Courtney-B.-Vance Movie Reviews

After I watched Dangerous Minds for the first time I couldn't stop watching it. It was such a good movie. It was sad but that was part of what made it so good. Sometimes in order to enjoy a movie there has to be sad parts or it doesn't seem realistic.

My favortie character in the movie was Callie Roberts. She was such a smart, strong person. I felt sorry for her having to be in a class like that.

If you haven't seen Dangerous Minds, you have to rent it. You won't regret it.

Nowadays, high school movies are just crude and gross humor filled (i.e. The New Guy which wasn't a bad movie at all), but in 1995, a little movie called "Dangerous Minds" came out. This was a very beautiful movie. I loved every second of it. The storyline was very good. Michelle Pfeiffer (Pre- I Am Sam and Up Close and Personal) stars as an ex-Marine who is interested in being a substitute teacher to a SMART kid class. But she is placed as the sub teacher of a bunch of urban-ghetto students. The students at first don't like her, but they grow on her as they do on her. The storyline is similar to "Stand and Deliver" but don't consider this as a sequel or an imitation. This movie is awesome! I will love this movie forever. This movie also has a great hiphop/r&b/rap soundtrack that was a hit in 95. There were some good movies that came out in 95, but this was the very best. I don't know why this movie did not get an Oscar nomination! The only objectionable content in this movie is the language which there is a little bit of but not vulgar or pervasive as some movies are today. The MPAA rated this R for language. Get this movie instantly on DVD. This is a must see for all junior high and high school students. Some elementary school students might be interested in this movie but I'm sure it won't be a must see for them. I highly recommend this movie to all ages unless you don't want your young kids (mostly 9 and below) to hear the profanity, then don't let them, but this is the best drama I have ever viewed. If you are looking for a more suitable movie for your young kids instead of "DM" then get the also a must see "Stand and Deliver" which is rated PG for some mild language!

This is quite simply an amazing film. There is none better in this theme. Pfieffer really delivers as do her costars. Geniune, honest, real, gritty, bears it teeth and gives us a bite. Prepare yourself to be invested and care about these students.

It is almost always a bad idea to remake as classic a movie as Twelve Angry Men. It is nigh guaranteed to result in disappointment. So it is with William Friedkin's remake of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film. Because it sticks closely to the original script, and has a few welcome veterans in the cast, it is saved from being totally unenjoyable. But still, even George C Scott and Jack Lemmon are no match for Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda. The original cast had a certain presence that is not even neared by the lineup of familiar faces on show here.

The production also suffers from its unbelievability. Back in 1957, a few logical holes and incredulities seemed not to matter, being compensated for by the drama and tension. Set in the 1990s, however, it is simply anachronistic. Technical advances in the forensic science seem to be unknown to the characters in this transplant to modern-day. It loses credibility. The occasional changes in the dialogue are arbitrary and unnecessary at best; banal and inexplicable at worst.

Overall, the Friedkin version lacks the atmosphere and tension of the original. Lumet's version was brilliantly edited and photographed so as to maximize the claustrophobic atmosphere and lend mood and ambience to the interplay of the characters. Friedkin's second-best begins with an annoying shaky camera technique and goes on to a flat cinematography style that does little to enhance the drama.

At least there is the treat of rehearing Kenyon Hopkins' original theme (however briefly it is heard in both versions) rearranged for jazz quartet. It is poor compensation, however, for the disappointment of seeing a masterwork reproduced in a manner that results in a pale and unsatisfying imitation of a brilliant original.

I love the classics, but I never pass up looking at the remakes. Sometimes they are not as good as the originals. In this case I think I like the remake just a little better. The reason is that the original used some angle shots that made the cast look unworldly and to me that detracted from it. The cast to me only had 3 people that stood out, Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Joseph Sweeney. Don't get me wrong the first one has some strong acting, but the remake seems like more of the cast is what I would really expect. Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, William Petersen, Edward Olmos, Ossie Davis, and the rest the cast left more of an impression on me. The original did not impress me with people I knew on the street in the 1950s. The remake though did seem to have people I could meet in a court room in the 1990s. As for one person commentng on the lack of forensics for the time, I hate to tell you not every city has a CSI team as good as the TV shows. I thought the evidence presented was believable, certainly as much so as the original.

