5 comments about Bad Boys (Special Edition).

1. There quite a few funny scenes and dialogues. It contains non-stop actions. Will Smith's and Martin Lawrence's acting are engating. I own it.



2. Looking at it from an acting point of view, the women
   had the hard straightman roles. Just a lot of killing, drugs and real bad guys with no shading. Black on bad in sin city USA.
   Special effects was blowing things up and car chases.
   A role reversal of a black cop with a family and his playboy
   partner, turns into a hostage situation when the
   woman witness is kidnapped in the hotel lobby during a gun fight.
   So it ends like you expect...



3. will smith & Martin lawrance are wickedly funnny in this nonstop comedy action flick. this movie is sooo good. if you haven't seen it then it's a must see.



4. What a funny movie. I think that whoever decided to put Will Smith and Martin Lawrence together for this should get a medal. I laughed myself silly. Excellent!



5. Martin Lawrence with Will Smith = Very funny. This was a great movie. Just the way they interacted with each other was great. And not to mention non stop action. A great buy.

5 comments about Hot Dog...The Movie.

1. This is the real deal. This is a lifestyle movie, a period movie, a feel-good movie, an escapist fantasy, and a hard nosed dose of reality.
   The extensive nudity was was gratuitous and exploitive when the movie was a current release, and is still gratuitous and exploitive today. Because of this responsible adults won't promote the movie to the people who would otherwise benefit most from the movie. Those are early adolescents who need to see adult role models skiing well and skiing responsibly.
   That said, it would be a different movie from a different era if any part of it was changed.
   This movie is about aspiration, hope, and America's place in the world. Children need to know that if you can ski well you can become the president in this great nation. And what better place to ski well than Squaw Valley, and what better era to ski well in than the early 1980s, and who better to ski well with than Rob Herby, Scott Schmidt and Shannon Tweed.
   I am going to check my skis right now (September).



2. My purchase was outstanding. I had been looking for this video for quite some time but no one had it. I was told by other place that is was no longer in print. I am showing my age because this was my life in highschool. Thank you Amazon.



3. Not on zis side, not on zat side, but right in ze middle!!!! This film was snubbed by the Academy in virtually every award category. Most grievously, it should have won Best Picture... for the following reason at least... it is the only film in history in which a man named Squirrel gets a BJ from a beautiful woman in a gondola ski lift! Add into that the great ski action and nudity, and you have an all time classic for the ages. It is THE gold standard in film! It features stunning action shots of masterful skiing... along with sexually perverted and staggeringly juvenile humor. Most importantly, it features generous portions of upper-body adult adult female nudity including gratuitous sex scenes that do very little to advance the plot! It's great! Anyone want the drink called the 'leg spreader? The actors convincingly portray professional ski champions. Our ski hero is the classic, talented unknown coming from the rural, country music listening rednecky parts of Idaho. Rudolph Garmitsch is a prick, and an formidable and egotistical Euro-villian you just love to hate! David Naughton plays a convincing hard-partying, good-at-heart older ski pro who acts as encourager to our younger American talent. Do I even need to mention the beautifully shot wet t-shirt contest at the redneck bar or the beautifully shot and intense skiing action that is the Chinese Downhill? Alcohol consumption occurs at parties, in bars and on the slopes, and fun shenanigans ensue! This is a true American classic that should have swept the awards ceremonies that year, but the snotty, stuck-up Academy wasn't ready for a film of this gravity. Shame on them. Shame on them! At least us true film autuers can appreciate the genius of it. Support this film by showing it to as many people as possible. Sooner or later, a much bigger chunk of world will catch on to what it has been missing! No more unjustified war for oil or imperialistic political control. Just booze, boobs, humor and skiing. Dare to dream for the best of all possible worlds! If you haven't seen this, get ready to live! Buy a copy immediately!
   
   P.S. to MGM - Get us the widescreen version fast! Don't insult us with only releasing the full screen version. Stop with the full screen BS on any movie. We don't want to see our films chopped up, and non-widescreen TVs are going away fast. Most serious film watchers (including me) disgustedly turned away from the pan-and-scan crap at least 15 years ago. You brainless schmucks! Get with it!



4. This movie will make you want to move to a ski town, like I did. Loaded with great quotes, like "nice run, were you on 'shrooms or what?". The DVD does not have alot of extras, unfortunately, but still worth having. Awesome view of the "good ole days" of skiing, BEFORE snowboards!



5. When it came out I was just graduating high school and I wanted to see it.

5 comments about Time After Time.

1. Interesting plot, pretty good movie. This was the first thing I have ordered from Amazon that was defective. I had no problem returning it for replacement. Very happy with Amazon and the DVD.



2. This is one of my favorite movies (time travel has always fascinated me). This one has several twists with both H.G. Wells and Jack The Ripper being joined in the same movie. Add in a young, very innocent appearing Mary Steinbergen and you have a very enjoyable film.



