Amazon.com

Ten years and six films (most released straight to video) have madethese pluckydinosaurs favorites among the younger set. This new adventure is, well, prettymuch like all theothers. Littlefoot hears the story of a legendary dinosaur that defended theland years before and ispraised by the mysterious land form known as Saurus Rock. When a strangebrontosaurus namedDoc wanders through town, Littlefoot is convinced he is the legend. Same oldfare: earthshakes,mean old "sharptooths" (T-Rexes), lots of screaming, and a lesson learned. Onlythree songs. Thebiggest surprise is Kris Kristofferson as the voice of Doc. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (15)

One of my daughter's favorite movies...
My daughter Elise -- now 3 1/2 years old -- loves this movie. It's often the movie she picks to watch just before bedtime. She loves the characters...Little Foot, Sarah, the Twins, Spike, Ducky...and I have to admit I'm starting to like them too.

We have about 5 movies in the Land Before Time series, but this is perhaps the best of all. There's Doc, an old Long Neck, who is a great character.

The songs are great too...you should see my daughter sing "The Lone Dinosaur". She loves the song, although she thinks it's the "long" dinosaur. I've tried to tell here it's the "lone" dinosaur, but she won't listen to me!

This is a good one.

Perfect for little boys ages 3-6
Okay, if you have small boys like me. This dvd, actually-- the whole Land Before Time series is what you will want for rainy-indoor days. My boys absolutley love all the characters & sings along to the songs.. "..he's the.. LONE DINOSAUR.., dinosaur, whenever you may need him.."

What an Adventure!
Yet another winner from The Land Before Time series! This is no different from all of the others in that your kids will love it! As in all, the young ones go on an adventure that makes them work together & count on each other for safety. I haven't met a kid yet that doesn't sit through the whole movie from beginning to end - singing as they go! Worth the money!

Our children loved it!
My youngest daughter just received this for her 5th birthday. Both my 5 year old and my 6 1/2 year old love this movie. They currently own five of the LBT dvd's and want the remaining ones.

They also own the original, The Big Freeze, Journey to Big Water, and The Mysterious Island. They love all of them. However, my youngest likes the original the best and my oldest likes the Stone of Cold Fire the best (which we have only rented and have to still purchase). The Secret of Saurus Rock is their second favorite, but they just received it so it could still just be that its new!

Sorry to rain on the children's parade
Children's videos and stories don't have to be this dumbed-down. As the editorial review says, this story is much like the others - and that's my big problem with the whole series.

Sarah screams as often in this movie as she does in the first one. Spike still can't talk (except when he's particularly moved, say, by the thought of losing a friend). Ducky is still helpless, and hasn't advanced with her speech pathology therapy. I don't have the sense that the characters learn anything they don't know when they start; these characters don't develop. Come on, doesn't Little Foot ever get testy with his grandpa when he has flashbacks of his mother dying?

The contrast with Disney movies is tremendous. Not only are the Disney songs listenable (I can't believe an adult can listen to "The Lone Dinosaur" and not cringe), but the characters there *learn* something during their adventure. This is probably why Disney movies don't lend themselves to good sequels - the character's development is all played out in the original movie, so what more does Simba or Ariel have to learn? Here, the sequels are naturals, because all the characters stay the same.

Perhaps this is comforting for young folks, but I don't think so. I asked my six-year-old whether she liked these movies as much as Lion King or Lilo and Stitch; she said no, she found them boring.

Another quibble with this movie: there is a dumb (I can't think of a better word) subplot about "bad luck." Did Doc bring "Bad Luck" to the Great Valley? Do you believe in "Bad Luck?" What if "Bad Luck" really exists? I've seen the movie several times, and I have no idea what this subplot is supposed to be teaching children, except that sometimes Stephen Spielberg funds movies that raise nonsensical questions. ... Read more

Reviews (33)

Engrossing, changed my perception
I just watched this film last night, and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. I loved this film so much that I went and bought the book by Somerset Maugham today.

A young man disillusioned with the "conventional" life deemed worthy by society treks through Paris and reaches India, finding there spiritual fulfillment. He comes back to the United States a changed man, only to find that his childhood friends have changed--mostly for the worst.

Terrific performances, especially by Anne Baxter, who won the Academy Award for best supporting actress through her role as Sophie in this film.

Although 2 and half hours long, this movie will keep you glued to your seat. Beautifully written, directed, and played. Highly recommended.

If you want a movie you will watch over and over again--a movie that will make you think and question--watch The Razor's Edge.

Ambitious, but Flawed Adaptation
This film has achieved "classic" status, yet it looks a bit shop-worn and creaky in some respects, when approached from a modern perspective. This is, overall, a highly stylized treatment of Maugham's novel. Scriptwriter Lamar Troti definitely focuses on the melodramatic elements of Larry Darrel's spiritual odyssey. Maugham was a highly realistic novelist. His subtle wit and sharp observations are buried under here in the moviemaker's wallowing in the bathetic.

The performers, with the exception of Clifton Webb as Uncle Elliot and Herbert Marshall as Somerset Maugham, are decidedly from the "studied" school of drama. Tyrone Power, in particular, is at times painful to watch, especially in the scenes opposite Tierney. Such emoting might work on stage, but before a camera, the overblown gestures, lack of facial expression, and wooden delivery border on the farcical. Tierney is a delight to look at, but her emotive range is severely limited as well. She seems to have two modes: coquettish or angry. Sure, this stylized sort of performance was the order of the day in 40s Hollywood, but it looks really dated these days. And there were exceptions, even then. One can well imagine what actors the caliber of Olivier and Leigh would have done with the roles. Anne Baxter, who received a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her performance as the unfortunate Sophie, is also guilty of overacting, at least by naturalistic standards. She could have used a dose or two of Ibsen.

Which brings us to the two bright spots, performance wise. Clifton Webb probably would have won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, had he not received one two years earlier for his work in "Laura." His death bed scene, though maudlin as all get out, is nonetheless unforgettable. The man had a knack for line delivery. He made a character with despicable motives and questionable morals, somehow sympathetic, even loveable. Herbert Marshall delivers an understated, brilliant portrayal of author Maugham. As reviewer Bernie mentions, it's easy to make the mistake when we envision Maugham in our mind's eye as looking identical to Marshall. I thought the first time I viewed the film that it was Maugham playing the part, as it's not a polished or studied performance in the least. He acts as if he's too shy to actually face the camera in most scenes, which fits the character perfectly. Most of the time he is the half reluctant, frequently uncomfortable observer, standing on the perifery, making mental notes for his next novel. A great piece of acting.

Even though the lead actors turn in stagey performances and the script may not be true to the tone of Maugham's novel, the movie still "works" on many levels. It's too good a story to completely mess up. If you can accept it as a product of cinematic trends of the era and allow that audiences of the time bought into the concept that over emoting and over gesticulating was something screen stars were supposed to do, you may find, as I did, that this is still a very enjoyable film

BEK

Do yourself a favor and skip this one.
Maughm's outstanding book deserves much better than this. The 1980's film of the same title (with Bill Murray)is a MUCH better and truer presentation of the story than is this bit of fluff. Do yourself a favor and see the other film, or better yet read the book!

Worth watching but not buying
Having watched the movie directly subsequent to reading the wonderful text, I knew that the film version would leave something to be desired, but I didn't know it would not only abridge the book, but alter many scenes as well -- for the worse. The first 30 minutes were superb -- as was Clifton Webb as Elliott Templeton. Tyrone Power just didn't seem like the right match to me -- he was perhaps a trifle guarded and meticulous in his portrayal of the winsome and quixotic Larry Darrell.

