Vincent-D'Onofrio Movie Reviews

The scene where Elizabeth Shue sang the Babysitting Blues will remain in enfamy. Well-executed cute film ! nothing deep here... no earth shattering social mores discussed; society's ills are not cured. It;s just a feel-good, sit back and enjoy it kind of movie.

1987 was one of the better years of my life. I was ten years old and the world was my oyster. I went to a couple of different camps that year and for the first time began to see how big the world really was. 1987 was also the year ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING came out. The movie stars Elisabeth Shue, back when she still played good, clean, fun parts and was the directorial debut for Chris Colombus (the guy behind HOME ALONE, MRS. DOUBTFIRE, and those HARRY POTTER movies).

The movie is about a babysitter who gets an unexpected call to babysit right after her boyfriend postpones their anniversary dinner. She agrees, but just after the parents leave, her best friend calls from the bus station downtown in Chicago. The best friend has run away from home and is in a bit of trouble. So, unable to leave the kids alone and unable to abandon her best friend to the perverts she has encountered, she loads up the station wagon (station wagon, the classic 80s family vehicle) and heads to the city.But a tire goes flat on the expressway and chaos begins: jealous husbands, car thieves, gang wars, mob bosses, and rowdy college parties. All in a night's work.

The film is charming because even though it pokes fun of the suburbanites of Chicagoland, it does so without being harsh, while at the same time uplifting the good and finer (though few) points about living in the suburbs. A friend of mine loves this movie solely because of that.

Overall, the movie is fun and is worth seeing because it jumpstarted Shue's career and was Colombus's first feature.

I highly recommend this film. It falls in the category of "Ferris B. Day Off", "Can't Buy Me Love", "Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead", "License To Drive" and "Goonies"........just a bunch of kids running around in trouble all the time. When I first saw this film....it was in the late eighties.....I just fell in love with Elisabeth Shue and her performance in "Adventures in Babysitting". Ever since the opening scene when she lip-synched to the song: "AND THEN HE KISSED ME". She plays as a 17 year old (but 23 in real life at the time) getting stuck babysitting for 3 kids when her boyfriend cancels on their date. Her night is filled with adventure facing one obsticle after another trying to get the kids back safe and sound. Filmed on location in Chicago and in Toronto. The famous scene where Elisabeth Shue sings the "BLUES" was in a bar in downtown Toronto called "The Silver Dollar". I've been there myself when I attended the University of Toronto.......today it has closed down. It is a great film and even better yet.....it stars a beautiful, talented actress......Elisabeth Shue.

Al Franken brings Stuart Smalley to life in this movie. Stuart is struggling with his own self-destructive tendencies, and is an unlikely hero in the perils of his own dysfunctional family. Laura San Giacomo is convincing in her role as Julia, Stuart's al-anon sponsor and friend. Stuart's dysfunctional family includes an alcoholic dad, 30-something pot-smoking brother who hasn't left home, enabling mother and a codependent, over-eating sister. He struggles from situation to situation. He is crushed by the loss of his public access television show, and humiliated by his boss, but he keeps on trying.

It was clear that Al Franken and director Harold Ramis did research on 12-step groups rather than have a shallow spoof of them. He enlisted the help of best-selling self-help author Melody Beattie (Codependent No More). This movie is much more than a very funny comedy. It is a drama filled with tried-and-true values: friendship, perseverance, and integrity. When I am feeling low I can watch this movie and am genuinely built-up. I have told myself more than a few times, echoing Stuart's words, "I'm good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!" Another quotable saying from the movie is "It is easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world."

This is a movie that I decided to buy rather than just rent. Although I agree that the SNL character might have been grating, this movie's Stuart is not annoying and can be watched over and over again.

The first time I saw this movie was when it was in theatrical release, (which lasted about a week). I was in a movie theater in Times Square with a friend, and there were only two other people in the audience. Al Frankin has referred to this movie as a "disaster" because it was pulled from theaters after not even reaching one million dollars. Note to Al: THIS MOVIE IS NOT A FALIURE!

Every detail of this film, from the opening montage to the marvelous acting, (these are TOP NOTCH actors in this film), to the hilarious comedy to the story to the music...everything is hysterical. I only wish they had chosen a different title. Stuart does not save his family, he can only try. The movie should have been called "Stuart Smalley."

