George-C.-Scott Movie Reviews

Michael Rossi (Eric Roberts) is engaged to Irina Stroia (Diane Lane), but learns that his future father-in-law, Florian Stroia (George C. Scott) is some sort of Nazi war criminal in this 1990 made-for-television movie. The only real suspense in the film is whether or not Michael will figure things out before Florian figures out that Michael is figuring things out. Unlike "Music Box," an obvious comparison and a much better film overall, there is no blood bond between the protagonist and antagonist. Sure, Irina will have a hard time trying to decide which, if either of the pair, get her forgiveness once she learns her fiance has unmasked her father as a mass murdering Nazi, but the entire rationale for making "Descending Angel" is to have an escalating series of confrontations between Michael and Florian. Unfortunately, the performance by Roberts does not match what Scott brings to the table as an actor.

The screenplay by Robert Siegel, Grace Woodard, and Alan Sharp gets points for offering us an oral debate on where the atrocities of the past fit into the world of today, but some viewers will no doubt be offended by giving the devil the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. In that regard "Descending Angel" is more like the end of George Steiner's novel, "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H." in which Hitler speaks to the Jewish Nazi hunters who have tracked him down. There is a valuable lesson of sorts to be learned here, having to do with not letting seductive words make us forget acts of evil, and some of that does indeed come across despite the weaknesses of the film.

A liked of this film only by George C. Scott's work. The history and the other actors are good but Scott makes the difference. He is a strong and imponent actor, and change the manner to see any movie. If you like George C. Scott, i recommend this movie.

Great movie. It has Eric Roberts in it who is a geart actor so that says it all! Buy it now for his sake.

My sister and I watched this movie together about 20 years ago when we were kids. George C. Scott gives a good performance, although we did get a good laugh out of the General trying to hang on as the Hindenburgh crashes to the earth.

THE HINDENBURG is a movie which attempts to describe what could have happened on board the famous airship before and during its historic crash in New Jersey in 1937.It is a slow moving film which features an assortment of slightly eccentric characters somewhat in the style of SHIP OF FOOLS. Unfortunately this movie does not measure up to SHIP OF FOOLS although the cast of THE HINDENBURG includes some great actors such as George C. Scott, Anne Bancroft and Burgess Meredith.

In spite of its shortcomings THE HINDENBURG did receive an honorary award for visual and sound effects as well as Oscar nominations for Best Cinematography, Art Direction and Sound. The main competition for Academy Awards in 1975 came from ONE FLEW OVER THE CUKOO'S NEST starring Jack Nicholson.

Enjoyable disaster film that liberally blends fact with fiction. In true genre style, there are a host of stereotypes thrown together in a predictable and thinly plotted manner...but the special effects are first rate and cleverly interspersed with actual newsreel footage. Enjoyable matinee fare.

This sumptuous retelling of Mark Twain's classic tale of two young look-a-likes who switch places to see who has the easiest life is rousing family entertainment. Mark Lester(of "Oliver" fame) is consistently appealing in dual title role, and he receives solid support from other stalwarts like Charlton Heston, Oliver Reed, George C. Scott, etc. This is the best filmization of Twain's novel by far.

This is a excellent movie. It's a beautifull expression of human's behaviors. Through a wonderfull story, the most magnificent human qualities are expressed . Honesty, generosity and compassion are opposed to cupidity, malice and cruelty. This is the kind of movies that will make you again young in heart... if your not already. I recommend it to anybody that want to revive their humanity or rejuvinate a few year.

This movie really let me and my entire family down it was not even close to anything I or any of my family members would pay free money for let alone hard earned money that we through away on this bogus movie. Its bad enough the republicans steal all the money from the working class now were being taken over the coals by the movie industrie I can only hope this review gets to the poor sap who was going to buy the really bad movie next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prince Brat and the Whipping Boy is a movie for the whole family. It has a good plot. A young boy must take care of his sister since they're parents are dead. One day, he's kidnapped by the prince to become his whipping boy. From there, hilarious antics and jokes will keep you laughing. With a great cast of characters and a good plot, this movie is one of the best children's movie to date!

This video really relates to the book. It really tells what it was like back then in Jemmy's time and and what whipping boys had to suffer. It will give you a lot of laughs and a bit of law. I recommend this video to everyone.