Also, too many totally unnecessary, not to mention disconcerting, deviations from the text result as well. These include, but are not limited to: Larry's supposedly rough and bearded appearance when he returns from India (he comes back not only clean shaven but in a suit), Isabel (instead of Larry) recommends the vulgar bar where they meet Sophie, Isabel leaves to the dentist AFTER (not before) Sophie arrives, Larry accuses Isabel of getting Sophie drunk (instead of Maugham), Isabel and Gray arrive before Elliott dies (instead of after), and last but certainly not least, Suzanne Rouvier, a rather paramount character in the novel, is conspicuously absent from the ENTIRE movie. Overall, I found it worth watching, yet hardly riveting or true to the text -- to put it mildly.

Hindu Sage based on Ramana Maharshi
I really enjoyed this film. It was nice to find a film from 1946 dealing with philosophy and spirituality. I wanted to add that the sage represented in the film and book was based on the actual sage Ramana Maharshi, whom Carl Jung has spoken very highly of. For a sample of his work, I would recommend "The Spiritual Teaching of Ramana Maharshi", which includes an introduction by Carl Jung. I recommend this film! ... Read more

Reviews (98)

Peter Pan
I'm still a fan of the Disney Classics but I have to say that Peter Pan isn't one of my favorites and for the same reason that a lot of people don't like this one and that is the scenes with the Indians (hence 4 stars unstead of 5).

PETER PAN is about the boy who could never grow up and after chasing his shadow in the bedroom of Wendy, John and Michael, he invites the 3 to fly with him to Neverland. It's a wonderful story of adventure, fun and flying. All children will enjoy this one.

Now again, my reason for taking a star off is obviously for the derogatory and stereotypical depiction of Native Americans in this movie. Regardless that this movie was made in 1953 still doens't make it right. As parents, it really should be the responsibilty of the parents to explain and to teach children the right way. I will say that every child should enjoy PETER PAN, but afterwards every parent should take the time to explain to the children that making fun of another culture is wrong.

Either way it goes, if you're looking for other great Disney classics look for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST SPECIAL EDITION, THE FOX AND THE HOUND, ROBIN HOOD, SLEEPING BEAUTY and CINDERELLA. Also check out some of the new Disney's like MONSTERS INC and TOY STORY and TOY STORY 2.

You'll (almost) believe you can fly
Of all Walt Disney's animated films, "Peter Pan" is my personal favorite. This classic tale of the little boy who never grew up has Disney stamped all over it. It also varies refreshingly from the versions that preceded it. In previous plays acted on the stage, Peter Pan was always played by a young woman, but in the Disney version he is all boy. He's brash, mischievous, more than a little cocksure of himself, able to fight and defeat a grown pirate captain, and on top of all this, he can fly. What else is needed for a children's hero? Tinker Bell is one of Disney's best inventions. On the stage she is a blob of light flitting here and there; only in animation could she be realized as a real pixie, vain, conceited, totally devoted to Peter and madly jealous of Wendy. The three children, Wendy, John and Michael, are very well done in the movie, and the opening family scenes are priceless. When Peter and Tinkerbell sneak through the children's window, and zoom back out again with the children in tow, we want to sprinkle on some pixie dust and fly right out there with them. Second star to the right, here we come. The scenes at Neverland are funny and original, and the pirates are a riot. One of Disney's most hilarious, and underrated, characters in all his films, is the crocodile, Hook's nemesis, who can't wait to get another chomp out of him. (Poor Hook is reduced to a bundle of shattered nerves every time he hears that tick-tock, tick-tock coming towards his ship.) The only negative in this film is the scene in the Indian village; the stereotypes that were accepted without question in the 1950s are almost embarrassing now. However, it can't and doesn't detract from the fun. The songs are okay, nut nothing special; it's the action and animation that make this movie. Of all Disney's animated films, "Peter Pan" was the one I used to wish was real when I was a child. Maybe there is a little of Peter Pan in all of us.

Poor adaptation of Barrie's play misses the point.
"The Disney version" of "Peter Pan" clearly demonstrates what is so wrong with "The Disney version" of too many classic stories. It turns Barrie's play into a simple adventure tale, in which the dramatic and (dare I say it?) psycho-sexual elements at the center of Barrie's fantasy are discarded wholesale.

There are defensible reasons for this, I suppose. Drama requires talking, but characters who stand around gabbing bring an animated film to a dead stop. I also suspect that Disney simply didn't understand the story in the first place. It wasn't until the Ashman/Menken era that Disney films finally developed any dramatic focus.

It's unfortunate, because "Peter Pan" starts off well enough. The late Sammy Fain's "Second Star from the Right," played over the title cards, has one of the most-ravishing melodies in the history of American popular music. (Look for the albums "Bibbidi Bobbidi Bach" and "Heigh-Ho! Mozart" for superb "classical" arrangements of Disney tunes.) The "You Can Fly" sequence is inspired (and can you name any other pop song with an accelerando passage?). But everything quickly bogs down thereafter, with Captain Hook's machinations providing the only fun.

There just aren't enough good things in the Disney "Peter Pan" to make up for its failure to treat the source material in an honest and serious fashion.

A great cartoon classic, one of Disney's best
This wonderful Disney production offers flights of fancy that appeal directly to children's fertile imaginations. The ability to fly, to be a devil-may-care youngster and never grow up, to engage in derring-do with pirates, never having to bother with school, and exploring fantasy worlds of islands, mermaids, Indians and mysterious caves is a powerful magnetic pull for young dreamers. The lush color lensing of this animated adventure is superb, and the characters and catchy tunes add to the pleasure of watching this film, for young and old alike.

Peter Pan, the title character, is a spry, charming lad who loves his carefree existence. He is, however, upstaged by his companion, the delightfully naughty Tinker Bell, a temperamental pixie who literally sees red when Wendy accompanies Peter Pan to Never Land. Captain Hook and his shadow, the crocodile, the sniveling Smee, the beautiful mermaids, and the stoic Tiger Lily are the characters who stand out in this movie. Wendy and her brothers, John and Michael are okay and basically come along for the ride. The sprightly song "You Can Fly!-You Can Fly!-You Can Fly!" is just one of the memorable tunes for which Peter Pan is fondly remembered.

A quick, enjoyable Disney viewing.
This movie animates one of the most imaginative plays ever written, albeit with a little 'Disneyfication.' It's by far my favorite; there is an enjoyably long spectrum of characters. Every time I watch this movie, it takes me back to those times I wish I was in Never-Never-Land.

P.S. The claim that this movie is an allegory to the JFK years is easily refutable, since this movie was made in 1953, while the play is over a century old. ... Read more

Amazon.com

John Gregory Dunne turned the true story of Los Angeles's Black Dahlia murder case into a compelling novel and then adapted the novel (with wife Joan Didion) for this meaty movie mystery directed by Ulu Grosbard. A study of the ways power corrupts, and the way corruption consumes the soul, the film stars Robert Duvall and Robert De Niro as a pair of brothers (a cynical police detective and a rapidly rising monsignor, respectively) who come into conflict over the case of a murdered woman in 1940s Hollywood. De Niro gives a beautifully shaded performance, while Duvall, who never gives a bad one, gets the slightly flashier role. Yet there's nothing showy about Duvall, who gets under the skin of this cop and who knows better than to get personally involved in a case but ultimately can't help it. A fine supporting cast includes Kenneth McMillan, Charles Durning, and Burgess Meredith. Maybe too studied for some, but worth watching if only for the two leads. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (7)

A story of brotherly love and sibling rivalry
It is hard to believe that a film with outstanding performances from both Robert Duvall and Robert DeNiro could slip through the cracks of the movie going consciousness. True Confessions perfectly captures, in an effortless manner, the feel of post-war California, we don't see men in costumes or old cars, we're put right in the time and place through artful direction. Two brothers, one a pious priest with a head for high finance, the other a hard bitten detective, now clean after an earlier career stint as a bagman, must handle the problems of their separate worlds. A brutal crime - the murder and dismemberment of a young woman - is about to bring their two worlds crashing together. The up and comers of the building in boom in California, who the Church is using to advance their goals of schools and hospitals, may not be the pillars of the community that wish to appear to be. A well balanced mystery of money, power, politics and principles. Don't miss the scene in which Charles Durning dances an Irish jig at a wedding.

