Reviews (101)

THRILLING! BREATHTAKING! HEART-WRENCHING!
This is the greatest SPACE movie of all time, without any reasonable doubt. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris, and Kathleen Quinlan ALL give superb performances. I really like the way they were able to make an old story exciting without taking much dramatic license. This movie actually makes you FEEL as if you're with Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert in their desperate battle to stay alive in their crippled space craft 200,000 miles from safety, or with Lovell's wife and family as they sit by and hope for the best, or with Gene Kranz and other mission control ground crew members struggle to bring them home. This is still Ron Howard's best film as a director. Anyone who wishes to see an historical adventure movie should look no further than APOLLO 13. It'll make you feel great, trust me! Grade: A+

Our Finest Hour!
Since the U.S. had landed on the moon in 1969, most of the world was not that excited about the Apollo 13 mission. But in 1970 when three astronauts going to the moon suddenly experience a malfunction in the equipment. They are in the race of there lives. The race is them against time. Tom Hanks (Lovell), Bill Paxton (Haise), and Kevin Bacon (Swiegert) use only what they have to survive. Hope, each other and there ability to work through a problem. Gary Sinese plays Ken Mattingly who was suppost to go but didn't because he was to get the measles. It is Ken who helps find the way to get the men home. Ed Harris is head of the groud crew. Who gives his best performance here. The supporting actors help round out this movie into a great story. A true one by that. One of the best films of 1995. Great acting, directing, editing, special-effects, script and a great score by James Horner. Oh by the way, Mattingly never got the measles. Grade:A

Correction to previous post. regarding cropping the DVD...
Hey Zahnduhl,

You're right to point out that we want to see movies in their true "theatrical aspect ratio" so I commend you for that. Film is an artform - would you crop a Picasso to fit your TV screen?

However, I felt it necessary to note that what you have noticed here in this case is most likely an instance of Universal Pictures releasing the un-masked (or Full-Ap) version of the movie as a 1.33:1 release instead of the typically butchered Pan&Scan version that we all so detest. I can't say for 100% sure on this DVD, but I will say that this was fairly common in the past to help the VHS sales. I commend them for at least doing this as opposed to cropping, but I can see how it could leave you (and others) thinking that your precious movie was cropped for the WS transfer.

Rest assured, however, that most likely you are just getting "more" in this VHS version than was ever released theatrically. This is possible when the studio decides to release original Full Aperture footage for the VHS release. Although, you will likely find that Visual Effects shots will still typically be cropped b/c most of the time VFX houses will only work in the final theatrical aspect ratio.

Anyway, I hope this clears up any confusion for you, now go buy the DVD. ;)

-anonymous

Murphy's Law in Outer Space
Talk about rolling snake eyes. To begin with, your mission is numbered "thirteen." Then the pilot you've trained with is grounded prior to lift-off because he's allegedly been exposed to the measles; he's replaced by a young buck still wet behind the ears. Once you're within spitting distance of the surface of the Moon an oxygen tank explodes. Obviously, it takes oxygen to breathe, so now what? Shut down everything in the command module, of course, shiver in the lunar module, and hope the gravitational tug from the Moon will slingshot you back home.

And I thought I had my bad days.

Yet the problems mentioned above merely scratch the surface of the true trials and tribulations of APOLLO 13. Director Ron Howard recreates this gripping, compelling story, right down to beehive hairdo's and computers the size of Mt. Rushmore. The drama, the sense of urgency--on the part of the astronauts, and the NASA staff in Houston frantically trying to save them--is so powerful and vivid I felt I was watching the actual event itself. To magically weave the viewer into the story is a crowning achievement for any filmmaker, and here, Howard succeeds like a wizard waving a wand.

Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris, Kevin Bacon, and Gary Sinise headline a stellar cast in a grim race-against-time that had the entire world transfixed in April of 1970. I remember being glued to the TV watching Walter Cronkite broadcast around the clock to give us the latest developments of the Apollo 13 story; I remember the relief and joy I felt when that banged-up capsule was retrieved from the ocean. To relive the triumph--and near-tragedy--of this event is an awesome experience, and APOLLO 13 is awesome, indeed.
--D. Mikels

One of My Absolute Favorites
Apollo 13, the story of NASA's near-loss of one of its manned spacecraft in 1970, is on my top-five list of all-time favorite movies. This, for me, is one of those movies that I've see a million times, know all the words to and get everyone whose watching it with me annoyed because I HAVE TO say the lines along with the actors. The acting in the movie is fantastic...everyone from Tom Hanks to Ed Harris on down the list superbly act this true event from our nation's history. Even the background music is great...seamlessly fitting into the mood of the movie. Annie Lennox does the vocalizations, and her voice is, as always, immensely powerful.

As someone who craves the day when this nation returns to the resolve it had in the 1960's and early 70's when we were shooting for the moon, the story of Apollo 13 should inspire those who yearn for humanity's renewed interest in exploring the immensity of what lays beyond our small planet, not just with robotic devices, but with people as well. Apollo 13's failure to land on the moon, and near-loss, should prove to humanity that from failure, we can still triumph. That is something that I think we have forgotten today...especially after the loss of the Shuttle Columbia, we have nearly forgotten the incredible risk of exploring space is more than worth the benefits we will reap with our explorations...even when some do not return home. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After a government-spawned "superflu" wipes out more than 90 percent of the earth's population, the devastated survivors must decide whether to support or resist the advances of a mysterious stranger from way down South (heh-heh) who wishes to claim this new world order for himself. Although the six-hour length makes it nigh-impossible to digest in one sitting, this well-paced adaptation of Stephen King's apocalyptic magnum opus ranks among the best adaptations of the author's work, with strong performances from Gary Sinise, Miguel Ferrer, and especially Jamey Sheridan as a good-old-boy version of Old Scratch. The opening scene, set to the strains of Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper," is one of the most chilling things ever shot for television. Director Mick Garris is no stranger to King's world, having also helmed Sleepwalkers, the recent television remake of The Shining, and the upcoming Desperation. --Andrew Wright ... Read more

Reviews (217)

Amazing....but missing something
I eagerly bought this movie after finishing the novel. I know that a lot of movies based on books are different from the original story, but this really isn't one of them, at least not exactly. Almost all of the main and important aspects of the novel are included in the movie. The time constraints obviously play a part of the limited detail, at least compared to the novel, but what seems most annoying is the fact that different characters play the parts of characters in the book. For example, Susan Stern, who travelled in Stu Redman's group originally suddenly is part of Mother Abigail's group. It's small differences like this that get to me in this movie.

Other than that, the movie is awesome. The makeup effects used are amazing. The actors chosen to portray the characters seem perfect, especially Gary Sinise, Adam Storke, Ray Walston, Bill Fagerbakke, Jamey Sheridan and particularly Rob Lowe, who plays a wonderful Nick Andros. I've already watched this movie a number of times, and there are scenes I can't get enough of. I really like it, but I'm going to have to say, read the book first, because it will not only help you keep better track of what's going on in the movie, but it will you keep you informed on the characters as well. Plus, the book is definitely worth it's 1141 pages and you'll be really missing something without it!

Greatness Has a Name
First off, I'd like to say I have never read the book. But I will soon. Even though, I absolutely LOVED this movie. The acting was amazing, especially the performances by Gary Sinise (can that guy play a bad role? Knock on wood) and Rob Lowe, supposedly in a comeback role. It was probably very hard for poor Rob to play a deaf mute! Anyway, the story goes that a virus created by the Army gets loose at it's base and spreads through the United States. Only a few people survive, and the ones that do are separated into two groups. One group is called in dreams by Mother Abigail (played by Ruby Dee) and the other is called by Randall Flagg, the devil (played by Jamey Sheridan, who did an awesome job). Mother Abigail's group is led by Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, Adam Storke, and Rob Lowe (although he didn't lead the group, he played an incredibly important part as a retarded man named Tom Cullen. I'm talking about Bill Fagerbakke). The bad guys, led by Flagg, flock to Las Vegas (yes, Sin City itself) and the good guys go to Boulder, Colorado. I won't give away the ending, but it is truly a wonderful movie with many twists and surprises. It made me jump, scream, say aww, and at times cry ew! It is incredible!

It's not the book, but what movie is?
I was disappointed in the amount of changes in the mini-series; I found the book much more filled out. However, this movie brings about all my greatest fears about the end of our way of life. I have worked in the medical field for a number of years and I have often imagined this kind of scenario. Many people focus on the religious aura of this film, but I enjoyed the all encompassing nature. Stephen King did not write about religion, or how one faith survived while all other belivers died. He wrote a story about good versus evil. Don't look for a hinted meaning and enjoy the movie; it's well worth it.

Religious propaganda - cheap and blatant
I feel that I genuinely wasted my time watching this excessively long DVD (TV series).
It is a cheap production, proving how celebrity does not equate to talent.
Worse of all is the blatant religious "stand" which the story takes... It reminds me of the awful movie productions used by missionaries uninvitedly imposing their beliefs upon others.
Oh! And it is worth pointing out that Mr. King should stick to writing and NOT acting....
Although, it would probably appease many, and reinforce their monochrome ideas and perceptions of good and evil.....

Worth it
I am a relatively new fan of Mr. Kings work. My first exposure to his material was when The Stand miniseries aired. I recently read the book and find the movie adaptation to be just about as complete as you could hope for.

The performances are good, with some nice peaks into the early works of some now well known actors.

The only disappointment for me... in both the book and the miniseries.... is that ending. Won't spoil it here. For me it was a sort of "thats it?" moment. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

A cool classic
"Swamp Thing" isn't one of the best movies ever made, but it's still great. Dr. Alec Holland (Ray Wise) has just made a formula that will make plants grow tremendously in a short period of time. All is going well until some madmen show up wanting to steal his formula, and they won't let anything stand in their way of doing so. Dr. Alec Holland is nearly killed by the madmen, but instead, the new formula changes him into Swamp Thing. That's an interesting twist. If a person drinks the formula, it will change them into what they really are inside. For example, if you have strong wills and power, it will change you into something even more powerful and smart. On the other hand, if you're crazy and not so powerful, the formula will make you crazier and weaker. Dr. Alec Holland turns into a smarter and more powerful creature with healing powers called Swamp Thing.

It's up to Swamp Thing to survive the terror of the bad guys and rescue Cable (Adrienne Barbeau).

If you like sci-fi movies with interesting twists, I recommend getting "Swamp Thing." It's a great movie and it's a good movie to watch even after you've seen it several times.

For Adrienne Barbeau fans, primarily.
Adrienne Barbeau, in tight shirts or low-cut gowns, sometimes running, sometimes wet. Oh, and in one scene for DVD viewers only, bathing in the swamp for some gratuitous topless shots. That, in short, is about all this movie has going for it.

Adapted from a DC Comics character, Swamp Thing joins the ranks of comic adaptations that should never have been. On the side of evil is a 2-dimensional evil botanist (Louis Jourdan) and an incompetent band of commandos (David Hess, Nicholas Worth, et al). The hero is a GOOD botanist (Ray Wise) who transforms into the rubber-suited title character (Dick Durock) and is lovesick for Barbeau. They all muck about in the swamp searching for the ultimate glowing green fertilizer.

If you have a hankering to see director Wes Craven at his worst or Barbeau's breasts at their best, this is a must-see. There's no other reason to go near it.

Greed
This Movie Is Worth About $10.00 Any one who would pay more than that is just plain stupid.I was going to purchase it so my
children could watch A funny B movie I enjoyed from the 80s.But
It's not going to happen the greed mongers have surfaced.Do not
purchase this movie at this time. The rumor is it's going to be
released again in late 2004.

