Viggo-Mortensen Movie Reviews

An ATF agent, after being pushed too far and being dropped from the agency, continues the search for the persons that killed his estranged wife and kidnapped his son. Rare but excellent love scene with Terence Knox. Great ending.

It doesn't matter if you like westerns or not, this movie is entertaining. I never enjoyed a western till I saw the 1st Young Guns and then the 2nd. The cast are all well known actors and really bring the characters to life. The way Emilio Estevez plays Billy The Kid as a cocky smart guy is really humorous. The film quickly became one of my all time favorites.

Not many sequels surpass their original sibling but this DVD does. Billy's back, so is Pat Garrrett (although he is played by a different actor) and this is the showdown. This movie is the story of an old man claiming to be Billy who is after the pardon he was promised almost a lifetime ago. This movie picks up pretty much a year after Young Guns with the surviving regulators being round up and set for a hanging. Meanwhile Billy is being promised a pardon by the governor in return for testimony against his old enemies who killed John Tunstall. Of course there is no pardon and Billy must escape and rescue his pals. Pat Garrett is of course paid a lot of money to turn on Billy, track him down and bring him to justice.

Out of the two Young Guns movies this is the more well known story of the life of Billy the Kid. You don't actually need to have seen the original to enjoy this movie but the original is pretty good too so you might as well.

The trailer for the movie is also included which is pretty interesting to see how it was marketed in the USA. There's also a featurette which is a sort of behind the scenes, interview with the actors type thing. It's pretty interesting. You can also just watch the credits if you want to listen to Jon Bon Jovi's Blaze of Glory and Billy get Your Guns songs.

Like Young Guns this movie has an excellent cast with Keifer Sutherland, Emilio Estevez, Christian Slater and Lou Diamond Phillips being the most famous ones. My only criticism is that they used William Petersen a different actor to play Pat Garrett than Patrick Wayne who played him in Young Guns. Once you get used to this it doesn't matter. This is a sensational DVD you should buy it as well as Young Guns. If you love the movie consider buying Blaze of Glory the solo album inspired by the film by Jon Bon Jovi as it'll take you back memory wise to the film each time you play it.

I think this is better then the first one. with an allstar cast you can cut with a knife. you got your Emilio Estevez, Christian Slater, Kiefer Sutherland, Alan Ruck, Viggo Mortensen, Lou Diamond Phillips and your William Petersen. with more roust um up action and gunplay. Slater stands out in this entire movie and Im just glad he made it out alive. though did they have to kill off Kiefer and Lou, come on man. packs a screaming wallop. yeeehaw, ride um cowboys.

It doesn't matter if you like westerns or not, this movie is entertaining. I never enjoyed a western till I saw the 1st Young Guns and then the 2nd. The cast are all well known actors and really bring the characters to life. The way Emilio Estevez plays Billy The Kid as a cocky smart guy is really humorous. The film quickly became one of my all time favorites.

Not many sequels surpass their original sibling but this DVD does. Billy's back, so is Pat Garrrett (although he is played by a different actor) and this is the showdown. This movie is the story of an old man claiming to be Billy who is after the pardon he was promised almost a lifetime ago. This movie picks up pretty much a year after Young Guns with the surviving regulators being round up and set for a hanging. Meanwhile Billy is being promised a pardon by the governor in return for testimony against his old enemies who killed John Tunstall. Of course there is no pardon and Billy must escape and rescue his pals. Pat Garrett is of course paid a lot of money to turn on Billy, track him down and bring him to justice.

Out of the two Young Guns movies this is the more well known story of the life of Billy the Kid. You don't actually need to have seen the original to enjoy this movie but the original is pretty good too so you might as well.

The trailer for the movie is also included which is pretty interesting to see how it was marketed in the USA. There's also a featurette which is a sort of behind the scenes, interview with the actors type thing. It's pretty interesting. You can also just watch the credits if you want to listen to Jon Bon Jovi's Blaze of Glory and Billy get Your Guns songs.