3. I smell H.G. Wells. You got a time machine, romance, and killing by the same guy in two time periods. I love this kind of genre. Tried and true and very well done. Not quite a Sunday morning movie to watch with the kids, but a good movie that holds your attention.



4. I was a bit skeptical when I first saw the premise of this movie - many time travel movies fail to deliver but this was an exception. The movie stars Malcolm McDowell who plays H.G. Wells, the famous author who is enjoying a dinner at home with some of his acquaintances and tells them about a time machine that he has built. The setting is late 19th century London, the same period of the infamous Jack the Ripper who also happens to be one of H.G. Well's dining guests. When the police come knocking, Jack pulls a disappearing act in Wells' time machine and it is left to Wells to follow the killer through time into the future, 1979 San Francisco to be exact.
   
   Mary Steenburgen plays a bank clerk who meets both Jack [played to chilling effect by David Warner] and Wells [a very convincing Malcolm McDowell] and falls for Wells, not knowing who he really is. Though the movie is dated, as it is an older movie and the effects are a bit underwhelming, the credible acting by the main leads and well-written story makes for entertaining and suspenseful viewing. There is a bit of romance [Wells and Amy the bank clerk], lots of thrills and a score that truly brings the 70s to mind. All in all, well worth one's time if you like 'period' thrillers with a time travel element.



5. The special effects may be crappy for this day and age but that doesn't stop this movie from being a classic. The new version with Guy Pierce may have better special effects but overall I feel this one is a better overall story. You can say it's a time travel movie with a twist. Just get it, you'll see.

5 comments about Powder.

1. Powder
   This is an incredible story about an albino boy who has a very eerie character; living a life of solitude, stark loneliness, feeling out of place in the world, and devoting a good portion of his childhood delving into complex reading material. The cinematography is stimulating. Very emotional, overall, but left me with a feeling of optimism.



2. The fact that the director had issues prior to movies production is unfortunate. This is one of the most fantastic movies, I will forever love. Made by Disney, the film is superbly done. The minute you begin watch you are taken to a small country town where an unusual boy lives. Ridiculed because of his looks, he has a strange power that allows him to be in touch with others thoughts. This movie will take you back to your childhood memories, you will be emotionally connected one way or another. The acting is superb. You wont be disappointed



3. I saw "Powder" when it first came out. I was so moved by the movie because I really identified with Powder. I have felt most of my life like I did not fit in. He was not afraid to be who he was. Being different is not a bad thing; in fact, it is a very good thing in most cases. Powder portrayed a beautiful personality and also manifested so much love and understanding from his eyes. There is also a wonderful feeling of acceptance from Powder while all the while the people around him feared him. This is a movie that deals with energy... which we all are. It will continue to be in my top favorite movies of forever.



4. I saw this movie yesterday for the first time and I can honestly say that this is the most beautiful movie that I have ever seen. It really touched me.



5. A mother, about to give birth, is struck by lightning. She dies; the baby lives. He is an albino who has special powers. He can harness energy, has a special relationship with lightning and electricity, is psychic, is a child of nature, and is a genius who tests off the scale. He is brought up by his grandparents on a farm; they keep him out of school and away from other children. He reads and remembers every word of countless books.
   When he is left alone after their deaths, and is forced into society (nicknamed Powder played by actor Sean Patrick Flanery), he encounters resentment, intolerance, bullying, fear, and hatred. Estranged, he finds friendships in a reform school principal (Mary Steenburgen), a science teacher (Jeff Goldblum), a female classmate, and a sheriff.
   An interesting movie worth your time, but aren't you tired of schoolyard bullies, small town prejudiced cretins, and disaffected teens? There's a world of hurt, torment, and hatred out there for an alienated kid that looks like Michael Jackson and Marcel Marceau.
   Nine Lives Too Many
   The Daemon in Our Dreams
   The Rice Queen Spy
   Clawed Back from the Dead

5 comments about Batman Beyond - The Movie.

1. Great DVD! Starts off the Batman Beyond series. The stories are interesting and though the style animation is not exactly new, but has the new and unique intersting twist of being staged in the future. They have done a great job with it.
   
   ONE WARNING!!! If you want season one do not buy this! There are 13 episodes on season one and this DVD has 6 of them! This would get 5 stars if you were not able to get all of them on the season one DVD. I felt just a little ripped off.



2. I can not express how much I love this DVD. I'm sure alot has been said about this DVD / Series. So I'll get to the point. This is NOT for kids, its totally a PG13 genre. On this DVD you get 2 things:
   
   #1- 'The Movie' which is basically a full hour or so, to ease you into the new world and explaining of how the NEW Batman is reborn and takes you into a very cool emotional ride till the end.
   
   #2: you get 4 episodes, eachone is about 25mins or so long, they are awesome, they introduce you to new villians and old villians in a NEW way.
   
