Don Movie Reviews

"The Family Man" is a Hollywood fantasy that has been done in variation many times in the past. What makes this one so different, in my opinion, is that it speaks to husbands today about what we so easily forget. Wealth, influence, power, sex, adultery, etc.... all the things men fantasize for, are shown for what they really are when slapped in the face by an eye opening "reality". It moved me as a man of 40 to consider how empty all those items of lust really are compared to a faithful wife, the hugs of a child, and the security only found in true friendship with another man. We so easily look past the reality because it seems so ho-hum compared to the fantasies we are bombarded with every day.
In this movie, we see all sides of this from the perspective of Jack Campbell. From Forbes 400 member to bowling league Jersey family man, he experiences two lives. When he realizes how shallow his life has been, he is desperate to keep the ho-hum we all take for granted.
I think women would love this because it is an intensely romantic movie, in the truest sense of the term. I think it would be wise for wives to have their husband watch it with them. After the movie, there will be a lot of opportunity to talk over tough subjects the film raises. It's a movie that can open wounds, but also provides a warm means to healing. It will make a man think, I know. It worked for me, and my wife is glad for it!

For years It's A Wonderful Life set the standard not only for Christmas movies but for movies that ask the lingering question: What would life be like had taken this turn...? Capra was the master of the genre and James Stewart was his classic time traveler.

Family Man seems to take up things where Capra left off and Nicholas Cage steps capably into Stewart's shoes.

Don't think that this movie is just for the holidays. Isn't it interesting that all of the very best holiday stories teach lessons that are as applicable on the Fourth of July as they are on Christmas Eve? It's A Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, Home Alone and While You Were Sleeping all have overt holiday themes but invite the viewer to live throughout the year as though life mattered and went beyond holidays.

The Family Man is just such a movie. Christmas just happens to be a minor prop in a story about integrity, priorities and love. Buy it today and watch it on Labor Day and then again on your mother-in-law's birthday and again on Halloween and...regardless of the day you'll love it!

This is destined to be a classic. It's one of those movies that isn't just cranked out as mind-numbing, stare-at-the-screen "entertainment". It can really make you think, if you let it, and you should, because while some may get a "glimpse" of what may have been, most of us won't get a second chance to make it happen.

"The Family Man" is a Hollywood fantasy that has been done in variation many times in the past. What makes this one so different, in my opinion, is that it speaks to husbands today about what we so easily forget. Wealth, influence, power, sex, adultery, etc.... all the things men fantasize for, are shown for what they really are when slapped in the face by an eye opening "reality". It moved me as a man of 40 to consider how empty all those items of lust really are compared to a faithful wife, the hugs of a child, and the security only found in true friendship with another man. We so easily look past the reality because it seems so ho-hum compared to the fantasies we are bombarded with every day.
In this movie, we see all sides of this from the perspective of Jack Campbell. From Forbes 400 member to bowling league Jersey family man, he experiences two lives. When he realizes how shallow his life has been, he is desperate to keep the ho-hum we all take for granted.
I think women would love this because it is an intensely romantic movie, in the truest sense of the term. I think it would be wise for wives to have their husband watch it with them. After the movie, there will be a lot of opportunity to talk over tough subjects the film raises. It's a movie that can open wounds, but also provides a warm means to healing. It will make a man think, I know. It worked for me, and my wife is glad for it!

For years It's A Wonderful Life set the standard not only for Christmas movies but for movies that ask the lingering question: What would life be like had taken this turn...? Capra was the master of the genre and James Stewart was his classic time traveler.

Family Man seems to take up things where Capra left off and Nicholas Cage steps capably into Stewart's shoes.

Don't think that this movie is just for the holidays. Isn't it interesting that all of the very best holiday stories teach lessons that are as applicable on the Fourth of July as they are on Christmas Eve? It's A Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, Home Alone and While You Were Sleeping all have overt holiday themes but invite the viewer to live throughout the year as though life mattered and went beyond holidays.

The Family Man is just such a movie. Christmas just happens to be a minor prop in a story about integrity, priorities and love. Buy it today and watch it on Labor Day and then again on your mother-in-law's birthday and again on Halloween and...regardless of the day you'll love it!

This is destined to be a classic. It's one of those movies that isn't just cranked out as mind-numbing, stare-at-the-screen "entertainment". It can really make you think, if you let it, and you should, because while some may get a "glimpse" of what may have been, most of us won't get a second chance to make it happen.

His name is Monty Roberts. The non-fiction book available on Amazon is "The Man Who Listens To Horses". He first started talking to horses in 1947 after watching wild Mustang communicate in the Nevada desert. Get it, read it...you will not be disappointed.

