Don Movie Reviews

I bought this for my husband since he loved G.I. Joe as a kid, and he had fond memories of this movie, with "had" being the operative word.

There's no need to elaborate, really. This movie is just awful. Terrible. I could point out each flaw of the movie, but it doesn't merit even that much critical thought.

I will say this: it IS hysterical. After about five minutes, you'll realize this film will either kill you or make you stronger, and if you choose to laugh and point the entire time instead of cursing yourself for money wasted, you can genuinely have a good time.

Have you ever slapped your knee in a fit of laughter? Me neither, but I DID slap the arm of my chair a few times due to a particularly hilarious moment, courtesy of Lt. Falcon (voiced by Don Johnson, I might add) being introduced to some kind of survivalist, misfit Joe's. Or whatever. One of the Joe's, just because he's cool like that, spits on a hapless scorpion unfortunate enough to stumble upon this motley bunch. The scorpion, rather than scurrying away (or mindlessly waving its pincers and tail as they're wont to do) flails its claws and emits a highly-audible, "SCREEEEE!!"

"SCREEEEE?"

I've killed many a scorpion, and I never got a "SCREEEEE." "Crunch," sure. "SCREEEE!!," no.

I am working on my spitting skills in my spare time to rectify this problem, I assure you.

Oh yeah, the movie...really bad. Save your money and rent it if you feel like a good laugh. My husband admitted it was terrible and regretted my spending the money on this DVD. But it's the thought that counts, and my abs got an intense workout from laughing like a loon at the sheer awfulness of this "film." Not a total loss, but pretty darn close.

I think the movie was good. I did not like the way they turned Cobra Commander into a snake however. I wasn't fair to blame one person for all of Cobra's failures.

people have to remember, this movie is for kids. now i agree that the movie has a bad plot and it could have been done much better, but when it came out i thought it was the best movie in the world. you have to take off your adult glasses and put on your kid glasses to enjoy this movie.

While Keanu Reeves belongs to what I call the "Paper Bag" school of acting (namely, that is, what he couldn't act his way out of) this movie manages a sweet charm all of its own. I believe that many people have discounted this film mainly because of its star (who before recently was known more for playing Ted "Theodore" Logan than Mr. Neo "The One" Anderson). While the film may follow the traditional story of two people pretending to be in love and then actually falling in love, it is told in such a sweet manner that it's hard to find fault with it. Even I find myself getting caught up in the emotions of the film. This movie is filled with humor, drama and in the end makes a nice romantic film. However, if you're looking for hard hitting drama, or extremely though provoking dialogue and plot, this movie isn't for you.

"A Walk In the Clouds" is a beautiful film filled with love, hope, and overcoming adversity.

The film revolves around a candy salesman (Keanu Reeves) who has just returned from WWII only to realize that everything he thought was so important and true to him before he left were no longer. While on a sales assignment, he bumps into a beautiful woman who is on her way home from college. After speaking to her for a while, he discovers she is pregnant. The bad part is that this lady is unmarried and must face her very strict parents. Reeves' character agrees to pretend to be her husband just for show, but ends up falling madly in love with her.

The cinematography in this film is exquisite. Most of the movie takes place in one of the most beautiful vineyards ("Las Nubes" or "The Clouds" in the film) I have ever laid eyes on.

If you would like to watch a movie filled with a lovely romance and even lovier landscapes, watch this film!!!!!!

When I use the term Adult Fairytale, some might think of films like, "The Princess Bride" or "Ever After" but "A Walk in the Clouds" is a more suitable example. Director Alfonso Arau has created a magical story peopled by outsized characters and placed in a spiritual world called the Aragon Estate. The film permits we mere mortals to visit this world, a Spanish style winery nestled in California's Napper Valley. We arrive along with Paul Sutton, Keanu Reeves; a stranger in a strange land.

Paul's background is economically exposed at the start of the movie. A man returns from World War II, hoping to greet his wife whom he met and married just before shipping out. He dreams of a meaningful life, surrounded by a loving family. His small goals are those of an orphan who has had a lonely life and whose ordeals in battle have condensed his wishes to the simple, important things. Sadly his wife, Betty, is more interested in money and its trappings. She has a lot of spirit but little heart or interest for Paul's modest ambitions. He no sooner arrives than he is pushed out the door to earn some money selling chocolates; a job he wasn't enthusiastic about even before the war.

