5 comments about Willow.

1. This Lucas-written, Ron Howard-directed "epic fantasy" is one of those commercial flops that actually came to find a sizeable cult-following in the years after its theatrical run--whether via TV-showings, VHS, or now in this bright DVD incarnation.
   
   Yes, the plot is totally derivative: savior-babies in reed baskets; halfling-types who must be brave enough to "carry" a serious burden on their shoulders; Brave but exiled swordfighter; Evil sorceror with equally evil General. Yeah, yeah, we get it. But Willow is not as unoriginal as 99% of the lame movies made these days, and all in all a fun, engaging adventure/fantasy flick with some believable performances that sort of lift it up to genuinely "beloved" status.
   
   For the scope of the thing, it's not too badly plotted. Things happen at a nice click, and happen reasonably. The effects are dated now, but a few were actually groundbreaking at the time (the Raziel "morphing" scene).
   
   In terms of the tale, a mysterious newborn Princess is being hunted by a sorceress queen named Bavmorda, and for good reason. There's been a prophecy that the infant will one day bring about her destruction, and the queen needs to obliterate the kid's soul with a spell. With the help of an ill-fated midwife, however, the babe is floated down a river until it reaches the home of a dwarf-farmer (a "Nelwyn") named Willow.
   
   Reluctantly, Willow takes a shine to the babe and is swept-up in the adventures required to preserve her life from the wicked queen, her henchman, Kael, and her sexy-ginge daughter, Sorsha. Willow is enlisted to carry the baby to the world of the Big People, but gets waylaid by a spectral fairy-lady who apparently can't leave her forest to fight Bavmorda, but gives the midge a powerful wand and tells him to deliver it to a rival sorceress named Raziel, who can use it to oust Queenie and save the baby.
   
   Along the way, of course, Val Kilmer enters the picture as the surly but eventually loyal warrior, and they are accompanied by two annoying "brownies" from Fairyville who are akin to mosquitos, in terms of being welcome additions to the story. Anyhow, they find the good sorceress, only to discover that she has been whupped by Bavmorda and turned into a possum (of all things).
   
   The story then shifts toward Willow's need to get the baby safely to a fabled castle called 'Tir Asleen' and learn a touch magic so he can use the crooked wand to re-morph the good witch. None of this is successful and, several battles, snowboardings, and double-headed dragons later, the baby gets stolen and the goodies ride to save it, right up to the gates of Bavmorda's castle. (Sound familiar?)
   
   Snatching a trick from Circe of Greek myth, Bavmorda puts a spell on the whole army and turns them into pigs--even her own daughter, Sorsha, who got the hots for Val Kilmer and defected to the good camp. Willow escapes pigdom and finally gets the hang of the wand. He painstakingly transforms Raziel back to human form, where she is a bit miffed to discover that she has, in fact, become a wrinkled old baggage. Even so, she's got some mojo and appropriates the stick from Willow, restoring the army. The final battle in the castle is well-filmed, as is the tense showdown between the rickety old witches. A cute little plot twist comes at the end, but nothing super-spectacular.
   
   This is basically a cute Lucasfilm that is marginally less hokey than the Ewoks. That's a good thing. Ron Howard does a good job directing and James Horner does, too, with the grand score. Warwick Davis (later of "Leprechaun 1, 2,3,4,& 5 fame) does a worthy acting job here (especially since he's essentially "carrying" the picture--which was his first and must've been tough). Other performances are standard: Val Kilmer gets the job done but seems bored; Billy Barty is his usual sweet old self. Brit actress Jean Marsh is genuinely scary as Bavmorda--just the right amount of simmering evil without getting too hammy. Patricia Hayes lends great dignity as old-biddy enchantress Raziel. Call me sentimental, but I thought the most moving performance in this film was by one of the other "little" folk--the actress who plays Willow's wife, Kaia.
   
   This sturdy action/fantasy/adventure has got loads of nice but generic Lucas mythical touches, and lots of chummy Ron Howard dependability. A keeper for young and old, if not a classic, by any shake of the stick.



2. I have enjoyed this movie since I was a kid and now my children like it.



3. the item I purchased arrived in excellent condition and also in a very timely manner.



4. WARNING: This review may contain spoilers!
   
   George Lucas (Star Wars Trilogy) has always enjoyed delving into mythological archetypes in his films and when Willow was released in 1988, it served as an example of his fascination with stories of unlikely and unexpected heroes. Directed by Ron Howard (Splash), Willow was a Box Office and critical disappointment when it first debuted, however since then it has developed a loyal following of diehard fans.
   
   When a baby girl is born bearing a birthmark on her arm, a birthmark that signifies that she will overthrow the evil queen Bavmorda, Bavmorda orders the child's destruction. But the nursemaid who was attending the baby's mother hides the newborn in a pile of laundry and escapes the queen's castle without detection. When Bavmorda discovers that the child is missing, she sends out her soldiers and Death Dogs to retrieve the baby. When the nursemaid sees the approaching Death Dogs, she sends the baby down the river in a raft, which is carried downstream until it washes up on the riverbank of a Nelwyn (a race of short people similar to dwarfs) village. The baby is found by two Nelwyn children who tell their father Willow, a local farmer and aspiring sorcerer's apprentice. Willow doesn't dare tell the other Nelwyns of his discovery for fear that he will be blamed for any misfortune that may befall their village (Nelwyns are naturally superstitious and fearful of the outside world). But after an attack by the Queen's Death Dogs, Willow takes the baby before the village council where he is chosen to take the baby back to the Daikini (the Nelwyn term for tall people) lands. Willow embarks on a perilous journey, with only a small group of Nelwyns, and it's not long before he comes across a charismatic Daikini prisoner named Madmartigan. Madmartigan claims that he would take care of the baby if they would just free him from his hanging cage, which the Nelwyns do with some reluctance. As Willow heads home, he discovers that the baby has been kidnapped by Brownies (tiny mischievous forest sprites) who take the baby to the realm of the Fairy Queen. She bestows unto Willow a magic wand and tells him that he must safeguard the baby, who she tells him is named Elora Danan. Following the Fairy Queen's instructions, Willow then takes Elora to the island where famous sorceress Fin Raziel has been exiled. He is guided by two of the Brownies, Franjean and Rool, and soon they meet up with Madmartigan. Bavmorda's soldiers track them down and Madmartigan proves to be a valiant warrior and expert swordsman. By the time Willow finds Fin Raziel, she has been turned into a possum-like creature by Bavmorda (why Bavmorda didn't simply kill Raziel, I'll never know). Bavmorda's soldiers are lead by her beautiful and rebellious daughter Sorsha, who captures Willow and his companions. After a daring escape Willow, Elora, Madmartigan, and Raziel seek out the castle of Tir Asleen where they will be safe from Bavmorda's army. However, upon their arrival they discover that the castle is under a curse, and worse, it's crawling with hairy, odorous, flesh-eating trolls. When Bavmorda's army attacks and Elora is abducted, Madmartigan defends the castle and stages a climactic battle against Bavmorda's vile forces. Meanwhile Willow and Raziel face Bavmorda in an exciting final confrontation of magic against magic.
   