Beautifully photographed, well-written, and well directed, this movie is a joy to watch.

Recommended.

The Horse Whisperer, a 1998 production by Touchstone Pictures and directed by Robert Redford runs for 169 minutes. Starring in this romance drama are Robert Redford and Kristin Scott Thomas. As the movie takes us from New York City across country to the open skies of Montana we see scenery unsurpassed by any other film of the year. You can almost spell the mountain air as we travel through the rolling hills of a working Montana cattle ranch. The Academy award nominated sound track adds the finishing touch.
We share in Annie MacLean's (Thomas) heartbreak when her daughter is involved in a tragic horseback riding accident. Thomas now has to overcome a stressed marriage and rebuild a relationship with her daughter. To do this, Thomas must help her daughter and her horse that was equally traumatized by the accident heal. Showing her domineering attitude Thomas decides against everyone's wishes to travel across country with her daughter and the horse to find the "Horse Whisperer".
Once there, not only does Thomas find help for her daughter and horse, she also finds love. We see Tom Booker's (Redford) caring touch reach everyone around him. As the daughter and horse heal we see Thomas's situation become more difficult. As the feelings between Redford and Thomas deepen we see her struggle to choose between her family and a Montana life she has grown to love. This is a drama to see, especially for the horse enthusiast. I give it four out of five stars.

I am 32 years old and was just a kid when this movie was released. My whole life I have heard about how phenomonal this movie was supposed to be. I consider myself a bit of a movie buff and have seen many films regarding the Vietnam conflict and the resulting after effects. I would never by any means disrespect those who served in that ridiculous conflict, I have the utmost respect for our fighting men and women having served myself. But does this movie really deserve all the accolades it receives?

Yes it is a good film. Good, not tremendous drop everything and kneel at the cinema alter. This movie is seperated into 3 hours, each hour documenting a different period in the characters lives. By far the most powerful and redeeming portion of this film (for me anyway) was the 2nd hour which focuses on the characters while serving in Vietnam. I don't think anyone can deny the second hour of this fim is powerful and well worth the praise it receives. But this alone does not make it a fantastic film. I LOVE Christopher Walken. LOVE him. But did he really deserve an academy award for his performance in this film? I can think of 5 other movies off the top of my head that Walken should have received Oscars, or at least a nod for.

And did this film really deserve the best picture of 1978? I am asking this as a legitmate question. 1978 must have had some slim pickin's at the movies that year if these awards were rightly presented. Now I realize that possibly in '78 when this movie was released, it was worthy of everything it received. The conflict in Vietnam was just barely over and it probably touched a chord with many viewers. And many of us also have the benefit of many years of vietnam movies since then to compare this movie against. In my opinion no one can touch PLATOON for the raw emotion and power in that film. Hamburger hill is also a bit of an underated classic in that sense.

I recognize that The Deer Hunter is much more than a war movie. I realize it touches on the charcters lives before and after their experience in Vietnam. I realize the director was trying to get the audience to connect and bond with the characters and help us understand and relate to them so we could feel something for them. But my God was a 35 minute wedding/reception scene really needed to do this?! I NEVER fast forward a movie when I'm watching it..almost never anyway....and I found myself trying to fast forward this supposed American classic so I could get to the meat of the story..it was embarrassing. I feel this movie would have been infinetly better if it was cut down to 2 hours, maybe 2hrs and 15 min. I just felt what ultimately wrecked this long awaited movie experience for me ( I actually waited to watch it until I got my new TV I was so excited to see it) was its unneccesary length. Some people feel this length was needed to tell the story. I completely disagree.

Maybe I just dropped the ball on this one...I was really bummed after watching this movie because I had hyped myself for YEARS to see it...and who knows...maybe that's why I didn't think it was as great as everyone else. But I must admit, the performances by Walken and De Niro in the 2nd hour alone were amazing and brought this movie back out out of the depths of boredom for me.

This one is really a tear jerker. A group of hunting buddies go off to war and some of them become POWS. They escape but instead of them all going back to the USA one of them stays behind and makes a fortune sticking a gun to his head and playing Russian roulete for kicks. See, the war made him crazy and no one is going to change his mind. An all star cast....