Dissapointing...
I was pretty disappointed in this film. I'm a fan of Duvall and DeNiro (who isn't?) and they do great work here, but I couldn't shake the feeling that their roles should have been reversed -- DeNiro should have been the edgy detective and Duvall the Priest. But the biggest disappointment is the causal use of the ''Black Dahlia'' murder; here disguised as ''The Virgin Tramp'' murder. This was a heinous, brutal crime that's used here only as an excuse to buck up a thin plot. (I'm getting pretty tired of scenes in which hard-boiled detectives stand over a nude dead woman and make cracks about her body.) I feel sorry for the dead women who populate this movie for no other reason then to provide titillation between the endlessly dull scenes of patriarchal posturing and male bonding. Skip it.

Unrecognized classic
I am in complete agreement with 'A viewer from Summit N.J.', unable to understand why this thoughtful, moving film failed to achieve the recognition is so clearly deserves. De Niro and Duvall are both at their distinguished best, their interaction as brothers one of the most persuasive and compelling I have ever seen on the screen. The evocation of the period - including the Catholic Church of the day - seems flawless, and the slowly unfolding drama of personal redemption gives the movie very unusual dramatic weight. An excellent film in every way.

IRISH AMERICAN CATHOLICS IN THE FIFTIES,PLUS COPS&HOOKERS
I CAN WATCH THIS MOVIE OVER AND OVER. I GUESS BECAUSE IT IS A GOOD STOREY AND A WELL MADE MOVIE. I ENJOYED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TO IRISH, AMERICAN, CATHOLIC, BROTHERS (AS IN SIBLINGS) IN THE FIFTIES. YOU GUESSED IT. I AM ALL OF THE ABOVE. MY WIFE LIKED IT AND SHE IS NONE OF THE ABOVE.

critics are sometimes wrong
Simply stated, this is a great watch. The critics did not care for this effort. Some say it is too complex, too much thinking required to follow the plot. Not at all. It is a perfect blend of hero, anti-hero, humanity's darkside and finally, a redeeming closure. DeNiro and Duvall "made" this movie! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

If Franz Kafka had been an animator and film director--oh, and a member of Monty Python's Flying Circus--this is the sort of outrageously dystopian satire one could easily imagine him making. However, Brazil was made by Terry Gilliam, who is all of the above except, of course, Franz Kafka. Be that as it may, Gilliam sure captures the paranoid-subversive spirit of Kafka's The Trial (along with his own Python animation) in this bureaucratic nightmare-comedy about a meek governmental clerk named Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) whose life is destroyed by a simple bug. Not a software bug, a real bug (no doubt related to Kafka's famous Metamorphosis insect) that gets smooshed in a printer and causes a typographical error unjustly identifying an innocent citizen, one Mr. Buttle, as suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro).When Sam becomes enmeshed in unraveling this bureaucratic glitch, he himself winds up labeled as a miscreant.

The movie presents such an unrelentingly imaginative and savage vision of 20th-century bureaucracy that it almost became a victim of small-minded studio management itself--until Gilliam surreptitiously screened his cut for the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, who named it the best movie of 1985 and virtually embarrassed Universal into releasing it. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (302)

the definitive look at this masterpiece
Brazil is, arguably, Terry Gilliam's crowning achievement. Originally called 1984 1/2, this film was embroiled in an infamous battle to be distributed. The studio didn't like Gilliam's version and cut together one of their own. Gilliam went to the press and got the L.A. critics behind his movie and finally shamed the studio into releasing his version.

Criterion's 3-DVD set documents the struggle Gilliam went through to get his film shown. Disc One contains his cut of the film with an informative and entertaining commentary by the director. The second DVD contains the bulk of the extra material. Not only is Gilliam's struggle documented but also various aspects of the production are examined -- including the screenplay, costumes, art direction, etc. The final disc contains the studio's ....py cut with a film historian's audio commentary documenting why this version sucks.

Once again, Criterion comes through with an exhaustive look at an important film of modern cinema. Brazil is a brilliant satire of a dystopian society run amok by pointless bureaucracy. Anyone who has worked a souless job in an office will immediately empathise with the protagonist's plight. Like any great work of science fiction, Brazil offers more questions than answers -- not everything is wrapped up neatly, instead the viewer is left questioning certain aspects of our modern society. Great stuff.

Great movie about dreams and hope
Brazil, despite the science fiction, social commentary and surrealism, is at it's core a film about a man who trapped by the mundanity of life, imagines himself in a more fantastic world.

Jonathan Pryce stars as a tiny unimportant member of a vast hyper-capitalistic society. Life is cold and dreary for everyone. All his spare time is spent dreaming of magical romantic worlds and the beautiful woman who lives there. One day, a simple beaucratic mistake causes a monumental disaster. Not that anyone cares... they just don't want to be blamed. Sent to solve the problem, or maybe to be a scapegoat, Pryce accidentally meets the literal woman of his dreams. As he pursues her, he brings suspicion on himself of being a terrorist (the scourge of the government), and his dreams begin to invade his waking thoughts.

A suprising list of talent lend themselves to the film and is written, minus Kafka and Orwell themes, by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam so expect some obvious humor and much biting satire throughout. Depressing and magical without losing it's hope, any person who can identify with the main character should find themselves entranced.

Despite being made in 1985 the special effects prove to be suprisingly effective (although easily noticed). I personally think this movie is the second best Science Fiction film, 2001 being first, and the best 1984 type movie ever made.

Much loved, but I never got it ...
This is a cult classic, but I find it over-rated. It delivers the zaniness, surreality and crazy camera work, but the film has no interest in its characters -- you'll feel nothing for them, and for me that leaves a big hole in the center of the movie.

For a movie with a similar feel but considerably more heart, try Barton Fink instead. Or even Amelie.

Boring
This movie is really disappointing and boring.

a bizzare and frightening film
If you enjoy futuristic Sci-Films then I would heartily reccomend this, as it presents a number of interesting and imaginative concepts.
The setting is the far future.The world is a polluted wasteland. A strange network of wires covers the ceiling of every room.
A corporation-government, Central Services, controls all trade enterprises. Any who indulge in the businesses they control (which are almost everything) without the proper paperwork are labeled terrorists. So, unfortunately, are those who criticize Central Services' inane policies.
Their Cops, clad in spacesuits that look like they came straight out of David Lynch's adapatation of "DUNE", frequently capture these "terrorists" to be interrogated, tortured, and/or executed with bizarre devices.
The "food" eaten by the characters in this film is premasticated garbage, into which are stuck pictures of what the characters believe they are eating.
The rich and powerful under Central Services rule get daily facelifts and parties,
and they strike the viewer as stupid and frightening.
The plot of the film concerns a daydreaming young paper-pusher (Jonathan Pryce) for Central Services' Ministry of Information who discovers a glitch in some paperwork that led to the wrongful arrest and unfortunate execution of Archibald Tuttle, who was mistaken for Archibald "Harry" Tuttle (Robert DeNiro), who has fallen out with the law because of his entrepeneurial fix-it man services.
Soon, a truck-drivin' gal(Kim Greist) who witnessed Archibald Buttle's wrongful arrest pleads for his release to the Ministry of Information, who label her a terrorist.
Later, The young MOI employee notices her picture in the lobby of his workplace, and decides to pursue her. He saves her from being arrested, and, in doing so, is labeled an enemy of society, which eventually leads to his tragic end at the hands of his friends(Ian Holm and John Palin).
This frightening look at the evils of technology, corporations,wrongful arrests, and totalitarian governments is not to be missed by any except the very young(if it gave ME nightmares, imagine the effect it would have on a seven-year old boy!) . ... Read more