Like Young Guns this movie has an excellent cast with Keifer Sutherland, Emilio Estevez, Christian Slater and Lou Diamond Phillips being the most famous ones. My only criticism is that they used William Petersen a different actor to play Pat Garrett than Patrick Wayne who played him in Young Guns. Once you get used to this it doesn't matter. This is a sensational DVD you should buy it as well as Young Guns. If you love the movie consider buying Blaze of Glory the solo album inspired by the film by Jon Bon Jovi as it'll take you back memory wise to the film each time you play it.

I think this is better then the first one. with an allstar cast you can cut with a knife. you got your Emilio Estevez, Christian Slater, Kiefer Sutherland, Alan Ruck, Viggo Mortensen, Lou Diamond Phillips and your William Petersen. with more roust um up action and gunplay. Slater stands out in this entire movie and Im just glad he made it out alive. though did they have to kill off Kiefer and Lou, come on man. packs a screaming wallop. yeeehaw, ride um cowboys.

One of the finest fims of the 1990s, The Indian Runner serves as a powerful reminder of our powerlessness to change the people we love. Though the picture is unblinking in its showcase of human weakness, the film has an overwhelming compassion for the wounded souls it presents.

Viggo Mortenson breaks my heart every time I watch his character, Frankie Roberts, in his brother Joe's car--the night after his violent binge. Frankie's final monologue, a drunken, self-righteous ramble about elementary school math class and the tooth fairy (among other things), is extraordinarily strange and comprehensible. Throughout the film, Mortenson dares his brother and his wife to love him, as he spews abuse (and peas) in their faces. Not only do they continue to love this pitiful monster, but we do, too. In a perfect world, Mortenson and David Morse would have shared the Best Actor Oscar in 1991 (Anthony Hopkins can win any year he wants to) and Sean Penn would have won Best Director and Best Screenplay.

Jack Nitchze's soundtrack and the late-'60s--early '70s song selections perfectly complement the tone of this masterpiece. Midway through the film, Penn and his editor Jay Cassidy give us a scene that astonishes in its bold craftsmanship and beauty. This scene includes David Morse, Patricia Arquette, Viggo Mortenson, Charles Bronson, and some poor schmoe at his Hawaiian-style birthday party (L.M. Kit Carson, I think)--living out their lives in different parts of the Midwest over the course of one night while a singer croons over the soundtrack. One of them will soon kill himself; another goes on a crime spree; one loses his sportscar; another waits by the phone. This is maverick filmmaking, and it leaves you breathless! The scene is played without dialogue, but you still learn so much about the characters through their facial expressions and reactions.

If Sean Penn had never made another movie, he would deserve to be named among the top 10 directors of the '90s for the 127 minutes of no-compromise-storytelling he demonstrates in The Indian Runner. I will never miss another one of his films.

I once heard Sean Penn's film referred to as "Method movies," and I can't think of any better description. Though having only released (as of this writing) three films, Penn has created a style that is as distinct and indentifiable as his own idiosyncratic performances as an actor. Penn's films take place in a gray area that is rarely visited by Hollywood films today -- a rather grim place where the action moves slowly and where the images are rarely happy but somehow remain impossible to look away from. These aren't the type of films that make money or draw huge weekend crowds but they are the films that people will still be watching decades from now. The first of these films was the flawed but still compelling Indian Runner, which tells the tragic story of Viggo Mortensen, an unstable vet who returns home and, despite the best efforts of his peace-maker brother David Morse, continues to spin out of control.

Obviously, this is not a happy film but it is still surprisingly touching and that's largely because of the cast -- the majority of whom have never been better and for that, I give full credit to director Penn. While its obvious, at times, that he still has a bit to learn about pacing, it is also obvious that Penn knows how to get great performances out of his actors. Mortensen, playing a role that could have easily become a flat villian, is quite simply amazing. Even as it becomes clear that this is not someone you'd feel safe living next to, the viewer still can't help but feel an amazing empathy for this fractured human being. Penn, as director and writer, is actually willing to take the time to allow Mortensen to become a real, flawed human being. David Morse, always underrated, is much more low-key than Mortensen but no less compelling. He makes his love for his brother both believable and real and it adds a truly tragic air to his efforts to protect Mortensen. However, for me, the film's most shocking revelation is Charles Bronson, cast here as Mortensen and Morse's father. After several decades worth of films where Bronson was basically a blank slate, Bronson is a revelation here. As the father, Bronson becomes a tragic, haunting father and -- and here's the shocking part for those of us who have seen the Death Wish films -- is actually believably human and vulnerable. His final emotional scene is heart breaking -- largely because of Bronson's own performance.