The Deer Hunter was a very important film in that it, if nothing else, served as one of the first studies of the effects of the Vietnam war on the average American citizen. While film and television had dealt with the Vietnam conflict to some degree previous to this (John Wayne's The Green Berets [1968] and Rod Serling's Twilight Zone episode entitled "In Praise of Pip" [1964] come to mind), serious efforts in depicting the war realistically, as well as the war's effects on its participants, had simply been avoided, presumably for political and social reasons. With the release of "The Deer Hunter" (as well as with "Coming Home") in 1978, the topic of Vietnam was presented to the public in the form of gritty, realistic productions from major studios. These 2 films certainly must have had an impact on an audience which may not have had a personal, non-distilled understanding of the Vietnam war prior to their release. In fact, graphic scenes such as the Russian Roulette sequence of the Deer Hunter may have (erroneously) informed many on what the everyday GI in Vietnam had to endure at the hands of the VietCong. In this respect, I can understand the distain that reviewers such as Yisrael Harris ("Fantasy Masquerading as Reality") have for this film. As one of the first dramatic studies of Vietnam ever committed to celluloid, it could be said that the narrative of The Deer Hunter had a responsibility to portray events according to historical truths. This would insure that the structure of the film would faithfully inform a public that may have been getting their first glimpse of war-time atrocities. That being said, I think it is wrong to condemn the film based upon the fact that the historical accuracy of a key sequence is unfounded in the record books. Certainly, the atrocities committed by both sides of the Vietnam conflict were unimaginably cruel (ex: My Lai). When one considers this, is it that far-fetched to ask the viewer to believe that a gang of Vietcong could ruthlessly force US POWs to engage in Russian Roulette for their sick enjoyment and financial gain? I think it is a perfectly legitimate concept and, in the midst of so much war and bloodshed, what makes it inappropriate, other than the fact that it is undocumented? (In a far more legitimate criticism, one could make the argument that the Vietnamese soldiers are unfairly depicted as one-dimensional, innately cruel, soulless dregs). Nothing portrayed in that sequence would be considered 'unfathomable' in the pantheon of war. In Harris's review, he states that "I took it for granted, without even a second thought, that these [Russian Roulette] scenes portrayed a phenomenon that was a legitimate part of the Vietnam War experience". At no point does the film suggest that this type of activity was a widespread phenomenon within Vietnam. The film treats this as an isolated incident within one remote POW camp. To take for granted that this type of behavior was widespread is simply inappropriate and is not a product of a suggestive script, but rather an uninformed viewer. It is true that the Russian Roulette scene has more than a passing influence on the rest of the film, what with Christopher Walken's character becoming a willing pawn in an underground roulette gambling ring under a drug-influenced stupor. But this is an organized arrangement entered into by two willing parties, not an act of torture, as the previous scene is. Harris goes on in his review to ask "So what is the message of this movie?" and wonders how "to treat seriously a movie which takes such pains to build up a realistic group of characters... when a central pillar of the experience of the movie is total fantasy-land". Again, I hardly think that Russian Roulette is an unfathomable event within the scope of one of the bloodiest conflicts in US history, and the analogy of suggesting the similarity of a Russian Roulette sequence to a UFO invasion is utterly ridiculous. As they say, all is fair in love and war, and the idea that man's inhumanity to man could not include a cruel game of Russian Roulette is simply naive. The fact that there are no recorded incidents of this happening is irrelevant. This is after all, a fictitious account of ordinary people devastated by war, and in that regard it works on many levels. Besides, if the ultimate goal of the picture is to show the destructive power of war, both physically or emotionally, what difference does it make which vehicle is used to illustrate the destruction?

A British journalist working in NYC, in the eighties, tries to put the pieces together when the "death" of a glam rock star is re-examined. Brian Slade, the fictional/quintessential Glam rocker dissappeared years ago, presumed shot. Arthur Stuart's assignment is to find out what really happened to Slade, though he is more than reluctant.

Those who knew Slade rock star tell what they know: the former manager who fell in love with him in a sixties gay club when Slade was every other hippie rocker; the supposed widow who followed Slade in the change to glam rock and fame...and remembers when Slade fell in love with an American hard rocker (McGregor) and his life changed, just as Slade changed Stuart's life: Stuart remembers his own attraction to Slade that forced him to leave home and the night he saw Slade's supposed death.

I keep reading how Slade is based on David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust, and to some extent he is-the breakout glam star (to a mainstream audience) with constant revision, but I feel that the Slade image feels so borrowed...but the plot is only half the movie in this case. It's also a celebration of the music and make-up and sexuality of the glam era. There's a recurring character that comes down from glam heaven, in a manner of speaking, who we are introduced to, a sorta-descendent of Oscar Wilde because each was an outcast; both were united in their unique glamour-and a mythical charm each wore, which gets passed on to Slade, who passes it on to his muse/lover Curt Wild (a variation of Wilde? Hmm.) who passes it on to Stuart, sort of Stuart's reconcilliation with his own past.

