Amazon.com

The popular children's books by Mary Norton have been filmed before, but never with as much imagination and ingenuity as you'll find on display in this delightful fantasy film released to critical praise in 1998. The "Borrowers" of the title are a family of tiny people who live in the walls and under the floorboards in the homes of "normal-sized" humans; they earn their by "borrowing" the household items (string, food crumbs, buttons, etc.) needed to furnish their tiny hiding places and provide their meals. The little Clock family lives happily undisturbed in the home of an aged aunt, but when the aunt dies and her will is stolen by an unscrupulous lawyer (John Goodman), the Clocks face eviction and the frightening hazards of the outside world. Under the ingenious direction of Peter Hewitt, this simple, straightforward movie mixes comedy, adventure, and suspense with some of the cleverest special effects you've ever seen, taking full advantage of effects technologies to immerse you in the world of the tiny people. A climactic chase scene in a milk-bottling plant is a visual tour de force, and the movie's smart and dazzling enough to entertain parents and children alike. After its modest success in theaters, The Borrowers stands a good chance of becoming a home-video favorite. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Good for the whole family
This movie is a great one for everyone to watch together, as it can interest anyone, from very young kids to adults.

The miniaturization effects didn't seem particularly advanced - I wasn't wowed by any technical advances I saw. But I would say that they were very imaginably used, making for some cute scenes that were refreshing. They were also carefully done, minimizing the "fakey" feel and letting you concentrate on the story.

The DVD version has a cool "making of The Borrowers" featurette that shows how the special effects were done, which is fun to watch after you've seen the movie.

Fun Adaptation of Norton Classic
I just had the opportunity to see the film The Borrowers starring John Goodman as the evil Mr. Potter. Overall the movie is fun and entertaining and it has been so long since I read the books that I can't be sure the weak points originate in the movie (although I believe they do).

The movie is based upon a series of books by Mary Norton about a race of small people who live in the cracks and walls of the world and are known for borrowing things from humans (or beings). The story centers around one borrower family who are the last of their kind in an old house. Their existence is threatened when the evil Mr. Potter sees to kicking out the being inhabitants in order to knock the house down. There then follows a series of adventures as borrowers and beings alike try to save the house from destruction.

The weak points in the movie concern anachronisms. For the most part the movie is set decades ago as in the books. But annoying anachronisms pop up such as a cellular phone and an in-door ice maker. Considering the vintage of the vehicles on the street these items really stand out. But despite the anachronisms the movie remains entertaining with some very good performances from Goodman and the rest of the cast.

Exelent
i think the film is fantastic i especialy like Raymond Pickard in this film and wish there were more pictures of him available. i think the film is funny and exciting. i have given this film five stars because it is unbelevably good.

Tiny little people,great adventure. 22nd april 2004.
A GREAT film for anyone. They are tiny and a boy rescues them. But when they fall out of the removal van, they go back to where they used to live and they get caught but the man who is there is dying to kill them. But all they do is borrow not steel, really they are friendly people but he the horrible man dosen't realise that. The boy is the only one out of his family that knows about them, he keeps it a secret he makes an excuse to get out of the van, but they just carry on driving. When he finally reaches his new house, he rides back to his old house to try and find them. The two kids and their 2 parents are split up from each other. He drives them to the old house as fast as possible to find their lost 2 kids. But they are only tiny people so they have to be very careful. And the adventure carries on great film.

The Borrowers
I really liked this movie. I thought it was very funny. It also had 2 cast members who where later in the 2nd Harry Potter movie. Tom Felton (a very young Tom) and the guy who played Mr. Weasley. He was the exterminator. There was one part that I thought was falling down funny. I won't say what it was but it had to do with Tom Felton. He must have been about 7 or 8 years old in this movie. His name was Peagreen Clock. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Amazingly good but very disturbing movie.
This movie is based on Herbert Selby's cult novel from the early 1960s. The novel traces the lives of some rough urban characters (prostitutes, street hoodlums, transvestites, striking dock workers) in 1950s Brooklyn. Think of this as "On the Waterfront" without the sugar coating. A friend of mine hates the movie because he feels it is nightmarish and lacks a moral center. I like the movie for just this reason, as deep down I think life is that way. The movie is a harsh and uncompromising look at people whose dreams don't work out; in fact, the dreams often explode in the characters' faces. Jennifer Jason Leigh, Stephen Lang, Stephen Baldwin, Jerry Orbach and Alexis Arquette are fantastic. Don't watch this with kids or with people with delicate sensibilities---it's violent, sexually graphic, and full of verbal abuse and foul language.

Nightmarish in the extreme!
(...) As it was, this movie profoundly depressed me. (...)There is tenderness in the depiction of a young man's adoration for a prostitute (Jennifer Jason Leigh), as well as comic relief (of sorts) in the complications arising from an unplanned pregnancy. Unfortunately these moments are few and far between, and the cumulative effect of numerous beatings (starting with the very first scene!), cowardice and sexual violence will greatly disturb most viewers.

The acting, however, is top-notch. The entire cast is thoroughly believable - depressingly so in the case of Stephen Baldwin and his fellow thugs. Director Uli Edel is a master at creating atmosphere, and an operatic sense of doom permeates the entire movie, helped in no small measure by Mark Knopfler's beautiful but ominous score.

As a movie I would give Last Exit to Brooklyn five stars for its execution, but just one star for its sense of life. Nihilists will love it for reinforcing their own bleak view of life, but romantics should definitely give it a miss.

Why the Dodgers left Brooklyn
It's the 1950s. Under President Eisenhower's administration, everyone has a house in the suburbs, a decent job, a gas-guzzling car, and a basic "Leave It to Beaver" lifestyle.

Not so, said Hubert Selby, in his novel, LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. For a good deal of the working class, times were still tough. Preyed upon by crime, toyed with by factory owners and unions, and, ultimately, shackled by their own ignorance, the working class had their promise of a white picket fence and primrose garden vacated. In Brooklyn, particularly, things were acutely tough. Manufacturing jobs were on a rapid decline, as companies moved out of town or out of state (which was why those companies remaining in Brooklyn were able to mess with their employees: take it or leave it, was their attitude). At the same time, an influx of immigrants seeking jobs made the hunt for work even more competitive--another bonus for the remaining factory owners. Slums rapidly worsened, so much so that Dodger owner Walter Alston decided his team's future was in jeopardy. L.A. looked like a much safer place for a stadium.

But neither Selby nor director Uli Edel portrayed this working class as merely innocent victims. Neither the book nor the film is a didactic rant about class warfare. The poor had their own vices of greed, brutality, and dissipation. Just about every other scene has someone going through someone else's wallets, union funds or pockets. If they aren't doing that, they're drinking, fighting, or whoring. It's a pretty dismal world. The natural response to this film might be: "Wait a minute. Not everyone working class Johnny-Punchclock guy was a criminal. Most people worked hard and honestly." Of course, this is true but it's not the film's concern. This is a study of those who were trapped in that world, and this study is compelling and horrifying.

Uli Edel has perfectly captured this bleak world, either bathing everything in a garish light or obscuring it in heavy shadows. The performances are brilliant. There's no understating Jennifer Jason Leigh's gritty and powerful performance. Also keep an eye out for a cameo by Hubert Selby as the driver who hits Georgette. Not for the weak-stomached and definitely not for kids, LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN is as cinematographically close to the innermost circle of urban hell as you can get.

