No comments about News of the Day 1937-1938 - Universal Newsreels Including President Roosevelt, Zeppelin Explosion, School Explosition, Howard Hughes, Orson Welles War of the World Radio Broadcast, Civil War Anniversary and Much More.

5 comments about The Day of the Dolphin.

1. This movie is one of my all time favorites. George C. Scott plays an obsessed director of an aquatic facility which trains dolphins to communicate with humans. It has a good story line and action scenes(for the 70's) right up until the heartwrenching end. This is one of those movies you can't stop thinking about long after you've viewed it.



2. I guess you could say I am a person who likes films that says what if..This one is that a person can teach a dolphin to talk in human language. It is a touching, wonderful, interesting story, about mankind in all its goodness and other full of greed and explotation of anything to make a the almighty buck.



3. When I wrote this review they had a different photo of the DVD depicting a female with her midriff showing but mine was just George and the dolphins on the right and a very slim picture of a private airplane in flight, and guys shooting into the water and a boat explosion below that on the left (hard to really tell what they were unless you saw the movie). Now it is the same one. I had checked by putting in the UPC code and this came up. Mine has a copyright date of 2005 instead of 2006, though, and mine has the extra features: Interviews with screenwriter Buck Henry and co-stars Leslie Charleson and Edward Herrman, The World's Most Amazing Dolphin Trivia Gallery and Dolphin Bios. I think the features are probably in the DVD on this page too - just not listed here. I thought I had to purchase the one with the "sexier" front cover but received the more modest one -- I didn't buy it from Amazon.
   
   I have loved this movie for years. They used to advertise this movie in the 80's on KBHK-TV Ch 44 San Francisco, CA, with the music from Saint-Saens Aquarium but that music is not in the movie / soundtrack.



4. Ever seen a political thriller that employs dolphins as potential assassins? Why the heck not? As a curiosity, it's hard to beat "The Day of the Dolphin." Bringing together a bizarre amalgamation of talent-- this 1973 film stars George C. Scott (a few years after his Oscar for "Patton"), was written by Buck Henry (known mostly for comedy), and was directed by Mike Nichols (yes, that Mike Nichols)! Nichols has done everything from "The Graduate" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" through to the more current "Closer" and "Angels in America"--and this bit of sci-fi seems at odds with most of his resume. Curiously, though, he took "Dolphin" over from Roman Polanski (Polanski dropped out when his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family). Heck, the backstory alone is cause enough to check out this picture!
   
   Telling the story of a dolphin research facility, Scott plays its leader. Financed by a large corporation, their work is largely unknown even by their sponsors. They have been working on communication techniques and their unorthodox secrecy starts to raise various suspicions. Paul Sorvino, as a mysterious intruder, starts to poke around menacingly and all that is of value to Scott and his team is threatened. Publicly revealing the truth behind their experiments to their bosses, they now find themselves pawns in a larger scheme. It's hard to determine who to trust as potential allies are shown to be villains and vice versa. And caught in the middle are the dolphins who are to be exploited as bomb carrying assassins.
   
   While, in truth, "The Day of the Dolphin" advertises itself as a political thriller with a sci-fi component--I think you'd be better off going into the film knowing nothing about it. But it seems unlikely that anyone could do that. The film's plot is used to sell the picture, so any potential surprises are given away in its marketing. The assassination scheme doesn't manifest itself until the second half of the film and might have made a great twist, but, as is, it's actually something that the audience is anticipating. While the political element is prominently advertised, it is quite vaguely defined and relatively superfluous. "The Day of the Dolphin" works best as sci-fi. Not sci-fi as in aliens and different worlds--but in its truest sense, Science employed as Fiction. The research done with the dolphins incorporates reality and fantasy in a nice combination, and works because it is understated. "Dolphin" also shows man's influence over nature (both good and bad) and how our need for technological superiority can lead to unforeseen and harmful consequences. The dolphins trust that man is their friend, but that friendship is something that can ultimately be used for evil. This ends up being largely a relationship piece, and as odd as it might sound--the central relationship is between Scott and a dolphin.
   
   Sorvino and Scott are both quite good and carry the weight of the film. And if the idea of seeing George C. Scott running around in very short shorts drives you insane with lust, then that's an added bonus. Overall an interesting film, if not a great one. Recommended because it works--but it's also something of an oddity! Just don't expect the rousing adventure the DVD cover might promise you, this is more quietly intriguing. KGHarris, 04/07.



5. This is a great thriller & one of my husband's favorites.

5 comments about The Day Reagan Was Shot.

1. I would caution individuals to be wary of receiving historical information from a movie. Many individuals have rightly stated that Oliver Stone, as usual, changed the facts to conform with his vision of the world. With that said, it was interesting, even if many facts were untrue, to see how Hollywood interprets Reagan. Coldly, I'd argue. Reagan is portrayed as an unintelligent and uninterested president. Such a characterization is unfair, especially in light of the recent publications of Ronald Reagan's collection of letters demonstrating that he was a man of ideas, and this explains why he won every election in a landslide.
   
