Balthazar-Getty Movie Reviews

I knew going into this movie that Tim Curry dies (poor guy, he always dies), but this was a very gruesome death. Too bad becasue Felix was a cutie! The rest of the movie, in my opinion, is pretty cool. Yes, it's confusing @ first, but a second watch clears a lot up. Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinions. :-)

Great movie...in my personal opinion it was completely under-rated. I hadn't even heard of it until a couple of months ago.
Tim steals the show...despite the fact that he dies considerably early. Why is it that he dies in every damn movie? There's something about his English accent that exudes sensuality, and for an older man he is extremely attractive...but to each his own, I'm sure there are those that would disagree with me. Go rent or buy this movie today...you won't regret it.

Four Dogs Playing Poker was a very suspenseful film. Casting as very terrific and it was wonderful that every single one of them can act! Although I am a huge John Taylor fan and was quite disappointed that he didn't get more lines in the film.

Take note, I really give this movie ***1/2 out of *****. "Shadow Hours" is certainly one of the more notable films to come out of the vaults at City Heat Productions, the best DTV company in my opinion. It is about a young gas station clerk Michael (Balthazar Getty) who meets Stuart Chappell (Peter Weller) one dreary night in LA. Chappell is a writer, and takes to Michael because he reminds Chappell of his younger brother who supposedly died in a plane crash. He exposes Michael to an underworld with sights that stick in the mind for a while. The script is very engaging and moves quick, for the most part. The acting is mediocre except Peter Weller, who's fantastic as the scheming Chappell. It's interesting to me that the man is stuck making these DTVs when it's obvious he has Oscar-worthy talent. Maybe he'll get another big break. "Shadow Hours" is definitely good, if not painfully predictable. Director Isaac H. Eaton does a very commendable job weaving the story together with frightful images of night-life underground in LA. The Los Angeles of this movie is a far cry from the Hollywood glamour seen in movies like "L.A. Confidential" and "Get Shorty." This is a dark, bleak California. If you're looking for a great performance from Weller and a neat artistic feel, then I suppose this movie's not a bad decision. It's quickly becoming a cult hit.

This film was entered into Sundance I believe and from there it went to the shelves of Blockbuster Video. Literally, that was the only place you could find it for nearly a year. It seems they declared it an exclusive rental or something. I was lucky enough to find a ten dollar copy in their previosly viewed section and immediately bought it. Amazon now seems to have it and I suggest if you have any interest in the film to buy it here and now because this movie has a weird tendency to be hard to find. The film itself was panned by critics but so were several of the great cult classics and I would love to see Shadow Hours become one. Despite the obvious low budget, the film has an excellent cast. Balthazar Getty, who plays the lead, was in David Lynch's film Lost Highway. People continually call him the poor man's Charlie Sheen but he really does have talent. And yes, Peter Weller was the guy who played Robocop. But forget that. In Shadow Hours, he is suave and convincing as the mysterious writer who is a bit more underground than, say, Bukowski. Rebecca Gayheart is here, too, in what might be the best performance in the film and she plays a woman in this movie, not some whiny high school ditz like in Jawbreaker. And Brad Douriff is, well, Brad Douriff. Peter Greene plays a police detective and is probably the best "tough guy" actor since James Caan or James Cagney. He played Ben Stiller's drug buddy in Permanent Midnight. As far as plot is concerned: Michael (Getty) meets Stuart Chapelle (Weller) while on the night shift at a 24 hour Los Angeles filling station. Stuart befriends Michael and, with Stuart as his guide, Michael is led straight into a private apocalypse with the strange LA underground as a backdrop. Gayheart is Michael's pregnant wife who is understandably concerned. But she never comes off as whiny like all other movie wives. And Greene gets involved because Chapelle may or may not be a murderer.
In all, Shadow Hours is close to the vein of David Lynch but without the intricate plot and excessive symbolism. And you have to love how the film uses the classic idea of the Devil as a debonaire.