A Hell of a Film
Last Exit to Brooklyn tells a story the way it needs to be told...realistically. This film is not for everyone. If you can't accept the fact that some people do behave like this than this film is not for you. Everyone doesn't live in a fantasy land and Last Exit to Brooklyn shows this. People brought up in conditions like these or who are familiar with people such as this can vouch that people are truly like this in some places. It may not be an excuse for how others act but it is real and this film proves that. This is a powerful, moving film not to be looked upon if you're easily offended out of your own ignorance and live in a rose-colored world. If you have the ability to watch a movie, understand it and be taken in with what the film represents ( without feeling threatened ) then this movie is a keeper. If you can't see that Last Exit to Brooklyn deplicts reality for people other than the super fortunate, rent Sweet Home Alabama because this movie is not for you.

Nasty, Ugly, Wrong
People who think that the working class or anyone who is down and out is necessarily brutal and self-serving will love this film. For those who like their "social realism" as ugly and unambiguous as possible,this is the film for you. Most of the characters are one-dimensional,yell their lines and are either outrightly cruel/unfeeling (practically everyone) or hystrionic/narcissistic victims doomed to be wiped out by the end of the film (eg Gorgette the transvestite, Tra La La the town "tramp"). Almost all are totally unsympathetic--practically no-one in this film is worth caring about. Sorry, but real life is NOT like this,not even amongst the "downtrodden" who obviously make such sensationalist fodder for those eager to "slum it" vicariously for a couple of hours. This film might titilate nihilistic 20 yr olds or middle class suburbanites and has clearly thrilled all the critics (and almost everyone else in this forum) but I found it stupid and ugly (and boring). Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, I must add. That is the only good thing I can say about this film, I'm afraid. For those looking for uncompromising social realism and characters written with compassion rather than contempt, try reading Steinback's "Cannery Row" or see the movie of his novel "Of Mice and Men" or, for a more contemporary, very bleak but infinitly better film than Last Exit see "Nil by Mouth" directed by Gary Oldman. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

In the opening sequence of The Letter, director William Wylerdelivers a primer on film directing: at a rubber plantation, in the tropicalfunk of a Malaysian night, the heavy stillness is suddenly broken by shots...and a woman with a gun, descending a staircase. She is the wife of theplantation owner, and the dead man is, ahem, not her husband. Holding the gun sosecurely is Bette Davis, in one of her greatest performances (her acting of abig revelation, late in the film, is still an astounding piece of emotionalfluency). The story is taken from one of those sturdy Somerset Maugham talesthat has proved itself in many versions, but this is the keeper; it wasnominated for seven Oscars®, including best picture, director, and actress,winning none. Wyler's impeccable direction, and Davis's take-no-prisonersapproach to an "unsympathetic" character, make for a completely satisfyingpicture. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (22)

GREAT FILM WITH A HOLLYWOOD ENDING
I call this a "Hollywood ending" not in the sense that it is a happy ening, but one which seems to be contrived to follow the production code of the day which stated that all wrongdoers must be brought to justice. Bette Davis, in one of her great performances, is killed off by Gale Sondergaard who herself is arrested by the police at the end. I really don't know if this ending is in the novel but it does not ring right with me. After all, Leslie Crosby was cleared of the crime and could have gone on living even with the torture memory of the lover she murdered in cold blood although I doubt if she would have remained faithful to wimpy Herbart Marshall for long. Gail Sondergaard, the dragon lady wife of the knocked off husband, just seems to be unable to get enough revenge. The 10 grand she got for selling the incriminating letter to Bette apparently was not enough to satisfy her. I especially liked the scene where Leslie tells her husband how much she still loves her vengefully slain adulterer.

Getting Away with Murder
Who else could get away with murder and still get the approval of the audience but Bette Davis? Based on Somerset Maugham's story, THE LETTER relates the murder of a rubber-plantation owner (Herbert Marshall) in Malaya by his wife (Bette Davis). It is interesting how Davis approaches this part. She gives a brilliant study of a cold yet proper woman who intoxicates her society friends and authorities through a pretense of female sexual virtue. She deliriously illustrates the passion of a woman who would kill a man for attempting to leave her and in doing so entices the audience on her behalf. Davis is so brilliant at conveying such a cold woman who my in effect really need the warmth and passion of a desperate soul, that even she may not realize her actions are a desperate attempt to realize her own desires. Is her behavior a pretense or not? This was very erotic stuff for its time. This film was nominated for 8 Academy Awards. Carl Jules Weyl's Art Designs combined with Tony Gaudio's Cinematography made a very provocative setting for the images. However the only fault I found with this film was Max Steiner's score. Max Steiner is one of my favorite film composers but I found his score too full of that heavy-handed Warner Bros. sound and not sensitive to the nature of the main character or the film.

seven well-deserved Oscar nominations
"The Letter" is a superb adapation of the Somerset Maugham tale set in Malaysia. Bette Davis is at the top of her form in her role as a deceitful, anguished wife caught up in an illicit love affair. Her pleasant, steady, unexciting husband, a rubber plantation manager, is played exceptionally well by Herbert Marshall. James Stephenson, in the role of her defense attorney, turns in an admirably understated yet vital performance.

William Wyler's masterful direction, employing exotic settings and mysterious minor characters, make this spellbinding tale of passion and murder a can't-miss for all Davis fans.

"The Letter" deserves the highest recommendation!

Exciting exotic thriller from the colonial age
Pistol shots bang through the starlit night in the malayan jungle and rubber planter Robert Crosbie (Herbert Marshall) is stupefied to learn that his own wife, Leslie Crosbie (Bette Davis) has bumped off his best friend, Jeff Hammond. "He tried to rape me, so I shot him" she tells her husband - and we know from the start that she is lying. Hammond's body is riddled with bullets, her magazine empty. Some shots were fired when he was already lying on the ground.

While her credulous husband coddles her, she gives her lawyer, Howard Joyce (James Stephenson) her version of the story - only interrupted by crocodile tears and a simulated fainting-fit. Joyce is really considerate: he even commends her on her courage. So good is her mood when she regales the police with a dinner that she is surprised to learn that she could face a murder charge. Robert, haggard from lack of sleep tries to convince himself that everything is O.K: "She shot the man like a rabid dog". But Hammond was so dashing, charming, a real ladies man - hard to believe that he was capable of such a thing...

Robert has every reason to be worried: Joyce is informed by his asian counsellor that a certain letter exists: written by Leslie on the last day of Hammond's life, inviting him to come and see her...This letter is in the hands of his eurasian widow (Gale Sondergaard) who runs a gambling house. Leslie's smiling self-confidence dissolves under Joyce's interrogation. She denies everything, she rages, but her lawyer is not dumb: "I dont't want to hear more from you than is necessary to save your head". He feels nothing but contempt for the woman who implores him to get her the letter, but he feels compassion for her husband. The price for the letter is 10.000 Pounds - the exact amount of Robert's bank deposit - and Mrs. Hammond made it a condition that she should bring the money personally. Leslie tries to hide behind a veil, but it doesn't help her: after letting her wait for nearly one hour in an opium-den, the widow demands to see her face - and throws the letter before her feet with disdain. A male jury acquits the virtuous lady of her indictment, but there is more trouble brewing: Her husband wants to leave for Sumatra, become independent and buy his own plantation. He does not realize that his money is gone...

This exciting thriller contains one of Bette Davis' most famous performances. Herbert Marshall is equally brilliant in the role of her gullible husband, especially in the final scenes. He must have been the most often cuckolded husband on screen: Greta Garbo deceived him in THE PAINTED VEIL, and Marlene Dietrich in BLONDE VENUS and the delightful, underrated ANGEL. Perhaps he was beyond help, because he did not learn from his faults: His next film was THE LITTLE FOXES where he played Bette's victim again.