   I felt that this movie gave the impression that our democratic system was being challenged and was in danger of falling into chaos. Historians would likely have a different perspective...
   
   Michael



2. Well, I thought Alexander Haig was vindicated somewhat by the film. It was the press of the day that portrayed him as a nut, but in this film there is some explanation, some background for his statements and actions that we never had. As the character states towards the end of the film, he played the good soldier and did not speak of the things that the film aledges went on that could have improved his public image.
   
   Did it really take as long as it seems in the film for George Bush, Sr. to get back to town? I really don't remember, but that was weird. It wasn't so much that Al Haig was bullying to take over, but that the people who were supposed to step up to the plate were inexplicably NOT doing so at a time of crisis.
   
   Also, what in the world was the deal with the guy who dressed up like a doctor and snuck right into Regan's room with no bother from security? The real doctor's caught him just in time. I don't recall that incident, but it sure makes fodder for some conspiracy theories.
   
   A good film for a period of time that gets skipped by documentarians.



3. I actually watched this movie on TV and it was one of the best movies i have ever seen! It was so intense and shows alot about the stress of working in the white house durring a major crisis. I am a 16 year old girly girl and i still loved this movie! haha even though im definetly not the type to watch a movie like this,,it just shows how good it was!



4. Well, there were, in fact, a number of crises on the day President Reagan was shot by John Hinckley and, according to this movie, none of them were handled terribly well. The Soviets, whose troops are massing on the Polish border in what is expected to be a military invasion to crush the Solidarity movement, suddenly have a screenful of nuclear submarines inching towards the US shores. That may be because inexperienced Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger inadvertently put the military on Def-Con Three. Vice President George Bush can't be reached, he's in the air somewhere but the phones aren't working. The doctors at George Washington can't find the bullet, and then have reason to believe it's lodged near the President's heart. Nobody knows what happened to Reagan's wallet, the wallet with the plastic card that will activate the `football' in case the Alexander Haig led crisis control center decides to respond to those approaching subs. The Russian ambassador can't be reached, either, he left for dinner somewhere, and... well, you get the idea.
   
   I don't watch movies to learn history. Movies compress time, heighten and exaggerate conflict, and do any number of other things to entertain us while distorting The Truth. It's enough that they touch the high and low points, and paint the emotions honestly. THE DAY REAGAN WAS SHOT does that, portraying a numbing series of crises and near-disasters that reach their nadir when Haig tells an anxious and agitated press room full of journalists that "I'm in charge here." Miraculously, President Reagan survived the events of that day. Not surprisingly, Haig was the one to shuffle off the national stage a few months later. Haig's ignorance of the 25th amendment, the one that addresses the issue of succession when a president is incapacitated, wasn't the first time he put his foot into it in front of the country. In 1973 Haig became President Nixon's chief-of-staff following HR Haldeman's resignation during the Watergate scandal. Haig's first major verbal gaffe occurred around that time when he told a congressional investigating committee that a suspicious 18-1/2 minute gap on a Watergate tape might have been made by `sinister forces.' To be fair, Haig may have been making a mordant joke. To be honest, he may not have.
   
   Richard Dreyfuss brings the right amount of brittle intensity to his portrayal of Haig, and seems at time on the brink of a physical or emotional collapse. Richard Crenna, in one of his last roles, is effective as Reagan, even though he spends most of the movie under anesthesia. Crenna's main role is to clue us into Haig's thwarted ambitions ("Cap's my foreign crisis guy. You're my foreign policy guy,") and establish his style ("I'm a big-picture guy") in contrast to Haig's, who, when he hands the President a 2000-page report on foreign policies, is told "Can you narrow that down to one or two pages? Make it one." Crenna looks a bit like Reagan, and a few of the other actors, Leon Pownall as Ed Meese, for instance, look like the character they're portraying, too. Dreyfuss doesn't at all look like Alexander Haig, which was a little disconcerting for a while. Still, he's a capable actor and this is a high-tension docu-drama that seems to hew close to the facts. Strong recommendation.



5. The Day Reagan was Shot is a Great movie. I found myself tearing up as President Reagan (portrayed by Richard Krenna) was wheeled off to surgery--even though we know he survived the attack.
   
   I found myself cheering Alexander Haig (Richard Dreyfus) as he moved to stabilize the White House, and feeling embarrassed for him as his historic, "I am in Control here..." press conference was dissected by the media.
   
   I was somewhat concerned with the fact that Oliver Stone was involved with this movie, as with Hollywood in general being usually hostile to Reagan and Republicans. However much of what was included in the movie seemed to be in line with Secretary Haig's own biography "Caveat, Realism, Reagan and Foreign Policy" Caveat: Realism, Reagan and Foreign Policy that I read several years ago.
   