   This DVD is one of my favorites, even though I know the story of Batman Beyond almost word for word, I just can't get enough of it, the music is totally Head Banging to..and you will fall in the love with the characters.. the dialoge is never cheesy. its an action film first and for most, and an animation second.
   
   This is must have for the new generation Batman lovers, screw the WB this is the real thing :D



3. This is a good premier movie for "Batman Beyond" (known in Europe as "Batman of The Future"), starring Will Friedle as the new Batman (Terry McGinnis) and returning with Kevin Conroy (Batman from the original show) as old guy Bruce Wayne. Mr. Freeze (Michael Ansara) and Bane (Who never talks in his episode appearance) were the only remaining original bad guys until "Return of the Joker". The costume gallery in the Batcave (Original Batsuit, Robin's costume, Nightwing's costume, Batgirl's costume and the new Batsuit)
   
   Bottom Line: A show that takes some getting used to.



4. i like that thay have repackaged some of the movies i hope they repackage all of them to the keep case and release them all in season packages the like batman.



5. Excellent start to the new series, Batman fans will love it as much as i do.

5 comments about The Killing Fields.

1. The film did not do nearly enough to show the real extents of the horrors of the Khmer Rouge holocaust of 3 million Cambodians that took place from 1975 to 1979, and obviously revelled in trendy lefty journalist Sydney Schanberg's blame of the USA for the Khmer Rouge genocide.
   In his speech winning the 1976 prestigious journalist award Schanberg does not condemn Khmer Rouge atrocities but instead launches into a tirade against US policy in Southeast Asia.
   
   Before the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1975 and killed approximately 2 million people, Schanberg wrote positively in The New York Times about the coming regime change, writing about the Cambodians that "it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A dispatch he wrote on April 13, 1975, written from Phnom Penh, ran with the headline "Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life."
   Did Schanberg ever apologize for such comments after the scope of the Khmer Rouge atrocities became known?
   Did he shed his trendy lefty ideology that could justify or obsfucate such horrors?
   I know that Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge terror (as he now supports such genocidal terror gangs as Hamas and Hezbollah) and never retracted or apologized.
   The film showed only a tiny glimpse of Khmer Rouge atrocities. They did show something of the pain of Cambodia's children at the time. Touching scenes showing Cambodia's beautiful children. But not clearly enough did it reveal the maiming and murder of these children by the Khmer Rouge.
   The one scene that did begin to show what the real face of Communism is about is the scene where Dith Pran, after having escaped from the Khmer Rouge concentration camp, comes across the field of human skeletons murdered by the Khmer Rouge.



2. While the DVD itself is an excellent film - the DVD Jacket is of extremely poor quality - not what I expected at all.
   
   It looks like a photocopy using very thin paper - not what one would purchase new from a store.
   
   A real disappointment



3. This was a very moving movie and I couldn't turn away. However, the political message was bizzare. Sydney rails against the USA for its efforts in Cambodia and the bombings. But the USA was trying to stop the Communist KR from taking power. The ensuing horrific blood-bath is the consequences of the Communist KR taking power. So naturally the outrage should be focused on the Communists. If anything, the USA could be criticized for withdrawing and NOT bombing the Communists more extensively. Then the movie ends with John Lennon's love-letter to communism, "Imagine" Very confusing political message indeed.



4. A very good film, The Killing Fields, sheds light on the atrocities committed by the communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during their reign of terror in the 1970's.
   The film follows Dith Pran as he is left behind by his employer, an American reporter, only to be captured by the Khmer Rouge and subsequently experience what amounts to living a nightmare.
   Haing S. Ngor, John Malkovich, and the rest of the cast, have carried out their performances well, nevertheless one cannot help but feel disdain for Sidney Schanberg (and by extension Sam Waterston) for preventing his assistant from reaching shelter when he could.
   The acting, the setting, the plot, and the dialogues are all good though the movie could have done much more to show the Communists' sheer brutality. Moreover, there were quite a few dialogues not translated that left us in the dark.
   In short, The Killing Fields is a movie definitely worth watching as it will surely provide good insight on one of the most infamous regimes of the twentieth century.



5. At the time of release this was a shocker. Not many realised what genocide was. How this could go on without intervention by the wider world was disturbing. With the passage of time, and similar atrocities almost every day, it seems we have become sensitised. Worth viewing to remind us to be alert.

5 comments about Europa Europa.

1. 
   Agniezka Holland retakes one of so many stories lived through the bloody WW2. But this time she presents us an epic, courageous and epic (if I may) stoy, about a German-Jewish teenager who could survive in the WW2 concealing his own identity and living as a Nazi citizen during seven long years through three countries. A valorous and worthy to mention anecdote that shows us even in the most horrid and hopeless moments the human soul always finds an occasion to survive.
   
   As a curious fact, the title of this film matched with the film of Lars von Triers, and that was the reason why Europe of the Danish director was modified by Zentropa.