I think both the 1957 and 1997 versions are great movies and I will alternate watching both over the years. Given the passage of 40 years, they are bound to be different The older of the two will compare less favorably, because acting styles and attitudes toward race have changed. So have people. In the 1957 version Lee J. Cobb portrayed a man so oblivious to the facts, that every time he opened his mouth, he made the case for the other side, often humorously. George C. Scott never quite achieves that. However in the final scene Scott surpasses Cobb in revealing his bias, and breaking down. Lemmon's remark to Scott, "He's not your son, he's someone else" is not contained in the first movie and is an appropriate added touch. I like both Fonda's and Lemmon's performances as juror Number 8. The pivotal person is actually Mykelti Williams who plays the Ed Begley role (juror number 10, who has a cold). As the nation of Islam fanatic, he divides the African-American jurors among themselves. This adds some credibility and complexity, so the fight is not just black vs. white. Inevitably, the complexities of modern American society are more accurately reflected in the 1997 version. Before the 1960s, we just didn't address race head-on. The older version is accurate testament to that. Still, the 1957 version is amazing. E. G. Marshall's portrayal of the stock broker is commanding and genuinely fun to watch. His conversion from guilty to not guilty is the single most dramatic moment in either movie. The cinematography on his face showing his transformation from confident to doubtful is wonderful work. The claustrophobia in the 1957 version surpasses the 1997 version. I choose to treat these movies as complimenting one another. My only question is when will they put the 1997 version on DVD? Get both versions and appreciate the differences. They are both superior films. Both accurately reflect the times in which they were made.

It is almost always a bad idea to remake as classic a movie as Twelve Angry Men. It is nigh guaranteed to result in disappointment. So it is with William Friedkin's remake of Sidney Lumet's 1957 film. Because it sticks closely to the original script, and has a few welcome veterans in the cast, it is saved from being totally unenjoyable. But still, even George C Scott and Jack Lemmon are no match for Lee J Cobb and Henry Fonda. The original cast had a certain presence that is not even neared by the lineup of familiar faces on show here.

The production also suffers from its unbelievability. Back in 1957, a few logical holes and incredulities seemed not to matter, being compensated for by the drama and tension. Set in the 1990s, however, it is simply anachronistic. Technical advances in the forensic science seem to be unknown to the characters in this transplant to modern-day. It loses credibility. The occasional changes in the dialogue are arbitrary and unnecessary at best; banal and inexplicable at worst.

Overall, the Friedkin version lacks the atmosphere and tension of the original. Lumet's version was brilliantly edited and photographed so as to maximize the claustrophobic atmosphere and lend mood and ambience to the interplay of the characters. Friedkin's second-best begins with an annoying shaky camera technique and goes on to a flat cinematography style that does little to enhance the drama.

At least there is the treat of rehearing Kenyon Hopkins' original theme (however briefly it is heard in both versions) rearranged for jazz quartet. It is poor compensation, however, for the disappointment of seeing a masterwork reproduced in a manner that results in a pale and unsatisfying imitation of a brilliant original.

I love the classics, but I never pass up looking at the remakes. Sometimes they are not as good as the originals. In this case I think I like the remake just a little better. The reason is that the original used some angle shots that made the cast look unworldly and to me that detracted from it. The cast to me only had 3 people that stood out, Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Joseph Sweeney. Don't get me wrong the first one has some strong acting, but the remake seems like more of the cast is what I would really expect. Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Hume Cronyn, William Petersen, Edward Olmos, Ossie Davis, and the rest the cast left more of an impression on me. The original did not impress me with people I knew on the street in the 1950s. The remake though did seem to have people I could meet in a court room in the 1990s. As for one person commentng on the lack of forensics for the time, I hate to tell you not every city has a CSI team as good as the TV shows. I thought the evidence presented was believable, certainly as much so as the original.