   The cast includes Warwick Davis as Willow, Val Kilmer as Madmartigan, Jean Marsh as Bavmorda, Patricia Hayes as Raziel, and Joanne Whalley as Sorsha.
   The film's strengths are its elaborate action scenes depicting swordfights, battles with vicious trolls, and a fight against a two-headed, fire-breathing dragon. However the film suffers from a script, which isn't sure whether the film is intended for a sophisticated adult audience or an audience of children. Ultimately the film appeals to an audience of predominantly male viewers, between the ages of six and thirteen years old.
   
   The special features on this DVD include an audio commentary by Warwick Davis, Willow: The Making of an Adventure vintage featurette, From Morf to Morphing: the Dawn of Digital Filmmaking featurette, production stills and image gallery, and theatrical trailers and TV spots.
   
   Also recommended:
   The Dark Crystal
   The NeverEnding Story
   The Black Cauldron
   Labyrinth
   Jim Henson's the Storyteller: The Definitive Collection
   The Princess Bride
   The Chronicles of Narnia



5. Willow was such a delightful movie. I've had the movie for years and about every two years I play it again--it's that entertaining. You would think Hollywood would take the hint and had sequels to this movie. I feel this way about Clash of the Titans also--still playing it every so often since the 80's! Anyway, Val Kilmer was great and the little folks stole the show! We need more--come on Hollywood, start growing some smarts!

5 comments about Star Trek V - The Final Frontier.

1. this movie has its charms, especially (and obviously) for fans of the original series like myself. but it really is a pretty crappy movie overall. the perofrmances seem to almost border self parody, especially with scotty. the crew has a sort of 3 stooges routine going on, acting like bumbling fools. there's even two scenes featuring kirk, bones and spock camping in what are suppose to be 'futuristic sleeping bags'. in actuallity the aging sci-fi icons look like potatoes wrapped in foil. while acting like average joes in the woods dressed with flanels tucked into tight wrangler jeans, spock treats himself to a "marsh-mellon" and they make sad attempts to sing one of the easiest and also dumbest sing alongs ever.......row row your boat. ya no joke.
   other highlights, or lowlights, depending on where you stand with sort of thing, include what is supposed to pass as a sexy kinked up dance by uhura wearing some kind of feathered wings. close ups of "her legs" just seem to wriggle and dig her feet into the sand. back in the day of the original series this would have been pretty sweet but now this kind of exploitation is just awkward and straight up bizarre. as are the sexual overtones between her and scotty. with soft caresses n all that seem to come out of know where. this could really go on and on but rather than spoil all the surprises i simply suggest downloading the mike nelson and kevin murphy (mst3k) from rifftrax.com to properly view this surreal trek.
   4 stars with the commentary!



2. With the Star Trek II-IV movie "trilogy" (one long plotline) finished, the fifth film of the series is a self-contained story about growing old, friendship, and religion. Sadly, the film fails on all those accounts.
   
   The gist of the film is that Spock's half-brother, Sybok (who has rejected his Vulcan heritage), hijacks the Enterprise in search of God in the outer reaches of the universe. Once found, "God" turns out to be a rather tempermental being who becomes angry when his escape from beyond the galaxy (the Enterprise) is taken from him. When Kirk utters the phrase "why would God need a spaceship?", the major plot point of the film turns to shambles. The entire mission (which wasn't all that compelling to begin with) turns into a sham, and ultimately a waste of time.
   
   Perhaps the largest downfall of the film, however, is the inability of the writers/producers to create dramatic tension between Spock and Sybok. It is too much of a stretch to believe that the emotionless Spock will succomb to the rash tendencies of a character only just introduced to him.
   
   Yet, despite failing on nearly all accounts, a few scenes are inspiring for their place in the Star Trek cannon. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy's vacation at Yosemite National Park is awe-insipring, heartfelt, and funny (Spock's marshmallow roasting machine is classic!), while the scene where Sybok diagnoses McCoy's and Spock's greatest pain is classic Star Trek fare (even down to Kirk's defiant refusal to be given the same treatment).
   
   To conclude, this fifth installment in the Star Trek movie franchise is a forgettable romp through the deepest galaxy. Besides a few interesting scenes, the majority of the movie is unemotional, bland, and even hokey. Hard-care Star Trek fans will enjoy the moments (however slight) of character development this movie brings to the table, but I would advise less dedicated viewers to skip over this installment entirely.



3. In my attempts to reconcile myself with the Star Trek movies, I recently purchased "Star Trek V - The Final Frontier (Two-Disc Special Collector's Edition)" and have watched it three times trying to find any value in the film beyond the brief filming in Yosemite National Park (and the conclusion that John Muir's park will somehow rediscover it's pristine nature in the far future). Try as I have, I have found NO redeeming qualities, no moments of greatness, no scenes of nostalgia, no flicker of what Star Trek is all about.
   
   "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is the culmination of Paramount's, Harve Bennett's, and Nicholas Meyer's total incomprehension of Star Trek and their malign endeavors to "recreate" Star Trek into something it is not (their version of "Star Wars?"). While I could repeat all the problems of the movie, I feel no need to do so. Rather, I wish to express my feelings of deep regret that "Star Trek V: The Last Frontier" was pure hogwash, and forever "tarnished" the brilliance of Gene Roddenberry's world of Star Trek. It was nothing less than a collector's pride that led me to purchase this film; to say that I followed the "original" Star Trek crew to their "Final Frontier;" albeit, Bennett and Meyer somehow convinced Paramount to make another movie! I am confident that it was only the actors pride in their characters (except for the egotistical Shatner) that coaxed them into doing this film.
   
   Regardless, it is very sad to see Star Trek caught in the throes of death so badly. But that is what happened with "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier."
   
   Update--1 July 2008: If this review was not helpful to you, I would appreciate learning the reason(s) so I can improve my reviews. My goal is to provide help to potential buyers, not get into any arguments. So, if you only disagree with my opinion, could you please say so in the comments and not indicate that the review was not helpful. Thanks.