   While I cannot be sure of the historical accuracy of the entire film, I found a moving film to watch, that made the players involved seem human, but competent in a crisis.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan - The Signature Collection (Knute Rockne All American / Kings Row / The Hasty Heart / Storm Warning / The Winning Team).

1. An excellent choice of Ronald Reagan Films. Especially "Storm Warning" which had never even been released on Video. A very enjoyable collection.



2. I am an old movie buff, will not watch anything rated above a PG rating,
   I love collecting the oldies, have favorite leading stars, Doris Day, Cary Grant, Debbie Reynolds, James Garner, Gary Cooper (the collection now offered does not have of my favorite movies.) Clarke Gable, Audrey Hepburn, Lucille Ball to name a few. Thanks Amazon for being so prompt on your deliveries, and the prices are great.
   I would love to purchase "Magnificient Obsession" w/Jane Wyman and "Bundle of Joy" staring Debbie Reynolds please notify me if these become available. I had been waiting for "The Winning Team to be released so when the package was offered I jumped on it. Thanks again for being so prompt and great prices. Television has gotten to where it is not fit to watch, so I collect old movies for the decency and enjoy watching them. this may not be the kind of review you were looking for but, I just wanted to thank you.
   Barbara Simanovich



3. I own this set and I am very satisfied with it. I had never seen any of
   these wonderful movies and I am very glad that I was able to get this set.
   I am a Ronald Reagan fan (as an actor and politician) and I am pleased to be able to recommend this collection. I consider it a collector's item.



4. I really enjoyed watching these Ronald Reagan films. I hope more of his films will be released on DVD, especially "International Squadron," "Million Dollar Baby," "The Bad Man," and his Brass Bancroft thrillers.



5. Warner does another stand-up job with the Ronald Reagan Signature Collection. Some of these films are well known and a couple of them are not, making it a great collection worthy of a spot in any serious DVD collection.
   
   And -- no Bedtime for Bonzo in sight! (Mainly because it's a Universal title, but this set does a great job in highlighting the former Commander in Chief's Hollywood career).

2 comments about Controversial Classics, Vol. 2 - The Power of Media (All the President's Men / Network / Dog Day Afternoon) (Two-Disc Special Edition).

1. All three of these movies were among the greatest social commentaries of 1970s. They were quintessential in showing us how America lost its innocence; from the corruption in our government to the bastardization of the media to our adoration of scandal. I suppose Sidney Lumet's "Serpico" should have been included in this set too, as that film was the first to record the depth of corruption in the police force, but I have to admit, "Dog Day Afternoon" is a lot more entertaining! All three of these movies are scintillating entertainment on an intellectual scale that Hollywood rarely measures up to anymore. But these films are also great and important in how they foretold the pathetic state that our media is in now (including the lack of investigative journalism in our current printed press). In fact, "All The President's Men" is as politically relevant as ever - the similarities with this administration are very interesting! And WOW! -- all the extras on these discs look phenomenal!! I'm glad I hadn't bought the earlier 'no extras' releases of these films. If you've already bought them buy this set anyway - you know you're gonna watch them hundreds of times!



2. 
   CONTROVERSIAL CLASSICS VOLUME 2: THE POWER OF MEDIA is one of the crown jewel disk boxed sets in my private DVD library. It includes three incendiary masterpieces from the golden age of the 1970's: DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975), NETWORK (1976), and ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (also 1976). All three were Oscar contenders for Best Picture, and all three were winners for Screenplay.
   
   DOG DAY AFTERNOON, directed by Sidney Lumet from a script by Frank Pierson, is so far-fetched that it has to be true. On a hot summer afternoon in 1972 Brooklyn, a nobody named Sonny Wortzik (Oscar nominee Al Pacino) robs a bank to pay for his male lover's (Oscar nominee Chris Sarandon) sex change operation. What should have taken ten minutes ends up becoming an eight hour media event, complete with pizza delivery to the hostages. Lumet took over an entire block in Brooklyn, had the hostages in effect play themselves with improvised dialogue, and worked like an Army commander with a thousand or so extras and stunning second-unit helicopters. The movie has incredible vitality and conviction from Lumet, powerhouse editing by Dede Allen (another Oscar nominee), and another of the great Pacino performances. Bonuses include a vintage featurette on Lumet, brand-new audio commentary by Lumet, and a four-part 30th anniversary featurette. Plus a brand-new remastered print of a great film.
   
