F.-Murray-Abraham Movie Reviews

In the 1993 adventure film, LAST ACTION HERO, Arnold Schwarzeneggger reteams with director JOHN McTIERNAN (Predator) as Jack Slater, the action hero of the 90's. Big time movie fan, young Danny Madigan (Austin O'Brien) receives a magic ticket from his old pal Nick- the projectionist of the films. After getting a chance to see the new JACK SLATER movie before it opens, Danny is enjoying the action packed-soon to be-blockbuster when the ticket starts glowing. A stick of dynamite blasts through the screen and BOOM! Danny is in the movie as Jack's comedic sidekick. Then, when Danny becomes Slater's new partner, he must track down Tony Vavawldi and his henchman Mr. Benedict. The adventure is on!

MY REVIEW:

"This is obviously an underated SCHWARZENEGGER adventure flick! It was sweet! The action, the explosions, the humor, the one liners- all good. Of course this isn't ARNOLD's best movie, but it does pretty well! It may unbelievable, but what ARNOLD movie isn't? Think- TERMINATOR 1 & 2, PREDATOR, THE RUNNING MAN, END OF DAYS, THE SIXTH DAY, JUNIOR, TOTAL RECALL, TWINS- all unbelievable ARNOLD films- but still entertaining!

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER and AUSTIN O'BRIEN make the best team! LAST ACTION HERO rocks! The opening scene says it all! Have fun! That's what fantasy movies are all about! So enjoy this fun flick to catch with friends or just to watch with popcorn!"- MJV & the Movies.

This is one of those movies that a lot of people that haven't seen it say, "That movie wasn't really that good, was it?" but those that have seen it, say, "Why wasn't this movie more popular?" Maybe it was bad timing, or as some others suggested, just not correctly billed to the public.

Last Action Hero is hard to describe. It's funny, it's witty, with lots of those one-liners that Arnold became so popular with, and I loved the way he constantly poked fun at his fictional character as well as his "real" self. Some of my favorite dialogue in the movie is when the kid is trying to convince "character Arnold (aka: Jack Slater)" that he's actually just a character in a movie. The kid starts asking about phone numbers and how can they possibly all start with 555- in a city with several million phone numbers, when Jack Slater exasperatedly says, "That's why we have Area Codes..." Priceless. The movie is full of fun stuff like that, and I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is even remotely a Schwarzenegger fan, or who just like campy, yet intelligent, movies. The parody within a parody, and movie within a movie actually worked well in this one.

I thought the movie had a lot of great character performances, and clever scripting, and I think this movie got a bum rap. It's really a great movie, I'm glad I bought the DVD. The transfer is a little sloppy in places on the one I bought, but since it's a "Special Anniversary Edition", I have a feeling that had something to do with it. There's only a fullscreen version on my DVD, no widescreen, and the camera pans are really noticeable in a few places.

and Hamlet is taking out the trash!

Jack Slater (Aronld) is a LA cop who is teamed up with Daniel Muggian. Daniel is from OUR world, via a magical ticket that old Nick gave him. Jack Slater is Daniel's hero. There has been several Jack Slater movies, as we see that this is "Jack Slater IV" that Daniel was watching when he enters the world of movies.
An Underated movie!

In the 1993 adventure film, LAST ACTION HERO, Arnold Schwarzeneggger reteams with director JOHN McTIERNAN (Predator) as Jack Slater, the action hero of the 90's. Big time movie fan, young Danny Madigan (Austin O'Brien) receives a magic ticket from his old pal Nick- the projectionist of the films. After getting a chance to see the new JACK SLATER movie before it opens, Danny is enjoying the action packed-soon to be-blockbuster when the ticket starts glowing. A stick of dynamite blasts through the screen and BOOM! Danny is in the movie as Jack's comedic sidekick. Then, when Danny becomes Slater's new partner, he must track down Tony Vavawldi and his henchman Mr. Benedict. The adventure is on!

MY REVIEW:

"This is obviously an underated SCHWARZENEGGER adventure flick! It was sweet! The action, the explosions, the humor, the one liners- all good. Of course this isn't ARNOLD's best movie, but it does pretty well! It may unbelievable, but what ARNOLD movie isn't? Think- TERMINATOR 1 & 2, PREDATOR, THE RUNNING MAN, END OF DAYS, THE SIXTH DAY, JUNIOR, TOTAL RECALL, TWINS- all unbelievable ARNOLD films- but still entertaining!

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER and AUSTIN O'BRIEN make the best team! LAST ACTION HERO rocks! The opening scene says it all! Have fun! That's what fantasy movies are all about! So enjoy this fun flick to catch with friends or just to watch with popcorn!"- MJV & the Movies.

