Michael-Douglas Movie Reviews

The story could have been good, the way it spilled to many other pointless stories is a waste of film and time.

The actors are very good, and seem to be caught in a story line that was made to be too complicated and over dramatized, just like a soap opera with endless plots that go no where.

The writer/director failed to clearly represent the "chicano" (mexican-american) culture, failed to show us Carlos transition from living in mexico (which is extremly conservative) with his grandparents to LA, to a hispanic community in a different country.

The focus is on the exploitation of the stereotypical "mexican", the poor uneducated unsophisticated mexican boy "abused" by his own family, by the american starand prejudice and everyone elses priorities, which unable him to reach his dreams.

This movie tried to shake the audience being aggressive, crude, cliche and with no substance, it is a very poor and unispiring image on the mexican- americans and the americans themselves.

The use of the comedian "cantinflas" to link the characters to their mexican roots is poorly done, and has no relevance to the film nor the characters and what they purue for themselves which is the "american dream".

Poor use of very good actors, whos american dream will not be reached through this movie.

To understand this film you should understand whats its like to be from a family like this. Themovie played out like a home movie for me. The first reviewer from Mexico, is typical in his narrow mindedness about how "chicanos" live. How do you clearly represent a culture? This young boy was not "abused" by his father, he was ABUSED by his father. THis happenes a lot, in Mexico and America. The use of Cantinflas was not to link the characters to their Mexican roots,it was used by the mentally ill Mother as her escape from her painful existence. I don't know how the first reviewer lives or if he ever visited LA,and i don't mean the tourist locations, the real Barrios with real Chicanos, but, some lives are aggresive and crude. Everything in this movie has substance. It is not sexy though. You care so much about Carlito, that it is stomach churning watching him be voilated. Sure life is not this difficult for everyone, but this is what its like when you are f-up by your parents, and unless you stop the cycle yourself you end up being f-ed by everyone else too. This is fact, ive seen it with my own eyes. Why esle do Street childern exist? Besides all,that the music rocks in this film and makes it unique. All the musical interludes are so appropriate for each seen. Miguel Arteta is genuis.

Most reviewers have missed that Star Maps steps out from the Latino film routine of re-establishing the father as the rightful patriarch (Selena, La Familia, Rooster, ad nauseum). This is more than just another gay boy/prostitute movie; in narrative terms, it's a revolution.

so so movie - not bad as a rental, but not worth $80 to pay

Quite an entertaining movie for a low production film. A "must see" film for Jack Scalia fans. He looks "HOT" in this film and is very sexy. There are several "steamy" love scenes that shocked me never having seen an R rated film with Scalia in it. Overall he does a good acting job playing a character that's rather twisted. One huge negative about this movie is the music. It's obnoxious and very dated.

Beyond Suspicion was an entertaining movie, it's not going to win any awards but Stepfanie Kramer looked great and the plot was well done. If your a Stepfanie Kramer fan then it is well worth watching.

I remember catching this film on Showtime or Cinemax, one boring weekday evening, and being captured by the cinematography, lighting, mood, etc.. Now as far as the central focus of the plot is concerned the reviewer from Salem, IN is 100% on point, but the film would definitely have been infinitely better if the ending was half as a smart as the rest of the picture.

I used this movie as part of a project for a class on the original Star Chamber in England. This movie really brings to light what a modern day star chamber might do. The movie centers around an idealistic young judge (Micheal Douglas) who is frustrated with a system that allows defendants off on technicalities. He becomes aware of a group of judges who feel the same way led by Hal Holbrook. They pass their own sentences and carry out their own punishments. The story then centers on the struggle Douglas has between his desire to punish those who deserve it and the desire to maintain a legality to the system. The scene where Douglas first learns of the Star Chamber is one that I think I'll always remember, just for it's honesty. I remember thinking that sometimes I felt the same way that the judges of this Star Chamber felt, you might too.

i really like this better than any of michael douglas' performances. he desreved an award for this rather than WALL STREET. i found it more suspenseful than FATAL ATTRACTION. i highly recommend this on DVD in the near future. i have a growing DVD library but i don't feel it's complete without this movie among them. i just have to say to anyone out there who is reading this and in the amazon.com business that i really do hope and pray that THE STAR CHAMBER comes on DVD soon. even if it wasn't one of michael douglas' most talked about and popular flicks, it's a masterpiece in my book. please get this video relesed on DVD soon, real soon.