Sondergaard looks spectacular, but is psychologically wrong: Men usually fall in love with little Miss Butterfly - not with the empress of China. Bette Davis was universally praised. A very intelligent actress, she was on the right track: She wears glasses, she concentrates on her embroidery with great patience - needle-work and sex-appeal don't exclude each other, but there must have been a reason why her lover became tired of her...I think that she lacked the boldness to steep herself completely in Leslie Crosbie's true character. This type of woman ("One is getting so lazy here, the boys do everything" she says) has survived until recently in South Africa: she has no goal, no funcion, and my guess is that she was growing fat...Leslie Crosbie was porridge - and Bette plays her like caviar! W. Somerset Maugham, like Agatha Christie, is very good to read to this day: They were not dishonest authors, just one-sided: they nurture a nostalgia for the "glorious" age of colonialism, which existed only for a small part of mankind.

A great deal
It is a real crime story. Only at the end of this story you experience what happened in this special night. It is hard to feel how this nice beautiful woman can be a murderer.I was surprised that a lawyer does such a great deal (with that letter) to save the life of his client who is guilty. At the end you are in doubt if it is a fair end or not. The book is interesting to read. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Gran actuacion de Gregory Peck en excelente western
Only the valiant es un western que cumple con todas las reglas del genero. Sobresalen las actuaciones protagonicas de Peck y de Ward Bond en el papel de soldado borrachin. Es de destacar los valores morales del protagonista que se arriesga a una accion suicida para salvar su honor y el de la caballeria. Es memorable la escena en que el Cap.Lance (Peck) forma a la patrulla para explicarles por que eligio a cada uno para esa mision. ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Tom Keogh...SHOVE IT!!
OK, Tom's review is by far one of the worst that I have seen for this movie...I can't believe it was posted. He obviously is not a Ghostbuster fan, but if you are a fan of the first movie, you will definately love this flick. Ironically Dana Barrett(Sigorney Weever) is suckered in by the world of the supernatural again, and who else but the Ghostbusters to help her...and her baby, Oscar(yes, like the hotdog), out of a fix with Vigo the Carpathian. It's a great movie to sit down with the family and eat popcorn on a Friday night with or to sit and watch by yourself. Very entertaining, and the comedic chemistry of Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, Dan Akroyd, and Ernie Hudson add together to make one of the best films of the 89 year. Loads of fun! This one goes a little further, because it has a massive river of slime, and the bathtub tries to eat Dana and her baby. Great stuff. I hope you enjoy this movie as much as I have over the past few years that I have owned it. So, if you have a night with the family, make it a GB night. :^)

Ghostbusters II
So, after risking their lives by crossing the streams and barely averting NYC from a disaster of biblical proportions, the guys in grey are sued out of business and shunted off into their own stupid little jobs. Even Dana Barett, the love interest from the first movie, has a baby, but w/o Venkman, who now runs a shoddy psychic talk show.
But when the guys are called into court over charges of Ray's causing a power outage, two dead killers return from the grave to menace the judge and jury. Reluctantly, the recalcitrant judge rescinds the previous sentence and the guys are back, blasting away and having a whole new car.
Unfortunately, while it has a strong start and good performances, the plot holds up like a wet paper bag. Never boring, but a bit of an anticlimax, especially with the end villain. Zhuul and Vinz Clortho are far superior to Vigo's half-possessing of Ray and a museum clerk, and the end battle doesn't make much use of his supposedly wizard-like abilities.
Final Analysis: While have a good start and entertaining performances, Ghostbusters II, unlike its predecessor, is a film that doesn't really pull you in (if you'll pardon the pun).

'Busting Makes Me Feel Good! (A lot Less In This Movie)
One of the main problems with GHOSTBUSTERS II is that it came out five years too late and that everything from the first film was invalid. In the first film the Ghostbusters literally save New York City and were heroes. In the sequel, we find out that that they are prohibited from "ghostbusting" and owe the city a hefty bill for the destruction incurred at "spook central" (Dana Barrett's /Sigourney Weaver apartment building near Central Park from the first movie). In the sequel, they have to literally start from scratch to re-establish themselves along with a new Ghostbusters logo. The rest of the plot is interestingly inventive but not as thrilling or memorable as from the original Ghostbusters (who can forget Gozer, Zhule, the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man). The heroes have to stop an evil spirit from the 16th Century, Vigo the Carpathian (currently inhabiting a painting of his own image being restored at a museum by Dana Barrett). He wants to come back to life by taking over Dana Barrett's baby boy, Oscar while "enlisting" the aid of Dana's boss,Janosz (an annoying Peter MacNicol with a european accent). At the same time his evil presence is oozing pink ectoplasmic slime (the first movie had green slime) being fed by all the negative vibes in New York City. Also,as in the first movie, the antagonizer against the Ghostbusters business was a man from the EPA (which was hilariously original and inventive), in this film it's the the mayor's campaign manager (Kurt Fuller). GHOSTBUSTERS II's production values and special effects are excellent along with the chemistry and comraderie among the cast and characters. However, it feels like it could have been a preliminary draft of ideas for it's characters instead of a sequel (i.e. The Statue of Liberty compared to the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man). The filmmakers should have taken out the "trying to re-establish themselves" plot from the script, and concentrate on a more inventive and earth-shattering storyline which is the point of any sequel. The hype on the first GHOSTBUSTERS poster states "Coming This Summer To Save The World" and the film lived up to that hype. GHOSTBUSTERS II did not have that kind of atmosphere. Lastly, as stated earlier, the film came out five years too late. To show what five year can do, in the first film, there was a catchy pop tune by Ray Parker, Jr. In this film, it is replaced by an unmemorable rap song...rap had become contemporary by the time the film was released.

The Funniest Movie Ever!
The funniest part of this movie was when a lady's mink coat came alive. I liked the way the ghostbusters sucked up ghosts.
If you liked the Gremlins, you'll enjoy this movie.

Good...
Being such a huge fan of this film's predecessor, I was bound to be somewhat overtly critical of the sequel. Ghostbusters 2 is by far not a bad movie, but it could've been a lot better. On a creative level, the script/plot is basically the same as the first movie... It's kinda like watching the first one, just throw a baby into the mix. A rehash, you could say. Anyway, it isn't all that bad. The jokes are funny, performances are strong... More could've been done with the script and plot basically to make it more unique and original. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

3 1/2 stars for sharply written and directed sf classic
THe 70's were a strange time for science fiction films. There were a number of minor classics (Westworld, the absurd and pretentious Zardoz, Logan's Run) and major space operas (Star Wars)that dominated the scene. While none of these films were perfect, Soylent Green was one of the outstanding efforts from the era. Although it's a flawed minor masterpiece, the strong performances from Heston, Robinson, Leigh Taylor-Young and Chuck Conners help the film continue to shine. All the actors benefit from the assured direction of veteran Richard Fleischer. The film was produced during one of MGM's bleakest periods and, in turn, has a rather bleak out look about the future.

Set nearly twenty years from now, humanity has used up most of our resources and spoiled the planet. There isn't enough to eat and there's even less space to live in; the cities are crowded with street people everywhere. The middle class is virtually extinct and only the wealthy have lives approaching the comfort to which we've become accustomed.

A executive with a major food corporation is murdered. The company produces a variety of pre-processed foods that are popular among the general population. Fresh fruit and foods are almost as extinct as many of the species that have disappeared from our overburdened, overdeveloped planet. Charleton Heston plays Detective Thorn who is investigating the murder. In the process, his life is threatened and he comes into major conflict with the police force about his methods. What Heston's character discovers about the food maker could unravel the fabric of the comfortable society that runs the world.

Soylent Green is based on Harry Harrison's fine novel Make Room, Make Room!. The adaption incorporates a lot of common themes from films during the 70's particularly the issue of the ecology. That isn't to say this film is obsessed with issues. While there are a number of importance observations, all of them are well integrated into this sharply written science fiction murder mystery. The direction by Richard Fleischer (Fantastic Voyage, 20,000 Leages Under the Sea, Treasure Island)isn't as stylized as one would expect but he does manage to get the most out of the material. The director's commentary is often wry and observant--a rarity now on most DVDs.