   If you thought DOG DAY was looney tunes, get a load at Paddy Chayefsky's audacious Oscar-winning Original Screenplay for another great Sidney Lumet triumph: NETWORK (1976). It is a satire on network television, but so outlandish that virtually everything (except the ending-thank God) has taken place. An unbalanced man (Oscar winner Peter Finch) becomes a media folk hero with super ratings. Oscar winner Faye Dunawaty lives only for ratings-and even discusses them in bed with producer William Holden (at his very best and and an Oscar nominee). Beatrice Straight is electrifying as Holden's wife in one Oscar-winning scene. ("I'm your wife, damn it! And if you can't work up a winter passion for me, the least I ask is respect and allegiance...Are you in love with her? Then say it. SAY IT!") Then the question arises over what to do with Finch's Howard Beale character ("I'm as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!") when his ratings seriously fail. NETWORK is a brilliant satire that is almost reality thirty years later. And the direction, writing, and performances are all flawless. Bonuses here are huge: PRIVATE SCREENINGS: SIDNEY LUMET (2005) from Turner Classic Movies with Robert Osborne, a vintage Paddy Chayefsky interview from "The Dinah Shore Show", a new 90 minute 30th anniversary filmmaking documentary, and a brand-new Lumet audio commentary. Figure on three nights for this baby.
   
   Best of the lot is producer-director Alan Pakula's ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (also 1976), with an Oscar-winning screenplay by William Goldman. Both of them together make the saga of Watergate, the fall of President Richard Nixon, both understandable and gripping. Our heroes are WASHINGTON POST reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman). A huge and wonderful supporting cast includes Oscar-winner Jason Robards as editor Ben Bradlee, Oscar nominee Jane Alexander as The Bookkeeper with some secrets, and Hal Holbrook as the enigmatic Deep Throat who is only glimpsed in shadowy night parking garages. Realism and actual locales help this one a lot. Bonuses on this masterpiece, that should have won Picture and Direction Oscars, include audio commentary by co-producer Robert Redford, a new filmmaking documentary, a documentary on who Deep Throat really was now that we know, a documentary on how Woodward and Bernstein cracked the case, a vintage filmmaking documentary, a vintage chat with Robards on DINAH!, and a gallery of theatrical trailers for other movies in this vein from the late Alan J. Pakula.
   
   CONTROVERSIAL CLASSICS VOLUME 2: THE POWER OF MEDIA will keep you out of trouble for as long as nine nights (!), three per movie if you watch all the bonuses, so only rent it this one boxed set the week you order from Netflicks. It sells on Amazon.com for about $55. It is a sobering lament for an era when movies could be brilliantly written dramas about the media for intellectual adults. DOG DAY AFTERNOON, NETWORK, and ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN are masterpieces in a stupendous boxed set that I cannot recommend highly enough if you have a huge block of time for them. Consider buying them and spending two weeks doing all of the extras and the lenngthy movies leisurely.

5 comments about Oswald's Ghost.

1. I was very disappointed that this film was shown within the American Experience films which I've always regarded as a fine program of historical value. However this film was exceptionally biased especially when it presented its conclusions which had vey little supporting evidence. The producer also spent a lot of time trying to ridicule conspiracy proponents such as the piece on Garrison. It did not explain the single bullet theory (because scientifically it can't be explained) and spent the last 15 minutes presenting its conclusions without presenting opposing views. Another attempt to whitewash history of the Kennedy assassination . How about a film which presents all the evidence and have a detailed scientific analysis of the data such as the autopsy records for Dallas doctors versus DC doctors, physics of the single bullet theory, acoutic evidence of the shooting,. And find someone who could repeat the assassination (shooting duimmies) from the book repository building window in the time sequence in which the assassination occured using the weapon or replica which Oswald was proposed to have used.



2. I am puzzled at the conspiracy nuts boo-hooing that this documentary didn't give the conspiracy advocates a fair forum to proclaim their views. A great number of individuals interviewed for this documentary WERE conspiracy advocates. Where was Gerald Posner, where was Vicent Bugliosi, where was Jim Moore? However Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, Edward Epstein were all heard from again and again and again. So the conspiracy nuts should be tickled pink. But sadly their theories just hold up to the actual facts of this case. Mark Lane boastfully applauds himself now that most Americans agree that there was a conspiracy, but most Americans believe in a conspiracy NOT because of the evidence in support of any such conspiracy but because they've been told there WAS a conspiracy now for forty-five years. None of these conspiracy advocates lay out the evidence to support their claims--they have none. They simply keep repeating the same tired, groundless claims. Lane claims there were five shots, ignoring the fact that we don't have that many bullets, virtually NO ONE in Dealey Plaza agrees with the five-shot scenerio, and the bodies of Connally and Kennedy simply can't account for that many shots. But Lane marches on. Josiah Thompson is still holding on to the theory that four shots came from three different locations--TSBD, stockade fence, Dallas County Records Building, even though Connally COULDN'T have been struck from the Records building in the back since Kennedy was blocking him at the time and virtually NO Dealey Plaza witnesses agree that shots came from more than one location. Additionally, if a shot came from the stockade fence why were all bullet fragments found in FRONT of the president and none behind? The sad truth is that one can either believe in the facts or one can believe in a conspiracy. However NO ONE can believe in both. I choose to believe in the facts--that's why I believe Oswald acted alone.
   
