Michael-Douglas Movie Reviews

I am proud to say I took part in an Anchor Bay poll that led to them picking up the rights to this movie. They did a splendid job. The digital transfer is beautiful... almost too beautiful. And the widescreen picture allows you to see everything as the director intended (in this Director's Cut!)...

Some might argue that this film is a slap in the face to the digital medium. Maybe. But this film represents to me the tongue-in-cheeck bad horror movies of yesterday.

If you're a fan of C.H.U.D., the commentary alone is worth the purchase price. Just picture John Heard, Daniel Stern, and director Douglas Cheek arguing back and forth about who ruined which scene. They didn't even realize it was the director's cut they were watching until about halfway through!

And if you own the DVD, there is an Easter Egg worth checking out. From the Special Featurs menu, press the up arrow on your remote and the C.H.U.D.'s eyes should light up. Hit enter and it will take you to that oh-so wonderful shower scene, only this time uncut. I wonder if the actress knows they re-instered her breasts into this DVD?

Yeah, this is what DVDs are all about.

Im a child of the 80's. I love just about everything the 80's had to offer. The toys were better, the cartoon's were better and the horror movies were better. Sure, the special effects might seem a little crude to the crowd of today. But I think its more the idea's and story lines that make them alot better than horror movies of today. "Scream" and "I know what you did last Summer" just don't cut it as good horror movies. Its just a bunch of pop teen idols getting slashed up by the "who done it" killer. *yawn* BORING! 80's horror movies had interesting plots, creepy idea's, dark and brooding camera work, scary bad guys. The list could go on and on. C.H.U.D is one of the 80's classics and one of my own personal favorites. Its about homeless people who live under the steets of New York. Soon the hobo's and city people come up missing. As it turns out, the city has been storing toxic waste drums beneath the streets and the hobo's are turning into horrible, mutant undead monsters! Most people pass off the monsters as "corny" looking, but I would rather see make-up special effects than CGI special effects. Don't get me wrong, I like CGI special effects. Im a fan of the Jurassic Park movies because the CGI is so sweet! But you can't beat all the hard work and morbid detail that went into movies like C.H.U.D, Hellraiser and Friday the 13th. Anyways, the rest of the movie is a cat and mouse chase beneath the city streets to escape before its too late. I don't want to get into too much detail about the movie, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Take my word for it, C.H.U.D is what horror movies are all about.

f@#$!!??** hilarious film and commentary.

this dvd rocks. the film sucks. . .and is genius.

I am proud to say I took part in an Anchor Bay poll that led to them picking up the rights to this movie. They did a splendid job. The digital transfer is beautiful... almost too beautiful. And the widescreen picture allows you to see everything as the director intended (in this Director's Cut!)...

Some might argue that this film is a slap in the face to the digital medium. Maybe. But this film represents to me the tongue-in-cheeck bad horror movies of yesterday.

If you're a fan of C.H.U.D., the commentary alone is worth the purchase price. Just picture John Heard, Daniel Stern, and director Douglas Cheek arguing back and forth about who ruined which scene. They didn't even realize it was the director's cut they were watching until about halfway through!

And if you own the DVD, there is an Easter Egg worth checking out. From the Special Featurs menu, press the up arrow on your remote and the C.H.U.D.'s eyes should light up. Hit enter and it will take you to that oh-so wonderful shower scene, only this time uncut. I wonder if the actress knows they re-instered her breasts into this DVD?

Yeah, this is what DVDs are all about.