This movie really let me and my entire family down it was not even close to anything I or any of my family members would pay free money for let alone hard earned money that we through away on this bogus movie. Its bad enough the republicans steal all the money from the working class now were being taken over the coals by the movie industrie I can only hope this review gets to the poor sap who was going to buy the really bad movie next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prince Brat and the Whipping Boy is a movie for the whole family. It has a good plot. A young boy must take care of his sister since they're parents are dead. One day, he's kidnapped by the prince to become his whipping boy. From there, hilarious antics and jokes will keep you laughing. With a great cast of characters and a good plot, this movie is one of the best children's movie to date!

This video really relates to the book. It really tells what it was like back then in Jemmy's time and and what whipping boys had to suffer. It will give you a lot of laughs and a bit of law. I recommend this video to everyone.

This movie really let me and my entire family down it was not even close to anything I or any of my family members would pay free money for let alone hard earned money that we through away on this bogus movie. Its bad enough the republicans steal all the money from the working class now were being taken over the coals by the movie industrie I can only hope this review gets to the poor sap who was going to buy the really bad movie next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prince Brat and the Whipping Boy is a movie for the whole family. It has a good plot. A young boy must take care of his sister since they're parents are dead. One day, he's kidnapped by the prince to become his whipping boy. From there, hilarious antics and jokes will keep you laughing. With a great cast of characters and a good plot, this movie is one of the best children's movie to date!

This video really relates to the book. It really tells what it was like back then in Jemmy's time and and what whipping boys had to suffer. It will give you a lot of laughs and a bit of law. I recommend this video to everyone.

I had high hopes for this film, because I could readily envision George C. Scott as Rochester. But, in the end, I think this is the very worst film version of Jane Eyre that I've ever seen.

No attempt is made to make Suzannah York plain (she is called "pretty" several times); the actress does a fair job balancing Jane's passion with her temperance, but she seems to lack any real fire. Sadly, feminist diatribes are sometimes inserted into her dialogue, which reek of the 1970s.

As Rochester, George C. Scott has potential, but he's largely hampered by the script. He can be both tender and tortured, fiery and depressed, but somehow the mix just never quite works.

The script is just terrible--often corny. Many changes were made to the story line for no apparent reason (other than, perhaps, the screenwriter thought they "knew better" than Charlotte Bronte). Worst of all, the quality of the picture is so bad, I wondered if I'd bought a pirated copy! The Lowood section of the film, in particular, is so dark that I often had a hard time making out facial expressions.

I don't know if scenes are missing from the original film, but I can say that the editing is very poor. For example, at one point Jane asks if Grace Poole is the one causing trouble at Thornfield...yet the audience has heard nothing about the character of Grace Poole up to that point.

Overall, there is nothing really to recommend this film. It is slow, boring, and disappointing.

I had to stop watching this movie after about 35 minutes and I almost never do that. The characters are utterly lacking in chemistry, charm and appeal. The movie is incredibly creepy. I've seen other versions that were much better.

Susannah York was absolutely wonderful, albeit too pretty, as Jane, and quite believable in her portrayal. However George C. Scott was unmoving, unemotional, and unbelievable. If I hadn't known the story so well already, I wouldn't from this movie believe them to be in love. The lack of passion and attraction between Jane and Rochester was frustrating. Rochester is supposed to be rough, violent, moody, and all we got was a solemn quietness. On the other hand, the emphasis on the gothic aspects of the novel were great, and the proposal scene between Jane and St. John was awesome and full of feeling (unlike the one between Jane and Rochester, which was too rushed). I really aslo enjoyed the whole Lowood School scene, the young Jane and Helen both acting well. The music soundtrack to this movie, I must say was awesome and accompanied wonderfully. Overall, you should see this movie if you are a die-hard fan of the novel, as I am, but of all the versions I still prefer the A&E Morton/Hinds version with so much visible chemistry between Jane and Rochester, and that is what Bronte was about; passion.

I had high hopes for this film, because I could readily envision George C. Scott as Rochester. But, in the end, I think this is the very worst film version of Jane Eyre that I've ever seen.

No attempt is made to make Suzannah York plain (she is called "pretty" several times); the actress does a fair job balancing Jane's passion with her temperance, but she seems to lack any real fire. Sadly, feminist diatribes are sometimes inserted into her dialogue, which reek of the 1970s.

As Rochester, George C. Scott has potential, but he's largely hampered by the script. He can be both tender and tortured, fiery and depressed, but somehow the mix just never quite works.

The script is just terrible--often corny. Many changes were made to the story line for no apparent reason (other than, perhaps, the screenwriter thought they "knew better" than Charlotte Bronte). Worst of all, the quality of the picture is so bad, I wondered if I'd bought a pirated copy! The Lowood section of the film, in particular, is so dark that I often had a hard time making out facial expressions.

I don't know if scenes are missing from the original film, but I can say that the editing is very poor. For example, at one point Jane asks if Grace Poole is the one causing trouble at Thornfield...yet the audience has heard nothing about the character of Grace Poole up to that point.

Overall, there is nothing really to recommend this film. It is slow, boring, and disappointing.

I had to stop watching this movie after about 35 minutes and I almost never do that. The characters are utterly lacking in chemistry, charm and appeal. The movie is incredibly creepy. I've seen other versions that were much better.

Susannah York was absolutely wonderful, albeit too pretty, as Jane, and quite believable in her portrayal. However George C. Scott was unmoving, unemotional, and unbelievable. If I hadn't known the story so well already, I wouldn't from this movie believe them to be in love. The lack of passion and attraction between Jane and Rochester was frustrating. Rochester is supposed to be rough, violent, moody, and all we got was a solemn quietness. On the other hand, the emphasis on the gothic aspects of the novel were great, and the proposal scene between Jane and St. John was awesome and full of feeling (unlike the one between Jane and Rochester, which was too rushed). I really aslo enjoyed the whole Lowood School scene, the young Jane and Helen both acting well. The music soundtrack to this movie, I must say was awesome and accompanied wonderfully. Overall, you should see this movie if you are a die-hard fan of the novel, as I am, but of all the versions I still prefer the A&E Morton/Hinds version with so much visible chemistry between Jane and Rochester, and that is what Bronte was about; passion.

I had high hopes for this film, because I could readily envision George C. Scott as Rochester. But, in the end, I think this is the very worst film version of Jane Eyre that I've ever seen.

No attempt is made to make Suzannah York plain (she is called "pretty" several times); the actress does a fair job balancing Jane's passion with her temperance, but she seems to lack any real fire. Sadly, feminist diatribes are sometimes inserted into her dialogue, which reek of the 1970s.

As Rochester, George C. Scott has potential, but he's largely hampered by the script. He can be both tender and tortured, fiery and depressed, but somehow the mix just never quite works.

The script is just terrible--often corny. Many changes were made to the story line for no apparent reason (other than, perhaps, the screenwriter thought they "knew better" than Charlotte Bronte). Worst of all, the quality of the picture is so bad, I wondered if I'd bought a pirated copy! The Lowood section of the film, in particular, is so dark that I often had a hard time making out facial expressions.

I don't know if scenes are missing from the original film, but I can say that the editing is very poor. For example, at one point Jane asks if Grace Poole is the one causing trouble at Thornfield...yet the audience has heard nothing about the character of Grace Poole up to that point.

Overall, there is nothing really to recommend this film. It is slow, boring, and disappointing.

I had to stop watching this movie after about 35 minutes and I almost never do that. The characters are utterly lacking in chemistry, charm and appeal. The movie is incredibly creepy. I've seen other versions that were much better.

Susannah York was absolutely wonderful, albeit too pretty, as Jane, and quite believable in her portrayal. However George C. Scott was unmoving, unemotional, and unbelievable. If I hadn't known the story so well already, I wouldn't from this movie believe them to be in love. The lack of passion and attraction between Jane and Rochester was frustrating. Rochester is supposed to be rough, violent, moody, and all we got was a solemn quietness. On the other hand, the emphasis on the gothic aspects of the novel were great, and the proposal scene between Jane and St. John was awesome and full of feeling (unlike the one between Jane and Rochester, which was too rushed). I really aslo enjoyed the whole Lowood School scene, the young Jane and Helen both acting well. The music soundtrack to this movie, I must say was awesome and accompanied wonderfully. Overall, you should see this movie if you are a die-hard fan of the novel, as I am, but of all the versions I still prefer the A&E Morton/Hinds version with so much visible chemistry between Jane and Rochester, and that is what Bronte was about; passion.

Movies which are remakes, such as Gloria, can make things difficult for yours truly. My first instinct is to compare them to the original. Then I realize that, more often than not, most of my readers haven't seen the original, unless it's famous, like Psycho or The Mummy. The situation is akin to that tag-line at the start of all movies on video these days. That's the one that tells you the movie has been formatted to fit this [TV] screen. What that means is that about a third of the movie image has been chopped off. Yet, if you didn't see the film in a theater, you don't miss what you never saw.

