Bonnie-Bedelia Movie Reviews

One of the most common motifs of the Middle Ages was that of the wheel of fortune. The apex being the best of luck, good fortune and plenty. The low point being misery or that of the dispossessed. The idea that one could at one time or another end up anywhere on the wheel must have been great solace to those who felt they were at the bottom.

In Sydney Pollack's 1969 film, `They Shoot Horses, Don't They?' we are given this idea of life in a microcosm. The film, set during the Great Depression is a perfect representation of the same kind of desperation felt during the Middle Ages (or any age, for that matter). This film looks at the Great Depression, and the gimick of a Dance Marathon as a depiction of times in history when the fear of utter loss is very acute. The people facing this challenge are represented in the film by the marathon dancers. The dancers are an ensemble cast including: Jane Fonda as Gloria Beatty, Michael Sarrazin as Robert Syverton, Susannah York as Alice LeBlanc, Red Buttons as `Sailor,' Bonnie Bedelia as Ruby, Bruce Dern as James, and other minor characters.

Of course, certain people have always seemed to be outside of the desperation of life. There are peoples whose fortunes seem set, and sometimes may even seem to be puppet-masters pulling the strings. This was represented in the film by the characters such as Gig Young as `Rocky,' and his partner Al Lewis (III) as `Turkey.' Even an audience members seemed to be one of the quasi-puppet-masters (the audience were people who paid to come see these grueling marathons as entertainment) most notably represented by Madge Kennedy as Mrs. Laydon. In this respect it reminded me of Greek Tragedy (mainly the Ilyad,) with the non-dancing cast as part of the pantheon of gods. Sometimes they are empathetic to the mortals (the cast on the dance floor). Just as in the Greek stories, the gods are pulling for their own personal favorite.

This film is an example of good acting. The acting is so critical to the enjoyment of an otherwise very depressing story. Each of the actors was completely believable in the part the played. No one's acting was `over the top.' I would note however, that Jane Fonda's character, Gloria, was a bit too void of emotion, other than bitterness, until the very end. Her story-telling scene with her second partner was delivered a little too flatly. On the positive side, it she is also in one of the best scenes in the film, which I will address in a minute.

It was the lesser characters that really brought the most credibility to the story and the film. Each of the folks were merely background and then, we are sucked into the film, just as though we were in the audience of the dance hall, they'd pass near... where we could almost hear their individual stories... just for a moment, and then they'd swirl, sway or stagger away... back into oblivion.

As we watched the film we can feel their desperation. In the scenes of the track, One might get the sense, `that's what I am doing. I am one of them... a hamster on the treadmill, all for the next silver dollar. For someone else's entertainment...'

The female character I liked the most was a difficult decision. The Mrs. Laydon character (fits the Greek Goddess Hera role, to continue my earlier analogy...) sat with her kerchief waving, her eyes full of compassion. Alice LeBlanc, the platinum coifed, her eyes hollow as she finally lost touch with the only thing she had to cling to... her hope for stardom extinguished in the shower, just before she is escorted out, `exit, stage right...' As touching and real as these two women played their parts, I felt that Rocky had it right when he told Gloria, `I may not know a winner when I see one, but I sure know a loser...' and Ruby was certainly not. Ruby was determined to give the baby she was carrying a fighting chance in life... even off screen, you could sense her determination. So, Ruby gets my vote for most convincing female role.

The male character that provided the best acting was tough, but the competition was not as stiff as competition between the women. Rocky played the Zeus role to a `T'. But it was the feisty determination and ultimate collapse of `Sailor' that won me over. His character was perhaps the most human of the men. He really wanted to win it, you could sense that. At the same time he was not above feeling for some of the people he was competing against, encouraging them.

I enjoyed the picture, and I found it relevant to today's marathon. The silicon-valley is full of folks all competing for that somewhat empty promise and the same dollar. One of the wisest scenes of the movie was the dialogue between Rocky and Gloria. She enters his office to ask him to change the rules. He's busy at something else. She asks what he's doing and he points out that he's been keeping tabs on everyone. The prize will be reconciled after the bills are exacted. This is life. Anyone who's had a run of misfortune could relate to that. I was reluctant to watch the film after all these years, especially with my aversion to Jane Fonda. Nevertheless, it was perhaps one of the best films of the late sixties/early seventies.

