Dadd, Richard Movie Reviews

I watched this movie tonight. I am still in shock. My rating is not on the actors/actresses......for they were all excellent. However this movie was more of a documentary about child abuse than it was a movie for entertainment purposes. I believe there is a place and time for this movie.....but on the family entertainment shelf at a popular movie rental chain, is not the proper place. Knowing I have a almost 10 year old girl in my home, I read the cover and it gave me no indication that we would witness this little girl being beaten in the face, her body beaten with belts and ofcourse no indication of the fact it was going to show her being raped....and show it so clearly at that. I wanted to turn the movie off....yet I also wanted my ten year old to see that the man would be punnished. Unfortunately....instead.....the movie showed my daughter that if you let anyone know......two things will happen. 1. the man will not be punnished. 2. Your mommy is going to pick him over you even after she see's him raping you with blood pouring off of your face from his earlier fist contact. Majority of movie rentals are for enjoyment in the privacy of our homes. There was nothing enjoyable about this movie. If they are not for enjoyment, then they need to be clearly marked as such by the packaging and also by the movie rental company. As well in a different part of the business....perhaps in the educational part or public service area. But if they did that.....then the movie would not bring in as much profit.....so again....the movie makers and the business's renting out this movie....put the all mighty dollar ahead of the best interest of the family. I am not blind to this problem in our society, however we watch movies for entertainment reasons, and this was not entertainment.

I have owned a copy of this movie, in one form or another, since it was first available and watch it about once every six months or so. The acting is impressive for a made for TV vehicle but the staying power, I believe, rests with the power of the story's visuals and its words. I understand Ms Huston agreed to direct "Bastard out of Carolina" only if she was allowed to show the true ugliness found in the novel. She used her freedom very wisely and managed to draw the needed emotions out of her cast.

I honestly believe this tele-movie is must seeing for all of us. The story is true and it is being repeated all around us every minute of every day by our neighbors, friends, and relatives against our loved ones. Until we believe this and look very closely for the signs things will only get worse.

This movie made me sob at the end of it - something that rarely happens due to movies. My best friend was raped by her father, and this movie made me truly realize the sort of pain and torture she went through. This is a very incredible, albeit disturbing film that I think people really need to watch. Incest is a very real and terrible thing in our society and we need to stop keeping it under wraps and pretending it doesn't exist. The acting is very real, and I think the girl that plays Bone does a fantastic job. Yes the movie is shocking. Yes, you -do- see the father beat and rape his child. But why is that so terrible when there are movies out there with unnecessary full frontal nudity? With explicit sex scenes? This rape scene is very vital to the movie and plays a very powerful and pivotal point, and I think that putting it in the movie is not to make is "shocking" and make you gasp, but to make you realize the true horror of real rape and incest. If you were shocked then good - just think this was a movie. Yes it may be shocking but it is REAL. Can't say that about movies where the man and the woman meet in a bus station and then have sex that night.

I adore Barbra Streisand, but I must say that she is not Dolly. Someone else reviewed it that she was not middle-aged, and therefore did not play it middle-aged, but the fact of the Matter is that Dolly is middle-aged, and Barbra was not. She is also just not right for the role.

The other thing in the cutting and hacking of the score. Jerry Herman himself complained about how and where his songs were placed in this movie. He even wrote a new song ("Just Leave Everything to Me") in for Barbra in replacement of "I Put My Hand In," and says in his autobiography that it was moved from where he originally intended it, to a spot that did not work as well. Get the cd with Carol Channing (original cast or revival, both are just fine), and then get Funny Girl if you like Barbra.

I put the dvd in and said to myself.they did a lousy job here...usually the graphics are high tech etc............the movie started to play and the colors vibrantly bought back the memories of the Christmas day I sat in the movie theater and was mesmorized by Streisand's voice , the costumes intricately designed.but no sing along subtitles.well i know the words anywho!!!