I think both the 1957 and 1997 versions are great movies and I will alternate watching both over the years. Given the passage of 40 years, they are bound to be different The older of the two will compare less favorably, because acting styles and attitudes toward race have changed. So have people. In the 1957 version Lee J. Cobb portrayed a man so oblivious to the facts, that every time he opened his mouth, he made the case for the other side, often humorously. George C. Scott never quite achieves that. However in the final scene Scott surpasses Cobb in revealing his bias, and breaking down. Lemmon's remark to Scott, "He's not your son, he's someone else" is not contained in the first movie and is an appropriate added touch. I like both Fonda's and Lemmon's performances as juror Number 8. The pivotal person is actually Mykelti Williams who plays the Ed Begley role (juror number 10, who has a cold). As the nation of Islam fanatic, he divides the African-American jurors among themselves. This adds some credibility and complexity, so the fight is not just black vs. white. Inevitably, the complexities of modern American society are more accurately reflected in the 1997 version. Before the 1960s, we just didn't address race head-on. The older version is accurate testament to that. Still, the 1957 version is amazing. E. G. Marshall's portrayal of the stock broker is commanding and genuinely fun to watch. His conversion from guilty to not guilty is the single most dramatic moment in either movie. The cinematography on his face showing his transformation from confident to doubtful is wonderful work. The claustrophobia in the 1957 version surpasses the 1997 version. I choose to treat these movies as complimenting one another. My only question is when will they put the 1997 version on DVD? Get both versions and appreciate the differences. They are both superior films. Both accurately reflect the times in which they were made.

Courtney Vance plays the role of the only black cop on a southern, all white, good ole boy police department. Virginia Madsen plays the only female cop on that same force. They are simpatico with each other, as both are treated in the way one might expect someone of their race and gender to be treated by bigoted sexists and racists, covert though it may be. Although, it is actually not all that covert.

Then, the head of the local Klu Klux Klan gets murdered one night, leaving his son as a living eye witness to his father's murder. All hell breaks loose, as another witness says that the murder was commited by two black men, identified to be the leaders of a militant black group. When the police find the boy, they discover that the apple did not fall far from the tree, as he is a dyed in the wool racist, spouting racial investives at Vance, who remains remarkable calm in the face of being grossly insulted by a twelve year old pipsqueak who idolizes Hitler.

When the black militants turn up dead, something seems to be wrong with the entire picture. In the meantime, the boy is taken by Courtney Vance and three other cops to a supposed safe house, and on the way their car is ambushed by a group of gunmen wearing political masks. With Vance and the boy on the run with these masked freaks in pursuit, the boy grudgingly begins to bond, slowly but surely, with the man who is hellbent on saving his life.

In the meantime, Robert Patrick, of Terminator 2 and X-Files fame, assumes the mantle of leadership for the Klan. It turns out that he had been estranged from the boy's dead father due to a difference in their ideological fanaticism. While the dead man had confined his ideology of hate to local haunts, the new leader is a militant white supremacist with a more global vision of racial hatred. He, too, is looking for the boy. The reasons why are at the crux of the mystery.

While the film is painfully obvious, at times, in that you can see where the film is going vis-a-vis the boy's ideological beliefs, it is still a pretty absorbing film. So what that the viewer knows that the boy is supposed to undergo an ideological shift due to his interaction with Vance. It doesn't diminish the action and suspense in the film. Also, it is obvious that Madsen and Vance will join forces in an attempt to get to the bottom of what is going on. It is still interesting to see the mechanisms employed to get them going in the right direction.

Director Ernest Dickerson deftly directed this HBO TV movie which tackles the race card without being preachy, as well as conspiracy theories and frame ups. It is a tautly written, well acted film, with plenty of action to go around. It definitely an interesting and gripping film.