   While this DVD doesn't offer a great deal of new footage, it was neat to see the film footage of Stevenson getting clonked on the head with the placard in Dallas (I'd never seen that before) and it was hilarious seeing that poor Senator trying to make sense out of Jim Garrison's phone number connection between Oswald and Ruby. It was good to see a documentary point out the silly nature of the Garrison charges and refuse to give him any credence.
   
   Generally a fun watch. But if you are a conspiracy nut, I'd stick with Robert Groden's work, you'll feel more at home in his universe.



3. A loathsome, smug, complacent little film. Illogical, trite, arrogant, and quite mistaken.
   
   I try not to be hostile about other people's work, but lying (and it is indeed lying, not simply a different interpretation of the facts) about a national disaster -- lying about a murder -- is not the kind of work to which I extend that respect.



4. Oswald's Ghost is not, on the surface, just another documentary on the assassination of John F. Kennedy seeking to prove one theory or another. Yet while the film ostensibly is not on the whodunit but that question ahs done to us, Oswald's Ghost has a definite bias in it. But even if on disagrees with this interpretation of the facts, there is still something to be watched here.
   
   Director Robert Stone seems to have done his homework. His interviews cover many proponents of both sides of the argument. He also goes a step further to present unseen or rarely seen / heard materials including news clips and the actual Dallas police recordings. Stone also chooses to employ some interesting visual techniques in the film as well. For example there is the whirlpool of Oswald and Warren Commission images at the start of the film, the (apparent) black hole of conspiracy books, and the positive / negative effect on stock footage during the playing of the recording of Perry Russo's sodium pentothal questioning. These make the film visually interesting and watch-able, even if one doesn't agree with the facts as presented.
   
   Thus the film's fault lies in its bias. While Stone does offer the conspiracy theorists plenty of screen time to defend their views and for the most part I'll admit the film is pretty even handed. Yet in the last few minutes of the film, Stone seems convinced that the mystery is solved and has been for nearly forty-five years. The film then proceeds to essentially say that independent researchers (that is to say conspiracy theorists) have led the public on a wild goose chase of truly epic proportions. Stone takes the viewer from a fair-minded look at the how the specter of the Kennedy assassination looms over America to a biased attempt to prove Oswald acted alone in the assassination.
   
   Would the film have been better without this bias? That's hard to say, really. I suspect that one's own opinion on the topic determines how one interprets the film. While one can argue over the factuality of the film, it is visually striking in its presentation as if to shock and awe. At times fair and at times biased, Oswald's Ghost is not for all tastes. But for anyone interested in the assassination, the film should be seen.



5. I am surprised that this program stirred up so much bitterness in some reviewers. I could see very little that was controversial in it - in fact little that was new information. Some of the commentaries were a little confused but the majority of the information has been known by most of the world for forty years now. It is still a mystery so no-one has the real answer. The final idea in what was a relatively balanced program is that Oswald had the ability to kill Kennedy, and acted alone. Personally, I do not believe that. However, in this program evidence from both sides was given, but, in my opinion, ignored at its conclusion. However, most programs with a point to make tend to do that. This one is just a counter to those who believe that there was a conspiracy (that is, more that one person was involved in the assassination). I tend to 'believe' more than one person was involved (in fact, I am convinced) but there is as much evidence one way or the other.
   It is interesting how this topic stirs up antagonistic reactions.
   Oliver Stone is in this program for less that 5 minutes and seems to have caused a reaction far exceeding his influence here.
   However, the program could have been more interesting and enlightening to watch if it was not drowned in noise. The background `music' obliterated most of the dialogue and totally distracted the viewer from actually listening to the arguments posed - I had to strain to listen to the dialogue most of the time. At one stage, a scene which represented someone on a truth drug seemed to imply the producers were on it as well - such was its strangeness.
   This program could have been edifying but was totally spoilt by the production and background sound effects which were appalling. Why producers seemed to think they are needed I have no idea. Perhaps American viewers have become immune to jarring and screaming noises whilst trying to concentrate. This is a pity - because, although much of the material has been known for years, a watchable revamped program on the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination would have been really beneficial. So if you can watch this more than once without wanting to shut the sound off, I congratulate you. Why do they spoil programs like this? It is the dialogue I want to hear not the special sound effects which are totally inappropriate anyway.

5 comments about The Day of the Dolphin.

1. This movie is one of my all time favorites. George C. Scott plays an obsessed director of an aquatic facility which trains dolphins to communicate with humans. It has a good story line and action scenes(for the 70's) right up until the heartwrenching end. This is one of those movies you can't stop thinking about long after you've viewed it.



