5 comments about Tremors.

1. For me, the word "classic" means a movie that has stood the test of time. I believe "Tremors" has stood the test of time. I still enjoy putting it on now and again.



2. This movie is a classic!!! My favorite memory was renting this film when I was 12 and watching it 8 times in a row with my friend. I will never get tired of this movie. Every time its on TV I have to watch it. If you have never seen this film Kevin Bacon is at his best when he is saving people from giant man-eating worms.



3. Yep it's daybreak and the Garboids want to have Kevin Bacon for breakfast. Then suck down some sheep like you would suck an egg. These creatures will worm their way into your hart and wrap their way around your axle.
   This is a fun movie with all the standard horror elements including lots of "don't move", and one element that was not expected "Reba McEntire" with a huge gun. This movie is worth re-watching.



4. I liked this movie.
   Why?
   Its fun, it's stupid, it's easy to watch as long as you put your brain on pause.
   The acting is laughably bad; everything about this movie is bad.
   So bad it's good.
   And I think that's the kind of monster movie they set out to make.
   Brilliantly horrid.
   Tremors is a great way to kill an evening if you're just looking for a campy monster movie that doesn't require you to think.
   I recommend a rental.



5. This film has been around for some time and there are probably quite a number of previous reviews. I rated the film as 5 stars because of the humor, the quality of the special effects at the time and the chemistry between the characters portrayed by Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward. As subterranean monsters strike from underground, somehow the responsibility of saving the residents of the small town falls on these two country-boy handymen. Their attempts to leave the small community for better opportunities elsewhere are thwarted by the activities of the monsters. The addition of a suvivalist couple, played to the hilt by Michael Gross and Reba McEntire, takes the humor over the top. The battle for survival includes the use of a riding lawnmower, a bulldozer, the survivalist's home made bombs and the concept of "stampede." A very entertaining film, which I watch over and over again.

5 comments about The Outer Limits: The Architects of Fear.

1. The most memorable, disturbing thing I saw on television as a child. My mother watched it with me when I was eight years old, and she named the monster "Turkey Legs." She hated that episode and I was forbidden to ever watch it again. That made me want to see it again even more. The best thing Robert Culp ever did, by far.



2. This was the episode used for T.V. advertisements when OL first aired, and it was a good choice. The commercial showed two hunters out with their dog, getting the scare of their life when the reeds part first to reveal an alien hand with a ray-gun that destroys their station wagon, and then the hideous face of the thing that fired it, all accompanied by OL's eeriest music.

   Of course, by today's standards, the "alien" is pretty obviously Janos Prohaska in a papier mache monster suit on stilts. It gets seen far too much in the episode to be believable. But, as papier mache monsters on stilts go, it's actually not that bad.

   What makes this episode work are the story and the characters. Robert Culp, in the first of his three appearances in the series, draws short straw at the government think-tank on the day they're deciding who gets to play Evil E.T. - for real. Unfortunate, for him. He has a solid marriage, and a baby on the way. (You'd think a bunch of guys trying to make a monster to scare the world into unity might've taken that into account, before deciding who would even draw the straws.) Wife Geraldine Brooks has a strong psychic connection with Culp, and can't believe he's really dead after said government goons fake his death in order to keep Culp out of public view. The best-laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley, however, and rather than make a hostile world a better place, the government goons instead only destroy one of the few beautiful things in it.

   Astute viewers will recognize this plot hinted at by Ronald Reagan twenty years later, when he stated in one of his speeches how much easier his and Gorbachev's roles in the world would be if only Earth were threatened by an outer space menace.

   Keep telling yourself, "It's only a cheap 1960s T.V. show..."




3. this episode more than any other sticks out in my mind when i think of the outer limits. its a moving story, one that gets you caught up in feelings for the main character and is very memorable. if you want to experience what this show was about, the limits that is, this episode is the epitome in my opinion. but really, how can you go wrong with ANY of them??



4. Where do I start?

   This has got to be one of the strangest, creepiest TV episodes I have ever seen. Robert Culp is the lead actor. He plays a government scientist that has been chosen by lot to be transformed surgically into an alien. Why? Well, the goodguys decide that a nuclear war is eminent and believe that if an alien would land from space at the UN, the world's nations would come together to fight a common cause and put their animosity against each other on the back burner, thus saying everyone from war. The process of being turned into an alien and all types of operations procedures take up more then half of the episode. The 1st half is the strongest part of the 52 minutes. The plot actually kept your interest (even though it was moronic) and just the concept of going through an operation to become an alien is very bizarre/creepy. Then...it all falls apart, or shall I say, "it all unravels" at the end. Alien Culp (after being shot up into space) does not land at the UN, but at the same place he started!!! Then his annoying wife (a Joan Crawford wannabe) gets a hot flash and runs back to the "top secret" base because she just has that premonition that her hubby is still alive and is there. The end is a big letdown. What started out as possibly the best Outer Limits episode ends with a THUD. The show would get 1 star from me if it wasn't for the 1st half hour. The plot is moronic and the plot holes are MASSIVE (such as, why not use the real alien that Culp was made of a copy of or where the [heck] did they get the alien?).

   thank you for your time, David




5. This is the third and is one of the best episodes in the series, because while keeping the strange atmosphere of the series, it also managed to incorporate a love story into it.
   
   A group of people in a secret organization decide that mankind is on the verge of another World War. They feel that a good way of uniting everyone would be to introduce a common enemy that all of mankind will fear. In this way, they feel that men will work together when they are scared and will get used to it even after they destroy the enemy. So the group members select a volunteer, Allen Leighton (played by Robert Culp), to transform him into the alien creature. Leighton agrees, putting his life and his family values aside. Even though he loves his wife Yvette (Geraldine Brooks), he does not speak to her about the matter. One day she hears about his `death', and is heartbroken with the news, but she still feels that he is alive. Meanwhile, the members of the organization perform tests on Allen to transform him into the creature, which is successful. However, their plans go amiss when the alien is transported to the wrong destination.
   
   Even though this episode starts off in an eerie way, you can't help but feel sorry for Allen and Yvette in the end. It just goes to show you that you cannot make something better by doing something worse. Robert Culp and the gorgeous Geraldine Brooks acted flawlessly and stole the show in this episode.
   