Given what it is, this HBO TVM has a screenplay a notch above the usual neanderthal level of most in the action genre, and strong direction by Ernest Dickerson. The subject matter of white supremacy is a generally unpalatable one, since the people presented as pro are inevitably cartoons, even within the limitations of the genre. This treatment is defined by the re-politicalising of the son of the KKK's Grand Dragon, who is the only witness to his father's killing, which is falsely blamed on black cop Courtney Vance. The plot then becomes a multiple pursuit of the boy who has fled with Vance after the titular ambush has aligned them, by both the law and the KKK. The condition is therefore set for the boy to realise the error of his abstracted prejudice, by having Vance demonstrating kindness (by trying to save his life) of an individual. However Vance's performance works against this idea, since he doesn't have a likeable persona. This charge may make me vulnerable to the accusation of racism, but when a screenplay introduces him watching home movies of his deceased child, who by an unimaginative coincidence would be the exact age of the Dragon boy if he were still alive, and gives him a romance with the only female cop in their small police force, we begin to sense something is off-balance. It's easier to identify with the quirkiness given to the KKK stooges, particularly when one refuses to follow Vance and the boy down a drainpipe because he's wearing a suite. Vance isn't given any similar accessability, and when the boy throws slurs at him, we're more likely to emphathise with the racist. In spite of some scenes which I found superfluous, and a stinker with the boy's memory of the killing of his elder brother intercut with the father's telling, Dickerson keeps up the tension. The ambush features gunmen wearing a Bill Clinton and Nixon mask, and gunfire is machine gun multiple as opposed to single fire duets. This may be attributed to the level of testosterone of the supremacists, but I'd prefer to think of it as Dickerson's touch. He also provdes some interesting editing jump cuts in the approach to the Bill Clinton gunman, and a chase featuring Virginia Madsen as the female cop. The crisp white shirt of an officer who turns out to be the framing secret supremacist, and his oreo joke are perhaps a little obvious, but I liked the line a waitress has - "I'm not a mind reader. I'm just a waitress" and the way the actress delivers it. The music is another problem - it seems continuous and more suited to a horror movie. The climax of the film is odd, since it alters the expectation, where now Madsen and Vance pursue the bad guys, and not vice versa. This aggressiveness throws our sympathies again to the supposed bad guys, as anyone on the defensive automatically does, and not even a tirade by the leader managed to shift the empathy back for me. Madsen's presence is a major plus. Although assigned to a relatively minor role and her character carrying additional and unflattering weight, she still makes more of an impression than Vance, and even Jeremy Lelliott as the boy has some truthful moments, which only makes Vance look worse in comparison.

Courtney Vance plays the role of the only black cop on a southern, all white, good ole boy police department. Virginia Madsen plays the only female cop on that same force. They are simpatico with each other, as both are treated in the way one might expect someone of their race and gender to be treated by bigoted sexists and racists, covert though it may be. Although, it is actually not all that covert.

Then, the head of the local Klu Klux Klan gets murdered one night, leaving his son as a living eye witness to his father's murder. All hell breaks loose, as another witness says that the murder was commited by two black men, identified to be the leaders of a militant black group. When the police find the boy, they discover that the apple did not fall far from the tree, as he is a dyed in the wool racist, spouting racial investives at Vance, who remains remarkable calm in the face of being grossly insulted by a twelve year old pipsqueak who idolizes Hitler.

When the black militants turn up dead, something seems to be wrong with the entire picture. In the meantime, the boy is taken by Courtney Vance and three other cops to a supposed safe house, and on the way their car is ambushed by a group of gunmen wearing political masks. With Vance and the boy on the run with these masked freaks in pursuit, the boy grudgingly begins to bond, slowly but surely, with the man who is hellbent on saving his life.

In the meantime, Robert Patrick, of Terminator 2 and X-Files fame, assumes the mantle of leadership for the Klan. It turns out that he had been estranged from the boy's dead father due to a difference in their ideological fanaticism. While the dead man had confined his ideology of hate to local haunts, the new leader is a militant white supremacist with a more global vision of racial hatred. He, too, is looking for the boy. The reasons why are at the crux of the mystery.

While the film is painfully obvious, at times, in that you can see where the film is going vis-a-vis the boy's ideological beliefs, it is still a pretty absorbing film. So what that the viewer knows that the boy is supposed to undergo an ideological shift due to his interaction with Vance. It doesn't diminish the action and suspense in the film. Also, it is obvious that Madsen and Vance will join forces in an attempt to get to the bottom of what is going on. It is still interesting to see the mechanisms employed to get them going in the right direction.

Director Ernest Dickerson deftly directed this HBO TV movie which tackles the race card without being preachy, as well as conspiracy theories and frame ups. It is a tautly written, well acted film, with plenty of action to go around. It definitely an interesting and gripping film.