4. Many people write off "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" as the worst film in the Trek franchise. However, it's like the old saying goes, "A bad day fishing is still better than a good day at work." "Frontier" has its downfalls but it still manages to be a solid science fiction film.
   
   In this tale, we are introduced to a renegade Vulcan named Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill) who has embraced the ways of the ancient Vulcans who deemed emotion more important than logic. He has plans to find God (or at least the Vulcan version of Him) on Sha Ka Ree, a planet that is supposedly the Vulcan equivalent of Eden. How's a religious zealot to do this? By simply kidnapping Federation, Romulan and Klingon officials on Nimbus III, the planet of galactic peace. Sybok determines that by doing this, the Federation will send a Starfleet ship to rescue the hostages. When this occurs, he and his small band of followers will overtake the vessel and fly it to the center of the galaxy which is where Sha Ka Ree is supposed to be located.
   
   Kirk and the gang are called away from shoreleave to take an undermanned and malfunctioning Enterprise to Nimbus III to save the hostages and find out what's really going on. Also en route is a Klingon Bird of Prey guided by the eager and cocky Captain Klaa and his right-hand man, er, woman, Vixis. Klaa longs to fight a Federation ship. When he learns that it's Kirk's ship on the way to Nimbus III, his hunger grows stronger. Vixis also longs for power, and uses Klaa as a means to gain it.
   
   Of course, Sybok manages to overtake the Enterprise and gains the trust of most of the crew by allowing them to "show him their fears." Kirk doesn't fall for this so easily and Spock is more familiar with Sybok than even his longtime shipmates know but, in the end the Enterprise does make it to Sha Ka Ree. Do they meet God? Have they really discovered the final frontier? What happens when Klaa decides to give cloaked chase to the Enterprise on its way to the center of the galaxy? I'm sure most of you already know, but I won't spoil it for anyone.
   
   What is good about this film is the fact that it doesn't make light of Sybok's religious beliefs. Sure, he's a bit "out there," but he has true feelings for his god and for his followers. I also like the fact that he isn't seen as a tyrant. While Kirk questions the "god" creature in the film, he doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of there being an actual God somewhere out there.
   
   The beautiful shots of Yosemite National Park are also welcome to this film. In a future cluttered with starships and technical jargon, it's nice to see some green for a change.
   
   Jerry Goldsmith's music is spot on as usual, and is one of the highlights of the film.
   
   The downside to this film is the fact that it has a rather cheap feel to it. The special effects are poor even when compared to other films released at the same time. Paradise City looks like it was built from the scraps of "The Road Warrior" film. Also, in the reveal of the god creature, I felt that this all powerful being was just too hokey to be feared.
   
   This DVD release does up the ante for those who are on the fence about purchasing this film. Highlights include an interview with William Shatner, a conference on the bridge of the Enterprise, a few deleted scenes that are worth looking at, Rockman test shots and a very lively interview with "That Klingon Couple," Klaa (Todd Bryant) and Vixis (Spice Williams-Crosby, billed as Spice Williams in the film). An Easter egg awaits those who take the time to search for it as well.
   
   Overall, the Enterprise and her crew took a hard blow from this film. While I enjoyed the added humor and even the storyline, most were turned off by it. This DVD is a must-have for Trek completionists, but casual fans may want to skip this entry into the Star Trek universe. For those who tire of watching films based in a bleak future, the breathtaking shots of Yosemite are more than enough reason to check this film out. Is this a terrible Trek film? Maybe, but I like it just fine.



5. The Good Things
   *A lot of good special effects and action scenes (albiet the quality is noticably different).
   *Filming style is good.
   *Characters are good and deep. Good acting, once agian.
   *Writing is not bad. Some good comedy, some good drama.
   *Good music.
   
   The Bad Things
   *Pretty iffy storyline. I liked the idea and the fact that it is so grand. But most people seem to have a problem with it and other aspects (such as Spock having a half-brother who is so compassionate).
   
   The Questionable Things
   *It looks as though they tried to make it grittier, edgier, and more sleazy. It kind of works, but in a way, it may be too different.
   *Despite the quality of the effects, some of them are totally weird at the end.
   
   Bigger is not always better. This film is a great departure from the previous ones, bumping up the scale of the story, adding even more to the characters, and making everything a little scummier. I think it's pretty fun, but it really is the weakest of the "Star Trek" films.
   
   The one-disc version had okay video and sound quality. The two-disc version has similarly okay quality and a number of featurettes and trailers.

5 comments about Treasure Planet (Walt Disney Pictures Presents).

1. I'm generally wary when Hollywood makes movies of any book, especially a classic, and so I was a little worried about "Treasure Planet," and yet it turned out to be one of my all-time favorite Disney movies! I can't figure out why it wasn't as big a hit as Disney hoped, because a movie like this definitely deserves it. It's a great family film full of adventure, and I just love the idea of setting "Treasure Island" in space! Who could have come up with such a fun idea but Disney? Silver is even a cyborg! How perfect! Voices, special effects, everything seemed to be spot-on, including the music (which also included a specially-written son by The Goo Goo Dolls just for this movie). I fell in love with "Treasure Planet" the first time I saw it and watch it all the time!



2. This, along with "Atlantis: The Lost Empire", is surely being overshadowed by other more popular ones such as "Monsters Inc." and "Lilo & Stitch" and "The Incredibles" and so on. "Treasure Planet" really is something worth watching.
   
   Some of the finest things that are in this film are the animation. I'm floored by the visuals of outer space (rendered in both 2D and 3D). The supernova/black hole sequence is a sight to see. And the scenes in which Long John Silver demonstrates his Cyborg skills by cooking some stew and tracking his enemies down should be considered classic.
   
   The music is also something to look forward to. James Newton Howard mixes a Celtic folk style with a typical Hollywood classical sound. I know it doesn't seem like a good combination, but Howard executes it so well.
   
   As for the characters, it's a mixed reaction. The non-human characters like Doppler and Morph are well-drawn, but their personalities are aimed slightly towards the little kids. Long John Silver is brilliantly created, although he's nowhere near as good as Robert Louis Stevenson's own version. Captain Amelia is an attention-grabber: she looks lovely. Jim Hawkins has certainly gained a cult following in the recent years, and it shows. He's attractive, he's anti-heroic, and he's one of the great protagonists of all things Disney. B.E.N. is sadly an irritant. I was hoping that he would be much more like the orginal Ben Gunn, but I was disappointed. His screaming and his constant reminding that he's "lost his mind" is not enjoyable.
   
   So with all the flaws aside, "Treasure Planet" is one of the underrated classics of the new millennium. And while it bombed in the box office, its cult following makes a point: the film will never die (and I mean that in a good way).
   