Nostalgia at it's best!!!
Well folks, here it is: Swamp Thing! If you're like me and were a kid at the time this film came out(and could be caught on HBO at any given time of the day, along with The Beastmaster and Superfuzz), you probably have a special place in your heart for it, be it good or bad. This film puts you in a time warp and brings back fond memories of your childhood. If you see it for the first time as a mature adult, you won't be too impressed, but when you're a kid, this is just the coolest thing. Looking back, it's funny to think that Wes Craven directed this film, but I prefer all of his old stuff to the crud he does now. I was lucky enough to buy this right after it came out, coz certain schmucks decided to pull this dvd. I don't know who it was specifically, but they pressured MGM(who have been saints for releasing these old forgottem gems) to recall it. A TRUE AMERICAN TRAGEDY! Swamp Thing gets recalled yet we still have copies of Dude, Where's My Car? and Ghost Ship floating(get it? "Floating?" Ghost Ship Floating?) around the retail and rental stores. Swamp Thing is a great piece of cinema history and should be released again. If you happen to find a copy that some ignorant fool decided to sell to a buy/sell shop, you'd better consider snatching that up before you head to Starbucks for a shot of expresso. You'll thank me later.

10 reasons why Swamp Thing is a great DVD
1) Wes Craven directs. First big budget film for him and arguably paves the way for "Nightmare on Elm Street". 2) Adrienne Barbeau bouncing about through the film, including a bathing scene in the swamp with her exposed flotation devices. 3) Great transfer. If you remember seeing this washed out, muddy film in the theatres, you will be thrilled to see it on DVD. An unrestored trailer on the DVD unintentionally highlights the incredible difference. 4) Choice of widescreen or full screen. Some people HAVE to have one or the other. 5) Hard to find, impossible to rent. After a mother a couple years back raised such a stink at Blockbuster for the nudity in the film (it is PG, but as it was made in 1981 and there was no PG-13 rating yet, basic nudity WAS ok), it was pulled from the entire chain. Ramifications reached all the way to MGM who discontinued the DVD. It is now out of print with no talk of being rereleased. 6) Big monsters in silly rubber suits fighting. Enough said. 7) Incredible cinematography. Don't let the cheesiness of the movie fool you. The swamp locations in this now restored version are rarely seen on film. 8) Barbeau escapes from the para-military unit no less than three times in the movie. Where did these guys get their training? 9) Four page leaflet included. Don't you hate DVDs without a chapter card? Don't you wish DVDs with a chapter card gave more info? There are some tasty tidbits on this one. 10) It's a movie of a comic book character. These will ALWAYS be collectible sought after. Go ahead, buy it! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Lizard-like Draconian Louis Gossett Jr. and his mortal enemy, earthling Dennis Quaid, crash-land on a hostile planet during a brutal space battle. Forced to rely on one another for survival, they overcome their differences and become fast friends. You can almost hear them break into an off-key version of "It's a Small World." German director Wolfgang Petersen, so brutally honest with his film Das Boot, turns warm and cuddly on us with this intergalactic buddy movie. Much of the problem, though, is that the script sets us up for an intriguing encounter, then settles for a simple and sentimental resolution. Noteworthy set design and strong performances, especially by Gossett, push this beyond mere mediocrity. His performance is fascinating, as he must speak in an alien tongue, which he maintains with artistry and consistency. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more

Reviews (38)

A new twist on sci-fi
Enemy Mine is a great depiction of what we would do when confronted with our greatest fear/hate/loathing and forced to deal with or die.

Dennis Quaid and Louis Gossett Jr. are fantastic in this film! Quaid as the human astronaut is great, and gives a real sense of his loathing for the Drac species. His character's growth and change in attitude is very well done and a believable performance. Gossett is also remarkable as the Drac, and his portrayal of an asexual creature so different (and yet similar) to us is nothing short of extraordinary. He also grows, learning to love the human Quaid as a friend/brother and giving him the ultimate gift: his child.

The special effects may not be Academy-material, but they do the job well for this film. While this is science fiction, the story is what makes this film so great. I don't know if it would work in any other setting/genre, but it certainly works here. If you haven't seen this, watch it!

Good movie, a true tale of friendship
"Enemy Mine" was one of the good movies of the 80's. It's about an alien called a Drac (Louis Gossett, Jr.) and a human (Robert Quaid), who's species are brutal enemies. But they must learn to cooperate with each other to survive on the barren planet that they both crashed on.

"Enemy Mine" is a good movie in just about every way. The special effects, landscapes, and aliens are great. Quaid and Gossett Jr. also do a good job of acting. The movie drastically changes when one of them has a baby. If you like sci-fi movies, "Enemy Mine" would be a good movie to get. My only complaint is that it didn't have much action in it like many other classic sci-fi movies, but it's still a good movie.

Interesting but disjointed film.
Well into filming of "Enemy Mine",the director was sacked and replace by Wolfgang Peterson whom had the previous director's footage destroyed as to avoid comparisons. A pity as that footage would have made an interesting extra as that film was said to have some good footage.
This unwarranted sacking has resulted in a disjointed film which has had major parts ommitted. There is also an attempt at humour that doesn't work such as a creature burping and a Mickey Mouse joke. Such stuff does not work in a serious science fiction film which this attempts to be .When I saw this in the movie theatre,there was sniggers as Dennis Quaid's character goes from regarding his opponent as his mortal enemy to talking as if they were old friends.
Despite this,the production values and set design are outstanding and it ends up being a warm-hearted story reminiscent of "Robinson Crusoe On Mars". A disjointed and uneven story,but still entertaining.
The "extras" on this DVD consist of a paltry 3 photos and a scratchy 4X3 trailer. Not much there.
Fortunately,the film is in widescreen.

Boy, this premise sounds familiar! Rehash, anyone?
I haven't seen this in a long time, but isn't this basically the same idea as the 1968 Lee Marvin/Toshiro Mifune war drama "Hell in the Pacific?"

Another Classic Sci-Fi Flim For Anyone
What if two enemies both from alien races crash landed on a deserted planet in the middle of a waging war? Would they work together as a team to survive long enough to be rescued? Or would they not be able to settle their differences and wage their own war? Enemy Mine starring Dennis Quaid and Louis Gossett Jr. gives us this very scenario. Enemy Mine's story is great, and the special effects and makeup are great for their time also. I'd suggest this movie for anyone who is looking for more than just a "Shoot em' up, Blow em' up" type Sci-Fi movie. Three stars. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Despite its melodramatic title, which carried on a '50s doomsday naming convention, this taut 1961 English science fiction thriller offers an object lesson in the power of story over special effects. When both the Soviets and the West detonate nuclear tests simultaneously, the seismic double whammy jolts the earth off its axis and onto a new orbit sending it fatally closer to the sun--a fate that writer-director-producer Val Guest views from the street-level perspective of its principal characters, rather than an off-world vantage point. The street in question, however, is London's Fleet Street, the venerable hub of its newspaper and tabloid publishers, and the hard-nosed reporters growing realization that their number is up carries its own stark punch. Edward Judd is Peter Stenning, a rugged, appropriately grim reporter, Leo McKern is tough but compassionate editor Bill Maguire, and Janet Munro is Stenning's love interest, in an elfin, sexy turn that's a striking contrast to her best-known turn in Disney's Darby O'Gill and the Little People. With an effects arsenal that consists largely of a spray bottle to apply beads of "sweat," Guest and his small but crack cast are surprisingly effective, and the cold war plot hook still works, thanks to its uncomfortable proximity to more contemporary environmental terrors. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Absorbing adult SF.
The vast majority of science fiction films of this period were aimed at the younger set, but here is an exception. This is a gripping and quite believable "possibly end of the world" story set in London, with a newspaper background. The emphasis is on the characters rather than spectacular special effects, and the "beatnik riot" sequence, in which rioters deliberately waste their most precious commodity (water) is scary and memorable. I did not particularly appreciate this film when I saw it at age 10, but I do now. Probably one of the 25 all-time best SF films. (Watch for young Michael Caine in a bit part.)

Why Sci-Fi Matters
The first time I saw this film was in the early Sixties on television and it left quite an impression on me. Every once in a while a film comes along that hits all of the correct notes. The primary reason this film is special is because it relies on story for it's power instead of on special effects. Genre is unimportant to whether a movie is true quality. Writing is always the most important issue followed closely by directing and acting. This movie has all three elements. Because of this it hooks you and keeps you hooked. I like many sci-fi flicks but this could quite possibly be the best.

Cerebral end-of-the-world film with an original approach
Repeated nuclear tests tip the Earth off its axis, resulting in ecological chaos and threatening the demise of mankind. In this refreshing look at man's arrogance gone mad, the action takes a back seat to character development, making an engrossing study of ordinary people under extraordinary stress. The usual scientists vs military or crooked politician vs idealistic crusaders plot gimmicks are ignored, leaving us with a much more realistic and emotionally draining struggle as the citizens of London attempt to deal with their feelings of anger, fear, helplessness and resignation. The ending is thought-provoking if a bit dissatisfying, but subtracts nothing from this disturbing gem of early Science Fiction.

Hidden Gem of the Genre
If you thought _Armageddeon_ and _Deep Impact_ were total garbage, and are looking for a more philosophical approach to the ultimate cataclysm, step away from the computer and GO GET THIS MOVIE! Let me correct myself; this is not a movie. This is a film. Imagine a cross between _His Girl Friday_ and _Day of the Triffids_, and you'll have a good idea of the feel of this film. Brilliant dialogue, engaging character development and a fantastic group of actors combine to make this a powerfully artistic and tought provoking study of man's place in the universe (quite literally). I can't recommend this flick enough.

Sci-fi class act with McKern and Judd...
This is a low budget, top of the line sci-fi/political/sci-fi thriller that proves (like the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers) a great story and solid acting can carry the day in a film with virtually no special effects and no razzle-dazzle. The anti-Bomb theme of the film is powerfully dramatized in a story that is almost documentary in style and therefore, chillingly effective. The stark ending is not abrupt...but cautionary and frightening in a way that, in my opinion, matches Dr. Strangelove. The latter is deservedly a recognized masterpiece; this low budget film, however, is a gem that should be reckoned with as a rare contribution to a genre that has, in fact, produced few classics. This film does not quite meet this standard but it comes very close. It is easily the peer of When Worlds Collide and the remake, Deep Impact. See it! ... Read more

Amazon.com

There seemed to be a particular spike in nuclear-war paranoia in the early 1980s, probably having to do Reagan's finger being on the trigger. Whatever the cause, it resulted in two particularly powerful 1983 films on the subject: the made-for-TV The Day After and Lynne Littman's Testament, which had a theatrical release before playing on PBS's American Playhouse. Starring Jane Alexander (and Kevin Costner in a cameo), the film shows what happens to a suburban family in the Pacific Northwest after a nearby nuclear attack. As it turns out, those killed by the initial blast are the lucky ones; Alexander and her family must suffer through radiation poisoning and sickness, the daily diminution of life this causes, and, for Alexander, the eventual deaths of those around her. Quietly powerful and never overstated. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Not Your Usual End of the World Movie
As most every reviewer here mentions, this is a quietly powerful film. Jane Alexander gives an excellent performance as a mother trying to carry on after the most devastating of events. Perhaps limited by budget, we don't see any gruesome special effects, over-wrought portrayals of screaming mobs, or even an over-blown breakdown of society version in this movie.

And that's a good thing. By concentrating on character, the movie really packs a punch. We can really identify with the family who isn't even sure the father of the family, who may or may not have gone into the blast zone, is alive.

The theme of the movie, an unbelievable cataclysmic event that kills millions (or billions), is as topical as ever, with the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not to mention the specter of bio-terrorism with its threat of an uncontained plague.

One comment I just have to make about the 'editorial review' in this case. The small town in question is just north of San Francisco. Sorry, but California isn't the 'Pacific Northwest'.

Highly recommended.

Anti-nuclear war film hits hard and personal
I saw the theatrically-released version of "Testament" in Berkeley California in the early 1980s. This was the era of the Nuclear Freeze and huge mass demonstrations against the Reagan government's unprecedented nuclear arms build-up. In the midst of all this landed "Testament", which is by leaps and bounds the most harrowing (and depressing) of any film dealing with nuclear war. After the movie, groups of people just huddled together outside, many weeping. This is strong medicine.