Given what it is, this HBO TVM has a screenplay a notch above the usual neanderthal level of most in the action genre, and strong direction by Ernest Dickerson. The subject matter of white supremacy is a generally unpalatable one, since the people presented as pro are inevitably cartoons, even within the limitations of the genre. This treatment is defined by the re-politicalising of the son of the KKK's Grand Dragon, who is the only witness to his father's killing, which is falsely blamed on black cop Courtney Vance. The plot then becomes a multiple pursuit of the boy who has fled with Vance after the titular ambush has aligned them, by both the law and the KKK. The condition is therefore set for the boy to realise the error of his abstracted prejudice, by having Vance demonstrating kindness (by trying to save his life) of an individual. However Vance's performance works against this idea, since he doesn't have a likeable persona. This charge may make me vulnerable to the accusation of racism, but when a screenplay introduces him watching home movies of his deceased child, who by an unimaginative coincidence would be the exact age of the Dragon boy if he were still alive, and gives him a romance with the only female cop in their small police force, we begin to sense something is off-balance. It's easier to identify with the quirkiness given to the KKK stooges, particularly when one refuses to follow Vance and the boy down a drainpipe because he's wearing a suite. Vance isn't given any similar accessability, and when the boy throws slurs at him, we're more likely to emphathise with the racist. In spite of some scenes which I found superfluous, and a stinker with the boy's memory of the killing of his elder brother intercut with the father's telling, Dickerson keeps up the tension. The ambush features gunmen wearing a Bill Clinton and Nixon mask, and gunfire is machine gun multiple as opposed to single fire duets. This may be attributed to the level of testosterone of the supremacists, but I'd prefer to think of it as Dickerson's touch. He also provdes some interesting editing jump cuts in the approach to the Bill Clinton gunman, and a chase featuring Virginia Madsen as the female cop. The crisp white shirt of an officer who turns out to be the framing secret supremacist, and his oreo joke are perhaps a little obvious, but I liked the line a waitress has - "I'm not a mind reader. I'm just a waitress" and the way the actress delivers it. The music is another problem - it seems continuous and more suited to a horror movie. The climax of the film is odd, since it alters the expectation, where now Madsen and Vance pursue the bad guys, and not vice versa. This aggressiveness throws our sympathies again to the supposed bad guys, as anyone on the defensive automatically does, and not even a tirade by the leader managed to shift the empathy back for me. Madsen's presence is a major plus. Although assigned to a relatively minor role and her character carrying additional and unflattering weight, she still makes more of an impression than Vance, and even Jeremy Lelliott as the boy has some truthful moments, which only makes Vance look worse in comparison.

Movie was a quick version of the Book White Lies. Funny to read something this close in Texas

Robert Altman has done it again. With a terrific ensemble of wonderful actors headed by Glenn Close, Julianne Moore, Charles S. Dutton, Liv Tyler and Patricia Neal he has crafted "Cookie's Fortune," a dark comedy brimming with laughs and plenty of heart as written by the talented Anne Rapp. When local matriarch "Cookie" (Neal) commits suicide, her image-obsessed niece, Camille (Close), rearranges the scene of the "crime" to resemble a robbery/murder so that the stigma of suicide won't mar the family's good name. Camille talks her kind but simple sister, Cora (Moore, in a beautiful performance), into going along with the ruse despite the fact that Cookie's dear friend and handyman (Dutton) is charged with a crime he didn't commit. Ned Beatty, Courtney B. Vance, Liv Tyler and Chris O'Donnell round out the ensemble. For those of you looking for a quirky, well made film, check this one out, you won't be disappointed.

Frankly, I'm a sucker for the "eccentrics-in-a-small-town" school of filmmaking, and "Cookie's Fortune" is one of the very best of that genre. Some reviewers have taken this film as a slur on Southerners, but I don't take the characters in "Cookie's Fortune" as real Southerners. They're characters of classic farce, with the central character a bossy, self-dramatizing fussbudget who tries to control everyone's life and ends up paying the piper for her presumption. Not for nothing is she named Camille! Camille, played by Glenn Close, starts the whole plot going by trying to cover up her aunt's suicide, thinking it shameful that anyone in HER family would dare to show such weakness. Her actions in turn uncover a whole raft of small-town secrets, including one of her own. Close is hilariously over the top as Camille, and the rest of the huge, illustrious cast matches her. It's lovely to see Patricia Neal, who plays the Cookie of the title, again after so many years, and Charles S. Dutton is a total delight as Willis, Cookie's caretaker/best friend. Julianne Moore, Ned Beatty, Liv Tyler, Chris O'Donnell, Courtney B. Vance, Lyle Lovett, Donald Moffat--all and many others add something charming and distinctive to this genial, refreshing film. This isn't Robert Altman's deepest film, but it's the most fun of any Altman film between "M*A*S*H" and "Gosford Park." Anyone who liked "Local Hero," "Waking Ned Devine" or "Northern Exposure" will like "Cookie's Fortune."