   B+



3. I am probably one of the few who did see "Treasure Planet" in the theater. I found it thoroughly enjoyable. I think part of the problem with the poor showing at theaters, was that the movie, overall, was geared more towards teen males and adults (those who usually do not go to a theater to see a cartoon). The one liners in the film that reference other movies/shows like Star Trek and Star Wars are numerous, but you have to catch them. Casting was perfect. If possible, they should re-release the film in Disney 3D as was done with Tim Burton's "The Nightmare Before Christmas". This would be a prime movie to do that with, unless, due that it is a cartoon, the characters come across as flat. Eventually, I think this will be a Disney Classic.



4. Pirates and kids are always a hit.
   This movies translates a children's classic tale
   from the Atlantic Ocean to the space of the galaxy
   in a Star Wars mix of technology, Robots and cute little aliens ( Morphy).
   Mutiny comes at an unexpected time, but the captain, the astronomer and Jim
   make it away alive. Getting back the ship and bringing back the treasure
   is another story altogether and it brings young Jim to his
   full abilities and courage.
   The technology seems more like magic and space like a small ocean,
   but the fantasy is pretty flawless?
   It is a fun movie, but lacks that classic edge due to the Disney 'formula' approach?



5. I know this was a box office bomb, but being the Treasure Island fanatic that I am I could not help but love it for its wildly creative retelling and the wonderful animation and spirit. I think that this film truly captured the emotional wonder of Robert Louis Stevenson's original story, if not the details (Then again, not too many movies exactly get the book correct). The soundtrack is incredible, perfectly piratey. The entire story is one of longing, angst, and change. So it may be a little moody, but it's a beautiful peace of art and Disney magic.

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.

5 comments about Def-Con 4.

1. Def-Con 4 (1985)...does the title have any significance? I'm glad you asked...it means Defensive Condition, and the associated number is `graduated to match situations of varying military severity', ranging for 5 to 1. Def-Con 5 means normal peacetime readiness, Def-Con 4 normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures, Def-Con 3 increase in force readiness above normal readiness, Def-Con 2 further increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness, and Def-Con 1 maximum force readiness, or, put your head between your legs and kiss it good-bye. Just to give you a frame of reference, since its inception, the highest level achieved to date has been Def-Con 2, and that was during the Cuban missile crisis in the early 60's. Knowing that the lower the number, the higher the threat, I would have thought a film about the post apocalypse using a defensive condition level for its title would have gone with Def-Con 1, or at least 2...produced, written and directed by Paul Donovan (Self Defense, Norman's Awesome Experience), the film stars Tim Choate (Ghost Story), Lenore Zann (Happy Birthday to Me, Visiting Hours), Kevin King (Night School), Kate Lynch (Meatballs), and veteran character actor Maury Chaykin, who's probably most recognizable appearing on television's `A Nero Wolfe Mystery' series, as the title character.
   
   As the film begins we see two men and a woman circling the Earth in a secret American defensive satellite of love (decked out with a number of nuclear warheads) called Project Nemesis (strange name for a defense satellite). Their purpose is to provide some kind of first response capability (I think), but when the fecal matter hits the fan (World War III), they balk, and things planet-side go downhill pretty quickly (talk about your dereliction of duty). So now what? Do they return to a contaminated Earth and try to find a safe haven? Or float around in space until their life support runs out? The decision is soon made for them, as the capsule begins a re-entry sequence apparently on its own, and they find there are survivors, but they seem pretty inhospitable (radioactive contamination will do that to you). After one member of the crew gets ate up by mutants (exposure to radiation is often known to cause cannibalism, especially in cruddy sci-fi films), Howe (Choate) sets out to find a boat (to sail to a safe haven), but only finds an armed, kilted loner named Vincent (Chaykin), who lives in a bunker made of sod and tools around in a modified bulldozer left over from an A-Team episode. Oh yeah, he also keeps a girl named J.J. (Zann) under his floorboards. The two make a deal (in Vinnie terms, it went down like this, `I'll make you a deal on the food- you give it to me, or I'll kill you.'...such the negotiator), but are soon captured by a local, brutal, militaristic, Lord of the Flies-like tribe headed by a petty preppy snot named Gideon (King). Turns out he may have been responsible for the satellite returning to Earth, as he needed something they had for his plans. Our three, plucky wanderers Howe, Vincent, and J.J. (who happened to be involved with Gideon at some point), along with the female satellite crew member Jordan (Lynch) find themselves condemned to death for crimes against humanity. Normally chances of survival would appear slim, but given the ineptitude of tribe, escape seems imminent. The name of the game is survival, by any means possible...
   
   I saw this film some 15 years ago, renting it from a local video store, drawn in by the cover art (as I'm sure most were), only to find said cover art was the most exciting thing about the feature. The film has a great many faults, shoddy script, terrible acting, extended periods of inactivity, to name a few, but it's not entirely bad. The plot was somewhat intricate, and easy to follow, but did feature a great many gaping holes. The production values were relatively decent for a low budget film, but I was annoyed at the lack of mutants. The only effect I could see of the recent holocaust on the survivors was that most everyone was just dirty...no festering pus wounds, boils, mutations, moles, or even scabs. Seems to me if radiation was so prevalent, there'd be more indications displayed on the survivors...oh well...the biggest hurting comes in the form of the acting (the script doesn't help)...Choate, the man with the quickly receding hairline, is not hero material, not matter how much he's played up that way. On the satellite he was in a constant state of spaz, and once on the ground, it wasn't much different (check out the scene where he's trying to commandeer a sail boat, guarded by two armed men...it's truly funny). He ultimately comes off as an incompetent whiner you wish to see suffer some horrible fate. And whose idea was it to put the portly Chaykin in a kilt? He's certainly no Mel Gibson, and more than once we are flashed with either a full moon, or his twig and berries...yuck...I will say he did have one of the best lines in the film (see my title), occurring when he was questioning Howe about the quality of the mammaries (with great detail) of the female astronaut left back at the capsule (she had a concussion). Apparently Vinnie was developing an under the floorboard harem, as one woman wasn't enough. In terms of post-apocalyptic thrillers, Def-Con 4 rates pretty low, but it does have it's smarmy charms, meager as they may be...
   
   Anchor Bay provides a sharp looking anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) transfer, along with fairly respectable Dolby Digital 2-channel mono sound. Extras a minimal, including a trailer and a mini-reproduction of a poster for the film, which displays the tagline `The Last Defense. The Last Hope. The Battle For The Future Of The World Has Begun' ...um yeah (no one ever sold a film by understating it)...
   