Jane Fonda left her fluff pieces behind her and became a REAL actress after her Oscar-nominated performance here as Gloria, the bitter and hopeless woman who joins a grueling dance marathon (a craze of the Depression '30s) with Michael Sarrazin as her partner. She leaves nothing behind and throws herself into this bleak role taking huge risks that 'STAR' actresses don't do anymore. The film also put Sydney Pollack on the map as a director to be reckoned with. Finding an audience for this film may be tough because of its unrelenting gloom, but if you watch it and don't find yourself thinking about it for weeks after you have seen it, you don't know what movies are about. The message here is that there are no winners in life....only survivors. These are the kinds of films I favor (bleak and depressing) as that is what real life is about....it's a struggle. If you're looking for a diversion from real life, don't come here. The film also contains an Oscar-winning turn by Gig Young as the dance marathon's promoter and emcee and an Oscar-nominated performance by Susannah York as a Garboesque wannabe actress looking for a break. Horses is more a disaster film than anything else. No ship hits an iceberg and no building catches fire, but everyone involved experiences disaster. Don't pass this up.

As I watched American Idol recently I kept thinking of this movie. It stands as one of my all-time favourites. Seems like the wheel's going round again.

Well, I was dissapointed. I really wanted this movie to be fantastic... and it just wasn't. Homecoming is one of my favorite books of all time, and to be honest when I was surfing around one day and found this I was very excited. So excited, that I waited until a Friday when I had no plans, sat down with a cup of tea and expected to be amazed.
The Good: This movie did have some redeeming qualities, however. The little actress who plays Maybeth for the most part does an excellent job. I don't think its her fault that at the beginning her character isn't as solid, I think it's mostly the producers who just delayed too long in developing it properly. The boy who played Sammy, also, impressed me. Despite a few obvious lines that don't fit, on the whole he is very believable.
The Bad: Many scenes were cut out, which is to be expected based on the size of the book and the proportionate length of the movie. What I didn't expect, however, was one VERY major scene to be omitted, which if you haven't read the book, makes Dicey's fascination with boats very unclear. Some of the lines were very forced, and the only way I can describe it to someone who hasn't seen the movie is thus: imagine phrases that one reads, which fit in with the context of the book, but aren't frequently used in conversation. Ergo Dicey's "Cripes, this is like a ghost house," is to be blunt, perhaps the worst line of dialogue I have ever heard anyone speak. I mean -- cripes?
The Ugly: The main character, Dicey, really threw me for a loop. In some scenes she was alright, but in others, she stunk like last week's garbage. First of all, in the book, she is set up to be, sort of masculine... she often gets mistaken for boys. In this version, unfortunetly, she is very feminine, mostly because of her body, which even baggy clothes couldn't conceal. One of the best parts about the book, was Dicey as portrayed as a strong and resourceful thirteen year old girl; In the movie she was more like a scared and unsure manic. She has ups and downs, and shoots from emotion from scene to scene -- an unfortunetly enough, even within the same scene. I think this is mostly due to the fact that too much was cut.
Some people may say that I have judged this a little harshly, after all it was a made-for-tv movie that they put on home video, but I still expected more. Maybe I am too biased because this is my favorite book, but I still would like to see a better version. I mean, the didn't even make Sammy's hair color correct! To reccomend this or not to reccomend, I seem to have talked myself into a little corner! If you are looking for something for the family to sit down and watch, I would warn away. But if you are an educator and have just finished Homecoming or any other one of Voight's books (usually Dicey's Song) I would reccomend that you spend the 5 bucks and rent it for your class. But I honestly can't say this should be a part of your video collection, because there are much better movies to spend your money on.
Hope this helps.

"Homecoming" tells the story of four siblings in search of their
grandmother after being abandoned in a mall parking lot by their
mother who suffers from a mental illness. Led by the oldest
sister, Dicey (age 13), the children travel many miles on foot
to a grandmother they have never known. Anne Bancroft does a
fantastic job of portraying a cranky old woman who has forgotten
what it is to love and be loved. The children do a great job of
reminding her. You'll be impressed by these believable
characters and script. Superb acting! You'll never forget this
family!

It was one of those Fridays in late Spring when a teacher just wants to pop in a video for the middle schoolers that teaches without a lesson, entertains without 'the bad stuff', and holds the kids' attention through superb acting, and not idiacy.

I had heard several students mention 'Dicey's Song' as a favorite Accelerated Reader book, and decided to rent this film, which is in the same series. Not only did the kids love 'The Homecoming'--I loved it too!

The story centers around Dicey and her younger brothers and sister. They are abandoned by their mother in a mall parking lot, and struggle to find a place in the world to accept them.

Ann Bancroft, a veteran first-rate actress in every respect, carries the 'heavy' role as the reclusive and often strange grandmother. She dominates the film, and must've been a model of acting excellence to the kids! The children are wonderful too. Each of the four is believeable in character, and convincing in performance.