At this point we are still grounded in the real world, although Paul has an unearthly element to him that is hinted at. For example, any soldier that writes a letter to his wife every day, despite receiving virtually no replies, has more than the average dose of hope and optimism. The real world serves as a backdrop for the rest of the film, contrasting starkly with the soft images, haunting score and honest dialogue that characterises life at the Aragon Vineyard. On a train journey to one of his sales calls, Paul meets Victoria Aragon. She forms a bridge, between these two worlds, that Paul traverses in a series of jerks and lurches. A run of accidents result in Paul volunteering to help the beautiful but miserable young woman. I'm certain these accidents represent fate taking a hand in the lives of two who are destined for love.

Victoria is played by Aitana Sanchez-Gijon in her first English speaking role. Victoria's problem, being unmarried and pregnant, is magnified by having to face a traditionalist family and a strict and passionate father, Alberto. The solution seems obvious to the chivalrous Paul. He suggests playing the part of her husband, a man who fears responsibility and will soon leave her. In this way Paul hopes her honour will be maintained in the eyes of her family and any bitterness will, instead, fall on his absent shoulders. It is a good plan, only complicated in execution by the couple's growing love and Paul's desire for the rich family life that Victoria takes for granted. The turning point seems to come during a family ritual, performed after picking the harvest. All the married women are enticed into a large wooden vat to crush the grapes. This prosaic activity is actually a lusty and sensual attempt to harness the ancient powers of some fertility god. Not even Paul can stand against Victoria's almost unwitting seduction. This is truly one of the sexiest pieces of footage I can remember seeing; and all without resorting to nudity or the sharing of body fluids.

Another rope around Paul's neck is the family's patriarch, Don Pedro Aragón, played with amazing assurance and grace by Anthony Quinn. Don Pedro seems to see through all deceptions, going straight to the heart of the matter. He guides, prods and manipulates Paul to discover, and even pursue, his love of Victoria. In fact if I have any criticism of the film it is that next to Anthony Quinn, Keanu seems like a wooden doll, particularly during the preparations for the drunken serenade. But even this seems appropriate for Paul's character, so inexperienced in the ways of family.

Several Journeys take place in the film; Paul's path from orphanage to family, Victoria's reluctant steps from deception to honesty, her father Alberto's change from taskmaster to loving parent. Even the audience takes a journey. We start out wanting to escape our troubles with a little light entertainment and walk away looking inward, trying to decide if we are on a path as fulfilling as that of Paul and the Aragón family. "A Walk in the Clouds" clearly rejects mindless materialism, a philosophy mirrored by Paul's war-bride rejecting him. Instead we are asked to believe that family, honest labour and honour make up the soil our soul should take root in. We may not all have root stock as steeped in tradition as the Aragon's but like Paul, perhaps we will have the sense to recognise rich earth when we see it.

While Keanu Reeves belongs to what I call the "Paper Bag" school of acting (namely, that is, what he couldn't act his way out of) this movie manages a sweet charm all of its own. I believe that many people have discounted this film mainly because of its star (who before recently was known more for playing Ted "Theodore" Logan than Mr. Neo "The One" Anderson). While the film may follow the traditional story of two people pretending to be in love and then actually falling in love, it is told in such a sweet manner that it's hard to find fault with it. Even I find myself getting caught up in the emotions of the film. This movie is filled with humor, drama and in the end makes a nice romantic film. However, if you're looking for hard hitting drama, or extremely though provoking dialogue and plot, this movie isn't for you.

"A Walk In the Clouds" is a beautiful film filled with love, hope, and overcoming adversity.

The film revolves around a candy salesman (Keanu Reeves) who has just returned from WWII only to realize that everything he thought was so important and true to him before he left were no longer. While on a sales assignment, he bumps into a beautiful woman who is on her way home from college. After speaking to her for a while, he discovers she is pregnant. The bad part is that this lady is unmarried and must face her very strict parents. Reeves' character agrees to pretend to be her husband just for show, but ends up falling madly in love with her.

The cinematography in this film is exquisite. Most of the movie takes place in one of the most beautiful vineyards ("Las Nubes" or "The Clouds" in the film) I have ever laid eyes on.

If you would like to watch a movie filled with a lovely romance and even lovier landscapes, watch this film!!!!!!

When I use the term Adult Fairytale, some might think of films like, "The Princess Bride" or "Ever After" but "A Walk in the Clouds" is a more suitable example. Director Alfonso Arau has created a magical story peopled by outsized characters and placed in a spiritual world called the Aragon Estate. The film permits we mere mortals to visit this world, a Spanish style winery nestled in California's Napper Valley. We arrive along with Paul Sutton, Keanu Reeves; a stranger in a strange land.