Great new take on the Faust legend. While Getty doesn't literally sell his soul, there's no doubt that Weller is playing a mephistopholian character. Many people don't even remember Weller from Robocop and the great work he has done since, but
he has matured into one heck of an actor, displaying poise and confidence that the role calls for. If the underbelly of L.A.
is not too harsh or weird or sick for you, do check out this film.

but partially filmed at my alma mater, Wells College, so a must for my video collection. The acting in this movie is forced, the storyline fairly stupid. What could be a great movie about boys at the dawn of WWII is mediocre and overly dramatic.

I first saw this movie ten years ago when I was fourteen. At the time I was going through a hugely sentimental phase, and I was soaking up knowlege and ideas like a spongue. During this time I struggled a lot with trying to work out where I fit into the political scheme of things (I was an advanced child!) and this movie really gave me a leg up towards thinking about what war and it's implications meant to me as an individual. It shaped a lot of my ideas and it helped me to grow. I only managed to see it twice while it was on television, because it appears that it was never available in the rental shops near me, and by the time I started seriously searching for a copy to buy and own, it was out of production.

If you have not seen this movie, it is worth the purchase. The acting is superb and I have to say, truly unbelievable. Wil Weaton is a great actor, but I never saw him as truly brilliant until I had watched "December." Stand by Me is a great movie, Toy Soldiers was a great performance for him, but "December" truly takes the cake.

While I will confess (as I read other reviews when submitting my own!) that the storyline leaves something to be desired, I don't think that this movie is about *story*. It is about *feeling* and *ideas*. Not everybody is going to appreciate that or like that, but those of you who are interested in ideas and personal growth through the explorations thereof, then this movie is a must see.

To most of the public eye this movie could be seen as boring and wasteful, but if you take a closer look this picture it is truthful & emotional. The thing I liked most about it was its over acceptional cast. Wil Wheaton, the star from Stand By Me, was exravogent. Chris Young, also seen in Great Outdoors, gets my vote. Balthazar Getty, from White Squall, put on a wonderful performance. If I were Siskel and Ebert I would most definately not only give the movie two very enthusiastic thumbs up but also the cast.

I was looking forward to seeing this movie because of its all-star cast, but I was disappointed by the film's poor writing. The storyline was extremely cliched and predictable, as was the dialogue. It seems like the writer of Deuces Wild took every greaser movie cliche you've ever seen and rolled it into one script.

On top of that, the attempts at New York accents were not very accurate.

Renfro and Balk are the film's one bright spot, their characters seem to have a little more depth than the others, and they have good on-screen chemistry. Renfro is believable and sweet as a well-meaning guy who is torn between loyalty to his brother (who is leader of the neighborhood gang) and asserting his independence by courting the girl he loves (who just so happens to be the sister of the gang's rival)

Balk is charming as a sensitive girl pretending to be a "tough city chick" meanwhile she is watching city life destroy her family and all she wants to do is escape.

It is a shame that this big name cast didn't get a better script and a more original storyline to work with.

This movie has many, many flaws. Fairuza Balk is way too old to be playing a teenager dating (portly) Brad Renfro; the dialogue is totally corny; and the camera work is awful. Other than that, it's not a bad movie. The story is very, very much like many movies you've already seen that were better: The Outsiders, West Side Story, A Bronx Tale, etc., etc. The soundtrack is excellent; the scene with Fairuza and Brad in a steamy pool is hot. Definitely worth watching for any one who likes movies about the 1950s/Italians/gangs/teenagers. My favorite BAD line is when Brad Renfro says it's 115 degrees outside, even though HE is the one wearing a leather jacket!

Since I'm an avid fan of [Italian] movies, this was a HIT! This movie was a combo of "Outsiders" w/a little bit of "West Side Story" and those are MY kinda movies! From the opening scene with music from Dion, to the sweet attempts made to impress a girl, to the action-packed, jaw-dropping realistic fights, I rate this movie with five stars. The cast did an excellent job realistically depicting the tough gang life of a kid in the late fifties in NYC. And casting "Big Pussy" as a priest, well that ALONE was enough to entice me! If you like a fifties setting, w/Italians from the tough streets of Brooklyn, mixed with a lot of rumbles and some romance, you're gonna love it!