The movie is so sad it is almost unwatchable. The film follows one family's experience in a small Northern California town. Jane Alexander, future head and defender of the National Endowment for the Arts, plays the mother, alone with three school-age children, There are no fancy special effects; the bomb is a bright light through the window.

Somehow everyone has to keep going. One by one, people begin to miss work, students stop showing up at school. When a banana appears, you know its the last one, ever. The film's effectiveness is that we get to know the family and town, they are just ordinary people, and Alexander is a terrific Everymom. The school play scene is just about the saddist thing you will ever see on film.

The movie came out about the same time as the made-for TV, much hearalded ABC's "The Day After" which wowed with special effects and big-name stars, but suffered from poor character development. This movie is the opposite - we care too much about these people.

My friend (an anti-nuclear activist)who was with me at the theater surprised me by saying she thought the movie was calculating and manipulative. I have not made up my mind. Also, with the immediacy of nuclear war somewhat dimmed since the early 1980s, I'm not sure the movie will have the same impact.

Also in the same serious genre: "The War Game" and "Threads", which are British productions. "Testmanet" is the better of the three.

This Movie will stay with you for days!
You think Titanic and E.T. were sad? Watch this heartbreaking movie and you'll be depressed for days.i am not kidding. this is an excellant powerful movie that will stay in your mind. JAne alexander is a mother with her three children and husband living in CA. when her husband is away on a business trip the unthinkable happens. and soon people everywhere are dying of radiation. Watching Jane Alexander trying to keep her family together just touches your heart. Many parts of this movie stay with you that other people have mentioned. This is not a movie you could watch over and over. The music by james horner is beautiful and haunting as well. the few times i have seen this movie after it is over, i either have tears rolling down my face or i am sitting there in stunned silence. Mainly the first. This is a highly recommneded movie!

Great movie -- why isn't it on DVD?
Jane Alexander has never been a terribly show-offy actor, which is probably why she's more respected than recognized. And quite simply: if there is a better lead performance out there by an actor, male or female, than hers in this movie, I have not seen it.

"Testament" has the same basic story as "The Day After" (also a very good, powerful movie), but instead of focusing on several different sets of characters at once, it focuses on one family: the Wetherlys. This decision pays off. You are far more emotionally invested in the characters than you would be otherwise.

The Wetherlys are not sugary sweet, impossibly "good" people. They are just your typical family, with kids fighting and people getting on each other's nerves, but ultimately loving and close-knit.

Carol (Alexander) is literally forced to become the head of the family after the nuclear bombs fall (signified by a flash of light; this is obviously not a big-budget movie, but then again, lots of scenes of nuclear devastation would've only taken away from the intimate, human drama). However, she still holds out hope that her husband got out of the city before the bombs fell and is on his way back to them. She discovers otherwise in one of the most powerful scenes I have ever seen committed to film -- the more powerful because it is nonverbal and presented simply. Equally powerful are the scenes where Carol dashes through the house, madly seeking her youngest son's favorite stuffed animal, which she will not allow him to be buried without, and the scene where she tells her teenage daughter what it is like to make love.

Kevin Costner and Rebecca DeMornay give good performances as young parents who lose their infant to radiation sickness, but fortunately, their present-day stardom is not used to sell this film nowadays, at least not that I have seen. Though Jane Alexander inexplicably did not win an Oscar for this, it remains her film, but she doesn't dominate it so much that other actors (particularly those who play her children) cannot shine as well.

Best End of World Film there is; Excellent human drama
I remember seeing "The Day After" on TV in 1983 and was very unimpressed. Even with big names like Jason Robards and good FX you just didn't care about the characters. Testament, which came out also in 1983 was a MUCH different story. Jane Alexander stars as Carol Wetherly, a mother of a suburban California family, and the film starts out with the normalcy of family life. They are watching TV when all of a sudden the TV show goes dead, and a newscast comes on to say the East Coast has been hit with nuclear weapons. Just then a huge light comes through the window.

This is a realistic depiction of what a limited nuclear war might be like for the few survivors, and here we end up caring about the people of the small town and especially the family it's focused on. An old neighbor is a ham radio operator who has reached a few surviving communities, and we learn people are trying to get to Northern Canada where there are "survival camps". Other than that there is no info at all from the outside world. The town gradually sinks into darkness, oblivion, and radiation sickness, while Carol tries to keep it together for her kids. The father is played by William Devane (Marathon Man) and we see flashbacks from before the world was nuked. We don't learn exactly how the war happened other than theories.

One couple is well played by a young Kevin Costner and Rebecca DeMornay.

As the film ends Carol finally loses it and cries, "Who did this, God damn you!" a la Charleton Heston in the end of Planet of the Apes. There is one thing I'd like to see in an End-of-the-World film that's never really been explored: namely the philosophical implications of the world ending. I mean even in this great film, the characters are concerned with their immediate circumstance in their small community, not the bigger implications. Well maybe I'll write one with that theme myself.

Since the Cold War ended full scale nuclear war is unlikely, however individual nukes by terrorists are getting more and more of a possibility (9/11 proves they have the will to use them), not to mention the new "Powell Doctrine" of using tactical nukes in war. We all must work to make sure all governments know that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought" (that quote ironically comes from Mr. Nuke himself, Ronald Reagan).

There are some other good nuclear war films out there from 1963's Ladybird, Ladybird to 1959's On the Beach and 1967's British film The War Game. Also 1989's Miracle Mile is good, but more a satire than a drama. ... Read more

Reviews (217)

Amazing....but missing something
I eagerly bought this movie after finishing the novel. I know that a lot of movies based on books are different from the original story, but this really isn't one of them, at least not exactly. Almost all of the main and important aspects of the novel are included in the movie. The time constraints obviously play a part of the limited detail, at least compared to the novel, but what seems most annoying is the fact that different characters play the parts of characters in the book. For example, Susan Stern, who travelled in Stu Redman's group originally suddenly is part of Mother Abigail's group. It's small differences like this that get to me in this movie.

Other than that, the movie is awesome. The makeup effects used are amazing. The actors chosen to portray the characters seem perfect, especially Gary Sinise, Adam Storke, Ray Walston, Bill Fagerbakke, Jamey Sheridan and particularly Rob Lowe, who plays a wonderful Nick Andros. I've already watched this movie a number of times, and there are scenes I can't get enough of. I really like it, but I'm going to have to say, read the book first, because it will not only help you keep better track of what's going on in the movie, but it will you keep you informed on the characters as well. Plus, the book is definitely worth it's 1141 pages and you'll be really missing something without it!

Greatness Has a Name
First off, I'd like to say I have never read the book. But I will soon. Even though, I absolutely LOVED this movie. The acting was amazing, especially the performances by Gary Sinise (can that guy play a bad role? Knock on wood) and Rob Lowe, supposedly in a comeback role. It was probably very hard for poor Rob to play a deaf mute! Anyway, the story goes that a virus created by the Army gets loose at it's base and spreads through the United States. Only a few people survive, and the ones that do are separated into two groups. One group is called in dreams by Mother Abigail (played by Ruby Dee) and the other is called by Randall Flagg, the devil (played by Jamey Sheridan, who did an awesome job). Mother Abigail's group is led by Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, Adam Storke, and Rob Lowe (although he didn't lead the group, he played an incredibly important part as a retarded man named Tom Cullen. I'm talking about Bill Fagerbakke). The bad guys, led by Flagg, flock to Las Vegas (yes, Sin City itself) and the good guys go to Boulder, Colorado. I won't give away the ending, but it is truly a wonderful movie with many twists and surprises. It made me jump, scream, say aww, and at times cry ew! It is incredible!

It's not the book, but what movie is?
I was disappointed in the amount of changes in the mini-series; I found the book much more filled out. However, this movie brings about all my greatest fears about the end of our way of life. I have worked in the medical field for a number of years and I have often imagined this kind of scenario. Many people focus on the religious aura of this film, but I enjoyed the all encompassing nature. Stephen King did not write about religion, or how one faith survived while all other belivers died. He wrote a story about good versus evil. Don't look for a hinted meaning and enjoy the movie; it's well worth it.

Religious propaganda - cheap and blatant
I feel that I genuinely wasted my time watching this excessively long DVD (TV series).
It is a cheap production, proving how celebrity does not equate to talent.
Worse of all is the blatant religious "stand" which the story takes... It reminds me of the awful movie productions used by missionaries uninvitedly imposing their beliefs upon others.
Oh! And it is worth pointing out that Mr. King should stick to writing and NOT acting....
Although, it would probably appease many, and reinforce their monochrome ideas and perceptions of good and evil.....

Worth it
I am a relatively new fan of Mr. Kings work. My first exposure to his material was when The Stand miniseries aired. I recently read the book and find the movie adaptation to be just about as complete as you could hope for.

The performances are good, with some nice peaks into the early works of some now well known actors.

The only disappointment for me... in both the book and the miniseries.... is that ending. Won't spoil it here. For me it was a sort of "thats it?" moment. ... Read more

Amazon.com

There were only two ways for "classic Trek" cast members to appear in a movie with the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation: either Capt. Kirk and his contemporaries would have to be very, very old, or there would be some time travel involved in the plot. Since geriatric heroes aren't very exciting (despite a welcomed cameo appearance by the aged Dr. McCoy), Star Trek: Generations unites Capt. Kirk (William Shatner) and Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) in a time-jumping race to stop a madman's quest for heavenly contentment. When a mysterious energy coil called the Nexus nearly destroys the newly christened U.S.S. Enterprise-B, the just-retired Capt. Kirk is lost and presumed dead. But he's actually been happily trapped in the timeless purgatory of the Nexus--an idyllic state of being described by the mystical Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg) as "pure joy." Picard must convince Kirk to leave this artificial comfort zone and confront Dr. Soran (Malcolm McDowell), the madman who will threaten billions of lives to be reunited with the addictive pleasure of the Nexus. With subplots involving the android Data's unpredictable "emotion chip" and the spectacular crash-landing of the starship Enterprise, this crossover movie not only satisfied Trek fans, but it also gave them something they'd never had to confront before: the heroic and truly final death of a beloved Star Trek character. Passing the torch to the Next Generation with dignity and entertaining adventure, the movie isn't going to please everyone with its somewhat hokey plot, but it still ranks as a worthy big-screen launch for Picard and his stalwart crew. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (151)

A great transition!
Star Trek Generations is simply a great transition movie, handing the torch from Captain Kirk and crew to Captain Picard and crew. While not living up completely to what we the fans wanted, that doesn't really matter. That is the case in most of the movies. Especially the odd numbered ones for some strange cosmic reason. We all knew the Galaxy Class Enterprise 1701-D had to go. It was simply not made for the silver screen. I was personally hoping that more of the original series crew could've made it for the opening sequence. The scenes between Kirk and Picard were very well done. If I remember correctly, this was also the first time that we'd heard Captain Sulu's first name. Patrick Stewart once again showed the depth of his acting abilities with the death of his character's brother and nephew. It's a little disturbing to see Captain Picard basically recieve a beating from Soren. After watching Kirk fight many a people and win over the years. Malcolm McDowell, Soren played a very good, tortured villain. And yes, Captain Kirk said in Star Trek V The Final Frontier that he always knew he'd die alone. And that was the case, he was alone in the sense the Spock and McCoy weren't there. The way Kirk died did seem a little melodramatic for the character. Overall though, a very good transition movie. I would suggest that if you'd like a few more of the details, I believe you can still get a copy of the book. It does bring to light some of the things that were glossed over on the screen.