I was so astounded by how wonderful this movie was, yet practically no one saw it and Al Frankin calls it a disaster. I honestly, truely, unexagerratedly believe that this movie should have been up for several Oscars, including Best Director and for the supporting cast. The actor who plays the father was especially wonderful. I only hope that more people discover this movie.

When the movie was over in the theater, (I have since seen it again on video several times), the two other people in the audience came up the aisle and also expressed how good the movie was. I wish I could have direct addresses for director Harold Ramis and Al Frankin so that I could write to them and tell them how proud they should be of this movie.

I absolutely love this movie! I watch it everytime I am frustrated with my family and always end up feeling a little bit better. Other than making us laugh, this movie teaches us that at some point it's ok to separate ourselves from our family's problems and that we have to accept that we can't fix everything for everyone that we care about. I was happily surprised that this movie contained more than obvious humor, it actually has heart!!

The romantic comedy is something that people go to see because they know what will happen. The audience finds comfort in the fact that even though the plot may seem different, and the actors are new, the movie they are about to see is most likely going to be just like the romantic comedy they saw a month earlier. Brad Anderson's new romantic comedy "Happy Accidents" takes the basic concept that is known as the romantic comedy a step further.
The movie stars Marisa Tomei as Ruby Weaver, a New Yorker trying to overcome her codependency issues and find Mr. Right. When she meets Sam Deed, portrayed by Vincent D'Onofrio, she falls immediately in love and he moves in with her within a week. As they relationship grows, Ruby begins to notice that Sam has many overly odd traits, he doesn't like dogs, has problems with everyday concepts, and has spells where he seems to be in a trance. Sam's explanation is that he is a back-traveler, actually from the year 2470, and that he came back when he saw a picture of her and fell instantly in love with her. Ruby at first takes this to be a new role playing game between the two and plays along, but as time progresses she sees that Sam isn't joking around. From here on out the picture focuses on the relationship and how Ruby deals with either believing Sam or accepting the fact that he is crazy and leaving him.
As Ruby, Tomei puts in quite a good performance. She doesn't seem to overplay the role and does a respectable job with a character that is in what seems to be a very silly situation. Likewise D'Onofrio takes Sam and makes him very realistic, even though the nature of his character is not one of a real disposition. The best scenes in the movie happen when it is just Tomei and D'Onforio on the screen; their chemistry seems to be entirely genuine.
The movie is overall, fairly predictable in terms of plot, but Anderson does a good job of providing the audience with meaningful insight into relationships in present day society. The almost ludicrous situation reveals truths that bring into play the concepts of idealism in relationships, and the trust we must provide our partners. The other way in which Anderson successfully brings "Happy Accidents" a step above the average romantic comedy are scenes in which Sam experiences his trances, which are actually time moving backward. During these scenes the audience is allowed to see through the eyes of Sam, and time seems to stop as the scene begins to replay itself backwards in slow motion. While this may seem like a distracting element, it actually adds reflection time to the film. The typical romantic comedy moves quickly and often doesn't give the audience much time to even think about the deeper issues at hand, (granted in many the issues aren't all that deep), but here Anderson not only gives his film substantial subject matter, he actually allows time for the audience to process it.
At first glance, "Happy Accidents" appears to be your average romantic comedy, with the basic plot, simplistic acting, and predictable ending. And while it is true that the movie is not overly complex, with overly dramatic acting, and a million twists and turns, Brad Anderson brings "Happy Accidents" to the next level. He takes the fundamental aspects of the romantic comedy genre and gives them substance. In turn he creates a movie that is actually interesting and relevant in today's society, making the enjoyment of the film anything but an accident

I thought "Somewhere in Time" with Christopher Reeve was the best time travel romance ever filmed until I saw this one. In that movie, we knew from the beginning that he was from the future because we got to see him hypnotize himself and make the trip.

Here we have only the word of Vincent D'Onofrio, who may be a delusional epileptic or a man of his word....P>Marisa Tomei pulls off one of her best roles as a codependent person in therapy who puts her love and trust into people before she gets to know them. She lets D'Onofrio move in after a week and deals with the consequences later. The story unfolds as she relates it to her best friend and also her therapist. The two women give her completely different advice, and we never know for sure how she will react. The onscreen chemistry between the leads is very magnetic. As we slip into the story, we tend to forget the two are acting.