This is one of those movies that a lot of people that haven't seen it say, "That movie wasn't really that good, was it?" but those that have seen it, say, "Why wasn't this movie more popular?" Maybe it was bad timing, or as some others suggested, just not correctly billed to the public.

Last Action Hero is hard to describe. It's funny, it's witty, with lots of those one-liners that Arnold became so popular with, and I loved the way he constantly poked fun at his fictional character as well as his "real" self. Some of my favorite dialogue in the movie is when the kid is trying to convince "character Arnold (aka: Jack Slater)" that he's actually just a character in a movie. The kid starts asking about phone numbers and how can they possibly all start with 555- in a city with several million phone numbers, when Jack Slater exasperatedly says, "That's why we have Area Codes..." Priceless. The movie is full of fun stuff like that, and I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is even remotely a Schwarzenegger fan, or who just like campy, yet intelligent, movies. The parody within a parody, and movie within a movie actually worked well in this one.

I thought the movie had a lot of great character performances, and clever scripting, and I think this movie got a bum rap. It's really a great movie, I'm glad I bought the DVD. The transfer is a little sloppy in places on the one I bought, but since it's a "Special Anniversary Edition", I have a feeling that had something to do with it. There's only a fullscreen version on my DVD, no widescreen, and the camera pans are really noticeable in a few places.

and Hamlet is taking out the trash!

Jack Slater (Aronld) is a LA cop who is teamed up with Daniel Muggian. Daniel is from OUR world, via a magical ticket that old Nick gave him. Jack Slater is Daniel's hero. There has been several Jack Slater movies, as we see that this is "Jack Slater IV" that Daniel was watching when he enters the world of movies.
An Underated movie!

In the 1993 adventure film, LAST ACTION HERO, Arnold Schwarzeneggger reteams with director JOHN McTIERNAN (Predator) as Jack Slater, the action hero of the 90's. Big time movie fan, young Danny Madigan (Austin O'Brien) receives a magic ticket from his old pal Nick- the projectionist of the films. After getting a chance to see the new JACK SLATER movie before it opens, Danny is enjoying the action packed-soon to be-blockbuster when the ticket starts glowing. A stick of dynamite blasts through the screen and BOOM! Danny is in the movie as Jack's comedic sidekick. Then, when Danny becomes Slater's new partner, he must track down Tony Vavawldi and his henchman Mr. Benedict. The adventure is on!

MY REVIEW:

"This is obviously an underated SCHWARZENEGGER adventure flick! It was sweet! The action, the explosions, the humor, the one liners- all good. Of course this isn't ARNOLD's best movie, but it does pretty well! It may unbelievable, but what ARNOLD movie isn't? Think- TERMINATOR 1 & 2, PREDATOR, THE RUNNING MAN, END OF DAYS, THE SIXTH DAY, JUNIOR, TOTAL RECALL, TWINS- all unbelievable ARNOLD films- but still entertaining!

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER and AUSTIN O'BRIEN make the best team! LAST ACTION HERO rocks! The opening scene says it all! Have fun! That's what fantasy movies are all about! So enjoy this fun flick to catch with friends or just to watch with popcorn!"- MJV & the Movies.

This is one of those movies that a lot of people that haven't seen it say, "That movie wasn't really that good, was it?" but those that have seen it, say, "Why wasn't this movie more popular?" Maybe it was bad timing, or as some others suggested, just not correctly billed to the public.

Last Action Hero is hard to describe. It's funny, it's witty, with lots of those one-liners that Arnold became so popular with, and I loved the way he constantly poked fun at his fictional character as well as his "real" self. Some of my favorite dialogue in the movie is when the kid is trying to convince "character Arnold (aka: Jack Slater)" that he's actually just a character in a movie. The kid starts asking about phone numbers and how can they possibly all start with 555- in a city with several million phone numbers, when Jack Slater exasperatedly says, "That's why we have Area Codes..." Priceless. The movie is full of fun stuff like that, and I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is even remotely a Schwarzenegger fan, or who just like campy, yet intelligent, movies. The parody within a parody, and movie within a movie actually worked well in this one.

I thought the movie had a lot of great character performances, and clever scripting, and I think this movie got a bum rap. It's really a great movie, I'm glad I bought the DVD. The transfer is a little sloppy in places on the one I bought, but since it's a "Special Anniversary Edition", I have a feeling that had something to do with it. There's only a fullscreen version on my DVD, no widescreen, and the camera pans are really noticeable in a few places.

and Hamlet is taking out the trash!