The strength of 'The Homecoming' (besides Bancroft) is the cinematography. It is wonderfully filmed! Shadow and light, water and mist, camera angle and mood creation--all lift the film well above average for this type genre. 'The Homecoming' owes much to the masterful touch of a director's keen knowlege of children, and New England.

I can't find much to criticize in this film. Other than a six-year-old making an overt (though true) reference to all the children having the same father, and later briefly showing his behind in a rainstorm sequence, the film is safe, true to the author's intent, and expertly crafted.

There are few movies which my seventh-graders ask to borrow. This is one.

The first, and worst, sequel to Die Hard, is terrorised by the same plot as the original. While waiting for his wife's plane to arrive at Dulles Airport (on Xmas Eve), McClane notices a few suspicious exchanges between a group of men amidst the busy yuletide passengers.

Before you know he is neck deep in trouble with an army of mercenaries, led by Colonel Stewart (William Sadler), who are hell-bent on setting free a corrupt South American General/Drug Baron (Franco Nero). There are more bad guys than before. And more suspension of disbelief is required.

There are so many plot holes and illogical moments that the film almost drowns in its own absurdity. But there is enough action and stunts to cancel it out and distract our attention. Though they not presented in a breathtaking or memorable way. It's all too generic and a bit mean-spirited. No audience nowadays would be satisfied with it so prepare yourself for 80's violence.

William Sadler and Franco Nero lack the callous efficiency of Alan Rickman. And a hero can only be measured by his nemesis. But most of the time McClane is just capping off nameless mercs. How boring. Tho this should not be blamed on Sadler, he has a threatening and intense presence and as he has proved himself in movies like Trespass and Demon Knight. Too bad his character here is so badly written and underdeveloped. I'm sorry but blowing up 250 people off-screen to show how evil you are just won't cut it.

This was Renny Harlin's second movie of 1990 (the other was Ford Fairlain) and it is without a doubt the movie that made him a certified action director. It was a tough, and huge, movie to pull off. He just pulled it off with no particular charm. Though he does a wonderful job of capturing the look and feel of an East Coast winter. The wide-open snowfields and ice-covered runways will definitely make you feel chilly.

Although this is another problem. The first Die Hard worked entirely within the space of Nakatomi Plaza. It was claustrophobic and almost plausible. The scale and scope of Die Hard 2 is too big for its own good. Similar to the problems of ID4, the staples of reality are ripped out with ignorance and over-confidence. The bulk of the film is nothing but one dumb action scene after another. It doesn't make for coherent viewing.

Die Hard 2 is a definite lag in between both of McTiernan's very strong outings. By today's standards it seems dated and very 90's. Which is a shame considering the original and 'With A Vengeance' are, in a way, 'timeless'. It's movies like this that inspired 'Last Action Hero'.

Filmed in Panavision, the 2.35:1 anamorphic picture is superb looking with true blacks (a lot of this film is set at night) and nice fleshtones. Fire effects and colors look beautifully orange and overall the quality is top notch aside from a few instances of minor pixelation.

The gunshots are loud and ferocious in both the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks. All explosions and every punch and kick are rendered with amazing clarity. Some of the surrounds tend to stick to mono but the plane crash in the middle of the movie will convince it is actually happening in your living room. Dialogue scenes tend to stick to the front speaker and the musical score by Michael Kamen is well recorded and is sure to excite.

Renny Harlin's commentary is much more interesting that John McTiernan's fatigued and labored effort on the first movie. Harlin talks about the characters more and how he prefers his movies to be in terms of motivation and why characters should smoke only if it is necessary. Among other things. Such as how many of the effects he did then, in many different ways, would be so much quicker and easier to do today in Digital CGI.

The Featurette was made for Fox TV back in 1990 and it is a bit better than the usual, self-congratulatory nonsense that bogs down most featurettes. But it still can't resist talking about how 'great' the movie is. Tho thanks to this extra we now know that most of the snow in the movie is shredded soap. A second, 4-minute, Featurette is basically an extended trailer.

There are a few deleted scenes that are not that interesting and it's easy to see why they were cut from the film. Although the alternate scene on how McClane gets to the Annex Skywalk (The Boiler Room) is quite cool.

The interview with Renny Harlin and the Villain's Profile are promotional titbits in which they discuss how to direct a high-concept sequel and how to be an evil bad guy.

Behind the scenes and storyboards focuses on 2 scenes. The first is 'Breaking the Ice' and the second is 'Chaos on the Conveyor Belt'. The storyboard and film comparison is for the 'Skywalk Ambush' sequence.