2. I guess you could say I am a person who likes films that says what if..This one is that a person can teach a dolphin to talk in human language. It is a touching, wonderful, interesting story, about mankind in all its goodness and other full of greed and explotation of anything to make a the almighty buck.



3. When I wrote this review they had a different photo of the DVD depicting a female with her midriff showing but mine was just George and the dolphins on the right and a very slim picture of a private airplane in flight, and guys shooting into the water and a boat explosion below that on the left (hard to really tell what they were unless you saw the movie). Now it is the same one. I had checked by putting in the UPC code and this came up. Mine has a copyright date of 2005 instead of 2006, though, and mine has the extra features: Interviews with screenwriter Buck Henry and co-stars Leslie Charleson and Edward Herrman, The World's Most Amazing Dolphin Trivia Gallery and Dolphin Bios. I think the features are probably in the DVD on this page too - just not listed here. I thought I had to purchase the one with the "sexier" front cover but received the more modest one -- I didn't buy it from Amazon.
   
   I have loved this movie for years. They used to advertise this movie in the 80's on KBHK-TV Ch 44 San Francisco, CA, with the music from Saint-Saens Aquarium but that music is not in the movie / soundtrack.



4. Ever seen a political thriller that employs dolphins as potential assassins? Why the heck not? As a curiosity, it's hard to beat "The Day of the Dolphin." Bringing together a bizarre amalgamation of talent-- this 1973 film stars George C. Scott (a few years after his Oscar for "Patton"), was written by Buck Henry (known mostly for comedy), and was directed by Mike Nichols (yes, that Mike Nichols)! Nichols has done everything from "The Graduate" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" through to the more current "Closer" and "Angels in America"--and this bit of sci-fi seems at odds with most of his resume. Curiously, though, he took "Dolphin" over from Roman Polanski (Polanski dropped out when his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family). Heck, the backstory alone is cause enough to check out this picture!
   
   Telling the story of a dolphin research facility, Scott plays its leader. Financed by a large corporation, their work is largely unknown even by their sponsors. They have been working on communication techniques and their unorthodox secrecy starts to raise various suspicions. Paul Sorvino, as a mysterious intruder, starts to poke around menacingly and all that is of value to Scott and his team is threatened. Publicly revealing the truth behind their experiments to their bosses, they now find themselves pawns in a larger scheme. It's hard to determine who to trust as potential allies are shown to be villains and vice versa. And caught in the middle are the dolphins who are to be exploited as bomb carrying assassins.
   
   While, in truth, "The Day of the Dolphin" advertises itself as a political thriller with a sci-fi component--I think you'd be better off going into the film knowing nothing about it. But it seems unlikely that anyone could do that. The film's plot is used to sell the picture, so any potential surprises are given away in its marketing. The assassination scheme doesn't manifest itself until the second half of the film and might have made a great twist, but, as is, it's actually something that the audience is anticipating. While the political element is prominently advertised, it is quite vaguely defined and relatively superfluous. "The Day of the Dolphin" works best as sci-fi. Not sci-fi as in aliens and different worlds--but in its truest sense, Science employed as Fiction. The research done with the dolphins incorporates reality and fantasy in a nice combination, and works because it is understated. "Dolphin" also shows man's influence over nature (both good and bad) and how our need for technological superiority can lead to unforeseen and harmful consequences. The dolphins trust that man is their friend, but that friendship is something that can ultimately be used for evil. This ends up being largely a relationship piece, and as odd as it might sound--the central relationship is between Scott and a dolphin.
   
   Sorvino and Scott are both quite good and carry the weight of the film. And if the idea of seeing George C. Scott running around in very short shorts drives you insane with lust, then that's an added bonus. Overall an interesting film, if not a great one. Recommended because it works--but it's also something of an oddity! Just don't expect the rousing adventure the DVD cover might promise you, this is more quietly intriguing. KGHarris, 04/07.



5. This is a great thriller & one of my husband's favorites.

5 comments about Death of a President (Widescreen).

