Amazon.com

You'd have to be some sort of an ogre to go wrong with OwdBob. If warm, old-fashioned dog flicks aren't your thing, maybestunning scenery is; green hills and azure seas don't get much moregorgeous than on Ireland's Celtic-breeze-whipped Isle of Man. Shouldneither of those appeal, though, it's easy to settle for simple goodacting. Babe's James Cromwell stars as Adam McAdam, a grumpy oldbugger who ticks away lonely days tending the farm alongside hischampion sheepdog Zac. Then comes the day his orphaned Americangrandson, David, is dumped at his doorstep. McAdam, a pretty poorexcuse for company, can't keep David from befriending neighbor girlMaggie Moore. Bad blood between the Moores and the McAdams runs deep,but the conflict du jour centers around dogs--Owd Bob, Maggie's pup,aims to put Zac to shame in the upcoming sheepherding tournament.Leading up to the contest, parallel story lines swirl around: Maggie'smom is dying, and a crew of local cronies suspect Zac, who's latelybeen spotted licking blood-stained chops, of being a sheep killer.While tensions between David and his grandfather escalate, David movesout, Maggie loses her mom, and the dogs do their stuff, with Zac comingout the victor. There's still the matter of the sheep murders, though.In a dramatic pup frame-up, Owd Bob is the fall guy, and only old manMcAdam can save him from being destroyed. It's a sad ending for Zac,but one that allows McAdam's well-buried love for his grandson tosurface. Whatever propels you to spring for this film, break out thefamily-sized popcorn bowl. Owd Bob's penchant for bringing folkstogether is as powerful in living rooms as it is onscreen. --TammyLa Gorce ... Read more

Reviews (16)

A Wonderful Adaptation of the Classic Novel
I enjoyed this movie. Despite that, I found several faults with it. The casting of the adults in the movie was completely wrong. Mariel Hemmingway just isn't Jo (anyone who loves the book will understand what I mean)! Chris Sarandon was not at all right for Fritz. The child actors, however, saved the movie. Dan (Cook) and Nat (Caloz) were superb. Recommended.

The bestest film ever!
This film is most probably the best movie ever! I loved it so much! As I live in England, it is unavalible and I can't find a copy anywhere so I taped it and watch it at least five times a day! Me and my cousin have "Praise the little men parties!" Don't think we're sad, it's a brilliant film but the best part was obviously Dan played by the best actor in the world "Ben Cook" Ben, if u read this I love u! I love this film!

Nothing like Jo Bhaer.
This movie was a grave disappointment to me, but perhaps that is because I first saw the television series "Little Men" (now available here at amazon.com on VHS/DVD). I thought Mariel Hemingway's portrayal of Jo Bhaer was deplorable - no emotion, no spunk...no personality. The boys were entertaining at times, but with Jo being so bland and cardboard-like, the movie was terrible. I recommend purchasing the TV show "Little Men," but beware that there is no Fritz Bhaer on the show. Being a L.M. Alcott enthusiast, I actually did not mind the elimination of Fritz, especially since his "replacement" is a much better fit for Jo.

Gotta recommend it
This should be three and a half stars, but I don't know how to do that :). Personally, I thought this was a good movie. It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen. It did leave out a lot of important characters, so that when I read the book later I was a little confused. But the actors were great. Ben Cook did a great job with the movie's Dan (I say that to differentiate between the Dan portrayed in the movie and the slightly different Dan in the book). He is a good actor and I'm sorry to see he didn't go farther with his career. The girls were pretty good too, and the movie altogether caught a feel of innocence that the book also had, regardless of which characters were "perfect" for which roles. I gotta recommend this to you because, while the film wasn't fantastic, it really wasn't all that bad either.