Amazon.com

These first two episodes of the charming and perceptive series The Wonder Years are an appropriate setup for the uninitiated and a must-have for fans. The original pilot introduces Kevin (Fred Savage), his best friend Paul (Josh Saviano), his childhood playmate and budding girlfriend, Winnie (Danica McKellar), and his typical late-1960s, early-'70s family: older brother and nemesis Wayne (Jason Hervey), beautiful liberal sister Karen (Olivia d'Abo), mother (Alley Mills), and father (Dan Lauria). Kevin and his friends are entering Robert F. Kennedy Junior High School, Winnie gets contacts, her brother Brian (Bentley Mitchum) is killed in Vietnam, and Kevin and Winnie share a first kiss. The opener also features some fantastic music (the Byrds' "Turn, Turn, Turn," Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides Now," Tommy James and the Shondells' "Crystal Blue Persuasion," and Percy Sledge's "When A Man Loves a Woman")--a trademark of the series. Great music (Buffalo Springfield, Aaron Neville, Judy Collins) also highlights "Swinger," which follows with Brian's funeral and Kevin and his pals' growing obsession with sex, fueled by their curiosity with Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask. Daniel Stern's narration is warm and engaging and the voice-over is never intrusive. This series continues to be enchanting because of its ability to mix comedy and pathos, as well as infuse a sense of dignity and history in a period many consider their most awful years. --N.F. Mendoza ... Read more

Reviews (5)

You'll look back with Wonder too!
You can't help but interject yourself Kevin's life. He is so relatable. Also with the narration it makes us think of our own glory days of youth and the important people in our lives. The first kiss. First experience with someone dying. The intrigue of sex ed. Our best friend and knowing everything about that person. Nagging brother or sister. Fighting parents who loved each other and us. The popular music that defined the era we grew up in. I'm sure there are special songs that conjure up powerful images from your past just as the special songs from the Wonder Years does the same for each episode.

With the narration of the young Kevin and the 60s setting it reminds me of the movie Christmas Story. The Messy Marvin actor and the narration of his thoughts/dreams of the Red Ryder bb gun. Another classic! But I digres . . .

You have to see this first volume of Wonder Years! It will tug at your heart strings again! You won't be disappointed!

Kevin, Paul and Winnie start Junior High in the Fall of 1968
Kevin Arnold, Homer Simpson and I all graduated from high school in the same year. But when we first meet Kevin, Paul and Winnie as they are heading for their first day of school at the newly renamed Robert F. Kennedy Junior High School in the Fall of 1968. "The Original Pilot" (January 31, 1988) aired after the Super Bowl that year, guaranteeing itself a big audience. What they saw was Kevin (Fred Savage) having a hard time at school. His best friend Paul (Josh Saviano) is no help, his older brother Wayne (Jason Hervey) is out to get him, and Winnie Cooper (Danica McKellar), the tomboy down the street is now wearing go-go boots and inducing major hormonal problems. So Kevin immediately finds himself in trouble with the assistant principal, forcing his mom (Alley Mills) and dad (Dan Lauria) to come down and pick him up. However, when they drag Kevin home to be punished, his sister Karen (Olivia D'Abo) has some horrible news that makes everything moot. The ending of this first-rate pilot episode is a most bittersweet moment between Kevin and Winnie. Things are back to as normal as like got for young teenagers in the late Sixties in "Swinger" (March 29, 1988), where Kevin and Paul's Phys. Ed. teacher has started teaching Sex Education. Do you remember "Our Body, Ourselves"? Both of these episodes were written by Neal Marlens & Carol Black. Interesting footnote: The pilot episode was directed by Steve Miner, who got his start doing a couple of "Friday the 13th" films. In a lot of ways I think "The Wonder Years" was the "Leave It To Beaver" of its day, even if it was set twenty years in the past (when it first aired), with the key difference being Winnie. Beaver never had a girl friend like Winnie and it is their relationship, which goes from puppy love to teenage infatuation to something more lasting, is at the heart of "The Wonder Years." Also, before there was "Forrest Gump" it was this television show that made use of the music that was the soundtrack for our lives.

i enjoyed it thought it was sad though
this program brought back alot of menmories for my hubby ,and me we too grew up in the sixties and seventies would like to see more programs like that instead of these other court shows too many serious on them

great
l liked this drama so much and i would like to preview i

Kevin Arnold captures our memories as we go back to 1968.
A 12 year old boy named Kevin Arnold (played by Fred Savage) growing up in the 1960's through the 1970's. He has to deal with this parents (Dan Lauria / Alley Mills), brother, sister, best friend, school and of course girlfriend Winnie Cooper (played by Danica McKellar). The person who narrates and describes everything for us is off screen adult Kevin Arnold (portrayed by Home Alone's Daniel Stern). This is a TVG comedy-drama the whole family will enjoy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

There's a plug for environmental causes (song lyric: "If there's a place worth saving, this must be the place"), a Darwinian crack aimed at parents, and faux news broadcasts to keep things moving. But most of all there are animals, animals, animals in this 37-minute National Geographic video. If a trip to the South American rain forest isn't part of the vacation plans, this video tour aimed at kids from preschool through grade school will more than suffice. Comparing the forest layers to an apartment building, animated planet guide Spin (Dudley Moore) steps onto an elevator to explore the forest floor on up to the canopy level--meeting tapirs, jaguars, bats, and spider monkeys along the way. Meanwhile kids become familiar with concepts such as echolocation, camouflage, and the equator. Now that's infotainment! --Kimberly Heinrichs ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Very entertaining and educational.
I have a three-year-old who loves this video we borrowed from the local library. He already knows the layers of a rain forest and can name a few animals in each layer. I have a degree in elementary education and truly realize how important positive exposure to new things are to children. He also gets angry at the part where they show the cutting down of trees and tells the man to pick them back up! Hello! Do you need more of a hint? Videos like this are truly benificial to children.

Awesome! Humor Included!
This video is really cool, and fuuny too. Kids can learn a lot from it, all the while being entertained. It's the best quality, the kind you expect from National Geographic. The answer to every question you ever had about tropical rainforests is right here, I can garauntee it. Dudley Moore, the histarical comedian, plays the loveable and always-good-for-a-laugh globe character Spin. A great way for kids 5-13 to learn and have fun!

Humorous Education
The Tropical rainforest has over 1/2 of the earth's animals and plants!Hey I am NOT kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Take a swing around the forest with Dudley Morre as Spin,your favorite globe-on-the-go!40 Min.Hoatzins included. What!!!!!?????Find out in the Totally Tropical Rain Forest! ... Read more

Reviews (72)

Doris and Rock's best movie
Without a doubt, this film is the apex of the Rock and Doris screen collaboration. It's an absolute delight from the opening scenes until the credits roll. It's also a wonderful time machine of the 1950's, and even though I was born after this film was made, it always make me feel as if I experienced this decade first-hand. Doris Day had a charisma on screen that is indescribable and it's never been put to better use than here. You just want to hug her to bits, she's simply adorable and her character makes the film. Rock gives one of his best peformances and he was always better when Doris was around. They screen chemistry is fabulous, exceeded only by Tracy and Hepburn. It's obvious these were two people who liked each other and felt comfortable in each other's company. Thelma Ritter and Tony Randall give superb supporting performances.

Another wonderful thing about Pillow Talk is that it's still extremely funny. There are many scenes where you will laugh out loud. The entire interplay between Doris and Rock (when he's Rex Stetson) is hilarious and holds up beautifully. Another favorite scene is when Rock is confronted with his re-designed apartment, all at the hands of the scheming Doris.

They don't make 'em like this anymore. People of all ages should love this film. I watch it every few years and always find something new to admire or laugh about. A highly recommended and enjoyable movie. One word about the DVD version: I was disappointed in the quality, it's a little grainy. There are also not many extras, excepting the theatrical trailer.