   To quote Vic Perrin (The Control Voice): "Scarecrows and magic and other fatal fears do not bring people closer together. There is no magic substitute for soft caring and hard work, for self respect and mutual love."

5 comments about Cube.

1. I believe that CUBE has a deeper meaning than just inacting how humans react in extreme situations.
   
   To state the conclusion first :
   Cube is a film about language and structure that humans are forever bound to.
   
   In CUBE, there are 26 x 26 x 26 cubes in the entire structure. This represents the 26 alphabet letters and their combinations. The characters wake up in the vast structure of CUBE, just as humans wake up to a world of language, symbols, and meanings attached to the symbols. When humans wake up to the reality (when you begin to have a sense of self and existence) this happens within the scope of language. When we are born we start our lives by recognizing the image of "mother." Then we recognize "self."
   
   CUBE represents the dimension of language. French psycoanalyst Jacques Lacan suggested that the subject is permeated by language. In the movie, Decart's coordinates are mentioned as a key to figure out the position of the cubes. We all know Decart's famous saying: "I think, therefore I exist." The mentioning of Decart may suggest the message that our existance is defined by language by which we think. Conversely, Lacan suggested that thinking and existing are not compatible, because to think means to follow the structure of language into which we were born. Because our own identities are only definable when we are free of the identity of symbols that restrict us, we can never exist as a self with language.
   
   This goes along with the meaning of CUBE. The struggles of the characters are struggles to find their way out of the claws of the world of symbols that define them. And because they cannot exist out of the structures of language, no one manages to exit CUBE through the 27 th room (the unexisting 27 th letter in the English alphabet) except Kazan, the only person free from language. (Perhaps because he does not have the ability to grasp language as the others do)
   
   The first person to be killed (the person who never meets any others, wanders into another room and is meshed into cubes) possibly represents a priest. The absence of the representation of any spiritual leaders among the six people who manage to gather and the overall appearance of the meshed man suggests that he is a priest, possibly Christian or Catholic. The fact that he is the first to be killed suggests that he is the first victim of language and that he is forever bound by it, never doubting its existance or authenticity. This is only possible because Christianity is bound by language, depending on written and spoken sermons to convey important messages.
   
   In CUBE, different cubes move about each other. This represents different symbols leading to other symbols and other meanings. Some people wander from one symbol to the next. Some are killed during their effort while some manage to return to their original position. From when we were born we had not needed to follow symbols and learn language because our existance lies eleswhere. In CUBE, when Leaven, Worth, and Kazan finally return to the cube they started on, Worth loses the will to escape. This symbolizes his fright of leaving the structure of language that defines his identity and existance. Or may be he just realized that the world out there is just as same, regulated by certain structures that he cannot escape from even at death.
   
   The final scenes in which Quentin stakes Leaven and Worth symbolizes the symbol "S" perforated by a "/" which represents Lacan's theory that the subject is permeated by language. The 27 th room, like the 27 th letter in the alphabet that does not exist, is even harder to escape, save Kazan who I doubt knew how many letters the alphabet has.
   
   I really like this movie and the deep meaning that lies behind it. I think that the meaning may differ from my guess, but still, this is the way I interpreted the film. This is only a subjective analysis, and I wanted to share this with other people. I haven't looked, so I don't know if other people think the same way or not.



2. "Cube" isn't one of the highest budget movies. The whole thing pretty much takes place in a cube-shaped room... attached to other, identical cube-shaped rooms. No major names. Pretty simple plot.
   
   But I really never get tired of watching it. It's one of those movies you can put on when you're not really sure what you want to watch and always know you'll have a good time. (Fortress is another of those movies I enjoy - kinda cheesy, but lots of fun.)
   
   The idea is, basically, that a seemingly random group of people wake up in this booby-trapped cube. The story is them working out how to escape and figuring out why they're in there to begin with.
   
   Simple, kind of strange, but very cool. It gets better when you see Cube 2 - Hypercube and Cube Zero because those start fleshing out the Cube "universe" - why people might show up in the cube, etc. All three are great, but you have to see the original first.



3. This movie is definately one to check out. It shows how certain situations with certain types of characteristics of the human can change an outcome. Not knowing the outcome, this movie keeps you intrigued to the very end.



4. While the characters at first seem stereotyped and boring, the audience quickly sees the pattern of dynamicism. It keeps you interested, and is acted quite well. Though obviously not a high-budget movie, it's far better than many that are. Would recommend to anyone who likes thrillers.



5. "What a nightmare" my friend said after we watched "Cube" the first time a few years back. Got that right. If you haven't seen this movie yet and enjoy being horrified and held in extended periods of suspense you are in for a wonderful time.
   
   I just typed out a paragraph describing the plot and setting of the movie, but nevermind. If you haven't seen it yet, it's best if you go in knowing nothing.

2 comments about Not Like Us.

1. Disgusting little film about 2 aliens who skin human beings in order to walk among us unseen. The movie beautifully introduces the characters and the ol' boring town 'Tranquility' where all those strange killings take place. The 2 characters Anita Clark (Joanna Pacula) & her husband Sam (Peter Onorati) suspect what's underneath the newcomers' skin could be deadly!
   Below average: Produced by schlock meister Roger Corman.



2. I first watched this on ShowtimeBeyond around 10:00 p.m. on a Saturday night thinking I will love this since I saw it at a grocery store back in 1997,I was too young to rent it so I waited 10 years to watch it and I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so f*ckin'awesome filled with a good sense of dark humor,nudity(I love Rainer Grant),and a 1950s feel to it,it even seems like an homage to Roger Corman's 1957 Not of this Earth at times. New people move to a small California town to kill people to take the skin off them to find the perfect type-ab blood,since their aliens from outer space. This movie is a very darkly humorous movie that's sometimes gory but the performances by Rainer Grant and Morgan Englund,the aliens, are very funny to watch. I recommend people see this film

4 comments about Outer Limits: Specimen Unknown.

1. Specimen:Unknown may have been the highest rated episode of The Outer Limits, but it is easily the worst episode ever produced. The overlong teaser gives away that the spores are lethal, and if you were fortunate not to see it, the opening sequence reveals the same thing. Further along, when ground control finds out about the lethal plants, they stupidly let the shuttle land, giving the plants an opportunity to spread and possibly kill millions because they listen to the wife of one of the astronauts on board instead of listening to the astronaut. this is one video you should get only if you want the complete Outer Limits on video. Otherwise, forget about buying it.