2. After seeing the film on DVD, deeply moved and enlightened, I turned to the Amazon reviews. Particularly touching for me was that of Amanda Haley who had watched the film with Solomon Perel. The others who gave it five stars have said more than I can in few words, i.e. "it's absolutely wonderful". What distressed me more than any scene of Nazi cruelty in the film were the various commentaries of those who trashed the entire movie.
   I'm not Jewish, but again am reminded of the anti-Semitism still thriving in American society...dear to those who deny the existence of their own dark Shadow, according to psychoanalyst Carl Jung, and hence foment the hatred we all claim to decry.
   "Europa, Europa" is NOT a documentary. Would we have watched a very important story without the dramatic and emotionally laden moments? I've seen both "Schindler's List" and the documentary on Schindler. Both are very similar and authentic. Why then did the movie touch me more than the latter? The art of cinema is to make those elements of truth resound in our own psyches, and I highly commend Director Holland for shaking us to the core with one of the most important movies ever done on the Holocaust.



3. This story seems very far-fetched but amazingly, it really happend to an actual person. The main character, who is a Jew, convinces Nazi's that he is a "pure German". He ends up as a distinguished Nazi soldier, and eventually a Hitler Youth. He is surrounded by people who want to kill jews and has no choice but to become one of them. He lost his friends and family and makes new friends with Nazis. He even falls in love with a young girl who must never find out who he really is. The only thing that reminds himself of his identity is his circumsized penis. This is also the only proof that exists that he is not really a "pure German". He must go through great lengths to hide his penis. He actually ends up finding two people who know the truth about him but still like him and protect his secret.



4. This is a very compelling movie, which is a must see, especially by the boomer generation.



5. This is a very good movie. The theme is great and the acting as well. It is based on a true story and is amazing as to the good luck and craftyness of the main character. I highly recommend it.

5 comments about The Doors (Special Edition).

1. This film takes you through the history of the Doors starting in Vanice Beach California where they break through and rise to stardom.
   
   Perfectly cast Val Kilmar as Jim Morrison and his girlfriend Meg Ryan take you through the wild, ride of the life of Jim Morrison and his band. Along with the evolving music of his band and the rising drug addiction that influenced the future of his life. It flows through the timeline showing all the true aspects of Jim's poetic personality.
   
   Fabulously portrayal of Jim Morrison and very entertaining.



2. This was the part that Val Kilmer was born to play. The music in the movie just makes you trip away from the very beginning. It's fantastic. I love the Doors. This is a must have for any Door's fan.



3. Great music, great concert camera work, and great acting by Val Kilmer.
   The only real negative is the focus on Lizard King persona, and not
   enough real Jim. But overall worth watching w/ the volume set on high.



4. This movie is okay, but it's just one huge fabrication. It is not to be taken seriously...



5. My sister is a major fan of this movie, but in all honesty I am not a big fan of The Doors and so seeing the movie was not a huge priority of mine. After her incessant insisting I decided to give it a try though, and while I can't say that the experience was truly mind-blowing, I can say that I found some very entertaining moments in the film (especially when in regards to the acting).
   
   As a whole I don't think that Oliver Stone's `The Doors' works well as a biopic. It never really gets inside the minds of its subjects. Its focus is clearly on frontman Jim Morrison and so the rest of the band just gets really nothing more than a passing glance. Honestly, I don't even remember hearing their names uttered in the film, which is not good for someone who is not familiar with the band since they won't be able to tell who is who. Stone truly only cares about one thing, and that is immortalizing Morrison. Thankfully he has Val Kilmer in the lead, and Val was utterly perfect as Morrison. I wish that the script would have given Kilmer a little more to chew on, for then his performance could have proved to be iconic, but even with the little he is given he manages to sink deep inside Morrison and bring to life his uncanny draw.
   
   Stone is a very interesting director. I don't think that I have yet to be completely enamored with any one of his films; they always seem to be a bit off for me (I have yet to see `JFK' though, and I hear that is his finest film). He does a decent job of constructing this biopic, but in the end it feels a bit empty, as if we've really learnt nothing about this band, or even Morrison, aside from what he already has divulged to the known world. We never really get an intimate look at what made this man tick.
   
   Stone does use some interesting techniques with this film that give the audience a feeling of being stoned almost, and I think that aspect of the film translates well with the given circumstances of the films focus, but those nice little tweaks are not enough to make up for the lackluster scripting.
   
   A biopic of this nature should have a little more meat.
   
   Regardless of what you feel about this film in general though, there is no denying that Val Kilmer delivers his career best performance, capturing the mannerisms and the massive appeal that was Jim Morrison. He transcended the box Stone kept him in and made himself as real as he could to the audience. At a mere glance his performance could come off as nothing more than imitation but there is an extra shimmer in his eyes that bleed through with a dedication that surpasses mimicry. I was also very impressed with Meg Ryan, who plays Morrison's girlfriend Pamela Courson. She has limited screen time but she manages to make her portrayal very honest and memorable. Her final moments with Kilmer are heartbreaking in their honesty.
   