Jack Slater (Aronld) is a LA cop who is teamed up with Daniel Muggian. Daniel is from OUR world, via a magical ticket that old Nick gave him. Jack Slater is Daniel's hero. There has been several Jack Slater movies, as we see that this is "Jack Slater IV" that Daniel was watching when he enters the world of movies.
An Underated movie!

To be fair, I also disliked the much praised Terms of Endearment, so maybe McMurtry fans will love this. For myself, if there are ever prizes for the worst beginning and end of a movie, this is a contender for both. The first beginning is an elderly Native American woman warning her son to beware of a truly odd pair of women. Then it switches to a fascinating discussion among the cowboys: "Woody, did you ever see a whore (pronounced hur) with a snapping turtle?" "Why no, Gus, I never did see a hur with a snapping turtle. How about you Clem, did you ever see a hur with a snapping turtle?" "Why gracious sakes alive, no, I never did see a hur with a snapping turtle." I'm sure it didn't really last for twenty minutes, but it was a long time until she finally threw it at someone. "How about you Slim, did you ever see a hur with a snapping turtle?" "Oh no, I seen an investment banker with a snapping turtle, but never no hur." Maybe the idea is to convince us that, say what you will about television, it beats flying snapping turtles. "How about you, Russ ..." Most of the movie consists of watching the characters drop like flies from various causes, mostly being shot. This is less exciting than one might think: the very few characters I liked died, and I was utterly indifferent to the fate of the rest. Finally, our surviving heroes are held captive by the Mexicans and then sent on their way with two women and a boy. They are nearly attacked by the aforementioned Native American warrior. However, his mother did warn him that if he saw a white woman with leprosy riding naked on a horse followed by a black woman, also riding, brandishing a sword, he should high-tail it out of there. The most bizarre thing is that the women assume these postures as if this were the well-known, sure-fire method of scaring off attacking Indians. The viewer should take the hint and vamoose as well.

Its about Gus and Call, when they're not yet 20. It has a different ending than the book, but, I thin its a good ending, if a little strange. The way Call was portrayed in Dead Man's Walk was a little akward, but it was a good way to portray him. He wasn't that social, but willing to learn, and he was probably akward to. It makes sense. A lot of people think he wasn't ever akward and he was always competent. Thats not true. The music isn't as good as Lonesome Dove's music, but still, this is a movie worth while.

Dead Man's Walk is based on Larry McMurtry's book by the same name. The main characters, Woodrow Call and Gus McRae (from his best known in this series - Lonesome Dove) are shown as young men - probably in their late teens or very early twenties. This one is a little bloody at times. David Arquette (fiancee of Courtney Cox and they guy on those goofy 10-10-321 commercials) is Gus McRae. Jonny Lee Miller (Trainspotting, Hackers, Afterglow) is Woodrow Call. Jonny Lee is the standout in this video. His interpretation of Woodrow Call is right on the money - he says so much with just an expression and since Woodrow doesn't say much - that's pretty important. We really enjoyed it but again, younger kids might want to skip this one.

I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but this mediocre entry into the Star Trek cannon just shouldnt have happened. After the exciting, excellently paced First Contact, Insurrection looks really bad. If this had come out after Generations, it would have been an improvement by leaps and bounds. But whereas FC felt like a movie, Insurrection is really just a collection of some of the more worthwhile things in Trek. Unfortunately, its all been there-done that. Its time to open up the Trek franchise and have a movie that sprawls the galaxy in a myriad of locations, not this rather mundane retread of Trek ethics. I love the ideas represented here, but the execution is downright clunky. Only the excellent direction by Frakes and the interesting special effects (although a bit to noticeably digital for my tastes) save this film and raise it above least involving Trek movies, Final Frontier and Generations.

Most of these reviews of Insurrection damn the film with faint praise. It wasn't this, it wasn't that. The Federation wouldn't do this. There's petty squabbles about legal points, etc. Writer Michael Piller clearly uses Star Trek Insurrection, much as Roddenberry did, as a soapbox to decry the injustices visited upon others. Usually he'd use Star Trek as a analogy of what had occurred in the past or present.

That doesn't make Insurrection a great film but it does have substance. The film would have been more powerful with a stronger villian. Why the character of Q never showed up is beyond me (actually it probably has to do with the fact that Paramount always dictated that any NextGen script had to be understandable by a person totally unfamiliar with Star Trek. Sorry folks, but that doesn't always make for interesting or good entertainment). It's also entertaining. Of all the Trek films featuring the NextGen crew, Insurrection has an abundance of humor. It's that humor along with the action sequences that make Insurrection work very well indeed. It's certainly not the best Trek film, nor is it the worst. For all of its cleverness and the moving scenes involving Picard's loss in Generations, that film is fairly empty and fairly routine. It smacks of being an overblown episode of the series. That's OK as the series at its best produced The Best of Both Worlds and other episodes equally as strong.