As I said before, this is a flawed film -- mostly in terms of pace. Sometimes, Penn does seem to be insecure about his directorial and writing choices -- as if he's straining to make sure no one misses the point. But these flaws are honestly just nitpicking. I give this film five stars because it heralded the arrival of Sean Penn as an important director and it featured some of the best acting I have ever seen in my life.

Although made in 1991, The Indian Runner finally came out on DVD in April of 2003, and I have had to watch it numerous times. It is a fascinating character study of Frank. To Frank, life was not shades of grey, but black and white, and he simply would not bend in order to live in this world. Basically, you watch his downfall through the course of the movie. I could understand Frank's character, though, because he was an innocent. Even though he was capable of mayhem, he was also vulnerable and sympathetic due to his uncompromising approach to life. Viggo Mortensen does his best work here, having given Frank's character the utmost consideration. Sean Penn's poetry of the movie was outstanding, weaving the Indian Runner theme throughout the movie in a variety of ways. Although the movie is 12 years old, it is incredible. For a first directorial job, it is amazing. A belated congratulations to all involved with the film. The only thing I wish it had was more special features. It would have been nice to hear the director's and some characters' takes on their approaches and characterizations.

More digitally processed landscape shots from New Zealand. More trudging across the tundra. More story lines that resemble nothing in the books. One scale model castle. One scale model castle storming battle. The cavalry arrives in the knick of time. Color fades in and out. Aspect ratio is screwy (and this is the widescreen edition). The highlight of this snore fest are the Ents (talking, walking trees). Not worth 3 hours of my time and barely worth the $4.50 I paid to rent from block buster. You want to see a good 3 hour movie, rent the Longest Day. That was an epic movie.

I have no problem hearing a great argument for or against the quality of this DVD on this forum, so long as it is intelligent. Some of the best pieces of literature are made through winning (or losing, in some cases) debates over the quality and craftsmanship of a piece of fiction, and truly these movies should and will continue to be debated for years to come. Yet fewer of the 'against' arguments made here in this forum (and on many internet forums, for that matter) have any real substance to them, and make extremely broad statements, like 'the movie was boring' or 'it wasn't like the book'. If you are going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, you had better be willing to back them up with some really good evidence, otherwise, you only make yourself look bad. Do you really think that people will listen to what you have to say? Clearly from the audience's point of view (those who actually sift through these reviews to find out information, like myself), they do not like your lack of supporting detail. No review that is simply written to either praise or attack the movie without any helpful reasons why the reviewer gave it such a score ever gets more than two or three people saying that it was helpful. Most reviews of this nature end up with a much higher number of people saying that they do not find your reviews helpful at all.

The question this brings up then is this: Why bother writing a review, if by sheer statistics your detail-less, unsupported argument will be helpful to no one? I, like many people who bothered to scroll through the 1200+ reviews listed here, want to find out information about the DVD, and make an informed, intelligent decision about the quality of the movie based on the feedback listed in these forums and my own observations. If you are a reviewer with nothing more to say than either 'this movie sucked' or even 'WOW! supercool movie!', then shout it out loud, call up a friend, stand on a chair and tell whoever you can - but please, please, PLEASE - don't review it unless you actually have something intelligent to say. And, as a side note, use correct grammar and spelling. I speak for many people when I say that if you can barely write out a complete sentence, let alone spell any of the words in it, I just skip your review.