This movie was an old childhood favorite. Rewatching it, it is not as good as I remember, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend it. Mandy Patinkin and Glenn Close are both solid comedic actors. They more than make up for the fact that script leaves a lot to be desired. This isn't "Citizen Kane" quality, but if you are looking for something light for a Friday night, I'd highly recommend it.

I just saw this film today, and i fell in love with it from the start. The story has many a funny moment in it. The problems that result for Glenn Close's character, Jan and her husband Nick, played wonderfully by Mandy Patinkin, due to her being possed by the spirit of Maxie are just too funny. It is a very charming movie, whether it's plausible or not. Aren't movies suppossed to be a break from reality? Well this one is a perfect escape movie. It has charm, laughter, and romance all rolled into one. I highly recommend this film for anyone who wants to enjoy a good laugh, or just wants to have a little fun with their viewing choice...

this is a great sunday afternoon movie that happens to be on t.v. moment. When Glen Close does her cleopatra impersonation with Harry Hamlin it is major. I love her bye bye blackbird moment and her time in the dance studio, with her old friend. It is a correct fun movie, I have had the chance to work with Glenn and this is the only movie box I had her sign. she also did the Cleopatra quotes for me, delicious!

This movie was an old childhood favorite. Rewatching it, it is not as good as I remember, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend it. Mandy Patinkin and Glenn Close are both solid comedic actors. They more than make up for the fact that script leaves a lot to be desired. This isn't "Citizen Kane" quality, but if you are looking for something light for a Friday night, I'd highly recommend it.

I just saw this film today, and i fell in love with it from the start. The story has many a funny moment in it. The problems that result for Glenn Close's character, Jan and her husband Nick, played wonderfully by Mandy Patinkin, due to her being possed by the spirit of Maxie are just too funny. It is a very charming movie, whether it's plausible or not. Aren't movies suppossed to be a break from reality? Well this one is a perfect escape movie. It has charm, laughter, and romance all rolled into one. I highly recommend this film for anyone who wants to enjoy a good laugh, or just wants to have a little fun with their viewing choice...

this is a great sunday afternoon movie that happens to be on t.v. moment. When Glen Close does her cleopatra impersonation with Harry Hamlin it is major. I love her bye bye blackbird moment and her time in the dance studio, with her old friend. It is a correct fun movie, I have had the chance to work with Glenn and this is the only movie box I had her sign. she also did the Cleopatra quotes for me, delicious!

This has great specil FX, but that's it.

Avoid this like you would a tarantula

The B-horror movie seems to be in vogue. For a long time we were inundated with huge, expensive blockbusters, of which I need provide no examples as there are so many. However, a number of recent releases proves that the B-movie, the staple of the drive-in theater, is not dead.

In a variation on the "Spiderman" theme, nerdy Quentin Kemmer (David Summersall) dreams of being a superhero. Working at a biotech facility, Quentin has an opportunity to inject himself with a serum that gives Quentin the powers of a spider. Quentin almost immediately saves Stephanie Lewis (Amelia Heinle) from a rapist/murderer. As the movie progresses, it turns out that beautiful Stephanie likes Quentin, and may even be interested in him.

Unfortunately for Quentin, his new spider powers come with the terrible side effect of turning him into a real spider, with the hunger of a real spider. Soon Quentin has all sorts of interesting physical changes that make him unsuitable for lovely Stephanie. In the best tradition of the B-movie, Stephanie doesn't give up on Quentin even when he's threatening to make her his next meal.