A Comic Inspiration...To Me!
Of all the classic comedies that starred Doris Day and Rock Hudson, or the two stars with other co-stars, this remains my favorite.The legendary late Rock Hudson was at his peak in this romantic comedy, and who better to showcase his charms against, than quintessential girl-next-door, Doris Day. Hudson thrives on his ability to charm indeed, as a songwriter named Brad Allen. Brad is a love-em and leave-em kind of guy, who entertains a seemingly endless array of lovesick females at his well equipped bachelor pad. He also sings to them over the phone for hours on end, tying up the telephone party-line he shares with Jan Morrow, interior designer, enter a perturbed Doris Day. Every time Jan picks up the phone, she hears Brad sing "You're My Inspiration...", and always with a new girls' name attached to the end. Flabbergasted at his womanizing, she sends a phone company rep to have a word with Mr. Allen, only to find that she TOO has fallen for the tall dark and handsome playboy. .............. Jan tells her boyfriend of sorts played by the wonderful veteran comedy legend Tony Randall, about her dialing dilemma. Randall, as always, plays himself. He's neat, dapper and proper, as not only Jan's boyfriend, but Brad Allen's friend and boss as well. After extoling the virtues of Jan to Brad, and mentioning that she shares a party-line with "some nut", describing the singing phone routine, Brad is too curious to find out what Randall is so wild about. After Brad Allen finally glimpses Jan Morrow dancing at a club, and sees the other end of his party line is not the shrew he expected, he sets out for his sweetest conquest of all................ "Pillow Talk" is a timeless gem of classic comedy. Amazingly, it was considered quite risque in it's time. This only goes to show just how jaded the world and cinema has become since 1959. Rock Hudson was actually embarrassed, and nearly declined the role. We can speculate in retrospect why he felt that way, but no one could've been a better cad than Rock as Brad! The one and only Doris Day is sweet as sunshine, until the duped decorator delighfully disarms Mr. Allen's charms, leaving him, for the first time, really in love with someone other than himself. Thelma Ritter is amusing as Jan's perpetually hung-over housekeeper. It's a truly comic moment when Ritter counsels Brad over a few too many drinks on how to win Jan over, and Hudsons' head hits the table with a thud, while Ritter babbles on oblivous to her companions condition. Tony Randall is his classic prim self, and laugh out loud funny, as he storms into his own place to rescue Jan from the smug seducer huffing the line "At least you could have had the DECENCY...to bring your OWN champagne!" .............. There are too many wonderful moments in this film to cover them all. If you somehow haven't, it's far better for you to enjoy watching this long lost genre of the innocent, fun, fresh feel-good romantic comedy, and experience first hand, the pure delight it has to offer in abundance.

Wonderful comedy of 3 Hollywood Stars with amazing chemistry
I grew up knowing about Doris Day because my mother was/is a big fan of her comedies. When I first saw "Pillow Talk" I was a mere child (the film was made the same year I was born). Over the years I have watched it frequently, and now have it also on DVD. The film continues to entertain and delight me, even as my impressions have changed with time.

Doris Day, Rock Hudson and Tony Randall had a wonderfully delightful chemistry amongst them! From the opening where Doris is humming "Pillow Talk" after the intro is completed, to the far-fetched but humourous end when Brad Allen (Rock) is trying to tell his friend Jonathan that he is going to be a father, the film is simply splendidly performed throughout! Credit must also be given to the script writers Stanley Shapiro & Maurice Richlin, director Michael Gordon & Producer Ross Hunter.

Even though I was born the year "Pillow Talk" was made, I didn't even know party lines existed until I visited a great-aunt in Northern Minnesota. I remember picking up the phone and hearing people talk. WHAT A DISCOVERY! It put the film in a new context for me when I saw it later (I am not sure if I had seen it before). I suspect that the younger generation might not understand even the notion of party lines in our age of cellular phones and internet. In this regard, the film takes us back to a less techonologically advanced time, but a time where life seemed somehow more relaxed.

I delight in seeing New York City, Central Park, and the American automobiles in the 1959 frame of context. One question that pops into my mind: did people in NYC really have such big apartments with a single woman living alone, and still affording a maid to come in each day??? Was the maid really paid enough to make a living from it? Did NYC really have that sort of "everyone knows everyone" feel such as when Kelly the police officer congratulates Brad Allen as he carries Jan Morrow from her apartment to his? I doubt it, but the fantasy is lovely!

Rock Hudson did a really fun impression of a Texan rancher up in New York. Tony Randall was extremely funny as the self-deprecating multi-millionaire in love with Jan, and Doris simply glowed from beginning to end. The last few times I have watched it, which has been recently, I have been struck by the sexual frankness it explored. Brad the playboy, always luring in the beautiful women, Jan the wonderfully moral interior decorator, who shakes her tush in a very sexy manner at a nightclub when Brad first spots her, and the budding romance that develops between the two when he becomes "Rex Stetson", a cowboy from Texas. "Rex" playing the moral companion who would do nothing to offend the proper Miss Morrow, while inside he is sizing her up and biting at the bit to ... well bite at her bits? When the gig is almost up, "Rex" innocently suggests that Jan join him for a weekend in Connecticut. While there was no actual sex occuring, it is made clear that it was about to happen when Jan figures out the ruse Brad Allen has played on her. Hollywood, perhaps afraid of the extent of this sexual frankness, has Miss Morrow crying at the diner where she and Jonathan stop for coffee, saying "I thought we were going to get married." Good girl image preserved!

Later, when Brad Allen conspires with Jan's boss to have her redecorate his apartment, the scene of the music beginning to play and the double bed automatically folding out with sheets in place left no doubt what sort of life Brad led prior to falling in love with Jan. He was a playboy through and through and measured success by the quantity of women he successfully "entertained" at home. Growing up believing that promiscuous sexuality was a by-product of the late 60's counter culture movement and "summer of love", it struck me how direct and unambigious this scene was. However, in a very moral and virginal way, Jan's virtues are protected until she hears that Brad wants to marry her and in fact, loves her very deeply.

I am particularly fond of stories where romance changes a person for the good. Being an adult and a male, however, I wonder if such a womanizing playboy could and would remain ever faithful to the woman he loves for all eternity and never feel the need to stray again. It is fun, however, to believe that love was the true redemptor and that Brad and Jan lived happily ever after. Isn't this the great promise of romance AND fairy tales.
In both genres, Pillow Talk succeeds beyond measure and I love it more each time I see it.

P.S. The music is great too. Love "Roly Poly", "Possess Me" and of course, the theme song!

funny!
This is truely one of the funnier Doris Day movies. I enjoy watching it. The first time I saw it was on tv and I just loved it. It's funny and it has a storyline that isn't tired and boring. I would reccomend this movie to anybody who likes musical comedies. The only thing I disliked a bout this movie was that Rock Hudson had to sing. He wasn't too great!

Pillow Talk
Rock Hudson and Doris Day always been one of my favorite classic couples of the 1950s films. Pillow Talk is one of my top titles for their team up. When an uptight decorator share a party line with a carefree playboy who would know that when they meet it would end up love at almost first sight. The late Tony Randall always seem to play the man stuck in the middle of the two in so many of their films that he's a terrfic straight man comic addition. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

TARZAN AND HIS MATE is SPECTACULAR!
Johnny Weissmuller was the king of movie Tarzans to the generation of the 30's who wore the loincloth for nearly 2 decades. In my opinion he's one of the best but the ultimate Tarzan is MIKE HENRY the last of the classic movie Tarzans in the late 60's though he only did 3 movies before not wanting the role any longer, only one of Henry's movies is really good, another fair, his last the weakest. THIS Weissmuller Tarzan movie is one of the only GREAT films in the whole run since the silent films up to the present! TONS OF ACTION to satisfy by today's standards. One of only two or 3 Weissmuller movies where Tarzan and Jane sport the more true to the books skimpy animal skins. In an age when seeing wild animals on theatre screens was thrilling, this movie SOCKS IT TO YOU! Weissmuller shows you why he was the lord of the jungle. If you're an adventure movie buff or like super heroes, you hav'nt seen it all without seeing this movie!