I have always known that Slyvester Stallone had limitations as an actor, but I have to admit I was rather surprised that he could not play Arnold Schwarzenegger. Listen to the dialogue when the title character in "Judge Dredd" shows up on the scene and I think it is pretty clear that lines like "I am the law" were written for Ah-nold to growl rather than Sly. I have no evidence to support such a conclusion, like we do for the part of the Wizard in 'The Wizard of Oz' being written for W.C. Fields, but I remain convinced that Schwarzenegger would have been better suited to carrying off the opening scene.

'Judge Dredd' is based on a British comic book of a dystopian future where police officers have become 'judges' who are judge, jury and executioner rolled into one. As such it was part of the British disposition towards predicting a fascist future found in works from George Orwell's classic novel '1984' to Alan Moore and David Lloyd comic book mini-series 'V for Vendetta.' For the most part the 'Judge Dredd' comics were highlighted by the distinctive artwork of Brian Bolland more than anything else.

The film presents a future that is so violent, with Megacities engaged in constant battles called Block Wars, that even the Judges, with their authority and power to summarily execute criminals, are considered to be unable to handling the problem. Judge Griffin (Jürgen Prochnow) wants to expand the authority of the Judges so that they can execute more criminals for lesser crimes and in a film like this you know such goals are not idle ideological discourse. There is a conspiracy at work and suddenly Dredd (Stalone) is arrested and convicted for a crime that he did not commit. The deed was perpetrated by Rico (Armand Assante), a former Judge who was sent to prison by Dredd. But, as with all such movie conspiracies, there is much more to the plot than Dredd knows, involving even his father figure, Chief Justice Fargo (Max won Sydow).

Judge Dredd has two decidedly different sidekicks in this film, Judge Hershey (Diane Lane), who tries to defend him in court, and career petty criminal Herman Ferguson (Rob Schneider), who ends up with him on the street trying to stay alive and figure out the conspiracy. They have relatively little to do in the film besides spout dialogue intended to provide exposition, comic relief, and chip away at Dredd's gruff exterior to eventually find a spark of humanity. It is a sad film that wastes the talents of both Diane Lane and Rob Schneider. 'Judge Dredd' works best during its action sequences, when the title character is too busy to speak, because sooner or later he utters the film's wretched punch line, 'I knew you'd say that,' and you have to roll your eyes and wait for the next action sequence to distract you.

In its defense, it should be pointed out that there is a lot of action in the film, which never lets up long enough for you to make the conscious effort to stop watching. The conspiracy is predictable enough that when characters sketch out the details in-between Dredd's rampages it is enough to connect the dots. Just do not try and figure out the film's ideological position on law and order issues in the real world.

Forget what people have said about this film!It isn't a Star wars/Bladerunner clone (no pun intended).This is a good movie in it's own right!True,it isn't 100% faithful to the comic,but how many comics do you know that can be translated unto screen with no changes?If you want proof of this watch the shadow,or even the dire tank girl!The plot could have been better,i would have liked to have seen Judge Death or more of the angel family!Thankfully the storyline is saved by excellent action sequences,the lawmaster chase is a must see!
Stallone shines as Dredd,even though hard core dredd fans hate him for taking off his helmet!Come on,did you expect Stallone to go through an entire film with his helmet on?Seriously?
The score by Alan Silvestri is simply excellent!A must hear!
If you're a hard core dredd fan,don't watch this!If you're a dredd fan,or simply someone wanting to watch a good action movie with loads of explosions and judging,this is the one for you!My only complaint about this film is that it is too short!90 minutes for a dredd film?give me a break!But then,they are 90 action packed minutes!

Who couldn't like this slick, sleek, happily depraved and utterly self-contented violent romp in the near future? It's got Sly Stallone in a fine, full-bodied role as the fascistic Judge Dredd---and hey, He's the Law! You got a problem with that? You got objections, Perp? He KNEW you'd say that! (sound of Perp being knocked unceremoniously in the head by Judge Dredd's side-arm).