Anthony Michael Hall factors into the story in an amusing way, and he has a cameo towards the end.

Brad Anderson's direction here is superb, transcending his work with "Next Stop Wonderland" and "Session 9" His range as a filmmaker is wide. "Session 9," which is about a group of asbestos removers who unravel as they work in the creepy confines of an old insane asylum, is a gripping portrayal of what happens as paranoia sets into the minds of a group of men who once trusted each other. Watch it, it stars David Caruso in his best performance since "NYPD Blue." As for film content, the two are not even similar.

Anderson stops a scene and turns it into a photograph as the characters tell their stories, and the montages and collages of imagery make you pause and absorb everything that is going on. The scenes where D'Onofrio's eyes glaze over and he watches time go backwards are unique and sometimes moving. This is a film that puts a wholly original twist on two themes we've seen many times before. We have never seen them pulled off like this. This is a movie anyone can enjoy, and the ending is one of the most emotionally powerful finales I have seen in a long time. This deserves repeat viewings. This is one of the films that you make everyone you know sit down and watch.

I went out and rented this movie for two reasons - the awesome reviews by other Amazon users and my unbridled adoration for Vincent D'Onofrio. I loved this quirky love story. It is well written, well acted (of course), and just plain fun to watch. It reminded me of the movie Sliding Doors in that it makes you shudder to think that one decision you make could mean the difference between happiness and tragedy. So if you have the chance, please watch this great movie - in fact, watch it twice, because you won't want to miss a single minute!!!!!!!!!

In the mid to late 1980s, about the only science fiction you could see on TV outside of original Star Trek reruns were Mad Max ripoffs which were all either brainless no-budget actioners or uninsightful downers (Mad Max is one of the top 5 imitated movies of all time). I still automatically get a sense of revulsion when I see an ad for any movie with a sandy, post-apocalyptic setting. In comparison to all these films, Blood of Heroes is second only to the Mad Max films themselves in quality. In fact it seems to me that Blood of Heroes might have been made even if Mad Max never existed, so my rating might be a bit harsh, but I am a jaded.

What makes this watchable despite having seen so many similar films are such things as good acting and interesting characters(especially Hauer, who is very likeable and you actually care about what happens to him) and a different than usual perspective upon post-apocalyptic, water and fuel starved society. This film builds upon the idea that there would still be a need for entertainment and sports.

Hauer and co. are members of a team in a brutal new sport (people die in every match). Teams compete against each other to win resources. Hauer is the team leader and weathered veteran while Joan Chen plays the new rookie. The sport is well outlined and seems real. And it has more of the feeling of a sports film than films like Rollerball (the original -- I haven't seen the remake). Unlike most sci-fi sports films it is not so much about rich people exploiting the powerless like the Romans did their gladiators, but about people trying to find empowerment through their sport and escape their humble origins, like Rocky (only there is no real great wealth to look forward to).

Less jaded viewers might want to give this a try.

I was glad to see this movie finally get released on DVD. My friends and I saw this back when it came out in theaters, and it worked well for what it was, a movie about a post apocalyptic sport where the goal is to put a dog skull on an opposing teams' post starring Rutger Hauer? We were so there. And we weren't disappointed.

Rutger Hauer is Sallow, a once great player in the sport, made a mistake of getting too close to a woman outside his class, and is now reduced to playing matches outside of the system, in the rugged, barren, waste world. His team of 'juggers' consists of five people, including himself. There's Young Gar (Vincent Phillip D'Onofrio), Mbulu (Delroy Lindo), Big Cimber (Anna Katerina), and Dog Boy (Justin Monjo). Each player has his or her own responsibilities, but the main goal is to protect the runner, as that is the player that handles the dog skull, and will ultimately decide the outcome of the game based on his/her ability to place the skull on the opposing team's post.

The sport is quite brutal, leading to severe injuries, and, sometimes, even death. No penalties, no rules, anything goes. Sallow and his group travel from town to town, challenging the home team, squeaking out a living. The ultimate goal is to win enough games for the honor to petition the league to compete in the league, opening up a world unknown to many as league players are treated very well.