Good Tarzan movie with adult overtones.
This film is considered by many to be the finest of the Johnny Weissmuller MGM Tarzan movies. It's a crackling good adventure story that is a real roller coaster ride. The African jungle, considering the B&W photography and primitive special effects, is vividly portrayed as a savage place indeed. Wild animals abound: charging rhinos, stampeding elephants, lions with an attitude, and a tribe of fearsome great apes. An annoyance for Tarzan purists is the portrayal of Tarzan as a hulking brute that only speaks in halting, broken sentences. The character written of by Edgar Rice Burroughs is an intelligent white ape that is fluent in several languages, including native dialects and the animal "language" of the great apes. The Tarzan yell is overdone in this movie, too. Depending on the viewer's tolerance level, it may start to grate as chalk on a chalkboard, especially when Jane (Maureen O'Sullivan) gets in the act with her combination soprano Swiss yodel and the familiar "ape call." Again, ERB's Tarzan only gave this fierce victory cry as he stood bloodied and dirty over a vanquished foe, animal or otherwise. In personal combat, Tarzan reverts to his primitive self and truly becomes a denizen of the forest primeval.

This film stresses the marriage relationship of Tarzan and Jane more than subsequent entries in the Tarzan series. The sex is implied, of course, but one can easily infer that the jungle couple is not celibate. The costumes (especially Jane's) are very revealing for the time period in which the movie was made. There is a riveting "nude" swimming scene that is a wonderful erotic interlude. This segment had been censored for years, but is included in the restored version. The plot involves two wordly white men (including Jane's old friend) that show up to entice Jane away from Tarzan, and to desecrate the elephant graveyard for the valuable ivory. Tarzan takes a dim view of these unfriendly intentions. Lurking in the brush there are fierce savages that stalk the safari. Just when things can't get any worse, the natives openly attack the safari, kill the porters, murder the two white men stealing the ivory, and, as Jane is about to be devoured by lions, well, you get the idea. Before anyone dismisses this movie as a typically trite Tarzan movie, it's fair to mention this was only the second film in the MGM series and it set the pattern for much that followed. The fast pace of the story, the almost nonstop action, the sexual overtones, and the primitive setting all make this an entertaining jungle adventure film. Don't expect subtleties of plot and character development, and you will be pleased.

The Best of the Best !
I'll make this short: After King Kong was made (my father saw it 54 times while working as a stage hand at the Hippodrome Theather in Baltimore City back in '33)MGM knew that they had to come up with a picture that would top the mighty Kong-and guess what-they did! Tarzan and His Mate is not only the Greastest of the Weissmuller films but I do believe it is about one of the Best Movies of all times! Real animals,the most real lifelike natives ever filmed (even the Gabonie Natives were enough to freak you out). Great lines like "Who did this? Gabonie Barrona, arrow always hear wit Gabonie" while the lead boy is pointing to his forehead ! Enough said, this is the best it gets do yourself a favor and pick this one up. "ENJOY"

Classic Tarzan adventure is the grandest of them all
This 1934 MGM release is the crown jewel in Edgar Rice Burroughs' screen adventures of Tarzan and is the film against which all other Tarzan movies are measured. Johnny Weissmuller is perfect as the socially backward ape man who knows all there is to know about the jungle's dark interior and its animals. Maureen O'Sullivan is just the right compliment as Jane who eschews the comforts and advantages of civilization to spend her life with Tarzan and Cheetah. A safari of ivory hunters braves warlike natives and a treacherous plateau to find an elephant graveyard to secure the ivory tusks that would guarantee great wealth in English society. Jane has a an extended nude swim with Tarzan that viewers are privileged to see and there is a ferocious and determined attack by savage warriors and lions on the safari that is blunted only by Tarzan's call to the elephants that saves the day in the nick of time.

this is more like it!
let me cut to the quick... easily the best tarzan movie ever made,the first fifteen minutes delivers as much fabulous over the top violence as you could wish for,arrows in the face,and giant crazy rock throwing gorillas are two highlights,naked Jane and an awesome rubber croc....if this movie was remade today,uncut,it would recieve an R rating,no problem. all in all top notch entertainment....where is the DVD? ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Excellent for family viewing
From first seeing this film in 1991 (I was 9), it became an instant classic for me and my childhood.
It became my "sick day" movie. Whenever my sister or I took a sick day from school, we would have to watch Shipwrecked. It probably drove my mother nuts.

The kids will enjoy it, and adults won't get bored, either. I watched it recently for the first time in years, and I still found it pretty interesting.
It's not a blockbuster, it's not supposed to be. But it's a classy family film nonetheless, which might be hard to find in Disney these days.

Some pluses: the scenery is excellent (shot in three international locations), the music is superb, and the plot will keep you interested.
I strongly recommend it.

Could have been a classic
I understand this film was based on a book called Hakon Hakonsen (and that was the movie's original title). I never read the book, so I cannot comment on how good it is or if the film measures up.
This film both delights and disappoints. The scenery is beautiful, the music is good, the production values appear to be high, and Stian Smestad is a stunning Nordic beauty. It is a shame he did not appear in more movies.
Shipwrecked could have been a classic family film but it is flawed by too much cheesiness in the plot. Apparently, the producers knew they were making a "kid's movie" and felt that excused them from making a truly high quality film that all ages could enjoy, and that is a shame. There is a lot of potential here, just unrealized.

Good Movie
I saw this movie when I was about four. Ever since i have been looking for this movies and could never find it. It is a good, adventurous movie that will satisfy any young boys thirst for adventure. I recomend this movie to anyone!

A good kid's adventure story
When his sailor-father is injured and unable to go to sea again, 14-year old Haakon takes his place. Hunky sailor Jens goes with him to act as protector, mentor, and big brother (and incidentally provides enough beefcake to keep the adults watching). After some Treasure Island-style adventuring, they encounter scrappy stowaway Mary, whose bond with Haakon remains strictly in the platonic sisterly affection camp -- no prepubescent romances here! The three of them are shipwrecked on a South Seas island (with a gorilla, for some reason). They encounter a native tribe (friendly, of course), buried treasure, and pirates before they return to Norway, one big happy family.

The action is good, the buddy-bonding touching, and it is refreshing these days to see a child in the movies who gets to be a child, rather than a leering 30-year old in a prepubescent body.

An Uneven Film--MAGNIFICENT MUSIC!
"Shipwrecked" is a rather difficult film to review, as evinced by the many differing opinions on this somewhat obscure film. Like practically any other reviewer, I do have my biases. I'd like to start off, however, by saying that if you have any predilection for Robert Louis Stevenson this film is required viewing!
Shipwrecked is a kind of Nordic "Treasure Island" as envisioned by author O.V. Falck-Ytter. Although I have been unable to locate the book upon which the film is based, I can say the story certainly has enough twists to keep the viewer entertained.
The acting, although somewhat excessively sentimental, effectively communicates the romance and adventure that this sort of story demands (Gabriel Byrnes is particularly successful as the sadistic captain).
Despite the success of the story and cinematography, however, the real triumph is the entrancing and effervescent orchestral score, composed by the multi-talented Patrick Doyle. "Shipwrecked" is a masterpiece of stylistic invention. Its melodies and orchestrations are perfectly suited to the swashbuckling storyline. From the opening notes the audience can be in no doubt as to the subject of this film. Aside from the wonderful opening motive and subsequent theme the score also boasts one of the most memorable scherzos in recent cinema, highlighting the drama of a sinking scene that puts James Cameron and James Horner to shame.
Watch it, if only for the music. Kudos to Patrick Doyle for an utterly mesmerizing musical feat! ... Read more

Reviews (18)

It'll draw you in
This is a REALLY fun little movie. That's said from the perspective of someone who generally doesn't like horror movies. But this one's different. Like Re-animator there's a certain sense of humor that pervades everything, but being that it's based on a Lovecraft story, it's heart is very dark indeed. So it takes you from moments of guilty laughter to creepy horror and back again throughout the course of the movie. The mood gets set early on and builds with a pretty good consistancy. By the time the Resonator device is first set on full power, you get a dreadful feeling from it's menacing, throbbing hum that things are about to get really, really bad...and do they ever!!