The plot in a nutshell; the Federation elects to violate their own ethical directives and relocate a people so that others can benefit. The Baku live on a planet with an unusual form of radiation that can provide the Fountain of Youth or a cure for almost any disease.

Data discovers the plot as he is observing the Baku. He tries to return with the info but is damaged and, in a sense, goes mad. He goes into defensive mode and, in the process, exposes the Federation's presence on the planet. Picard is called upon to provide info on Data's systems so they can destroy him. Picard feels compelled to investigate knowing that the behavior the Android is demonstrating is unusual.

He also discovers the plot against these peaceful people and the plan to do a forced relocation without their knowledge.

The epic scale of the visual effects in Insurrection sets it apart from the smaller screen version. Sure, the story could have been featured as an episode of the series. Somehow I don't view that as a bad thing. Trek in its prime dealt with important conflicts, issues and ideas presented in an entertaining format. Just as director/actor Jonathan Frakes does here. If it lacks the larger than life conflict of First Contact (a film frequently accused of ripping off Wrath of Kahn because it quotes Moby Dick. Beyond the quotation from Melville's classic, the film deals with obsession but, handles the theme quite different and deftly but enough on that...)or the space opera elements of Nemesis, Insurrection provides more than the usual sketchy character moments of either of these films. All four of the Trek films are unique, different and, yes, flawed in their own way.

Many fans seem disturbed by the fact that the Federation is showed as flawed. Yep. It makes the film and the characters more interesting. I realize that Roddenberry had a vision for the Federation as perfect. Perfection is boring in drama. There's no conflict. There's also the political repatriation aspect of the story. It suggests that humanity hasn't changed significantly. Human nature, despite our noble ideals, is to be greedy and selfish. The fact that humanity isn't a paragon of virtue but still manages to do the right thing is what makes drama (and humanity) interesting.

The DVD transfer is sharp and looks very good. Unlike Generations which had some transfer problems, Insurrection looks great on a big screen. The sound is also quite good. The extras are pretty skimpy; more than likely Paramount will try to milk the fans again by introducing a special edition. Insurrection has a trailer and featurette originally shown on either Showtime or HBO (don't recall which)which is pretty ordinary. There's no director's commentary, no special effects discussions (and there are some stunning sequences in the Briar Patch)and no discussion on the political implications of the script.

The final word: Enjoy Insurrection for what it is--an entertaining visit with old friends. The sad thing is that Nemesis got negative press and lost admit the Holiday releases from last year. As a result, Paramount won't greenlight anymore NextGen adventures. They blame us, the fans, when they need to look within at their marketing of the pictures. I'll dismount the soapbox now that I've made my case for Insurrection as a solid occasionally inspired movie that is dramatically flawed.

Ok, from what I have heard, the main gripe about this film, is that it could have been a TV episode. But when it comes to being a film, I think that this movie hits it right on the mark.

The humor in it adds some bubbly fun to a film that could have been all syrup and saddness. And unlike some sci-fi films, the humor isn't contrived and it actually makes sense. Who doesn't get a kick out of Worf's wart or Data's ability to be a flotation device?

Another thing that made this Star Trek film great, was that it didn't center on Captain Picard, like many of the other films (and TV episodes) have a tendency to do. You get to hear about how other people are reacting to and experiencing this latest adventure. Yes, this film does give Patrick Stewart an ample amount of screen time, but it also allows the viewers to enjoy little quirks about the rest of the characters we have grown to love over the years.

Complaints about plot holes and such I think are reading too much into the film. This is sci-fi, ok? Give the writers, directors, and producers a little leg room!

Overall, I believe this to be an excellent addition to the Star Trek family of movies. A little bit of fun, adventure, intensity, and the well placed moral at the end. So grab some popcorn, a pillow, and your phaser shaped remote control, as Insurrection takes you boldly into a different style for this crew, and has a bunch of fun doing it.

I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but this mediocre entry into the Star Trek cannon just shouldnt have happened. After the exciting, excellently paced First Contact, Insurrection looks really bad. If this had come out after Generations, it would have been an improvement by leaps and bounds. But whereas FC felt like a movie, Insurrection is really just a collection of some of the more worthwhile things in Trek. Unfortunately, its all been there-done that. Its time to open up the Trek franchise and have a movie that sprawls the galaxy in a myriad of locations, not this rather mundane retread of Trek ethics. I love the ideas represented here, but the execution is downright clunky. Only the excellent direction by Frakes and the interesting special effects (although a bit to noticeably digital for my tastes) save this film and raise it above least involving Trek movies, Final Frontier and Generations.