Joan Chen plays Kidda, a wannabe runner who gets into Sallow's clan when Dog Boy is injured. Poor little Dog Boy...anyway, as she learns the ropes, Sallow's team advances, and finally collects enough dog skulls (victories) to petition the league. What happens then? Watch and find out...

I enjoyed this movie, even though it's a familiar story. The game, the players, the weapons, it was all very well thought out and the characters motivations seem simple at first become more complicated. The end game will have you rooting for the underdog, even if you don't care for the movie itself.

I would have liked to given this movie another star, but I found the DVD presentation to be somewhat lacking. Where's the clarity? The most noticeable problems are with the darker scenes. The definition was very poor, providing a muddled at best picture. I am surprised Lions Gate couldn't find a better copy to put on DVD. And since I saw this in the theaters, I know it was originally presented in wide screen, but not here. And the sound is pretty poor. At least you can view the subtitles, to see what is being said, but why should you have to? A very disappointing release of a great movie.

I've seen BLOOD OF HEROES about 10 times. Some people find it primitive and bad (all of my friends, unfortunately), and I have no one to talk this film with, so far. I find this movie excellent because of its music and actors (actresses). It has fantastic music and sounds (including the sound of the juggers' stick hitting the other's stick). The plot is excellent. David Peoples is my favourite director, Rutger Hauer is my fav. actor. So, if you like sci-fi movies, you'll have to see this magnificent creation. If anyone wants to talk about this movie, please write me on my e-mail address.

In the mid to late 1980s, about the only science fiction you could see on TV outside of original Star Trek reruns were Mad Max ripoffs which were all either brainless no-budget actioners or uninsightful downers (Mad Max is one of the top 5 imitated movies of all time). I still automatically get a sense of revulsion when I see an ad for any movie with a sandy, post-apocalyptic setting. In comparison to all these films, Blood of Heroes is second only to the Mad Max films themselves in quality. In fact it seems to me that Blood of Heroes might have been made even if Mad Max never existed, so my rating might be a bit harsh, but I am a jaded.

What makes this watchable despite having seen so many similar films are such things as good acting and interesting characters(especially Hauer, who is very likeable and you actually care about what happens to him) and a different than usual perspective upon post-apocalyptic, water and fuel starved society. This film builds upon the idea that there would still be a need for entertainment and sports.

Hauer and co. are members of a team in a brutal new sport (people die in every match). Teams compete against each other to win resources. Hauer is the team leader and weathered veteran while Joan Chen plays the new rookie. The sport is well outlined and seems real. And it has more of the feeling of a sports film than films like Rollerball (the original -- I haven't seen the remake). Unlike most sci-fi sports films it is not so much about rich people exploiting the powerless like the Romans did their gladiators, but about people trying to find empowerment through their sport and escape their humble origins, like Rocky (only there is no real great wealth to look forward to).

Less jaded viewers might want to give this a try.

I was glad to see this movie finally get released on DVD. My friends and I saw this back when it came out in theaters, and it worked well for what it was, a movie about a post apocalyptic sport where the goal is to put a dog skull on an opposing teams' post starring Rutger Hauer? We were so there. And we weren't disappointed.

Rutger Hauer is Sallow, a once great player in the sport, made a mistake of getting too close to a woman outside his class, and is now reduced to playing matches outside of the system, in the rugged, barren, waste world. His team of 'juggers' consists of five people, including himself. There's Young Gar (Vincent Phillip D'Onofrio), Mbulu (Delroy Lindo), Big Cimber (Anna Katerina), and Dog Boy (Justin Monjo). Each player has his or her own responsibilities, but the main goal is to protect the runner, as that is the player that handles the dog skull, and will ultimately decide the outcome of the game based on his/her ability to place the skull on the opposing team's post.

The sport is quite brutal, leading to severe injuries, and, sometimes, even death. No penalties, no rules, anything goes. Sallow and his group travel from town to town, challenging the home team, squeaking out a living. The ultimate goal is to win enough games for the honor to petition the league to compete in the league, opening up a world unknown to many as league players are treated very well.

Joan Chen plays Kidda, a wannabe runner who gets into Sallow's clan when Dog Boy is injured. Poor little Dog Boy...anyway, as she learns the ropes, Sallow's team advances, and finally collects enough dog skulls (victories) to petition the league. What happens then? Watch and find out...