This brings me to my main point - that this movie is such an excellent tool for allowing the illiterate people in the world the opportunity to experience storytelling at its finest. If you are someone who found reading the 1300+ pages of the books a huge challenge, the movies are truly a gift to you, and do not require your reading of the books in order for you to enjoy the movies whatsoever. I guess the irony of all of this is that an illiterate person will see the length of this review and probably skip it to find a shorter, less 'wordy' review, but please, if you find writing or reading difficult, consider the fact that the movies are to a certain degree a visual way of allowing you the opportunity to enjoy one of the nineteenth century's greatest works of fiction. Do not be so quick to call it 'boring' or 'slow' simply because you could not understand it. Give it some time. This movie, like the books, is one of the pioneers of truly high quality fantasy filmmaking. The books were not an 'instant classic' - they were an acquired taste. Clearly, the movies have become extremely popular within weeks of hitting the screens back in 2001, but this is likely because of the years and years of build up and popularity.

Fantasy genre moviemaking has made huge leaps and bounds through these movies, and will likely continue. As our society puts less focus on reading and writing, and more on visual entertainment, the fact is that you are likely to be in the majority as a person with little to no verbal or written skills. Chances are that more films will come out within this genre that will cater to the millions of entertainment deprived, uneducated people who cannot find entertainment within their own imaginations anymore. If you are already one of these people, and like being a minority, then start reading. These movies may be the last attempt at recreating good fiction. In 40 years, who knows? You may be experiencing someone's virtual reality adaptation of Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings', and people will be saying things like 'Wow - supercool story! Did you know that it was based on a movie?'. Then you can just sit back and smile while you and the last remaining readers on the planet read to one another from real books, since visual entertainment no longer gives you the same 'fix' as your own imagination does.

Seems like heresy to actually love watching the movies but be semi-bored by the books, but that is my take. For all of you out there that are critical of the movies because they take license with the books content, then too bad. The books are very detailed and will never translate perfectly to the big screen, so let it go. These movies are the next best thing.

More digitally processed landscape shots from New Zealand. More trudging across the tundra. More story lines that resemble nothing in the books. One scale model castle. One scale model castle storming battle. The cavalry arrives in the knick of time. Color fades in and out. Aspect ratio is screwy (and this is the widescreen edition). The highlight of this snore fest are the Ents (talking, walking trees). Not worth 3 hours of my time and barely worth the $4.50 I paid to rent from block buster. You want to see a good 3 hour movie, rent the Longest Day. That was an epic movie.

I have no problem hearing a great argument for or against the quality of this DVD on this forum, so long as it is intelligent. Some of the best pieces of literature are made through winning (or losing, in some cases) debates over the quality and craftsmanship of a piece of fiction, and truly these movies should and will continue to be debated for years to come. Yet fewer of the 'against' arguments made here in this forum (and on many internet forums, for that matter) have any real substance to them, and make extremely broad statements, like 'the movie was boring' or 'it wasn't like the book'. If you are going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, you had better be willing to back them up with some really good evidence, otherwise, you only make yourself look bad. Do you really think that people will listen to what you have to say? Clearly from the audience's point of view (those who actually sift through these reviews to find out information, like myself), they do not like your lack of supporting detail. No review that is simply written to either praise or attack the movie without any helpful reasons why the reviewer gave it such a score ever gets more than two or three people saying that it was helpful. Most reviews of this nature end up with a much higher number of people saying that they do not find your reviews helpful at all.

The question this brings up then is this: Why bother writing a review, if by sheer statistics your detail-less, unsupported argument will be helpful to no one? I, like many people who bothered to scroll through the 1200+ reviews listed here, want to find out information about the DVD, and make an informed, intelligent decision about the quality of the movie based on the feedback listed in these forums and my own observations. If you are a reviewer with nothing more to say than either 'this movie sucked' or even 'WOW! supercool movie!', then shout it out loud, call up a friend, stand on a chair and tell whoever you can - but please, please, PLEASE - don't review it unless you actually have something intelligent to say. And, as a side note, use correct grammar and spelling. I speak for many people when I say that if you can barely write out a complete sentence, let alone spell any of the words in it, I just skip your review.

