, barely allowing the viewer to breathe. The characters have time to meet, time to fight, time to get back together, all before the story begins to take shape. By the time it does it shifts radically into a completely different movie involving giant space creatures.

They started out with a promising idea; it's ET in the city. How does this duck adapt to his surroundings? That should have been the movie. But there's no room for special effects that way. So on comes Act 2, and so many effects shots you shake your head.

I was also a little disgusted by the Human/Duck love scene of course you see nothing, but the implied relationship makes even less sense then the rest of the movie and is really there just to make a silly joke anyway.

This is the key to why this film fails. It doesn't set its tone properly. Every other line is some comic zinger that falls flat because the movie doesn't know whether it's a comedy, or an action picture. There satire, and drama all thrown out there but it goes nowhere.

This effects all the acting as well. The human characters are robbed of any humanity because the script is so disjointed. They overreact to everything and poor Tim Robbins is forced to mug for laughs when the audience already knows that there are none.

The script by director Huyck and his writing partner Gloria Katz is so bad you forget that these are the people who hit just the right beats in their more successful film AMERICAN GRAFFITTI.

Th