I enjoyed this movie, even though it's a familiar story. The game, the players, the weapons, it was all very well thought out and the characters motivations seem simple at first become more complicated. The end game will have you rooting for the underdog, even if you don't care for the movie itself.

I would have liked to given this movie another star, but I found the DVD presentation to be somewhat lacking. Where's the clarity? The most noticeable problems are with the darker scenes. The definition was very poor, providing a muddled at best picture. I am surprised Lions Gate couldn't find a better copy to put on DVD. And since I saw this in the theaters, I know it was originally presented in wide screen, but not here. And the sound is pretty poor. At least you can view the subtitles, to see what is being said, but why should you have to? A very disappointing release of a great movie.

I've seen BLOOD OF HEROES about 10 times. Some people find it primitive and bad (all of my friends, unfortunately), and I have no one to talk this film with, so far. I find this movie excellent because of its music and actors (actresses). It has fantastic music and sounds (including the sound of the juggers' stick hitting the other's stick). The plot is excellent. David Peoples is my favourite director, Rutger Hauer is my fav. actor. So, if you like sci-fi movies, you'll have to see this magnificent creation. If anyone wants to talk about this movie, please write me on my e-mail address.

In the mid to late 1980s, about the only science fiction you could see on TV outside of original Star Trek reruns were Mad Max ripoffs which were all either brainless no-budget actioners or uninsightful downers (Mad Max is one of the top 5 imitated movies of all time). I still automatically get a sense of revulsion when I see an ad for any movie with a sandy, post-apocalyptic setting. In comparison to all these films, Blood of Heroes is second only to the Mad Max films themselves in quality. In fact it seems to me that Blood of Heroes might have been made even if Mad Max never existed, so my rating might be a bit harsh, but I am a jaded.

What makes this watchable despite having seen so many similar films are such things as good acting and interesting characters(especially Hauer, who is very likeable and you actually care about what happens to him) and a different than usual perspective upon post-apocalyptic, water and fuel starved society. This film builds upon the idea that there would still be a need for entertainment and sports.

Hauer and co. are members of a team in a brutal new sport (people die in every match). Teams compete against each other to win resources. Hauer is the team leader and weathered veteran while Joan Chen plays the new rookie. The sport is well outlined and seems real. And it has more of the feeling of a sports film than films like Rollerball (the original -- I haven't seen the remake). Unlike most sci-fi sports films it is not so much about rich people exploiting the powerless like the Romans did their gladiators, but about people trying to find empowerment through their sport and escape their humble origins, like Rocky (only there is no real great wealth to look forward to).

Less jaded viewers might want to give this a try.

I was glad to see this movie finally get released on DVD. My friends and I saw this back when it came out in theaters, and it worked well for what it was, a movie about a post apocalyptic sport where the goal is to put a dog skull on an opposing teams' post starring Rutger Hauer? We were so there. And we weren't disappointed.

Rutger Hauer is Sallow, a once great player in the sport, made a mistake of getting too close to a woman outside his class, and is now reduced to playing matches outside of the system, in the rugged, barren, waste world. His team of 'juggers' consists of five people, including himself. There's Young Gar (Vincent Phillip D'Onofrio), Mbulu (Delroy Lindo), Big Cimber (Anna Katerina), and Dog Boy (Justin Monjo). Each player has his or her own responsibilities, but the main goal is to protect the runner, as that is the player that handles the dog skull, and will ultimately decide the outcome of the game based on his/her ability to place the skull on the opposing team's post.

The sport is quite brutal, leading to severe injuries, and, sometimes, even death. No penalties, no rules, anything goes. Sallow and his group travel from town to town, challenging the home team, squeaking out a living. The ultimate goal is to win enough games for the honor to petition the league to compete in the league, opening up a world unknown to many as league players are treated very well.

Joan Chen plays Kidda, a wannabe runner who gets into Sallow's clan when Dog Boy is injured. Poor little Dog Boy...anyway, as she learns the ropes, Sallow's team advances, and finally collects enough dog skulls (victories) to petition the league. What happens then? Watch and find out...

I enjoyed this movie, even though it's a familiar story. The game, the players, the weapons, it was all very well thought out and the characters motivations seem simple at first become more complicated. The end game will have you rooting for the underdog, even if you don't care for the movie itself.