This brings me to my main point - that this movie is such an excellent tool for allowing the illiterate people in the world the opportunity to experience storytelling at its finest. If you are someone who found reading the 1300+ pages of the books a huge challenge, the movies are truly a gift to you, and do not require your reading of the books in order for you to enjoy the movies whatsoever. I guess the irony of all of this is that an illiterate person will see the length of this review and probably skip it to find a shorter, less 'wordy' review, but please, if you find writing or reading difficult, consider the fact that the movies are to a certain degree a visual way of allowing you the opportunity to enjoy one of the nineteenth century's greatest works of fiction. Do not be so quick to call it 'boring' or 'slow' simply because you could not understand it. Give it some time. This movie, like the books, is one of the pioneers of truly high quality fantasy filmmaking. The books were not an 'instant classic' - they were an acquired taste. Clearly, the movies have become extremely popular within weeks of hitting the screens back in 2001, but this is likely because of the years and years of build up and popularity.

Fantasy genre moviemaking has made huge leaps and bounds through these movies, and will likely continue. As our society puts less focus on reading and writing, and more on visual entertainment, the fact is that you are likely to be in the majority as a person with little to no verbal or written skills. Chances are that more films will come out within this genre that will cater to the millions of entertainment deprived, uneducated people who cannot find entertainment within their own imaginations anymore. If you are already one of these people, and like being a minority, then start reading. These movies may be the last attempt at recreating good fiction. In 40 years, who knows? You may be experiencing someone's virtual reality adaptation of Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings', and people will be saying things like 'Wow - supercool story! Did you know that it was based on a movie?'. Then you can just sit back and smile while you and the last remaining readers on the planet read to one another from real books, since visual entertainment no longer gives you the same 'fix' as your own imagination does.

Seems like heresy to actually love watching the movies but be semi-bored by the books, but that is my take. For all of you out there that are critical of the movies because they take license with the books content, then too bad. The books are very detailed and will never translate perfectly to the big screen, so let it go. These movies are the next best thing.

More digitally processed landscape shots from New Zealand. More trudging across the tundra. More story lines that resemble nothing in the books. One scale model castle. One scale model castle storming battle. The cavalry arrives in the knick of time. Color fades in and out. Aspect ratio is screwy (and this is the widescreen edition). The highlight of this snore fest are the Ents (talking, walking trees). Not worth 3 hours of my time and barely worth the $4.50 I paid to rent from block buster. You want to see a good 3 hour movie, rent the Longest Day. That was an epic movie.

I have no problem hearing a great argument for or against the quality of this DVD on this forum, so long as it is intelligent. Some of the best pieces of literature are made through winning (or losing, in some cases) debates over the quality and craftsmanship of a piece of fiction, and truly these movies should and will continue to be debated for years to come. Yet fewer of the 'against' arguments made here in this forum (and on many internet forums, for that matter) have any real substance to them, and make extremely broad statements, like 'the movie was boring' or 'it wasn't like the book'. If you are going to make such sweeping generalizations about something, you had better be willing to back them up with some really good evidence, otherwise, you only make yourself look bad. Do you really think that people will listen to what you have to say? Clearly from the audience's point of view (those who actually sift through these reviews to find out information, like myself), they do not like your lack of supporting detail. No review that is simply written to either praise or attack the movie without any helpful reasons why the reviewer gave it such a score ever gets more than two or three people saying that it was helpful. Most reviews of this nature end up with a much higher number of people saying that they do not find your reviews helpful at all.

The question this brings up then is this: Why bother writing a review, if by sheer statistics your detail-less, unsupported argument will be helpful to no one? I, like many people who bothered to scroll through the 1200+ reviews listed here, want to find out information about the DVD, and make an informed, intelligent decision about the quality of the movie based on the feedback listed in these forums and my own observations. If you are a reviewer with nothing more to say than either 'this movie sucked' or even 'WOW! supercool movie!', then shout it out loud, call up a friend, stand on a chair and tell whoever you can - but please, please, PLEASE - don't review it unless you actually have something intelligent to say. And, as a side note, use correct grammar and spelling. I speak for many people when I say that if you can barely write out a complete sentence, let alone spell any of the words in it, I just skip your review.