2. The Official Companion reports that this episode ran undertime so was padded out painstakingly. This padding is noticable in the prologue and the set-up of a spaceship invaded by hitherto dormant space spores who grow into plants which emit lethal vapour. While we aren't shown how the spores managed to get inside the spaceship (one isn't likely to leave the ship door open) the naivety in which they are treated is the real surprise, probably influenced by how pretty they are and what attractive decor they make pre-vapour emittance. The spores resemble mushroom-shaped muffins, and the plants have cobra-like stems and large white petals. When a young Dabney Coleman as a botanist moves his face in for a closer inspection, we know what to expect. This episode was broadcast just after the release of the The Day of the Triffids film and the similarity (and solution to the problem) is evident, though these plants are passive-aggressive. Director Gerd Oswald provides enough suspense however to make this engaging viewing. Once the Earth base has to decide whether to allow the infected-shuttle to land or to be destroyed, the tension begins, aided by composer Dominic Frontiere's use of twittery strings to suggest both alien life and the rapid maturing of the spores into flowers with deadly stigma. This moment of decision is performed like a silent movie. Although the repair of a servomechanism of the shuttle was filmed in slow-mo to add time, the acrobatics are remarkeable, and the image of a bound corpse (the first victim of the vapour) buried in space evocatively gothic. Gail Kobe, who would later be in Keeper of the Purple Twilight, appears as the wife of one of the shuttle crew, and the only female in the cast. I suppose Oswald thought that her being in peril is more potent for the audience than the space shuttle rabbit. I rate this episode highly cos this time around, the "bear" is so feminine.



3. The plot and the ending bear too much similarity to Day of the Triffids. If you have seen that movie, you will not need to see this video. The decision to allow the spaceship, with its deadly infectious cargo, to land on Earth is a stupid decision - which would not occur in a real situation.



4. This episode is neither as bad nor as good as other reviewers hype it up to be. It's a decent middle-of-the-road OL. Highly padded (by virtue of the overlong teaser, which is repeated verbatim in the episode), suffering from really cheap effects, but a decent enough story competently enough presented.

   It's the Andromeda Strain, with space barnacles in place of a killer virus. The barnacles grow anywhere, reproduce like kudzu, and exhale a highly toxic gas in the process. The astronauts who discover them don't realize until too late that they are bringing a deadly organism back with them, and the government has one helluva problem on its hands.

   The performances are good, and so is the suspense. The effects are pretty cheesy. The production team was badly strapped when this one was shot, but they did a creditable job of making-do in spite of it.

   Not a front-runner episode in anyone's book, but enjoyable enough if you like this kind of thing.

5 comments about Star Trek - Nemesis.

1. The Good Things
   *Lots of cool action and special effects.
   *Very different filming style. Much more vivid and interesting use of colors and camera angles. Also a bit darker and more dramatic.
   *Storyline is interesting. It's cool to finally see the Romulans in a film.
   *Characters are smashing. There are lots of paralells involved; Picard vs his clone, Data vs B-4 (his clone), Troi vs that ugly alien, Riker vs the same ugly alien, and so on. Duality is the key point, and it makes for some very interesting interactions and dialogue.
   *Writing is good. Not so much comedy, but definately lots of drama.
   *As mentioned above, strong themes of duality.
   *Okay music.
   
   The Bad Things
   *The ending is a little dissapointing. Data is dead, the Enterprise is destroyed again, and everybody moves onto different paths. It almost warrents a whole new Star Trek TV series.
   
   The Questionable Things
   *It's almost too different. Definately a strange departure from previous films.
   
   I didn't really like this one at first, but I'll be darned if it didn't grow on me. The action and special effects are very slick and cool. Above all, there are a lot of interesting issues involving duality between the characters, with the Romulans, and overall light and dark. It's dark and deep, but also a little too dreary and different. Still, it's very interesting and entertaining.
   
   The one-disc version had good video and sound quality, and had some deleted scenes and featurettes. The two-disc version has good quality still, some of the same extras, plus additional featurettes.



2. My apologies up front, but my review of this film, and reaction to some of the other reviews present, is more personal and less detached than reviews of this type usually should be. But where Star Trek is concerned, my opinions are more emotional, and even deeply more personal than usual for TV and film subject matter. If this will derail you, read no further.
   After watching so many people regurgitate their semi-informed views on the state of Trek and recent projects, and this film in particular, I have abandoned my "to each their own" stance on the subject, and will have my say.
   Another reviewer writes: "I'm simply amazed at how many Star Trek fans abhor this movie! I guess I'm not enough of a Trekkie to understand the hatred, though I have been a fan since the 1970's."
   I was thinking the opposite. I myself have been a fan since the '70's. I believe that makes people like us "real" fans, and provides sufficient credentials to have an opinion. At first I also wondered why so many bad reviews. Then, I realized, in settings like this, you are not seeing the opinions of Star Trek fans. You are getting the opinions of "a majority of the people." Big difference. Star Trek never was truly appreciated by a majority of the people. A majority of the people apparently thought the original series should be cancelled....
   Asking people who probably did not truly "get" Trek, and what made it work to begin with, to rate which movie is the best, is like asking my mom and dad (children of the 50's) if Iron Maiden is a great band, and just taking their word for it. Not the proper audience.
   You have people that are too young to appreciate the original, and wish it were more like Babylon 5, or folks that think Sci-Fi should run like a reality show. But, I digress....
   Nemesis is, along with Star Trek II, probably one of the best of all Trek films. (As a true cinematic artwork, and excellent overall expression of the "Great Bird" 's original concept for ST without the limitations of weekly serial TV, Star Trek: The Motion Picture tops them all, and has not been surpassed. But, it lacked the sting of battle, heat of conflict, and the shrill squeal of phaser fire that fans craved.) Like Star Trek II, Nemesis has its share of flaws and inconsistencies, but like STII these are out shined by the action, drama, and spirit of adventure. These were seriously lacking in TNG episodes and films, and this final TNG piece seems to have been given a major transfusion of TOS blood. Ironic that yet again, when Paramount finally gets it right, they again nip it off at the bud because box office returns weren't exactly what they wanted, after trying this exact formula with newer TNG cast a total of ONE time. Those of us long suffering fans have come to expect nothing less from them. If it is time to let Star Trek be, it is not because its potential is gone, it is because those to whom the reigns have passed do not know how to utilize it creatively, and refuse to listen to the people who really watch it loyally: Longtime Fans. Not the "bloggers" online that tune in now and then when taking a break from World of War Craft, or there is nothing good on Sci-Fi Channel. I hate to say it, but: If you don't like this film, you probably just don't like Star Trek anyway, and should just go watch your old episodes of "Earth2", and leave this fine film, and its fans in peace.