BUY this DVD.the widescreen picture is phenomenal

All that i can say is that Barbara is a genius. She is such a beatiful performer. Her grace on the screen is nothing compared to her voice. SHe is able to deliver the songs of Hello, Dolly with beauty and i can't help from watching the movie over and over agian. The rest of the cast just amplifies Barbara. The dance sequences are amazingly done and the ad libs from the script are great.

I need to preface my review by mentioning that I am an ex Mormon who was extremely disappointed by my two-year mission. This baggage both stains my opinion toward all things Mormon with a vitriolic bias while also allowing me to make first-hand trenchant observations as to the film's content. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the film begins with the only true to life depiction of the Mormon missionary experience. Most Mormon missionaries are young (the convention is to begin at the age of 19) and consequently full of youthful levity. This levity is diminished in the public's view of missionaries by the fact that the Mormon Church invests a lot of energy in inundating its members with images of the sacrosanct missionary. I remember internalizing this spoon-fed image early in my mission. Missionaries tend to live in a dual world, in pubic they behave according to proscribed behavioral norms leaving their truer personas for private. This results in a pervading conflict between the struggle to obediently (and often blindly) comport to the Church's constructed missionary identity and my 19 year old body and mind. Mr. Ditcher begins the film by acknowledging this central conflict that most young missionaries experience. In Mormon circles, this is actually extremely controversial. I particularly identified with the central character that couldn't quite decide whether to just pack his bags and go home. Mr. Ditcher’s challenge to the churches extremely sanitized image is one of the film's strong points. The remainder of the film is dedicated to events that are clearly meant for a believing Mormon audience. It quickly retreats back to the church's party line. This church party line consists of the absolute 'truth' of the religion regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The film does flirt with historical inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon and the fact that the church would not allow African-Americans to hold the priesthood but then somewhat incredulously solves these issues when the characters simply choose to leave them unexamined and ignored because, well hey, since the church is true, one doesn't need to go any deeper. The film also uses the typical Mormon trope of using campy emotional situations where the viewer is encouraged to conflate the emotional response as evidence for a spiritual manifestation of the absolute correctness of Mormon religious dogma.

I enjoyed this movie, though I knew a lot of the stuff was very unlikely and nearly funny, I thought the director over did it a bit. Though I still enjoyed it and cried. The other "Side" was a bit to much for a lot of viewers i imangine. I highly reccommend Single's Ward for every one! This was a big too Serious and single's ward fixed that. Keep in mind I know several of the hilarious actors. I would get singles ward and consider God's Army. Maybe see it once or twice

I thought this was a great movie. It depicts many of the kinds of things that really happen on a Latter-day Saint mission, both the good and the bad. One person mentioned that the movie only shows missionaries building relationships with each other and not doing much work. It would be a pretty boring movie if it showed missionaries going from door to door getting doors slammed in their face for two hours. I think one has to assume that is happening as well.

I need to preface my review by mentioning that I am an ex Mormon who was extremely disappointed by my two-year mission. This baggage both stains my opinion toward all things Mormon with a vitriolic bias while also allowing me to make first-hand trenchant observations as to the film's content. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the film begins with the only true to life depiction of the Mormon missionary experience. Most Mormon missionaries are young (the convention is to begin at the age of 19) and consequently full of youthful levity. This levity is diminished in the public's view of missionaries by the fact that the Mormon Church invests a lot of energy in inundating its members with images of the sacrosanct missionary. I remember internalizing this spoon-fed image early in my mission. Missionaries tend to live in a dual world, in pubic they behave according to proscribed behavioral norms leaving their truer personas for private. This results in a pervading conflict between the struggle to obediently (and often blindly) comport to the Church's constructed missionary identity and my 19 year old body and mind. Mr. Ditcher begins the film by acknowledging this central conflict that most young missionaries experience. In Mormon circles, this is actually extremely controversial. I particularly identified with the central character that couldn't quite decide whether to just pack his bags and go home. Mr. Ditcher’s challenge to the churches extremely sanitized image is one of the film's strong points. The remainder of the film is dedicated to events that are clearly meant for a believing Mormon audience. It quickly retreats back to the church's party line. This church party line consists of the absolute 'truth' of the religion regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The film does flirt with historical inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon and the fact that the church would not allow African-Americans to hold the priesthood but then somewhat incredulously solves these issues when the characters simply choose to leave them unexamined and ignored because, well hey, since the church is true, one doesn't need to go any deeper. The film also uses the typical Mormon trope of using campy emotional situations where the viewer is encouraged to conflate the emotional response as evidence for a spiritual manifestation of the absolute correctness of Mormon religious dogma.