Paul's background is economically exposed at the start of the movie. A man returns from World War II, hoping to greet his wife whom he met and married just before shipping out. He dreams of a meaningful life, surrounded by a loving family. His small goals are those of an orphan who has had a lonely life and whose ordeals in battle have condensed his wishes to the simple, important things. Sadly his wife, Betty, is more interested in money and its trappings. She has a lot of spirit but little heart or interest for Paul's modest ambitions. He no sooner arrives than he is pushed out the door to earn some money selling chocolates; a job he wasn't enthusiastic about even before the war.

At this point we are still grounded in the real world, although Paul has an unearthly element to him that is hinted at. For example, any soldier that writes a letter to his wife every day, despite receiving virtually no replies, has more than the average dose of hope and optimism. The real world serves as a backdrop for the rest of the film, contrasting starkly with the soft images, haunting score and honest dialogue that characterises life at the Aragon Vineyard. On a train journey to one of his sales calls, Paul meets Victoria Aragon. She forms a bridge, between these two worlds, that Paul traverses in a series of jerks and lurches. A run of accidents result in Paul volunteering to help the beautiful but miserable young woman. I'm certain these accidents represent fate taking a hand in the lives of two who are destined for love.

Victoria is played by Aitana Sanchez-Gijon in her first English speaking role. Victoria's problem, being unmarried and pregnant, is magnified by having to face a traditionalist family and a strict and passionate father, Alberto. The solution seems obvious to the chivalrous Paul. He suggests playing the part of her husband, a man who fears responsibility and will soon leave her. In this way Paul hopes her honour will be maintained in the eyes of her family and any bitterness will, instead, fall on his absent shoulders. It is a good plan, only complicated in execution by the couple's growing love and Paul's desire for the rich family life that Victoria takes for granted. The turning point seems to come during a family ritual, performed after picking the harvest. All the married women are enticed into a large wooden vat to crush the grapes. This prosaic activity is actually a lusty and sensual attempt to harness the ancient powers of some fertility god. Not even Paul can stand against Victoria's almost unwitting seduction. This is truly one of the sexiest pieces of footage I can remember seeing; and all without resorting to nudity or the sharing of body fluids.

Another rope around Paul's neck is the family's patriarch, Don Pedro Aragón, played with amazing assurance and grace by Anthony Quinn. Don Pedro seems to see through all deceptions, going straight to the heart of the matter. He guides, prods and manipulates Paul to discover, and even pursue, his love of Victoria. In fact if I have any criticism of the film it is that next to Anthony Quinn, Keanu seems like a wooden doll, particularly during the preparations for the drunken serenade. But even this seems appropriate for Paul's character, so inexperienced in the ways of family.

Several Journeys take place in the film; Paul's path from orphanage to family, Victoria's reluctant steps from deception to honesty, her father Alberto's change from taskmaster to loving parent. Even the audience takes a journey. We start out wanting to escape our troubles with a little light entertainment and walk away looking inward, trying to decide if we are on a path as fulfilling as that of Paul and the Aragón family. "A Walk in the Clouds" clearly rejects mindless materialism, a philosophy mirrored by Paul's war-bride rejecting him. Instead we are asked to believe that family, honest labour and honour make up the soil our soul should take root in. We may not all have root stock as steeped in tradition as the Aragon's but like Paul, perhaps we will have the sense to recognise rich earth when we see it.

William Peter Blatty wrote a book called The Exorcist, which was published in 1971 and quickly became a best seller of historic proportions. Never before had the public read such horrible and sexually explicit material - and about a child possessed by the devil.

Hollywood quickly optioned the book, and the result was the William Friedkin directed masterpiece, "The Exoricst." The film went on to win critical and popular acclaim. In the theater, people fainted and vomited as a result of the horrors they saw on the screen. Because of a scene in the film, a new color was named: Linda Blair green (the young actress who portrayed the possessed child).

The film became so wildly successful that for a time it had the distinction of having the most successful boxoffice of any film in history. It was only a matter of time before Hollywood cranked out a sequel.

The result was "The Exorcist II: The Heretic". This film was created completely by screenwriters and producers with an eye for dollars and with no attention to the subject matter. Most of the principle actors from the first film passed this time around and those that remained were sorry they had. The Exorcist II: The Heretic is often thought of as one of the worst films in history.

While Hollywood was screwing around with characters he had created, William Peter Blatty was busy writing the real sequel to his original book. It was called "Legion" (some places called it The Exorcist III, but since it was a book sequel, this is incorrect).

Hollywood then optioned this film, and Blatty held firm and decided that he would make the movie himself, to protect his property. He was right to have done so.