Let me count the ways I love Judge Dredd:

1)It's all Action, all the time---and it Looks so Good! And best of all, it's action done by a competent, experienced crew: Adrian Biddle ("Aliens", "1492", "Thelma & Louise") for cinematography, and set design by Peter Young, who did the look for "Batman" and "Sleepy Hollow".

2)It's got Armand Assante and Jurgen Prochnow as crazed, Machiavellian evil villains (Assante crazed, Prochnow Machiavellian)!

3) It's got veteran uber-actor Max von Sydow as Chief Justice Fargo, and boy the guy looks hip and happening in a trenchcoat with a big super-duper hand cannon!

4) It's got a violent Mega-City where the angry inhabitants don't have backyard barbecues, they have block wars!

5) It's got an angry War Robot designed to control crowds---with extreme prejudice! Oh, it likes to pull peoples' heads off, too.

6) It's got angry unfinished Clones, all of whom are imperfect copies of Assante!

7) Aspen, Colorado is a penal colony! What a great world!

8) It's got starlet action! A villainous Joan Chen in tight leather hotpants! It's got the genetically perfect Diane Lane as the unfortunately named Judge Hershey (I don't know. Don't ask.)!

9) It's got a periodically amusing Rob Schneider and gratuitous Balthazar Getty! It's got a family of inbred religious cannibals who make the family in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" look like pikers---and the razor-toothed Number 1 Son has what appears to be a minute-timer embedded in his skull!

10) Finally, it's just all around fun: the chase on Lawmasters through the neon heights and aeries of Mega City One has to be seen to be believed, and it is far more enjoyable than anything in the Star Wars prequels. And in addition, it's a pretty fine adaptation of the Judge Dredd graphic novel series.

So get past your need to see 'serious' cinema, sit back, and pop "Judge Dredd" on the hopper. Besides, He's the Law----and failure to appreciate the subtle glories of this film is a Violation, Citizen---Punishment? You don't want to know.

This is a really awful movie. The characters are one-dimensional so it's hard to care about this bunch of loosers. There is no significant plot development (when a third character appears there's a brief hope that there might be something of interest, but she soon leaves the script) so it's hard to sustain attention. The production values would earn a "C" in film school--instead of a "gritty, reality" feel, you end up saying: "I could have made a better movie myself." Avoid it.

Borrowing a part of it's plot from 'Indecent Proposal', 'The Center Of The World' manages to be a sexually charged, and erotic film, one that may surprise some viewers because it was an American made movie.

The deal is simple...Richard, a computer genius (Peter Sarsgaard) offers Florence, a struggling musician/stripper (Molly Parker) $10,000 to spend the weekend with him in Vegas, but before she says yes he must agree to her terms...no kissing, only meeting between the hours of 10pm and 2am, not getting personal and absolutely no falling in love.

With these rules laid out in front of him Richard agrees even though he plans on making her love him.

The story of Richard and Flo unfolds slowly, but as the characters are developed the viewer realizes the pair are searching for the same thing...love.

Molly Parker gives an intimate performances of a woman looking to find herself, and get past her fear of intimacy, and Peter Sarsgaard does a great job as Richard, an empty young man looking to make his life complete.

Although sexually explicit in spots (the lollipop scene must be seen to be believed) 'The Center Of The World' never becomes cheap or porno-ish. And bravo to Ms. Parker and Mr. Sarsgaard for being brave enough to take on roles that required them to be fully nude in several scenes.

Anyone looking for a sex movie should look elsewhere, for the power of this film lies in it's two main characters. Those looking an artsy/erotic movie will enjoy this.

Nick Gonnella

Richard, a computer genius (Peter Sarsgaard) offers Florence, a struggling musician/stripper (Molly Parker) $10,000 to spend the weekend with him in Vegas, but before she says yes he must agree to her terms...no kissing, only meeting between the hours of 10pm and 2am, not getting personal and absolutely no penetration or sex.
With these rules laid out in front of him Richard agrees even though he plans on making her love him. Richard, actually love this stripper(Florence) and what make piss off and 'force' sex with her is that Florence told him that she was only paid to make her enjoy him(can't really remember that much).