I enjoyed this movie, though I knew a lot of the stuff was very unlikely and nearly funny, I thought the director over did it a bit. Though I still enjoyed it and cried. The other "Side" was a bit to much for a lot of viewers i imangine. I highly reccommend Single's Ward for every one! This was a big too Serious and single's ward fixed that. Keep in mind I know several of the hilarious actors. I would get singles ward and consider God's Army. Maybe see it once or twice

I thought this was a great movie. It depicts many of the kinds of things that really happen on a Latter-day Saint mission, both the good and the bad. One person mentioned that the movie only shows missionaries building relationships with each other and not doing much work. It would be a pretty boring movie if it showed missionaries going from door to door getting doors slammed in their face for two hours. I think one has to assume that is happening as well.

... This movie singlehandedly is dumbing down the teenagers of America.

Get this plot...some rich spoiled girl feels sorry for herself and feigns insanity. Some rich spoiled guy knows her for about a week and is suddenly in love with her. So the logical thing to do, of course, is steal a car and run away. Where are they going? Who knows. The girl is a rule breaker, and that's what is supposed to make her so coooooool.

So the two drive off cross country in their newly acquired car, breaking rules. Then at the end, they go home, and the girl is rightfully sent to a sanitorium. End of movie. No plot. No lesson. No mop thick enough to soak up the drool that's collected on the section of floor directly under my slightly open, dumbstruck mouth.

Drew should've carried through with her threat to put a bullet between O'Donnell's eyes. I would've given it five stars for that scene alone.

Matt meets Casey, Matt falls in love with Casey, Casey and Matt run away, and Casey's untreated manic depression hits disturbingly familiar veins in a lot of viewers, namely , me. I should have payed closer attention, because my life just became Mad Love 2!!! If you're under 21, I highly recommend this movie, otherwise it's going to bore adults, but luckily, I was 20 when I saw this in a theater, first showing, on a rainy, sucky day that was perfect for taking your psycho girlfriend to a movie.

The previous viewer was right "adults will think it's stupid" I'm an adult and I think it was stupid. Maybe a teenage girl would enjoy it but unfortunately it really is a very shallow look at mental illness. It's also kind of slow and boring. A movie filled with cliches about mental illness. The thing with all the eyes has been done so many times and what real mentally ill person has ever done that.
Then she's diagnosed just with depression? What about all her manic episodes.
That Chris What-his-name was a big yawn and
even the gorgeous, talented, charming, exqisite Drew Barrymore couldn't save this sinking ship.

There have been over a dozen movies based upon the life of Frank and Jesse James. Some have been historically accurate, but extremely boring and others have totally ignored history, but are extremely good movies to watch. FRANK AND JESSE falls somewhere in the middle.

The movie is really enjoyable to watch. It ignores much of the James' early years and instead focuses on their days as a gang after the Civil War. There are a few historical facts that are presented correctly in the film, but there are a lot more that are totally ignored or changed. Instead, the film is based more upon the legend of the James and Younger gang.