"This time I'm not running away, Eunuch!"
Two scientists are on the verge of discovery, creating a resonator to stimulate the pineal gland located in the brain - to create a 6th sense. But this is a horror movie not a documentary so things go...well, wrong. The resonator opens up a world visible only to those in the 'field' or range of the device but one that is constantly expanding and filled with horrific creatures that certainly aren't friendly.

This IS without a shadow of a doubt the best film EVER. The cast surpases brilliance - Jeffery Combs certainly deserves more recognition as the BRILLIANT actor that he is, Barbara Crampton is one foxy chick and that Leroy 'Bubba' Brown character has to be one of the funniest 'Shaft' wannabee's ever put to film.

I won't spoil the film for you but just wait to see what happens to Dr.Edward Pretorius - "My God Edward, WHAT have you become?" - "Myself!". Pure genius.

I'd recommend this film to anyone - you'd be mad to miss it, and why isn't it on DVD? - Criminal!

This movie is awesome
This is a great "Horror" movie and shouldn't be taken as any other thing. Reading Blake Kleiner's review all I have to say is pal you overanalyzed a great "Horror" movie. If you want a great psychological thriller watch "Silence of the Lambs"
Horror movies aren't meant to be anaylzed, they're meant for us to see some gore, some bad acting and most of the time a little T&A if your looking for more than that then find another genre, but if your looking for all of the above make sure you see this movie!!

Stuart Gordon at His Best!
I am a huge fan of Stuart Gordon, Jeffrey Combs, and H.P. Lovecraft. I watched this movie repeatedly as a teenager and have been anxiously awaiting a collector's edition DVD release. I'd love to see this movie in widescreen with a dts soundtrack! Some director and actor commentary would make this film even better. Aside from that, it's already a perfect 80's gore flick.

YES!!

Our pick for Crappy Movie Night
The chosen film for the Crappy Movie Night this past Friday was this H.P. Lovecraft adaptation from the makers of "Re-Animator." There's a reason for that.

Now, here's where I'm at a loss: describing the plot. I wouldn't know where to start, so I'll break it up into little blurbs. Two scientists created a machine called the Resonator, its desired effect and purpose is to stimulate the dormant pineal gland in the human brain, making possible to see beyond the external aesthetic offerings of the third dimension. Instead of the machine offering simple "sight", however, it elongates the pineal gland into a freaky looking worm type thing that protrudes from the center of your head. Apparently it's some kind of a third eye. Another side-effect: it causes sexual overload, madness, and possibly (it's never really stated) opens up a door to another place fittingly dubbed "the beyond". Convenient, isn't it?

Now, being a novice in the field of Lovecraft, I'm hesistant to make this observation, but here goes: Lovecraft obviously was a simple-minded storyteller with tons of vivid imagery in his head, but with no skills of how to craft a story around them. If "From Beyond" is any indication, his mind gave him a picture of an insane otherworldly overlord created by this machine for reasons unknown. No explanation whatsoever is offered for what we are given; we're just supposed to accept it at face value. Well, sorry, but I have a hard time doing that when Earthworm Jim is sticking out of the "Re-Animator" guy's forehead and peeking around ("Talk to the worm, cuz the face don't wanna hear it anymore" was a comment I uttered during the group viewing that got a huge laugh).

Why does the machine take over the entire essence of the first mad scientist but not the second? How is it that the creatures seen while the machine is on can take on actual physical presence (they inflict injury and decapitate people), yet they don't carry over into reality once the machine is off (like Jeffrey Combs' third eye does later on)? These are questions that director Stuart Gordon and producer Brian Yuzna (who directed the superb "The Dentist") aren't interested in answering. They expect us to leave logic at the door and be taken along for the ride of this ludicrous story. Gore effects are enough to propel a Lucio Fulci film because that's what his films are about. But this film actually tries to involve us in a story fit for an audience of tards, and it packs in as much gore as it can. Sorry guys, but you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, that's my little review for the film. Now, imagine a room full of people who share my opinion watching this turd and shouting out comments, additional dialogue, and expletives to describe the inate characters. (Even poor Ken Foree, who was such a strong presence in George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" as the black SWAT team member, got caught up in this dreck. Not only that, he got stuck with the name "Bubba." If that's not a step down from one of the best dark comedies ever made, I don't know what is.) Our little group of movie defecators were merciless to this celluloid, pelting every second of it with a sarcastic comment. From my own lips, we heard: "Whore!" "Best y'all be eating my dumplins!" "It'sa me, Mario!" and other such phrases.

Lovecraft stories have a history of bad film adaptations, this one and another Yuzna-produced film, "Necronomicon," being the most obvious examples. They should really learn to leave well-enough alone. The best Lovecraft film to date wasn't actually a Lovecraft film. It was John Carpenter's "In the Mouth of Madness." Ain't that a slap in the face? ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Arab anti-defamation leagues understandably had a field day with this one. Sally Field plays Betty Mahmoody, an American who marries an Iranian (Alfred Molina) and has a child. They go back to Iran for a visit and, to her horror, he tells her he's decided to stay there. If she wants to leave, she must leave her daughter behind. If she stays, Betty must live in a culture vastly different and, she believes, very dangerous. Part thriller, part culture clash, the film certainly takes advantage of Americans' perceptions of Iran after the unrest of the '70s and early '80s. Molina is truly despicable as the husband, while Field projects a lot of overheated anguish as Betty tries to figure out a way to escape the country with her daughter. Overheated, in fact, is the word for the whole melodrama. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (93)

A true-life account...NOT an attempt at defamation.
I own the film "Not Without My Daughter," and have viewed it many times. I've also read both of Betty Mahmoody's books. Frankly, I'm amazed at the terrible reviews of the movie by those who obviously feel the movie was a blanket attack on Islam. Without having visited Iran myself, I can't say whether the scenes of Tehran are likelife. But the story itself was based on a true-life account of a woman who escaped her husband who held her hostage in a country she didn't want to live in. THAT'S ALL. It was not an attempt at blaming all of Islam for this woman's bad marriage, but rather her husband ONLY, as an individual man. Moreover, many or even most of the characters in the movie are portrayed as sympathetic and caring. The only "bad" characters are those who attempt to hold a woman and child in a country against their wills.

If you read Betty Mahmoody's books, you will see she has wonderful things to say about the value and beauty of Islam, and encouraged her daughter to celebrate her Islamic heritage back in America. Betty apparently had and maintained many Arab friends in the US after her return from Iran. I don't know what more she could do to get the point across that she appreciated Islamic culture and its people, and was only against people of any country or culture who try to abuse the rights of others.

The point of the movie, to those who obviously refuse to "get it," is that Betty Mahmoody and her daughter were forced to stay in a country against their wills. They were kept there by threats of violence or real acts of real violence. The movie is NOT about Islam. It's about an abusive man who happens to be a Muslim. And it depicts that the consequences of that man's actions on his wife and daughter.

Superb movie, and completely TRUE!!
This is one of my favorite movies. This fact based story is as close to the real thing as possible, I can personally vouch for that.