The cast is great! The music is greater than the movie-awesome collection of music from the era and music paying homage to the original era.

It's hard to follow all the people in the flashbacks (especially as they change with the fashions of the times) and I had a hard time telling Arthur's fantasies and recollections apart, yes, though it is an interesting movie with artistic attributes that would still make an entertaining Saturday night rental. The movie is definately an experience.

This film was strange with it jumping through time and revisiting differant perspectives of the same past. It was vibrant, alive and full of passion. The acting was fantastic and the music was good. It's not too heavy and an enjoyable evenings entertainment. Buy it and enjoy. NOTE: some nude imagages and behaviors. I may suggest this for adults, not for children under 18 or so.

The only reason I saw this movie was for Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. I knew nothing about it. I thought it was going to be...well, I had no clue about it. The first 5 minutes, I was hooked. It was just brilliant. Hayes has done it again. I have seen his other movies, but this topped. I had NO IDEA that such a great film could be made.

If you love Bowie, (which it is NOT about) or you loved the Labrynth: SEE IT! Now if you are ultra conservative, didn't like the 70's, or want a film to define the 70's, (...) don't see this. It's not for you. There's language, many a many a sex party scene, and more sex.

I loved it. (...) If you don't love it, then...you don't.

For sure buy this DVD, you must..but I hate the story, always have..the effects are great, but I am waiting for that perfect "walking dead" movie that makes you believe it's happening. "DAY" fails, because noone would act they way these characters do and they are not likeable. But own it for the great beginning scenes of the city , the cave scenes and the good ending.

With visceral grit and gore turned up Day of the Dead finishes the original Romero trilogy. Completely outnumbered by the flesh eating zombies, a small band of scientists and military personnel hold up in an underground cavernous bunker. The overworked and overwrought scientists try to make headway with 'specimens' harvested from up ground sorties. While this would have stood on its own merits; I think it pales in comparison to the original film and its place in the trilogy. I have such a respect and affection for the original this just seems a disjointed tack-on, I didn't care for Dawn of the Dead much either. Too much self referential humour, it's missing the chilling and serious aspects of the original. While it was mildly amusing to see Bub do his thing, and interesting to note the pathos when he finds his doctor in a heap, it wasn't enough of a saving grace.

Romero's maligned third Dead movie [following Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead] suffered from both fans high expectations for another Dawn like action epic and the then popular comedic slant in horror [i.e Return of the Living Dead and Re-Animator] is, in my opinion, the best movie in the series. The world has now been overrun with zombies and the last vestiges of humanity are hidden away in an underground bunker, slowly going stir crazy. This is grim, dark stuff far closer in tone to Night of the Living Dead than the comedic cult classic that was Dawn of the Dead.

Anchor Bay has done an almost perfect job restoring the movie. The picture is gorgeous, the extras a delight, and the packaging sweet. But the audio, oh the audio. There are six little alterations that, for someone like me, who knows the movie by heart, can irritate (it just sounds 'off'). So I dock the DISC a star, the movie itself retains a five star rating, but this edition would get 4 and a half stars. Nonetheless, fans of Romero, or of intelligent and darkly serious horror movies, need this in their libraries. Highly recommended.

For sure buy this DVD, you must..but I hate the story, always have..the effects are great, but I am waiting for that perfect "walking dead" movie that makes you believe it's happening. "DAY" fails, because noone would act they way these characters do and they are not likeable. But own it for the great beginning scenes of the city , the cave scenes and the good ending.

With visceral grit and gore turned up Day of the Dead finishes the original Romero trilogy. Completely outnumbered by the flesh eating zombies, a small band of scientists and military personnel hold up in an underground cavernous bunker. The overworked and overwrought scientists try to make headway with 'specimens' harvested from up ground sorties. While this would have stood on its own merits; I think it pales in comparison to the original film and its place in the trilogy. I have such a respect and affection for the original this just seems a disjointed tack-on, I didn't care for Dawn of the Dead much either. Too much self referential humour, it's missing the chilling and serious aspects of the original. While it was mildly amusing to see Bub do his thing, and interesting to note the pathos when he finds his doctor in a heap, it wasn't enough of a saving grace.

Romero's maligned third Dead movie [following Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead] suffered from both fans high expectations for another Dawn like action epic and the then popular comedic slant in horror [i.e Return of the Living Dead and Re-Animator] is, in my opinion, the best movie in the series. The world has now been overrun with zombies and the last vestiges of humanity are hidden away in an underground bunker, slowly going stir crazy. This is grim, dark stuff far closer in tone to Night of the Living Dead than the comedic cult classic that was Dawn of the Dead.