More misses than hits, unfortunately....
When I was fifteen, I was so excited to see my favorite Star Trek crew get their own shot at the big screen. I was disappointed to hear that the baton was not completely passed, and that this film would feature the not-so-eternally-young William Shatner as Captain Kirk. I watched the movie anyway with much anticipation and excitement. Back then, I thought it was the best movie I had ever seen. Now that I'm 22 (more grown up) and I've had a chance to view a more superior film in "First Contact," I must retract my initial reaction and say that "Generations" is only okay.
I don't know if anyone else has pointed it out, but this movie has many depressing moments. The Enterprise B has its problems, Picard faces tragedy, Data gets choked up in his worry about Geordi, the Enterprise D crashes and eventually is blown to bits, and Captain Kirk (as much as I disliked his place in this movie) meets his fate. There seemed to be no bright side to this movie, no resolution of good truly conquering evil in the end. The crew of the Enterprise D were left with a mess of wreckage in the end. Where is the hope in that?
As far as humor goes, it was misplaced all the way through. Data's first turns with an emotion chip should have been eye-opening, but here they are ridiculous and obnoxious. Mr. Tricorder? Oh dear. Data's character has delivered better funny moments in the television series when his confusion got the better of him. I think the strongest laugh, and the most brilliant one, comes when Data says a dirty word to become the first TNG character to truly swear. Nice little touch for shock value anyway.
Patrick Stewart and friends always do well in the acting department and Malcolm McDowell as Soren is a welcome villainous addition to this story. So I think the trouble lies in the script and the continued push for old Trek cast members. It was time (pardon the cliche) for a new generation to take over, and it still wasn't fully their turn (not fair). Giving TNG their own movie would pay off next with "First Contact," an obviously superior journey.
As always, Trek delivers great special effects, but they cannot carry "Generations." It needed more emotional variety, a more clever story (time travel is tired), and an exclusive showcase of TNG characters.

Making Generations Better!!
If your a Star Trek Fan, you will enjoy this film. This flim is a blending of the old to the new generation. It seems that at first William Shatner has a Cameo in the film's first half, but becomes a full member of the cast in the last half.
If your a TRUE Star Trek Fan, and want to enjoy this film even more, you MUST get the three books written by William Shatner. The first book is "Ashes of Eden." It takes place just before "Generations" and has Jim Kirk battling between his long Star Fleet Career and the lack of action in any retirement. In it Capt. Kirk find that he is still called to save worlds, even in his retirement. It fills the gap leading up to the first part of the film. It is true Captian Kirk in action. This book could have been made into a Star Trek movie by itself and can stand alone.
The second book, "The Return", takes place right after the death of Jim Kirk with Spock at his best friend's grave. As from the title, we all want Jim Kirk to live and he does "Return."
You can stop after this book too, if you want to have Jim Kirk dead. (Yes, he dies at the end) But, hold the phone, he will live again in the next book, "Avenger" to save the universe again. This time he has new friends. It's Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the Enterprise TNG crew. Yes, Spock is logicly there to help Kirk(RET) save the universe again.
Read this and enjoy the movie even more.

Excellent Bridge Between The Old & The New...
STAR TREK GENERATIONS (1994) took on a monumentally difficult task---namely, the passing of the legendary STAR TREK torch from the original cast to the "Next Generation" cast---and does it almost seamlessly. Despite what many self-professed "Star Trek experts" may say, there was no perfect way to accomplish this. Having recently viewed this film for approximately the 10th time, I am as impressed as ever at the job that director David Carson and screenwriter Rick Berman (who took over as head of the STAR TREK franchise after creator Gene Roddenberry died in 1991) did. I can honestly say that I couldn't have done as good a job at bridging the two generations---and neither could have any of these "experts" who choose to pick apart at it.

If you're reading this review and others, you undoubtedly know what this film's about, so I'm not going into a rundown of plot here. I will, however, put in my two-cents worth of opinion about this film: it is a well-paced, fully realized cinematic vision, with great special effects, a compelling main plot, a humorous subplot and some excellent acting on the part of Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner and Malcolm McDowell. Even William Shatner is pretty good here---his acting *has* improved with age and experience! As Dr. Tolian Soren, Malcolm McDowell creates a villain for whom we can actually care; although we don't agree with what he does, we can certainly relate to the reasons why he does what he does. However, this does not make it any less compelling for Capts. Kirk and Picard to stop him from carrying out his destructive methods, leading to the extremely suspenseful---and, ultimately, sad---scene which is as inevitable as it is fateful.

I really love STAR TREK GENERATIONS. It has a winning combination of intelligent storyline mixed in with action, suspense and---surprisingly---humor, and plays fair with the rules of the game and the legacy of the series. I really can't imagine any true STAR TREK fan not loving it. It may require some patience on first viewing, perhaps, but the rewards are great for sticking with it. Plus, it only gets better on repeated viewings. I can vouch for that!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

GENERATIONS DISAPPOINTS
For years, Trekkies wanted to see Captains James Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard finally team up and unite the two major generations of the Starship Enterprise in what would, doubtless, be an adventure to remember. As is so often the case, the realization of that dream leaves a lot to be desired, and the final result is all too forgettable.

What went wrong? For one thing, Kirk's character is handled very poorly. The adventurous, 23rd-century Odysseus has devolved into a whipped milksop who wants to leave galaxy-saving to Picard so he can go back to fixing eggs. Moreover the film is choppy and slow. There's not much action, despite a brief confrontation between the Enterprise and some rogue Klingons. There's a lot of really silly "humor" courtesy of Data and some new emotions, which makes a mockery of the ordinarily poignant portrayal of the android's ongoing quest to become more human. And Soran, despite behing essayed by an excellent actor in Malcom McDowell, is a terribly weak antagonist who fails to bring any genuine menace to the lackluster plot. Worst of all, the infamous death scene (and if you've ever even heard of this movie before you know what I'm talking about) is a total embarrassment and a sorry way to send off one of the greatest sci-fi heroes in TV and cinema history.

I suppose there are a couple of plusses, though they are relatively weak ones. The early scenes with a few of the original Trek crew members are effective, and Captain Picard's familial subplot is genuinely touching. As one would expect of a big-budget Star Trek film, the production values are excellent all-around and everything looks terrific. But there should have been a lot more to brag about, and there's just not.

This could have easily been a milestone in the Star Trek canon. Instead, it's possibly the series' low point (though I admit it has some competition for that dubious honor from "The Final Frontier"). The story needed a stronger script, better characterization for Captain Kirk, a more powerful villain, and more action. This is one film that might have actually benefitted from being half an hour longer. Trekkie loyalists and completists may still enjoy it, but it's not a movie I can recommend to the general fan. Save your time and watch "First Contact" or "The Voyage Home" instead. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Watergate + "2001" + "Close Encounters" = HANGAR 18
The Utah-based Schick Sunn Pictures corporation, known for churning out highly speculative documentaries, turns to science fiction for this interesting conspiracy sci-fi drama. The question: What would the U.S. government do if it suddenly had an alien spacecraft in its possession?

Two shuttle astronauts (Gary Collins, James Hampton) are in the process of launching a military satellite from the shuttle, when they encounter a UFO in orbit. When the satellite is launched, it hits the UFO with explosive results, killing a third man who was inside the shuttle's cargo bay watching the satellite's progress. The UFO, however, makes a controlled landing in the Arizona desert.

When they get back on the ground, Collins and Hampton soon find themselves the target of charges that the incident in orbit was their fault, and are forced to clear their names by finding the right evidence, all the while being tracked by government agents. Meanwhile, a team of scientists, led by Darren McGavin, are ensconsed at Hangar 18, located on the grounds of an Air Force base in Texas, trying to learn everything possible about the UFO and its occupants...whose appearances bear an all-too-uncanny resemblance to humans.

Thought I dock this film one star because its special effects aren't exactly up to snuff (a lowered budget is the reason), HANGAR 18 is otherwise a very good film. In basic terms, it combines a Watergate-style political scenario with elements from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and Steven Spielberg's CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. This is not to say that HANGAR 18 is a masterpiece like those two films are. But the combination of such elements manages to work in a fairly narrow framework. The cast is also quite good, with McGavin giving one of his most memorable and stimulating performances. Robert Vaughn is equally good as the President's devious chief-of-staff, who concots the cover-up to get his boss re-elected.

To sum it up, HANGAR 18 is a somewhat imperfect movie, but it still holds up well despite its flaws.

Pre-X Files, but only better and much more exciting!!
I remember when this classic movie came out in 1980. I really enjoyed seeing the previews and what the film was all about. Surprisingly, my parents took me to see the film, and all of us really enjoyed this science fiction/conspiracy thriller classic. All of us even jumped when that alien environment suit popped out of the UFO's closet by accident. Nevertheless, the movie was in a way like an earlier version of The X-Files. Only just as better and more exciting than the series that would come some 13 years later.

Hanger 18 tells the story of how a satellite, launched by a NASA space shuttle/orbiter, collides with an Unidentified Flying Object, causing the death of an American astronaut in the process. When the UFO crashes on Earth, the U.S. Air Force and NASA recover it, and take it to a manned lunar receiving station in Texas. There, they uncover some hidden secrets that soon take the scientists by surprise. And makes the Government nervous. At the same time, two of the shuttle astronauts who witnessed the incident in space, are "blamed" for the other astronaut's death, and try to clear up the situation, by hunting for the UFO. The government tries to prevent the two from locating the UFO, but to little or no avail. That situation leads to something even more drastic made by the CIA and The Department Of Defense.

Like the classic film Capricorn One, Hanger 18 does a remarkable job of playing on the government conspiracy angle, and at the same time, deals with the ancient astronaut theory. The subplot involving the two astronauts trying to clear their names is also good, as is the storyline about the scientists trying to unlock whatever secrets are in the flying saucer.

And it also had a wonderful cats of veterans. Darren McGavin, Gary Collins, James Hampton, Pamela Bellwood, Robert Vaughn, William Schallert, Joseph Campenella, and Bill Zuckert among others. Though one wishes that James Brolin, Roy Thinnes, or Tom Berenger had been in the role played by Collins. Collins did a good job, however, if I had been the casting director, I would have picked one of those three.

Overall, a very good and entertaining film. One of the best in the hall of science fiction. If you enjoy watching the X-Files and other films about flying saucers, then you will definately enjoy this film.

hanger 18
I love this movie its a must see. the starteling truth behind this could be so scary. I was a little girl when this movie was made in my home town. I remember getting to stay up and watch them film this movie. my father was an extra in this movie too. I always loved this movie and now that i am an adult i still love this movie

This is a must-see.
See this. It is self-explanatory. As far as reality is concerned, I place it right up there with the book "Psychic Warrior". If you don't think our government is capable of such deception, think again!

interesting
I liked it as with any movie you have to suspend reality and just sit back and enjoy the ride. I read Leonard Maltins review and do nort agree. Lets review Leonard Maltin he gets paid to watch movies then tell us what we should think this is a man with a beard that he can not trim straight and who wears crooked glasses. Make up your own minds. ... Read more

Amazon.com

With a title that sums up the plot so tidily, it's hard to believethings went so horribly wrong. They Saved Hitler's Brain opens withone Professor Coleman explaining the effects of the deadly "G" nerve gas, andnoting that he's got an antidote. Soon enough, Coleman's daughter iskidnapped, mysterious swarthy foreigners start skulking around, and everyoneis heading to the South American isle of Mandoras. The next 40 minutesor so are meant to be a dark labyrinth of intrigue, keeping us on the edge ofour seats as we wonder who--who?--could be behind all this.Unfortunately, we've all known since the opening title that it's probablysome Nazis who have saved Hitler's brain. Actually, they've saved his wholehead and neck in some sort of big Mason jar. Hitler, though more than everthe brains of the outfit, seems much quieter than in the old days. Mostly herides around in his jar and rolls his eyes menacingly, perhaps because allhis Nazis insist on giving him their reports in English. The Nazi nerve gasplot is meant to fill the audience with terror and dread, but the mainconcern is that one of the characters will be injured by one of the hugechunks of exposition flying around. As if that isn't enough, there's acompletely uncalled-for Beatnik girl, a woman who screams until she has to beslapped, and some absolutely priceless dialogue. ("Some people here must beon our side. The trick is to stay out of the way of those that aren't.")Adding to the confusion is the fact that Hitler's Brain is abewildering mélange of well-shot footage from the 1950s and cheaplyshot footage from 1963. Even for connoisseurs of bad movies, They SavedHitler's Brain is bad. Really bad. Good lord, is it bad. Buy itimmediately. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (9)

They should have let Mr. H rest in peace.
This release contains the 1963 film "Madmen of Mandoras", but at the beginning there is some additional footage that seems to have been filmed around 1973. (Note the Volkswagen Beetle has large circular tail-lights, which first appeared on the 1973 models.) This extra footage was possibly a project of some UCLA film students, to create a longer movie for television.
It is unfortunate that these more recent actors are not in the film credits, since the newer footage is more fun to watch than the original, except for one thing: the head of the Fuhrer. Hitler's head provides the much needed comic relief for the drab situations, mostly by showing some kinds of unrecognizable expressions, and yelling "Mach Schnell!" (colloq: buck up). But, we are also shown the "evil" of the man (I mean, the head) when he smiles broadly after one of his cohorts shoots someone. Yahoooooo!