Doesn't Pass
I can't recommend this film. If you are expecting a continuation of "Little Women", you won't find it here. We learn nothing of Marmie, Laruie, etc. The movie focuses on ONE boy character (a 14 year old orphan from Boston) and all the mischief he gets into. How he hurts the other boys, burns down the house, plays with knives, etc. The ending is major cheese and Mariel Hemmingway as Joe? No. The film doesn't explore her relationship with her husband (German professor, what's his name). Was this film made for TV? Its of an average TV movie quality. On the other hand, it has no sex, language, etc. So if you are looking for something to watch with your 10 year olds, you might give it a whirl. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

A Wonderful Adaptation of the Classic Novel
I enjoyed this movie. Despite that, I found several faults with it. The casting of the adults in the movie was completely wrong. Mariel Hemmingway just isn't Jo (anyone who loves the book will understand what I mean)! Chris Sarandon was not at all right for Fritz. The child actors, however, saved the movie. Dan (Cook) and Nat (Caloz) were superb. Recommended.

The bestest film ever!
This film is most probably the best movie ever! I loved it so much! As I live in England, it is unavalible and I can't find a copy anywhere so I taped it and watch it at least five times a day! Me and my cousin have "Praise the little men parties!" Don't think we're sad, it's a brilliant film but the best part was obviously Dan played by the best actor in the world "Ben Cook" Ben, if u read this I love u! I love this film!

Nothing like Jo Bhaer.
This movie was a grave disappointment to me, but perhaps that is because I first saw the television series "Little Men" (now available here at amazon.com on VHS/DVD). I thought Mariel Hemingway's portrayal of Jo Bhaer was deplorable - no emotion, no spunk...no personality. The boys were entertaining at times, but with Jo being so bland and cardboard-like, the movie was terrible. I recommend purchasing the TV show "Little Men," but beware that there is no Fritz Bhaer on the show. Being a L.M. Alcott enthusiast, I actually did not mind the elimination of Fritz, especially since his "replacement" is a much better fit for Jo.

Gotta recommend it
This should be three and a half stars, but I don't know how to do that :). Personally, I thought this was a good movie. It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen. It did leave out a lot of important characters, so that when I read the book later I was a little confused. But the actors were great. Ben Cook did a great job with the movie's Dan (I say that to differentiate between the Dan portrayed in the movie and the slightly different Dan in the book). He is a good actor and I'm sorry to see he didn't go farther with his career. The girls were pretty good too, and the movie altogether caught a feel of innocence that the book also had, regardless of which characters were "perfect" for which roles. I gotta recommend this to you because, while the film wasn't fantastic, it really wasn't all that bad either.

Doesn't Pass
I can't recommend this film. If you are expecting a continuation of "Little Women", you won't find it here. We learn nothing of Marmie, Laruie, etc. The movie focuses on ONE boy character (a 14 year old orphan from Boston) and all the mischief he gets into. How he hurts the other boys, burns down the house, plays with knives, etc. The ending is major cheese and Mariel Hemmingway as Joe? No. The film doesn't explore her relationship with her husband (German professor, what's his name). Was this film made for TV? Its of an average TV movie quality. On the other hand, it has no sex, language, etc. So if you are looking for something to watch with your 10 year olds, you might give it a whirl. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

A Wonderful Adaptation of the Classic Novel
I enjoyed this movie. Despite that, I found several faults with it. The casting of the adults in the movie was completely wrong. Mariel Hemmingway just isn't Jo (anyone who loves the book will understand what I mean)! Chris Sarandon was not at all right for Fritz. The child actors, however, saved the movie. Dan (Cook) and Nat (Caloz) were superb. Recommended.

The bestest film ever!
This film is most probably the best movie ever! I loved it so much! As I live in England, it is unavalible and I can't find a copy anywhere so I taped it and watch it at least five times a day! Me and my cousin have "Praise the little men parties!" Don't think we're sad, it's a brilliant film but the best part was obviously Dan played by the best actor in the world "Ben Cook" Ben, if u read this I love u! I love this film!

Nothing like Jo Bhaer.
This movie was a grave disappointment to me, but perhaps that is because I first saw the television series "Little Men" (now available here at amazon.com on VHS/DVD). I thought Mariel Hemingway's portrayal of Jo Bhaer was deplorable - no emotion, no spunk...no personality. The boys were entertaining at times, but with Jo being so bland and cardboard-like, the movie was terrible. I recommend purchasing the TV show "Little Men," but beware that there is no Fritz Bhaer on the show. Being a L.M. Alcott enthusiast, I actually did not mind the elimination of Fritz, especially since his "replacement" is a much better fit for Jo.

Gotta recommend it
This should be three and a half stars, but I don't know how to do that :). Personally, I thought this was a good movie. It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen. It did leave out a lot of important characters, so that when I read the book later I was a little confused. But the actors were great. Ben Cook did a great job with the movie's Dan (I say that to differentiate between the Dan portrayed in the movie and the slightly different Dan in the book). He is a good actor and I'm sorry to see he didn't go farther with his career. The girls were pretty good too, and the movie altogether caught a feel of innocence that the book also had, regardless of which characters were "perfect" for which roles. I gotta recommend this to you because, while the film wasn't fantastic, it really wasn't all that bad either.

Doesn't Pass
I can't recommend this film. If you are expecting a continuation of "Little Women", you won't find it here. We learn nothing of Marmie, Laruie, etc. The movie focuses on ONE boy character (a 14 year old orphan from Boston) and all the mischief he gets into. How he hurts the other boys, burns down the house, plays with knives, etc. The ending is major cheese and Mariel Hemmingway as Joe? No. The film doesn't explore her relationship with her husband (German professor, what's his name). Was this film made for TV? Its of an average TV movie quality. On the other hand, it has no sex, language, etc. So if you are looking for something to watch with your 10 year olds, you might give it a whirl. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

This house is condemned!
'Stranger in the House' hasn't got a lot going for it: it's badly acted, has a terrible script, and its world is populated with unsympathetic, flat characters. The husband & wife lead are yuppie scum, the criminals are greasy sleazoids-- things which would actually be okay if any of them were at all interesting. The directing by Rodney Gibbons is decent Hitchcock tribute, and I've added on an extra star for that alone. He managed to make the suspense scenes suspenseful, despite the movie being as lousy as it is.

Not exactly Hitchcock, but an over all good flick.
Let me start by saying that the leading lady's performance in this movie was awful! The only good performance is given to us by the beautiful Kathleen Kinmont. I've met her, and she is the nicest, sexiest, most talented gal you'll ever come across. This is your average slasher flick about a guy hacking off people in the neighborhood. It grabs you and makes you want to hear more. The script is good and Katleen Kinmont is AWESOME! If you like suspence or Kathleen Kinmont you'll love it!

So bad, it's so funny .... ( 0 STARS )
What a 'DUMP' of a movie! Who wrote this?! My brother and a few friends watched this for free one night. Our video store clerk friend says it never gets rented.

We were all game.

A hilarious part is when the villan says to the young woman who owns the bed/breakfast inn, that he's got binoculars for a reason - birdwatching (he's really spying on the dude with the diamonds to kill him-villan vs. villan)- and then she says, "Well, have a good stay...." But he replies, "Oh......I'm sure it will be sweeeeet" with a STUPID evil grin-I mean isn't his face so obviously suspicious??? And the way he said that sentence and others-I mean, anyone with his grin and an overempahsis on his words would seriously be sticking out as a person up to no good.

Then the next day he strangles her.....(ack)

A huge laugh too is when he's invited to eat with the neighbours across the way, eating greasy chicken - his physique matches a greedy, greasy chicken eating slob he is, pretending to be polite, smacking his lips with that STUPID CHICKEN - hahaha

My brother Michael-he and I both collaborated and wrote this review during a family visit. Such a stupid movie, that it was so funny.

Buy it for us, 'somebody'! We'll keep it for laughs.

Suspense, murder mystery
Bought this movie because I am a Steve Railsback fan. Here he plays one of his more sleazy characters, but at least he is not a psychopath this time around. The suspense builds fast and the assorted villains all meet their deserved fate and our hero gets away in the end. Supporting cast are adequate. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

an excellent Holmes for the whole family
After Rathbone, Cushing, Lee, and Brett who knew there was still something new and exciting to be brought to the character of Sherlock Holmes? I've collected and viewed many Holmes films, but I've never seen a Holmes like this one! I am not a Frewer fan as a rule, but I must admit his vibrant and unique performance as Holmes won me over and my small children love him. Matt Frewer is astounding. It has not been easy to find a Holmes that my entire family enjoys, but Matt Frewer is such a Holmes. My husband, in-laws, parents, and children all enjoy this movie. I've been trying to find a Holmes film to do that for years!

So-so Hallmark Rendition of the Gothic Sherlock Holmes Tale
Conan Doyle's famous story is again brought back for the Hallmark TV presentation, starring Matt Frewer as Holmes. What a daring attempt when you know everyone would compare him with Basil Rathbone or Jemery Brett, and your fearful expectations would be justified in the end. Well, but anyway they did, so why not look at it?

Not that Matt Frewer cannot look like Holmes. The point is, he tries to show off many ill-judged performance that attempts to differentiate him from the predecessors, using theatrical gestures and unnecessary mugging. In fact, his Holmes sometimes looks like a clown, and the character's die-hard cynicism is rendered into a sort of superficial interpretations, like a contorted face. When he must sneer, he just chuckles.

Other characters are so-so; Kenneth Welsh plays a decent Watson, which is a likeable, but quite a dull fellow. The scenery of the moor is suitably chosen, to express the book's Gothic background against which the folklore-based legendary hound must appear.

But the hound ... oh dear, when the deadly hound finally appears, he (or she?) often looks like just a big black dog with a pair of painted eyeballs. There is no menace that might have sent some of the characters to death, and the lack of the authentic presentation of the titular hound hardly helps the film to be credible.

The story is pretty intact but the final chapter, when the truth is finally revealed. The change is done, and not in an effective way. In fact, the first half is quite reasonable, showing all the elements of the original book -- sinister-looking locale, strange behaviors of the servants, and Watson isolated in the moor -- but suddenly they all vanish in the middle of the hurriedly done ending, which should have been re-written for the dramatic impact.

Better than the same company's "The Sign of Four," "The Hound of the Baskervilles" offers decent fun of watching our beloved sleuth again on the screen. But to me, why this new one has to be made again remains the greatest mystery.

Mediocre Holmes but Beautifully Shot
As someone who owns versions of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" by Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing, Ian Richardson and Jeremy Brett, I looked forward to seeing this version. I read some of the negative reviews of Matt Frewer's performance but went ahead and bought the tape. I must say that the negative reviews were absolutely right - his performance is hard to watch it is so affected and bizarre. He seems so determined to be different for the sake of being different that he engages in all sorts of odd dramatic gestures and speaks in an accent that, well, I don't know what type of accent it is! That is not to say that an actor portraying Holmes cannot bring his own insights to the role; there have been plenty of subtle differences between the various Holmes interpretations over the years - Rathbone was perhaps the most cooly logical, Cushing the most arrogant, Richardson smiled more often and seemed happier than some Holmes fans would like, and the late great Jeremy Brett added a certain catlike alertness and a sense of drama that is so prevelent in the Conan Doyle stories. Perhaps Frewer was simply trying too hard to add his own distinctive interpretation to the role; in any event, his slightly hysterical overacting didn't add anything meaningful in this reviewer's mind. The interesting thing about "Baskervilles" is that Sherlock Holmes is absent much of the time, and the film was the most enjoyable when Frewer was offscreen. That said, the other actors are good and the film was nicely shot.

The Worst?
This lousy retelling of Arthur Conan Doyle's novel comes to us via Canadian TV and the people of Hallmark. This is, arguably, the worst version of the famous story yet- the early 70s version with Stewart Granger also vies for this distinction- but Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes is undoubtedly the worst I've seen. This no-talent show-off mistakes performance for acting. He prances about emphasizing random words and making grand gestures. The performance has so little merit that the arrogance and self-satisfaction on display clearly belong to the actor and not to Sherlock Holmes.

The script does not help. Although it strives to make the dialogue and characters accessible to modern audiences, it does so at the cost of credibility. Modern lines and silly interchanges about whether to call a character "Henry" or "Sir Henry" do not at all evoke the Victorian era. The narrative and characters suffer as well. Subplots begin (but never reach conclusion), Sir Henry is presented as a frontiersman (instead of the Canadian gentleman of the book), and the escaped convict proves to be harmless (he has the brain of a child). Believe me, not one of these changes improves upon the original.

And don't forget the budget limitations and lame slow motions sequences and bad cutting and...

The only person to emerge unscathed is Kenneth Welsch, who does a fine job as Dr. Watson. Maybe some day he will appear in an acceptable Sherlock Holmes production opposite a worthy Sherlock Holmes.

"Hound of the Baskervilles"
The Hallmark channel brings Holmes to life, played by Matt Frewer. While any true Sherlockian would point out the several changes in the story, I have no regrets to the purchase. Matt Frewer plays an excellent Holmes, if not too human for loyal fans of Doyle's stories, and Kenneth Welsh is an admirable Watson. There is certainly an element of comedy in the movie with the expected suspense. The complaints about the film would certainly be the shortened role of Holmes, and the scene with the carriage driver that first demonstrated the cunning of Holmes's rival. These differences, however, certainly do not take away any drastic effect to the purpose of the movie and it is a wonderful film for anyone interested in Holmes. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

astounding kid friendly Holmes adventure
I have never seen a Sherlock Holmes quite like this one! I had setled into my chair and prepared to take a long nap when BAM!
Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes grabbed me by the collar and took me along on an adventure! Mr Frewer is a 3-D Sherlock like no other! This may not be the truest version of the Sign of Four, but it is a vibrant adventure and Frewer's Holmes is so energetic he almost bounds off the screen. I shared this with my children and they adore Mr Frewer's performance. Try this one if you are a Sherlock Holmes fan and looking for a Holmes that will keep your kids highly entertained.

Awful Acting and Change Done to the Climax Ruins Everything
The second installment of Sherlock Holmes series of "Hallmark Entertaiment" is worse than its preceding one, "The Hound of Baskervilles," or "the canine mystery" as this irritating Holmes of this series might quip. The Max ... no, Matt Frewer Holmes interpretation still looks unconvincing besides Jeremy Brett (though I do not say the latter is perfect), and in this film you are in for another atrocious deed done to the beloved original.

That is the script, which starts promisingly. As you know, the story of the mysterious "Four Signs" originates in India, and the film starts there (no, not that real India, but in the soundstage) where a rich Indian merchant's tresure is violently stolen. Now, years later, a certain lady Miss Morstan visits Sherlock Holmes to consult about the enigmatic message and pearls sent to her from an anonimous source. So far, the film is faithful in contents and in spirit.

However, in the second half of the film, it commits an unforgiveable crime. The famous hair-raising chase scenes on the Themes which tesitifies the genius of Conan Doyle is replaced by a silly conclusion culled directly from the B Western movies. Add to that, the fate of Miss Morstan is also changed, as if the company wanted to torment poor Dr. Watson forever.

Only Kenneth Walsh's Watson looks like real, which qualifies the two stars I give here. When Miss Morstan, who should be a Victorian lady in distress, speaks like a modern American woman in the 20th century, you have nothing to recommend. And you see the exaggerated mannerism of the sleuth, which makes the entire film even worse. Stick to Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone.

Max Headroom's Folly
This production of " The Sign of the Four" is worse than the same team's "Hound of the Baskervilles." Two reasons: The obnoxious Matt Frewer has more screen time, and it's longer. The rest of the production closely follows the hideous blueprint of its predecessor. To begin with, the acting is atrocious. Aside from Frewer's horrendous performance (the less said about this, the better) we are treated to the worst Mary Morstan on film. This Canadian actress (her name is best forgotten) repeatedly drops her accent in mid-sentence, displays the polish of a truck driver, and acts with all the subtlety of a Public Access TV host.

I presume that the low budget explains the appalling technical problems: bad cutting, amateur lighting, plastic sets, and a scarcity of extras on the streets of London. It may also explain the idiotic reworking of the final sequence in which the showdown occurs on the docks, rather than on the water. Authentic steamboats cost money.

Only one thing rises above the carnage that used to be Doyle's "Sign of the Four-" the fine Dr. Watson of Kenneth Welsh.

Very Good If You're Not Too Protective of Holmes' character
I found this adaptation of The Sign of Four very good. The deviation from the original plot did make me wince a little bit, though. However, even though I consider myself a Sherlockian, I do not take the Sherlock Holmes character QUITE as seriously as others. I actually enjoy seeing different interpretations of the Great Detective. Even though Holmes is a very serious, clinical person, I find that most interpretations of him are TOO stiff. Frewer's portrayal shows a more 3-dimensional Holmes than normal, and I for one enjoy that.

Noteworthy adaptation
The newest incarnation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Sign of Four" is by far the best one to date. Although it deterrs a little from the original work, doing so only helps to improve it. The new ending is especially noteworthy. As for the actors, Kenneth Walsh is a formidable Watson. Some viewers might think that him just a tad too old, but his performance makes up for it. As for the 'controversial' casting of Matt Frewer, I feel that the harsh criticism I have heard from other avid Holmes fans regarding his interpretation is unnecessary. Though it's true that he is not English in nationality, I feel that he makes up for it as best he can. His accent at times was laid on a little too thick, however, and he was given at times to somewhat cartoonish voice fluctuations, but he definitely looks the part and is obviously warming up to the role. Sherlock Holmes is one of literature's most beloved creations, and as a result the actors who play him are faced with an enormous task. I think Frewer comes out just fine. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Good RH movie
Nice story, humor and plenty of twists.The above review was probably written by someone who is expecting Gone With the Wind from every movie he watches,if he does.
For those in US who like RH, this is a good oportunity to please
themselves. Five stars because new RH movie is rare on US market and this one is pretty good.

Too much talk. Too little action.
You get with Pam Grier and Rutger Hauer in the same movie as heroine and villain & you'd expect something pretty special, right? Wrong. WILDER is a by-the-numbers murder mystery/ thriller which attempts to update Grier's FOXY BROWN/ COFFY persona for the 2Ks. There's one problem: this movie practically talks itself to death.
The plot: Dr Samuel Charney (Hauer) is the prime suspect in a violent murder. The victim is one of his patients who was about to sue him for malpractice. He claims he's innocent. Cop Della Wilder (Grier) is assigned the case, which she presumes to be an open-and-shut revenge killing. But of course, it's more complex than that- it would have to be because this movie drags on for 90 boring minutes and totally wastes the time and talent of the leads- who appear to be sleepwalking through the film. And so will you. Keep your fingers crossed that Director Rodney Gibbons and Writer Terry Abrahamson get blacklisted at some point in the future. Why does poor old Rutger always wind up in direct to video fodder like this? He hasn't been in movie worthy of his talents since 1984's LADYHAWKE. A real shame. And this movie is a real sham. If you must see it, rent it first. You've been warned. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

A Wonderful Adaptation of the Classic Novel
I enjoyed this movie. Despite that, I found several faults with it. The casting of the adults in the movie was completely wrong. Mariel Hemmingway just isn't Jo (anyone who loves the book will understand what I mean)! Chris Sarandon was not at all right for Fritz. The child actors, however, saved the movie. Dan (Cook) and Nat (Caloz) were superb. Recommended.

The bestest film ever!
This film is most probably the best movie ever! I loved it so much! As I live in England, it is unavalible and I can't find a copy anywhere so I taped it and watch it at least five times a day! Me and my cousin have "Praise the little men parties!" Don't think we're sad, it's a brilliant film but the best part was obviously Dan played by the best actor in the world "Ben Cook" Ben, if u read this I love u! I love this film!

Nothing like Jo Bhaer.
This movie was a grave disappointment to me, but perhaps that is because I first saw the television series "Little Men" (now available here at amazon.com on VHS/DVD). I thought Mariel Hemingway's portrayal of Jo Bhaer was deplorable - no emotion, no spunk...no personality. The boys were entertaining at times, but with Jo being so bland and cardboard-like, the movie was terrible. I recommend purchasing the TV show "Little Men," but beware that there is no Fritz Bhaer on the show. Being a L.M. Alcott enthusiast, I actually did not mind the elimination of Fritz, especially since his "replacement" is a much better fit for Jo.

Gotta recommend it
This should be three and a half stars, but I don't know how to do that :). Personally, I thought this was a good movie. It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen. It did leave out a lot of important characters, so that when I read the book later I was a little confused. But the actors were great. Ben Cook did a great job with the movie's Dan (I say that to differentiate between the Dan portrayed in the movie and the slightly different Dan in the book). He is a good actor and I'm sorry to see he didn't go farther with his career. The girls were pretty good too, and the movie altogether caught a feel of innocence that the book also had, regardless of which characters were "perfect" for which roles. I gotta recommend this to you because, while the film wasn't fantastic, it really wasn't all that bad either.

Doesn't Pass
I can't recommend this film. If you are expecting a continuation of "Little Women", you won't find it here. We learn nothing of Marmie, Laruie, etc. The movie focuses on ONE boy character (a 14 year old orphan from Boston) and all the mischief he gets into. How he hurts the other boys, burns down the house, plays with knives, etc. The ending is major cheese and Mariel Hemmingway as Joe? No. The film doesn't explore her relationship with her husband (German professor, what's his name). Was this film made for TV? Its of an average TV movie quality. On the other hand, it has no sex, language, etc. So if you are looking for something to watch with your 10 year olds, you might give it a whirl. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Good RH movie
Nice story, humor and plenty of twists.The above review was probably written by someone who is expecting Gone With the Wind from every movie he watches,if he does.
For those in US who like RH, this is a good oportunity to please
themselves. Five stars because new RH movie is rare on US market and this one is pretty good.

Too much talk. Too little action.
You get with Pam Grier and Rutger Hauer in the same movie as heroine and villain & you'd expect something pretty special, right? Wrong. WILDER is a by-the-numbers murder mystery/ thriller which attempts to update Grier's FOXY BROWN/ COFFY persona for the 2Ks. There's one problem: this movie practically talks itself to death.
The plot: Dr Samuel Charney (Hauer) is the prime suspect in a violent murder. The victim is one of his patients who was about to sue him for malpractice. He claims he's innocent. Cop Della Wilder (Grier) is assigned the case, which she presumes to be an open-and-shut revenge killing. But of course, it's more complex than that- it would have to be because this movie drags on for 90 boring minutes and totally wastes the time and talent of the leads- who appear to be sleepwalking through the film. And so will you. Keep your fingers crossed that Director Rodney Gibbons and Writer Terry Abrahamson get blacklisted at some point in the future. Why does poor old Rutger always wind up in direct to video fodder like this? He hasn't been in movie worthy of his talents since 1984's LADYHAWKE. A real shame. And this movie is a real sham. If you must see it, rent it first. You've been warned. ... Read more