3. What a sad, depressing way to pretty much end an amazing franchise, Star Trek Nemesis, the tenth film in the series, finally ended the Trekkie theory that every even numbered movie was colossal while the odds were medicore at best. The early 2000's weren't a good time for the franchise, with ST:Voyager ending it's run less than a year earlier and leaving ST:Enterprise alone and not doing a good job ratings or storywise. This was the third solo Next Generation film (not counting '94's Generations which was old with new casts), and the appeal was stating to really, really wear thin.
   
   Once again the Next Gen crew are sent on a typical mission (much like the previous film, the "hippie-like" Insurrection) to speak to a missionary representative of a subrace of the Romulans known as the Remans, who look nothing like them with their white disfigured bat-like faces. But when Captain Picard and crew get there, they find out their new leader is actually a twenty-something clone of the Captain known as Shinzon. He says all he wants is peace between the three parties, but of course in true Star Trek fashion his real mission is to destroy the Romulan Empire, the Federation, and his dopperganger Picard himself.
   
   Sure, the special effects are up to typical Star Trek fashion but that's all they reach, which is typical. Not much new is going on here except for an out-of-place, land based, dune-buggy race (in Star Trek?) and many endings/beginning of the ST:TNG storyline. After a twenty year courtship, Riker and Troi are getting married and leaving the Enterprise (with Riker getting his own command), and Data discovers another android like him, though not as intelligent, that he refers to as his brother known as B-4....get it, "before"....all while glossing over the fact that Data's had a brother before in the series known as Lore that this movie completely ignores.
   
   I think that cast and crew knew when making this film that the franchise truly had dried up at this point. There just wasn't much more to do with this crew and it shows all around. While die-hard Trekkies will find this entertaining, this was not the way they should have ended it. Tom Hardy as the younger Picard clone does look & sound alot like Patrick Stewart (minus a much larger upper-lip), but as a main villain he has no spark or appeal like ones in the past and Sci-Fi favorite Ron Perlman as his viceroy doesn't make things any better. And in true desperate writing fashion, one important main cast member dies, though like Spock earlier yet alot easier, could come back just like nothing ever happened.
   
   As for the Paramount 2 Disc Special Edition, like the others it's filled with amazing CGI menus, detailed behind-the-scenes footage, and tons of extras, but after seeing the film realizing that it didn't work as well as Picard and crew are now forever in drydock, you might not want to see them to know more of what went wrong. Though, even if you're a somewhat Star Trek or Sci-Fi fan, you'll should see this to know how it all ends, but don't expect a great warp into the sunset like Shatner's cast did in Part Six. Seeing Nemesis, it will probably explain to you why it's taking seven years to make another film, plus being a reboot going back to the Original Series storyline instead of continuing this one. But you never know in the world of Star Trek, maybe in the future we'll see Picard, Riker, and Data again....yes, even that third guy.
   (RedSabbath Rating:7.5/10)



4. First, let me state I dislike about two thirds of the classic, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise content out there. Still, I'll watch them, because scene to scene they have their moments and there are some very stellar (no pun intended) episodes scattered throughout.
   
   Next, I want to dis this film for some legitimate reasons. To have Wil Weaton in the reception scene sitting next to his mom and then not use him in any other part of the film was ridiculous.
   
   Also, considering Tasha Yar's daughter is Romulan, it seems rather idiotic not to have included her as one of the Romulan commanders we encounter later in the film. Since this is the final "future" Trek film, that would have been extremely fitting.
   
   The scene with Data and Picard in his Ready Room drinking wine and speaking of human ritual & bonds (I think that's what it was, it's been a while) should not have been cut. It's essential for both showing the audience more of the friendship between those two, the significant of the Chateau Picard wine toasted later in the film, and the poignancy of Data's sacrifice. That cut was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the film's arc. Forget the "tempo", "momentum", or "rhythm" of the film. We're not talking action scenes, here.
   
   The bat imagery and inspiration was a bit, how do I put this mildly, overt. No, that's too kind. It was beating me over the head with a big, dead, stinky bat, like some junior high student short story's grand creative stroke. Less is more, folks.
   
   Finally, my biggest issue in the film, and one I probably let get in the way of my enjoyment of it, was the whole WMD, terrorism, and pro-Iraq invasion slant I perceived. Now, the virgin terrorist bent on world domination with an awful WMD is something clearly Spiner and friends intended in the script. The Iraq part was probably just my distaste with what was happening in the media at the time being unjustifiably channeled into the viewing. I can't be sure, but I suspect that was unintentional and was just some bad luck in the timing of the film's release. But, hey, maybe my first instincts were right.
   
   Nonetheless, like I said, I was too harsh on the film in the theater. I was fuming, pissed even. For the seeming Iraq slant, for Data's sudden death without the proper preparation and arc, for the soft, overly-groomed (common recent Trek problem), cheesy-looking Romulan Senate cgi scenes. However, in retrospect, and especially considering that one scene I mentioned previously that should not have been cut, I think the film is mostly in the right place. The ship to ship battle sequence at the end is masterful, combining all the techniques originated in the earliest TNG video games and novels, giving realistic division-of-tasks on the bridge, and presenting the events with a "truthiness" (finally, a use for that word!). They were 3D, dynamic, nuanced, and believable within the established rules and technologies of this franchise.
   
   The short-hand and camaraderie between this troop of actors is here in full force. I think they're right up there with the cast of MASH, quite frankly, and I'd put these actors in an echelon above that due to the serious and challenging subject matter they've dealt with over the years, not to mention the films. I really can't think of any other ensemble that's of this caliber, each and every one of them. I'm still not certain the best aura of the series was ever captured in any of the films, but in this one I almost felt they arrived at something more. Some of the kidding was put aside. Not all, but more than most of the episodes and films. There was a mature professionalism exuded by the characters. Individuals well into the prime of their professional and personal lives, dealing with the threats, changes, growth, and loses life entails.
   