I would have liked to given this movie another star, but I found the DVD presentation to be somewhat lacking. Where's the clarity? The most noticeable problems are with the darker scenes. The definition was very poor, providing a muddled at best picture. I am surprised Lions Gate couldn't find a better copy to put on DVD. And since I saw this in the theaters, I know it was originally presented in wide screen, but not here. And the sound is pretty poor. At least you can view the subtitles, to see what is being said, but why should you have to? A very disappointing release of a great movie.

I've seen BLOOD OF HEROES about 10 times. Some people find it primitive and bad (all of my friends, unfortunately), and I have no one to talk this film with, so far. I find this movie excellent because of its music and actors (actresses). It has fantastic music and sounds (including the sound of the juggers' stick hitting the other's stick). The plot is excellent. David Peoples is my favourite director, Rutger Hauer is my fav. actor. So, if you like sci-fi movies, you'll have to see this magnificent creation. If anyone wants to talk about this movie, please write me on my e-mail address.

JFK tries tries to answer some very difficult questions about what really happened on November 22 1963. Critics have said that Director Oliver Stone's film presents a "slanted" view of history. While that may or may not be the case, I'm struck by how well the film is put together, regardless of whether you choose to believe the whole film or not.

The script is based on 2 books about the case and centers around New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner, in his best role to date) and his investigation into the assasination. Gary Oldman gives a great performance as would be killer Lee Harvey Oswald The other cast members are top notch too. The movie is filled with surprising cameos from Edward Asner Jack Lemmon Walter Mathau and the "real life" Jim Garrison among others.

From a technical standpoint, as I hinted at earlier, the very complex movie is just about flawless. It boasts some of the best editing work I have ever seen on film. The score by John Williams is one of his best and very fitting. The director's cut comes in at 3 hours 27 minutes. You'd never know it. Stone draws you in and the film goes by pretty quickly.

This latest 2 disc DVD set is actually the second of its kind released. The bonus materials are pretty much the same, save for a newly created feature lentgth documentary, on the film and the historical events. It's well made and is worth a look. Disc 2 also has at least 30 minutes worth of deleted scenes-with optional commentary by Stone-going even beyond the 17 additional minutes of the director's cut presented on disc 1. The main audio commentary track by Stone offers not only facinating details on making the film but also provides information about the people places and events depicted in the movie. There's a facinating interview with the real life Mr.(played by Donald Sutherland in the movie). There is also a 30 minute update about the declassification of documents related to the investigation that happened as a direct result of the film's release. Multimedia essays from various writers and DVD-ROM material, like reviews of the film, a theatrical trailer sampler, additional essays and web links

If you already own the previous 2 disc set, this latest release may not be worth a rebuy. But it's definately worth it if you like the film a lot. You may not agree with everything Stone's got to say in his movie about the subject. However, even if you don't, you still have to admire him for making a complex film entertaining and engrossing, while at the same time giving viewers a lot to think about after they watch it

By in large most of the criticism of JFK is based on Oliver Stones' use of poetic lisence to rewrite the events of October 22, 1963. Personally, I find for better or worse the most plausible explainations surrounding the JFK assassination to be found in Gerald Posner's brilliant book, "Case Closed". Whether you want to believe it or not, 90% or more of the findings in the Warren Commission's report are irrefutable. Yes, there are many unanswered questions, and JFK the movie sheds little or almost no light on these. But, that does not take away from the stunning artistic value of this great motion picture.

Stone treats the entire story, start to finish almost as a Hitchcock thriller. Sure we know where the story is heading and of course there is no surprise ending. So how does he keep us intrigued for two solid hours? How do we remain transfixed on the characters; Osewald, Ruby, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison and others? Simplely put this project was flawlessly cast, expertly edited, well written and masterfully directed.

Oliver Stone has made some great movies, The Doors, Wall Street, Platoon and Natural Born Killers to name a few. But, JFK will remain his masterpiece. Forget the historical incorrectness. Don't get hung up on the conflicting information from the Warren Commission and other sources. It's easy to dismiss this flim as inaccurate or half-truth. It is however, much harder to dispute the artisic value found here. This is simply one hell of a movie.

i absolutely love this movie. terrific acting, great directing, theories for thought. oliver stone is one of the greatest director right now. definitely my favourite.