Dan Ackroyd also has a lead role in this movie as the appropriately named Detective Jack Grillo. Dan never quite puts his finger on the situation until near the end of the movie, when he realizes that just maybe a really big spider is killing everyone. Unfortunately, he also loses his lovely, but unfaithful and apparently alcoholic, wife Trixie (Theresa Russell). In one of those wonderful coincidences so common to the B-movie, Trixie's lover Officer Williams (Christopher Cousins) also meets his fate at the fangs of the spider. Interestingly, the normally humorous Dan Ackroyd plays a serious character, but is just over the top enough to be a caricature of an old-style gumshoe.

The special effects of Sam Winston are good and valuable in this movie, yet the success of the movie hinges not on the special effects, but on the plot. The characters provide a nearly believable innocence found in the monster movies of yore. We want Quentin to be good and to recover. We fall in love with the innocent, naïve Stephanie, and want Quentin and her to be together. We feel sorry for hard-working Detective Grillo, whose wife does not understand his commitment to his job. An old-fashioned monster movie pulls us in and allows us to relive the days of "I Was a Teenage Werewolf."

This movie is worthy of a horror fan's collection, and certainly worth at least one watch. This movie is most particularly worthy of a Saturday night in the fall, with someone by your side to pull in close when the spider strikes.

Back in the 50s, monster movies most often revolved around the mutation of a human being into a morphed killer, who kept on killing right until the closing credits. In EARTH VS THE SPIDER, director Scott Ziehl captures the essence of the innocent days when a man monster places himself squarely against society in a way that elicits some sympathy from the audience. Modernized versions of the transformation movie usually attempt to interject some politically correct philosophical underpininning, much as Jeff Goldblum tried in his update of THE FLY.

David Summersall plays Quentin, a nerdish security guard who protects his boss's arachnid DNA experiments by day and dreams of being Spiderman by night. Quentin is your typical post-adolescent who is shy about asking out his pretty neighbor, played by Amelia Heinle. During a break-in by thugs who kill his best friend, Quentin tries to do on purpose what Peter Parker did by accident in SPIDERMAN. Quentin deliberately injects spider DNA into his body with predicatble results. But in the world of EARTH VS THE SPIDER, spider powers accompany a spider's body. Quentin slowly changes into a spider that must feed on fresh human blood. It is at this point, that director Ziehl succeeds admirably in fusing the world of the comic hero with the world of the 50s mutant hero. Many of the scenes blend seamlessly from stark horror to bemused comedy. Dan Akroyd, for one of the few times in his career, plays a straight role as Lieutenant Grillo, who seeks this new webbed killer. Theresa Russell, however, is miscast as his slatternly wife, who sleepwalks through her role as a boozy flirt. The charm of EARTH VS THE SPIDER lies not in the special effects of Jeff Winston, who does his usual superlative job of making the impossibly gross seem inevitably straightforward, but in the comforting feeling that unpretentious fright flicks like this one can take the viewer back to a more innocent time when angry villagers with torches storm the mad scientist's castle to remove an evil presence. This is a gem of a movie that deserves to be on the shelf of any serious fan of the gothic genre.

This has great specil FX, but that's it.

Avoid this like you would a tarantula

The B-horror movie seems to be in vogue. For a long time we were inundated with huge, expensive blockbusters, of which I need provide no examples as there are so many. However, a number of recent releases proves that the B-movie, the staple of the drive-in theater, is not dead.

In a variation on the "Spiderman" theme, nerdy Quentin Kemmer (David Summersall) dreams of being a superhero. Working at a biotech facility, Quentin has an opportunity to inject himself with a serum that gives Quentin the powers of a spider. Quentin almost immediately saves Stephanie Lewis (Amelia Heinle) from a rapist/murderer. As the movie progresses, it turns out that beautiful Stephanie likes Quentin, and may even be interested in him.