   Cookieman108



2. The post-apocalyptic genre is a cow pasture a viewer must tread very carefully through if he or she wishes to emerge unscathed on the other side. On the one hand, you have the great nuclear war dramas, films like Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove," the soul shattering intensity of "Testament," and the British shocker "Threads." You don't have to check the bottom of your shoe if you step in these brilliant movies. You're likely to hear a squishing noise, however, if you trod upon any number of the Italian post-apoc cheapies currently making their way to DVD. "The New Barbarians," "Escape From the Bronx," "Warriors of the Lost World," and a slew of other ripe patties boast terrible dialogue, totally unconvincing special effects, and actors who wouldn't know how to act if their lives depended on it. "Def-Con 4" sort of lands in the middle of these two extremes, sort of a hardened cow pie with just enough squish left in it to give a bit under your weight and thus cause some worry. Many of the things we see and hear in this film are terrible, painfully terrible, but it's just interesting enough to keep you watching for just a few minutes longer.
   
   A trio of astronauts orbits the earth in a top-secret defensive/offensive satellite equipped with nuclear warheads when the unthinkable happens down below. We don't see the atomic exchange, a good idea on the filmmakers part since omitting the mushroom clouds saves on the special effects budget, but we do see these three characters watching television stations going off the air as well as see computer generated explosions on maps. One of the astronauts, Howe (Tim Choate), predictably agonizes over the fate of his family. Touching. The other two are thick skinned about the whole thing, especially the taciturn Walker (John Walsch). He's the can do man, apparently, and won't take any nonsense from the others. A female scientist on board, Jordan (Kate Lynch) seemingly serves as the requisite eye candy. Anyway, the three eventually head back to earth (not on purpose) in order to see what's happened to the home planet with decidedly unpleasant results. The crash landing knocks Jordan out, and Walker's acting is so bad that he's grabbed by something outside the craft and never seen alive again. It's now up to Howe to get Jordan out of the craft and search the surrounding environs for signs of life.
   
   In no time at all Howe ends up in the grip of a dirty survivor named Vinny (Maury Chaykin), a man who lives in a filthy abode and who drives a giant bulldozer around when he's looking for astronauts recently returned to earth. Vinny doesn't take too kindly to Howe's presence, but he does show interest in the satellite's food supply. He also has a young teenage girl named J.J. (Lenore Zann) locked in his basement for reasons probably best left unsaid here. This girl, Howe, Vinny, and Jordan soon fall into the clutches of a man so evil, so beyond human morality, that he attended prep school when the bombs fell. His name is Gideon (Kevin King), and he's an arrogant windbag who somehow managed to mold a bunch of misfit soldiers at nearby Fort Liswell into a fighting force of truly banal dimensions. He knows J.J. from school, but their acquaintance isn't enough to save our heroes from a loathsome fate. Gideon is the sort of guy who likes to stage show trials where he can hand out death sentences on trumped up charges. He's also the sort of guy who'll drop a cooked steak on the dirty floor in front of a starving man and chuckle as he does so. In other words, he's got a great future in a world gone mad. But does he? Sad to say, but something came down with that satellite, an object with an activated timer on it, that says otherwise.
   
   Most of what we see in "Def-Con 4" isn't very interesting. Right from the start the film treats us to actor John Walsch's pathetic attempts at emoting. Really, I haven't seen an actor this wooden in at least a week. He's positively painful to watch, and it's no surprise at all when the viewer feels an odd sense of satisfaction as some cannibals dine on him shortly after the crash landing. Sadly, the Howe character takes up the slack in the acting department as he cringes and whimpers his way through scene after scene. Is he annoying in the way that fingernails on a chalkboard induce cringing? Yes, but he's all we've got so deal with it. Unfortunately, we must focus on the characters' general ineptitude because there aren't many special effects to attract our attention. The movie has the idea of a destroyed world down cold, what with all the starving people wandering about in rags amidst wrecked buildings, but once you've seen one cheap post-apocalyptic world you've seen them all. There's nothing special going on in the world of "Def-Con 4," no hideous monstrosities reeking of radiation or mutated animals run amok. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
   
   So why am I giving this movie three stars? Because the atmosphere is appropriately gloomy and there is enough gunfire and explosions to keep the movie limping along to its rather unspectacular conclusion. Besides, it's easier to appreciate films like this when you've seen extraordinarily dreadful films like "The New Barbarians." Next to the Italian post-apocalyptic genre entries, "Def-Con 4" looks like Oscar material. Anchor Bay brings this minor masterpiece (cough) to DVD with a nice picture transfer and a trailer as an extra. Alas, no commentary track to explain away the plot holes, but I think I'll get by without it. Nuclear war film completists will want to pick this up while all others should probably stay away.



3. This movie gets one star because the war sequence itself, from the perspective of orbiting astronauts, is actually quite intense.
   
   The film itself? Retarded beyond description. "Mankind can now rest in piece". Yeah. Mmmkay.
   
   It only took a whopping two months after a full nuclear exchange between the superpowers to reduce Newfoundland to an irradiated landscape of cannibals and slave camps. Come on now.
   
   The astronaut who's wife was in Detroit (which you get to see nuked on a heat-sensitive camera) just 'happens' to survive? Come on now.
   
   Everything about this movie is hokey, all the way down to the pitiful acting and blatantly unrealistic conditions.
   
   If you're looking for a more provocative and believable film about the post-apocalyptic world, get "Threads".



4. This movie has just moved onto my top 10 movie list. It is so bad it is hilarious. It is Canada's answer to Mad Max.
   
   When I saw the cannibals at the beginning I thought it was either a giant roast, a thanksgiving turkey, or honey baked ham they were eating.
   
   I lost it when I saw the guy usher the "hero" of the movie out with the hand gun. You never hold a hand gun like. Its like he is holding a clothes iron.
   
   I also enjoyed how quickly mankind's society broke down and we all forgot how to produce fossil fuel or other forms of transportation but they manage to keep the lights on for you.
   
   And how they so ignorantly disposed of that old man who was pulling the giant space station was silly. "Hey You! You, pull your weight! I told you to pull your weight!" They dont even give him enough time to process the idea that he may not be pulling his weight before the guy with the serving tray on his chest shoots him.
   
   Even The Humongous from Mad Max 2 treats his minions with the knowledge that they are not necessarily replaceable.
   
   All that makes me laugh. Some one needs to tell Canada to make more movies like this.