This was Edward G. Robinson's last film and his 101st. A talented, popular actor often misused by Hollywood, Robinson gives a startling fresh and powerful performance as Heston's roommate and assistant Sol. His final scene in the film is both powerful and gives Heston's character the faith to carry on his investigation. The dinner scene between Heston and Robinson (which was ad libbed) is terrific and much of the dialog and banter between the two actors is both funny and touching.

The DVD looks terrific particularly after all the poor prints that have circulated on television. Yes, there's analog artifacts but this is probably about as pristine a print as were likely to see. The transfer is vivid and well balanced. The sound is fairly strong given the fact that this was pre-THX and stereo. The DVD includes a couple of short featurettes about Heston and the making of the film. Robinson also gets due notice. A vintage theatrical trailer is also included.

Soylent Green's importance in science fiction cannot be underestimated. There were a number of bad films produced after 2001 and Planet of the Apes (including many of the sequels to the original Apes film)that had cheapened the luster these two fine films had temporarily given to science fiction. Soylent Green is a somber, powerful film. It's also an entertaining mystery. After this the genre would fall back into decline (although there were a few highlights) until the success of Star Wars in 1977. Thoughtful, impactful science fiction films were rare during the 70's. Although Soylent Green hasn't aged as well as one would expect, it's intent and the power of the performances, script and direction still make it a potent look into the future.

'Soylent Green' still nourishing after all this time!
If there was ever such a thing as 'sci-fi-noir', this is it. This wonderful, pessimistic, science fiction flick works as a cautionary tale, an action-mystery and a love story to boot. Charlton Heston fans will love it! It's 'Taylor-made' for the big guy (pardon the 'apes' pun). Heston excells at playing the cynical, tough yet decent sort; here a cop who's trying to unearth a cover-up reaching into the very top of government and industry. The movie is paced well and allows us to experience the gritty, sooty, reality of an exhausted, failing industrial society in the all too near future. The story line is supported by wonderful supporting performances by notable actors like Leigh Taylor-Young, Brock Peters, Chuck Connors, Joseph Cotten, and the great Edward G. Robinson, in what I believe is his last move. Unlike some 70's science fiction movies, the premise of 'Soylent Green' has not proved dated. It's as frightening and riviting today as it was when it was filmed nearly three decades ago. It's also poignant. The scene where Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson) weeps out of sadness as the delighted Thorn (Heston) tasts the first real food he's ever eaten, is pristine, pure, gut-level story telling. Thorn's ultimate abandonment of his love interest, (Leigh-Taylor Young) to her unhappy fate is in keeping with the film's hard edge. Ultimately Thorn and Roth uncover a secret best left hidden. This movie never flinches. It's not as well known as Heston's other science fiction classic, 'Planet of the Apes' but 'Soylent Green' is great entertainment and perhaps the most underrated science fiction movie of the 1970's!

"Sorry We Went" Green
My wife and I saw this film in his initial theater release, expecting a good couple of hours entertainment, because of our faith in Charlton Heston. Bad move! Though it did depict rather well a bleak Malthusian future, its focus was entirely on efforts to obtain the wondrous Soylent Green as food, since it was so much superior to the other 2 colors. Alas, as soon as we had guessed the "shocking" source of the Green, there was nothing more to this one-trick-pony of a movie.

A nightmare every time closer
In 2022 the population's growth may reach eight billions people So the awful warning call given by Aldous Huxley ( A new visit for a brave new world) , George Orwell (Animal's farm or 1984) will suppose several restrictions about the free circulation vehicles and also an estimated amount of liters of water by each one of us.
This film is a very clever scifi story about a overcrowded world, where the reduced free spaces of the world we know actually , may be more narrow.
The story holds a deep reflection about the effects of a claustrophobic world, the lack of certain benefits you assumed almost naturally till now.
This movie shows us about a reality not so far. This work was the last appearance of Edward G. Robinson; thanks to Heston efforts for including him in that role. The last sequence in which you watch the ancient world like it was; it depicts a bucolic landscape; and the Pastoral Symphony works out perfectly with this goal. You may feel it something tearful, but the remarkable point is the hidden message. Still we are on time to avoid it. But who'll take this dangerous flag?
This film was released just one year after since Roma's club establihment, in 1972. In that age I had the opportunity of reading that fundamental work of Barry Commoner titled The circle that it closes.Watch for this one. Because with these raising reflections about the enviroment concern around the world made it possible, by instance, avoid to throw several hazardous weapons over Vietnam, whose direct and collateral effects had not studied enough. Chernobyl was just only fourteen years before and Long island twelve years.
Only with this long introduction you'll be capable of understand why this film,together with Farenheit 451, Capricorn one, The Omega man, Zardoz, The planet of the apes , 2001 and Solaris were made between 1967 and 1972. We are taking about movies of film makers so distant in style and view directorial as Kubrick , Tarkovski, Truffaut, Schafner ,Hyams and Boorman, but surrounded by that cloudy atmosphere who involved the world in those days.
A must for you to watch. It will let you thinking for a long, long time.

An Underrated SF Thriller
I just rediscovered this classic movie on DVD recently. It is an extraordinary and haunting film with a powerful message. The performance by Edward G. Robinson is moving, and it's almost obligatory to say that Charles Heston chews up the scenery (as usual).

Some of the reviewers here have bemoaned the fact that there are so many 70s-type vehicles in the world of Soylent Green, which detracts from its setting in the year 2022. Nothing could be further from the truth. I remember watching this film in 1973 and was very conscious of that fact that it was projecting what NYC might look like 49 years from then. Why so? Read on.

Not to state the obvious, but this is a film about a dystopian future. The planet is overpopulated and running out of resources. All of the major oil fields on earth have passed peak production (our experts tell us that the last major fields in Saudi Arabia and Iraq will reach peak production in just a few years from now). Most of the automobiles are old and broken down. Infrastructure is decaying. Even in 2004, here and now, you can see this process beginning. In many parts of the city where I live, people are driving vehicles manufactured from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Things are run down. People are working harder and making less money. Richard Fleischer's vision of the future is brilliant and spot on.

So what about the cheesy 70s background music, you say? All I can say is that by 2022 there might very well be a 70s renaissance, because by then people will have realized how good things were in the 1970s. Look at us in 2004, we're still playing Beatles music, and it is quite likely that the music industry will dramatically change or won't even exist by 2022.

And finally, to underscore the scope and brilliance of this film, just do some investigative research into today's Monsanto Corporation and see if you can't find an overwhelming parallel with the Soylent Corporation depicted in the film, whose aim was to control the world's food supply.

And who knows, by the year 2022, food processing and Chicken McNuggets will be so pervasive that NOBODY will know where their food really comes from. What a chilling thought.

I wish that every person on this planet owned this DVD. It's not just a great Heston film, or a brilliant science fiction thriller, it's an important film for all of mankind...because it's still not too late.

p.s. the amazing quality and sharpness of the images in this film are astounding. This is the film that I saw in 1973. All other versions have been muddy and dark. Another outstanding transfer!! ... Read more

Reviews (3)

sweeping epic
Based on Danielle Steel's bestseller, NO GREATER LOVE is a dramatic, often heart rending story of those left behind after the tragic sinking of the Titanic.

Edwina Winfield (Kelly Rutherford), the eldest daughter of a wealthy newspaper dynasty, is travelling home on the Titanic with her family and her fiancee.

The Winfields toast her engagement and the sixth birthday of her sister Alexis. But fate deals Edwina a horrible blow when her parents and fiancee go down with the ship.

Edwina tries to re-build her life and the lives of her younger siblings, while Alexis turns against the family and becomes a teenage delinquint.