Save your own brain then
This movie is the best in the world - if you want a real bad movie. If you want a good B-Movie - its ....
First third or so filmed nearly a century after the main "story" (not that it has a real story) - the main actors of this part stumble around without much of a connection to the earlier (here later) part, and are all killed. That is, of course, they couldn't join in with the other actors ten years back in time.
The rest of the movie isn't much better - forget about the storyline. You sit around the whole time thinking: "When does the story start - wheres the action, the thrill, the humor, the sense?"
Even my hopes for an evil, entriguing or even power-mad super-villianous Hitler were eradicated. This guy (who by the way dont looks a bit like the old "Gröfaz") just stares out of his jar and, I suppose, wonders, why not one of his plain stupid Nazi henchmen speaks one word German.
The rest is 50s B-Movie standart: Screaming girl, smart hero, dead villains, etc.. The damn brain - which is the whole head in truth - not even gets a cool showdown or death scene. It simply burns to death in its car - still staring around helpless.
The most frightening on this movie is the hair-style of the main charakter in the first part.
Only good thing about this movie is the fact, that people are surprised (or shocked) when they see it in your movie collection. Nobody believes, that somebody ever did a "They saved Hitlers Brain" movie.
Here in Germany, where I live, its double shock.

Extremely bad and extremely funny!
Many say it is the worst movie ever made, it is. But, when you think about it, its very funny, from the backward swaztica, to the pointless begining, to the fact that the C.I.A. is accedently the C.I.D, and finally..Hitler's head melts in the end! Great fun! The DVD has no special features, although the menu is very funny, with hitler's head "turning" on and speaking giberish. They Saved Hitler's Brain definently belongs in your bad movie collection along with Plan Nine From Outer Space, and Cat Women From the Moon.(My real screenname is christopop but i'm using my moms account.) :)

Why Did They Save, THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN?
What can I say good about this movie? Hum, well the menu on the DVD from RHINO is quite funny. As for the rest, it is pretty bad.

The existing prints must be in poor shape. Despite the advertisement that it is a "new transfer from 35 mm film elements," the picture suffers from scratches, jitters, and a host of sound problems. The soundtrack develops that machine-gun rattle that is so common in old prints that no longer track well for the screen. Indeed, I have never heard this amount of hissing and cracking on a legitimate mainline DVD soundtrack.

Portions of the movie, mostly at the beginning, give a parallel storyline that was added by UCLA film students in the 1960's (1963 I believe). It really does not sync with the older 1950's footage that features better acting and scripting. Indeed, removal of the appended material might make for a better film. It was added for theatrical length and to help flush out the kidnapping and secret weapon details. All it really does is add length, stretching the movie to 92 minutes. While some bad movies are fun, this one is just mostly bad. Ed Wood could have done better.

Once the entire cast from the first part of the movie are killed off, the film starts in earnest with the older material. The plot should be simple but the extraneous material confuses things. Professor Coleman has created an antidote to a potent new nerve gas. He is kidnapped by Nazis holding up in Mandoras (South America). The evil men worship Hitler's animated head in a mason jar. The professor's daughter and son-in-law must save the day before the Nazis take over the world.

The identities of the actors in the added material are not clarified. The film was also called MADMEN OF MANDORAS and THE RETURN OF MR. H. There are several bloopers, much related to the harsh transition between the 1960's and 1950's cultures (dress, music, dance, etc.). There is also a car chase where shots alternate between night and day.

Here is a little tidbit. Bill Freed, who plays Hitler's head in a jar, would later author the screenplay for Koontz' book, THE WATCHERS.

>No nudity.
>Mild plot violence.
>No graphic gore.
>No vulgar language.

Hummm
Saw this one at the Drive in, a long long time ago and now that
i purchased and viewed, its as strange a i remember it.
The first 1/3rd of the film runs like a home made movie that they
appended to the film..once gone the film is more interesting.
Nothing like seeing Hitler's head on that box with lots of dials
on it. One movie that should make your bad movie collection ... Read more

Reviews (12)

EXCITING MOVIE FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS
This is an exciting and intelligent film for everyone. Do not let
the box cover art make you think this is a kiddie film only. It
is a neat little film that teaches many lessons. D.A.R.Y.L. is
actually a child robot that is too perfect a child and a scient
ist working with him wants him to have a life outside the gov
ernment lab. D.A.R.Y.L. winds up with a foster family, makes a
life long friend has an exciting finale. This is a uniformly
well-made and acted film with excellent special effects on what
was a shoe-string budget. This film is as enjoyable as most of
Disney's big budget offerings. Also it shows that a wonderful
film without gratuitous trash and language can be made.
The film works so well because of the performance of Barrett
Oliver as D.A.R.Y.L. He gives the presence of the perfect, loving child. He also was in The Neverending Story and Cocoon
parts one and two. Strangely he seems to have disappeared from
film in his teens. I would like to see him in more films

d.a.r.y.l.
from the first time i saw this film,i knew this was a great family movie.has a very good story line and excitement for all ages.paramount is brining this film out on dvd sometime in 2004.hope it will be in widescreen.check it out,you'll love it!

A Good Movie!!!
I remember watching D.A.R.Y.L in the 80's and thinking it was a cute movie that has humor mixed with drama and a great cast, Barrett Oliver (The Never Ending Story), Michael McKean (Laverne and Shirley) and Mary Beth Hurt (Chilly Scenes of Winter) and is about a robot made to look like a little boy who is set free by a scientist and sent to live with foster parents who at first have no clue that he isn't a real little boy. I don't want to give too much away but I think this is a cute movie and I recommend it but I wish they'd put it on DVD (Widescreen)!

One of the best movies of the 80s
Long before Steven Spielberg's A.I. came out in the summer of 2001,there was a film that came out in 1985 called D.A.R.Y.L.which is way better then A.I.I grew up on this film since the age of 4 years old and it's still wonderful to me even at the age of 22.While A.I. is a good film,it lacks the warmth,awe and the wonder that Daryl had.His name stands of Data Analyzing Robot Youth Lifeform and noone,not even Daryl himself knows he's a robot,they just think of him as a normal boy with extraordinary talents.Daryl is a warm and touching film not only for childern but for adults too.

miraculous
Barret Oliver, who plays DARYL, is one of the greatest child actors in my opinion. This movie is not only heartwarming, but intreaging. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Despite its melodramatic title, which carried on a '50s doomsday naming convention, this taut 1961 English science fiction thriller offers an object lesson in the power of story over special effects. When both the Soviets and the West detonate nuclear tests simultaneously, the seismic double whammy jolts the earth off its axis and onto a new orbit sending it fatally closer to the sun--a fate that writer-director-producer Val Guest views from the street-level perspective of its principal characters, rather than an off-world vantage point. The street in question, however, is London's Fleet Street, the venerable hub of its newspaper and tabloid publishers, and the hard-nosed reporters growing realization that their number is up carries its own stark punch. Edward Judd is Peter Stenning, a rugged, appropriately grim reporter, Leo McKern is tough but compassionate editor Bill Maguire, and Janet Munro is Stenning's love interest, in an elfin, sexy turn that's a striking contrast to her best-known turn in Disney's Darby O'Gill and the Little People. With an effects arsenal that consists largely of a spray bottle to apply beads of "sweat," Guest and his small but crack cast are surprisingly effective, and the cold war plot hook still works, thanks to its uncomfortable proximity to more contemporary environmental terrors. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Apocalypse Not Now, But We're Pretty Sure It's Coming...
This is one of my favorite "hey what's this" finds from the video store ever. The acting is wonderful for the time and category, and the story moves at a sensible pace and builds a ton of tension, from the giddiness of 90 degree summers at Brighton Beach to the terror of water riots as the "Day" draws near. Kudos to director Guest for the sensation of oppressive heat he captured-- I actually began to feel uncomfortably warm as the film moved along. Bernard Goldberg would be proud of the journalists portrayed here, as we see plenty of off-the-record fear, worry and supposition but it's always put away when it's time to print the news, and isn't reflected in what they report. Always the consummate professionals, they print the facts and only the facts to the bitter end...or is it? The ending respects the convention that a story can be allowed to leave the reader, or in this case the viewer, to make up his own mind. Really more of a political potboiler than science fiction, it's more Testament than The Day After and I highly recommend it.

The Day the Earth Caught Fire: Grim Yet Hopeful
TDTECF is one of a handful of science-fiction movies from the twin decades of the 1950s and 1960s that reek with a powerful message that though humanity has its numerous flaws, some of which are potentially and collectively self-destructive, human beings yet retain the choice between a wise avoidance of mass suicide and a foolish falling into that suicide. Both critics and viewers have hailed it as a stern warning against the dangers of unrestricted nuclear testing.
The hero is a British journalist played by Edward Judd, who discovers quite by chance a reason for the strange weather that has been plaguing England for weeks. He meets a lovely female civil servant played sexily by Janet Munro, whom viewers may recall as the virginal heroine from DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE. She tells him that a pair of nuclear explosions, one by the United States and the other by Russia, have changed the orbit of the earth, careening it toward the sun. He brings it to the attention of his feisty editor, played by Leo McKern, who comes across as a surly yet wise Lou Grant. McKern's newspaper carries the headlines: Earth Rushing to Sun!, with predictable results. At first, the dramatic focus is on how the population carries on amidst the crisis. Typically, the British, at first, display a stiff upper lip. Soon enough, the strands of society break down with some remarkable special effects of a fog-shrouded London in the background. Judd and Munro fall believably in love, a love which is tested by the emergence of chaos in the form of gangs, taking advantage of the civil breakdown to engage in some serious wilding. Hope for man's survival emerges as both the United States and Russia plan to explode yet two more bombs to set the earth back on orbit. The finale of the movie is both understated and deliberately unresolved. As the countdown toward this latter set of bombs climbs down to zero, the countdown is given in various languages, underscoring the co-operation between the nuclear giants. As the countdown hits zero, the bombs go off, but the only visible effect on the screen is a slight sprinkling of dust. The movie ends with McKern printing alternate sets of headlines--one proclaiming EARTH SAVED; the other EARTH DOOMED.
TDTECF is a terrific film of understatement that combines sharp action, believable special effects, and solid scripting, all of which point out that this earth is the only planet we have, and if humanity does not take better care of it, then one of McKern's closing headlines just might be seen as the closing coda for a species that refused to heed warnings from movies like this.

serious and worthwhile
Unlike some of the 50s and early 60s scifi, don't expect this to be entertaining for youngsters. Janet Munro is enchanting again, but her role is quite a contrast to her Darby O'Gill and
Swiss Family Robinson roles. There are adult situations, but the "nudity" that might have been racey back then is pretty tame even by today's daytime soap opera standards. Some of the societal breakdown scenes are suggestive, but are also tame by today's standards. The violence is tame and not nightmare imagery.

This is serious adult drama, although plot would have to be different today to be credible. With today's internet communication and numerous amateur astronomers and climatologists, the "news" would have been figured out in days, not weeks, so, to some extent,this can be viewed as a period piece, an example of what press and government behavior was expected to be at that time.

Adults and even serious young teen scifi fans should have this in their collection, but for lighter fun the whole family can enjoy, check out World Without End.