5. If you're into realistic post-nuc war movies then check this out. This is one of the few movies in the genre that I really like. I first saw this when I was like 12 on VHS and had have waited ever since for a DVD version to be released. All of the other reviewers are total haters comparing this to cheesey sci-fi not even close to being realistic movies. The plot is totally plausable and isn't too dated for a movie from the 80's. anyways watch this movie if you're into the genre thats it. The amount of mullets is at a minimum too considering this is a canadian production thats pretty crazy. And iswear one of the guys is the fat guy from cheers in a kilt and shotgun. whats not to like?

5 comments about Doctor Who: Inferno.

1. This is one of my favorite Jon Pertwee serials. (I didn't give it 5 stars because it isn't Tom Baker). It's got everything - campy monsters, UNIT soldiers running around, a mad scientist, embarrassing moments for the Brigadier and for the Doctor too. It's very long, which can be good or bad I guess, I think it's all worthwhile though.



2. One of the best of the classic series. Third Doctor at his typical sarcastic and selfish. Plus, the whole alternate universe subplot adds an interesting twist to the story, a twist that's been copied almost verbatim by more "mainstream" series such as Stargate SG1. A great example of the third Doctor's time.



3. Jon Pertwee is the best Doctor of the 10, and this is a very good example of it. I wish he was still living to do the commentary.



4. The thing with 99.99% of TV dramas is that they have to follow an unwritten guideline in their storyline. The hero wins, the world (earth, company, whatever is saved) and we finish with a happy ending.
   
   Not so here. At least with the alternate world. As Terrance Dicks points out in the commentary, it's the one time that the writers got to "blow up the world" Inferno is a doom-laden, serious story, and, unusual for seven parts, just flies by. Project Inferno is trying to drill below the earth to unlock a new type of energy, which has been named "Stahlman's gas."
   
   Doesn't sound like enough plot? Add in that the Doctor's trying to work his TARDIS with just the console, and when a result of too much energy occurs, he's forced into the alternate world. Same people, except he can't trust these new versions. Stahlman's as up himself in this world, Liz is more of an anti-hero, and the Brigadier (sorry, Brigade Leader) is the one trying to stop the Doctor.
   
   The end of Episode Six must go doiwn as one of the best cliffhangers of all time, with the Doctor trying to get back to his world, and all of them just seeing this volcanic lava tinge...
   
   All in all, a rollercoaster of a serial. Well worth the money.



5. Rarley seen since 1970 the 3rd Doctor Fancy Dressed Jon Pertwe, I rember seeing this for the first time in 1984 and the intro was a volcano erupting showing the titel INFERNO and the this guy in Fancy Clothes strolled in and was greeted by the words from Sir Keith Hello DOCTOR, having only seen Tom Baker or Peter Davidson I was impressed, The Doctor is exiled on earth by the time lords and along with his companion Liz Shaw the Doctor hope to achive Time Travel with the TARDIS Consaole The Director of the progect Professor Stahlman can't stand the Doctor due to the fact the Doctor suggest to shut down the penetration of the earths core, In an attemt to travel in time the Doctor is thrown sideways to a parrerlell time wher everyone is diffrent even the Brigadaare has a mustache and eye patch, after a long period of gaining his assistants confidence he saves the world,but with consiquences, but can he return to earth proper to do the same. A can't miss DOCTOR WHO

5 comments about Space Raiders.

1. This Movie Was Not As Good As Star Wars But Was Pretty Good.The SF Was Not As Good.The Movie Was Sort Of Cheesy But Was Still Good.If Your Looking For Good Sci Fi Look For Star Wars But If You Own It Already Get This



2. A company of space pirates accidentally pick up a kid while on a raid. The kid fix their engine while they are attacked, and the pirates promise to send the kid home as thanks.

   The entire movie smells like a bad Star Wars rip-off, with a nearly non-existing budget for props or special effects. The acting is also sub-par.

   If you are looking for a good sci-fi movie, go somewhere else.

   If you happen to like bad sci-fi's, invite some friends and prepare yourselves for an MST3K experience.




3. When is a movie not a movie ? answer when it's Space Raiders, this film is the definition of " Deja vu", it is the ultimate in cheap exploitational rip offs. Most of the special effect scenes have been ripped wholesale from "Battle beyond the stars". So here we have a lousy story with a cute kid, badly grafted onto chopped up bits of a second rate older movie. DO NOT BUY THIS !



4. Dear Readers:

   I know that hordes of people have disparaged Space Raiders for its ceaseless borrowing of material from Battle Beyond the Stars (e.g., space-battle scenes, music clips, etc.). Maybe it's because I haven't seen that other film, but ever since I first saw Space Raiders in May 1990, it has stayed in my consciousness to this very day. After 14 years, I played the old video again yesterday, and still this movie moves me deeply. To those who base their criticism on technical effects, I quote what George Lucas once said, "Special effects without a story is a pretty boring thing." And that's precisely what we have in Space Raiders, first and foremost-a STORY! Not just a tale, but a highly original one. The premise is even radical, for a Hollywood movie. (I'll get to the premise in a moment.)

   Trying to escape an escalating shooting match, Peter Tracton (David Mendenhall) boards a space shuttle, only to find a group of pirates in the process of stealing it. The 10-year-old is whisked to the pirates' space hideaway, where he meets Zariatin (Ray Stewart), the grotesque ruler of the renegade space station. When C.W. "Hawk" (Vince Edwards) tries to return Peter to Procyon III, Zariatin has the boy recaptured for ransom, as the lad's parents are members of a wealthy interplanetary "corporation." The guerilla station under attack from the "corporation," Hawk and the boy escape in their vessel, and at last, Hawk drops the boy off at his home planet.

   A simple story, and yet, a transforming one. Everybody in this movie is either evil (Zariatin), weary (Hawk), petulant (Amanda), indifferent (Janeris), or just world corrupted in one way or another-except the boy. It is this 10-year-old who slowly brings out the better elements of those closest to him. Having killed Ace-and Zariatin's lackeys Amanda and Flightplan-Zariatin asks an approaching Hawk, "Why are you all so willing to die for him?" That sums up the premise of this film. With straight, shoulder-long hair; soft, clear skin; a high-pitched voice; and a pint-sized body, Peter symbolizes tenderness, femininity, innocence, and defenselessness-elements which everybody in this film lost eons ago. This is what Hawk's crew tries to protect, four dying in the process. Furthermore, for all those spaceships that tried to destroy the corporation's mammoth robot ship, all perished to dust. Only Peter manages to "blow that thing out of the galaxy." The premise: Surrounded by darkness, even corrupt, trained guerillas are capable of responding with humanity to that which is good, and only the most intractable of individuals (Zariatin) will not be moved by love and innocence. What is so radical about this movie vis-à-vis the standard Hollywood variety is that so many "bad" individuals perished trying to protect Peter. Furthermore, as one reviewer stated here, what a memory that boy must have had of this man, who died trying to keep his promise to return him home. Maybe it's just me, but I have NEVER seen a movie about adults who take kids this seriously. In the typical Hollywood film, adults who break promises give the kid a hundred different excuses-a tradition from which this film breaks away.