Im a child of the 80's. I love just about everything the 80's had to offer. The toys were better, the cartoon's were better and the horror movies were better. Sure, the special effects might seem a little crude to the crowd of today. But I think its more the idea's and story lines that make them alot better than horror movies of today. "Scream" and "I know what you did last Summer" just don't cut it as good horror movies. Its just a bunch of pop teen idols getting slashed up by the "who done it" killer. *yawn* BORING! 80's horror movies had interesting plots, creepy idea's, dark and brooding camera work, scary bad guys. The list could go on and on. C.H.U.D is one of the 80's classics and one of my own personal favorites. Its about homeless people who live under the steets of New York. Soon the hobo's and city people come up missing. As it turns out, the city has been storing toxic waste drums beneath the streets and the hobo's are turning into horrible, mutant undead monsters! Most people pass off the monsters as "corny" looking, but I would rather see make-up special effects than CGI special effects. Don't get me wrong, I like CGI special effects. Im a fan of the Jurassic Park movies because the CGI is so sweet! But you can't beat all the hard work and morbid detail that went into movies like C.H.U.D, Hellraiser and Friday the 13th. Anyways, the rest of the movie is a cat and mouse chase beneath the city streets to escape before its too late. I don't want to get into too much detail about the movie, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Take my word for it, C.H.U.D is what horror movies are all about.

f@#$!!??** hilarious film and commentary.

this dvd rocks. the film sucks. . .and is genius.

I am proud to say I took part in an Anchor Bay poll that led to them picking up the rights to this movie. They did a splendid job. The digital transfer is beautiful... almost too beautiful. And the widescreen picture allows you to see everything as the director intended (in this Director's Cut!)...

Some might argue that this film is a slap in the face to the digital medium. Maybe. But this film represents to me the tongue-in-cheeck bad horror movies of yesterday.

If you're a fan of C.H.U.D., the commentary alone is worth the purchase price. Just picture John Heard, Daniel Stern, and director Douglas Cheek arguing back and forth about who ruined which scene. They didn't even realize it was the director's cut they were watching until about halfway through!

And if you own the DVD, there is an Easter Egg worth checking out. From the Special Featurs menu, press the up arrow on your remote and the C.H.U.D.'s eyes should light up. Hit enter and it will take you to that oh-so wonderful shower scene, only this time uncut. I wonder if the actress knows they re-instered her breasts into this DVD?

Yeah, this is what DVDs are all about.

Im a child of the 80's. I love just about everything the 80's had to offer. The toys were better, the cartoon's were better and the horror movies were better. Sure, the special effects might seem a little crude to the crowd of today. But I think its more the idea's and story lines that make them alot better than horror movies of today. "Scream" and "I know what you did last Summer" just don't cut it as good horror movies. Its just a bunch of pop teen idols getting slashed up by the "who done it" killer. *yawn* BORING! 80's horror movies had interesting plots, creepy idea's, dark and brooding camera work, scary bad guys. The list could go on and on. C.H.U.D is one of the 80's classics and one of my own personal favorites. Its about homeless people who live under the steets of New York. Soon the hobo's and city people come up missing. As it turns out, the city has been storing toxic waste drums beneath the streets and the hobo's are turning into horrible, mutant undead monsters! Most people pass off the monsters as "corny" looking, but I would rather see make-up special effects than CGI special effects. Don't get me wrong, I like CGI special effects. Im a fan of the Jurassic Park movies because the CGI is so sweet! But you can't beat all the hard work and morbid detail that went into movies like C.H.U.D, Hellraiser and Friday the 13th. Anyways, the rest of the movie is a cat and mouse chase beneath the city streets to escape before its too late. I don't want to get into too much detail about the movie, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Take my word for it, C.H.U.D is what horror movies are all about.

f@#$!!??** hilarious film and commentary.

this dvd rocks. the film sucks. . .and is genius.

I am proud to say I took part in an Anchor Bay poll that led to them picking up the rights to this movie. They did a splendid job. The digital transfer is beautiful... almost too beautiful. And the widescreen picture allows you to see everything as the director intended (in this Director's Cut!)...

Some might argue that this film is a slap in the face to the digital medium. Maybe. But this film represents to me the tongue-in-cheeck bad horror movies of yesterday.

If you're a fan of C.H.U.D., the commentary alone is worth the purchase price. Just picture John Heard, Daniel Stern, and director Douglas Cheek arguing back and forth about who ruined which scene. They didn't even realize it was the director's cut they were watching until about halfway through!

And if you own the DVD, there is an Easter Egg worth checking out. From the Special Featurs menu, press the up arrow on your remote and the C.H.U.D.'s eyes should light up. Hit enter and it will take you to that oh-so wonderful shower scene, only this time uncut. I wonder if the actress knows they re-instered her breasts into this DVD?

Yeah, this is what DVDs are all about.

Im a child of the 80's. I love just about everything the 80's had to offer. The toys were better, the cartoon's were better and the horror movies were better. Sure, the special effects might seem a little crude to the crowd of today. But I think its more the idea's and story lines that make them alot better than horror movies of today. "Scream" and "I know what you did last Summer" just don't cut it as good horror movies. Its just a bunch of pop teen idols getting slashed up by the "who done it" killer. *yawn* BORING! 80's horror movies had interesting plots, creepy idea's, dark and brooding camera work, scary bad guys. The list could go on and on. C.H.U.D is one of the 80's classics and one of my own personal favorites. Its about homeless people who live under the steets of New York. Soon the hobo's and city people come up missing. As it turns out, the city has been storing toxic waste drums beneath the streets and the hobo's are turning into horrible, mutant undead monsters! Most people pass off the monsters as "corny" looking, but I would rather see make-up special effects than CGI special effects. Don't get me wrong, I like CGI special effects. Im a fan of the Jurassic Park movies because the CGI is so sweet! But you can't beat all the hard work and morbid detail that went into movies like C.H.U.D, Hellraiser and Friday the 13th. Anyways, the rest of the movie is a cat and mouse chase beneath the city streets to escape before its too late. I don't want to get into too much detail about the movie, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Take my word for it, C.H.U.D is what horror movies are all about.

f@#$!!??** hilarious film and commentary.

this dvd rocks. the film sucks. . .and is genius.

I am proud to say I took part in an Anchor Bay poll that led to them picking up the rights to this movie. They did a splendid job. The digital transfer is beautiful... almost too beautiful. And the widescreen picture allows you to see everything as the director intended (in this Director's Cut!)...

Some might argue that this film is a slap in the face to the digital medium. Maybe. But this film represents to me the tongue-in-cheeck bad horror movies of yesterday.

If you're a fan of C.H.U.D., the commentary alone is worth the purchase price. Just picture John Heard, Daniel Stern, and director Douglas Cheek arguing back and forth about who ruined which scene. They didn't even realize it was the director's cut they were watching until about halfway through!

And if you own the DVD, there is an Easter Egg worth checking out. From the Special Featurs menu, press the up arrow on your remote and the C.H.U.D.'s eyes should light up. Hit enter and it will take you to that oh-so wonderful shower scene, only this time uncut. I wonder if the actress knows they re-instered her breasts into this DVD?

Yeah, this is what DVDs are all about.

Im a child of the 80's. I love just about everything the 80's had to offer. The toys were better, the cartoon's were better and the horror movies were better. Sure, the special effects might seem a little crude to the crowd of today. But I think its more the idea's and story lines that make them alot better than horror movies of today. "Scream" and "I know what you did last Summer" just don't cut it as good horror movies. Its just a bunch of pop teen idols getting slashed up by the "who done it" killer. *yawn* BORING! 80's horror movies had interesting plots, creepy idea's, dark and brooding camera work, scary bad guys. The list could go on and on. C.H.U.D is one of the 80's classics and one of my own personal favorites. Its about homeless people who live under the steets of New York. Soon the hobo's and city people come up missing. As it turns out, the city has been storing toxic waste drums beneath the streets and the hobo's are turning into horrible, mutant undead monsters! Most people pass off the monsters as "corny" looking, but I would rather see make-up special effects than CGI special effects. Don't get me wrong, I like CGI special effects. Im a fan of the Jurassic Park movies because the CGI is so sweet! But you can't beat all the hard work and morbid detail that went into movies like C.H.U.D, Hellraiser and Friday the 13th. Anyways, the rest of the movie is a cat and mouse chase beneath the city streets to escape before its too late. I don't want to get into too much detail about the movie, you'll just have to see it for yourself. Take my word for it, C.H.U.D is what horror movies are all about.

f@#$!!??** hilarious film and commentary.

this dvd rocks. the film sucks. . .and is genius.

Vincent Price gets to truly shine in an over the top performance as a demented actor who turns to revenge against a snobbish group of London theater critics. There is a grisly murder in the opening minutes of the movie and they don't stop until the end of the film. Each murder is staged from the pages of Shakespeare plays. Diana Rigg (of The Avengers fame) gives a great performance as the daughter of Edward Lionheart (Price) and she seems to truly enjoy this role, as does the entire cast. Tightly crafted and fast paced, this is a movie that Hammer Studios could have stayed in business with, if only they had been able to make the transition from Gothic Horror to the modern era.

The cast alone makes this worth the price of admission, and what a cast! Twelve of the greatest of British character actors grace this gory but delightful romp with Vincent Price in his usual fine form as a presumably dead Shakespearean ham actor who one by one murders the critics who ruined his career. The joke is that he dispatches his victims by recreating death scenes from the Shakespeare plays with the help of his equally deranged daughter, played with great skill by everyone's favorite Avenger Diana Rigg. The entire cast is in fine form, including Price's soon to be second wife Coral Browne who gets quite a "shock" in this. If you enjoy Price's work on film and if you especially enjoyed the DR PHIBES films, then THEATRE OF BLOOD will be right up your alley.

Who knew Shakespeare could be so much fun? More often than not, his plays seemed to put me to sleep in high school literature class. Funny how a movie like this can make you see things in a different light, even make you appreciate his work. I guess it's all in the presentation.

In Theater of Blood, Vincent Price plays Edward Lionheart, a Shakespearian actor who takes revenge on his critics through some particularly devious means after suffering many a bad review. What I really enjoyed, besides Price's outstanding performance, was how he incorporated the murders to fit in with Shakespearian plays. It was a really nice touch that elevated this movie from your typical horror movie to a masterpiece of the genre.

Price plays it perfectly, as an over the top actor, quoting lines from various plays as the curtain falls on each of his victims. I loved how he had that big book containing all his reviews, to which he would refer before dispatching some of his intended targets. Also, I thought Diana Rigg was wonderful as Price's daughter, Edwina. Not only is she very easy on the eyes, but also she complimented Price's performance nicely.

If you've seen the earlier Price movie, The Abominable Dr. Phibes, you will certainly recognize a number of similarities in the plot of both movies. Both involve the main character supposedly coming back from the dead to exact revenge. In 'Phibes', his vengeance is focused on the doctors and nurses Price feels are responsible for his wife's death, while here his wrath is aimed at those responsible for the death of his career. Also, both movies involve meticulous planning of the murders to fit into a specific, overall theme, including rather gruesome and horrifying means of demise for the intended victims.

It's all played tongue in cheek, and works so well. This is one of my favorite Price films, and really excellent example of him at his best. If for nothing else, this movie is worth watching to see Price in the guise of a hairdresser, in setting up a death sequence with a female victim. Seeing him in those groovy clothes, glasses stolen from Elton John, and ridiculously oversized afro is truly 'priceless'.

This isn't Charleton Heston's best work by a long-shot. His acting is hardly convincing as General Charles Gordon. The cinematography is decent but there seems to also be an absence in character depth throughout the movie: there is also little action.

Epic movies about the colonial era in Africa are never easy: this movie just doesn't do it. The best role played in the movie was that of "The Mahdi" by Laurence Olivier, however, he is hardly a convincing moor. All of the scenes just seem to fall short in climax or tension for this sort of drama.

The failure of the movie also lies in its attempt to simplify the complexities of the time: the script writer failed to grasp te culture of the epoch and this is made evident in the movie. As a result, the dialogue is hollow and the action dull. Perhaps worth renting for those who are admirers of either Heston or Olivier but there isn't much to own here.

Khartoum is both an African city and the name for some colorful 1884 North African history: the rise of a Messiah-like figure named "Mahdi" among the Muslims of present-day Sudan, the return of a noble general, Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who vanquished slavery in the area, and a tragic fight between the Mahdi and the noble general.

That being said, the film works somewhat well as an action vehicle, but most of the more colorful events from the actual history are glossed over or not well portrayed. I found Laurence Olivier's portrayal of the Mahdi to be very weak with every kind of Muslim stereotype presented as well as some real kitschy overacting. Laurence Olivier simply doesn't pass as a radical Muslim leader. Charlton Heston should never EVER try to do accents again! His British accent more than flopped; it plummeted. The majority of the film suffers from overacting or just plain poor acting. What may have been billed as an Oscar-nominated screenplay in 1966 wouldn't fly today in 2003.

The film's 134 minutes are not well arranged. The film suffers from numerous slow moments and the musical accompaniment is sleep inducing. Both my roommate and I snoozed while trying to watch this film. Some of the cinematography is breathtaking, but nowhere near the level of "Lawrence of Arabia." At any rate, even a little bit of good cinematography can't save this weak film.

I'm giving this film three stars because it does a mediocre but passable job of being an action film. "Zulu" would be a much better film if you would like to watch British soldiers face off against native hordes. Then again, Charlton Heston's wooden acting might make this a camp film classic such as Heston being struck by a spear and slowly falling off a wall was pure cheese. Who knows?

I don't recommend this film.

Review by: Maximillian Ben Hanan

"Khartoum" is the story of Charles Gordon, an English general fighting a radical Islamic rebel in the Sudan, who has the audacity to name himself "Mahdi". There is less action but more dialogue and more scheming than in "Lawrence of Arabia", and the picture end up not having an epic feel to it, but it's still a good tale told well. Charlton Heston is Gordon, and Lawrence Olivier is Mahdi; the acting quality is definitely there. If you look for a good film, and don't look for another "Lawrence of Arabia", you won't be disappointed in "Khartoum".

can any body please tell me who made the music for the soundtrack?i want to know please tell me.

thanx

One of my all-time favourite films, "Educating Rita" is absolutely brilliant rich in truth, feeling, terrific acting and a wonderfully written script which well-draws the two protagonists together. Julie Walters is excellent as the jaunty yet unfulfilled Liverpudlian hairdresser who desperately yearns for an educated mind and the somewhat underrated actor Michael Caine also gives a good performance as her depressed English tutor who wollows in his own self-pity. In eachother, they find a new lease of life and stike a special friendship which eventually benefits the pair of them. And I simply loved the fact that the writer, Willy Russell, didn't take advantage of the fact that they were good friends of the opposite sex and make them a couple and the way in which we see Rita gradually develop and find herself. Terrific stuff.

"Educating Rita", directed by Lewis Gilbert, is an overlooked gem of a film. Based on a London stage play, "Educating Rita" (a copy of which is sold by Amazon.co.uk for those who are interested) is the story of a 27-year old middle class London hairdresser/housewife (Julie Walters, in a convincing, touching performance) who, before having children, would like very much to learn about herself. Much to the annoyance of her husband, she enrolls in an "open university" literature course to begin her journey (open university is the British term for college night courses). Assigned as her tutor is Frank (Michael Caine, in his deservedly award-winning role), an older literature professor who suffers from low self esteem and has his own relationship problems.

But no, this movie is not what you would "typically" expect that storyline to be like. The feel of the movie is very play like -- fans of Glengarry or Death of a Salesman or movies of such ilk would immediately identify.

Had this film been made in the glam throes of Hollywood, Rita and Frank would have hit the sack within two scenes of meeting each other (and it would have been graphic, of course), then realized they were in love, followed by the inevitable obstacle to their relationship (probably a misunderstanding or rival for affections), finally ending up with them overcoming all. Every character and plot point would have been telegraphed well in advance. "Educating Rita" does none of this. There are no graphic sex scenes (or any sex scenes for that matter), no grand pronouncements of love, no cliche cliffhangers or deaths in icy seas. Instead, the story portrays Rita and Frank in a very realistic, human manner. As the story unfolds, we watch as they grow as individuals which causes their friendship to become richer. There are turns to the plot which are unexpected. I will not divulge what the end result is, as it is very unconventional and is sure to bring a lump to the throat of any romantic.

Quite simply, "Educating Rita" is a very overlooked excellent character study framed by a wonderful story. One of my all time romantic favorites. Definitely your rental dollar well spent.

Fans of the blockbuster hit GLADIATOR will find this film somewhat familiar as it deals with the same factual characters and events. Sophia Loren and Stephen Boyd provide attractive window-dressing as the starcrossed lovers, but the real stars are Alec Guiness, James Mason and especially Christopher Plummer whose portrayal of the evil emperor Commodous rivals the Oscar caliber work of Joaquin Phoenix in the more recent epic. Lush 70mm photography on massive sets should make this an exceptional title to add to your classics library on DVD.

The title of this film is a bit of a misnomer; the Roman Empire didn't fall for about another three hundred years after the events depicted in this film took place. However, after the reign of the emperor Commodus (portrayed in this flick by Christopher Plummer), the empire never was quite as powerful as it had been while the Aurelian emperors ruled. A familiarity with Roman history would be very helpful to understand the events depicted in this movie. Fans of "Ben Hur" might find it a little difficult to accept Stephen Boyd in his role of "good guy" Livius. Overall, if you like historical films with big budget backdrops and pretentious action scenes, you won't be disappointed. If you don't care for these types of films, you'll find it very easy to fall asleep on due to its length. There are a plethora of similarities to this film and the more recent release "Gladiator".

This is an excellent film from many perspectives, but in one way it is unique -- its effort to portray accurately the look of imperial Rome. Those who have carefully walked over the Roman Forum and Capitoline Hill will recognize many specific buldings, not just the great temples but also the commercial buildings around the Forum. In Ben Hur, by contrast, the set for the Roman Forum was mostly conjured out of thin air. It is unusual for Hollywood to construct sets that are reasonably true to history.

Fans of the blockbuster hit GLADIATOR will find this film somewhat familiar as it deals with the same factual characters and events. Sophia Loren and Stephen Boyd provide attractive window-dressing as the starcrossed lovers, but the real stars are Alec Guiness, James Mason and especially Christopher Plummer whose portrayal of the evil emperor Commodous rivals the Oscar caliber work of Joaquin Phoenix in the more recent epic. Lush 70mm photography on massive sets should make this an exceptional title to add to your classics library on DVD.

The title of this film is a bit of a misnomer; the Roman Empire didn't fall for about another three hundred years after the events depicted in this film took place. However, after the reign of the emperor Commodus (portrayed in this flick by Christopher Plummer), the empire never was quite as powerful as it had been while the Aurelian emperors ruled. A familiarity with Roman history would be very helpful to understand the events depicted in this movie. Fans of "Ben Hur" might find it a little difficult to accept Stephen Boyd in his role of "good guy" Livius. Overall, if you like historical films with big budget backdrops and pretentious action scenes, you won't be disappointed. If you don't care for these types of films, you'll find it very easy to fall asleep on due to its length. There are a plethora of similarities to this film and the more recent release "Gladiator".

This is an excellent film from many perspectives, but in one way it is unique -- its effort to portray accurately the look of imperial Rome. Those who have carefully walked over the Roman Forum and Capitoline Hill will recognize many specific buldings, not just the great temples but also the commercial buildings around the Forum. In Ben Hur, by contrast, the set for the Roman Forum was mostly conjured out of thin air. It is unusual for Hollywood to construct sets that are reasonably true to history.