Unfortunately for Quentin, his new spider powers come with the terrible side effect of turning him into a real spider, with the hunger of a real spider. Soon Quentin has all sorts of interesting physical changes that make him unsuitable for lovely Stephanie. In the best tradition of the B-movie, Stephanie doesn't give up on Quentin even when he's threatening to make her his next meal.

Dan Ackroyd also has a lead role in this movie as the appropriately named Detective Jack Grillo. Dan never quite puts his finger on the situation until near the end of the movie, when he realizes that just maybe a really big spider is killing everyone. Unfortunately, he also loses his lovely, but unfaithful and apparently alcoholic, wife Trixie (Theresa Russell). In one of those wonderful coincidences so common to the B-movie, Trixie's lover Officer Williams (Christopher Cousins) also meets his fate at the fangs of the spider. Interestingly, the normally humorous Dan Ackroyd plays a serious character, but is just over the top enough to be a caricature of an old-style gumshoe.

The special effects of Sam Winston are good and valuable in this movie, yet the success of the movie hinges not on the special effects, but on the plot. The characters provide a nearly believable innocence found in the monster movies of yore. We want Quentin to be good and to recover. We fall in love with the innocent, naïve Stephanie, and want Quentin and her to be together. We feel sorry for hard-working Detective Grillo, whose wife does not understand his commitment to his job. An old-fashioned monster movie pulls us in and allows us to relive the days of "I Was a Teenage Werewolf."

This movie is worthy of a horror fan's collection, and certainly worth at least one watch. This movie is most particularly worthy of a Saturday night in the fall, with someone by your side to pull in close when the spider strikes.

Back in the 50s, monster movies most often revolved around the mutation of a human being into a morphed killer, who kept on killing right until the closing credits. In EARTH VS THE SPIDER, director Scott Ziehl captures the essence of the innocent days when a man monster places himself squarely against society in a way that elicits some sympathy from the audience. Modernized versions of the transformation movie usually attempt to interject some politically correct philosophical underpininning, much as Jeff Goldblum tried in his update of THE FLY.

David Summersall plays Quentin, a nerdish security guard who protects his boss's arachnid DNA experiments by day and dreams of being Spiderman by night. Quentin is your typical post-adolescent who is shy about asking out his pretty neighbor, played by Amelia Heinle. During a break-in by thugs who kill his best friend, Quentin tries to do on purpose what Peter Parker did by accident in SPIDERMAN. Quentin deliberately injects spider DNA into his body with predicatble results. But in the world of EARTH VS THE SPIDER, spider powers accompany a spider's body. Quentin slowly changes into a spider that must feed on fresh human blood. It is at this point, that director Ziehl succeeds admirably in fusing the world of the comic hero with the world of the 50s mutant hero. Many of the scenes blend seamlessly from stark horror to bemused comedy. Dan Akroyd, for one of the few times in his career, plays a straight role as Lieutenant Grillo, who seeks this new webbed killer. Theresa Russell, however, is miscast as his slatternly wife, who sleepwalks through her role as a boozy flirt. The charm of EARTH VS THE SPIDER lies not in the special effects of Jeff Winston, who does his usual superlative job of making the impossibly gross seem inevitably straightforward, but in the comforting feeling that unpretentious fright flicks like this one can take the viewer back to a more innocent time when angry villagers with torches storm the mad scientist's castle to remove an evil presence. This is a gem of a movie that deserves to be on the shelf of any serious fan of the gothic genre.

This is probably the only moovie to beat out Robot Holocaust for the title of Worst Moovie of the 80's. Think "Mad Max" and "The Warrior" on rollerskates, with a rubber midget, topless nuns, and the worst dubbing this side of Hong Kong. I can't imagine what vile, horrifying, no-talent universe this dreary little slug crawled from, but I don't wanna go there. :=8( Absolutely pathetic - and they made a sequal!!!