   The film's look, I have to point out before wrapping this up, is gorgeous. The textures, lighting, pure white lights to subtle colors, those lens flares, the fascinating hue of Data's skin and eyes. This is without a doubt not only the finest-looking Star Trek outing, but a striking visual achievement, by any standard. It is not a five star film in my book, but in my opinion it was worth another look. I know I'll be returning to it some more. With reservations, but worthy nonetheless.



5. Some of these reviews are pitiful and mean spirited.
   I have been a Star Trek fan since the early 1970s as a child, but am not a trekkie.
   I enjoyed this movie and do not nit pick it apart !
   I pray for at least one more Next Generation movie !

5 comments about Fahrenheit 451.

1. I have watched this movie many times and it never gets old. The cast is super and the story is great. I am sure we will watch this many times in the future. It is a classic!



2. With "Fahrenheit 451" the brilliant French director Francois Truffaut made his first film in color and his only on in English. Based on the science fiction classic by Ray Bradbury, it takes place in the future where a totalitarian government is in place. People are forbidden to read. Houses have huge television screens installed in the walls; the inhabitants of this negative utopia take pills to stay on an even keel. Firemen no longer put out fires but rather burn books because they make people think, make them unhappy and, as one character says, "we above all have got to be alike." The film stars Oskar Werner as Montag, a fireman who hides books in his home and secretly reads among other novels Charles Dickens' DAVID COPPERFIELD, and Julie Christie who plays two characters, Montag's wife Linda and another secret reader Clarisse.
   
   The cinematography is beautiful, particularly the opening scenes with frame after frame shot in different colors of the roofs of houses with huge television antennas. There are no written credits at the beginning of the movie; a man's voice tells the viewer the stars of the movie, the producer, the director et al. The characters read comic strips with no captions. The title of course comes from the temperature that supposedly book paper burns.
   
   According to the commentary that accompanies the DVD version of this film about the making of "Fahrenheit 451" Truffaut used some of his favorite books for the burning scenes: MOBY DICK, Bradbury's THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES, ROBINSON CRUSOE, MADAM BOVARY, VANITY FAIR, OTHELLO, LOLITA, THE CATCHER IN THE RYE, works by Jean Genet, Frank Harris, Kafka, Henry Miller and many others-- and a cook of crossword puzzles in Spanish!
   
   It hardly bears saying that this film is as timely as both local and world news, past and present. Everyone knows that both the Soviets and Hitler burned books. Churches and other institutions, the so-called keepers of morals, along with private citizens in these United States, have led fights to ban books from schools and libraries over the years. Right now a citizen of Gwinnett County, Georgia is trying to get the Harry Potter novels removed from that county's schools. Furthermore, a recent study showed that one out of five Americans-- I believe-- had not read a single book in the past year. The average family, on the other hand, watches dozens of hours of TV drivel each week while many Americans take tranquilizers and other mood-altering prescription drugs on a daily basis.
   
   This fine movie deserves a much-needed revival in these times.



3. Don't touch me, reader!
   
   In this film, Montag, is an up and comer at the local fire-station where books are burned. He has a beautiful wife and a promotion coming up. But he starts to read books and his life falls apart! He becomes anti-social, ruins his marriage, and ruins his career! In this movie there are people that memorize books in order to keep them alive even after they're burned. If I was going to do this I would be sure to memorize the book this was written as to make sure man remembers how dangerous they are! This movie then makes its most important point: all books contradict themselves therefore none of them can be right!
   
   I hate to read so the idea of a world without books is quite intriguing. Let's face it, books are obsolete now anyways. We have pictures and sound and colours! More colours than you can shake a stick at. We have 8 news networks that give us the news! We have movies and TV. Case in point, this movie! It would take hours and hours spread out over days to read this book, but I finished this movie in an hour and a half! It's the same story so tell me in which way the book would trump the movie? If film is so much more efficient than books, why do we still have them? Efficiency is what our society is about.
   
   Think about it, a book is just words on a page. We don't get to see any of the places or people they contain.
   
   People often equate literacy with intelligence which is mad. If a person watches a documentary about the Roman Empire they will learn all about it in an hour or two. Have you ever seen the book, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire? It's thousands of pages spread out over several books! It would take years to finish it. Therefore, it will take a reader years to learn about Rome while a non-reader will know all about it in a couple hours. Let's say it takes the reader 2 years to read about Rome, the non-reader can watch a documentary a day after work or school and learn about 730 subjects by the time the reader has finished with Rome!!!!!!!! Therefore a watcher is exponentially more intelligent than a reader.
   
   The argument this movie makes about books is quite intriguing especially considering our age of terrorism. People read books and they put bad thoughts into their heads; many people have been killed because of certain books, why shouldn't we burn them? There have been so many books that have caused problems throughout the ages, if we could burn every copy of them the world will be safer, more peaceful place! There are fairy stories meant to stir up hatred towards science, and as for science books, they are wonderful, but obsolete now that we have the Discovery channel. There are Novels which are lies, they are filled with people and places that never existed, or things that never happened in places that do exist.
   
   People read books and get depressed; they miss out on time that could be spent with their friends, or at social activities. If you read books and don't watch TV you will be a social misfit. You won't have anything to talk about because you will not know who won American Idol, or who got kicked off the island. TV gives you news as it is happening; newspapers give you the news after it's happened. Therefore, newspapers are obsolete by the time they are printed. I'm not saying books were always bad, they're just obsolete now. Why use ancient technology like the written word? We wouldn't use records now that there are CDs, or VHS tapes now that we have DVD would we?
   
   I think the fact that the author wrote this as a book first and then had the movie made was a stroke of genius. It merely proves the point he was trying to make, moving pictures are vastly superior to words on a page.
   
   Books are about the past, what's already happened. Moving pictures are about the present the future, what we will become not what we have been.
   
   Habent sua fata libelli.



4. I am having a hard time rating this movie. It's not that the movie was bad, but it did absolutely nothing for me watching it. As a matter of fact it bored me. Fahrenheit 451 had no action, it wasn't particularly thought provoking, it hardly had anything to make it even look or feel like a science fiction movie. It might have came from one of Ray Bradbury's most popular stories, but the movie version just didn't do much.
   