   `The Doors' is not the best biopic out there, but it has its moments and is enjoyable. It feels rather vapid when all is said and done (somewhat like `The Notorious Betty Page', which I recently reviewed) but like `Betty', `The Doors' lives and dies with one tremendous performance, and Kilmer's performance keeps this passable film breathing.

5 comments about Barton Fink.

1. One of the finest Coen Brothers' films, "Barton Fink" (1990) is a skillful inspired mixture of the real and unreal, the nightmarish Lynch - Kafkaesque vision of 1940s Hollywood. Barton Fink, a talented and serious New York playwright is hired by a big movie studio to write a screenplay about wrestling. Soon he finds himself in a writer block, and his hotel neighbor, chatty insurance salesman Charlie (John Goodman, one of Coens' favorite actors) tries to help him out by teaching Fink about wrestling. The situation gets out of control, becomes more and more nightmarish and surreal; and then, one day, two homicide detectives show up at Fink's hotel and want to ask him a few questions.
   
   "Barton Fink" broke the Cannes Festival's record taking three major awards, Golden Palm, the director's prize and the best actor award for John Turturro (the regular actor in Coens' films). I think all awards were well deserved - the film is unforgettable



2. I settled down to watch this film the other night because someone told me that it drew a lot of inspiration from `Eraserhead', and since David Lynch's classic rests firmly at the top of my favorite movies ever made I decided that `Barton Fink' was a must see for me. While the film is no where near the brilliance that was `Eraserhead' I must say that the Coen's did not disappoint (yet, with all seriousness; have they ever truly disappointed?). `Barton Fink' is truly a strange and thought provoking film that, like `Eraserhead', may not be fully understood right off the bat, but it sports enough passion and intelligence to warrant a second and third watch through to finally `get' it so-to-speak.
   
   The film revolves around a playwright by the name of Barton Fink. Fink is asked to come to Hollywood and write a wrestling picture for famous working actor Wallace Beery. Sure, he feels that a wrestling picture is far beneath his talent but his desire to become accepted into the world of motion picture moves him to conform to the desires of the studio and settle down in a dusty old hotel to begin his script. And then he pained with writers block, a most savage case at that, and so he begins his long struggle to create a masterpiece.
   
   I've seen a few movies lately that tackle the darker side of Hollywood, and while `Barton Fink' is not the best (that spot securely belongs to `8 ½') it is certainly up there. As Fink tries aimlessly to write something with meaning and significance he gradually drifts into a madness that I can imagine plagues many writers working in Hollywood today. Everyone wants to be known for something important and meaningful, but the sad reality is that meaningful rarely sells, and so they are pressured to create something mediocre that will fill seats.
   
   Case-in-point...how many of you have ever really heard of `Barton Fink'?
   
   Now, how many of you have heard of `I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry'?
   
   My point exactly.
   
   The film is elevated by some intelligent and memorable performances, especially in the supporting category. Judy Davis is stunning as Audrey Taylor, the lovely secretary who steals a little part of Fink's soul. Michael Lerner (who garnered an Oscar nomination for his performance) is extremely memorable as Jack Lipnick, the studio head entrusting Fink with the script. I personally loved John Mahoney's portrayal of desperate alcoholic writer W.P. Mayhew, especially his off screen yammering about honey. Tony Shalhoub (what an accent) and Jon Polito are also noteworthy; even Steve Buscemi in his one scene is spot on with the mood and air of the film.
   
   This movie though belongs to the two Johns; Turturro and Goodman. As Fink, Turturro brilliantly captures the desperation that is slowly unraveling within his soul. We can see the outward symptoms of his madness, but it is always glossed over somewhat. It is the eyes that really drag us in to what is happening inside his mind. Goodman delivers what may be his finest performance ever, and one of my personal favorite supporting performances ever. As Charlie Meadows, Goodman instantly draws in the audience. He seems nice enough, normal enough, simple enough; and then he smiles up at Fink and you know that there is something more there, more than meets the eye and much more that Fink would give him credit for. It was in those minor details that Meadows became the most interesting character in `Barton Fink' and honestly the most real. Charlie Meadows is probably the best way to understand the title character, but I really can't explain my reasons for saying this without giving away too much of the film. Just watch closely and listen intently ("you don't LISTEN") and you will understand the significance that Meadows has in the bigger picture.
   
   There is no denying that the Coen brothers know how to make a film, and they know how to create something fresh and original while never conforming to create something overtly commercial. Just take a look at even their biggest successes. `Fargo', `O Brother, Where Art Thou?' and their latest Oscar winning `No Country for Old Men' can join `Barton Fink' as thought provoking cinema that maintains a vision and delivers triumphantly.



3. I liked the still gallery, but there should have been more than that and the trailers. Ah, well...Still, this is a great movie and probably has not been seen by as many people as should have seen it by now. It's not a blockbuster; it's noir and a very dark comedy about a writer who hits a nasty writer's block and then gets caught up in a madman's reign of terror.
   