Visual effects breakdowns explore, in great length and tedious, repetitive slo-mo, the Ejector seat scene and the Airport Runway. These are basically green-screen evolutions. The other model effects scenes broken down are 'Chopper', 'Airplane Models' and 'Wing Fight'.

Although Die Hard 2 isn't as good as the first and third ones, it still manages to pull off some great visual effects and action sequences. This time around, McClane is at Dulles Airport in D.C. (which looks nothing like the real dulles airport) waiting for his wife to arrive when terrorists take over the airport's controls, enabling them to make contact with the planes and land them. They take over the controls so they can have their general land there.

Director Renny Harlin pulls off some good action scenes, such as a snowmobile chase, a fight to the death on the wing of a plane, and a shootout at the annex skywalk. Those pros aside, it's a shame that McTiernan, who directed the first film, couldn't direct this. If he had, the movie would have been much better. Also, the movie is VERY unrealistic and isn't nearly and funny as the first and third movies. So when you buy this movie, don't expect anything like the first or the third one. Expect an average sequel that could've been much better,

What is wrong with you lot??!!! This is a great movie and I have to say that this is better than the first one!!! Not to say that that one was mediocre. It was great to but I love this one even more! McClane finds himself fighting vicious terrorists whove seized a major international airport with many planes stranded in mid-air and McClane has to save the passengers on the planes and destroy the terror network before fuel runs out and causes the planes to crash. This is a great movie and should be owned today!!

The first, and worst, sequel to Die Hard, is terrorised by the same plot as the original. While waiting for his wife's plane to arrive at Dulles Airport (on Xmas Eve), McClane notices a few suspicious exchanges between a group of men amidst the busy yuletide passengers.

Before you know he is neck deep in trouble with an army of mercenaries, led by Colonel Stewart (William Sadler), who are hell-bent on setting free a corrupt South American General/Drug Baron (Franco Nero). There are more bad guys than before. And more suspension of disbelief is required.

There are so many plot holes and illogical moments that the film almost drowns in its own absurdity. But there is enough action and stunts to cancel it out and distract our attention. Though they not presented in a breathtaking or memorable way. It's all too generic and a bit mean-spirited. No audience nowadays would be satisfied with it so prepare yourself for 80's violence.

William Sadler and Franco Nero lack the callous efficiency of Alan Rickman. And a hero can only be measured by his nemesis. But most of the time McClane is just capping off nameless mercs. How boring. Tho this should not be blamed on Sadler, he has a threatening and intense presence and as he has proved himself in movies like Trespass and Demon Knight. Too bad his character here is so badly written and underdeveloped. I'm sorry but blowing up 250 people off-screen to show how evil you are just won't cut it.

This was Renny Harlin's second movie of 1990 (the other was Ford Fairlain) and it is without a doubt the movie that made him a certified action director. It was a tough, and huge, movie to pull off. He just pulled it off with no particular charm. Though he does a wonderful job of capturing the look and feel of an East Coast winter. The wide-open snowfields and ice-covered runways will definitely make you feel chilly.

Although this is another problem. The first Die Hard worked entirely within the space of Nakatomi Plaza. It was claustrophobic and almost plausible. The scale and scope of Die Hard 2 is too big for its own good. Similar to the problems of ID4, the staples of reality are ripped out with ignorance and over-confidence. The bulk of the film is nothing but one dumb action scene after another. It doesn't make for coherent viewing.

Die Hard 2 is a definite lag in between both of McTiernan's very strong outings. By today's standards it seems dated and very 90's. Which is a shame considering the original and 'With A Vengeance' are, in a way, 'timeless'. It's movies like this that inspired 'Last Action Hero'.

Filmed in Panavision, the 2.35:1 anamorphic picture is superb looking with true blacks (a lot of this film is set at night) and nice fleshtones. Fire effects and colors look beautifully orange and overall the quality is top notch aside from a few instances of minor pixelation.

The gunshots are loud and ferocious in both the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks. All explosions and every punch and kick are rendered with amazing clarity. Some of the surrounds tend to stick to mono but the plane crash in the middle of the movie will convince it is actually happening in your living room. Dialogue scenes tend to stick to the front speaker and the musical score by Michael Kamen is well recorded and is sure to excite.

Renny Harlin's commentary is much more interesting that John McTiernan's fatigued and labored effort on the first movie. Harlin talks about the characters more and how he prefers his movies to be in terms of motivation and why characters should smoke only if it is necessary. Among other things. Such as how many of the effects he did then, in many different ways, would be so much quicker and easier to do today in Digital CGI.