The film: The Exorcist III: Legion, is a tight, psychological thriller that picks up a few years after the events of the original book (and the original movie). Regan is gone and the film centers on Detective Kinderman (George C. Scott). He has the dubious task of dealing with a serial killer who is mimicking an executed serial killer with precision that only the real killer could know. Kinderman soon discovers that a mysterious patient in the criminal ward of the insane asylum may hold the secret to who is really killing these people. What happens next is nothing short of amazing. It further ties this film to the first and the characters as well.

This movie is big on mood, lighting, visuals, and character. In short, it's really quite good. It's never very gory, though many gory things take place - just off screen. Some of the most frightening scenes that take place are filled with utter silence on screen and in the most docile of places. You will find yourself jumping and squealing as events unfold before you. This is a very well crafted horror film.

I encourage you to take a look at this film and forget that there ever was an Exorcist II: The Heretic. The Exorcist III: Legion is the real owner of that title.

I'll be honest, I had ZERO expectations for this film. The second film the series was perhaps the most God awful film I've had the displeasure of sitting through. Then when this one came to theaters, it bombed both critcally and financially. Now, with the fourth one on the horizon, I thought I'd go back and catch up by watching this one. I have to say, I was totally taken aback after viewing this film. It was the first film to give me the chills in over fifteen years (and I've sat through more horror films than most die hard horror fans).
One scene in particular (one I wouldn't dream of giving away), completely caught me off guard with it's use of subtlety and eerie sound effects. There is little on screen gore, as William Peter Blatty (writer/director) has his characters describe everything in great detail through the dialouge. This leaves most of it to your imagination, which tends to be more horrific in the long run. Save for a few really chilling close ups, the direction is pretty straight forward. Most of it is of the point and shoot variety, which really disarms the viewer when Blatty decides to lay on the scares.
The acting also suprised me with George C. Scott turning in an emotional performance (slightly over played, but that's always been his style). The real show stopper would have to be Brad ("Child's Play")Dourif, playing yet another psychopath with his usual brilliance. The interplay between him and Scott in the cell room came across very shudder-some. It reminded me of the scenes with Foster and Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs" (though one should point out this predated "Silence" by a year!).
If I have any complaints, I suppose the climax would have to be it. It's as if someone else came in and shot a different ending (which may the case for all I know). It feels like your suddenly watching someone else's film right at the most crucial moment. The other complaint would have to be the presentation on the DVD itself. The picture is a little hazy and it's pretty much a "bare bones" package, with no real special features.
That aside, this film is a definate must see for all those horror and mystery buffs who may have overlooked this gem back when it was first released. Very smart thriller, which probably would've done better had it been released under the title "Legion" (the novel which it was based on, also written by Blatty), than as the third in the "Exorcist" series. Don't get me wrong, this is a great follow up to "The Exorcist" and really the only sequel I would consider to it. But the film stands well on it's own and it's a shame so few ever gave it the time of day becuase of it's roman numeral in the title.

Let's break out the Holy Water and crucifix, don our sacred vestments, run through the Liturgy of Exorcism, and get medieval on "Exorcist 3: Legion": is this a movie worthy of carrying the mantle of what many call the scariest movie ever made, or does it cry out to be exorcised of cinematic mediocrity?

Fear not: "Exorcist 3" is a lush and haunting creepshow that boasts original "Exorcist" author William Peter Blatty in the director's chair, crisp cinematography by Gerry Fisher ("Highlander", "Wolfen"), and a spooky score that knows when to get low-key. Add to that George C. Scott in the role of Detective Lt. Bill Kinderman, a crusty cinephile brought back to those wickedly steep Georgetown steps when a serial killer slaughters and mutilates two priests and a young boy---brutal killings that are particularly baffling when police recognize the brutal signature of the infamous Gemini Killer---but the Killer died 15 years ago, and the fingerprints suggest the murders were carried out by three separate killers.

Blatty's direction and a fine ensemble cast makes "Exorcist 3" a worthy successor to the original which manages to bury the silliness of "Exorcist2", and best of all the film ratchets up the terror. "Exorcist3" is not afraid to take chances, and while not the grand opera that Friedkin's original is, for my money it is far more terrifying and infinitely creepier.

This time the Devil is finished messing around with random adolescents and has decided instead to launch a blitzkrieg against the morally weak and feeble minded. The mixture of forensic weirdness and supernatural strangeness brings Kinderman back together with old friend Father Dyer (the society priest from the original, now contrite and played effectively by Ed Flanders), and by the time the credits roll even Father Damien Karras has put in an appearance, joining Old Scratch to make "Exorcist 3: Legion" a reunion of sorts!