   This is also a great commentary by the Coens about the nature of Hollywood, how a writer struggles in that town, anti-Semitism, fate, and a symbolically depressing and dangerous environment (portrayed through the dripping, peeling wallpaper, the constant whine of mosquitoes, and the dreary Hotel Earle).
   
   John Goodman and John Turturro do excellent work here as the madman and the writer, respectively, showing us both their comedic and their tormented sides.
   
   The ending, with the hallway in flames, is unforgettable; as is the mysterious package which I hope Barton never opens, since it may very likely contain body parts belonging to people he knew. Credit the Coens for not giving away the mystery.



4. The genius of The Brothers Coen lies in their ability to examine American Culture and tweak it until it screams in transcendent agony, this fine film is no exception. John Turturro, John Goodman, Judy Davis, Steve Buscemi... Imagine their faces, throw in surreal camera-craft, blast them with the contrast of bright Hollywood sunlight and still, deep, dark shadow and you get the idea.
   
   It's set in Hollywood circa the raid on Pearl Harbor. A young and somewhat successful playwright attempts to cope with the coke, booze & benny fueled craziness of the studio. Enter J. Goodman's character: a bona fide psycho, and watch the puzzi get *extra* fancy...



5. This is a movie by a couple of artists who later learned to do much better. You can, however, see the beginnings of their genius in this film.
   
   The plot concerns Barton Fink, an up-and-coming New York playwright whose recent successes attract the attention of a major Hollywood mogul. After signing a lucrative contract he finds himself holed up in a creepy Hollywood Hotel.
   
   What's unfortunate about this movie is that many scenes which probably worked quite well on paper come off as somehow not right when you see them on the screen.
   
   An example of this would be the scenes where Barton interacts with the hotel staff. This probably seemed a lot more clever in the script, but when you see the scenes you don't know what to make of them.
   
   Perhaps the best aspects of this film are the scenes with the William Faulkner character, whose tenure in Hollywood was, in fact, as bizarre as it is depicted.
   
   But in most of the rest of the movie, the directors seem to have ideas but not know what to do with them. For example using John Goodman as a satanic angel of death provides the odd chuckle, but it's hard to see what he's doing in this movie. I have thought that the main thrust of the film was to explore the angst and futility of a young, soulful writer trying to put his heart on the page in this business that simply didn't care. The fact that this movie turned into a murder mystery about half way through really ended up scuttling that.
   
   The Coen brothers, of course, later proved themselves masters of creeping an audience out, and, at least in this department, they don't disappoint in this film. The problem is, unlike in their later films, the creepiness seems to be for no purpose and to go nowhere.
   
   I believe the whole idea of a studio smooshing a passionate writer certainly held promise. But there is so much extraneous matter floating around this film that what could have been a thoughtful, meaningful pieces ends up being blunted in every way.

5 comments about Star Trek - The Motion Picture: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition).

1. I just started watching the old Star Trek series about two months ago, and I've grown addicted to it. It's like my Lost. It's just really great TV, cheese and all. I love it. Then it dawned on me that I should be watching the movies. If the series is good, the movies must be great!
   But this movie, not so much. This one is DEFINITELY a renter, man. It is true that it's great to see the intros of the old cast and all, but that aside, the movie is lame in a way I never foresaw. At least half of it is waiting around for stuff to happen, or VERY drawn out displays of the environment. I should really go back and time how long the intro was where they show the Enterprise for the first time. And then the scenes of when they venture inside the alien are all unbearably long. It's a movie that could've easily been condensed into forty minutes worth of substance.
   The effects are good, the characters are decent (though lacking somewhat), the plot is forgivable, the audio is atrocious, and the story just....really takes too long to get told. I was disappointed.



2. This review is for "Star Trek - The Motion Picture: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)," and reflects upon my connections to Star Trek and why I believe it is the best of the movies. It is not a rehash of what is or is not in the film. Other reviews have gone out of their way to provide that "information."
   
   Imagine, if you can, seeing "old friends," with whom you had spent numerous hours intellectualizing and debating, for the first time in over 10 years--because they had inexplicably disappeared! This is what happened for me around 7 December 1979. After years of rumors and slowly waining belief, I sat in front of the big screen in an old fashioned Studio Movie Theater and saw my "old friends." In that theater with me were over fifteen friends, all in awe as the camera slowly and gracefully paid homage to the Starship Enterprise and each of her crew members--our "old friends" were back! We were "in heaven, man!" And we spent all of our college break discussing (and going to see again) "Star Trek: The Motion Picture."
   
   Now, imagine after another 22 years, seeing those "old friends" show up "looking" far better--and the way you imagined they should have appeared when you saw them again for the first time! If you can imagine this happening, then you will/can truly understand the greatness of "Star Trek - The Motion Picture: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)."
   