Most of these reviews of Insurrection damn the film with faint praise. It wasn't this, it wasn't that. The Federation wouldn't do this. There's petty squabbles about legal points, etc. Writer Michael Piller clearly uses Star Trek Insurrection, much as Roddenberry did, as a soapbox to decry the injustices visited upon others. Usually he'd use Star Trek as a analogy of what had occurred in the past or present.

That doesn't make Insurrection a great film but it does have substance. The film would have been more powerful with a stronger villian. Why the character of Q never showed up is beyond me (actually it probably has to do with the fact that Paramount always dictated that any NextGen script had to be understandable by a person totally unfamiliar with Star Trek. Sorry folks, but that doesn't always make for interesting or good entertainment). It's also entertaining. Of all the Trek films featuring the NextGen crew, Insurrection has an abundance of humor. It's that humor along with the action sequences that make Insurrection work very well indeed. It's certainly not the best Trek film, nor is it the worst. For all of its cleverness and the moving scenes involving Picard's loss in Generations, that film is fairly empty and fairly routine. It smacks of being an overblown episode of the series. That's OK as the series at its best produced The Best of Both Worlds and other episodes equally as strong.

The plot in a nutshell; the Federation elects to violate their own ethical directives and relocate a people so that others can benefit. The Baku live on a planet with an unusual form of radiation that can provide the Fountain of Youth or a cure for almost any disease.

Data discovers the plot as he is observing the Baku. He tries to return with the info but is damaged and, in a sense, goes mad. He goes into defensive mode and, in the process, exposes the Federation's presence on the planet. Picard is called upon to provide info on Data's systems so they can destroy him. Picard feels compelled to investigate knowing that the behavior the Android is demonstrating is unusual.

He also discovers the plot against these peaceful people and the plan to do a forced relocation without their knowledge.

The epic scale of the visual effects in Insurrection sets it apart from the smaller screen version. Sure, the story could have been featured as an episode of the series. Somehow I don't view that as a bad thing. Trek in its prime dealt with important conflicts, issues and ideas presented in an entertaining format. Just as director/actor Jonathan Frakes does here. If it lacks the larger than life conflict of First Contact (a film frequently accused of ripping off Wrath of Kahn because it quotes Moby Dick. Beyond the quotation from Melville's classic, the film deals with obsession but, handles the theme quite different and deftly but enough on that...)or the space opera elements of Nemesis, Insurrection provides more than the usual sketchy character moments of either of these films. All four of the Trek films are unique, different and, yes, flawed in their own way.

Many fans seem disturbed by the fact that the Federation is showed as flawed. Yep. It makes the film and the characters more interesting. I realize that Roddenberry had a vision for the Federation as perfect. Perfection is boring in drama. There's no conflict. There's also the political repatriation aspect of the story. It suggests that humanity hasn't changed significantly. Human nature, despite our noble ideals, is to be greedy and selfish. The fact that humanity isn't a paragon of virtue but still manages to do the right thing is what makes drama (and humanity) interesting.

The DVD transfer is sharp and looks very good. Unlike Generations which had some transfer problems, Insurrection looks great on a big screen. The sound is also quite good. The extras are pretty skimpy; more than likely Paramount will try to milk the fans again by introducing a special edition. Insurrection has a trailer and featurette originally shown on either Showtime or HBO (don't recall which)which is pretty ordinary. There's no director's commentary, no special effects discussions (and there are some stunning sequences in the Briar Patch)and no discussion on the political implications of the script.

The final word: Enjoy Insurrection for what it is--an entertaining visit with old friends. The sad thing is that Nemesis got negative press and lost admit the Holiday releases from last year. As a result, Paramount won't greenlight anymore NextGen adventures. They blame us, the fans, when they need to look within at their marketing of the pictures. I'll dismount the soapbox now that I've made my case for Insurrection as a solid occasionally inspired movie that is dramatically flawed.

Ok, from what I have heard, the main gripe about this film, is that it could have been a TV episode. But when it comes to being a film, I think that this movie hits it right on the mark.

The humor in it adds some bubbly fun to a film that could have been all syrup and saddness. And unlike some sci-fi films, the humor isn't contrived and it actually makes sense. Who doesn't get a kick out of Worf's wart or Data's ability to be a flotation device?

