John-Rhys-Davies Movie Reviews

This film is worth watching for Deborah Foreman's character. She was the lead in the Valley Girl teen flick. Here she plays a very different role, a girl who is conflicted about her desire to submit to the likes of The Marquis de Sade.

Yes, the plot is silly. A group of teens discover an enchanted wax museum and begin disappearing into the displays to become human sacrifices to the characters on display, most of them fictional such as Dracula and Frankenstein. Deborah Foreman becomes wistfully fixated on a figure of The Marquis de Sade, whom she eventually experiences up close and personal, thanks to the magic wax museum.

Since most of the film is so unfocused and full of high camp, it is surprising that it happens to contain a very moving commentary on forbidden desire. The commentary is subtle but it's there. I liked this film because of the Marquis de Sade segment but it isn't bad for schlocky horror flick.

It also includes a hilarious and very bloody vampire scene. I can't tell if this movie is a spoof or it ended up spoofing itself accidently but it works somehow.

I saw this movie for the first time a long time ago and it was easily one of my favorite horror movies. So recently, I decided to go back and see it again just to see if I still liked it which I did. I still enjoyed the humor, the story, the characters, and the gore.

The movie itself is about a wax musuem that displays some of the most evil men/creatures to have ever existed such as a vampire, a werewolf, a mummy, and so forth. They appear to be harmless wax figures, most of which are missing victims. A closer look can prove to be fatal for whatever unsuspecting person enters the exhibit and is taken to the scene that is displayed. When all of the exhibits on display have claimed a victim then the creatures in the display will come to life and wreck havoc on the world.

I have seen this movie at least 20 times and it gets better each time I watch it! Who can resist David Warner in anything?? This movie has everything. Gore, sexuality, and comedy. Who can forget Dana Ashbrook's classic line "Who put the acid in my drink again, China!" Too funny for words.

I was 19 years old when this tv special first aired on NBC. It was just a few months before the Nicholson/Keaton "Batman" came out, so I think it provides a good look at the way comic-book characters have been adapted for movies & tv. It's a transitional piece.

In the '70's (and the Incredible Hulk tv show was from that time), lots of liberties were taken with comic-book adaptations for television & movies. Colorful villains were always non-existent. The individual personality traits of the original comic-book characters were never explored. And worst of all, the costumes were usually cheap & innaccuarate.

After 1989's "Batman", that all changed. Now film-makers & tv producers try to make their adaptations of comic-book heroes as faithful as possible to their original source. (That's why "Spider-Man" is such a hit. It's true to the comic-book!)

Well, "The Trial of The Incredible Hulk" is kind of in-between those two periods...and it shows! This tv movie has singer Rex Smith doing a very good acting & fighting job as Daredevil, the blind lawyer & acrobatic superhero, making a sizeable guest appearance. John Rhys-Davies brings Wilson Fisk ("the Kingpin") to life as the villain. Daredevil's background, as portrayed in this show, is pretty faithfull to the comic-book original (though in this show, he has a Gordon/Batman relationship with a cop named "Tendelli", which is non-existent in the comic-book.) Even the character of "Turk" is portrayed in this show. (Too bad there's no Karen Page or Foggy Nelson.) It's obvious that the writers had been inspired by the Frank Miller Daredevils where the Hulk had made a guest appearance. So in that sense, this show is a glimpse of things to come.

However, this show is also a glimpse of things that should have been left in the '70's, particularly the bad costuming! Daredevil's signature red-devil acrobat uniform with a cowled-mask complete with devil horns is missing in this show. Instead, what we have is Rex Smith dressed in a black cat-burgler's outfit!

Oh well, the story & acting are good, Rex Smith handles the martial-arts fight scenes adequately, & as always, Bill Bixby captures the tortured persona of Dr. Banner to a "T."

I recommend it, but in light of the new Spider-Man movie, as well as the anticipated movie releases of the Incredible Hulk & Daredevil next year, I also recommend that you don't expect too much from "The Trial of The incredible Hulk."

I remember as a kid watching the Hulk series. Tis is a typical follow up of the series starring Bill Bixby as the human form sort of speaking, and Lou Fierrgo as the monstrous Hulk. Any fan of the hulk or marvel comic book series should enjoy this story about Bill Bixby's challenge to control the Hulk within. I dont feel i should include any spoilers since this is a classic worth seeing and two thumbs up for it anyday. The reason for a 4 star rating is due to the lack of the suspence and a too predictable story line. Like the series you can always sort of forsee the plot before it happens, but never the less its worth viewing for fans of all ages. Cheers

"The Trial Of The Incredible Hulk", is definately another fine installment in the series. In this made for television movie we see a side of David Banner that we haven't witnessed before. This time we see a person who has lost faith and belief in himself. Definately one to look into. "Daredevil" another marvel character also makes an appearance. The only thing that was disappointing was the fact that there wasn't enough "hulk-outs" in this movie as we have grown accustomed to and the breakout scene was also totally ignored. Nevertheless this is still a great movie and just watching the "Incredible" one totally destroy a court room and send a lawyer through a window will bring a smile to anyones face.

Those execuative poroduces Golan-Globus gave us yet another flop. Firewalker has some funny moments but it is too hokey to be believable. The cave sets look really fake and laughable, not to mention the acting. Many Norris fans many disappointed with his stab at comedy, but I enjoyed it. First rent, then buy.

Yes, it is one of the goofiest pieces of, um, processed food that ever came out of Hollywood - but it's bad with such good humor! As though everyone said "You want me to do WHAT? Well, heck - why not?" One thing I'll insist upon - the relationships between Norris's character and Gossett's character is a dandy - and the one between Norris's character and Anderson's - Anderson's character is a Jim Peach. "FRUITCAKE?" shouts Anderson, after bursting into Norris's and Gossett's hotel room. "Are the walls that thin?" waffles Norris. "No, your mouth is that big!" comes her retort. And John Rhys-Davies as the adventurer who has taken over the Central-American rebel army - wonderfully crazed! Forget about the Academy, this is just plain fun.

Firewalker was meant to be a rollicking comedic adventure movie, but it is funny for all the wrong reasons. The film is filled with technical mistakes of all kinds, obviously director J. Lee Thompson knew he was working on turkey and did not even bother to pay attention to it and faded stars Chuck Norris, Louis Gossett Jr., and Melody Anderson have no real chemistry. Bad Movie fans will have a blast watching familiar character actors and former box office stars embarrass themselves for a paycheck.

Those execuative poroduces Golan-Globus gave us yet another flop. Firewalker has some funny moments but it is too hokey to be believable. The cave sets look really fake and laughable, not to mention the acting. Many Norris fans many disappointed with his stab at comedy, but I enjoyed it. First rent, then buy.

Yes, it is one of the goofiest pieces of, um, processed food that ever came out of Hollywood - but it's bad with such good humor! As though everyone said "You want me to do WHAT? Well, heck - why not?" One thing I'll insist upon - the relationships between Norris's character and Gossett's character is a dandy - and the one between Norris's character and Anderson's - Anderson's character is a Jim Peach. "FRUITCAKE?" shouts Anderson, after bursting into Norris's and Gossett's hotel room. "Are the walls that thin?" waffles Norris. "No, your mouth is that big!" comes her retort. And John Rhys-Davies as the adventurer who has taken over the Central-American rebel army - wonderfully crazed! Forget about the Academy, this is just plain fun.

Firewalker was meant to be a rollicking comedic adventure movie, but it is funny for all the wrong reasons. The film is filled with technical mistakes of all kinds, obviously director J. Lee Thompson knew he was working on turkey and did not even bother to pay attention to it and faded stars Chuck Norris, Louis Gossett Jr., and Melody Anderson have no real chemistry. Bad Movie fans will have a blast watching familiar character actors and former box office stars embarrass themselves for a paycheck.

I thought this movie was great. I got it for my nephew but I enjoyed it immensely. I was very glad to see Robin Williams back as the genie. His lines were hysterical. Many of his comments were designed for an adult to get without the child noticing. The story had some good lessons in it, though we could have seen more of Jasmine. Robin Williams makes this movie great.

Like "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol," the 1994 television version of "A Flintstone Christmas Carol" has the characters involved in a stage production of the classic tale by Charles Dickens. Actually that would be Charles Brickens, because this time around it is the Bedrock Community Theater. Wilma is the director and Fred is playing "Ebonyzer Scrooge," Barney is "Bob Cragit," Mr. Slate is the ghost of "Jacob Marbley," and Bam-Bam is Tiny Tim (some names are more sacred than others). The problem is that role goes to Fred's head in the worst way possible, which means Scrooge at the start and not at the end. Even worse, Fred is so preoccupied with his dreams of greatness on the stage and last minute Christmas shopping that he forgets Wilma's strict instructions about picking up Pebbles from daycare.

This means that not only does Scrooge have to deal with a trio of angry ghosts, but that Fred has to deal with Wilma, who is playing multiple roles so as not to miss the opportunity of getting in her licks at her husband. "A Flintstones Christmas Carol" is as much about the cartoon prehistoric family as it is the Dickens classic and they do a nice job of making the whole bit about Wilma being made at Fred work in the context of the original story. This is not as great as "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol," which has no sub-plot to deal with and the advantage of a pretty good musical score, but it is certainly enjoyable fare, especially for Flintstone's fans.

"A Flintstone's Christmas Carol" is a great remake of the classic novel "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, including that it is Christmas in Bedrock, Fred Flintstone who plays Ebonezer Scrooge, Wilma makes his clothes, Barney Rubble is his stooge, Bamm-Bamm is Tiny Tim, in Bedrock's X-mas play, not so far, and I give this remake of Dicken's classic 5 stars.

When I was a child I loved the Flintstones. So, I bought this video thinking that the kids might like the Flintstones too! I was surprised - I loved the video - even more than they did.! Fred is his usual grumpy, wonderful self - and a natural to play Scrooge. Barney, Wilma and the rest of the gang round out the cast. Thestory within a story is a clever way to stage a Christmas Carol. Great fun for the whole family (especially the Baby Boomers!

This movie started slow but picked up later on. Agammemnon was a huge jerk, and there was waaay too much stabbing and bloody gore. The charactor Cassandra was very well done she was sooo realistic and my favorite person. Paris was totally hot!!! However in the book Achilles is a hero but in this movie he is just barbaric! it WAS a really exciting though even though everyone got stabbed and they show Helen getting raped which was totally un-called for. we really didn't need to see that

I thought the movie was good for what it was. If you did not read the book you would of have liked the movie alot better. There was many differences between the book and the movie. I didn't like the character Agamemmon in the first then watching the movie made me really dislike him and his ways. I do believe Paris was played differently in the reading he was a coward, the movie portrayed him to be mighty and strong when we all know Hector is overall a better warrior. As far as Meneleus and his brother Agamemmon goes their relantionship is played to Agamemmon's favor when Agamemmon plays his brother as a fool. Helen plays more of a Juliet than a wife of submission. Then she was a beautiful lady, maybe not as beautiful to launch " a thousand ships." In my opinion Cassandra was one of the best roles played it was so good and intense. It just sucked she was never believed. I think that was very poor of the producer to use an inocent little girl as the sarcfice, just to have the viewers put more emotions into the movie. I believe they could have went another route. Achilles was done poorly they could of played him to be less anger evil.Overall the movie was good.

It's not often that viewers are treated to a made-for-TV miniseries that is done with as much care as Helen of Troy. From the pastel colors of the ancient city to the Greek fleet, there is much to feast your eyes on. But that's not all, the story is rivetting and excellently acted. If you didn't understand how nations could go to war over Helen, you will now. And Rufus Sewell brings Agamemnon to life as a real person whose flaws are deadly. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is breath-taking. You will understand the motivation behind such a seemingly barbarious act.

We all know the Trojan horse seals the victory for the Greeks, but we've never been treated to such images of it before. There are many details which demonstrate that the writer was truly gifted - there wasn't a dry stretch in the old story.

Excellently acted, gorgeously filmed, intriguing story. Please get the DVD into production ASAP!

I FOUND THIS MOVIE HISTORICALLY INACUARATE WITH LOUSY DIGITAL GRAPHICS.
AMONG THE MANY HISTORICAL INACCURACIES WAS STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE IRA MEN, " THEY HAVE SEEN MANY OF THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES KILLED BY THE BLACK AND TANS. THE BLACK AND TANS ONLY CAME TO IRELEAND AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR DURING EIRE'S STRUGGLE FOR INDIPENDENCE. CONSEQUENTLY THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS, AND IT WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY.
ALSO THE QUALITY OF THE GRAPHICS WAS BAD ENOUGH BUT WHAT JARRED MY NERVES WAS THE TOTALLY ERRONEOUS SHOWING OF THE BRITISH BATTLESHIP VICTORIA.
A BRITIAH WARSHIP NEVER FLIES THE UNION JACK,(BRITAINS NATIONAL FLAG),AT THE STERN THAT IS FLOWN ON THE BOW. THE FLAG FLOWN ON THE STERN SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE WHITE ENSIGN, THE STANDARD OF THE ROYAL NAVY WHICH IS THE RED CROSS OF SAINT GEORGE ON A WHITE FIELD WITH A SMALL UNION JACK ON IT TOP RIGHT CORNER. FUTHERMORE BRITISH WARSHIPS DO NOT HAVE THEIR NAMES ON THEIR BOWS IN THE SAME WAY THAT MERCHANT SHIPS HAVE. ROYAL NAVY SHIPS HAVE THEIR NAMES MID SHIPS ON THE SUPERSTRUCURE.
BESIDES THESE DISSAPOINTMENTS I MUST SAY THE PLOT WAS INTERESTING AND EVEN GRIPPING, THE ACTING GOOD.
WHAT A PITY IT WAS SPOILED BY LOUSY GRAPHICS AND HISTORICAL UNTRUTHS.

I have spent literally hundreds of hours researching the Britannic for a book that I'm working on, and as soon as I heard that they were making a film about her I was instantly curious. I turned on the television to see it one night without expecting very much, mainly because nobody has any idea what really sank the ship in the first place. However I was bowled over by the great story, character development and interesting take on what may have happened to her. As far as I'm concerned this movie is as good as it could have been considering the historical evidence, and the possiblity of a German spy on board was indeed an interesting touch. Although for the record, the famed torpedo incident didn't take place, and neither did the gunfight on board. My only real complaint is the casting of John Ryes-Davis as Captain Bartlett. Although a great actor, he does not resemble the real Captain Bartlett in any way. Still, a great view!

Inspired by the 1998 "Titanic", this is the story of the mysterious sinking of Titanic's Sister Ship Britannic. Starring Amanda Ryan, and featuring John Rhys-Davies (Salah in the Indiana Jones films), the cast is surprisingly good in the way only mid-level British actors can be, turning in workmanlike performances that nearly make you forget this is not a big-budget blockbuster. If you liked Titanic, then see this movie.

Im fed up! I can't rely on the movie industry to put out a reasonable, (purely)fact-based representation of the Marquis' life!I actually had high hopes for this movie bacause it was said to be based on the true story. SORRY! TRY AGAIN! I was apalled!Bad acting, bad directing, horrible story line, and low budget. Thats not even all of it. When are the creators of movies going to realize that enough happened in his life that its not even nessesary to make things up? Theres no way in [heck] that the things that happen in this movie could have happened, so why proclaim it "based on a true story"? It's clear to me this is not so, and that he is merely a character in a line of events (so distorted and rearanged!) based on a loose description of De Sades' life (with some conveinient changes).I'm sorry, but I thought this movie was atrocious, and I once again wait to see a biographical movie worthy to carry his name.

I agree with the reviewer who wrote that John Rhys-Davies was misused in this movie and that the writers did not decide at the outset what kind of piece they were trying to make. But I also agree with the reviewer who called Nick Mancuso the most erotic actor in movies today. Mancuso's performance as de Sade was outstanding. Five stars for him! He rivets the attention, bringing great depth to a character that otherwise wouldn't have interested me at all. As a movie, perhaps it is rather silly, but when viewed as a character portrait--ignoring any scenes Mancuso is not in--the piece is excellent. It's amazing to see what one actor can do to elevate a picture. I will watch this one again just to see Mancuso.

It's porn. It's romantic, it's full of accurate dialogue and character points, but it's pornography. However, Nick Mancuso is a wonderful actor and it's actually a good film. I would imagine that the sort of people who can see the good acting is Showgirls would recognize this movie's appeal.

For being the sequel to the last movie that Disney himself was involved in, this movie doesn't help itself much. Save for the voices of the actors and the extended color palette (that's what the two stars are for), for the most part the movie is a poor extension of the original without anything to add to it. As a matter of fact, the storyline is very much a refried version of the original: no new villains, no new challenges, still Mowgli confronting his nemesis Shere Khan the tiger, even the monkey scene is refried, but mimicking it with children this time. Not worth renting, much less buying.

I try to watch Disney sequels objectively- I enjoyed "Return to Neverland" and "Lion King II" (I only liked the 3rd installment of "Aladdin" because they wisely brought back Robin Williams). But "Jungle Book 2"...eh, not my cup o' tea.

The opening sequence is promising- Mowgli (Haley Joel Osment) is telling his tales from the Jungle in shadow puppet form to his friend Shanti (Mae Whitman, the adorable urchin from "One Fine Day", and "State of Grace"), the young girl who originally lured Mowgli into the Man village in the 1st movie. It is not clear how the people in the village are related, but there is also a young boy named Rajan who idolizes Mowgli and is fascinated with tigers. When Mowgli starts missing his old "Papa Bear" Baloo (John Goodman), the movie cuts to Baloo, who is missing Mowgli and plotting to nab him from the man village. From here, the "2" movie is pretty much like the first, except that Shanti and Rajan are along for the ride. The vultures are also back, but their addition to this movie is pretty much just so they can add Phil Collins name to the starring bill- they add no relevance to the storyline. This movie is fun for the kids, but falls flat for the fans of the original- perhaps we are too biased to accept a retelling of an old tale (because that's what this pretty much is). The original had it all- the late, great Phil Harris as Baloo, better musical numbers, and the legendary Louis Prima as King Louie! That's a tough act to beat. At least Jim Cummings ("Kaa") is a decent replacement for Sterling Holloway (he was the original voice for Winnie-the-Pooh, and died in 1992). The DVD extras try to revive the original movie, but also add a fun interactive game featuring Mowgli. My kids love this movie, so how I feel about it is irrelevant (it's very wierd hearing Smash Mouth sing their rendition of "I Wanna Be Like You"). It's currently on Pay-per-view, so spend four bucks before you spend 20 and decide for yourself.

My parents bought this DVD for my 2 year old nephew as soon as it came out because he loved it in the movie theatre, so I sat down with him to watch it, not expecting much from a Disney sequal. I was pleasantly surprised because it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I figured that the original Jungle Book was a classic and should not be ruined with a badly done sequal, and I still believe that. But it wasn't as bad as I thought it was. Excluding Baloo and Mowgli, the voices were surprisingly close to the originals. Not that the voicing of Baloo (John Goodman) and Mowgli (Haley Joel Osment) was bad, it just didn't sound like the originals. Haley Joel Osment did a fabulous job with the voicing, putting a lot of expression into his voice acting. That boy sure does have some talent! I couldn't help imagining Mowgli laying in the Jungle leaves, telling Baloo, "I see dead people!" (Haha a little humour there because he played the kid in the Sixth Sense, hahahaha ok it wasn't funny). The music wasn't really creative or witty, but it was okay. I found the "beat of the jungle" song to be a bit unnerving, but hey, my nephew liked it. They sing the "Bear necessities" song about three times in this movie, and I guess that's because it's a good song. There is some humor in the movie, like when Baloo is trying to sneak off to the village to get his singing buddy back and Begeera gets the elephants to help him stop Baloo in the river. The plot is great for children but slightly boring for adults. The animation is okay- it's not as good as in the original, and they put a modern twist on the characters to make them sort of pop out more. All in all it wasn't that bad of a movie. It's not The Jungle Book, but it's not bad, either!