There is no doubt that Jesse James and company were bankrobbers who had a ruthless streak to them. Nevertheless, a person cannot deny the fact either that to many people in Missouri and other rural areas in the country, the James and Younger gang were heroes, Robin Hoods of the American West. Pinkerton asserted as much time and time again in his attempts to catch and round up the gang. Having been raised in a rural area not too far from the state of Missouri, I understand why people believed and still believe that in some ways the gang were heroes. In fact, I am inclined to agree. Therefore, this "romanticizing" of the Jesse James' legend isn't anything new. It's just the other side of the same coin and usually makes for a better story.

I rented this movie because I was doing a school report on Jesse James and was covering Hollywood's portrayal of the James gang. I ended up being very impressed. I think that Rob Lowe and Bill Paxton do a wonderful job as Jesse and Frank James. As a matter of fact, just about everyone in the movie are good actors. The shootouts are just spectacular (much better done than "The Great Northfield Minnesota raid" I might add) but if your looking for a accurate historacl account you might try looking elsewhere. This movie has a lot of the legends around the gang, such as checking passengers hands on a train, to determine whether or not to rob them, (soft hands--get robbed...calloused hands, meaning you were a working man,--don't get robbed) but almost everything about the Northfield raid is fiction. Here and there, parts of the movie are also made up, but Northfield was the killer for me. Anyway, if your up to a great western, try watching, you wont be let down, but if your looking for something out of a text book, try looking somewhere else.

This is a great movie to watch full of drama, action, comedy. It is also a great movie for those studying the lives of brothes Frank and Jesse. I just have to say this "WOW! What a nice butt Bill has!!!!!!"

great movie with Kurt Russell, William Baldwin, Scott Glenn, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Robert DeNiro to name a few, though Leigh seems like she doesnt belong. great fire sequences and why the **ck did Russell have to die huh, I mean they couldve killed off Leigh(sorry but its true) and when Baldwin gets blown threw the window and hits the water below is simply a great action scene. Ron Howard directs another masterpiece. and when in a fire, dont open the door fast, or boommm!!!

This is my second favorite movie behind T2 Judgement Day from 1991.

The movie is the story of a firefighting department with two firefighting brothers who have throughout their lives been at odds with each otehr. However, their distant relations have been put to the test when a string of fires caused by arson attacks pop up all over the ghettos of Chicago.

Even worse is that the department is being deprived of funds by a sleazy bureucratic alderman and it's an unplesant and dangerous twist of turns as they find out whose responsible for the string of arson induced fires.

William Baldwin and Kurt Russell are absolutley fabulous playing the often clashing McCaffrey bothers as they fight numerous fires and face off against a 'beast' that burns along the walls and ceilings of the rooms.

The fiery special effects are just magnificent and makes this movie even better.

This is a truly magnificant movie. The DVD offers nothing new other than excellent improvement in quality over the VHS. By far one of the best movies of 1991.

This is such a great movie and a hell of a fiery good time!! The special effects are absolutely amazing and intense! The storyline is great too!! I can't say enough about "Backdraft" except that it's so aweosme and I highly recommend buying the DVD!

I have read several of Iris Murdoch's earlier novels but was finally forced to give up the ghost half way through The Book and The Brotherhood (one of England's great Doorstopper Tomes). Iris Murdoch wrote brilliantly, she was the jewel in Britain's literary crown, about the one subject she knew best...the English, with a capital E. She did not write entertainingly as does Robert Barnard who also captures the English in the crosshairs in the odd murder mystery, some of them outright hilarious.

In any case, most of the previous reviewers address all that is good and great about Iris. However, I am in total agreement with the reviewer who brings up the fatal flaw in this film, the chaotic editing, wielded with all the subtlety of a woodchopper's axe and producing the reduction of the viewer's experience to a matter of tolerance. Gasp!

The writers displict the realities of living with Alzheimer's disease as well as the real livings of the philosopher/author. Yet, "Iris" is about love. The two issues blend nicely. The mountains of life with this disease are real for the victim and their families. Heavy heart and soul was written so powerfully that when sadness booms, the audience cries. When anger booms, the audience's heart beats in raging speeds. When happiness booms, the audience's sense of hope arises.