JFK tries tries to answer some very difficult questions about what really happened on November 22 1963. Critics have said that Director Oliver Stone's film presents a "slanted" view of history. While that may or may not be the case, I'm struck by how well the film is put together, regardless of whether you choose to believe the whole film or not.

The script is based on 2 books about the case and centers around New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner, in his best role to date) and his investigation into the assasination. Gary Oldman gives a great performance as would be killer Lee Harvey Oswald The other cast members are top notch too. The movie is filled with surprising cameos from Edward Asner Jack Lemmon Walter Mathau and the "real life" Jim Garrison among others.

From a technical standpoint, as I hinted at earlier, the very complex movie is just about flawless. It boasts some of the best editing work I have ever seen on film. The score by John Williams is one of his best and very fitting. The director's cut comes in at 3 hours 27 minutes. You'd never know it. Stone draws you in and the film goes by pretty quickly.

This latest 2 disc DVD set is actually the second of its kind released. The bonus materials are pretty much the same, save for a newly created feature lentgth documentary, on the film and the historical events. It's well made and is worth a look. Disc 2 also has at least 30 minutes worth of deleted scenes-with optional commentary by Stone-going even beyond the 17 additional minutes of the director's cut presented on disc 1. The main audio commentary track by Stone offers not only facinating details on making the film but also provides information about the people places and events depicted in the movie. There's a facinating interview with the real life Mr.(played by Donald Sutherland in the movie). There is also a 30 minute update about the declassification of documents related to the investigation that happened as a direct result of the film's release. Multimedia essays from various writers and DVD-ROM material, like reviews of the film, a theatrical trailer sampler, additional essays and web links

If you already own the previous 2 disc set, this latest release may not be worth a rebuy. But it's definately worth it if you like the film a lot. You may not agree with everything Stone's got to say in his movie about the subject. However, even if you don't, you still have to admire him for making a complex film entertaining and engrossing, while at the same time giving viewers a lot to think about after they watch it

By in large most of the criticism of JFK is based on Oliver Stones' use of poetic lisence to rewrite the events of October 22, 1963. Personally, I find for better or worse the most plausible explainations surrounding the JFK assassination to be found in Gerald Posner's brilliant book, "Case Closed". Whether you want to believe it or not, 90% or more of the findings in the Warren Commission's report are irrefutable. Yes, there are many unanswered questions, and JFK the movie sheds little or almost no light on these. But, that does not take away from the stunning artistic value of this great motion picture.

Stone treats the entire story, start to finish almost as a Hitchcock thriller. Sure we know where the story is heading and of course there is no surprise ending. So how does he keep us intrigued for two solid hours? How do we remain transfixed on the characters; Osewald, Ruby, Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison and others? Simplely put this project was flawlessly cast, expertly edited, well written and masterfully directed.

Oliver Stone has made some great movies, The Doors, Wall Street, Platoon and Natural Born Killers to name a few. But, JFK will remain his masterpiece. Forget the historical incorrectness. Don't get hung up on the conflicting information from the Warren Commission and other sources. It's easy to dismiss this flim as inaccurate or half-truth. It is however, much harder to dispute the artisic value found here. This is simply one hell of a movie.

i absolutely love this movie. terrific acting, great directing, theories for thought. oliver stone is one of the greatest director right now. definitely my favourite.

A dazzling array of mega-celebrities in sometimes silent incidental cameo roles make Robert Altman's "The Player" like an autograph fantasy walk down Hollywood Boulevard. Tim Robbins, possibly America's finest actor is extraordinary as a movie executive seeking revenge on an anonymous writer who's sending him threatening postcards. This plotline unfortunately becomes immediately predictable and contrived and Altman's directional tools seem to lay at his side as this formula suspense angle almost overwhelms the sly humor and excitable performances which keeps this constantly amusing film afloat.

This film has the most unique opening scene (which lasts about 8 or 9 minutes in a single frame!) I have ever seen in a movie! Tim Robbins plays the role of a producer who "just does his job", which includes brushing off hopeful screen writers and being nasty to his assistants. Little does he know, that others are good at back-stabbing too, and that his name is about to be dropped. All depends on his next project; if it stinks, he sinks! -- A few clever twists, including black-mail and manslaughter, keep the viewer interested, right up to the surprise ending. Watch for Whoopi Goldberg and Lyle Lovitt as police detectives (I couldn't picture either of them in such a role, but they did surprisingly well!). This is a very good film, but I still have a problem with how everything turns out (which I can't dwell on, or I'd spoil it for those who haven't seen it). See for yourself!

"The Player" is one of those fascinating comedic thrillers with one defined dramatic plot, and various subplots dealing with the movie industry. Player is not a fast paced thriller, but rather an intelligent and laid back story surrounded by Hollywood and the business of film making. Tim Robbins plays Griffin Mill, a studio executive whose main job is to decide which scripts make it to the big screen. When he starts receiving threatening postcards, he suspects they come from a writer whose script was turned down. Hence, he tries to identify the writer in order to pay him off and stop the blackmail. Apparently he found the writer , apparently not. Murder. Whoopi Goldberg's performance as detective Avery, investigating the murder, is simply wonderful and provides humor with her spicy language. For the rest of the plot, you must see the movie. Directed by Robert Altman (Gosford Park), Player's cast include Greta Scacchi, Peter Gallagher, Fred Ward, Lyle Lovett and numerous cameo appearances by familiar faces such as Lily Tomlin, Bruce Willis, Robert Wagner, Susan Sarandon, Julia Roberts, Nick Nolte, Andie McDowell, John Cusack, to name a few. Besides the main plot, this is certainly a good perspective of how decisions are made in Hollywood, and the dynamics and politics of movie making . Player views the "film noir" and independent film making alternatives, and flirts with the concepts of dissociation of the big studios with the artistic ("Ars Gratia Artis") philosophies of the old days, those being replaced with the "money-making-happy-ending" driving forces of modern day Hollywood. DVD version.

A dazzling array of mega-celebrities in sometimes silent incidental cameo roles make Robert Altman's "The Player" like an autograph fantasy walk down Hollywood Boulevard. Tim Robbins, possibly America's finest actor is extraordinary as a movie executive seeking revenge on an anonymous writer who's sending him threatening postcards. This plotline unfortunately becomes immediately predictable and contrived and Altman's directional tools seem to lay at his side as this formula suspense angle almost overwhelms the sly humor and excitable performances which keeps this constantly amusing film afloat.

This film has the most unique opening scene (which lasts about 8 or 9 minutes in a single frame!) I have ever seen in a movie! Tim Robbins plays the role of a producer who "just does his job", which includes brushing off hopeful screen writers and being nasty to his assistants. Little does he know, that others are good at back-stabbing too, and that his name is about to be dropped. All depends on his next project; if it stinks, he sinks! -- A few clever twists, including black-mail and manslaughter, keep the viewer interested, right up to the surprise ending. Watch for Whoopi Goldberg and Lyle Lovitt as police detectives (I couldn't picture either of them in such a role, but they did surprisingly well!). This is a very good film, but I still have a problem with how everything turns out (which I can't dwell on, or I'd spoil it for those who haven't seen it). See for yourself!

"The Player" is one of those fascinating comedic thrillers with one defined dramatic plot, and various subplots dealing with the movie industry. Player is not a fast paced thriller, but rather an intelligent and laid back story surrounded by Hollywood and the business of film making. Tim Robbins plays Griffin Mill, a studio executive whose main job is to decide which scripts make it to the big screen. When he starts receiving threatening postcards, he suspects they come from a writer whose script was turned down. Hence, he tries to identify the writer in order to pay him off and stop the blackmail. Apparently he found the writer , apparently not. Murder. Whoopi Goldberg's performance as detective Avery, investigating the murder, is simply wonderful and provides humor with her spicy language. For the rest of the plot, you must see the movie. Directed by Robert Altman (Gosford Park), Player's cast include Greta Scacchi, Peter Gallagher, Fred Ward, Lyle Lovett and numerous cameo appearances by familiar faces such as Lily Tomlin, Bruce Willis, Robert Wagner, Susan Sarandon, Julia Roberts, Nick Nolte, Andie McDowell, John Cusack, to name a few. Besides the main plot, this is certainly a good perspective of how decisions are made in Hollywood, and the dynamics and politics of movie making . Player views the "film noir" and independent film making alternatives, and flirts with the concepts of dissociation of the big studios with the artistic ("Ars Gratia Artis") philosophies of the old days, those being replaced with the "money-making-happy-ending" driving forces of modern day Hollywood. DVD version.