"' Day the Earth Caught Fire'"
USA Today reviewed this (last year), and gave it an "excellent - or 'very good'" rating - well-deserved, and worth seeing many times.

A very good sci-fi movie from the British!
This movie is great. It is good in full screen, but when you see it in Widescreen, it is out of this world. I have seen two versions of this movie (both I have.) One is in full screen and not avaiable to own any more (that I know of.) Then there is the Widescreen version which is now out with a stunning tinted sequences, which makes it better. The only problem with it is, sometimes it is hard to hear what they are saying, and that is only a couple of times. The special effects, the direction by the director, will everything is just out of this world. I like this movie. You should see it. You will probably like it. Buy it today. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Bad SciFi at it's Best!
This is one of my favorite "B" movies. Cute story with an interesting cast. Don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. Can't wait till they put it on DVD! ... Read more

Reviews (101)

THRILLING! BREATHTAKING! HEART-WRENCHING!
This is the greatest SPACE movie of all time, without any reasonable doubt. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris, and Kathleen Quinlan ALL give superb performances. I really like the way they were able to make an old story exciting without taking much dramatic license. This movie actually makes you FEEL as if you're with Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert in their desperate battle to stay alive in their crippled space craft 200,000 miles from safety, or with Lovell's wife and family as they sit by and hope for the best, or with Gene Kranz and other mission control ground crew members struggle to bring them home. This is still Ron Howard's best film as a director. Anyone who wishes to see an historical adventure movie should look no further than APOLLO 13. It'll make you feel great, trust me! Grade: A+

Our Finest Hour!
Since the U.S. had landed on the moon in 1969, most of the world was not that excited about the Apollo 13 mission. But in 1970 when three astronauts going to the moon suddenly experience a malfunction in the equipment. They are in the race of there lives. The race is them against time. Tom Hanks (Lovell), Bill Paxton (Haise), and Kevin Bacon (Swiegert) use only what they have to survive. Hope, each other and there ability to work through a problem. Gary Sinese plays Ken Mattingly who was suppost to go but didn't because he was to get the measles. It is Ken who helps find the way to get the men home. Ed Harris is head of the groud crew. Who gives his best performance here. The supporting actors help round out this movie into a great story. A true one by that. One of the best films of 1995. Great acting, directing, editing, special-effects, script and a great score by James Horner. Oh by the way, Mattingly never got the measles. Grade:A

Correction to previous post. regarding cropping the DVD...
Hey Zahnduhl,

You're right to point out that we want to see movies in their true "theatrical aspect ratio" so I commend you for that. Film is an artform - would you crop a Picasso to fit your TV screen?

However, I felt it necessary to note that what you have noticed here in this case is most likely an instance of Universal Pictures releasing the un-masked (or Full-Ap) version of the movie as a 1.33:1 release instead of the typically butchered Pan&Scan version that we all so detest. I can't say for 100% sure on this DVD, but I will say that this was fairly common in the past to help the VHS sales. I commend them for at least doing this as opposed to cropping, but I can see how it could leave you (and others) thinking that your precious movie was cropped for the WS transfer.

Rest assured, however, that most likely you are just getting "more" in this VHS version than was ever released theatrically. This is possible when the studio decides to release original Full Aperture footage for the VHS release. Although, you will likely find that Visual Effects shots will still typically be cropped b/c most of the time VFX houses will only work in the final theatrical aspect ratio.

Anyway, I hope this clears up any confusion for you, now go buy the DVD. ;)

-anonymous

Murphy's Law in Outer Space
Talk about rolling snake eyes. To begin with, your mission is numbered "thirteen." Then the pilot you've trained with is grounded prior to lift-off because he's allegedly been exposed to the measles; he's replaced by a young buck still wet behind the ears. Once you're within spitting distance of the surface of the Moon an oxygen tank explodes. Obviously, it takes oxygen to breathe, so now what? Shut down everything in the command module, of course, shiver in the lunar module, and hope the gravitational tug from the Moon will slingshot you back home.

And I thought I had my bad days.

Yet the problems mentioned above merely scratch the surface of the true trials and tribulations of APOLLO 13. Director Ron Howard recreates this gripping, compelling story, right down to beehive hairdo's and computers the size of Mt. Rushmore. The drama, the sense of urgency--on the part of the astronauts, and the NASA staff in Houston frantically trying to save them--is so powerful and vivid I felt I was watching the actual event itself. To magically weave the viewer into the story is a crowning achievement for any filmmaker, and here, Howard succeeds like a wizard waving a wand.

Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris, Kevin Bacon, and Gary Sinise headline a stellar cast in a grim race-against-time that had the entire world transfixed in April of 1970. I remember being glued to the TV watching Walter Cronkite broadcast around the clock to give us the latest developments of the Apollo 13 story; I remember the relief and joy I felt when that banged-up capsule was retrieved from the ocean. To relive the triumph--and near-tragedy--of this event is an awesome experience, and APOLLO 13 is awesome, indeed.
--D. Mikels

One of My Absolute Favorites
Apollo 13, the story of NASA's near-loss of one of its manned spacecraft in 1970, is on my top-five list of all-time favorite movies. This, for me, is one of those movies that I've see a million times, know all the words to and get everyone whose watching it with me annoyed because I HAVE TO say the lines along with the actors. The acting in the movie is fantastic...everyone from Tom Hanks to Ed Harris on down the list superbly act this true event from our nation's history. Even the background music is great...seamlessly fitting into the mood of the movie. Annie Lennox does the vocalizations, and her voice is, as always, immensely powerful.

As someone who craves the day when this nation returns to the resolve it had in the 1960's and early 70's when we were shooting for the moon, the story of Apollo 13 should inspire those who yearn for humanity's renewed interest in exploring the immensity of what lays beyond our small planet, not just with robotic devices, but with people as well. Apollo 13's failure to land on the moon, and near-loss, should prove to humanity that from failure, we can still triumph. That is something that I think we have forgotten today...especially after the loss of the Shuttle Columbia, we have nearly forgotten the incredible risk of exploring space is more than worth the benefits we will reap with our explorations...even when some do not return home. ... Read more

Reviews (70)

The Hour After......
THE DAY AFTER was to be THE made-for-TV anti-BOMB fable. Released in 1983 as "secular" film of Revelation...BEYOND IMAGINING! hyped TV promos...it was greatly disappointing. This is partially because of asinine Talking Head discussions predicting national traumatism of youthful viewers. (Legions of counselors were dispatched like a priesthood...T-Group/Mass for the masses...to enable psychic healing.) The crassness of ratings-war ploy failed "to protect" a vunerable public from a movie that lacks wallop...nuclear or otherwise.

Director Meyer seems to be going through the motions. As do many fine actors (led by Jason Robard and John Lithgow)in the ensemble cast. Technically the film is adequate. The NUCLEAR STRIKE sequence effects are good. But the DAY AFTER War Day suffers from the same "listlessness" that characterizes the pre-Attack segment. Problem? The movie, in my estimate, lacks moral and "military" compass. The War Scenario positing Soviet invasion of Western Europe though the Fulda Gap...followed by text book NATO "tactical" nuclear response...is curiously unmoving. (The Escalation Narrative is ambiguously conveyed by cliched use of intermittent News announcements). This is the Time of Terror. Relegation of "reasons" for WW III to backgound noise neither sustains tension, nor provokes reflection this movie purportedly intends. The satirical characterization of THE PRESIDENT (probably intended as Reagan) is as transparent as it is indign for a film of such serious matter. (Recall: Peter Sellers' roles as President and RAF Wing Commander/SAC liaison in DR. Strangelove were played with deadly seriousness; without meretricious irony.)

Yes: Nuclear War is bad (wrong......INAPPROPRIATE!). But: THE DAY AFTER...unintentionally... conveys moral vacuity by lack of dramatic force or commitment (cf: THE MISSILES OF OCTOBER; or 13 DAYS). Though set in Kansas, this is a Hollywood "adventures of World War III" piece of slick, PC amorality that blames no one for anything, nor accounts for its own flacid nihilism. 20 years later this film is ...in my obviously critical assessment...a "Wonderland" curiosity. Technically and dramatically competent in execution THE DAY's impact is decisively low yield. Watch it and be "entertained". But it is not an illumating, frightening or stirring-to-rage STATEMENT. It's just a big TV movie whose "effect" will be forgotten...by most viewers...THE HOUR AFTER

The ultimate anti-war movie
Probably the most heartbreaking scene in "The Day After" is the one where four missiles bearing nuclear warheads zoom into a crystalline blue sky on a glorious spring morning from a hidden bunker in Kansas, while doctors and nurses at a nearby hospital watch in shock as the impact of what those missiles mean gradually hits them.

Watching this film, we pray that scene never comes true; if it does, we can kiss the world goodbye. "The Day After" is probably the most gut-wrenching anti-war film ever made. It's set sometime in the last quarter of the 20th century; the decades-long cold war has turned burning hot, and the news broadcasts are turning hourly worse. We are in Lawrence, Kansas, the center of the United States, following the routines of ordinary people as they try to go about their lives while the world around them is going to hell -- a doctor and his wife, a farmer and his family, including his young daughter two days away from her wedding, a graduate student, a cynical college professor, and a young soldier about to be separated from his wife and baby. The hostilities between Russia and the United States, meanwhile, have gone beyond the point of no return; and the decision is made: nuke 'em. We watch the missiles being launched; we feel all the horror of the impending counterstrike, and then three stark words from an officer at the missile base: "We have incoming." Incoming doesn't begin to describe it. Two nuclear warheads hit nearby Kansas City, and the world explodes. The resulting scenes of destruction are unbelievable; and yet, they are all too believable. If the wrong finger hits the nuclear button, this could someday happen.

The immediate scenes leading up to the nuclear strike are as compelling as the hit itself: shoppers at the supermarket grabbing up everything edible off the shelves; people bolting out of a college stadium in a panic dash for cover; a young bride-to-be coming downstairs to the family's fallout shelter carrying her wedding dress and her childhood teddy bear, the look of stark terror in her eyes competing with the realization that she will never wear that dress in any wedding; and her mother, grimly going about her business of making beds and tidying up the house, being carried kicking and screaming to shelter, refusing to accept the realization that her life as she knows it is finished. And after the devastation of the nuclear strike, as ashes continue to rain down from the sky for days, we realize that those who died in the attack may have been the fortunate ones; the survivors are left to face a horrible slow death by radiation sickness, starvation and anarchy.

Nicholas Meyer didn't direct this film for shock value, although the shocks keep coming and don't let up; in smaller but telling ways he makes us feel all the devastation of total war. At the film's end, one of the survivors asks, "Is anybody out there? Anyone at all?" His guess is as good as ours. There are no redeeming moments in this movie. From the minute the first button was pushed, everything is gone.

It's been said that "The Day After" is a dated film, but this is true only in the sense that the cold war, as we knew it from 1945 through the 1980s is over; as long as there are nuclear weapons around and anyone fanatic enough to even contemplate using them, it's a film with telling immediacy. When the film was first shown, some viewers asked, why didn't they say who started the war? Meyer shows us that the question is moot; no matter who started it, there will be precious few survivors left to point fingers. We emerge from watching "The Day After" emotionally devastated, drained, realizing that in a nuclear war, everyone, even the victors, will be the losers.

Still packs a multi-megaton emotional wallop
This made for television film first aired nearly 25 years ago while the Cold War was on - and it still packs the same sobering multi-megaton emotional wallop as it did back then. The story and scenes of human and animal tragedy and suffering will haunt for days afterwards. It's very good early 1980s period piece that fairly accurately depicts the rising Cold War tensions early in the Reagan administration.

In a reprise of the Soviet blockade of Berlin two decades earlier in 1961, the plot begins with a Soviet blockade of access points between East and West Germany, following by the massing of troops on the border between East and West. When the Soviet bloc troops move across the border, NATO responds by unleashing tactical nuclear weapons on the invading forces, destroying two German cities in the process. The Soviet responds by targeting a NATO regional headquarters in England. It rapidly escalates from there to a major exchange of MIRVed ICBMs, including electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons that detonate high in the atmosphere and knock out all electrical and electronic equipment.