Judi Dench and Jim Broadbent are an amazing duo as husband and wife fighting the battle of love and care vs. rage and turbulation. This is what makes a "disease based" movie so unique. Dench displicts how such a battle changes one's life like the real-life philosopher. She is one of few modern actresses who can express such soul in a movie. Broadbent, in his deserved Oscar winning role, displicts why one needs such hope and why it's important to never surrender. Kate Winslet shows how such life outlook begins. As the young Iris, she proves that one doesn't have to have the perfect beginnings to have a near perfect ending. Winslet was the perfect casting choice as she proves that she'll be a legendary actress within the next few years. None of these three actors hold back a drop of emotion for a second.

One will have to watch the movie to know what I'm talking about. If I reveal everything now, it'll ruin the movie's theme for the first-time viewer. I can write by experiece about Alzheimer's disease; therefore, don't think for a second that "Iris" overdramatizes it like most movies. My grandmother passed away in 2000 after her ten-year battle. She may not have been a philosopher, but the battles in her life and family were similar to the movie.

For some, it may take a second viewing of "Iris", but they will leave fulfilled and inspired.

Kate Winslet and Judi Dench both do wondrously in this film about the British novelist Iris Murdoch, the noted writer who late in life faced the ravages of Alzheimers disease, and with it the slow and sorrowful withering of her once brilliant intellect.

Winslet as the younger Iris absolutely shines.. her freedom of self, her strong and vibrant personality, her utter love affair with life all come through to the viewer, clear and bright. In turn, Dench's acting truly inhabits the character of Murdoch, as she slowly loses touch with the world around her, with the thoughts that had once come so quickly and effortlessly and creatively.

Broadbent shines here too, as Murdoch's husband, the writer John Bayley (who himself had only good things to say about the film, upon its release). Broadbent won the Best Supporting actor Oscar for his performance here as the patient yet all too human husband, content with a life somewhat in the sidelines, of watching the brilliant light of his wife shine on him, standing by her during her youthful indiscretions and all along their lives together until her Alzheimers began to invade their lives like an unwanted guest overstaying its welcome. As their house grows more and more messy, disheveled, confused, and their lives more and more removed from those they had once known, of intellectual examination and full-hearted vigor, Bayley remains noble in his love for Iris, loving her faithfully until the end, despite the occasional outpouring of sadness and even anger that his beloved has to endure such undue suffering. In fact, what is most touching here is the fact that though the two once shared all, experiences, thoughts, themselves together and alone, as only those who co-habitate for decades can do, this passage was one which they would both experience so differently, both utterly alone in their experience for the first time since they met, even though physically near each other. (Murdoch, in one of her moments of clarity, seemed to show she understood what was happening to her, but these moments didn't last long, and the darkness soon enveloped her more fully). I think this was the most tragic part of the film, seeing Broadbent/Bayley try to come to terms with not being able to cope with her illness together in any sort of real sense as she slipped away from him. He had to be her anchor and rock, and had no one doing the same for him, as he guided her through her last days.

The scenes of the young duo here, on bicycles, and swimming in the British summer sun, are truly beautiful, and will stay with the viewer long after the credits start to roll.. this is one of those rare love stories, imperfect, true, painful at times also, but rarer still is that it was real, and that it lasted through a lifetime of ups and downs, triumphs and sorrows, even throughout illness, and never faded away. Indeed one could say it grew stronger through the rainy days, and changed, as real and true love so often can... As Bayley became more of a parent and less of a lover/husband, his love shone on in a different way, and the comfort he gave to his wife, who needed it so very much, was immeasurable.

I recommend this film to fans of Murdoch, Winslet and Dench, and to those in the mood to see a lovingly crafted portrait of lovingly crafted lives. 5 stars.