   If you are into action you can forget it. There is no action in this movie. I am not kidding. The most action you see is a strange looking fire truck driving around or maybe someone defying gravity by sliding UP a pole. As a matter of fact even if you are not a big action fan this movie will likely bore you to tears. I don't know how else to describe it. I had a very hard time sitting down and actually watching this movie. You can forget looking for any cool tech in this movie. About the only thing I saw that was remotely interesting was a tiny scene where people were using rocket packs to fly around. Too little too late if you ask me.
   
   Usually when a movie doesn't have any action it has a good plot or story to keep the brain juices flowing. Well... it didn't. As a matter of fact I think the whole concept of a society without books happens to be impossible. I mean how could a society with all of its laws, structure and knowledge possibly exist if that knowledge isn't written down so the next guy can learn it? I know this is one of Bradbury's 'what if' stories, but it certainly doesn't translate well to film. Even in spite of that Fahrenheit 451 doesn't really hit the mark as a thinking person's movie. With all of its bad stuff I do admit the acting is good and the movie is very stylish for its time.
   
   Ultimately I can't recommend this movie. I couldn't even sit through it without stopping the movie several times to take a break from it. The sad thing is the movie has good cinematography and great acting. All of the basic ingredients are there but it just doesn't mix right. I suppose some of you might really like it and there are scenes that had me watching with open eyes. However I can't recommend this movie in its current state.



5. "Fahrenheit 451" would be an ok movie if it was not based on such a good book. The movie, based on a book by Ray Bradbury with the same name, is about a world in which reading is not permitted, books are all banned, people are engulfed by their TVs (not that far-fetched anymore huh?!) and firemen start fires.
   
   Montag is a fireman and has been living the life he is expected to life, carrying out the job he is expected to perform and conforming nicely to a society that controls, bans and censors. His life is turned upside down when he meets Clarisse and he is compelled to read a book. The book deals with conformity, television and the complete absorption into technology.
   
   The movie also shows, although not as well as the book, the damage this has done to human relationships. The movie is ok but it is missing two vital parts: Faber and the mechanic dog. You are better off reading the book.

5 comments about Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Widescreen Edition).

1. This item is clearly stated by Amazon to be the DVD-Audio of the SOUNDTRACK, yet almost all the reviews treat it as if it were a DVD of the MOVIE.



2. i saw this film last night for the first time since childhood, and the movie itself was better than my very-positive memory of it! i watched the original 1977 version, and it was on a relatively large screen - at the red vic in san francisco - which i recommend highly
   
   unlike more recent computer-generated "eye-gasm" style sci-fi flicks, CEOTTK begs us to fill in the gaps with the wonder of our imaginations - and then surprises/relieves us with each resolution and new question - such a ride! the end is a bit "answery" and it could be trimmed. for example, it might be more powerful and self-consistent to *not* see the actual creatures themselves, and instead witness them only through their amazing light-shadows and sonic-auras. but the film is light-years ahead of the show-every-detail computer over-generation that's become a staple of the sci-fi genre
   
   in combination with their judicious use, the special effects are clearly analog and make the overall effect mysterious and *life* like to me. there is something about their imperfection that actually makes them feel more alive - amazing! i noticed this especially with the spaceships and their movement
   
   the film uses music wonderfully, both implicitly and explicitly - so rare to have the soundtrack be a part of the plot itself, and another brilliant element of this tight movie
   
   i appreciate the juxtaposed mania of "everyday life" contrasted with the transporting awe of a world that is larger than our expectations, and i appreciate the "surprise" that this larger world can be inspiring to us, and not just threatening



3. I remember seeing movie when I was 13, and was just floored at the special effects, and the story. Then in 1980, they came out with the "Special Edition", the version where they show show the inside of the Mother Ship, and I thought, "that was total crap!" Never really looked for the original version, but I remember the S.E. was about the only one out on VHS.
   Watched the Blu-Ray Original version last night, and all I can say is WOW. Excellent picture, excellent sound, and excellent memories. If you enjoyed this movie when it first came out, then please purchase this edition, you"ll be happy you did.



4. MPEG-4 AVC BD-50 / Region A, B, C
   Disc size: 49,688,551,851 bytes
   
   Close Encounters of the Third Kind (seamless)
   Running time: 2:14:41
   Movie size: 36,620,150,784 bytes
   Average video bit rate: 22.79 Mbps
   DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 24-bit
   Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bit
   
   Special Edition (seamless branching)
   Running time: 2:12:29
   Movie size: 36,062,017,536 bytes
   Average video bit rate: 22.79 Mbps
   DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 24-bit
   Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bitmaster)
   
   Director's Cut (seamless branching)
   Running time: 2:17:13
   Movie size: 37,348,374,528 bytes
   Average video bit rate: 22.85 Mbps
   DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 24-bit
   Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bit



5. Close Encounters is one of those Spielberg movies where you can really feel the magic. It isn't a downer, and it isn't the kind of movie that makes you think about the world's problems. Even the US government seems to have the best intentions when it comes to the aliens. The whole movie wears a little smirk on it's face. Masterfully done, Encounters has some simple but effective visual effects and a emotional and powerful soundtrack. The casting is good considering it was early in the careers of several of the people involved. Richard Dreyfuss plays his character perfectly. Roy Neary is a regular joe that suddenly is confronted with some life changing events that he can't understand. The messages that he is getting in his head confuse him all the more and Dreyfuss does a perfect job of illustrating that. The supporting cast turns in good performances as well and really give the impression that you are watching a documentary rather than a work of fiction. The best parts of the movie in my opinion is when they are showing you clips from around the world of different UFO encounters and the research team finding evidence of an alien presence. When they're in the Mongolian desert and they find the freighter Cotopoxi. The same ship that was lost for real in the Bermuda Triangle. It still gives me chills. They slowly pan across and you see a huge ship sitting in the middle of the sand. Oooooh man, great shot. Bottom Line: This is another one of Spielberg's classics. You must get it on DVD for the multitude of extras that are on the 2 disc set. If you haven't seen it yet and you like either UFO's and/or Spielberg, you won't be disappointed.

5 comments about War of the Gargantuas.