Another thing that made this Star Trek film great, was that it didn't center on Captain Picard, like many of the other films (and TV episodes) have a tendency to do. You get to hear about how other people are reacting to and experiencing this latest adventure. Yes, this film does give Patrick Stewart an ample amount of screen time, but it also allows the viewers to enjoy little quirks about the rest of the characters we have grown to love over the years.

Complaints about plot holes and such I think are reading too much into the film. This is sci-fi, ok? Give the writers, directors, and producers a little leg room!

Overall, I believe this to be an excellent addition to the Star Trek family of movies. A little bit of fun, adventure, intensity, and the well placed moral at the end. So grab some popcorn, a pillow, and your phaser shaped remote control, as Insurrection takes you boldly into a different style for this crew, and has a bunch of fun doing it.

Not a bad movie , especially for those who find the history channel too dry. It weaves the base truth of his life and loves into a palatable mix of history and dramatization.

Gee, it seems all reviews up to this date I write have COMPLETELY MISSED the "obvious", and that being~

Tcheky Karyo's "Michel" is not only a "hipster-saint" mystic of those dreadful Dark Ages( but are not we are currently in a NEW DARK AGES ,"imo"...), but the ladies just can not seem to get their hands OFF our bearded stalwart "Nosti", no he is ONE HOT ITEM !
(And WHAT a cast of ladies, Julie Armond, Assumpta Serna, Maja Morgenstern,gee , even Amanda Plummer as "the Queenie" is as interesting as the other 3 mentioned are lovely).They all "dig" our boy , they were the original "groupies".

My mind was continually distracted from a quite enjoyable "historical fiction" account of the life of this legendary and enigmatic "prognosticator"~~he was NOT a "procrastinator" when it came to a bit of "back to the castle bedroom for some bouncy-bouncy". Would this "Movie Nosti" turn down a trip to the sack??(is there an alligator that would refuse the corpse???) Grrrr,"have at it", Michel !!

Our beloved (and overly medicated)"Don Juan" de Nostradame even had second thoughts when he gets a proposal from one of his aging female patients *whilst*(isnt that how they said that word then, hehe!)his hand was checking in vicinity of her mammalian apparatus for swollen lymph nodes from PLAGUE!

Excellent performances by all, great "period-piece " costumes, "medieval" soundtrack and empassioned performances, even if a bit OVER THE TOP.

A thouroughly delightful movie not meant to reveal any "truths", but should spur interest to discover the "historical" Nostradamus and just sit back and enjoy this emminently watchable film....

This is one of the best movies I have seen on him. It was highly enjoyable and I recommend it to anyone wanting to add to their Nostradamus collection. This is one not to pass up.

I was very hesitant about seeing this movie. I have heard not so good things about it from almost everyone who has seen it. I was expecting to not like it. Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Is it a great movie?. God no. Is it fun?. Oh yeah. I found myself enjoying the movie. Former "Wings" co-star Tony Shalhoub and his family, including red hot Shannon Elizabeth as his daughter, his little son, and a cliched black nanny, inherit his recently deceased Uncle Cyrus' weird house made entirely of glass. It appears that the uncle collected ghosts and has them locked up in containment cells in the basement. Well, naturally, something happens and the ghosts are set free. Our new owners are locked in the house and must battle the ghosties. The catch is that you can only see them when wearing these special glasses. I won't delve too much into what happens so as not too ruin it for anybody who might see it. F. Murray Abraham co-stars as Uncle Cyrus. Mr. Abraham, have things been this bad since your oscar winning performance in "Amadeus"?. This movie isn't going to set the cinema on fire, or overly impress most people, but it is solid entertainment. I was expecting to hate it after hearing other people, but I enjoyed it quite a lot. Matthew Lillard and his drool also appear. Is it just me or does he drool a lot?. He did in "Scream" and he does in here too. Shannon Elizabeth looks great, but her role is just a typical 'damsel in distress'thing. Rah Digga as the nanny was a horrible cliche. A black character as nothing better than a nanny. It gets worse folks. She is also there to chime in with the typical comical one liners at the most inopportune time. So stereotypical. This is 2002 you filmmakers. Can't we do something better with a character than that?!. I guess not. I do have to say that some of the ghosts were downright creepy. Even if you dislike the movie, you have to admit that the make-up was great, which it was, and that the ghosts were really good. They were. This is the only recent 're-make' of an old horror movie that I have liked. Sure I still dream of the old days when movies were scary without CGI and effects and were just meant to be scary, but this movie managed to have a little of both. The make-up was great and the ghosts themselves were eerie. A couple death scenes were quite cool too. The first 10 minutes or so were pretty interesting to watch. "13 Ghosts" is not a winner by any stretch of the imagination. No one is going to feel smarter after watching it. It's just entertainment and entertain it did. At least for me. Two and a half stars.