For 12 years Edwina puts her romantic life on hold, while she raises her siblings, but on a trip across the Atlantic to rescue a wayward Alexis, she discovers she cannot keep romance at bay, and has an affair with a dashing Englishman, Patrick (Simon MacCorkindale). When Alexis is found, Edwina returns home to marry theatrical producer Sam Horowitz (Chris Sarandon).

At last, Edwina is free from the ghosts of that fateful night on the Titanic.

Romantic, dramatic and very well played out, NO GREATER LOVE is one of the best Danielle Steel movies ever made.

A wonderful movie
I really enjoy this movie, I watch it quite often, as I am a devoted Titanic fan. What I especially enjoy about this movie is the after math of the Tragedy, It shows how Edwina and her siblings cope after such a terrible disaster, and they all finally find the happiness they're so deserving of. I find this movie to be a refreshing change from my other Titanic movies, I view them all very often. One thing I would like to say, is Kelly Rutherford, Looks so much like a Harrison Fisher Lady,She is a very talented actress.If you read the book I believe you will enjoy this movie very much.

Very touching and entertaining film
I've seen this film a couple of times and I really enjoy it. The story is great and easy to follow, as most of Danielle Steel films are. Kelly Rutherford (those who are Melrose Place buffs know that she plays Megan Lewis, Michael's ex)is so great that she really takes care of her brother and sisters when her parents died on that Titanic disaster and sacrifices her life. This story really portrays LOVE, CARING, and UNSELFISNESS towards other people's happiness. This is a must-see film for people of all ages. ... Read more

Description

Alberta Marlow isn't looking for wealth. "I can do without it," she says. "You stick around with me and you're going to get plenty of practice, " Rick Leland replies.

She also gets plenty of danger and intrigue, because Humphrey Bogart plays U.S. counterspy Rick in this crisply written wartime thriller. "The part is a combination of acid and comedy, a bit like his role in The Maltese Falcon," long-time studio insider Robert Lord said when he recommended Bogey for the role in which the screen icon trades romantic barbs with Alberta (Mary Astor), matches wits with duplicitous Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet) and swaps bullets with saboteurs of the Panama Canal. The Maltese Falcon's John Hu ston directs this reunion of three of that movie's stars. And once again, the parlay of stars and director comes up a winner.

Year: 1942 Director: John Huston, Vincent Sherman Starring:Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet Special Feature: Original Theatrical Trailer B&W/97 Mins. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Bogie Rocks!
If you're in any way a Bogie fan or liked the Maltese Falcon then this film is a must see. Well directed by John Huston (Maltese Falcon, Treasue of Sierra Madre). Sydney Greenstreet steals the film in one of his usually intriguing character roles. Mary Astor also shines in the role of the heroine. Nice action, music and cinematography. Humphrey Bogart is one of the best actors to have ever graced the screen and this is easily one of his best films.

Lesser John Huston but quite entertaining
This spy thriller uses plot 39a--you know, the one in which the hero deliberately gets drummed out of the army so he can pursue counter-espionage activity dealing with the enemy. A poltically incorrect, pre-Sony Humphrey Bogart foils Japanese attempts to sabotage the Panama Canal. Huston uses some deft touches in filming this well-worn, hokey plot. With Sydney Greenstreet as a Japanese-loving adversary, Mary Astor as Bogie's romantic interest and Victor Sen Yung as a smart-ass Japanese gunsel.

Rube Goldberg movie
For only his second feature director John Huston nearly got sandbagged by this Warner quickie. The script is literally all over the map and was plainly rushed into production after Pearl Harbor. To his credit, Huston manages to make somthing watchable out of a screwball plot about an American artillery officer, Humphrey Bogart, who is mustered out of the service on a phony rap so he can spy on the Nips, and have a romantic ocean voyage with Mary Astor, and thwart Japanese sympathizer Sydney Greenstreet's plan to blow up the Panama Canal. Whew. This was a pretty poor reward for having made "The Maltese Falcon" but that was the way of the studio system, and Huston manages to cross the finish line before the contraption collapses, no mean feat.

Bogart is the best
Well filmed and very well acted. This is just a wonderful movie.
recreated in Panama Canal, this gives an interesting touch to the film.
I cannot wait by the DVD format...

They started filming in late 1941, but then on 12/7/42...
By an odd coincidence I picked up this little known gem and then days later ran across a passing reference to it in a new book about Hollywoood and Sept. 11.
It seems that the movie was going to be about how Humphrey Bogart foiled a Japanese plot in Hawaii. The movie began shooting in late 1941, but then the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So, the locale changed to Panama, and the script was rewritten as it was shot. After putting Humphrey Bogart's character in an almost impossible situation, John Huston left and offered his services to the army. Vincent Sherman had to figure out the dramatic ending.
And that, my friends, is why it is called Across the Pacific although they never leave the Atlantic Ocean.
The movie is fun, with a great cast, snappy dialogue and surprising twists. Amazon recommends it along with another of my favorite movies, All Through the Night. Both are light-hearted romps set in World War II. ... Read more

Reviews (242)

A well-oiled machine, but is it worthy?
Although it was originally planned that Pierce Brosnan would take on the James Bond mantle from Roger Moore in the mid-80s, the exhilaration of "Goldeneye" (his actual first Bond film) wears off rather quickly, I'm afraid.

You see, I've been spoiled by superior and definitive renditions of the Moore and Connery Bonds to be swayed by Brosnan's working class efforts. Or maybe the product placement is just too obvious in recent 007 films? Either way, this film is just a blip on the screen of an otherwise unstoppable series.

The pros: the sizzling Michele Yeoh as the latest Bond girl, who's both lethal and beautiful, in the best traditions of the genre.

***The proper use of henchmen--Gotz Otto revamping Robert Shaw's oversized killer who nevertheless is no match for Bond.

***And finally, the suitably grandiose (if unoriginal) world-domination plot that has since been missing in action.

The cons: Teri Hatcher--Bond girls have never been famous for their acting skills, but Hatcher looks and sounds out-of-place here.

***An unappealing villain--Jonathan Pryce doesn't have the charisma or the physical appeal to be a proper Bond villain (much less a memorably one).

***The title song by Sheryl Crow; easily one of the worst in the series. The outro closing torch number by K.D. Lang should have been the title cut; it's classic Bond fare.

***Product placement is far too obvious in this film; enough is enough, guys.

Overall, a briskly paced entry in the Bond canon, but it's not firing on all cylinders.

Good Action, Bad Plot
The movie playing last week was As a longtime James Bond fan I had to see Tomorrow Never Dies, or James Bond versus Jonathan Price.

A communications mogul (Price) sets up a communications satellite monopoly, which, unlike DeBeers and other monopolies, is allowed to operate in the United States. To further his power, Price is creating news and having the stories ready as the news happens. His ultimate goal is to start World War III and control all communications afterwards. He will do this by using his armada of communications satellites which will broadcast to a dying world where electromagnetic pulses have rendered televisions inoperable. Oh, I guess he didn't think far enough ahead.

Utilizing the common man's (or should I say scriptwriter's) lack of understanding Geo-Positional Satellites (GPS) he convinces a warship that it is in neutral territory and not in Chinese-controlled waters. Then, utilizing a stealth boat made possible by the theft of some stealth skin (you know, that ultra expensive stuff that becomes completely useless if it gets even slightly damp) and steals a cruise missile. Bond is aided by a Chinese agent (Michelle Yeoh) and they go to Viet Nam where the sunken ship is (oh, didn't they say it was sunk in Chinese waters?). There they confront many bad guys and helicopters that can hover sideways and whose blades can repeatedly chop through buildings with no bad effects.