This is one of the best sexploitation movies. Many original ideas and quite a bit of humor. Not for everyone but if you like a little originality with your nudity then this ones for you.

I have seen literally hundreds of movies of all types, and Roller Blade is hands down the most bizarre thing that I have ever experienced on video. The closest I can come to describing it is to say that it is a little bit like what might happen if Alexandro Jodorowsky and Russ Meyer directed a lost Ed Wood script with the cast of a Fred Olen Ray movie. But it is so much more. It defies description. It must be seen.

At some point in your life you begin to question all of the reasons you used to give yourself to explain why you do what you do. Not only that, you discover that other people, who you thought were on your side are really standing on the sidelines judging you. You are, in other words, on trial: you need to justify your way of life not only to yourself but to others. What brings this on, perhaps, is the recognition of your own mortality, or the recognition that your ambitions may never be realized because your future depends upon others who have little interest in your concerns. This is really what Kafka's novel _The Trial_ is about: it is an "existentialist" allegory, where the "trial" stands for the fact that you find yourself at some point, unexpectedly, needing to account for and justify your life, but it is never quite clear what (if anything) you have done wrong, who it is that you have to justify yourself to or why.

This film version of Kafka's novel is particularly nice, for its portrayal of what Sartre would call a "bad faith" response to this situation. Kyle McLaughlin is perfect as a brash, arrogant young man who has begun to question his life and has begun to see the eyes of others who judge him harshly -- but who refuses to take his situation totally seriously. He turns to others for help: the law, an artist, a priest, but fails to really even heed their advice to the degree it appears to warrant (deciding, for example, to flirt with the seductive nursemaid of his lawyer, rather than listen to his counsel).

The end doesn't seem to me to be at all puzzling or obscure (as several others have suggested in their reviews of the film), when the film as a whole is "read" as an allegory of life and the despair of a universe where there is no fixed meaning. It turns out, in fact that his situation is much more serious than he has been treating it: he will die an ignominious death ("like a dog" as he says). Just prior to death, he glimpses something in a window -- in terms of the allegory, perhaps, he has an insight into the possible "meaning of it all" -- and yet the insight is only partial, or transitory. It does not save him -- and then it is all over, as suddenly and unexpectedly as it began.

I give the movie five stars. The DVD, one (see below). I won't focus much on the merits of the film aside from saying that the story of the film is one of the most important works of the twentieth-century and is central to the modern, and post-modern, human experience. I saw this movie at the Angelika in New York when it came out. One of Hollywood's crimes was not giving it a distribution deal in the U.S. I have to admit that, the first time I saw it, I was somewhat disappointed by the portrayals in general. However, I hadn't read the novel in several years despite being a Kafka devotee. I reread it yet again and later viewed the film on video tape. The more I watched it, the more I realized what a wonderful job Harold Pinter did with the screenplay.

Now, as far as the DVD itself goes, this is one of the WORST transfers I have ever seen. Thanks go to the folks at Fox Lorber for another disappointing product. I think my original VHS copy had better image quality than this. Furthermore, as another reviewer notes, this film is beautifully photographed, yet the DVD is full screen only. The principals of Fox Lorber should be locked up for not releasing this in widescreen.

As for the extras? Yeah, right. There is a chapter selection function. How's that? There's not even a general menu, no trailers, interviews, etc. Nothing. Poor ole Franz. Still not being treated properly after all these years.

Despite having seen the two and a half overall rating of the film, I decided to rent it, for two reasons: I had not read the book but felt that I should at least make myself familiar with the content and, well, I just like looking at Kyle MacLachlan. For the first reason, this review will not relate the movie to the book. For both reasons, I might have given at it more stars than it deserves.

Having just watched the movie, I became very curious of the sources of its very low rating and re-read the reviews. It seems that many people just did not understand what was going on, and I immodestly decided to take it upon myself to provide them with a possible explanation.