This brings me to my main point - that this movie is such an excellent tool for allowing the illiterate people in the world the opportunity to experience storytelling at its finest. If you are someone who found reading the 1300+ pages of the books a huge challenge, the movies are truly a gift to you, and do not require your reading of the books in order for you to enjoy the movies whatsoever. I guess the irony of all of this is that an illiterate person will see the length of this review and probably skip it to find a shorter, less 'wordy' review, but please, if you find writing or reading difficult, consider the fact that the movies are to a certain degree a visual way of allowing you the opportunity to enjoy one of the nineteenth century's greatest works of fiction. Do not be so quick to call it 'boring' or 'slow' simply because you could not understand it. Give it some time. This movie, like the books, is one of the pioneers of truly high quality fantasy filmmaking. The books were not an 'instant classic' - they were an acquired taste. Clearly, the movies have become extremely popular within weeks of hitting the screens back in 2001, but this is likely because of the years and years of build up and popularity.

Fantasy genre moviemaking has made huge leaps and bounds through these movies, and will likely continue. As our society puts less focus on reading and writing, and more on visual entertainment, the fact is that you are likely to be in the majority as a person with little to no verbal or written skills. Chances are that more films will come out within this genre that will cater to the millions of entertainment deprived, uneducated people who cannot find entertainment within their own imaginations anymore. If you are already one of these people, and like being a minority, then start reading. These movies may be the last attempt at recreating good fiction. In 40 years, who knows? You may be experiencing someone's virtual reality adaptation of Peter Jackson's 'The Lord of the Rings', and people will be saying things like 'Wow - supercool story! Did you know that it was based on a movie?'. Then you can just sit back and smile while you and the last remaining readers on the planet read to one another from real books, since visual entertainment no longer gives you the same 'fix' as your own imagination does.

Seems like heresy to actually love watching the movies but be semi-bored by the books, but that is my take. For all of you out there that are critical of the movies because they take license with the books content, then too bad. The books are very detailed and will never translate perfectly to the big screen, so let it go. These movies are the next best thing.

When the guys that brought you Scarface team up again what bad
things can happen.Brian De Palma and Al Pacino two of the biggest
stars on their film duties in Hollywood today.This movie really
has the 80's,disco feel scarface as but as the De Palma plot turn
and twists seen in Snake Eyes,Body Double,and Raising Cain so it'
s all very entertaining.Along with another De Palma regular Sean
Penn(Casualties Of War) plays the coke addicted wacko lawyer to
absolute perfection.This film not as violent as Scarface as more
plot twists which makes it almost more entertaining with a great
cast including John Leguizamo and Penelope Ann Miller Carlito's
Way is one of Pacino's,Penn's,and De Palma's best films ever so
if you like a mixture of The Usual Suspects and Scarface give
Carlito's Way a watch it's great.

This movie is both a serious film and sometimes a pulp-fiction style film. The portrayls by Al Pacino and Sean Penn & others reflect both qualities, but especially when the scene with Tony Taglialucci (Joseph Siravo) & David Kleinfeld (Penn) occurs at Riker's Island Prison Barge, the 'pulp' style shines through.

All the characters possess a richness that enables the film to stand on its own merits. But when viewed several times, it becomes obvious that Brian DePalma & Martin Bregman have anchored this film into their prior history. (Scarface) Many of the same actors appear in both films.

One scene stands out as offering the viewer such tight attention to detail that I could barely believe it. -At the disco, Benny Blanco (John Leguizamo) is making a noticeable entry into the front door with his gang. The reaction by the people who know AND don't know his is big. Benny Blanco is walking briskly and swinging his body back & forth. Discogoers who are flanking his entry down the hall all make flagrant notice of his entry, turning heads and turning around to see who this obviously important person is. Then there's Saso's (Jorge Porcel) reaction. He looks shocked when he sees Benny. Benny Blanco walks quickly right up to Saso, grabs Saso by the throat and demands his money and that he's not screwing around. Saso looks terrified and, with his throat held by Blanco's hand, shifts his eyes sideways to see what his gang is suggesting by Blanco's actions. Saso unconvincingly says to Blanco, "Are you kidding?" Blanco then says that he IS kidding, and kisses Saso on the cheek. You have to see Saso's reaction at this point; it is priceless.

I recommend watching this scene in slow motion.

Penelope Ann Miller is excellent as Carlito's girlfriend and confidante.

Seen them on video,would like to own them, but can't buy them as they will not play on Australia region 4 DVDs ( Toshiba players.Also Barbarosa,Good Thief,Blood Simple,Wild Bill,Extreme Prejudice,Iceman Cometh(both versions),Red Circle,The Killers,Any help would be appreciated to buy these on Net and play in Australia. Thanks Richard Boue

When the guys that brought you Scarface team up again what bad
things can happen.Brian De Palma and Al Pacino two of the biggest
stars on their film duties in Hollywood today.This movie really
has the 80's,disco feel scarface as but as the De Palma plot turn
and twists seen in Snake Eyes,Body Double,and Raising Cain so it'
s all very entertaining.Along with another De Palma regular Sean
Penn(Casualties Of War) plays the coke addicted wacko lawyer to
absolute perfection.This film not as violent as Scarface as more
plot twists which makes it almost more entertaining with a great
cast including John Leguizamo and Penelope Ann Miller Carlito's
Way is one of Pacino's,Penn's,and De Palma's best films ever so
if you like a mixture of The Usual Suspects and Scarface give
Carlito's Way a watch it's great.

This movie is both a serious film and sometimes a pulp-fiction style film. The portrayls by Al Pacino and Sean Penn & others reflect both qualities, but especially when the scene with Tony Taglialucci (Joseph Siravo) & David Kleinfeld (Penn) occurs at Riker's Island Prison Barge, the 'pulp' style shines through.

All the characters possess a richness that enables the film to stand on its own merits. But when viewed several times, it becomes obvious that Brian DePalma & Martin Bregman have anchored this film into their prior history. (Scarface) Many of the same actors appear in both films.

One scene stands out as offering the viewer such tight attention to detail that I could barely believe it. -At the disco, Benny Blanco (John Leguizamo) is making a noticeable entry into the front door with his gang. The reaction by the people who know AND don't know his is big. Benny Blanco is walking briskly and swinging his body back & forth. Discogoers who are flanking his entry down the hall all make flagrant notice of his entry, turning heads and turning around to see who this obviously important person is. Then there's Saso's (Jorge Porcel) reaction. He looks shocked when he sees Benny. Benny Blanco walks quickly right up to Saso, grabs Saso by the throat and demands his money and that he's not screwing around. Saso looks terrified and, with his throat held by Blanco's hand, shifts his eyes sideways to see what his gang is suggesting by Blanco's actions. Saso unconvincingly says to Blanco, "Are you kidding?" Blanco then says that he IS kidding, and kisses Saso on the cheek. You have to see Saso's reaction at this point; it is priceless.

I recommend watching this scene in slow motion.

Penelope Ann Miller is excellent as Carlito's girlfriend and confidante.

Seen them on video,would like to own them, but can't buy them as they will not play on Australia region 4 DVDs ( Toshiba players.Also Barbarosa,Good Thief,Blood Simple,Wild Bill,Extreme Prejudice,Iceman Cometh(both versions),Red Circle,The Killers,Any help would be appreciated to buy these on Net and play in Australia. Thanks Richard Boue

Crimson Tide is a high adrenaline drama, with a solid cast, and a terrific and engaging plot. Probably the best submarine movie since Hunt for the Red October, Crimson Tide does everything it can to create instant suspense and interest in this movie and it succeeds. The movie stars Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman, who play off each other brilliantly.

Washington plays Hunter, the Executive Officer (Exo) of the submarine U.S.S. Alabama. Hunter is the play it straight, humble but serious, follow the rules kind of officer. Hunter follows his conscience and what he knows is right, and is not easily persuaded. This is the trademark character of almost every character Washington plays, with the exception of his role in Training Day.

Hackman plays Capt. Ramsey, the hard-nosed, bull-headed, confrontational captain of the very same submarine. Ramsey doesn't believe in advice or even his conscience, just his orders and making no exceptions. Hackman, whose personna often comes across as arrogant and head strong, is a the exact kind of actor one would want for this part.