1. Man oh man, what film were most of these other reviewers watching?
   The one I saw was quite amateurish and plodding, apart from the semi-controversial subject matter. By the way, regarding the contrived furor over this borefest, whatever happened to free speech? An American or any artist can only use his imagination if it pleases the ruling elite? Nice democracy in action there. We're fighting wars for this sort of freedom?
   There are so many holes in this film it's almost a comedy. The biggest is that in the demonstration scenes, the cops all have clubs, but most have no guns. Hello? This isn't Britain (though the Chicago scenes looked mostly like poorly-disguised London streets), this is the Gun Porn Capitol of the world, the USA. All cops have guns here, and plenty of 'em. Look at the next demonstration you see (not that there are many anymore, most folks are too scared of missing American Idol to actually use any of their civil rights): cops covered with guns and swat gear and in general reinforcing the notion of a police state. In this film the cops are NOT like any American cops I've seen when in large numbers.
   Then there's the matter of the almost unflagging praise of Bush, with little satire involved. In the end, this flick makes the case for W as a good, honest man and a decent President. So at least it is fictional, but as one other reviewer noted, it kind of feels like it was made BY the US false flag experts in our secret service propaganda apparatchik. It does NOT feel like a liberal, anti-Bush movie at all.
   Our government is very familiar with false flag operations (just look up Operation Northwoods, and connect the dots to more recent events which have let the Patriot Act and other anti-Constitutional powers be handed over to the ever-growing police force here). Looked at objectively, that's what this ends up feeling like. A British tv film (our biggest war allies) full of real footage that fits a little too well, time and again.
   At no point does DOAP make killing Bush seem wise; just the opposite.
   The basic message of this so-called anti-American movie is that it could be a lot worse here, so don't rock the boat. Demonstrators are not democratic, they're ruffians and thugs, and police should deal with them appropriately. Even Cheney comes off looking noble and as if he cares about anyone outside of his war-profiteer mafia.
   Bottom line: nothing controversial here, or even worth watching. It's just a boring, poorly-made movie. The Manchurian Candidate (either one) would be a much better use of your time.



2. Possibly no man is so universally regarded as the strongest contender in the Worst President Awards than George W. Bush. I know I certainly would nominate him. He and his administration exploited the worst tragedy in our nation's history to push their own dreams of war with Iraq, tremendous gas prices for us (generating enormous profit for them), undermining our civil liberties and sacrificing so much precious human life in the process.
   
   And yet, as one who considers myself a very liberal Democrat and card-carrying Anti-Bushie, this film made me cry. Make no mistake: I would never want to see Bush assassinated, his horrific transgressions notwithstanding. Karma is a very real thing, and the amount of negative karma the man has accumulated will be punishment enough for him.
   
   Now, of course, I don't need to tell you that DEATH OF A PRESIDENT is a fictional documentary about the fictional assassination of The Decider (and Darth Cheney's subsequent reign of terror.) What is amazing about the film is how emotional every last second of it is.
   
   The suspects include an anti-war protestor, A Yemenese-American, an Iraq war vet struggling with drugs and unemployment, the vet's father who is embittered by his other son's death in Iraq, and a Syrian immigrant office worker working in a building adjacent to the location of the assassination.
   
   No prizes for guessing which one Cheney decides to pin the rap on and subsequently convict. At least he doesn't rip the dude's head off and drink his blood, as he did with so many innocent chickens on LIL' BUSH.
   
   No Michael Moore documentary could have stirred up more outrage the a film about the assassination of a sitting President, however unpopular. Even Hillary Clinton denounced the film. The overwhelming majority of this criticsm was sight unseen, and that's no surprise, but this is not a movie made to express a desire to kill Bush, or even one that portrays him in a particularly unfavorable light (although, from the DVD special features, I gather that the filmmakers aren't fans of his themselves.)
   
   Indeed, it seems to be more of a warning against such a tactic to unseat such a despicable leader. We may not like our President (actually, scratch that - We DEFINITELY don't like our President), but violence can do nothing but breed more violence, as the Iraq war has shown.
   
   But in the end, the most likable and sympathatic character in the film is the young Iraq war veteran. Having lost his own brother in the war, being disillusioned over the reasons for the war, and seen his father crumble like a house of cards at the death of his son, he tries to put the past behind him and make a new life in Chicago, the location of the assassination.
   
   In many ways, he represents the entire country living under the rule of The Bush Administration: Wanting nothing more than to live his life in peace, the Administration's foreign and domestic policies catalyze a war that will forever alter his life, and not for the better.
   
   DEATH OF A PRESIDENT is a well-made, often highly emotional film comibing a suspenseful politcal murder mystery with a retrospective-documentary and featuring at it's center, the heart-breaking story of a man pushed over the edge.



3. This is one of those movies so brilliant in its conception, so smart and skillful in its execution (pardon the pun), and so disturbing in its implications that any intelligent American who isn't bogged down in political ideology should take a look at it... This is not a film that bashes Bush -- it's a piece of art that contemplates the hyper-violent society we live in and the implications of the angry, increasingly gun-obsessed nation we've become. Remember, folks, ideas aren't dangerous -- only people are -- so give this a chance.



4. The fictional "Death of a President" (2006) has more plausibility and resonance a year after its initial release. Despite the occasional heavy-handedness of his fauxumentary approach, director/co-writer Gabriel Range reveals some provocative truths about America and its reaction to a hypothetical assassination. Now that the controversy and critical brickbats have died down, this flawed but fascinating film can be seen in a more objective light.



5. My initial impression regarding this film was that it is some sort of political propaganda, but after finishing it I have discovered that I was wrong. What this film is really about is how our world has changed after 9/11. Although there are no overt statements being made, the general tone of the film is that these changes have not been for the better. I believe that the intent was to show how we are heading down a slippery slope, and that it would take very little in order to push us over the edge.