All of the European developments are depicted via fast paced news reports and bulletins coming into a worried American heartland on what would have been an otherwise typical early September weekend as people went about and planned their lives. One of the more chilling scenes vividly depicts the contrast between normal life and unfolding nuclear exchange. Two children innocently watch television, unaware of the gravity of the situation, as their amorous parents slip upstairs for a quick interlude before breakfast. Suddenly a TV bulletin interrupts to report the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The scene then shifts to a nearby Strategic Air Command base as klaxons wail and B-52 crews scramble to get their planes into the air. The film is set in Kansas City and Lawrence, Kansas. Jason Robards puts in a fine performance as a doctor and the central character.

Ensemble cast shines.
The Day After (Nicholas Meyer, 1983)

Recently, motivated by a strong desire to see Threads again, I've been going through a kind of craving for nuclear-holocaust-flick nostalgia. Seeing The Day After again was my first foray back into the world of atom-bombs-blowing-stuff-up. I hadn't seen it since its original television broadcast more than twenty years previous, and was surprised at how well it holds up.

The excellent ensemble cast is headed by the late Jason Robards (Magnolia, Enemy of the State, etc.) and John Lithgow (Shrek, Third Rock from the Sun, etc.) as a doctor and scientist, respectively, at two college campuses in the midwest in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. (Said nuclear holocaust happens, as one might expect, early in the film, but not as early as you might figure; unlike modern-day films, stuff made a quarter of a century ago actually took time to build its characters before getting into the plot.) Also along for the ride are Robards' right-hand nurse, played by JoBeth Williams (Poltergeist); a family whose house was close to one of the bombed missile silos, the Dahlbergs; Lithgow's right-hand man Aldo (Stephen Furst of Animal House fame), oh, we'll just run down some names: John Cullum, Bibi Besch, Steve Guttenberg, Lori Lethin, Amy Madigan, Jeff East, Dennis Lipscomb, Arliss Howard... you get the idea. This may have been a made-for-TV movie, but didn't shirk on the starpower. Also, look for uncredited appearances by Wayne Knight (Seinfeld's Newman), David Kaufman (Presidio Med, Pearl Harbor), John Lafayette (various movies based on Tom Clancy novels), and the late director Herk Harvey (in his first screen role since Carnival of Souls twenty years before, and the last before his death in 1996). Meyer and co. didn't scrimp on the casting budget.

It shows. The whole thing is exceptionally well-acted, though sometimes it's a bit tough to believe these folks are really as devastated as one would think survivors of an all-out nuclear war should be (and that a house situated right next to a bombed missile silo would still be standing just because Steve Guttenberg happens to be hiding there provides a moment of unintentional humor). Robards is probably the best at communicating this, especially in the movie's final scene. The makeup job on Robards was also not scrimped on; by the end of the film, he could be something out of a Romero film. For that matter, the makeup crew did an all-around fantastic job; by the end of the flick, Steve Guttenberg was unrecognizable. (I have heard it opined-- well, okay, inside my own head-- that perhaps he should have kept the makeup on when doing Three Man and a Baby.)

The point was brought up in a recent discussion that perhaps those born after the early eighties will probably be too young to really grasp the terrors of the Cold War to those of us old enough to remember "Duck... and Cover!" So perhaps not the best flick to get your kids to thinking about how bad off you were in the old days (for that, use Threads), but it's definitely worthwhile on the nostalgia-trip angle, or if you just like watching Jason Robards act with an equally fantastic cast around him. ****

Life As We Know It Ends...THE DAY AFTER
The made-for-TV film THE DAY AFTER was enormously controversial when it was originally broadcast on ABC in November of 1983, primarily because it was promoted as being the first film to accurately and realistically depict a nuclear holocaust and its aftermath. Political right-wingers didn't like it because they believed such a film would deter support of a strong U.S. military and a large nuclear arsenal. Those on the left were concerned that it might promote the idea that a full-scale nuclear war could be survivable, thereby INCREASING support of the right-wing's push for a strong U.S. military and a large nuclear arsenal. And both sides were worried that the film would be too graphic for the prime-time position in which it was slotted to air. In fact, much of the controversy was vehement enough to worry the sponsors, so consequently not a single minute of commercial time was sold for the part of the film following the depiction of the nuclear war--the last half of the show was aired commercial free!

Socio-political controversy aside, THE DAY AFTER is a very powerful and compelling drama. In the tradition of great SF and horror films, it takes a real-life potentiality--in this case, nuclear holocaust--and portrays it as graphically and as realistically as possible, thereby allowing viewers to vicariously experience the nightmare. For this film, said nightmare takes place in the small towns surrounding Kansas City, one of the ground-zero targets for the enemy's hydrogen bombs. But the real horror of it all is not the bombing itself. The real horror is being a survivor and having to suffer through the aftermath with things like radioactive fallout, nuclear winter, contaminated food and water, political anarchy, and the like.

Portraying survivors from various walks of life, the highly talented cast--which includes big names like Jason Robards, JoBeth Williams, Steve Guttenberg, and John Lithgow, to name a few--does a fantastic job running the gamut of human emotion as their characters come to grips with the traumatic and devastating situation. The excellent script for THE DAY AFTER was written by Edward Hume, a respected TV writer best known for his work on series greats like THE FUGITIVE, CANNON (which he also developed), and THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. And the film was directed by the venerable Nicholas Meyer, who has directed other SF greats such as 1979's TIME AFTER TIME, 1982's STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN, and 1991's STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, and who has written the screenplays for other greats like 1976's THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION (having previously written the novel), 1986's STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME, and 1987's highly acclaimed FATAL ATTRACTION. With such great talent behind it, it's not hard to defend the claim that THE DAY AFTER is ONE of the best films, if not THE best film, made specifically for TV.

The DVD from MGM is a no-frills disc, meaning that it is without bonus material, but it does offer a nearly pristine digital transfer of THE DAY AFTER in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. And the asking price is very reasonable (especially with amazon.com's discount), so lovers of great films and good drama have no excuse for not having this gem in their collections. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

So horrible you spend the entire movie laughing
Any movie with mutant leaches in it is classic. Why does the gigalo bot need to breath? The girl seems to carry more than two knives, wouldn't that be uncomfortable? Curious, then buy this movie and have a good time laughing your but off! Come on, the villan is named plughead. Classic

Quirky and cool
Quirky, noteable little Sci-Fi fable about a post apocalyptic future (again), wherein robots and technology have become the new currency (a la William Gibson's Neuromancer via "Johnny Mnemonic") of the tattered remnants of civilization. "Circuitry" ups the ante by making the satisfying story focus on a "Romeo" model of android, that is programmed (i.e. tricked) into doing whatever it takes to find the great love of his life, who doesn't really exist. Smart, cool, and unique, especially on such a restrictive budget.

Fun, sexy, thoughtful post-apocalyptic adventure!
The story bears strong resemblence to CHERRY 2000 in which a man was in love with an android. In CIRCUITRY MAN, it's the android in love with a computer program. Both males hook up with a sexy female mercenary to find their loves, across a post-apocalyptic desert, confronting questions of what it means to be human.

CIRCUITRY MAN also features the beautiful Dana Wheeler-Nicholson, and a sexy actress in the delightful role of Yoyo, a bad-girl assassin.

This is a good adventure with a curious Cyberpunk feel.
To my recollection, this is one of the first films to play in the Cyberpunk genre. With shades of Neuromancer mixed with Road Warrior the film does what good films are meant to do, they entertain and open your eyes just a little wider. It's a road picture that takes place in the future after an ecological disaster. Humans live underground, but the underground thrives topside. Our hero, a female bodyguard, is assisted by a lovesick Bio-droid to sell off some electronic drugs in a last attempt to escape the hellish world she lives in. Unfortunatly, Plughead has other plans for the Drugs and he relentlessly chases the duo cross country. Some whacky characters help flesh out a very amusing story, including Leech, excellently played by Dennis Christopher (Breaking Away). The film is a good ride through an imaginative future. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Easiest of scenarios
I agree with everything that's been said, and I'd also look to mention the completely lack of conflict within the movie. It's amazing, there's almost nothing to work against, and very little tension. Maybe it's because we know now that space flight was possible, but it's still amazing to see a movie about the moon landing where the plotline is: We wanted to go the moon, we trained to go the moon, and then we landed on the moon. There's about five minutes there where it looks like James Caan isn't going to find the docking station on the moon and die from a lack of oxygen...but then he turns around, and oh yeah! There it is! Just behind me.

Totally different style, but the only other movie I can think of like this is "Payback," where Mel Gibson just kind of walks in and starts kicking .... He never gets capture, never gets put in trouble, just kinda shoots his way through to the final boss.

I wonder if the simplistic linearity of this film was created by the studio's re-edit of the film, or if that's largely true to Altman's idea? During the last five minutes of the film, as the character announces that he has five minutes of oxygen left and doesn't see the docking station, I thought it was going to be an Altmanesque last-minutes-to-live-final-soliloquy ending. But no. The space station was there all along. All you had to do with click your heels together, three times...

A Science Factual Film.
Intelligently written screenplay and good acting cast led by James Caan and Robert Duvall are the highlights of this 1968 film (made only about a year before the United States actually landed a man on the moon) of the first American NASA mission to the moon. Complete with the then up to date technology and training that astronauts needed to go through in getting ready for the mission. Good film for people interested in the early days of NASA and the early Eagle and Apollo missions. Directed by Robert Altman. Produced by William Conrad. Music by Leonard Rosenman.

Rated 5 for Fun!
Seeing this movie as we are, far from era it was made in, makes for quite hokey fun for a few reasons. It's a great encapsulation of that era illustrating the fashions, modern architecture, modes of thinking, scientific fervor, (great cocktail parties!), and the roles of men and women at that time. In other words, everyone was young, smart, modern, knew their place in the world, and we were going to the moon! The script is kind of hard to follow at times, and the rivalry between the two main charactors gets kind of goofy in places, but the overlapping dialog in many of the conflicts makes the script at least seem earnest. The special effects are OK, but they forgot to film one part on the moon in slow-mo to make the gravity seem accurate--looks dopey. All in all, for those who like movies that are fictional time capsules of the Space Age, I believe you'll find this movie fun to watch.

TERRIFIC SPECIAL EFFECTS
THIS FILM IS NOT WORTH WATCHING FOR ENTERTAINMENT,BUT WELL WORTH WATCHING FOR IT'S TERRIFIC SPECIAL EFFECTS.IT'S A FICTIONALIZED STORY ABOUT THE FIRST AMERICAN LANDING ON THE MOON.THIS IS ONE OF ROBERT ALTMAN'S EARLIEST FILMS. ... Read more

Reviews (151)

A great transition!
Star Trek Generations is simply a great transition movie, handing the torch from Captain Kirk and crew to Captain Picard and crew. While not living up completely to what we the fans wanted, that doesn't really matter. That is the case in most of the movies. Especially the odd numbered ones for some strange cosmic reason. We all knew the Galaxy Class Enterprise 1701-D had to go. It was simply not made for the silver screen. I was personally hoping that more of the original series crew could've made it for the opening sequence. The scenes between Kirk and Picard were very well done. If I remember correctly, this was also the first time that we'd heard Captain Sulu's first name. Patrick Stewart once again showed the depth of his acting abilities with the death of his character's brother and nephew. It's a little disturbing to see Captain Picard basically recieve a beating from Soren. After watching Kirk fight many a people and win over the years. Malcolm McDowell, Soren played a very good, tortured villain. And yes, Captain Kirk said in Star Trek V The Final Frontier that he always knew he'd die alone. And that was the case, he was alone in the sense the Spock and McCoy weren't there. The way Kirk died did seem a little melodramatic for the character. Overall though, a very good transition movie. I would suggest that if you'd like a few more of the details, I believe you can still get a copy of the book. It does bring to light some of the things that were glossed over on the screen.