As noticed, Ramsey and Hunter are almost opposites, which leads us to the conflict of characters. It's analogy can be described as hot air and cold air mixing...and one should know what that forms. This is picked up very early in the film, when Ramsey is interviewing Hunter to be his next Exo.
This was the signal that Ramsey is not easily impressed nor does he truly think highly of Hunter. A problem that does not go away throughout the film.

The plot is a little complicated, but it can be summarized. Basically, it's about Russian rebels who seize Russian warheads. These rebels then begin making threats towards America and Japan. Enter the US Navy, deploying it's nuke subs all across the world to be prepared to launch if needed. The U.S.S. Alabama is among them.

I think this is a terrific plot and I think the movie did an admirable job in attempting to make it appear real or quite very possible. They did this by including live footage (obviously from other wars), interviews with the madman or leader of the rebels, and creating a series of events that quite possibly could occur. I was really impressed with how they did all this in the beginning of the movie, so we all got a sense of what the movie was going to be about.

Unfortunately, I'm not all that impressed with some of the criticism given to this film from fellow reviewers. The biggest gripe is that this film does not portray submariners accurately, that the way they acted is not possible and it's a slap in the face to our Navy. Look, I have no doubt that there are inaccuracies in how Navy personel are "supposed" to act or how submarine life persists. But that doesn't mean it's a slap. It just means it isn't portrayed accurately.

Not to mention, this criticism is over-blown and it isn't what the movie is about. I think people who get all upset over this film, as far as the portrayal of submariners, need to get a grip. This film is about two things that not even the US Navy is immune to: human judgment and human error. In order for that concept to be applied in this sense, you can't have all the submariners acting all perfect and do nothing wrong and create no conflicts on board. This is a drama. That stuff must occur otherwise it's a boring movie. So wake up, get off your high horse, and just enjoy the movie. The movie is about a broader scope than the portrayal of our Navy. The movie is about the possible break down of our system, the break down of officers, and the forever curse of human misjudgment.

This film will make you think, and that's what I like about it. You're entertained and you think about this movie during and after you see it. This movie was made to create drama at the ultimate expense in the worst of times. So if you want to see what I consider the best submarine movie out there, go see Crimson Tide.

What do you get when you combine two great masters of understated acting (Hackman and Washington) with a great plot and tight directing? You get Crimson Tide.

Denzel Washington plays a new XO (Executive Officer) to a quirky, battle-tested sub captain, played admirably (ok, bad pun) by Gene Hackman. Captain Ramsey of the USS Alabama is idolized by his crew. His quirks (keeping a Jack Russel terrier on board) are tolerated by the Navy--after all, Ramsey is a real hero. Ramsey is suspicious of Harvard-educated Hunter, (Washington) who like many younger officers, has not been tested in battle. On the surface, Ramsey seems to approve of Hunter, but the skillful Hackman shows suspicion and jealousy gleaming dully beneath the pleasantries.

The plot is a timely one: a renegade former Soviet nation gets the codes to nuclear missiles and threatens to lob them at the US. An authenticated decoded message to the USS Alabama puts the ship on full alert--at a level not seen since the Cuban missile crisis. The follow up command comes in to launch the sub's own missiles to destroy the enemy silos. But then a series of incidents occurs and the sub is isolated from the chain of command. And enemy subs, commandeered by the renegade nation, are lurking in the same waters.

The events that follow are exciting; the premise of following orders and correct command is a deep dilemma. This film is in the best tradition of Das Boot, Run Silent, Run Deep and Red October. Is it the best of the submarine films? Could be. After seeing it, I really wanted to own the DVD, and if you like films of this genre, you will too.

This was the first sub movie I ever saw and I loved it! Gene Hackman was great as always and Denzel was fantastic as the Alabama's XO. The story was quite interesting however it intrigues me to read the book because I know there is stuff that they must have left out of the movie. I saw this in the theatre and that was awesome in itself because Hans Zimmer did such a fine job with the music and the sounds of the ship were all around you. If you want something entertaining without loading down with "naval stuff" see this. You'll enjoy it.