This is a really awful movie. The characters are one-dimensional so it's hard to care about this bunch of loosers. There is no significant plot development (when a third character appears there's a brief hope that there might be something of interest, but she soon leaves the script) so it's hard to sustain attention. The production values would earn a "C" in film school--instead of a "gritty, reality" feel, you end up saying: "I could have made a better movie myself." Avoid it.

Richard, a computer genius (Peter Sarsgaard) offers Florence, a struggling musician/stripper (Molly Parker) $10,000 to spend the weekend with him in Vegas, but before she says yes he must agree to her terms...no kissing, only meeting between the hours of 10pm and 2am, not getting personal and absolutely no penetration or sex.
With these rules laid out in front of him Richard agrees even though he plans on making her love him. Richard, actually love this stripper(Florence) and what make piss off and 'force' sex with her is that Florence told him that she was only paid to make her enjoy him(can't really remember that much).

A terrific love story--damaged to some extent by the disinclination to explore the more optimistic possibilities of the realationship. An experience that torrid cannot be punctual--though the chosen ending suggests (pace the directors comments) some hope. (see alternative endings in DVD version)

I hesitate to say this in view of the explicit nature of the film, but I contend that it could have pushed the line further. Molly Parker takes real risks in this film but I think she should have pushed harder. I believe that well crafted direction of a great deal of frank sexuality and powerful unsimulated "pornographic" forms of sexual intercourse would not have degraded this movie but illuminated it. Here real sex is would be an appropriate trope for the intensity of the characters transaction.
I also feel the film could have been longer and more fleshed out. There are certain nuances and plot explorations that need work.
Finally oddly enough I think this film should have a happy ending. One cannot walk away from such a transforming encounter and go on as before. The characters have a future ahead of them.

This is a really awful movie. The characters are one-dimensional so it's hard to care about this bunch of loosers. There is no significant plot development (when a third character appears there's a brief hope that there might be something of interest, but she soon leaves the script) so it's hard to sustain attention. The production values would earn a "C" in film school--instead of a "gritty, reality" feel, you end up saying: "I could have made a better movie myself." Avoid it.

Borrowing a part of it's plot from 'Indecent Proposal', 'The Center Of The World' manages to be a sexually charged, and erotic film, one that may surprise some viewers because it was an American made movie.

The deal is simple...Richard, a computer genius (Peter Sarsgaard) offers Florence, a struggling musician/stripper (Molly Parker) $10,000 to spend the weekend with him in Vegas, but before she says yes he must agree to her terms...no kissing, only meeting between the hours of 10pm and 2am, not getting personal and absolutely no falling in love.

With these rules laid out in front of him Richard agrees even though he plans on making her love him.

The story of Richard and Flo unfolds slowly, but as the characters are developed the viewer realizes the pair are searching for the same thing...love.

Molly Parker gives an intimate performances of a woman looking to find herself, and get past her fear of intimacy, and Peter Sarsgaard does a great job as Richard, an empty young man looking to make his life complete.

Although sexually explicit in spots (the lollipop scene must be seen to be believed) 'The Center Of The World' never becomes cheap or porno-ish. And bravo to Ms. Parker and Mr. Sarsgaard for being brave enough to take on roles that required them to be fully nude in several scenes.

Anyone looking for a sex movie should look elsewhere, for the power of this film lies in it's two main characters. Those looking an artsy/erotic movie will enjoy this.

Nick Gonnella

Richard, a computer genius (Peter Sarsgaard) offers Florence, a struggling musician/stripper (Molly Parker) $10,000 to spend the weekend with him in Vegas, but before she says yes he must agree to her terms...no kissing, only meeting between the hours of 10pm and 2am, not getting personal and absolutely no penetration or sex.
With these rules laid out in front of him Richard agrees even though he plans on making her love him. Richard, actually love this stripper(Florence) and what make piss off and 'force' sex with her is that Florence told him that she was only paid to make her enjoy him(can't really remember that much).