No, no. This movie is far from being Shakespearean. In fact, The Villain is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. This comes as no surprise as it was recommended by my grandmom, whose taste in movies has always been viewed as dubious by the rest of my family. What's even more hilarious is that she once heard that Arnold would be on The Tonight Show, and-- get this-- she said, "I wonder if he's going to talk about The Villain..." Sure, grandmom... He's really going to tarnish his reputation as a respected movie star by reminding everyone of this late-seventies bomb! Anyhow-- you probably get the point. Plainly stated, The Villain is parody at its worst, so don't even think that it's going to make you laugh.

I first saw the movie years ago and thought it was hysterical. Sadly this release crops the movie -- if it were widescreen I would buy it in a heartbeat.

5 stars for the movie, -2 for poor DVD.

As other reviewers have already indicated, this is like a Road Runner cartoon only with real actors - Kirk Douglas, Ann Margaret and of course Arnold who plays the handsome stranger.

As if everthingelse isn't funny, seeing Arnold play a cowboy with a hulking physique and sounding like Dracula is amusing.

1 star reviewers don't get it, this movie was never intended to be a John Wayne type of western--it's supposed to be and is funny!

"Titanic" is (stop me if you've heard this one before), the one about the boat that hits an iceberg and sinks. Whoops! Gave it away. This version stars Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb as a married couple on the cusp of divorce. She can't stand his guts - he finds redemption before it all gets too cold and wet. Pure fiction but hey, it's Titanic and its masterfully told.
TRANSFER: Fox is at its usual middle of the road with this transfer quality. Some scenes are nicely balanced with good gray scale. Others seem to suffer from low contrast and black levels. There's ample pixelization, aliasing and shimmering of fine details throughout. The audio's been remixed to feeble stereo. At this point does anybody care?
EXTRAS: Ah, here's the real treat of this DVD. You get "Beyond Titanic" a masterfully told 1 1/2 hr. documentary that really gets to the bottom of things (no pun intended)and covers the full history of both the ship and its many film incarnations.
BOTTOM LINE: This is a worth while DVD for two reasons - the documentary and its price tag - cheaper than most low budget no-name studio releases. If nothing else, you're buying the documentary and for that reason alone, it's definitely worth it!

I remember crying over this film as a kid, and sitting absolutely unmoved during James Cameron's feelingless epic. True, "A Night To Remember" is more accurate, but if you're one of those people who want to count the windows on the promenade deck, buy a documentary. Unlike some reviewers who can't possibly understand the character's actions during the sinking, it is about dignity and courage, something missing from other depictions of the story. The cast are flawless, and the story of a shallow family's realization of meaning brought about through tragedy is age-old and timeless.

I enjoyed watching the James Cameron super-production of TITANIC released a few years ago. But after one viewing that was it. It's the l950 version of TITANIC, starring Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb that keeps drawing me back through repeated viewings. These characters are the ones who can really connect with a viewer. Stanwyck brings a fantastic down-to-earth quality that you instantly connect to. Webb is equally good as the dispicable fop who wants his kids to live like royal spoilt brats. My only complaint about this DVD are the two commentaries. Film critic Richard Shickel's has to be heard to be believed for he literally sounds like he's half-asleep. He starts off with: "Uh,and....uh, uh, and, uh, Barbara, uh, uh, Stanwyck, uh (long pause)is a fine, uh, uh, ehhhhhhh, ummmm, good actress." The second one is slightly better because you can hear Audrey Dalton recall those long-gone days on the 20th Century lot making TITANIC. She's witty, interesting, but unfortunately has about ten minutes on the commentary. You're forced to listen to cameraman Michael Lonza's relentless spill about miniatures, special effects and water tanks. Worse, is the "audio essay" by Silvia Stoddard, who tells us such fascinating tidbits that "Titanic was, well, just incredibly big!" Robert Wagner repeats over and over again "how lucky I was to be on a production like TITANIC." We'd all be considered lucky, Robert, but I just wish you could have thrown some more color about individual scenes. Other than these two commentaries, the DVD restoration looks great!