More misses than hits, unfortunately....
When I was fifteen, I was so excited to see my favorite Star Trek crew get their own shot at the big screen. I was disappointed to hear that the baton was not completely passed, and that this film would feature the not-so-eternally-young William Shatner as Captain Kirk. I watched the movie anyway with much anticipation and excitement. Back then, I thought it was the best movie I had ever seen. Now that I'm 22 (more grown up) and I've had a chance to view a more superior film in "First Contact," I must retract my initial reaction and say that "Generations" is only okay.
I don't know if anyone else has pointed it out, but this movie has many depressing moments. The Enterprise B has its problems, Picard faces tragedy, Data gets choked up in his worry about Geordi, the Enterprise D crashes and eventually is blown to bits, and Captain Kirk (as much as I disliked his place in this movie) meets his fate. There seemed to be no bright side to this movie, no resolution of good truly conquering evil in the end. The crew of the Enterprise D were left with a mess of wreckage in the end. Where is the hope in that?
As far as humor goes, it was misplaced all the way through. Data's first turns with an emotion chip should have been eye-opening, but here they are ridiculous and obnoxious. Mr. Tricorder? Oh dear. Data's character has delivered better funny moments in the television series when his confusion got the better of him. I think the strongest laugh, and the most brilliant one, comes when Data says a dirty word to become the first TNG character to truly swear. Nice little touch for shock value anyway.
Patrick Stewart and friends always do well in the acting department and Malcolm McDowell as Soren is a welcome villainous addition to this story. So I think the trouble lies in the script and the continued push for old Trek cast members. It was time (pardon the cliche) for a new generation to take over, and it still wasn't fully their turn (not fair). Giving TNG their own movie would pay off next with "First Contact," an obviously superior journey.
As always, Trek delivers great special effects, but they cannot carry "Generations." It needed more emotional variety, a more clever story (time travel is tired), and an exclusive showcase of TNG characters.

Making Generations Better!!
If your a Star Trek Fan, you will enjoy this film. This flim is a blending of the old to the new generation. It seems that at first William Shatner has a Cameo in the film's first half, but becomes a full member of the cast in the last half.
If your a TRUE Star Trek Fan, and want to enjoy this film even more, you MUST get the three books written by William Shatner. The first book is "Ashes of Eden." It takes place just before "Generations" and has Jim Kirk battling between his long Star Fleet Career and the lack of action in any retirement. In it Capt. Kirk find that he is still called to save worlds, even in his retirement. It fills the gap leading up to the first part of the film. It is true Captian Kirk in action. This book could have been made into a Star Trek movie by itself and can stand alone.
The second book, "The Return", takes place right after the death of Jim Kirk with Spock at his best friend's grave. As from the title, we all want Jim Kirk to live and he does "Return."
You can stop after this book too, if you want to have Jim Kirk dead. (Yes, he dies at the end) But, hold the phone, he will live again in the next book, "Avenger" to save the universe again. This time he has new friends. It's Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the Enterprise TNG crew. Yes, Spock is logicly there to help Kirk(RET) save the universe again.
Read this and enjoy the movie even more.

Excellent Bridge Between The Old & The New...
STAR TREK GENERATIONS (1994) took on a monumentally difficult task---namely, the passing of the legendary STAR TREK torch from the original cast to the "Next Generation" cast---and does it almost seamlessly. Despite what many self-professed "Star Trek experts" may say, there was no perfect way to accomplish this. Having recently viewed this film for approximately the 10th time, I am as impressed as ever at the job that director David Carson and screenwriter Rick Berman (who took over as head of the STAR TREK franchise after creator Gene Roddenberry died in 1991) did. I can honestly say that I couldn't have done as good a job at bridging the two generations---and neither could have any of these "experts" who choose to pick apart at it.

If you're reading this review and others, you undoubtedly know what this film's about, so I'm not going into a rundown of plot here. I will, however, put in my two-cents worth of opinion about this film: it is a well-paced, fully realized cinematic vision, with great special effects, a compelling main plot, a humorous subplot and some excellent acting on the part of Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner and Malcolm McDowell. Even William Shatner is pretty good here---his acting *has* improved with age and experience! As Dr. Tolian Soren, Malcolm McDowell creates a villain for whom we can actually care; although we don't agree with what he does, we can certainly relate to the reasons why he does what he does. However, this does not make it any less compelling for Capts. Kirk and Picard to stop him from carrying out his destructive methods, leading to the extremely suspenseful---and, ultimately, sad---scene which is as inevitable as it is fateful.

I really love STAR TREK GENERATIONS. It has a winning combination of intelligent storyline mixed in with action, suspense and---surprisingly---humor, and plays fair with the rules of the game and the legacy of the series. I really can't imagine any true STAR TREK fan not loving it. It may require some patience on first viewing, perhaps, but the rewards are great for sticking with it. Plus, it only gets better on repeated viewings. I can vouch for that!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

GENERATIONS DISAPPOINTS
For years, Trekkies wanted to see Captains James Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard finally team up and unite the two major generations of the Starship Enterprise in what would, doubtless, be an adventure to remember. As is so often the case, the realization of that dream leaves a lot to be desired, and the final result is all too forgettable.

What went wrong? For one thing, Kirk's character is handled very poorly. The adventurous, 23rd-century Odysseus has devolved into a whipped milksop who wants to leave galaxy-saving to Picard so he can go back to fixing eggs. Moreover the film is choppy and slow. There's not much action, despite a brief confrontation between the Enterprise and some rogue Klingons. There's a lot of really silly "humor" courtesy of Data and some new emotions, which makes a mockery of the ordinarily poignant portrayal of the android's ongoing quest to become more human. And Soran, despite behing essayed by an excellent actor in Malcom McDowell, is a terribly weak antagonist who fails to bring any genuine menace to the lackluster plot. Worst of all, the infamous death scene (and if you've ever even heard of this movie before you know what I'm talking about) is a total embarrassment and a sorry way to send off one of the greatest sci-fi heroes in TV and cinema history.

I suppose there are a couple of plusses, though they are relatively weak ones. The early scenes with a few of the original Trek crew members are effective, and Captain Picard's familial subplot is genuinely touching. As one would expect of a big-budget Star Trek film, the production values are excellent all-around and everything looks terrific. But there should have been a lot more to brag about, and there's just not.

This could have easily been a milestone in the Star Trek canon. Instead, it's possibly the series' low point (though I admit it has some competition for that dubious honor from "The Final Frontier"). The story needed a stronger script, better characterization for Captain Kirk, a more powerful villain, and more action. This is one film that might have actually benefitted from being half an hour longer. Trekkie loyalists and completists may still enjoy it, but it's not a movie I can recommend to the general fan. Save your time and watch "First Contact" or "The Voyage Home" instead. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

THRILLING! BREATHTAKING! HEART-WRENCHING!
This is the greatest SPACE movie of all time, without any reasonable doubt. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Gary Sinise, Ed Harris, and Kathleen Quinlan ALL give superb performances. I really like the way they were able to make an old story exciting without taking much dramatic license. This movie actually makes you FEEL as if you're with Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert in their desperate battle to stay alive in their crippled space craft 200,000 miles from safety, or with Lovell's wife and family as they sit by and hope for the best, or with Gene Kranz and other mission control ground crew members struggle to bring them home. This is still Ron Howard's best film as a director. Anyone who wishes to see an historical adventure movie should look no further than APOLLO 13. It'll make you feel great, trust me! Grade: A+

Our Finest Hour!
Since the U.S. had landed on the moon in 1969, most of the world was not that excited about the Apollo 13 mission. But in 1970 when three astronauts going to the moon suddenly experience a malfunction in the equipment. They are in the race of there lives. The race is them against time. Tom Hanks (Lovell), Bill Paxton (Haise), and Kevin Bacon (Swiegert) use only what they have to survive. Hope, each other and there ability to work through a problem. Gary Sinese plays Ken Mattingly who was suppost to go but didn't because he was to get the measles. It is Ken who helps find the way to get the men home. Ed Harris is head of the groud crew. Who gives his best performance here. The supporting actors help round out this movie into a great story. A true one by that. One of the best films of 1995. Great acting, directing, editing, special-effects, script and a great score by James Horner. Oh by the way, Mattingly never got the measles. Grade:A

Correction to previous post. regarding cropping the DVD...
Hey Zahnduhl,

You're right to point out that we want to see movies in their true "theatrical aspect ratio" so I commend you for that. Film is an artform - would you crop a Picasso to fit your TV screen?

However, I felt it necessary to note that what you have noticed here in this case is most likely an instance of Universal Pictures releasing the un-masked (or Full-Ap) version of the movie as a 1.33:1 release instead of the typically butchered Pan&Scan version that we all so detest. I can't say for 100% sure on this DVD, but I will say that this was fairly common in the past to help the VHS sales. I commend them for at least doing this as opposed to cropping, but I can see how it could leave you (and others) thinking that your precious movie was cropped for the WS transfer.

Rest assured, however, that most likely you are just getting "more" in this VHS version than was ever released theatrically. This is possible when the studio decides to release original Full Aperture footage for the VHS release. Although, you will likely find that Visual Effects shots will still typically be cropped b/c most of the time VFX houses will only work in the final theatrical aspect ratio.

Anyway, I hope this clears up any confusion for you, now go buy the DVD. ;)

-anonymous

Murphy's Law in Outer Space
Talk about rolling snake eyes. To begin with, your mission is numbered "thirteen." Then the pilot you've trained with is grounded prior to lift-off because he's allegedly been exposed to the measles; he's replaced by a young buck still wet behind the ears. Once you're within spitting distance of the surface of the Moon an oxygen tank explodes. Obviously, it takes oxygen to breathe, so now what? Shut down everything in the command module, of course, shiver in the lunar module, and hope the gravitational tug from the Moon will slingshot you back home.

And I thought I had my bad days.

Yet the problems mentioned above merely scratch the surface of the true trials and tribulations of APOLLO 13. Director Ron Howard recreates this gripping, compelling story, right down to beehive hairdo's and computers the size of Mt. Rushmore. The drama, the sense of urgency--on the part of the astronauts, and the NASA staff in Houston frantically trying to save them--is so powerful and vivid I felt I was watching the actual event itself. To magically weave the viewer into the story is a crowning achievement for any filmmaker, and here, Howard succeeds like a wizard waving a wand.

Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris, Kevin Bacon, and Gary Sinise headline a stellar cast in a grim race-against-time that had the entire world transfixed in April of 1970. I remember being glued to the TV watching Walter Cronkite broadcast around the clock to give us the latest developments of the Apollo 13 story; I remember the relief and joy I felt when that banged-up capsule was retrieved from the ocean. To relive the triumph--and near-tragedy--of this event is an awesome experience, and APOLLO 13 is awesome, indeed.
--D. Mikels

One of My Absolute Favorites
Apollo 13, the story of NASA's near-loss of one of its manned spacecraft in 1970, is on my top-five list of all-time favorite movies. This, for me, is one of those movies that I've see a million times, know all the words to and get everyone whose watching it with me annoyed because I HAVE TO say the lines along with the actors. The acting in the movie is fantastic...everyone from Tom Hanks to Ed Harris on down the list superbly act this true event from our nation's history. Even the background music is great...seamlessly fitting into the mood of the movie. Annie Lennox does the vocalizations, and her voice is, as always, immensely powerful.

As someone who craves the day when this nation returns to the resolve it had in the 1960's and early 70's when we were shooting for the moon, the story of Apollo 13 should inspire those who yearn for humanity's renewed interest in exploring the immensity of what lays beyond our small planet, not just with robotic devices, but with people as well. Apollo 13's failure to land on the moon, and near-loss, should prove to humanity that from failure, we can still triumph. That is something that I think we have forgotten today...especially after the loss of the Shuttle Columbia, we have nearly forgotten the incredible risk of exploring space is more than worth the benefits we will reap with our explorations...even when some do not return home. ... Read more