I read the novel three times in my life. Once when I was about ten, then in high school, then again as an adult. When I was ten I saw it as more an adventure story. When in high school, it was more the battle over good and evil. As an adult I read it and saw it as how man(not boys) are truly towards eachother.

Then I saw the movies(both) Even though the first movie had its flaws(Simon seeing the pig head as the lord of the flies, but in the movie the skull never seems to speek to him as it does in the book) it was a better representation of the novel.

In the American version when the boys are dancing around the fire as little savages the main detractor is what they are wearing...Boys underwear with cartoons and pictures. It made it more humorous than shocking. (humorous because many parents let thier young sons at this age walk around home in this 'form' of dress) It would have been better if they just had their wornout and ripped pants. This would have shown thier fall into savagary better, like the first movie did. The main reason is it shows they are growing out of what they had known and it is wearing and tearing away.

The Rivalry between Ralph and Jack is very different, they seem to agree too much then split apart too quickly.....no build up to the separation of the boys

The character of Simon in this version was only a very minor part. Even though the book has him learning who the real 'Beast' is.......them.

As is usual for a novel turned Movie.....READ THE BOOK

To reply to another user that asked if it was suitable for a 10 year old kid, I would have to say no. Although the characters used in the movie are around that age, the lanuage used will offend you children, aswell as adults. It does not add to the story, and the language is used often.

The book on the other hand is very clean, and has no bad words. I would recommend reading your son the book. Not only does it not have bad language, it also covers more information, and has more symbols. The pig's head talking is a major point in the book, and is completely removed from the movie...

Hollywood has taken a book written by a Nobel Prize winning author (Sir William Golding), and has beaten it until it was dead. I would recommend you read the book before watching the movie, so that you know what it should really be like.

I have loved this film for years, the book as well was a fantastic read the story all around is great. The first film of this story lacked obviously in quality nad in acting but the second was done with much better acting and played very nice. Tons of boys stranded on a island unfortunatly breeding into chaos. Would recommend this film for anyone.

I read the novel three times in my life. Once when I was about ten, then in high school, then again as an adult. When I was ten I saw it as more an adventure story. When in high school, it was more the battle over good and evil. As an adult I read it and saw it as how man(not boys) are truly towards eachother.

Then I saw the movies(both) Even though the first movie had its flaws(Simon seeing the pig head as the lord of the flies, but in the movie the skull never seems to speek to him as it does in the book) it was a better representation of the novel.

In the American version when the boys are dancing around the fire as little savages the main detractor is what they are wearing...Boys underwear with cartoons and pictures. It made it more humorous than shocking. (humorous because many parents let thier young sons at this age walk around home in this 'form' of dress) It would have been better if they just had their wornout and ripped pants. This would have shown thier fall into savagary better, like the first movie did. The main reason is it shows they are growing out of what they had known and it is wearing and tearing away.

The Rivalry between Ralph and Jack is very different, they seem to agree too much then split apart too quickly.....no build up to the separation of the boys

The character of Simon in this version was only a very minor part. Even though the book has him learning who the real 'Beast' is.......them.

As is usual for a novel turned Movie.....READ THE BOOK

To reply to another user that asked if it was suitable for a 10 year old kid, I would have to say no. Although the characters used in the movie are around that age, the lanuage used will offend you children, aswell as adults. It does not add to the story, and the language is used often.

The book on the other hand is very clean, and has no bad words. I would recommend reading your son the book. Not only does it not have bad language, it also covers more information, and has more symbols. The pig's head talking is a major point in the book, and is completely removed from the movie...

Hollywood has taken a book written by a Nobel Prize winning author (Sir William Golding), and has beaten it until it was dead. I would recommend you read the book before watching the movie, so that you know what it should really be like.

I have loved this film for years, the book as well was a fantastic read the story all around is great. The first film of this story lacked obviously in quality nad in acting but the second was done with much better acting and played very nice. Tons of boys stranded on a island unfortunatly breeding into chaos. Would recommend this film for anyone.