   The end of the film is the saddest of Hollywood moments, and I'm not joking. With everyone dead (e.g., Zariatin's station blown away, his fighters destroyed, Hawk's crew gone, etc.), Hawk must part with the boy because to remain on Peter's "corporation" dominated planet would have meant his death. Throughout the film, there's an apocalyptic air to everything-highlighted by the exceptional score-but the ending takes this feeling to the edge of despair. The engulfing loneliness during those last few seconds of film have stayed with me all these years. If a movie can move the viewer in this manner, then it is a damn-good film.

   Space Raiders (also called Star Child) may have borrowed the technical pyrotechniques from another film (Battle Beyond the Stars, which Howard Cohen also directed), but Hollywood movies are expensive to make-something 90% of viewers seem to forget. If the only option is to borrow some footage from another film (that the same director made) or to have no movie at all, borrowing then becomes the lesser of two evils. I would rather have that than not to have ever seen this kind of story on film.

   For those who insist on criticizing, I recommend trying to make a B-film yourself.




5. if you like sci-fi movies from the 80's this movie will work for you. sure it is a lot like the movie battle beyond the stars but so what! i just pretend it happens in the same universe. kind of like a side-quel. its fun and the kid is'nt too annoying, the scenes on the station are cool. besides hawk has a hero quality thats hard not to like. kinda like ice pirates meets battle beyond the stars. kids will like this film.

5 comments about Minority Report.

1. Does Steven Spielberg ever do anything that's bad? Not likely. This is an interesting story with many innovative ideas and gadgets. Tom Cruise makes the whole thing believable. The cast is great including Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, and Max Von Sydow. It's a long movie, but it moves along fine.



2. Sci-fi crime thriller set in the year 2054 about a policeman - played by Tom Cruise - who works in the Department of Precime in Washington D.C. which uses people with the gift of precognition to prevent murders before they happen. But one day the precognitives predict that Tom Cruise himself will commit a murder; a prediction that leads to Tom Cruise going on the run to clear his name and in the process uncovering a murder that happened in the past; one that somehow the Department of Precrime didn't know about. I found this to be a quite excellent film, with an intelligent plot, first-rate protagonist played by Tom Cruise and a wonderfully realised future world (the special effects really are something else). Spielberg is as usual in his element when making science fiction and this film is even better than the outstanding 'A.I. Artificial Intelligence' which he made the year before. A flawless combination of exceptional story telling and science fiction vision that is quite simply film-making at its very best. A modern classic.



3. "Minority Report," like "Bladerunner," is based on a Philip K. Dick story (although this time a short story). The plot revolves around a future where murders have almost been eliminated, thanks to a technology that allows the protagonist, John Anderton (played by Tom Cruise) to see into the future and stop a murderer before the act has been committed. The plot, which is excellent, is only half of the reason this film makes the list. The film resembles "Bladerunner," in more ways than having been based on a Dick story; the world it takes place in is beautifully detailed and believable, one in which scanners on billboards read your identity and then produce a specialized advertisement just for you. The future portrayed is believable, both gritty and sleek, and the ethical questions raised by the film are especially poignant as we increasingly live a world were we are videoed, photographed, and observed on a greater, and greater level.



4. This movie made me squirrely, disconcerted, agitated, not because it was a movie with an important message to convey, but because it was exploitive and edgy just for the sake of edginess.
   It's a futuristic overwrought work in which a precrime unit in Washington, DC, in 2054 prevents murders by using pre-cogs, pre-cognitive slaves who can see into the future and predict crimes that are going to take place. The three pre-cogs, male twins and a woman are kept in a vat of water with electrodes attached. The means justifies the ends, get it.
   Tom Cruise is head of the unit; he's an anally-retentive, wired spring about to snap. He seems constipated or suffering from hemorrhoids throughout. He plays the role with extreme seriousness. Warning: the series of scenes about his eyes are very disconcerting. Scanners can identify people by their eyes so you get the picture.
   Without giving any of the plot away, it's sufficient to say all the stuff regarding Tom Cruise's eyes is excruciatingly painful to view.
   It's an unrelenting movie in which the tables are turned, and the crime fighters target Cruise. In super-hero fashion he fights off platoons of "cops," and learns that he has been set up. His escape with the female pre-cog is harrowing and too disconcerting. He performs unbelievable feats in his escape.
   Max von Sydow is very good as Cruise's wily boss. Colin Farrell has a one-dimensional role that doesn't give him a chance to show off his real acting talent. Veteran actress Lois Smith is very good as the morally reprehensible "mad" scientist who even makes a pass at Cruise.
   If this is your taste, you'll love it. If it isn't, you may cringe. Optical surgeons may shed a few tears over it. I realize mine is a minority report; most people are going be ga-ga eyed over this flick.
   Nine Lives Too Many
   The Daemon in Our Dreams
   The Rice Queen Spy
   Clawed Back from the Dead



5. I must confess that some of the philosophical undertones of this movie were poignant to me. Nonetheless, I found this movie difficult to endure. The plot wasn't very suspenseful, although it was clever. Some of the major plot twists were very predictable while subtle details were handled in a creative fashion. **My personal disclaimer is that I think such notions of law enforcement are absolutely preposterous, and my stance on the issue left me too far removed from the debate to even enjoy the exploration of the possibilities. That said, I think the filmmakers employed some cute effects, and the vision of our world in the future was eye-candy.

5 comments about The Matrix Revolutions.

1. The last in a sequence of 3 movies called Matrix. An interesting conclusion to the sci-fi of the first 2. Intriguing. If you like some mind games in a movie this is for you.



2. it doesn't live up to the stunts that were performed in 1&2. Yet all that battle came to a satisfying end in an unlikely manner which made the movie..."still good"



3. "The Matrix Revolutions", the last in the Wachowski brothers' super sci-fi trilogy, is a mixed bag of criticism. Most of us already know what everybody else thinks based upon the surprisingly low opening weekend box office of $48.5 million that the film barely scraped, a direct reflection upon the consensus of the "Matrix Reloaded" back in May of `03. That's right, folks - for those who were disappointed with "Reloaded", "Revolutions" will only upset your expectations even further. For those who eat up every fat morsel that the film industry serves up piping hot from the griddle of hype (the teaser trailers in combination with the cheeky Powerade TV ads), you'll love it pound for gluttonous pound.
   