   Unabashedly, I must make it clear that starting on 8 September 1966, I became a fanatical, die hard, true blue, crusading fan of what I felt was the greatest television show ever made. On 3 June 1969, after cringing my way through a sloppy third season (a season in which Gene Roddenberry was blocked every step of the way), I, and all the friends I had converted, mourned in seething anger; anger that did not "cool off" until the show began in syndication. In deed, I was such a "true friend" of (the original) Star Trek television show, I was unable to watch any episodes of the Star Trek: The Next Generation television show (despite the fact that Gene Roddenberry was heavily involved) until Leonard Nimoy guest starred. And, again, I must say that my only regret in doing so, was my failure to share the Star Trek world with my son.
   
   And why do I think this is the best of the Star Trek movies--beyond the afore mentioned sentiment? One reason, and one reason only: "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" is the ONLY movie over which the creator and genius behind Star Trek--Gene Roddenberry--had any "true" involvement. While in the final analysis the film is Robert Wise's "baby," Wise has done an extraordinary job of bringing the television show to the theater's big screen--particularly in the beautifully revamped director's cut--that empathetically broadens Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek. No other director (even if they were "open" to such) was provided the same depth of Roddenberry's input, as that of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." The original release was a great bridge to the wide world of motion pictures, but a bridge that was and (judging by the reviews panning the film) remains ignored. And, despite the fact that "Star Trek - The Motion Picture: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)" does an even better job of presenting that bridge, it seems that today's fans have either never understood or have forgotten what Star Trek is all about: intelligence; compassion; equality and fairness; symbolism and analogy; social awareness; controversy; and wonderful, fun, thought provoking, imperturbable entertainment. Thank you Gene Roddenberry for the wonder of Star Trek. And thank you Robert Wise for trying to guide Star Trek from television to theater. Please know, that at least this reviewer recognizes and is thrilled that you have been given the chance to flush out your vision in "Star Trek - The Motion Picture: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)" as to where our "old friends" should have gone: "...where no man has gone before."
   
   Update--1 July 2008: If this review was not helpful to you, I would appreciate learning the reason(s) so I can improve my reviews. My goal is to provide help to potential buyers, not get into any arguments. So, if you only disagree with my opinion, could you please say so in the comments and not indicate that the review was not helpful. Thanks.



3. I must admit that I did not see Star Trek during its initial run. I was only 4 when it started airing in 1966. I did see it in syndication, and I saw The Animated Series on Saturday mornings. In 1979, my parents brought cable TV into the house, and it was on one of the Los Angeles stations that I saw my first trailer for Star Trek - The Motion Picture. I thought the Enterprise looked gorgeous. So when that December came, I saw the film in the theatre. It looked like Star Trek - all the people were there, the ship was there (and nicely updated), the basic premise of Star Trek was there. But it didn't quite feel like Star Trek. I still devoured it - it was Star Trek, which meant to me that it was still better than the vast majority of junk which showed up on TV and movie screens at the time (and still persists to this day, although SF/Fantasy has made great strides).
   
   Then came the Extended Edition on VHS. Yes, the added special effects were very nice, but it still didn't feel like Star Trek.
   
   This edition - Star Trek - The Motion Picture: The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition) - finally gives Robert Wise the chance to do what he wanted to back in 1979 - finish the film he started making. Gone are the Red Alert "beeps" and silly computer voice-overs ("Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert! Location - a sonic shower."), and in its place is dialogue and the familiar Red Alert Klaxon (albeit not as strident as in the series). The editing has been tightened up and effects put in place to remind you that you're on a starship in space. All minor tweaks to the film. That's what it needed.
   
   After 22 years, Star Trek - The Motion Picture finally feels like Star Trek, even while holding to Gene Roddenberry's initial vision of Star Trek as shown in "The Cage" as opposed to the remaining episodes. It's not the best film in the series, but it's not the worst, either, and its success at the box office paved the way for the film series. This is definitely the edition to get.



4. I've always enjoyed Star Trek. Although it was never quite my favorite science fiction series, I appreciated it for what it was and simply loved many of the characters and ideals that it gave life to. As I've gotten older, I've become most fond of the original series. I was very young when "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was released, and always seemed to just miss it when it was replayed on television. Having viewed most of the original series, I decided to pick the film up on DVD and give it a shot. What I saw was a drab, drawn out version of the colorful, often humorous series.
   
   In this first film outing, an unknown alien force is making its way to Earth. On the way, it destroys Klingon and Federation ships. In an attempt to stop its progress and find out exactly what it is, Starfleet employs the Enterprise and her crew, headed up by Captain Decker (Stephen Collins, "Seventh Heaven"). Of course, the Enterprise without Captain Kirk (William Shatner)is like peanut butter without jelly, so Admiral Kirk boards the vessel per Starfleet and takes command. This opens up a brief but interesting divide between Kirk and Decker. It isn't until Kirk's conscious, Dr. McCoy (DeForest Kelley), arrives that this feud is settled. The rest of the gang is already aboard the Enterprise, excepting Spock (Leonard Nimoy), who does eventually join up with his old comrades. Along with Decker, a new addition to the crew is the Deltan, Ilia (Persis Khambatta), who will play a key role later in the film.
   