OK, so the plot, if it can be called that, has a few problems. But it is an action film and plots in action films have less importance than how far the hero can fall. The bad plot is not necessarily because Ian Fleming did not write the story. After all, he did write DOCTOR NO about the madman trying to corner the guano market (the studio gave the madman nuclear capabilities and cut the guano completely from the story). But the movie is fun, nonetheless, with many great lines. While I can't say much for the new Moneypenny, the new M is fantastic.

Do You Believe What You Read?
Years after Ian Fleming's death the "James Bond" series rolls on, recycling the original stories for audiences who never read the original novels. Their villains were in turn Soviet KGB, then organized crime; now one of the most powerful publishers in the Free World! Is Fleming turning over in his grave? This film shows how a powerful publisher can create the news, and not just distort it (use your own example). [Will the viewers make the connection to the Real World?] "Eliot Carver" seems to be modeled after Robert Maxwell (was he the front man for powerful forces who stayed in the background?) There are changes to reflect modern culture and political correctness. James Bond still circulates among high-levels to gather information. But one scene shows him overindulging in vodka, as if to suggest a growing problem in an aging operative.

Bond is caught snooping in the villain's lair, but makes his escape despite the efforts of many guards (who are of various races for this equal opportunity employer, and also recalls Bond's enemies from past films). A former lover of Bond's is murdered (as in "Goldfinger"). The killer in the hotel room looks like he was recycled from "Doktor Strangelove". The car chase in the indoor parking lot recalls "Diamonds Are Forever", but is more spectacular. The skydiving to the wrecked ship recalls other films. Bond and Wai Lin (the female Chinese operative) are caught and brought before Eliot Carver (another recurring scene from Fleming's novels). The villain never delegates these tasks. Their escape shows the product placement of BMW and Land Rover (and reminds me of a Jackie Chan film). They escape the Heckler & Koch MP-5 firing villains. The attack scene in the shop recalls another Jackie Chan film, with its choreographed ballet of action. [Could this ever happen in the real world?] I suspect the scenes in Asia were for that market of film viewers.

The final scene in the "stealth boat" recalls many earlier Bond films. But Eliot Carver seems to be lacking in a villainous character, unlike the classic Bond villains. [Imagine Pee Wee Herman as Goldfinger?] The ending is full of sound and fury, symbolizing the defeat of the villain, his henchmen, and the Plan for World Domination. The earlier Bond films seemed to have had wittier dialogue. The most surprising thing about this film is its villain: a powerful businessman in the Free World, not a parvenu who attacks one of the British Monopolies and has links to the Soviets or the ChiComs.

There's no news like bad news!
The 18th James Bond movie. Since the release of DR. NO in 1962, the James Bond series had established a prototype for rip-roaring action and thrills, evil villains, beautiful women and amazing gadgets. However the definite contributing factor the ongoing success was the ability to change with times, thus making each idea, and each film special in its' own creative way. Bond is more than a Super Agent Spy, he is a hero for the ages, and as the tradition would continue for TOMORROW NEVER DIES, 007 now finds himself against the global communications industry. Hot off the success of GOLDENEYE, Pierce Brosnan once again delivers a dynamite performance as James Bond; confident, fearless, determined, charismatic, irresistible to women, and still with a thirst for dry vodka martinis. Under a clever Bruce Feirstein screenplay, two beautiful women are presented; Teri Hatcher as 007's one time flame Paris Carver, and Michelle Yeoh as tough Chinese Agent Wai Lin. With tried and true elements placed new and fresh, exotic locations in France, Thailand, Germany, Mexico and the United States, and a thrilling music score by David Arnold, TOMORROW NEVER DIES further punctuates the James Bond series even after a successful 35 year wake.

THE ASSIGNMENT: While on a routine voyage, the HMS DEVONSHIRE submarine was mysteriously attacked and sunk in the Chinese sea. The incident is quickly publicized on newspaper accounts thus stirring much controversy and alarm in MI6 headquarters. The culprit: Elliot Carver, a media obsessed megalomaniac, wants to realize his dream of world domination through means of TV, radio and newspaper media accounts. He buys influences, technologies and anyone capable of harnessing information to him, in order to create 'events' to be publicized by this media organization first while securing a monopoly on the world's media coverage. Great Britain and China are unaware of this and place themselves on full nuclear alert, while Carver awaits take over China as another media outlet, which will gain him full control of the Chinese government, following imminent armageddon. Bond quickly befriends Wai Lin, a suspicious, yet helpful Chinese Agent and locates Carver's HQ. Together they must stop the maniac and prevent World War 3.

THE VILLAINS: Jonathan Pryce as Elliot Carver, Ricky Jay as Henry Gupta, Gotz Otto as Stamper, and Vincent Schiavelli as Dr. Kaufman.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! BUY IT!

007 James Bond Tomorrow Never Dies - A great Bond film!
"Tomorrow Never Dies" is the eighteenth overall James Bond Film and the second wonderful film starring Pierce Brosnan in the lead role as James Bond. Of his first four films in that role I would definitely have to say that this one ranks up there with his first performance as Bond, James Bond. From the fast paced action sequences to the overall premise of the film, "Tomorrow Never Dies" entertains from the very first scene to last as everybody involved in the making of this film did exactly what they intended to do with a Bond film, which is making one to remember!

Performance wise, Pierce Brosnan furthers that which he started in "Goldeneye" by making the role his as he brings a darker and harsher yet capably witty tone to Bond that hadn't been seen in a Bond film since the first James Bond himself, Sean Connery. I would caveat that in that I thought Timothy Dalton accomplished that as well but as he was only allowed to do two films in the role I must be in the minority on that opinion.

As with all James Bond films, we're treated to a pair of new Bond babes in Teri Hatcher and international martial arts superstar Michelle Yeoh, both of which are incredibly beautiful and talented actresses. Although Teri Hatcher's role in this film is a very brief one, I would definitely have to say it was memorable. Michelle Yeoh's role in this film brings her right up there with James Bond himself as far as the action sequences go. It is most certainly interesting to see a Bond film turn into a Bruce Lee film in a particularly eventful sequence.

Director Roger Spottiswoode who may best be known for "Air America" or even "The 6th Day" does a great job with this film, solidifying his status as a quite capable director of action films.

The Premise:

This wonderful Bond film in reality has two great opening sequences as we're treated to the standard pre main title James Bond super action sequence which involves 007 infiltrating a Black Market auction of high tech military equipment and him stirring things up and then we're treated to a sequence in which the villain of the film is rousing things up between the British Navy and the Chinese Air Force off the coast of China which adds a wonderful dramatic element to the feel of the entire film.

What follows from there is one of the best Bond films to date as James Bond does what he does best, save the world from total disaster while getting a babe or two in the process...

I highly recommend this eighteenth Bond film to any and all fans of the series and to those who like great action films that actually have a plot as well. {ssintrepid}

Special Features:

This particular DVD is a bit threadbare when it comes to Special Features but in the end, what are these DVD's all about, the movie and it's a great one.

-8 Page Booklet Featuring Trivia, Production Notes and a Revealing Look at the Making of the Film.
-Original Theatrical Trailer ... Read more

Amazon.com

Jack is Francis Coppola at his most pointless noodling, looking for the film he wants to make instead of just making it. Robin Williams stars as 10-year-old Jack, a boy with an inexplicable disease that ages him at four times the normal human rate. Kept at home like a contemporary Boo Radley, Jack becomes a neighborhood legend until his parents relent and send him to school. In time, the other kids befriend him and stay loyal as his hyperdevelopment puts a strain on his body and emotions. The idea is sound, but the execution is a bore. The best the script and Coppola can come up with are painfully long scenes in which Williams's character proves himself on the playground and in gross-out contests in a tree house. Coppola fishes around for signs of life and spontaneity in these scenes, but the film is actually best when Jack has to cope with certain feelings in his mature body (such as his attraction to a character played by Fran Drescher) that he isn't prepared for emotionally. Jack would have been a lot better if Coppola had embraced a plan from beginning to end and stuck to it. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Jack hits close to home
A: 4/5 Stars

Robin Williams gives an outstanding performance in "Jack", a movie about a boy with an extreme growing disorder.
We first see Mrs. Powell dressed as a witch at a costume party from which she is rushed to a hospital where she gives birth to Jack Powell after being pregnant for only ten weeks. We learn that Jack has a disorder that causes him to grow four times the normal human rate.
We then see Jack spending his days lonely and holed up in his home, a ten year-old boy that has the physical body of a forty year-old man. Bill Cosby plays Jack's private instructor, who homeschools him.
Finally, after prodding from his instructor, Jack's parents allow him to go to school.
Jack is at first shunned and ridiculed by his fellow fifth-graders, but slowly earns their friendship by proving that you can't judge a book by its cover.
The movie ends at Jack's high school graduation. Jack was valedictorian and gives a powerful speech. By this time Jack appears to be an elderly man, but is really 18.
Jack is a heart warming and laughter provoking movie about enjoying life while you have it, and I highly recommend it.

J: 4/5 Stars

"When a shooting star streaks through the blackness turning night into day, make a wish and think of me and make your life spectacular. I know I did." -Robin Willliams as Jack
Jack is a bittersweet tale about a boy who, despite certain setbacks, is determined to live and enjoy his childhood.
The movie begins after an odd premature birth, where we learn that Jack ages at four times the average rate. Because of this he is kept out of society for ten years. Jack is visited by a tutor (Bill Cosby) every day. Although the tutor likes teaching Jack, he realizes that he is lonely and convinces Jack's parents to insert him into the public education system. At first he isn't too popular, but finally he wins over the class by using his condition to his advantage. The ways he gets them to accept him are refreshingly true: he can buy porno magazines and dominate the basketball courts. However, Jack has several confrontations with the adult world. His attempts of getting together with his school teacher fails and ends up getting in a brawl at at the local bar. It doesn't help when he recieves a "what I want to be when I grow up" assignment that truly affects him. When his friends are twenty he will probably be dead. The movie ends with a speech of triumph that is both tear jerking and heart warming.
Robin Williams definitely wins the best perfomance award. Here, he is able to bring a poignancy to the role while capturing the youthfulness of being a kid. Francois Ford Coppolay who is usually the director of hard, serious dramas, (see the Godfather) has taken a different route by making a human drama enclosed by comedy. Because of this, he has made one of the most honest movies in recent years. Jack is a joy to watch and a movie to treasure.

very funny
This plot is so original, and you know if Robin Williams is in the movie its gonna be hilarious. It was ! Boy that rapidly grows as he ages. Ha too funny. Great to watch with the whole family. Very light hearted film.

Amazing cast includes Robin Williams, Diane Lane & J-Lo
This very funny and touching film has an amazing cast... ROBIN WILLIAMS (Mrs Doubtfire, Good Will Hunting), DIANE LANE (Unfaithful, Perfect Storm), BILL COSBY (The Cosby Show), and JENNIFER LOPEZ (Out of Sight, Maid in Manhatten).

The story is cool and the directing by FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA is very good. Worth checking out for the excellent performances by the all-star cast.

Jennifer Lopez in "Jack"
10-year-old Jack is a boy with a unique condition that makes his body age four times faster than normal. He convinces his parents to let him attend fifth grade in a public school, but his 40-year old appearance creates all sorts of havoc for him!

Awesome!!
Well, I saw this movie a long while ago, but I still would love to watch it again (even though I don't own it, poo)..."Jack" is the cutest movie I have seen! Robin Williams is the all-time greatest comedian, and I especially love how they put Bill Cosby in it! This movie is funny, sad, and very touching, especially twoards the end. Everyone who is a child at heart should go out and buy this movie! Who can turn down a great Robin Williams film? ... Read more

Reviews (4)

A film for lovers of classic boats and adventure
This is a excellent film especially for those interested in traditional wooden boats and a good adventure story. The film follows the book fairly closely and apart from the German laughter which seems to be produced at the point of a sword, is well acted. Please bring it out on DVD as my VHS copy is just about worn out

A good smooth thriller with a little action thrown in.
The movie is an adaptation of the classic and politically controversial (at the time) novel about a pair of lower upper class Englishmen who discover that Kaiser Willhem II was planning an invasion of England by the undefended west coast using barges as transport. It is an exciting and charming film with Michael York playing an initially sceptical Foreign Office clerk who is drawn into the suspicions of Davies (Simon MacCorkindale), an expert sailor. The movie is charmingly infused with late Victorian optimism and self confidence.

Riddle of the Sands
Excellent adapation of the book. Bring it out on DVD!

Fantastic adventure story
An amazing adventure set several years before the outbreak of WWI. Two Englishmen on a sailing holiday off the Frisian Islands discover the Germans are up to no good. Fantastic story and camera work. Please bring this film out on DVD! ... Read more

Reviews (17)

I love that film.
Yes, I am aware of it's imperfections, but still I love that film. It's miles above the majority of kiddie productions.

My son has a collection of action figures from movies and video games and the Roos are the best. Their design is so strikingly unexpected!

The action sequences are shot very artfully - all these leaves floating in the streams of Power, the resolved fighting of these who HAVE to fight, the total absence of JackyChanesque "funny" grimaces.

My son and nephew were obsessed by the movie for days, confronting each other with these - You came uninvited! - - Come on and pla-ay!!!- phrases, having their try at the art of flying kicks.

The film is kind, the baddies are redempted at the end but all that with the minimal level of saccharine preaching.

I want to thank the Law brothers and Ronny Yu, stuntmen and designers, who made the miracle happen. I've bought the VHS and later the DVD, recommended the film to all my friends who have sons - I want to let the people behind that film know that their effort is very much appreciated.

excellent movie
I read all the comments about this movie, and I started to watch this movie with low expectations, everyone was saying that this movie sucks. But then at half the movie, I realized that the suckers were the ones writting the reviews. Let me tell you that at the end of the movie I wished that it had not one but several sequels with the same quality in general. The producers really created something imaginative, the director just rocks with this movie, the acting is real good. This movie is way up there, and even better in some aspects, with Matrix and Blade, the story even though it is not truly original in itself, it delivers the goods. The action and martial arts, and the conveyance of the feelings and emotions, is for all ages not just for kids. Do not believe the fools that say this movie is awful. Please watch this movie if you want to see something spectacular and emotive. This movie deserves a double ten out of nine!!.

Anyone seen "Tank Girl" (1995)
They used those EXACT SAME kangaroo-people costumes from that movie, in this movie.

great movie
I first watch in the theater, with my first child(a girl)and husband, in 1997, rented it when it came out, and just recently found it in the library and check it out. It's amazing how after 6 years my husband and I still enjoyed it. And now not only do I and my husband enjoy it, but our four children enjoy it. My son loves it so much, that he wants us to find it and buy it.

Imagination
I have seen this movie several times, and I still rewatch it. After seeing it the first time rented; I immediately went ut and bought it. This movie is not for some because it takes an imagination to truly enjoy. If you truly enjoy fantasy and a movie that makes you think about the message, this may be one for you. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Tribes: The Walls Don't Come Tumbling Down
TRIBES belongs to a little-known sub-genre of 'The young man goes off to war' movie, best exemplified by Jack Webb in THE DI. Unlike THE DI, which has stood the test of time as the prototype of all such movies, TRIBES now is seen as a curious period piece in which a hippie is drafted into the US Marines and finds himself squarely opposed by the short-haired establishment symbolized by a marine drill instructor, superbly played by Darren McGavin. Jan-Michael Vincent plays Adrian, the hippie. Much of this movie plays like a rerun of THE DI. There is the hard-as-nails DI breaking down the recruits only to rebuild them into the sanctioned image of gung-ho marines. Early in the film, the DI soon realizes that Adrian is a square peg who has been ordered to fit into a round hole. Adrian shows up at boot camp wearing long hair and sandals, causing a predictably angry response from the DI. At this point the movie becomes a test of culture-vs-culture, with each side refusing to blink. Adrian is seen as some sort of mythic superman who is able to draw from his inner chi the strength and stamina to outperform all his fellow recruits. The battle from the DI's point of view is external: the drill field, the shooting range, the obstacle course. From Adrian's perspective, it is internal. Whenever he is called upon to perform heroic feats of exercise, the scene shifts from Adrian's 'now' to Adrian's 'then.' This 'then' is punctuated by hippie music and a pretty girl with flowers in her hair. The DI does not know how Adrian manages to excel but he is pretty sure that he is up against a force of internalized nature that soon threatens to spread to the other recruits who see Adrian's daily exploits and beg him to reveal his Mahesh Yogi secrets. Adrian explains in pseudo-hippie jargon of the late 1960's that "Man, you have to move yourself from the present world of hurt to a past world of good."
It is not difficult to see that in any confrontation between DI and recruit, any victory by the recruit can only be temporary. Surprisingly enough, Adrian's DI blinks first. He passes Adrian only to learn that the senior DI, who sees the hippie philosophy of Adrian as a menace greater than the communist dialectic of Marx and Engels, has failed Adrian on a technicality and orders him recycled to repeat the entire twelve week course of basic training. Adrian goes AWOL, thereby affirming the power of the state over the individual. Yet, the victory of the state may be as hollow and as ephemeral as was the early victory of the recruit over the system. As a new group of recruits enters the very grounds where Adrian trained just recently, the DI stands ready to receive them, but this time he carries with him a flower of Adrian to remind him that though tribes may differ dramatically if only externally, there is some core resemblance that connects hippie to DI and the state to the individual. Perhaps it is this knowledge that we are more alike than commonly perceived which makes this movie eminently watchable--even if Jack Webb would not understand.

Classic TV movie
They just don't make TV movies like this anymore. Well these days most TV-movies are cable based, but whatever the case, most of it's thrown together trash. The early 70s were a great time for TV movies ("Tribes, "Duel," "Brian's Song," etc). Little did I know as a young kid these prime-time specials would become ageless classics.

Everyone in this film does a top-notch job of acting, no matter how small the part. I don't care a whole lot for the melody "Tribes Are a Gathering" played thoughout the film, but it still does a pretty good job of setting the tone.

Too bad "Tribes" isn't available on DVD. Hopefully soon.

Pro hippie, not Anti-war
'Tribes'was a movie I was made to watch in my sociology class, and considering the times, anti-war really hit home for us. Though, my boyfriend is in the army reserves, and so I know for a fact that the depiction of the boot camp was only partially accurate. However, it doesn't matter so much about how accurate it was. The other reviewers are constantly criticizing the movie's portral of Adrian as this abused hippy, but that wasn't what the movie was about at all. Adrian is a boy who is thrusted into a conformist controlled establishment which he had spent his life trying to defy. How he got there isn't the point. He maintains his beliefs of anti-conformity while still being in that environment and wins. The general's reasons and rules that he followed were accurate, he cannot be completely blamed, but the rules of not thinking just doing is what Adrian is against. He uses meditations to survive pain that he is expected to feel, he helps rather than competes, and he politely objects to things rather than arguing or simply accepting them. As to the scene where Adrian does not shoot a board isn't about being whimpy, it's about realizing that to shot that board is the equivalent of being willing to shoot a human being, which he's not. The message is pro-hippie and hippie ideals; you can be a pacifist and patriotic at the same time. The marine setting was just that, a setting. the ultimate location of anti-hippie conformity. See it for what it means, not what you see with the naked eye.

Interesting In Retrospect
I saw this film when I was in high school, and found it horrifying. Oh my gosh, they shaved off his hair! Oh my goodness, the abuse he is forced to endure! Oh my lands, they are so cruel to this gentle young flower!

Well, more than two decades passed before I even thought of this movie again, or viewed it. Watching it after growing more mature, and having my own military experience behind me, it wasn't quite so horrifying. (Then again, when you're not yet 20, the future is infinite and eight weeks of boot camp an eternity.)

First, what was this hippie kid doing there? One volunteers for the Marines, rather than being drafted. The guy had to sign his name somewhere, and he must have read the document, so there's really no explanation for him beeing so apparently clueless about the process.

Second, the drill instructor was perfectly fair, he was following the program and doing his job, and was not being particularly horrifying or mean to this one hippie recruit. McGavin made it clear at one point, when Adrian asked the purpose of a particular exercise, by replying, "You must do this because I told you to do it, and that is the only reason you need to have." This is how the armed forces function, folks -- particularly in the infantry.

Third, Adrian really did have more self-control than the other guys, with his relaxation techniques. He wasn't needlessly tense or worried over a day's events, and he obviously had the physical make-up for doing well as a Marine.

Fourth, that nonsense with the rifle -- Adrian crying and shivering when handed a rifle -- was utterly absurd. Adrian had sufficient self-control to perform all sorts of difficult physical tasks -- yet he cracks up completely, whines and moans and cries when handed a rifle to fire? He can't simply take a deep breath and operate a small mechanical device, launching a projectile at a completely inanimate target? Give me a break.

Fifth, the film did include positive comments about military service, specifically the reference to the mix of people and skin colors in the training platoon, and the benefits of such close interaction by such differing sorts of folks.

Finally, I bet all of the surviving "Adrians" of the Hippie Movement are kicking themselves now, to some extent, for not bucking up, shutting up and simply enduring that eight weeks of basic training back then -- less than an eyeblink in the whole time of their lives. They know, deep inside, they would have emerged better for doing so, and would not look back upon those failings with contempt that is actually shame in disguise.

Was this movie intentionally campy?
Or was it conceived out of a laughable naiivete? During my own citizenship in the Woodstock Nation, I saw it as a depiction of my "brotherhood" scoring a minor but significant victory over the Establishment and its War Pigs. Jan Michael Vincent's "hunky iconoclast" roles have always had a cooler-than-thou aspect to them--in this film he plays a hippie drafted into the Marines and confronted by a drill sergeant played by Darren McGavin. The concept of hippie-dippy hero versus the Semper Fi villain approaches cliche, however. Perhaps Adrian (Vincent) has a wider worldview than the Sarge, but what people like Adrian (and myself as well at the time) refused to understand was that if you're in the military, you're in a profession where people are by definition unusually focused on the ideals of that profession, and that's bound to be seen as narrow-minded by outsiders. The irony is that this "narrow-mindedness" is necessary in a person whose job is protecting his country. You find that quality to a significant extent in police officers as well for the same reason--their job is domestic defense. So the clash of cultures in this film might make for a good story, were it not for the fact that there's an obvious partisan slant here. The problem is that in this story, the good guys and bad guys get mixed up. These two guys are not supposed to be enemies--they're both Marines. Isn't it Adrian's job to face the fact that he's temporarily lost his civilian status and is supposed to act like a soldier for awhile? Isn't it the sergeant's job to turn him into that soldier? And isn't it ridiculous to portray the sergeant as being out to destroy Adrian--a citizen of his own country? Most of the blurbs about the 1950s film "Reefer Madness" describe it as "campy" for its inaccurate depiction of the effects of marijuana, but no one knew back in those days that the real menace of that drug is more subtle. Three decades after first seeing this film, I get the impression that it's roughly the same kind of camp. I was just too much of a peace zealot at the time to see it as such. Belief in peace does not mean you demonize your country's soldiery--they're just people who were once civilians like you and hope to go back to that status some day. ... Read more