For the record, the original Gloria came out in 1980. It was a small independent film by John Cassevetes starring his wife, Gena Rowlands. I recall it's being a tight, first rate thriller about a gangster's girlfriend's one chance of doing good. The role was tailored for Rowlands, and her performance alone is well worth seeing the movie, if you can find it. My other memory of it is that it was shockingly violent for its time.

The new version of Gloria is fairly faithful to the original plot. Gloria, this time played by the underrated Sharon Stone, has just gotten out of prison, where she has served three years to save the skin of her gangster boyfriend, Frank [Jeremy Northam]. During her stay in the slammer, she's had a lot of time to think. She thinks, for instance, about how Frank never once visited her. She goes to Frank and tells him that the relationship is over and that all she wants is the large sum of money he promised her for taking the rap for him. He refuses to give it to her.

Meanwhile, the gang's accountant has tried to give himself some protection by creating a computer disk which has the names of all those involved in the outfit's criminal activities. The plan backfires, and, in trying to get the disk, one of Frank's trigger happy henchmen kills the accountant, as well as his wife, mother and daughter. Only his eight-year old son Nicky [Jean-Luke Figueroa] escapes, but is quickly caught and brought to Frank's apartment. It is there that Gloria and Nicky's paths cross. Gloria must decide whether or not to risk her life in order to save the boy.

Gloria was directed by Sidney Lumet, whose credits include Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and Murder on the Orient Express. This sophisticated New Yorker here fails to deliver a superior film. The photography of the New York locales is superb, and Howard Shore delivers a great music score. Gloria is one of the screen's most memorable characters and certainly one of its most unlikely heroines. She is streetwise, tough, shrewd and very self-centered. Doing the right thing does not come naturally to her. Sharon Stone undoubtedly could have given a performance equal to Gena Rowland's, if only the movie had stayed more focused on her. This new version is also hampered by a couple of plot holes, each bigger than the one that sank the Titanic. Still, assuming you have not seen the original, this should be fairly decent escapist entertainment.

In a comment on our times, the violence in the new version is much more graphic, yet by modern standards, it's fairly tame.

Okay, so Sharon Stone isn't Gena Rowlands, but hey she never pretended to be and her rendition of gangster's moll Gloria is a pretty good 1999 remake with a few changes that help rather than hinder the plot. I have to admit that the original film is still my favourite but I still think this is worth watching.

Sharon Stone gives a cracking performance as a tart with heart when she takes on a child orphaned by the mafia and sets about saving his life and her own. This is an up-to-date Gloria with little Nicky clutching a computer disc rather than a book of names that could bring Gloria's ex-friends crashing down from their villainous thrones. Unlike Gena Rowlands version, Sharon Stone's version of the film is not so overtly violent, relying instead on short bouts of brutality that doesn't leave too many people dead and dying in the gutter. There are also some memorable moments, most of them containing Stone wearing the most outrageous outfits I have ever seen on a woman! Her black dress in the opening jail scene is a cracker, she looks like Liz Hurley at the Oscars, only better looking, and her choice of clothes to take little Nicky to Catholic School, played by newcomer Jean-Luke Figueroa makes you laugh out loud. What on earth will the Nuns make of this brassy young thing???? I mean a skirt so short it makes your eyes water and those shoes, how on earth did she walk in them?

All in all Sharon Stone gives a gutsy performance, and so does her little co-star Nicky, dodging bullets, gangsters and crooked cops as they struggled to stay alive, relying always on Stone's survival instinct and biting humour. The film isn't as fast paced as the Gena Rowlands version but it is entertaining enough and it has times when it is touching and thought provoking. The wonderful George C Scott is excellent as the mobster Ruby who has a soft spot for Gloria, and it is through him that Gloria and Nicky find a form of salvation and safety.

Worth watching as long as you don't compare it too closely with the Gena Rowlands version. I enjoyed it anyway.

I have read the other reviews on this rendition of "Gloria", and I believe every one of those ranks the Gena Rowlands original as the better production. I disagree. I much preferred the Sharon Stone version. I rented both versions and saw the Gena Rowlands version first. The next night a saw the Sharon Stone version. I much preferred the Sharon Stone version, and I placed an order to buy a copy tonight.

The language is more poignant in the Stone version, and some people may be turned off by this. But I see this as being typical of the type of characters being portrayed. Remember, Gloria has just served 3 years in prison for a crime she did not commit. Then her boy friend would not give her the money he promised for taking the rap. The language is similar to that being heard today on the Soprano series.

The original version was good, the remake is better. Photography is better - I loved the car chase scene.

This is an enjoyable suspenseful film to watch.