The Featurette was made for Fox TV back in 1990 and it is a bit better than the usual, self-congratulatory nonsense that bogs down most featurettes. But it still can't resist talking about how 'great' the movie is. Tho thanks to this extra we now know that most of the snow in the movie is shredded soap. A second, 4-minute, Featurette is basically an extended trailer.

There are a few deleted scenes that are not that interesting and it's easy to see why they were cut from the film. Although the alternate scene on how McClane gets to the Annex Skywalk (The Boiler Room) is quite cool.

The interview with Renny Harlin and the Villain's Profile are promotional titbits in which they discuss how to direct a high-concept sequel and how to be an evil bad guy.

Behind the scenes and storyboards focuses on 2 scenes. The first is 'Breaking the Ice' and the second is 'Chaos on the Conveyor Belt'. The storyboard and film comparison is for the 'Skywalk Ambush' sequence.

Visual effects breakdowns explore, in great length and tedious, repetitive slo-mo, the Ejector seat scene and the Airport Runway. These are basically green-screen evolutions. The other model effects scenes broken down are 'Chopper', 'Airplane Models' and 'Wing Fight'.

Although Die Hard 2 isn't as good as the first and third ones, it still manages to pull off some great visual effects and action sequences. This time around, McClane is at Dulles Airport in D.C. (which looks nothing like the real dulles airport) waiting for his wife to arrive when terrorists take over the airport's controls, enabling them to make contact with the planes and land them. They take over the controls so they can have their general land there.

Director Renny Harlin pulls off some good action scenes, such as a snowmobile chase, a fight to the death on the wing of a plane, and a shootout at the annex skywalk. Those pros aside, it's a shame that McTiernan, who directed the first film, couldn't direct this. If he had, the movie would have been much better. Also, the movie is VERY unrealistic and isn't nearly and funny as the first and third movies. So when you buy this movie, don't expect anything like the first or the third one. Expect an average sequel that could've been much better,

What is wrong with you lot??!!! This is a great movie and I have to say that this is better than the first one!!! Not to say that that one was mediocre. It was great to but I love this one even more! McClane finds himself fighting vicious terrorists whove seized a major international airport with many planes stranded in mid-air and McClane has to save the passengers on the planes and destroy the terror network before fuel runs out and causes the planes to crash. This is a great movie and should be owned today!!

The first, and worst, sequel to Die Hard, is terrorised by the same plot as the original. While waiting for his wife's plane to arrive at Dulles Airport (on Xmas Eve), McClane notices a few suspicious exchanges between a group of men amidst the busy yuletide passengers.

Before you know he is neck deep in trouble with an army of mercenaries, led by Colonel Stewart (William Sadler), who are hell-bent on setting free a corrupt South American General/Drug Baron (Franco Nero). There are more bad guys than before. And more suspension of disbelief is required.

There are so many plot holes and illogical moments that the film almost drowns in its own absurdity. But there is enough action and stunts to cancel it out and distract our attention. Though they not presented in a breathtaking or memorable way. It's all too generic and a bit mean-spirited. No audience nowadays would be satisfied with it so prepare yourself for 80's violence.

William Sadler and Franco Nero lack the callous efficiency of Alan Rickman. And a hero can only be measured by his nemesis. But most of the time McClane is just capping off nameless mercs. How boring. Tho this should not be blamed on Sadler, he has a threatening and intense presence and as he has proved himself in movies like Trespass and Demon Knight. Too bad his character here is so badly written and underdeveloped. I'm sorry but blowing up 250 people off-screen to show how evil you are just won't cut it.

This was Renny Harlin's second movie of 1990 (the other was Ford Fairlain) and it is without a doubt the movie that made him a certified action director. It was a tough, and huge, movie to pull off. He just pulled it off with no particular charm. Though he does a wonderful job of capturing the look and feel of an East Coast winter. The wide-open snowfields and ice-covered runways will definitely make you feel chilly.

Although this is another problem. The first Die Hard worked entirely within the space of Nakatomi Plaza. It was claustrophobic and almost plausible. The scale and scope of Die Hard 2 is too big for its own good. Similar to the problems of ID4, the staples of reality are ripped out with ignorance and over-confidence. The bulk of the film is nothing but one dumb action scene after another. It doesn't make for coherent viewing.

Die Hard 2 is a definite lag in between both of McTiernan's very strong outings. By today's standards it seems dated and very 90's. Which is a shame considering the original and 'With A Vengeance' are, in a way, 'timeless'. It's movies like this that inspired 'Last Action Hero'.