This review refers to the DVD edition of "Cookie's Fortune"....

Glenn Close literally gets caught with her hand in the cookie jar in one of Robert Altman's all star,delightful comedies. It also stars Julianne Moore,Liv Tyler, Chris O'Donnell, Charles S.Dutton, Ned Beatty,Courtney Vance, Lyle Lovett,Donald Moffat and screen legend Patricia Neal as "Cookie"....what an ensemble! These great stars work beautifully together, and their comic timing is brillant.

The story starts out at a leisurely pace that gives you the perfect feel of Holly Springs, Mississippi, a small, slow-paced,antebellum town where everyone knows everyone. Then BANG..the little town is shaken up by the death of it's matriach, Jewel May "Cookie" Orcutt, and everyone gets involved with the murder investagation....but wait...was this actually a murder? Someone is sure trying to make it look that way! And uh-oh... the wrong man has been arrested and the police chief is out to prove his innocence. How does he know he's innocent...well..he fishes with him, of course!

Altman's superb direction,the wonderful twists and turns, the great camera work, the music, the terrific story and of course the fabulous ensemble make for a very entertaining 2 hours. You'll want to watch it over and over.

The DVD is a beautiful transfer. You have the choice of widescreen or full screen. The picture is clear and bright with great color. The sound offers the choice of Dolby 5.1 or stereo surround and is excellent. There are closed captions(English) and subtitles in Spanish and French. It includes cast bios and filmographies, and the theatrical trailer. You have the option of listening to the director commentary during the film as well.

So spend some time behind bars in Holly Springs, with Charles Dutton and Liv Tyler. Don't worry it's fun behind these bars..they never lock the bars, and you get to play scrabble and have some great meals! We are serving our famous "catfish enchildas" today!

Have fun with this one.....Laurie

"Rubbish, Rubish, Rubish Film, how i wonder how they made you, with Clint Eastwood acting rubbish. Rubbish Rubbish, Rubbish film ,how I wonder how they made you?"

Implausible tale of 4 old coots, former Air Force hotshots, who finally get their chance to go to space because of an errant Russian satellite that's carrying a couple of small nuclear bombs. The satellite's technology is so old that only someone who can remember the Depression would know how to fix the technical glitches. (Which may be plausible, after all -- I know several people who can increase my bandwidth but don't know how to change the oil in their SUV's.) Eastwood as a director is, once again, merely excellent, as typified by his decision to use his cast's dubbed voices with younger actors for a prologue in the late '50's. However, and along those lines, Tommy Lee Jones is miscast: Eastwood, Sutherland, and Garner each have at least 15 years on the guy, and as a result Jones seems jarringly vital. The movie also earns demerits with its silly plot, as well as its grubbing for audience goodwill . . . but that is probably to expected in what is a conventional Hollywood production, and Eastwood probably wisely avoids trying to make this a Great Picture (like his *Unforgiven*, *Perfect World*, or *Bridges of Madison County*). Indeed, Eastwood films this salute to old-age with old-fashioned craftsmanship, meaning: no excessive special effects, no jarring camera-work, no slow-motion, no belaboring of the dramatic moments with endless close-ups, no swelling strings on the soundtrack, etc., etc., etc.

This one ain't brain candy. But it's one of the most fun movies I've seen in a while. It doesn't pretend to be anything profound or artsy. In fact, it's pretty much what you would expect given the cast. It's surprising to find Eastwood directing something like this. In fact, this is referred to a bit in the DVD features. The requirements of making a special effects movie (like CGI) don't sound like they would fit well with Eastwood's directing style which tends to have an almost exclusive focus on actors and story (and possibly a less than obsessive attention to detail). In other words, in making this kind of movie the work goes slowly and Eastwood likes to work quickly. But as it turns out, this is actually one of the better special effects movies, possibly because they generally take a back seat to the story.

If you want to see a movie that is simply fun, moves quickly (great editing) and particularly if you like Eastwood or Tommy Lee Jones, this movie is great. But don't expect to see 2001: A Space Odyssey or the Seven Samurai.

"Rubbish, Rubish, Rubish Film, how i wonder how they made you, with Clint Eastwood acting rubbish. Rubbish Rubbish, Rubbish film ,how I wonder how they made you?"