1. I saw this as a re-release in about 1972 in theatres, it originally came out in 66-67 not 1970. It has been on tv through the years, but rarely if ever anymore. A not unusually strange Japanese giant monster flick that is supposed to be a continuation of their "Frankenstein" movie nonsense. Dont try to make a connection, its not worth it.
   Two giant beast like creatures battle it out as a crushed Japanese city looks on. The brown creature is "good" and the green one is evil, chomping on a few citizens to verify. It can have an interesting look to it, especially the beginning of the film which has a moody ship on rough waters scene as a giant octopus attacks. A gargantua emerges from the ocean depths in a seeming rescue only to kill the ships crew. The green beast has an effectively terrifying look and the eerie 60s soundtrack plays into it.
   The film is dubbed with no astounding dialogue. To this day I laugh at particular part of the movie. In an attempt at a musical "American style" interlude aboard a cruise ship, a girl sings a song entitled "The Words Get Stuck In My Throat". I guess its dubbed with an English speaking voice, and that voice is the pits. The ship is then attacked by the green meanie and the singer gets munched on. Was it the singing?
   For fun I'd like watch the movie cleaned up on dvd in widescreen. I think Japanese versions are available on certain web sites. Nothing monumental, just a weird old movie with a hard to believe it was made feel. Two stars is generous, but its slightly above the Japanese genre of that period.



2. I can hear the voiceover for the trailer of this DVD release: "From the director that brought you the original 1954 GODZILLA, 1962's KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA, and 1968's DESTROY ALL MONSTERS comes...FURANKENSHUTAIN!
   
   Franken - what!?
   
   Sadly, Director Ishiro Honda died in 1993 so we won't be able to ask him how (or if) he ever got rights to use the Frankenstein franchise name for a series of two movies that don't really look or feel anything like the Frankenstein that we over here in the US know and love. Ultimately, the two movies in the US were titled "Frankenstein Conquers the World" (1965) and "War of the Gargantuas" (1966), but in Japan it had that kooky Furankenshutain name...roughly translated to Frankenstein.
   
   The only resemblance to Frankenstein is that the Gargantuas are indeed fuh-uh-uhg-ly, but they look much more like the King Kong that Honda created for the 1962 battle against Godzilla and later in 1967 for King Kong Escapes.
   
   I remember vividly from my last viewing of War of the Gargantuas in my pre-teen years that this is a shocking G-rated film. There was a good Gargantua (the brown one) and a bad one (the green one and the fugliest of them all). And they were Godzilla-sized...not Frankenstein-sized. The green Gargantua bloodily, bone-crunchingly munches on people whole and spits out their bloody clothes. I'd like to see THAT try to get a G-rating today.
   
   In the movie everyone thinks that there's only one murderous Gargantua. Then the brown one shows up at the scene of a crime and tries to stop the green one. The green one wants blood and refuses to live and let live, and the two Gargantuas fiercely battle through the rest of the movie.
   
   Devo must have been a fan of this flick, because they did a remake of a featured song in War of the Gargantuas called "The Words Get Stuck in My Throat." At least I think that Devo's version was a tribute to the movie? Too bad a Gargantua didn't eat Devo back in the 70s.
   
   Anyway, I'm sure that my subconscious, pre-teen mind is telling me that this flick is better (and more shocking) than it really was. But I'm glad to see that it's finally being released.
   
   Worth a look.



3. As a youngster, this film disturbed me. When the evil green gargantua Gaira grabs the woman from the airport office buidling and proceeds to chomp her down then spit out her clothes, it's the thing nightmares are made of. In the USA, the title was changed from "Frankenstein Monsters: Sanda Vs. Gaira" to "The War Of The Gargantuas". It was originally released in Japan in 1966 and for us Yanks, 1970. The Japanese version is a sequel to an earlier film titled "Frankenstein Vs. Baragon" (US title: "Frankenstein Conquers The World"). The dubbed US version of "Gargantua" erases all connection to the earlier film and in both versions, American actor Russ Tamblyn puts in a rather lethargic performance. The US version has extra snippets of violence not used in the Japanese version. This includes Gaira spitting out the airport worker's clothing. In the US version, you actually see her shredded dress hit the ground. This sequel is an improvement over the first but why would use the name "Frankenstein" for these movies? Silly. I have read some of the reviews in here and some people are not recalling certain scenes correctly. The rotten singer who pukes out a horrible song titled "The Words Get Stuck In My Throat" is not on a cruise ship but rather atop a building performing in a penthouse restaurant. When she is finished making a fool of herself with this awful tune, Gaira sneaks up from behind and grabs her but does not get the chance to chew her up. The moment someone turns the lights on, he drops her back onto the stage and runs as he is sensitive to light. Gaira is the aquatic offshoot of Sanda, the brown and good gargantua. It seems that Sanda, after supposedly dying in the first film actually survived. The theory is that sometime between the two films, he may have scraped a bit of his flesh on a rock near or in a body of fresh water. That piece of skin could have found it's way to the ocean and gave birth to Gaira. When the military finally corners Gaira and do their best to electrocute him to death (deservedly), Sanda sees this from his mountain lair and comes running to Gaira's rescue. Gaira's humongous appetite for human flesh and blood is unknown to the people-friendly Sanda. However, things change when he sees chewed up clothing laying in front of a napping Gaira. Sanda is infuriated and slams Mr. Greenie with a tree and so begins "the war of the gargantuas". This film is actually one of the better releases from the Toho company.



4. This film was originally released in the states in the summer of 1970. It played on a double bill with Monster Zero. I saw it in a drive-in theater on my ninth birthday...still the best birthday presant I've ever recieved. I love japanese monster movies and War of the Garantuas is my personal favorite. Like its co-feature it was produced in 1966 by Toho Studios. Directed by Inoshiro Honda and scored by Akira Ifukebe, the men responsible for all the great japanese Sci-Fi films of the 50's and 60's, War of the Gargantuas is the scariest and most exciting of them all! Shot in Toho Scope this film can only be appreciated in widescreen.....so steer clear of all the cheap DVD products out there...get the japanese disc....This film is highly regarded in Japan.



5. This is really one of the most interesting, creatiive, unusual and scary giant monster movies of all time.
   It is often identified as a sequel to "Frankenstein against Bragon" (aka Frankenstein Conquers The World)
   BUT IT IS ACTUALLY NOT A SEQUEL AT ALL. In its original conception it was intended as a sequel.
   But the connection was dropped at the request of american coproducer Henry Saperstein for various reasons.
   