3 comments about Lincoln and Lee at Antietam: The Cost of Freedom.

1. Lincoln and Lee at Antietam covers the entire struggle of the Antietam Campaign. The political concept about why Lincoln needed a Union victory and Lee's need to take the war north were covered as well as the battle. With various interviews featuring historians such as James McPherson, this documentary is very well done. The battle coverage is brief and not entirely descriptive although it includes reenactment scenes from the 125th, 135th and 140th Antietam Reenactments. A majority of the footage and photography is excellent as it shows the beauty of the Maryland landscape around Antietam. Some of the film really points out General McClellan's "slow-to-react" method of dealing with Lee's invasion and how he missed a multiple of opportunities to really whip Lee during this campaign.
   
   Being a reenactor, covering a battle in detail in under two hours is nearly impossible. Naturally I would like to see more. I did enjoy the political views shown on both sides be it Union or Confederate. It showcased the importance of how crucial this conflict was to each party. It presented the facts about what could be gained and lost for both armies and governments that I liked.
   
   For a veteran reenactor or student of the battle of Antietam, a majority of this presentation is fairly basic and might be too standard although McPherson's explanation about why Antietam was politically important for Lincoln is something most people could learn about in this great presentation.



2. I bought this for my husband who loves anything Civil War related. I read the reviews and seemed to be well received. It was excellent. We both thought it was very well done. I highly reccomend it!



3. This is one of the best movie / documentaries i have ever seen on the battle of Sharpsburg. mostly historians are telling the story, But tell it in a very detailed very informative and compelling way. This is a winner.

5 comments about Thirteen Days (Infinifilm Edition).

1. A well researched, gripping tale of the Cuban Missile Crisis told from the American viewpoint.



2. This movie portrays the events in the white house during the cuban missile crisis. Excellent acting. Captivating even though we know how it plays out. If half the portrayal of JFK's actions and words is accurate I tip my hat to him for standing up to the military and saving a lot of lives.



3. The Bahston accents are atrocious. The facts are changed. The historical roles inflated. Still, this isn't a documentary. It's a drama, and as such, it's pretty good. The script is relatively intelligent, and although it drops into melodrama in the family scenes of Kenny O'Donnell, it's better than the reviews would indicate. Well worth a rent. Just don't let the kids think this is how it really happened.



4. Historical and New England accent accuracies aside, this was a fabulous cinematic endeavor. I'm no Kennedy fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I am now a Roger Donaldson fan, so put that in your piece pipe and smoke it. Gripping drama. Check it.



5. This movie presents just a half of the truth. Ussual american way to present political events - cut arguments and facts of the supposed enemy.
   
   Facts that weren't presented
   
   1962
   
   USA - 6000 of nuclear warheads.
   USSR - 300 of nuclear warheads.
   
   As you can see USSR had just 5% of American nuclear arsenal.
   
   In 1960 USA placed american middle range nuclear Missiles in Turkey. To answer this, USSR was forced to send Missiles to CUBA. After Cuban crisis, american Missiles from Turkey and soviet Missiles from Cuba were withdrawn.
   
   There is only one explanation for Cuban Missiles Crisis - do not do any harm for anyone and you will not get harm in exchange.
   
   American propaganda machine is alive and functioning. 300 billion of american citizens in USA have no idea about real events. Everybody just belive that that damn Russians had put Missiles to Cuba just to destroy America. Bloodthirsty russians just wanted to destroy America. Just wanted KILL THE FREEDOM. Just wanted KILL THE DEMOCRACY.
   
   Good explanation. Primitive minds always easily accept such explanations.
   
   You're really crasy if you belive that everyone wants just to destroy you for no reason. Guess what - evryone just want to survive when you attack them.
   
   1 million dead in IRAQ. 5 million REFUGIES. America is the best weapon of mass desstruction in the world.
   
   This is not only one event wrongly prsented by American propaganda machine. Nobody in Western world does not know how USSR supported eastern europe after the war. Millions of tons of food and supplyes were sent to Eastern Europe in attempt to avoid hunger and unessary deaths of native population.
   
   Everyone knows about Marshall plan, but IT WAS TO LATE AND TO SMALL. No body knows how Stalin, despite hunger in Russia was sending a lot of food to Hungary and Chehoslovakia. (When Russia stoped sending food and coal to these countries they just revolted)
   
   Guess what is going to happend with eastern Europe when America runs out of money because of economic depression? You think they are your friends? Get real, they are your friends untill you sending them MONEY! Poland not long ago asked 20 billions dollars from Bush for army modernization. If Bush will say NO, Putin will say YES!
   
   Russians and Americans! Do not be fooled by propaganda from either side. Learn real facts of history or you will defenetly see how history repeats itself before your eyes.