   As the Enterprise takes flight, the story of the unknown alien unfolds, and unlike most other science fiction stories set in space at that time, there is very little dogfighting between starships, hungry aliens or laser duels. Instead, there's a refreshing yet very "Star Trek" tale of a misdirected being looking for guidance. It's a wonderful story, but it's poorly executed.
   
   In this DVD, the Director's Cut, Robert Wise takes Alan Dean Foster's epic story and draws it out to its limits. There are long sequences highlighting the vastness of space, the massive size of the alien entity, and even San Francisco Bay. Mind you, they are all very impressive to look at, but I feel as if some of them could have been a bit shorter. The team that dressed up this version of the film did many wonders with backdrops, sound fx and even the musical score. Perhaps the greatest improvements are those of the planet Vulcan, which looks simply brilliant in this film. The improvements, for the most part, are seamlessly tied into the 1979 film.
   
   Jerry Goldsmith's score is brilliant. If any one thing keeps you from becoming too bored with this film, it's the music. Goldsmith masterfully captures the adventurous and epic feel of this film.
   
   The cast do a decent job. While Nichelle Nichols, George Takei and Walter Koenig are relegated to window dressing for the most part, James Doohan and DeForest Kelley do get a little more time to shine. As expected, Shatner and Nimoy are at the forefront of the film. Collins does an excellent job as the somewhat jilted Decker. Persis Khambatta proves that bald can be beautiful and she's simply a wonder to look at on the screen. Fans of the series will also note the presence of popular series regulars Majel Barrett (Dr. Chapel) and Grace Lee Whitney (Rand).
   
   The special features on this film are very nice. Highlights include a brief documentary on the ups-and-downs of getting the film to the screen, a neat look at the development of the new fx for the Director's Cut, and scenes from the original film that were deleted or altered for this updated version. Also included are scenes from the TV release of the film that were not in the theatrical release. Other obligatory extras can also be found.
   
   For true fans of the original series, this is sure to be a treat. It was very much welcomed when it was first released due to the fact that the series had been off the air for so long. I'm sure that lifetime fans will also appreciate the updates made to this film. However, when compared to the rest of the Star Trek films (including the TNG ones) and, most importantly, the original series, this film is merely a hint as to what great stories were to come. Recommended for fans of Star Trek, completionists who want all of the films in the series, and fans of smart sci-fi who don't necessarily need to see a blaster or dogfight every five minutes to keep them interested.



5. I am still amazed that there are people who will give this a 5-star rating. When first released the movie had one main attraction: The reunion of the original series crew. Being a huge Star Trek fan I went to see it in the theater three times. But even then, before any other ST films were released it was obvious there were problems. Even when you take in the "Director's Cut" that has since been released, updating the look and feel of the movie, it still suffers from one major problem: The story sucked! It ended up being nothing more than a rehash of a couple of shows from the original series.
   
   Back in 1979 I listened to a radio interview with Walter Koenig after the movie was released and he basically stated that they started off filming with half a script. Because of the tightness of the shooting schedule there were many times they filmed with only an outline for certain scenes. The film feels that way. There are many scenes that seemed contrived, like the actors were winging it. Some of the acting was horrible (Persis Khambata), some of it was bland (Walter Koenig, George Takei), and some of it was just unecessary (Majel Barrett, Grace Lee Whitney). The best acting on the film was turned in by Stephen Collins (future dad on 7th Heaven - Seasons 1-5). His character was interesting. His constant sparring with Admiral Kirk was one of the highlights of the film, giving the picture a great tension within the plot. Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Spock was OK for this film but lacked originality. At the beginning he's 100% emotionless but by the end of the film he embraces his emotions. This would have been much more interesting had we not seen it 3 - 4 times in the original series.
   
   One other problem, there were times that the movie drags. Two scenes in particular: When Scott is taking Kirk over to the Enterprize in a shuttle we're treated to a 10 minute dragging "inspection" of the ship. Interesting for the first 5 minutes, it gets old quickly. But that pales in comparrison to the scene showing the Enterprize entering the Vger cloud. That seemed to go on forever. The only good thing about it, you had enough time to get up, go to the restroom, then stand in line to buy another box of Bon Bons, and still get back before it was over.
   
   Are there things to like here? Absolutely! Jerry Goldsmith's soundtrack was astounding! No wonder TNG stole it. And, again, the reunion of the cast 10 years after the cancellation of the series was fun to watch. But once you got to see Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition) you really do realize how bad this movie was. Did they improve it when releasing the "Director's Cut" on DVD? Yes, but only the look and feel of the movie. Even with the extended scenes added, it still ends up towards the bottom of the Star Trek Movie list, just a bit above (maybe) Star Trek V - The Final Frontier (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition).