Michael-J.-Fox Movie Reviews
Related Subjects:
VHS Movie Review
Michael-Jai-White
Michael-Jeter
Michael-Keaton
Michael-Lehmann
Michael-Lerner
Michael-Lonsdale
Michael-Madsen
Michael-Mann
Michael-McKean
Michael-Moriarty
Michael-O'Keefe
Michael-Palin
Michael-Rapaport
Michael-Rispoli
Michael-Rooker
Michael-Wincott
Michael-Winterbottom
Michelle-Pfeiffer
Michelle-Rodriguez
More Pages: Michael-J.-Fox Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
More Pages: Michael-J.-Fox Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
VHS movie reviews for "Michael-J.-Fox" sorted by average review score:
Deadfall
Released in VHS Tape by Vidmark/Trimark (28 June, 1995)
Average review score: 
A-List actors in a B-movie nearly pull it off
Goofy >=o)~This is probably Nic's goofiest movie ever. Nothing is real - not his accent, not his nose, or even his hair. You would hardly recognize him! And I'd tend to think that was exactly his intention - to completely build a character out of nothing, with no ties to him as a person whatsoever.
The plot is pretty cool, the movie has a weird edge to it. So if you like alternative types of movies this one is definitely worth seeing. Co-production with Nicolas' brother Christopher and some other smaller roles for more family members :-).
Man! What was Nicholas Cage thinking?This movie is not a comedy, but with Nicholas Cage giving the most hilarious performance of his life, it turns out to be quite an aisle-rolling experience. I mean, he goes from one accent to another, he's snorting coke, chewing chiklets, and best of all he takes his aggression out on innocent clotheshangers. It's a classic, believe me. I only wish more people would have seen this, like say members of the Academy before they handed him that award. It's funny, but only worth watching for Cage. James Coburn and Michael Biehn add to the hilarity somewhat, playing strongly off of Cage's "Hotheaded" Eddie.
Murders in the Rue Morgue
Released in VHS Tape by Universal Studios (01 September, 1998)
Starring: Sidney Fox and Bela Lugosi
There isn't much of Edgar Allan Poe left in this stylish but gruesome thriller. Bela Lugosi followed Dracula with a scenery-chewing performance as Dr. Mirakle, a mad scientist and sideshow hypnotist who uses his sideshow, which also features his trained gorilla (a stunt man in a phony, flea-bitten costume), as a cover for his sadistic experiments. His ape kidnaps street women whom Mirakle lashes to a crucifix-like pillory, strips to their underwear, and injects with simian blood. They inevitably die horribly, and he discards the bodies via a trap door over the river. When the ape falls in love with a lovely young Parisian miss (Sidney Fox), Mirakle sends him to abduct her from her attic room (one of the few elements left intact from Poe's story). Director Robert Florey, who inherited the project after losing Frankenstein to James Whale, shows his debt to the German expressionists with a gloomy, shadowy world of foggy alleys, misty riverbanks, and near-perpetual night (beautifully captured by cinematographer Karl Freund, later the director of The Mummy). Unfortunately ill-conceived comic relief too often breaks the carefully controlled mood of menace and the unsettling undercurrent of perversity, but Florey's striking images and inventive direction are enough to pull the film through the dead spots. --Sean Axmaker
Average review score:
Dr. Mirakle's MonkeyIn comparison to such Universal Poe "adaptations" as The Black Cat or The Raven, Murders in the Rue Morgue is almost faithful to the original-almost! Poe used the story as a showcase to introduce C. Auguste Dupin, the first literary detective, to the public. A financially independent recluse and spiritual kinsman of Roderick Usher, Dupin, who solves crimes for his own disinterested ratiocinative pleasure, is called in by the Parisian police whenever it runs up against a brick wall in its investigations. In this case, a woman and her daughter have been brutally murdered under suspicious circumstances, and Dupin is able to show-to the consternation of the authorities-that the culprit was a runaway orangutan belonging to a sailor, and not a human agent.
The studio eliminated Dupin as a character altogether, but retained the Parisian setting, placing the story in the 1840s, as well as the idea of a woman who has been mysteriously killed by an unknown assailant. However, into the straightforward framework of the Poe story, Universal inserted the proverbial 500lb. gorilla in more than one sense of the word, since what the movie boils down to is a woman copulating with a great ape, if anyone stopped to think about it-as I am sure some audience members did, even back then.
The simian in question now belongs to Dr. Mirakle (Bela Lugosi), a mountebank and mad scientist evidently patterned after Dr. Caligari, although the name Mirakle has even deeper roots in the German past, reaching back to the stories of E.T.A. Hoffmann, as fans of Jacques Offenbach's great opera The Tales of Hoffmann will quickly realize. Mirakle's mad scheme is to prove a primitive evolutionary theory by "mating" Erik, his pet primate, with a human female. What would Peter Singer have said? Unfortunately, all of his attempts hitherto have been made with ladies of the street, and have failed when his subjects turned out to be sexually infected. But a light dawns after Mirakle encounters the beautiful, young, and presumably virginal Camille L'Espanaye (Sidney Fox) when she visits his sideshow at a carnival. Doesn't Erik seem attracted to her? Hmmmm...
Most of the great horror films of the early sound period had a latent sexual content all too evident today. But while the Universal productions were for the most part relatively straightlaced for the pre-Code days, Murders in the Rue Morgue is almost improbably scabrous. Not only does it feature interspecies coitus combined with side glances at prostitution and venereal disease, but it includes a scene in which Mirakle tortures a woman bound to a rack that could have come straight out of Sade. (If I am correct, the same prop rack reappears in The Black Cat.)
Here the movie ventures into the netherworld of exploitation subsequently populated by hacks like Dwayne Esper, although it may have been primarily influenced by Allan Dwan's stylishly lurid Paris after Midnight, produced by Fox the year before, which had encountered problems of its own with the Hays Office. In The Monster Show, David J. Skal even goes off on a tangent trying to make Dr. Mirakle into an avatar of the Nazi butcher Dr. Josef Mengele. But the principal resources of Murders in the Rue Morgue are the sadism and racism that already figure explicitly in the Poe story, the staple ingredients of many a production in those years, not crypto-fascism.
This louche little opus was the work of Robert Florey, a rather enigmatic figure in the history of American movies. French born, Florey had a career that extended over several decades in Hollywood, co-directing the Marx brothers' first movie, The Cocoanuts (1929), and assisting Charlie Chaplin in the shooting of Monsieur Verdoux, among other chores. Florey had originally been scheduled to direct Frankenstein with Bela Lugosi as the monster, and had even shot some tests, before Universal prudently handed over the picture to James Whale and Boris Karloff, giving Florey and Lugosi this assignment instead. But one of Florey's brainstorms made its way into the final version of Frankenstein: the windmill in which the monster burns to death.
Certainly Florey provides a very atmospheric recreation of Paris in the era of Louis Phillipe. With the photography of Karl Freund and the stylized décor of Charles D. Hall, the film almost seems a homage to Ufa at moments, especially in the fairground scenes whose indebtedness to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari movie buffs will easily recognize. Yet Murders in the Rue Morgue, in spite of a chase over the roofs of Paris in the last reel, is curiously low on suspense, as comparison with The Mummy, directed by Freund in the same year for the same studio, reveals. Nothing in the Florey even remotely approaches the electric excitement of the scene in the latter movie in which a young archaeologist inadvertently revives the mummy by translating the Scroll of Thoth. An even more interesting comparison would be with Edgar G. Ulmer's later Bluebeard (available on DVD), also with a nineteenth century Parisian setting, made on a much tighter budget than the Florey, but which gets far more imaginative mileage for its money.
Bela Lugosi is good as Dr. Mirakle, but the role does not afford him the opportunity to display his idiosyncratic talents to the extent that his parts in Dracula, White Zombie, or The Black Cat did. Otherwise, the cast is disappointingly bland for such a wildly overwrought subject. But the credits do contain one surprise: the name of John Huston, who shares credit with Tom Reed and Dale Van Every for writing the screenplay of this least Hustonian of movies. Talk about strange bedfellows!
The studio eliminated Dupin as a character altogether, but retained the Parisian setting, placing the story in the 1840s, as well as the idea of a woman who has been mysteriously killed by an unknown assailant. However, into the straightforward framework of the Poe story, Universal inserted the proverbial 500lb. gorilla in more than one sense of the word, since what the movie boils down to is a woman copulating with a great ape, if anyone stopped to think about it-as I am sure some audience members did, even back then.
The simian in question now belongs to Dr. Mirakle (Bela Lugosi), a mountebank and mad scientist evidently patterned after Dr. Caligari, although the name Mirakle has even deeper roots in the German past, reaching back to the stories of E.T.A. Hoffmann, as fans of Jacques Offenbach's great opera The Tales of Hoffmann will quickly realize. Mirakle's mad scheme is to prove a primitive evolutionary theory by "mating" Erik, his pet primate, with a human female. What would Peter Singer have said? Unfortunately, all of his attempts hitherto have been made with ladies of the street, and have failed when his subjects turned out to be sexually infected. But a light dawns after Mirakle encounters the beautiful, young, and presumably virginal Camille L'Espanaye (Sidney Fox) when she visits his sideshow at a carnival. Doesn't Erik seem attracted to her? Hmmmm...
Most of the great horror films of the early sound period had a latent sexual content all too evident today. But while the Universal productions were for the most part relatively straightlaced for the pre-Code days, Murders in the Rue Morgue is almost improbably scabrous. Not only does it feature interspecies coitus combined with side glances at prostitution and venereal disease, but it includes a scene in which Mirakle tortures a woman bound to a rack that could have come straight out of Sade. (If I am correct, the same prop rack reappears in The Black Cat.)
Here the movie ventures into the netherworld of exploitation subsequently populated by hacks like Dwayne Esper, although it may have been primarily influenced by Allan Dwan's stylishly lurid Paris after Midnight, produced by Fox the year before, which had encountered problems of its own with the Hays Office. In The Monster Show, David J. Skal even goes off on a tangent trying to make Dr. Mirakle into an avatar of the Nazi butcher Dr. Josef Mengele. But the principal resources of Murders in the Rue Morgue are the sadism and racism that already figure explicitly in the Poe story, the staple ingredients of many a production in those years, not crypto-fascism.
This louche little opus was the work of Robert Florey, a rather enigmatic figure in the history of American movies. French born, Florey had a career that extended over several decades in Hollywood, co-directing the Marx brothers' first movie, The Cocoanuts (1929), and assisting Charlie Chaplin in the shooting of Monsieur Verdoux, among other chores. Florey had originally been scheduled to direct Frankenstein with Bela Lugosi as the monster, and had even shot some tests, before Universal prudently handed over the picture to James Whale and Boris Karloff, giving Florey and Lugosi this assignment instead. But one of Florey's brainstorms made its way into the final version of Frankenstein: the windmill in which the monster burns to death.
Certainly Florey provides a very atmospheric recreation of Paris in the era of Louis Phillipe. With the photography of Karl Freund and the stylized décor of Charles D. Hall, the film almost seems a homage to Ufa at moments, especially in the fairground scenes whose indebtedness to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari movie buffs will easily recognize. Yet Murders in the Rue Morgue, in spite of a chase over the roofs of Paris in the last reel, is curiously low on suspense, as comparison with The Mummy, directed by Freund in the same year for the same studio, reveals. Nothing in the Florey even remotely approaches the electric excitement of the scene in the latter movie in which a young archaeologist inadvertently revives the mummy by translating the Scroll of Thoth. An even more interesting comparison would be with Edgar G. Ulmer's later Bluebeard (available on DVD), also with a nineteenth century Parisian setting, made on a much tighter budget than the Florey, but which gets far more imaginative mileage for its money.
Bela Lugosi is good as Dr. Mirakle, but the role does not afford him the opportunity to display his idiosyncratic talents to the extent that his parts in Dracula, White Zombie, or The Black Cat did. Otherwise, the cast is disappointingly bland for such a wildly overwrought subject. But the credits do contain one surprise: the name of John Huston, who shares credit with Tom Reed and Dale Van Every for writing the screenplay of this least Hustonian of movies. Talk about strange bedfellows!
A VINTAGE CHILLERTwo young couples go to a Parisian carnival in 1845. There they are captivated by a self-proclaimed scientist who claims that evolution can be proven by the blending of human blood with that of apes. His pet ape - named Erik - seems to be attracted to one of the young ladies whose name is Camille...Based upon Edgar Allan Poe's 1843 novellette, this sometimes hokey and rather corny melodrama is an acceptable entry in Universal's world of vintage horror flicks. As Dr. Mirakle, Bela Lugosi plays his role with intense relish. The highly stylized sets are quite reminiscent of those which appeared in the 1919 silent classic THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI. Television's Arlene Francis had her brief bit of movie stardom in her playing of a partially clothed lady of the pavements who's murdered and strains of Tchaikovsky's SWAN LAKE can be heard by those who like Classical music. Among the young ingenues who were tested for the part of Mlle. Camille L'Espanaye was Bette Davis - the producers decided she lacked sex appeal - so the tiny (4'11") Sidney Fox was given the role. Fox and Davis both made their film debut in a forgotten 1931 Universal potboiler entitled BAD SISTER. Fox had the lead as the vixen, while Davis played the drab essence of sweet simplicity: in 1942 Fox, unsuccessful in films, committed suicide. Bette Davis was the Queen of Hollywood.
A Potential Masterpiece Almost Ruined.Poor Robert Florey! After preparing the original FRANKENSTEIN project only to have it handed to James Whale (who retained Florey's idea of the stolen criminal brain), he and original star Bela Lugosi (who rejected the part of the Monster because it had no dialogue) were given this film as a consolation prize. Florey wanted to create an American CABINET OF DR CALIGARI. He had the great cameraman Karl Freund and together they created a bizarre shadowy Paris that is almost overbearingly atmospheric. Lugosi threw himself into the role of Dr Mirakle with remarkable intensity. What should have emerged from all this was an American expressionist classic. It didn't happen and here's why. The book UNIVERSAL HORRORS reveals that when the film was finished it was shown to the Universal top brass (Carl and Junior Laemmle) and they didn't like it. Too humorless and too arty. So they had additonal scenes shot including close-ups of a real orangutan clumisily inserted, comic relief scenes with dialogue by a young John Huston added, and then rearranged Florey's existing order of scenes. To add insult to injury the film was then cut from 72 to 61 minutes. The end result was a terrible mess that barely resembles what Florey intended. However there are several moments which still make the film worthwhile. Lugosi's performance, Karl Freund's camerawork, and a surprisingly effective performance from Arlene Francis of WHAT'S MY LINE fame. It's a pity that we will never see what Robert Florey intended but what is left is still fascinating in spite of everything that happened. Robert Florey would later make the horror classic THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS in 1946. By the way Leon Waycoff who plays Dupin would change his last name to Ames and gain fame as the neighbor on the MR ED show 30 years later.
Little Richard
Released in VHS Tape by Artisan (Fox Video) (22 October, 2002)
The Richard Penniman (better known as Little Richard) depicted in this 2000 film was a flamboyant, larger-than-life character, not to mention a vital figure in pop music history--perhaps even "the architect of rock & roll," as he's called here. The fact that both of those portraits are accurate is a tribute to the makers of this TV movie, especially director Robert Townsend (Hollywood Shuffle) and Leon in the title role (Little Richard himself was an executive producer). Sure, it's a bit heavy on the melodrama, especially Richard's volatile relationship with his demanding father, and light on the music ("Tutti Frutti," "Lucille," and Richard's other hits are heard, with Leon lip-syncing to the original recordings, but there's no clue as to how Richard actually forged his style), but hey, that's TV for you. By and large, Little Richard is an entertaining ride, even without any DVD bonus material. --Sam Graham
Average review score:
Enough With The Pancake 31!Little Richard had been talking about a movie of his life as far back as 1962. Around the time of his critically acclaimed *book* biography, "The Life & Times of Little Richard" (Charles White, Crown, New York), he mentioned Michael Jackson, Prince, or Eddie Murphy as his celluloid self. About fifteen years later Leon got the job. I'm not familiar with the gentleman's work, but I strongly believe that he did the best possible job of all. Murphy would have been great if the story took us into the late '60s/early '70s, but the younger actor managed to capture the "soul" of the early Penniman, as he achieved worldwide fame on his first major record release, and nearly saw it taken away, or at least tarnished by unfair competition and by a perfectly legal but unfair recording contract. And by his own offstage indulgence. By the way, if you look at the 45 rpm picture cover of LR's "Ooh! My Soul"/"True, Fine Mama" you'd think for a second that it was this actor. The resemblance actually does help here.
In some ways we can compare Richard's biopic with Jerry Lee Lewis' biopic. They both disappointed the deep fan, the historian, but served the purpose of introducing a Legend to those who knew very little about them. The movies got alot of folks interested. "Little Richard" wins out by the strength of the acting.
Those who read the Charles White book need to (almost) forget the book while they watch the movie. There's a large amount of distortion and exaggeration. There's a certain amount of invention: "By The Light of the Silvery Moon" was his first RCA release, complete with *1956* arrangement? - okay...Tutti Frutti" was recorded in 1953? - it may have been first *performed* in 1953, but it sure wasn't recorded that year! (In record business years, *two* years is like two lifetimes!) The lady companion he found after his fame was named...Lucille? More than one source mention a free-spirit named Lee Angel.
Ofcourse most musical biographies exaggerate to make the "story" work. Too bad, however, that in this case we have an incredibly influential musical genius portrayed as an incredibly influential gender-bending eccentric who sent the kids into orbit. How about a minute or two on how he changed the way music sounded and the way musicians performed? In short, the movie is too image conscious.
Another concern is in the portrayal of two Richard contemporaries, Sam Cooke and Pat Boone. Cooke, who was a very close friend of Richard and who wrote for him in the early '60s, for some reason gets a disparaging comment in the dialogue, and Boone, the good Country ballad singer/poor Rock and Roll singer who ofcourse recorded third-rate covers of LR's first two classics, is shown in a crass split-screen: the great "Long Tall Sally" versus the terrible "cover version" as Pat struggles with the intricacies of the composition at a studio mike.
Altogether the real Little Richard did a fine job as Executive Producer. Just like in his recording career, whenever he took the reins as Producer, or Co-Producer, we got something special.
Strangely, however, just as critics and fans have neglected his most important contributions over the years, the Architect himself seems to have gotten caught up in the same confusion.
[Longtime fans and historians note that the soundtrack recording of "Take My Hand, Precious Lord" and an unidentified folk/work song are *new*].
In some ways we can compare Richard's biopic with Jerry Lee Lewis' biopic. They both disappointed the deep fan, the historian, but served the purpose of introducing a Legend to those who knew very little about them. The movies got alot of folks interested. "Little Richard" wins out by the strength of the acting.
Those who read the Charles White book need to (almost) forget the book while they watch the movie. There's a large amount of distortion and exaggeration. There's a certain amount of invention: "By The Light of the Silvery Moon" was his first RCA release, complete with *1956* arrangement? - okay...Tutti Frutti" was recorded in 1953? - it may have been first *performed* in 1953, but it sure wasn't recorded that year! (In record business years, *two* years is like two lifetimes!) The lady companion he found after his fame was named...Lucille? More than one source mention a free-spirit named Lee Angel.
Ofcourse most musical biographies exaggerate to make the "story" work. Too bad, however, that in this case we have an incredibly influential musical genius portrayed as an incredibly influential gender-bending eccentric who sent the kids into orbit. How about a minute or two on how he changed the way music sounded and the way musicians performed? In short, the movie is too image conscious.
Another concern is in the portrayal of two Richard contemporaries, Sam Cooke and Pat Boone. Cooke, who was a very close friend of Richard and who wrote for him in the early '60s, for some reason gets a disparaging comment in the dialogue, and Boone, the good Country ballad singer/poor Rock and Roll singer who ofcourse recorded third-rate covers of LR's first two classics, is shown in a crass split-screen: the great "Long Tall Sally" versus the terrible "cover version" as Pat struggles with the intricacies of the composition at a studio mike.
Altogether the real Little Richard did a fine job as Executive Producer. Just like in his recording career, whenever he took the reins as Producer, or Co-Producer, we got something special.
Strangely, however, just as critics and fans have neglected his most important contributions over the years, the Architect himself seems to have gotten caught up in the same confusion.
[Longtime fans and historians note that the soundtrack recording of "Take My Hand, Precious Lord" and an unidentified folk/work song are *new*].
The Georgia PeachI grew up with the music of Little Richard, Fats Domino, Elvis and really never understood the real stories behind these influential rock artists. This made for television movie accurately recreates the life and times of the man who really did put the "rock"in rock and roll. Although I have only watched a portion of the dvd, I can recommend it to anyone who has any interest in this always fascinating artist who still contributes today: check out his performance on "Kindred Spirits", the Johnny Cash tribute album.
Don't Drink the Water
Released in VHS Tape by Miramax Home Entertainment (08 October, 2002)
Starring: Woody Allen and Julie Kavner
Fans of Woody Allen's earlier, more purely comic movies will enjoy Don't Drink the Water, a film of his successful stage play about a hapless diplomat during the cold war. Michael J. Fox plays Axel McGee, the son of an ambassador to an unnamed Communist country. Though forced by family pressure to enter diplomacy, McGee has no talent for it whatsoever and has been kicked out of cities, countries, and even entire continents. When his father goes back to Washington to seek a higher position, he reluctantly leaves Axel in charge. For a few days, all goes well. But then the Hollanders arrive (Julie Kavner, Mayim Bialik, and Allen himself), a Jewish family from New Jersey who accidentally took pictures of a sensitive intersection. Accused of being spies, they seek asylum at the embassy--and immediately send everything out of whack by insulting the chef, tying up the phones with long distance calls, and almost starting an international incident by squabbling with a Middle Eastern emir. Eccentric characters abound, including a priest who's been in asylum at the embassy for so long he's taken up magic tricks to pass the time (Dom DeLuise) and a snooty bureaucrat who thinks McGee is an idiot (Edward Herrmann). It was funnier when the cold war was still going on, but it's still an entertaining farce, directed by Allen. --Bret Fetzer
Average review score:
Don't Drink the Water...and don't watch this movie!OK, so I didn't actually watch the whole thing, and maybe (just maybe) it got better at the end... but I just couldn't take it anymore! If what Woody was going for was a chaotic mess then he succeeded. It was filmed partially as a docu-comedy with a narrator and hand held camera (reminiscent of "Take the Money and Run), but without the character interviews. This shaky camera technique is difficult to watch, limits the possible shots, and detracts from your ability to "suspend disbelief." Am I supposed to think there's a guy there with a camera filming reality? If so, why don't the people notice it or talk to it? It would have been better filmed as the Broadway play it was written to be.
But that's just the start of the problems...
This movie lacked any sense of comedic timing! It was almost as if there had been no rehearsals at all (more of the docu-comedy technique?). Woody overpowered everyone in every scene he was in. Michael J. Fox looked like he didn't know what he was supposed to do or say next, but struggled along like a trooper trying not to do an impersonation of Woody Allen. Unlike Miyam Bialack, who showed she could stretch from playing "Blossom" by playing a female version of Woody. By the way, she also looked far too young for the role. Julie Kavner is always good, but there really wasn't anything for her to do but talk on the phone. And I was just embarrassed for Dom DeLouise who appeared to be adlibbing over the top while everyone around him tried to ignore him.
DO buy this movie!Don't Drink the Water is hysterical! I am a huge Woody Allen Fan and have seen nearly all of his movies. There are some movies by Woody that even I'm not that fond of BUT.....this is not one of them. This movie is entertaining and well cast. There is a lot going on and everytime I watch it I find something different that gets me going! Buy this movie and keep an eye on the subtleties. You won't be disappointed!
DO buy this movie!This movie is hysterical! I am a huge Woody Allen Fan and have seen nearly all of his movies. There are some movies by Woody that even I'm not that fond of BUT.....this is not one of them. This movie is entertaining and well cast. There is a lot going on and everytime I watch it I find something different that gets me going! Buy this movie and keep an eye on the subtleties.....you won't be disappointed!
Don't Drink the Water
Released in VHS Tape by Touchstone Video (21 November, 2000)
Starring: Woody Allen and Julie Kavner
Fans of Woody Allen's earlier, more purely comic movies will enjoy Don't Drink the Water, a film of his successful stage play about a hapless diplomat during the cold war. Michael J. Fox plays Axel McGee, the son of an ambassador to an unnamed Communist country. Though forced by family pressure to enter diplomacy, McGee has no talent for it whatsoever and has been kicked out of cities, countries, and even entire continents. When his father goes back to Washington to seek a higher position, he reluctantly leaves Axel in charge. For a few days, all goes well. But then the Hollanders arrive (Julie Kavner, Mayim Bialik, and Allen himself), a Jewish family from New Jersey who accidentally took pictures of a sensitive intersection. Accused of being spies, they seek asylum at the embassy--and immediately send everything out of whack by insulting the chef, tying up the phones with long distance calls, and almost starting an international incident by squabbling with a Middle Eastern emir. Eccentric characters abound, including a priest who's been in asylum at the embassy for so long he's taken up magic tricks to pass the time (Dom DeLuise) and a snooty bureaucrat who thinks McGee is an idiot (Edward Herrmann). It was funnier when the cold war was still going on, but it's still an entertaining farce, directed by Allen. --Bret Fetzer
Average review score:
Don't Drink the Water...and don't watch this movie!OK, so I didn't actually watch the whole thing, and maybe (just maybe) it got better at the end... but I just couldn't take it anymore! If what Woody was going for was a chaotic mess then he succeeded. It was filmed partially as a docu-comedy with a narrator and hand held camera (reminiscent of "Take the Money and Run), but without the character interviews. This shaky camera technique is difficult to watch, limits the possible shots, and detracts from your ability to "suspend disbelief." Am I supposed to think there's a guy there with a camera filming reality? If so, why don't the people notice it or talk to it? It would have been better filmed as the Broadway play it was written to be.
But that's just the start of the problems...
This movie lacked any sense of comedic timing! It was almost as if there had been no rehearsals at all (more of the docu-comedy technique?). Woody overpowered everyone in every scene he was in. Michael J. Fox looked like he didn't know what he was supposed to do or say next, but struggled along like a trooper trying not to do an impersonation of Woody Allen. Unlike Miyam Bialack, who showed she could stretch from playing "Blossom" by playing a female version of Woody. By the way, she also looked far too young for the role. Julie Kavner is always good, but there really wasn't anything for her to do but talk on the phone. And I was just embarrassed for Dom DeLouise who appeared to be adlibbing over the top while everyone around him tried to ignore him.
DO buy this movie!Don't Drink the Water is hysterical! I am a huge Woody Allen Fan and have seen nearly all of his movies. There are some movies by Woody that even I'm not that fond of BUT.....this is not one of them. This movie is entertaining and well cast. There is a lot going on and everytime I watch it I find something different that gets me going! Buy this movie and keep an eye on the subtleties. You won't be disappointed!
DO buy this movie!This movie is hysterical! I am a huge Woody Allen Fan and have seen nearly all of his movies. There are some movies by Woody that even I'm not that fond of BUT.....this is not one of them. This movie is entertaining and well cast. There is a lot going on and everytime I watch it I find something different that gets me going! Buy this movie and keep an eye on the subtleties.....you won't be disappointed!
The Naked Runner
Released in VHS Tape by Warner Studios (08 January, 2002)
Average review score:
naked plotThis is a truly bad flick. Even the marketing catch phrase is nonsensical: "They found the key to Sam Laker. They wound it up tight. And then they turned him loose." You don't wind up a key, you use a key to wind something up. Good grief. The casting is also pretty wretched, with second-rate British actors utilizing German accents reminiscent of Hogan's Heroes. The kiddie actor who plays Frank's son is a cross between Danny Bonnaducie and little Anakin from The Phantom Menace. (This is not a compliment)
The plot errors contained in the two positive reviews indicate how delusional these reviewers are. The story is convoluted and ridiculous. Let's see, a commie baddie has escaped from the British and instead of using any of their highly-trained agents to eliminate him they create an elaborate web to manipulate a former sharp-shooter, who has spent the last 20+ years in furniture sales, into doing the job. Yeah...
Then again, when we consider the pre-September 11th performance of the FBI and CIA, maybe this is how intelligence operations work.
Anyhow, Sinatra is certainly at his most disinterested. He filmed this movie immediately after his marriage to Mia Farrow, and subsequently walked off the film before it was finished(perhaps to be with his young bride?). Maybe this offscreen problem contributed to the choppiness of the film. In fact, the "minimalist" approach which the other reviewers tout was probably due to this constraint. The frequent use of doubles/stand-ins for Frank's role provides some unintentional hilarity. While this movie is not as passing-a-kidney-stone painful as a Van Damme or Martin Lawrence flick, do yourself a favor skip it. Instead, check out "The Manchurian Candidate" to witness a true cold war classic as well as a performance that demonstrated what kind of an actor Sinatra could be when he actually cared.
Sinatra at his best (4.5 stars would be my grade)The Naked Runner is not as well-known as it should be. Frank Sinatra plays an ex-commando who is recruited to rub out a foreign leader. The people recruit him by abducting his son and giving him the ultimatum "Kill our enemy, or else." Sinatra is manipulated cleverly and battles against his own sense of right and wrong and the desire to get his son back alive. The film is entertaining from start to finish.
Edgy, minimalist, Frankenheimer-esqueAn exceptionally tense, minimalist film that truly exudes the whole Cold War era angst and mystery of what lies behind the Iron Curtain. Though Frankenheimer did not direct this classic, it is reminiscent of The Manchurian Candidate, but much more chilling in its unsettling view of Big Brother Communism.
Rusty: The Great Rescue
Released in VHS Tape by Twentieth Century Fox (22 September, 1998)
Average review score:
Really, really dumb!This movie is stupid, crude and dumb. Don't waste your time. It's just too juvenile with crude physical humor and you'll wish you didn't bother.
Concerned Christian Mom
Entertaining and A Great Message, Good Triumphs over Evil !I have found Rusty to be wonderfully entertaining, sweet
and charming. The way the animals appear to be really
talking is amazing. In a world full of nastiness it is
awsome to see a movie that is enjoyable and almost Aesop-like.
Our whole family LOVES Rusty!!
and charming. The way the animals appear to be really
talking is amazing. In a world full of nastiness it is
awsome to see a movie that is enjoyable and almost Aesop-like.
Our whole family LOVES Rusty!!
GRRREATT FOR FAMILY VIEWINGTHIS MOVIE IS VERY ENTERTAINING FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY. ANIMALS OF ALL TYPES REALLY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE TALKING. GREAT PHOTOGRAPHY AND VERY GOOD WORK ON MAKING THIS FILM VERY EYECATCHING TO CHILDREN AND ADULTS. WOULD RECOMMEND TO ANY FAMILY VIEWING.
Alien Resurrection
Released in VHS Tape by Twentieth Century Fox (05 May, 1998)
Starring: Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder
Perhaps these films are like the Star Trek movies: The even-numbered episodes are the best ones. Certainly this film (directed by French stylist Jean-Pierre Jeunet) is an improvement over Alien 3, with a script that breathes exciting new life into the franchise. This chapter is set even further in the future, where scientists on a space colony have cloned both the alien and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), who died in Alien 3; in doing so, however, they've mixed alien DNA with Ripley's human chromosomes, which gives Ripley surprising power (and a bad attitude). A band of smugglers comes aboard only to discover the new race of aliens--and when the multi-mouthed melonheads get loose, no place is safe. But, on the plus side, they have Ripley as a guide to help them get out. Winona Ryder is on hand as the smugglers' most unlikely crew member (with a secret of her own), but this one is Sigourney's all the way. --Marshall Fine
Average review score:
Poor script = Disappointing movieUpon hearing that another sequel to Alien was being made, I did not know whether to be optimistict or petrified. By killing all of the Aliens survivers off in Alien3, the series was ruined for me. Dispite that, I still payed $7 to see Resurrection. I should have saved my time and money because this movie was a complete waste. Resurrection is basicly a retread of the first 2 movies with cloning as the plot point used to bring Weaver, the star, back. Because we already know what the nature of the aliens is, they are no longer frightening as they were in "Alien". We know they have 2 sets of teeth and like to drip goo all over. This movie also was not as action packed as "Aliens". Not one time was I on the edge of my seat with my heart pounding so hard I thought everyone around me could hear it. Even the underwater chase seemed slow and dull compared to "Aliens". This movie also lacked interesting characters that we could sympathize with and cheer for. W.Ryder's character was underdeveloped and her story was never fleshed out. Also, Ryder was a very poor choice for this role. The 2 stars had absolutely no chemistry. My biggest gripe with this movie were the enormous inconsistencies in the story. Sometimes there would be acid for blood then other times, like the alien tongue scene, there would be none. Where did the eggs come from? Swimming underwater for more than 3 minutes? I don't think so. Was this movie supposed to be a comedy or was that just a accident??? If you want horror, rent Alien. If you want action rent Aliens. If you want to see a good movie, stay far away from this load of garbage.
Don't even bother with the bad critics.Once again a new horror movie is out, and once again you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of critics saying the same unfathomably stupid thing: "it requires a great stretch of the imagination". WTF? This is a movie, you're looking at an image on a screen of people reding off lines that were given to them while computer generated creations chase them around. Of course it requires a stretch of the imagination, you fools, it's NOT REAL.
Anyway, as for the movie itself, I thought it was quite good and a big improvemnt over the highly dissapointing Alien 3. The plot is that Riply has been cloned, 200 years after she dies, in a plan to resurrect the alien species for miltary study. Of course all hell breaks loose when the aliens break out of their holding cells with a nice crew of hardass criminals to chase around. The acting is fine and the set is awesome in a dark, Nine Inch Nails video sort of way, but what I liked most was how the film really put the spotlight on the aliens. Here we're shown their true intelligence, particularly in their initial escape from their captures, and also treated to an impressive display of hydrodynamic grace. The queen alien is here too, but only briefly, due to the fact she is turned on by the grotesque hybrid Riply-alien, quite a disgusting looking monster. The new addition is all fine and good but I would have rather seen the queen in action, walking around and opening a can of whoop-a in all her new CGI glory.
Basically, amazing CGI affects on our extraterresrial friends and a sleek new look, a clever story, and cool comic book inspired action make for a darn good sci-fi thriller and a nice addition to the alien series.
Resurrection is a fun movie!It has a lot of action and the crew of the Betty are likeable enough characters. People don't listen to the negative comments by some of these fools on here! This movie is way better than Alien 3 ever thought of being. If Alien 3 had been more like Alien Resurrection, I would not have been so disapointed by it. Alien Resurrection was just meant to be a fun action movie. If you want something as high class as Cameron's Aliens, get ready for Alien 5. Cameron has stated he will be doing this sequel and rectifying what Alien 3 did to his characters.
Alien Resurrection
Released in VHS Tape by Twentieth Century Fox (20 May, 2003)
Starring: Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder
Perhaps these films are like the Star Trek movies: The even-numbered episodes are the best ones. Certainly this film (directed by French stylist Jean-Pierre Jeunet) is an improvement over Alien 3, with a script that breathes exciting new life into the franchise. This chapter is set even further in the future, where scientists on a space colony have cloned both the alien and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), who died in Alien 3; in doing so, however, they've mixed alien DNA with Ripley's human chromosomes, which gives Ripley surprising power (and a bad attitude). A band of smugglers comes aboard only to discover the new race of aliens--and when the multi-mouthed melonheads get loose, no place is safe. But, on the plus side, they have Ripley as a guide to help them get out. Winona Ryder is on hand as the smugglers' most unlikely crew member (with a secret of her own), but this one is Sigourney's all the way. --Marshall Fine
Average review score:
Poor script = Disappointing movieUpon hearing that another sequel to Alien was being made, I did not know whether to be optimistict or petrified. By killing all of the Aliens survivers off in Alien3, the series was ruined for me. Dispite that, I still payed $7 to see Resurrection. I should have saved my time and money because this movie was a complete waste. Resurrection is basicly a retread of the first 2 movies with cloning as the plot point used to bring Weaver, the star, back. Because we already know what the nature of the aliens is, they are no longer frightening as they were in "Alien". We know they have 2 sets of teeth and like to drip goo all over. This movie also was not as action packed as "Aliens". Not one time was I on the edge of my seat with my heart pounding so hard I thought everyone around me could hear it. Even the underwater chase seemed slow and dull compared to "Aliens". This movie also lacked interesting characters that we could sympathize with and cheer for. W.Ryder's character was underdeveloped and her story was never fleshed out. Also, Ryder was a very poor choice for this role. The 2 stars had absolutely no chemistry. My biggest gripe with this movie were the enormous inconsistencies in the story. Sometimes there would be acid for blood then other times, like the alien tongue scene, there would be none. Where did the eggs come from? Swimming underwater for more than 3 minutes? I don't think so. Was this movie supposed to be a comedy or was that just a accident??? If you want horror, rent Alien. If you want action rent Aliens. If you want to see a good movie, stay far away from this load of garbage.
Don't even bother with the bad critics.Once again a new horror movie is out, and once again you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of critics saying the same unfathomably stupid thing: "it requires a great stretch of the imagination". WTF? This is a movie, you're looking at an image on a screen of people reding off lines that were given to them while computer generated creations chase them around. Of course it requires a stretch of the imagination, you fools, it's NOT REAL.
Anyway, as for the movie itself, I thought it was quite good and a big improvemnt over the highly dissapointing Alien 3. The plot is that Riply has been cloned, 200 years after she dies, in a plan to resurrect the alien species for miltary study. Of course all hell breaks loose when the aliens break out of their holding cells with a nice crew of hardass criminals to chase around. The acting is fine and the set is awesome in a dark, Nine Inch Nails video sort of way, but what I liked most was how the film really put the spotlight on the aliens. Here we're shown their true intelligence, particularly in their initial escape from their captures, and also treated to an impressive display of hydrodynamic grace. The queen alien is here too, but only briefly, due to the fact she is turned on by the grotesque hybrid Riply-alien, quite a disgusting looking monster. The new addition is all fine and good but I would have rather seen the queen in action, walking around and opening a can of whoop-a in all her new CGI glory.
Basically, amazing CGI affects on our extraterresrial friends and a sleek new look, a clever story, and cool comic book inspired action make for a darn good sci-fi thriller and a nice addition to the alien series.
Resurrection is a fun movie!It has a lot of action and the crew of the Betty are likeable enough characters. People don't listen to the negative comments by some of these fools on here! This movie is way better than Alien 3 ever thought of being. If Alien 3 had been more like Alien Resurrection, I would not have been so disapointed by it. Alien Resurrection was just meant to be a fun action movie. If you want something as high class as Cameron's Aliens, get ready for Alien 5. Cameron has stated he will be doing this sequel and rectifying what Alien 3 did to his characters.
Alien Resurrection
Released in VHS Tape by Twentieth Century Fox (20 May, 2003)
Starring: Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder
Perhaps these films are like the Star Trek movies: The even-numbered episodes are the best ones. Certainly this film (directed by French stylist Jean-Pierre Jeunet) is an improvement over Alien 3, with a script that breathes exciting new life into the franchise. This chapter is set even further in the future, where scientists on a space colony have cloned both the alien and Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), who died in Alien 3; in doing so, however, they've mixed alien DNA with Ripley's human chromosomes, which gives Ripley surprising power (and a bad attitude). A band of smugglers comes aboard only to discover the new race of aliens--and when the multi-mouthed melonheads get loose, no place is safe. But, on the plus side, they have Ripley as a guide to help them get out. Winona Ryder is on hand as the smugglers' most unlikely crew member (with a secret of her own), but this one is Sigourney's all the way. --Marshall Fine
Average review score:
Terrible Plot, Worst CharacterizationThis movie is utterly ridiculous, and it cheapens the previous three episodes. The story "resurrects" Ripley after her death in the last film, making her sacrifice in Alien 3 for nothing.
The worst aspect, though, would have to be the characterization. Unlike the first three movies, in which the interplay of the characters supplemented their struggle against the aliens, the characters in Resurrection are two-dimensional, crude, and wholly unlikeable. I wanted all of them to die; everything about them is underdeveloped and unsophisticated.
If you're feeling self-sadistic, you should watch this film together with Jason X and then down a bottle of aspirin.
it's worth to watch...but disappointingif removed all the previous 3, this one is still very good for entertainment and it's really suit for a hollywood movie. BUT, if compared by those previous three, this one is the worst one in my idea. This one is not scary at all. The worst I don't like is the final new-born alien, it completely change the image of the aliens. Anyway, some parts are quite worth to watch, I quite like the water part and the one when aliens kill each other.
director Jean-Pierre Jeunet did ok on this movie, but he did very well on AMELIE.
so my opinion, ALIEN is the best, then ALIENS, ALIEN 3, ALIEN 4
I still waiting for the 5th series, but please don't have that new-born alien.
Good Film, But A Missed OpportunityThis was a good movie -- but the writers missed a great opportunity to present science fiction with a way-things-ought-to-be theme. Life as it SHOULD and OUGHT to be.
These alien creatures attack and begin killing members of the crew on a space ship, along with some guests in transit and Officer Ripley. Ripley takes charge, and leads everyone in the effort to simply kill these creatures. In the end Ripley and her gang of cowboys prevailed, and all the creatures were dead.
The writers overlooked an excellent chance to demonstrate how life SHOULD be. When Ripley and her compatriots were first attacked, they should have asked themselves, "Why do these creatures hate us?" And then they should have spent a significant amount of time examining their own behavior, to determine what faults or misdeeds of theirs had provoked the creatures to attack and kill them. Next, Ripley and her bunch should have sought to form a coalition of some sort, dealing with a space equivalent of the United Nations, to pass resolutions against the creatures' violent behavior -- not against the creatures themselves, mind you, but only condemning their behavior. Then, they should have sent inspectors to the creatures, to monitor compliance with the resolutions.
THAT is how this story should have played out -- with the creatures living according to their own cultural/religious rules, and everyone else having to accommodate the fact that the creatures simply are going to kill/terrorize people from time to time. That is the creatures' culture, and it was up to the others to understand, appreciate and accept that culture.
The sad fact is, Ripley and her people did not make enough of an effort to appease these creatures. They showed absolutely NO signs of tolerance, diversity, inclusion or compassion. Well, that's not wholly true. That character portrayed by Brad Dorff was extremely compassionate in his last scene toward the end of the movie, praising the creature as "beautiful, beautiful, beautiful" just before the thing bit off his head.
Biehn stars as the son who's role in the ill-fated con forces him to seek work elsewhere. He finds shelter with his similar scheming uncle, yet must fend off his uncle's main henchman, played eccentrically by a strikingly un-muscular Cage.
The film builds up to a con similar to the one that failed with Biehn, but along the way, we are blessed with a con artist's potpourri of side adventures more befitting of an "Alice in Wonderland" tale.
Sadly, the payoff, while surprising, isn't very satisfying. Still, there are many reasons to watch this B-movie. Just don't expect a sequel...or a good ending.