Implausible tale of 4 old coots, former Air Force hotshots, who finally get their chance to go to space because of an errant Russian satellite that's carrying a couple of small nuclear bombs. The satellite's technology is so old that only someone who can remember the Depression would know how to fix the technical glitches. (Which may be plausible, after all -- I know several people who can increase my bandwidth but don't know how to change the oil in their SUV's.) Eastwood as a director is, once again, merely excellent, as typified by his decision to use his cast's dubbed voices with younger actors for a prologue in the late '50's. However, and along those lines, Tommy Lee Jones is miscast: Eastwood, Sutherland, and Garner each have at least 15 years on the guy, and as a result Jones seems jarringly vital. The movie also earns demerits with its silly plot, as well as its grubbing for audience goodwill . . . but that is probably to expected in what is a conventional Hollywood production, and Eastwood probably wisely avoids trying to make this a Great Picture (like his *Unforgiven*, *Perfect World*, or *Bridges of Madison County*). Indeed, Eastwood films this salute to old-age with old-fashioned craftsmanship, meaning: no excessive special effects, no jarring camera-work, no slow-motion, no belaboring of the dramatic moments with endless close-ups, no swelling strings on the soundtrack, etc., etc., etc.

This one ain't brain candy. But it's one of the most fun movies I've seen in a while. It doesn't pretend to be anything profound or artsy. In fact, it's pretty much what you would expect given the cast. It's surprising to find Eastwood directing something like this. In fact, this is referred to a bit in the DVD features. The requirements of making a special effects movie (like CGI) don't sound like they would fit well with Eastwood's directing style which tends to have an almost exclusive focus on actors and story (and possibly a less than obsessive attention to detail). In other words, in making this kind of movie the work goes slowly and Eastwood likes to work quickly. But as it turns out, this is actually one of the better special effects movies, possibly because they generally take a back seat to the story.

If you want to see a movie that is simply fun, moves quickly (great editing) and particularly if you like Eastwood or Tommy Lee Jones, this movie is great. But don't expect to see 2001: A Space Odyssey or the Seven Samurai.

"Rubbish, Rubish, Rubish Film, how i wonder how they made you, with Clint Eastwood acting rubbish. Rubbish Rubbish, Rubbish film ,how I wonder how they made you?"

Implausible tale of 4 old coots, former Air Force hotshots, who finally get their chance to go to space because of an errant Russian satellite that's carrying a couple of small nuclear bombs. The satellite's technology is so old that only someone who can remember the Depression would know how to fix the technical glitches. (Which may be plausible, after all -- I know several people who can increase my bandwidth but don't know how to change the oil in their SUV's.) Eastwood as a director is, once again, merely excellent, as typified by his decision to use his cast's dubbed voices with younger actors for a prologue in the late '50's. However, and along those lines, Tommy Lee Jones is miscast: Eastwood, Sutherland, and Garner each have at least 15 years on the guy, and as a result Jones seems jarringly vital. The movie also earns demerits with its silly plot, as well as its grubbing for audience goodwill . . . but that is probably to expected in what is a conventional Hollywood production, and Eastwood probably wisely avoids trying to make this a Great Picture (like his *Unforgiven*, *Perfect World*, or *Bridges of Madison County*). Indeed, Eastwood films this salute to old-age with old-fashioned craftsmanship, meaning: no excessive special effects, no jarring camera-work, no slow-motion, no belaboring of the dramatic moments with endless close-ups, no swelling strings on the soundtrack, etc., etc., etc.

This one ain't brain candy. But it's one of the most fun movies I've seen in a while. It doesn't pretend to be anything profound or artsy. In fact, it's pretty much what you would expect given the cast. It's surprising to find Eastwood directing something like this. In fact, this is referred to a bit in the DVD features. The requirements of making a special effects movie (like CGI) don't sound like they would fit well with Eastwood's directing style which tends to have an almost exclusive focus on actors and story (and possibly a less than obsessive attention to detail). In other words, in making this kind of movie the work goes slowly and Eastwood likes to work quickly. But as it turns out, this is actually one of the better special effects movies, possibly because they generally take a back seat to the story.

If you want to see a movie that is simply fun, moves quickly (great editing) and particularly if you like Eastwood or Tommy Lee Jones, this movie is great. But don't expect to see 2001: A Space Odyssey or the Seven Samurai.