   Saperstein felt the story worked better as its own thing, the creatures did not closely resemble the monster in FCTW and Nick Adams was not available to play the same character as the first film, so his character was renamed and played by Russ Tamblyn. His sidekicks were played by the same actors but their names were changed. Flashback scenes showing a young afrankenstein from the first film were reshot using a kid in a bigfoot costume. So that the monster character Sanda would have a new origin as a mountain dwelling bigfoot type creature. The monster Gaira is called Frankenstein twice in the japanese version, but only early on.
   We are led to believe that he is called Frankenstein simply because of his green skin.
   The japanese version is a little different than the american version. Some alternate scenes are used. But neither version, contrary to what we have been brought up to believe in USA is a sequel to Frankenstein Concuers the World. Toho only kept the Frankenstein Brothers title and the first few references because
   that is the title the film had been announced and promoted under. In both versions, Sanda is a bigfoot or
   sasquatch type character who is discovered as a young furry creature in the mountains, and Gaira is a
   clone of Sanda who grew from cells that were somehow scraped from Sanda's body in a river or lake.
   The frankenstein connectioon was originally much more implicit but was dropped before filming began.
   
   Rumors about this films connection to FCTW have become legend. But rest assured, Though it was originally
   conceved as a sequel. The final film, in both versions, is definately not one. I could go into greater detail about
   the early connections between the two films, but in the finished version, there arent any.
   
   There are other rumours about Godzilla movies and TOHO films in the west. Many of these rumours were started by Famous Monsters of Filmland Magazine.
   Famous Monsters started the rumor abour King Kong vs. Godzilla having two different endings.
   though the american and Japanese versions are different, there is only one ending.
   FM also started the one about Gigantis being a female Godzilla, in actuality it is Godzilla himself.
   Fm also gave Minya/Minilla the name Tadzilla in ts pages and christened Angillas/Anguiras as Anzilla!!
   Theay also started the one about the "Boy eats heart of Frankenstein and is transformed into frankenstein" thing about Frankenstein Conquers the World. There is nothing like this in either version of the film and if you ask a japanese fan about it he will look at you like you just escaped from Bellview with lobsters hanging from your ears.
   The HIROSHIMA bomb blast caused the heart to grow a clone body. End of story. Forget about the protien thing. It didnt need protein untill later when it ran out of radiation.

5 comments about Mad Max.

1. This is an interesting film, which if occasionally a bit wooden, virtually created its own genre overnight, and made Mel Gibson a star.
   
   Perhaps its most noteable feature was George Miller's use of unusual camera angles, which created one or two iconic images. Sometimes it has the feeling of an exploitation film, but it never develops in that way and by today's standards it seems rather tame.
   
   It looks as though it was made on a pretty low budget, and I prefer the brasher sequels where a little more polish was added. It remains a film curiosity, but really not much more than that.



2. ... and I don't just mean the Mad Max saga but the Mel Gibson story. I'd heard this movie got Mel Gibson noticed among the big players - seeing it today made me believe it.
   
   The movie begins with a car chase, with some really gutsy destruction sequences, somewhere amongst which, Gibson makes his entry as an "Interceptor", a cop from the near future - where this story is based - trying to make order in this "Anarchie" (no kidding! that's the name of the Ln mentioned in the first few shots of the film!). The government is pretty much non-existent in this futuristic flick, and gangs of roadies have taken up terrorizing and literally ruling the outlands.
   
   Max, along with his partner - Office Jim Goose, takes his work seriously, and intends to clean the scrounge of the town, before his partner becomes a casualty of the war. Max suddeny is afraid for his family, and realizes he's not ready to take this war to its bitter end, and decides to take a break from his cop-career.
   
   What follows is an eerie rendition, out on the Australian outback, of the origins of the character of Mad Max, before it got the adjective Mad; with some really slick editing and heart-pumping action. The chase sequences are simply great and the lack of dialogues makes it that much more watchable. Not much to speak - if you're into killing amd ambushing for a living.
   
   This movie is the first of the trilogy of Mad Max, and is a good one at that. You get to see where Gibson learnt the conviction and grittyness that has since marked so many of his roles, notably Lethal Weapon, Conspiracy Theory, and The Patriot.
   
   Must see - for Gibson and Mad Max fans!



3. This movie is simply Meltastic and if you like Mr. Gibson at all...YOU MUST OWN THIS MOVIE!!!



4. In spite of the fact that the 1981 film The Road Warrior--the second influential cinematic work of writer/director George Miller's Dystopian vision of the near future trilogy--leads to receive the anti-hero Max, released two years earlier, is where it all started... For it was here that Miller first brought to the screen his hellish vision, where civil society is under siege by crime and disorder, with the strength and charisma of a new young, tough, good looking actor by the name of Mel Gibson...
   
   Gibson was just 23 years old when he took the role of Max Rockatansky--a young hotshot cop so emotionally wounded--and was such an unknown star that when the film was hitting the screens in the States, the preview trailers didn't even mentioned him but instead focused on the movie's coolest and most original car action ever filmed... In retrospect, of course, Gibson's portrayal of a relentless vigilante is an essential element of the picture...
   
   In the Australian outback, Rockatansky is a motorcycle cop trying to keep order in a quickly disintegrating society... Vicious lawless bikers and road-raging psychopaths race up and down the forbidden territories, raping and pillaging the peaceful towns, and one such bunch ends up at the door of Max's wife (Joanne Samuel), and their 2-year old son... When they are both lying dead in middle of the road, Max is all driven over the edge, and so starts a high-speed pursuit involving wild rides, chilling fights, and memorable fast-motion suspenseful scenes rarely equaled in cinema...



5. Max Max is an ugly, bare knuckle movie that shuns sentimentality and explanation. Set in a dystopian future (not really post apocalyptic as many reviews claim - there is no evidence of a humanitarian crisis preceding the action), it features a wild and desolate Australian outback with feral kill hungry violent gangs of motorcycles taking on a quirky, underfunded police force. Max, played by Mel Gibson, is an old fashioned road to calvary type hero. A police officer who becomes disillusioned after the savage burning of one of his colleagues, he quits, but finds the gang have not left him. In horrific scenes, the gang hunts down his family, and Gibson returns to extract revenge, a necessarily determined and scarred loner.
   
   Max Max does not stretch out into many dimensions, but it contains a raw savage power and exposes something of the nub of the innate violence at the heart of man. A good one to watch in the line of movies that expose the raw seam below the surface of our civilization.