Filmed in Panavision, the 2.35:1 anamorphic picture is superb looking with true blacks (a lot of this film is set at night) and nice fleshtones. Fire effects and colors look beautifully orange and overall the quality is top notch aside from a few instances of minor pixelation.

The gunshots are loud and ferocious in both the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks. All explosions and every punch and kick are rendered with amazing clarity. Some of the surrounds tend to stick to mono but the plane crash in the middle of the movie will convince it is actually happening in your living room. Dialogue scenes tend to stick to the front speaker and the musical score by Michael Kamen is well recorded and is sure to excite.

Renny Harlin's commentary is much more interesting that John McTiernan's fatigued and labored effort on the first movie. Harlin talks about the characters more and how he prefers his movies to be in terms of motivation and why characters should smoke only if it is necessary. Among other things. Such as how many of the effects he did then, in many different ways, would be so much quicker and easier to do today in Digital CGI.

The Featurette was made for Fox TV back in 1990 and it is a bit better than the usual, self-congratulatory nonsense that bogs down most featurettes. But it still can't resist talking about how 'great' the movie is. Tho thanks to this extra we now know that most of the snow in the movie is shredded soap. A second, 4-minute, Featurette is basically an extended trailer.

There are a few deleted scenes that are not that interesting and it's easy to see why they were cut from the film. Although the alternate scene on how McClane gets to the Annex Skywalk (The Boiler Room) is quite cool.

The interview with Renny Harlin and the Villain's Profile are promotional titbits in which they discuss how to direct a high-concept sequel and how to be an evil bad guy.

Behind the scenes and storyboards focuses on 2 scenes. The first is 'Breaking the Ice' and the second is 'Chaos on the Conveyor Belt'. The storyboard and film comparison is for the 'Skywalk Ambush' sequence.

Visual effects breakdowns explore, in great length and tedious, repetitive slo-mo, the Ejector seat scene and the Airport Runway. These are basically green-screen evolutions. The other model effects scenes broken down are 'Chopper', 'Airplane Models' and 'Wing Fight'.

Although Die Hard 2 isn't as good as the first and third ones, it still manages to pull off some great visual effects and action sequences. This time around, McClane is at Dulles Airport in D.C. (which looks nothing like the real dulles airport) waiting for his wife to arrive when terrorists take over the airport's controls, enabling them to make contact with the planes and land them. They take over the controls so they can have their general land there.

Director Renny Harlin pulls off some good action scenes, such as a snowmobile chase, a fight to the death on the wing of a plane, and a shootout at the annex skywalk. Those pros aside, it's a shame that McTiernan, who directed the first film, couldn't direct this. If he had, the movie would have been much better. Also, the movie is VERY unrealistic and isn't nearly and funny as the first and third movies. So when you buy this movie, don't expect anything like the first or the third one. Expect an average sequel that could've been much better,

What is wrong with you lot??!!! This is a great movie and I have to say that this is better than the first one!!! Not to say that that one was mediocre. It was great to but I love this one even more! McClane finds himself fighting vicious terrorists whove seized a major international airport with many planes stranded in mid-air and McClane has to save the passengers on the planes and destroy the terror network before fuel runs out and causes the planes to crash. This is a great movie and should be owned today!!

I like Stephen King who I think is a terrific writer and I like scary movies. Out of the books I read by Stephen King Salem's Lot wasn't one of them and usually I will read a book first before I watch a movie based on the book but when Salem's Lot was shown on TV in 1979 I watched it and I just didn't like it and it really turned me off, it even turned me off from reading the book which as much as I like Stephen King I will probably never read that book! Sorry, but I have seen better movies and TV shows about vampires.

This is another bad movie for a really good book, they actually change some of the story, cut some characters, an made it a very silly movie, the book it's very scary, the movie is not that scary at all.
If you like Stephen as I do, buy the movie, but if you want to see a scary movie, keep searching

an ok adaption from Tobe Hooper, director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 and 2, The Funhouse, and Poltergiest, which he made out of a bestselling Stephen King book. Vampires are in the town of Salem's Lot and people start missing. the cast include David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, George Dzundza, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard and James Mason and many others. some truly memorable scenes involving David Soul and the kid going after the master. this was made in 1979 and its NOT RATED.

Directed by Tobe Hooper (who would go on to helm "Poltergeist"), "Salem's Lot" is a better-than-adequate condensing of Stephen King's classic horror novel. It's made all the more effective when you consider this is material originally shown on network television.