A typical horror movie chalked full of ghosts and guels, 13 Ghosts is an enjoyable monster movie with cool special effects and the commonplace uneffective understory. The real stars are the ghosts, which are very well done.

The DVD is boreing to an extent and takes from the buying incentive. A decent buy, but only for horror fans.

... it was a surprisingly decent movie, with a bad ending. I have never liked it when people said "you've seen one haunted house flick, you've seen them all" cause the fact it, though haunted house flicks are similar they deserved to be examined on thier own level. Besides, your obviously interested enough to look it up, so you'll probably at least rent it. Remeber, I'm not writing to deterr your intrest, nor encourage it, I'm just relaying some good, and bad points of the film.

The movie starts with a solid concept: thare are 12 ghosts, each corresponding to a sign in the "Black Zodiac" (and while that idea is cool, the black zodiac is compleatly fake, for those of you who have seen the film and were wondering), these ghosts' energys are required to run a machine called the "Occularis de Inferno" or "The Eye of Hell" which is a device that can see through time and other such goodies. Thare is a failsafe, which is the 13th ghost, the spirit that jumpstarts the Occularis, a human sacrifice of love (you are blatantly lied about this in the movie, and you have to figure it out for yourself, so I saved you some time). Now, if you give me a movie with that solid of a backround, I gonna want to know more about all the little facits of everything. That's why I liked the DVD, you can go check out the life history of each ghost. Many of the spirits did not get equal time on screen. If each of these ghosts are so important you should spend some time with each. Out of all 12 ghosts, only 4 receved ample screen time: "The Angry Princess" (the first ghost to be released), "The Juggarnaut" (you see him being captured in the opening), "The Jackal" (by far the nastiest ghost out of any), and "The Hammer".

This machine that I mentioned before, the Occularis, takes the form of the house. It is of breathtakingly beautiful design. It is made of mostly glass with latin containment spells written in them, I would like to commend the designer. With both blazingly bright rooms and unsettlingly dark ones, it makes for a nice contrast.

Dispite all that this movie had going for it, it fell short in exicution and simply fell apart at the end. As far as directing and editing, the ghosts were handled superbly, seeing only flashes of them at times (I'm referring especally to and attack on Shannon Elizabeth by The Jackal, one of the good frights in the movie), but the other scenes between the living actors was very standard and sterile.

Is this the best haunted house flick ever? Not by longshot, but it does put more behind it that most cookie-cutter horror flicks, and for that it deserves a little recognition. Belive me, you'll be praising it when "Jason X" comes out.

I was very hesitant about seeing this movie. I have heard not so good things about it from almost everyone who has seen it. I was expecting to not like it. Well, I was pleasantly surprised. Is it a great movie?. God no. Is it fun?. Oh yeah. I found myself enjoying the movie. Former "Wings" co-star Tony Shalhoub and his family, including red hot Shannon Elizabeth as his daughter, his little son, and a cliched black nanny, inherit his recently deceased Uncle Cyrus' weird house made entirely of glass. It appears that the uncle collected ghosts and has them locked up in containment cells in the basement. Well, naturally, something happens and the ghosts are set free. Our new owners are locked in the house and must battle the ghosties. The catch is that you can only see them when wearing these special glasses. I won't delve too much into what happens so as not too ruin it for anybody who might see it. F. Murray Abraham co-stars as Uncle Cyrus. Mr. Abraham, have things been this bad since your oscar winning performance in "Amadeus"?. This movie isn't going to set the cinema on fire, or overly impress most people, but it is solid entertainment. I was expecting to hate it after hearing other people, but I enjoyed it quite a lot. Matthew Lillard and his drool also appear. Is it just me or does he drool a lot?. He did in "Scream" and he does in here too. Shannon Elizabeth looks great, but her role is just a typical 'damsel in distress'thing. Rah Digga as the nanny was a horrible cliche. A black character as nothing better than a nanny. It gets worse folks. She is also there to chime in with the typical comical one liners at the most inopportune time. So stereotypical. This is 2002 you filmmakers. Can't we do something better with a character than that?!. I guess not. I do have to say that some of the ghosts were downright creepy. Even if you dislike the movie, you have to admit that the make-up was great, which it was, and that the ghosts were really good. They were. This is the only recent 're-make' of an old horror movie that I have liked. Sure I still dream of the old days when movies were scary without CGI and effects and were just meant to be scary, but this movie managed to have a little of both. The make-up was great and the ghosts themselves were eerie. A couple death scenes were quite cool too. The first 10 minutes or so were pretty interesting to watch. "13 Ghosts" is not a winner by any stretch of the imagination. No one is going to feel smarter after watching it. It's just entertainment and entertain it did. At least for me. Two and a half stars.