   The remainder of this now flaccid storyline has Zion up crap creek without a paddle, their firepower no match for the hundreds upon thousands of Sentinels about to breach the core of the city. There is something afoot in the Matrix as well - the malicious Agent Smith (Weaving) has proliferated himself throughout the entire system and is more than prepared for a final confrontation with Neo (Reeves). However, Neo is preoccupied with what measures must be taken to ensure the safety and survival of Zion whilst Trinity (Moss) ever-faithfully prepares herself to accompany him on his most perilous mission yet.
   
   As exciting as this apocalyptic final chapter sounds, you know you've lost something when the story completely overwhelms the characters. Neo, Trinity and Morpheus used to be some pretty damned interesting folks. In the film that began it all, Neo was introduced as a cocksure novice who slowly but surely realizes his true potential. Trinity was a strong and admirable yin to Neo's yang, a woman equipped with a lethal combination of beauty and brains. Morpheus was a wise but humble seeker of truth, a teacher not abject to learning from others.
   
   Where the hell did these people go?
   
   They were killed off by one deadly mechanism: FRANCHISE. This was the point at which art was sacrificed for profit and the Wachowskis lost themselves in the high-tech impressionism of computer graphics imaging. What started as a fantastic premise full of possibilities has resorted to eye-candy for the action movie catalog, a by-product of overzealous marketing.
   
   Aside from this noticeable change in the scheme of things is another inexplicable move - the film's grandiose conclusion. Many people will be baffled as well as fuming, the ending leaving more questions with nothing to provide any answers. The most significant resulting quandary is why some of us chose to spend nine dollars on over two hours of visual excess only to be swindled by a cryptic ending. Sorry to say that the entertainment industry has suckered the lot of us once again.
   
   Let's face it - the only real fun to be had here is by the actors and you gotta hand it to Hugo Weaving - he's successfully managed to find himself a character in which he can completely indulge in all its salacious evil. The bad guys always seem to have more fun in overwrought productions such as this and Weaving is clearly having a blast as Smith, cackling and smirking to the hilt while his markedly arched eyebrows and piercing blue eyes consume the screen.
   
   Reeves, on the other hand, puts no more energy into his acting than what's required and let's face it - there isn't much of a requisite for emotion. His designer wardrobe, stylish shades and killer moves are the real showcase and Reeves excels at this but nothing more. Moss retains her cool surface as does Fishburne, along with Pinkett-Smith as the resolute Niobe. Don't expect much to change; these are repeat performances, after all. Mary Alice joins the cast as the Oracle and the presence of a new face in a familiar role is only a bittersweet reminder of Gloria Stuart's passing (a vague explanation was written into the script for why the Oracle appears physically different).
   
   Bottom line: If you're just dying to know how it all ends, go ahead and spend the few bucks to rent it. Just don't expect to be illuminated or amused by it all (or to get your money back!).



4. You'll only want to buy The Matrix Revolutions to see how the story ends. There's nothing new here, and the story is so diluted it gets boring. Not worth a second viewing. Still, I give it three stars because of the story behind the entire series. This movie itself only deserves two stars.



5. After being so disappointed/confused with "The Matrix Reloaded" after seeing it in the theater in 2003, I didn't even see this film on the big screen when it came out, instead renting it once it came out on home video. After viewing, I realized that I missed the wrong Matrix film to skip for a long period of time.
   
   Whereas "Revolutions" does not come close to the first film in duplicating the originality of the idea, it superbly triumphs the sub-par second film by eliminating much of the philosophical mumbo-jumbo and instead focus on a plot that the average viewer has a chance to understand.
   
   Essentially, two things happen during the course of this film (I liken it to the Lord of the Rings series, where Frodo/Sam do their thing while the rest of Middle Earth fights Sauron): First, the city of Zion braces for (and eventually does engage) the approach machine army. The special effects in the war scenes are pretty incredible...not anything we haven't seen before, but not even as close to as faky as those in "Reloaded". The other plotline sees Neo and Trinity traveling deep into the heart of Machine City, where Neo ultimately has his final confrontation with the seemingly unstoppably Agent Smith. That final showdown is so intense (and so awaited) that it will raise the hairs on the back of your neck!
   
   Overall, then, this film falls somewhere in between the originality of the first installment of the trilogy and the over-the-top sequel. Upon the conclusion of "Revolutions", I (and I consider myself to be an above-average viewer of science fiction) was still a bit confused as to what had exactly transpired, but not the utter sense of confusion I felt after viewing "Reloaded". Instead, "Revolutions" prompted me to check out what people were saying on the Internet, and eventually I did grasp the fundamental concept of what had happened.
   
   So, if you were extremely disappointed by "Reloaded" and vowed to never view another Matrix film ever again, I strongly suggest that you give this one a try, as it completes the story of Neo in way that you can understand (even if it MAY take a little extra help from Internet scribes!).

5 comments about Jumanji.

1. Good movie and it does great--no flaws at all.
   
   Thank you,
   Lester A.Vineyard



2. This is an awesome movie. Some parts are extremely funny. But it's mostly serious in a cool way. It's a very fun movie to see.



3. Lots of adventure and thrills... gripping till the end. Wonderful visual and sound effects.



4. *may contain spoilers*
   On the surface, Jumanji appears to be an actual child's game, meant for amusement purposes, with a surprising twist. Upon further examination, it becomes clear that Jumanji itself is NOT a game, but a metaphor for the difficulties our souls must face before we can confront our fears. At the beginning of the film, Alan Parish is burdened by his inability to confront his fears; a problem which may, in an almost Freudian manner, stem from a strained relationship with his own father. "Jumanji" is a physical representation of this burden, and since at the time he is unable to confront it, he is pulled into the jungle of his fears, unable to escape. He overcomes his flaws not only when he "beats the game", but, as we see thanks to both Van Pelt and Alan's father being played by the same actor, when he finally has the strength to confront his father. I did not care for the subplot involving jungle animals wreaking havoc on the city, but this is merely an unhelpful footnote in a powerful story of one boy's self-actualization.



5. I love this movie, but it has one terrible flaw, and it saddened me greatly to hear it. When the grown boy is seeking the girl he once played with, he mumbles disparagingly that she is probably living in a trailer park.
   
   And with that snobbish aside, from a person I formerly respected as a humanist, a million kids - who live in trailer parks or the equivalent - were ushered out of the fun.
   
   It would be worth sending it to that company in Utah that edits out bad words and sex scenes, to get that cruel sentence removed.