David Soul ("Starsky and Hutch") plays Ben Mears, a writer who returns to his hometown to write a novel about the local haunted house, and ends up dating Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia, future star of "Heart Like a Wheel"). Then evil James Mason comes to town, and pretty soon 70s character actors like Fred Willard, Geoffery Lewis and Elisha Cook, Jr. are dropping dead due to... mysterious circumstances. Okay, enough phony suspense. It's a vampire movie. Vampires... in modern-day Maine. And it works better than it has a right to.

Soul's not exactly tortured enough, and Lance Kerwin's a little too old to play a monster-obsessed youth, but the supporting cast, which includes Ed Flanders ("St. Elsewhere"), Lew Ayres (Paul, from the classic 1930 "All Quiet on the Western Front"), Kenneth McMillan ("Ragtime," and "Dune") and George Dzundza (everything else) more than make up for it. They're sincere, and that counts for a lot. James Mason makes a perfectly urbane villain; he's suave and dangerous, and much smarter than his undead master, who's something of a disappointment in the chills department when finally revealed.

This disk contains the entire miniseries, which manages to maintain a level of suitable creepiness, despite some dated sexual innuendo and a some "made-for-tv" scenes that aren't quite as menacing as they could be. Still, a few sequences are effectively chilling, and it's well worth your time, especially around Halloween.

This is another bad movie for a really good book, they actually change some of the story, cut some characters, an made it a very silly movie, the book it's very scary, the movie is not that scary at all.
If you like Stephen as I do, buy the movie, but if you want to see a scary movie, keep searching

an ok adaption from Tobe Hooper, director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 and 2, The Funhouse, and Poltergiest, which he made out of a bestselling Stephen King book. Vampires are in the town of Salem's Lot and people start missing. the cast include David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, George Dzundza, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard and James Mason and many others. some truly memorable scenes involving David Soul and the kid going after the master. this was made in 1979 and its NOT RATED.

Directed by Tobe Hooper (who would go on to helm "Poltergeist"), "Salem's Lot" is a better-than-adequate condensing of Stephen King's classic horror novel. It's made all the more effective when you consider this is material originally shown on network television.

David Soul ("Starsky and Hutch") plays Ben Mears, a writer who returns to his hometown to write a novel about the local haunted house, and ends up dating Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia, future star of "Heart Like a Wheel"). Then evil James Mason comes to town, and pretty soon 70s character actors like Fred Willard, Geoffery Lewis and Elisha Cook, Jr. are dropping dead due to... mysterious circumstances. Okay, enough phony suspense. It's a vampire movie. Vampires... in modern-day Maine. And it works better than it has a right to.

Soul's not exactly tortured enough, and Lance Kerwin's a little too old to play a monster-obsessed youth, but the supporting cast, which includes Ed Flanders ("St. Elsewhere"), Lew Ayres (Paul, from the classic 1930 "All Quiet on the Western Front"), Kenneth McMillan ("Ragtime," and "Dune") and George Dzundza (everything else) more than make up for it. They're sincere, and that counts for a lot. James Mason makes a perfectly urbane villain; he's suave and dangerous, and much smarter than his undead master, who's something of a disappointment in the chills department when finally revealed.

This disk contains the entire miniseries, which manages to maintain a level of suitable creepiness, despite some dated sexual innuendo and a some "made-for-tv" scenes that aren't quite as menacing as they could be. Still, a few sequences are effectively chilling, and it's well worth your time, especially around Halloween.

This is another bad movie for a really good book, they actually change some of the story, cut some characters, an made it a very silly movie, the book it's very scary, the movie is not that scary at all.
If you like Stephen as I do, buy the movie, but if you want to see a scary movie, keep searching

an ok adaption from Tobe Hooper, director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 and 2, The Funhouse, and Poltergiest, which he made out of a bestselling Stephen King book. Vampires are in the town of Salem's Lot and people start missing. the cast include David Soul, Bonnie Bedelia, George Dzundza, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard and James Mason and many others. some truly memorable scenes involving David Soul and the kid going after the master. this was made in 1979 and its NOT RATED.

Driving away from the quiets of Wisconsin, this amazing mother and daughter team duo are on their way to Beverly Hills, California, but are already arguing and ripping each other's heart out. The mother shows her out of the car, and leaves her in the middle of nowhere. Maybe even this time for good.
Adele August (Susan Sarandon) and Ann August (Natalie Portman) have played through this scene many times, however they never hold it true. What they do not know is that they are not only sharing the same name and blood, but they share the same kind of hidden true love. Two of a kind. Ann, the daughter, however, knows that one day she'll leave her mother for sure. When the time comes, she finds that it's a lot harder than expected.
With brilliant and sometimes funny performances from the two leading ladies, and a beautiful story based on the novel by Mona Simpson, this movie will make you cry, laugh, and cry some more. Many audiences saw this as awful and depressing. Let's just say they really didn't see into it.