I was in Iran for almost 2 years before the Shah was kicked out in 1979 and I can tell you that every aspect of Iranian life you see in the film is absolutely true. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really full of BS, and I got a few other words for you.

This is a heart felt story of escaping evil for a mother's love of her daughter. There is nothing wrong with thie movie at all. I would recommend it to everyone, it's a real tearjerker. And the most telling part is that the whole thing actually happened.

racist attack on Iranians and Muslims generally
This film is a real low. A complete racist attack on Iranian people and Muslims generally, and part of the propaganda that has been used to justify the West's new crusade and assault against the people of the Middle East. Sally Field should be ashamed to have been associated with this film. They might as well have commercials for the Pentagon and big oil companies throughout the movie. Full of stereotypes and total lies, it glorifies a woman who kidnaps her daughter and takes her out of Iran illegally, depriving her husband of custody unlawfully and unjustly. Unbelievable!

One of my favorites!
Don't get me wrong, this is not a "feel-good" movie of any kind, as a matter of fact it is downright disturbing and horrific, especially taking into account that it is a true story, and that many other women and children are probably in the same condition right now. I have read several reviews and I'm a little disappointed by all of the "I want to hear Dr. M's side of the story" and "she must have made this up--it couldn't have really happened" and "this movie is anti-Islamic" sentiments. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, this is one woman's true story of being held against her will by her outrageously domineering and abusive husband in a country she does not want to be in. It has little to do with Iran or Islam, except for the fact that fundamental Muslims believe in and savagely defend that a woman has no rights without her husband. I applaud Betty for doing what is right when she got back here to the US, which is speak out about her traumatic experience, and try to help those in similar situations. Otherwise, how would we even know that such horrors exist? I guarantee that with all of the post-9/11 Koran-kissing going on, a movie such as this would never be made today. I'm thankful that it was made at a time when people weren't afraid to hear the truth. For some reason this movie regularly comes to mind when I hear someone complaining about women's rights in this country...unfortunately sometimes we don't realize how good we have it. If you choose to read Betty's books, do so only after seeing this movie...then you won't be able to whine that "the movie isn't as good as the book"...

Neat movie but a letdown for fans of the book
I originally saw the last three quarters or so of the movie on TV. I enjoyed it a lot and was more excited when I found out it was based on a true story and a book. I read the book and loved it. It is now one of my favorites. I then saw the movie again but in its entirety, on the DVD. It is a good movie overall. However, it falls short compared to the book in several areas:
The trailer-The trailer showed on the DVD is one of the most attention grabbing I have ever seen. If I had seen it in the theatre without knowing anything about the book, I would have been one of the first in line to go see it. However, trailers are made simply for publicity and I might be disappointed since I had already read the book when I saw it. The movie was less exciting than the trailer made it out to be.

Length-This movie was way too short. I know the movie could not have included all the details of the book, but even an extra 50 minutes bring it in at two and a half hours could have filled in plenty of holes without making the plot drag.

Details-Again, some stuff had to be truncated but I think they could have done a better job. For me to elaborate on every detail would take up too much space and would be of little interest to those who haven't read the book. The biggest hole was the evolution of Moody's character. In the book, Betty spends much time giving flashbacks on how they met and how such a loving husband and father could have turned into the man he did when they arrived in Iran. I found that in the movie, Moody seemed to evolve without any explanation. The book starts the flashbacks in 1974 whereas the movie starts immediately in 1984. There are aloso minor holes such as how Betty and Mahtob had passports when they escaped since Moody had taken them. In the book this makes perfect sense as the Swiss Embassy re-issued new passports to Betty and Mahtob unbeknownst to Moody. I know this may seem like a minor detail but I am sure it annoyed more than one movie buff and this was one oversight that could have easily been corrected. There are other things such as characters' roles and even names from the book being changed for the movie.

Don't get me wrong. This was a good movie. But being a huge fan of such a rich and detailed book, I guess I feel that no movie version could have properly chosen exactly which details to include in the movie. If they had to make a film version of the book, it might have been a better idea to make a mini-series that could have elaborated more on plot details.

But in any case, read the book!!! It may look long but you will get through it fast and not be able to put it down in the process.

By the way, to respond to the criticisms of both the movie and the book being biased, she was held against her will in a foreign country for no justifiable reason. End of discussion. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Pipe Down, I'm Taking A Nap!
Ladies, Ladies, PLEASE!! Please stop this bickering. My fellow reviewer, "Shadow Lady" (see below), is about ready to explode a gasket with her disdain and contempt for the lovely Miss Garson. "Shadow" paints much too bleek a picture while her lowly peer, Little Miss Proper ("Princess Incognita") has sugar coated Greer's character into a sticky little marshmellow of misinformation. The definitive opinion (my own, of course) is the important one, and is somewhere in between.

First of all, this movie has a disturbing pagan slant that could be quite offensive to devout religious types like myself. Surprisingly frequent references to "witchhunting" and the Dark Ages. Basic storyline: A steel tycoon's son (Gregory the "impeccable peckerhead" Peck) loves the family maid who just happens to be an Irish steelworker's daughter! And WOW, the setting is even "Victorian" Pittsburgh, PA in the late 1800's!

Ranting and raving is the predominant rule of thumb as Greer's Daddy (a crusty old codger clucking away in his wheel chair) throws one hissy fit after another. "I'm reachin' into high heaven to put the curse on this marriage" (it's a bit complicated, but he's madder than a hornet's nest that the steel workers' demand of a 5 cent per hour raise has fallen upon deaf ears)! Peck's rich and reasonable father seems hellbent on resolving the conflict until one day (in a peculiar and nutty twist) he is gunned down in broad daylight. All he said was, "We Scotts cannot live without belching chimney's anymore than you can." For crying out loud. His subsequent and imminent demise was quite unexpected, I must say.

The film alternates between a hopelessly naive romance and nasty hillbilly feuding. An occasional dose of sharp dialogue is overshadowed by the cantankerous. Or as one hapless victim proclaimed, "For once in your life, will you just keep your mouth shut!" Oh shucks, another predictable cliche! Why, there's even the occasional "shuffling Negro" ("That's right, Sir!") which may be a bit perturbing to some. Fortunately, the first half of this film has its moments of brilliance but it flickers, and then eventually fades.

From book to movie.... Garson portrayal is perfect!
Contrary to what one reviewer thought, Greer Garson played the character to perfection. She was every bit the character that Davenport created in her book, on which this film is based. And "annoying, uppity and full of herself" is exactly the opposite of the role that Garson portrays. See the movie and you'll see. As for chemistry in the film...it's beautiful. I couldn't imagine any other leads other than Peck and Garson. I totally recommend the book too! After you see the movie, you'll want to see what happens next. And so much more happens!

SOMEBODY SLAP THIS GARSON CHICK!
There is no chemistry to speak of between Garson and Peck in this boring, snoozefest of a movie. The idea of them being in love is absurd and they should never have been cast together romantically. What was Hollywood thinking? Every character is a walking cliche and the plot is entirely predictable. Predictability can be good, but in this case it's just another reason to dislike it strongly. Garson's character is annoying, uppity and full of herself (what a stretch *snarkle*). She's just one of those holier-than-thou type of people who think they're better than everyone else and I wanted to slap her around 'til I knocked her delusions of grandeur out of her. I'm sure this is not how her character was supposed to come off, but that was the impression that I got. How could anyone want her to be happy and get her man? No guy as hot as Paul (GP's character) deserves such an awful woman as his wife! The only thing that saved this movie from being a total waste of time was Gregory Peck. Besides being a young, handsome gentleman in this film, he gave a great performance and his effort to save a disaster of a movie deserves two stars, and know that both stars are for him and no other part of the movie. And people actually gave this 5 stars? Oh boy!

I absolutely loved this film!
This was one of those films that I found on TV about midway through, and was instantly hooked. After that, I just HAD to see the whole thing, so I bought the video, a bo