A typical horror movie chalked full of ghosts and guels, 13 Ghosts is an enjoyable monster movie with cool special effects and the commonplace uneffective understory. The real stars are the ghosts, which are very well done.

The DVD is boreing to an extent and takes from the buying incentive. A decent buy, but only for horror fans.

... it was a surprisingly decent movie, with a bad ending. I have never liked it when people said "you've seen one haunted house flick, you've seen them all" cause the fact it, though haunted house flicks are similar they deserved to be examined on thier own level. Besides, your obviously interested enough to look it up, so you'll probably at least rent it. Remeber, I'm not writing to deterr your intrest, nor encourage it, I'm just relaying some good, and bad points of the film.

The movie starts with a solid concept: thare are 12 ghosts, each corresponding to a sign in the "Black Zodiac" (and while that idea is cool, the black zodiac is compleatly fake, for those of you who have seen the film and were wondering), these ghosts' energys are required to run a machine called the "Occularis de Inferno" or "The Eye of Hell" which is a device that can see through time and other such goodies. Thare is a failsafe, which is the 13th ghost, the spirit that jumpstarts the Occularis, a human sacrifice of love (you are blatantly lied about this in the movie, and you have to figure it out for yourself, so I saved you some time). Now, if you give me a movie with that solid of a backround, I gonna want to know more about all the little facits of everything. That's why I liked the DVD, you can go check out the life history of each ghost. Many of the spirits did not get equal time on screen. If each of these ghosts are so important you should spend some time with each. Out of all 12 ghosts, only 4 receved ample screen time: "The Angry Princess" (the first ghost to be released), "The Juggarnaut" (you see him being captured in the opening), "The Jackal" (by far the nastiest ghost out of any), and "The Hammer".

This machine that I mentioned before, the Occularis, takes the form of the house. It is of breathtakingly beautiful design. It is made of mostly glass with latin containment spells written in them, I would like to commend the designer. With both blazingly bright rooms and unsettlingly dark ones, it makes for a nice contrast.

Dispite all that this movie had going for it, it fell short in exicution and simply fell apart at the end. As far as directing and editing, the ghosts were handled superbly, seeing only flashes of them at times (I'm referring especally to and attack on Shannon Elizabeth by The Jackal, one of the good frights in the movie), but the other scenes between the living actors was very standard and sterile.

Is this the best haunted house flick ever? Not by longshot, but it does put more behind it that most cookie-cutter horror flicks, and for that it deserves a little recognition. Belive me, you'll be praising it when "Jason X" comes out.

In 1990, Venezuelan billboards announced 'La Favorita' - a darkhaired, blue-eyed beauty in a harem. 4 of us Americans went to themovie (English with Spanish subtitles in Caracas). Something musthave gotten lost in the translation. The Venezolanos remainedserious, quiet, respectful throughout the film. We Americans couldnot keep from laughing at bad acting. Leaving the cinema, I had toapologize to the other three for suggesting the film. Ever since, Ihave wanted to re-watch this worst movie I have ever seen to determineif my first impression was right. I seriously want to see it again..... END

Based on the novel "Sultant" by Prince Michael of Greece, INTIMATE POWER (aka THE FAVORITE) is a tepid, turgid period piece that is saved by the performance of Amber O'Shea.

INTIMATE POWER is the startling "true story" of Aimee Dubuoa (Amber O'Shea), who is kidnapped by pirates and sold into the harem of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.

Tragically falling in love with the Sultan's nephew, the sensual young Aimee instead becomes the Sultan's favorite, posing as a threat to the older women of the harem.

This epic of sexual and political power follows the remarkable life of a woman as she fights for and gains ultimate control of one of the world's last male-dominated empires.

With F. Murray Abraham, Maud Adams, James Michael Gregary, Andrea Parisy and Ron Dortch.

Based on a true story, this intrigueing story has no biased axe to grind. A French girl taken captive by pirates and sold to the Sultan of the Ottoman empire eventually becomes his willing favorate. Her own infant son is murdered by another of the Sultan's wives who wants her own son to take the throne. The French girl outwits her rivals and ultimately plays a great part in the destiny of Turkey. Don't confuse this movie with the other movie of the same title. It is unfortunate that more people can't see this one. It's not sex trach.