Anchor Bay has done an almost perfect job restoring the movie. The picture is gorgeous, the extras a delight, and the packaging sweet. But the audio, oh the audio. There are six little alterations that, for someone like me, who knows the movie by heart, can irritate (it just sounds 'off'). So I dock the DISC a star, the movie itself retains a five star rating, but this edition would get 4 and a half stars. Nonetheless, fans of Romero, or of intelligent and darkly serious horror movies, need this in their libraries. Highly recommended.

Here's something I never thot would happen. Warner released a safe and sanitized 'family' version of this movie on DVD in 2000 and fans freaked. Quite right as a lot of violence was taken out and alternate takes were used in other scenes. Warner were bombarded with petitions to release the original version and, whadya know, they did.

The Batman animated movies (and the TV series) have a zillion times the atmosphere and gothic pathos the last movies had. In fact, in comparison, the animated movies completely blow Batman Forever and Batman and Robin out of the water. I would like to see Batman Beyond back on the air or at least more animated movies of it. Perhaps one a year, like Warner do with Scooby Doo.

Plus it's an all round better DVD package than the first release, giving the movie the higher status it deserves. But here's the thing it's NOT 'full frame format'. Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker is presented here in 1.78:1 widescreen. For some reason it's not anamorphic tho. The soundtrack is Dolby 5.1 and it sounds terrific.

I was never a really big fan of the Batman Animated Series, but Batman Beyond really captivated me. Maybe because it is aimed at a more mature audience, hence the violence. This story offers another side of the Caped Crusader that you don't normally see. Highly recommended.

I was not intrested on batman beyond, 'til I saw this, is really exciting, excelent story. Dont worry, you can buy this with eyes closed, it is excelent.

Here's something I never thot would happen. Warner released a safe and sanitized 'family' version of this movie on DVD in 2000 and fans freaked. Quite right as a lot of violence was taken out and alternate takes were used in other scenes. Warner were bombarded with petitions to release the original version and, whadya know, they did.

The Batman animated movies (and the TV series) have a zillion times the atmosphere and gothic pathos the last movies had. In fact, in comparison, the animated movies completely blow Batman Forever and Batman and Robin out of the water. I would like to see Batman Beyond back on the air or at least more animated movies of it. Perhaps one a year, like Warner do with Scooby Doo.

Plus it's an all round better DVD package than the first release, giving the movie the higher status it deserves. But here's the thing it's NOT 'full frame format'. Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker is presented here in 1.78:1 widescreen. For some reason it's not anamorphic tho. The soundtrack is Dolby 5.1 and it sounds terrific.

I was never a really big fan of the Batman Animated Series, but Batman Beyond really captivated me. Maybe because it is aimed at a more mature audience, hence the violence. This story offers another side of the Caped Crusader that you don't normally see. Highly recommended.

I was not intrested on batman beyond, 'til I saw this, is really exciting, excelent story. Dont worry, you can buy this with eyes closed, it is excelent.

This has to be one of the worst, if not the worst, film in the bond series. Although Dalton never seemed to fit into the Bond role, the fault in this film is entirely with the script and the director. With this film it seems as if the Bond franchise finally ran out of stories to write. Although the story of revenge against a fellow agent's murderer is good, the antagonist being a drug lord just drags the movie down. Moore's "Live and Let Die" was a similar problem. The villains in those movies just don't seem to be on the level of SPECTER and Blofeld, a Stromberg, Goldfinger, or Drax; they are, after all, just drug dealers.

I saw this film only once and don't regret not having seen it again. An alltogether very forgettable movie that isn't even worth renting.

dalton came closer to fleming's bond than even connery did. the fleming bond was never extremely likeable and had little sense of humour.okay, brosnan does fill the shoes of the post connery bonds well enough. he's slick but unoriginal. he's a decent second take on connery and his bond is simply another variation on sean's. but, dalton did it differently and it took guts. his is a completely different bond and an interesting one. unfortuantely this film, which claimed to be a new cutting edge bond has three huge flaws.first; the rush through sloppy editing over the first fifteen minutes. second; if bond is going solo then why did q come in at all? this was a cop out. lastly; leiter is bit too ' way to go james. good luck on the next mission' for a guy who lost a leg to a shark and whose wife was raped and killed.
anyway, worth checking it out.

Timothy Dalton,Robert Davi,Talisa Soto and Benicio Del Toro in an early performance lead us on a nonstop edge of yourseat Bond experience!