As a reviewer before me wrote, this movie is indeed a scathing satire of the vast bureaucratic system. Think tax returns, medical insurance papers, red tape at work, getting accused of a crime you did not commit (god forbid!)--"This is Hell!" you say. And Hell it is. Or the purgatory. Or the Jugdement. Or all of these at once. Recall the apple in the first scene, the seductresses, the flogger, the heat in the painter's attic, the references to the scriptures by the priest...

I think there are two major currents to the movie/book. First of all, it is the idea that hell is created by you and by people around you--no need for demons and hot coals (c.f. "No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre). In the conversation with Joseph K., the painter explains that there are only three possible fates awaiting an accused man: definite acquittal--but he has not seen anyone who got acquitted (they do not end up in hell !), ostensible acquittal (for those who join the system actively--become one of the bureaucrats--and torture each other), and indefinite postponement (for those eternally waiting souls--the passive parts of the system). By refusing to join the system in either capacity, you escape hell.

Superficially Joseph K. does not seem to join the system, and yet, subtly, he does. He gets very close to escaping at times, but he obviously does not make it. His sin is his pride. It brought him to hell and it prevents him from ever leaving it. Remember, at the very end, he actually makes what may seem the right decision to assist his executioners and break the vicious circle, however he does it for the wrong reason: "I don't what it to be said, that I wanted to begin it all over again..." he says. Right before his death, he gets a glimpse of god (I am not sure about this interpretation though) and he is very close to breaking away, yet he cannot because he thinks his death shameful (his last phrase: "Like a dog..."). No doubt he will wake up again to see two "public servants" eat his breakfast and leave him to taste a bite of that apple again. As we all know, one does not escape hell.

The second major idea, I think, is the tri-unity of the purgatory, the trial, and hell. In Kafka's world they are one and the same.

I am sure the most fascinating ideas of the movie came from Kafka's immortal novel, however the movie certainly reflected them. Kyle MacLachlan IS a conceited yuppie, and he is organic in the role of Joseph K. The casting of Anthony Hopkins as the gatekeeper is a bit too obvious for my taste--he is always cast into these kinds of roles. I cannot complain too much of this though, since in these roles he is uniformly good. The visuals are beautiful, and Prague is my love.

I think "The Trial" is going to be the next book I read...

I found this movie very underrated. I discovered Marlene thanks to this movie (and BORZAGE's "Desire"), and only after that, I saw the STERNBERG movies. For me, Marlene gave her finest performance thanks to LUBITSCH (and Billy WILDER's "A foreign affair"). I found her very touching and sensitive in "Angel". Of course, the story seems ordinary, but under Lubitsch's fine direction, it is not boring at all. And remember, BUNUEL's classic "Belle de jour" (with Catherine DENEUVE) is a remake of LUBITSCH's "Angel" !!! 3 1/3 stars !

Dietrich decides to take a secret vacation from her husband (Herbert Marshal) in London, and goes to visit an old friend in Paris. While there, she has a brief fling with a stranger (Melvyn Douglas). Feeling that her relationship with Douglas is getting too serious, she rushes back to her husband in London. A few weeks later, an old friend comes to visit her husband, and who do you think it is? Thats right, Douglas. Awkward moments and boring dialog follow. This is definately a film for die-hard Dietrich fans only. As much as I hate to say it, this is definately not one of her best films. (thats my polite way of saying it is one of her worst) She is as beautiful as ever, covered in some of the most gorgeous gowns she has ever worn, including one that cost Paramount Studios $5000, which back then, was a staggering amount of money, let alone for a dress. Variety magazine wrote "Miss Dietrich is glamour in double dress. This time she is wearing eye lashes long enough to hang your hat on...".

I do not agree either with Maltin, nor with the other reviewer. OK it is no masterpiece, but this movie has the typical Lubitsch touch, and it's not boring at all. Lavish sets and costumes, Marshall in the typical boring-husband role, Marlene stunning, a delight from start to finish. Then try "Blonde Venus" and "Desire" (both with Marlene).