One day I did a weird thing. I went to the cinema and watched this movie by myself. Some people found it strange that I, being a guy, would go see a real girl-movie alone, including the man in the ticket-office who looked really nonplussed and asked me if I really wanted only one ticket.

Well, I did, and I'm glad I did it.

Anywhere But Here is, exactly as its poster says: A movie about a mother who knows best and a daughter who knows better... And it's good.

The story is quite thin: Ann August (Natalie Portman) is a young girl whose single mother Adele (Susan Sarandon) hasn't quite lost her youthful lust for adventure. They move from bay City, Wisconsin to Beverly Hill where Adele hopes to find a better life. But she forgot to take her daughter's feelings into account...

As you might expect, there are lots of emotional outbreaks in this movie, but it never becomes too much. Also, it's refreshingly devoid of sentimentalism and happy-go-lucky lovestories, which makes the story far more believable and worthwhile.

But the main reason for seeing this movie is the divine acting by both leads. Natalie Portman plays the independent daughter that is far more mature than her mother and does an extremely convincing job. That girl is destined for absolute stardom! And while Sarandon is always good, this is no doubt one of her best performances ever. Adele is neurotic and selfish, but still has strength and love for her daughter. A difficult character to play, but Sarandon makes her come to life, swaying from borderline insanity to joyous strength and zest for life. Together, they make one of the best mother/daughter relationships I've ever seen in a movie come truly alive.

All in all, the story is little more than an excuse for getting two great actresses together. I suspect Wayne Wang knew this when he directed the movie. But it still works brilliantly.

This is a movie that will warm your heart and thrill you if you care for great acting. Very recommendable, and not only for girls :)

Its really good it shows what teens go through and what her mom is going through and how the daugther is the mom role and how disfuncanational things are.

Driving away from the quiets of Wisconsin, this amazing mother and daughter team duo are on their way to Beverly Hills, California, but are already arguing and ripping each other's heart out. The mother shows her out of the car, and leaves her in the middle of nowhere. Maybe even this time for good.
Adele August (Susan Sarandon) and Ann August (Natalie Portman) have played through this scene many times, however they never hold it true. What they do not know is that they are not only sharing the same name and blood, but they share the same kind of hidden true love. Two of a kind. Ann, the daughter, however, knows that one day she'll leave her mother for sure. When the time comes, she finds that it's a lot harder than expected.
With brilliant and sometimes funny performances from the two leading ladies, and a beautiful story based on the novel by Mona Simpson, this movie will make you cry, laugh, and cry some more. Many audiences saw this as awful and depressing. Let's just say they really didn't see into it.

One day I did a weird thing. I went to the cinema and watched this movie by myself. Some people found it strange that I, being a guy, would go see a real girl-movie alone, including the man in the ticket-office who looked really nonplussed and asked me if I really wanted only one ticket.

Well, I did, and I'm glad I did it.

Anywhere But Here is, exactly as its poster says: A movie about a mother who knows best and a daughter who knows better... And it's good.

The story is quite thin: Ann August (Natalie Portman) is a young girl whose single mother Adele (Susan Sarandon) hasn't quite lost her youthful lust for adventure. They move from bay City, Wisconsin to Beverly Hill where Adele hopes to find a better life. But she forgot to take her daughter's feelings into account...

As you might expect, there are lots of emotional outbreaks in this movie, but it never becomes too much. Also, it's refreshingly devoid of sentimentalism and happy-go-lucky lovestories, which makes the story far more believable and worthwhile.

But the main reason for seeing this movie is the divine acting by both leads. Natalie Portman plays the independent daughter that is far more mature than her mother and does an extremely convincing job. That girl is destined for absolute stardom! And while Sarandon is always good, this is no doubt one of her best performances ever. Adele is neurotic and selfish, but still has strength and love for her daughter. A difficult character to play, but Sarandon makes her come to life, swaying from borderline insanity to joyous strength and zest for life. Together, they make one of the best mother/daughter relationships I've ever seen in a movie come truly alive.

All in all, the story is little more than an excuse for getting two great actresses together. I suspect Wayne Wang knew this when he directed the movie. But it still works brilliantly.

This is a movie that will warm your heart and thrill you if you care for great acting. Very recommendable, and not only for girls :)

Its really good it shows what teens go through and what her mom is going through and how the daugther is the mom role and how disfuncanational things are.