"Exorcist 3" is monstrously entertaining and genuinely scary. Blatty has a remarkable flair for taking his well-crafted set-pieces and milking them for every ounce of spooky atmosphere: from Kinderman's audience in a Bishop's shadowy office, to the antiseptic cell-block housing a mysterious lunatic, to a hospital wing which features one of the most terrifying sequences in movie history, Blatty is in total control of his medium, using sound effects, actors' faces, and the film's lurking and creepy soundtrack to crank up the terror.

And you get so many other fine little nuggets here, including: a typically tasty turn by the great Brad Dourif as the Gemini Killer; cameos by Fabio Volpe, Samuel L. Jackson, and even former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop; Colleen Dewhurst as the strangled voice of Satan; and a painful scene in which a Catholic priest is turned into a human refrigerator magnet. Ouch!

Like its worthy predecessor "The Exorcist", "Exorcist 3" is a superbly directed spookshow about modern men wrestling with the silence of God, mortal terror, and the problem of Evil. But unlike Friedkin's original, Blatty seems less concerned with bile and gore, and far more interested in figuring out what happens when Man stares too long into the face of Evil. There are fates worse than Death.

Coming out at nearly the same time as 'Platoon' and 'Full Metal Jacket', Hamburger Hill did not win an Academy Award and was not directed by Stanley Kubrick. Thus, it's tempting to give the film the benefit of the doubt, as it is the underdog. Politically 'Hamburger Hill' is sympathetic towards the soldiers and anti-peacenik, which caused reviewers to loathe the film at the time. This is yet another reason to like Hamburger Hill. Which would be a mistake, as Hamburger Hill still isn't very good. It's far superior to John Wayne's 'The Green Berets', but as a piece of film-making, notwithstanding the politics, its inferior to Stone and Kubrick's admittedly flawed films. It's full of good intentions and clearly writer John Carabatsos put a lot of work and passion into it, but at the risk of seeming to kick a puppy in the face this doesn't make Hamburger Hill any better. It must be noted that I am British, born a year after the Vietnam War ended, and thus the war has no particular emotional resonance for me. Indeed my whole view of the Vietnam War is informed more by films such as this than history books.

The plot is simple; for the first half of the film we are introduced to a bunch of soldiers and learn about how they function as a group, and for the second half of the film we witness them assault a hill which seems to be of limited strategic importance. As with 'We Were Soldiers' the battle sequences are the key, the one part of the film which works well; although 'Saving Private Ryan' has upped the bar since then, the depiction of combat as a confused mess of people firing great quantities of ammunition at nothing is much more vivid than the fighting in either of the more illustrious films aforementioned. Although critics tend to ignore or bypass the effect of battle action sequences in war films, and film-makers try to minimise their screentime for fear of running over budget, a war without fighting is not a war, and one can more easily understand the pain and terror of war by seeing explosions and gunfire, rather than through sentimental speeches or symbolic shots of rain falling into muddy puddles. There is friendly fire, torrential rain, and the fighting often becomes more reminiscent of WW1 trench warfare than something taking place a month before mankind first stepped on the moon.

Also as with 'We Were Soldiers', the non-battle sequences are entirely disposable, with hokey, cliched 'Vietnam War' dialogue delivered none too convincingly by a cast who seem much too well-scrubbed and attractive to be a true microcosm of a certain section of American society. It is the kind of film where people manage a final speech before they die, during which time the noise of battle fades into the background; it is the kind of film where one character turns over a body and - gasp - it's a man we saw earlier, and we are supposed to feel sad although we don't know any of the people or care much about them; it is the kind of film where a shot of a helmet bouncing down a hill is meant to make us feel reflective. In this respect it is rather like one of the bleaker WW2/Korean war films, such as 'Pork Chop Hill', which had a similar premise, or 'Hell is for Heroes'. Or for that matter the earlier, far superior 'All Quiet on the Western Front', albeit at an incline. The message that one should not condemn the fighting man, even when the war he is fighting is a giant political mistake, is an admirable one, and it's a shame that this message could not have been put across by a better film.

Because it is impossible to care about the characters - they don't seem real, they don't say real things and the actors don't seem real - the film fails right there. One of the film's points is that the soldiers attacking the hill are meat, cut down like cattle, but I feel nothing when cattle are killed, and thus I feel nothing when the characters in Hamburger Hill bite the mud. There is an attempt at portraying racial tension between the soldiers, something which 'Platoon' and 'Full Metal Jacket' ignored, but it's Hollywood-style racial tension and ultimately has no bearing on the plot. The evil white rednecks abuse the poor, soulful blacks - one of whom is even called 'Motown' - until they eventually see sense and become brothers over the space of a single conversation. The cast are mostly neophytes who went on to careers in television; particularly noteworthy is Courtney Vance as the Doctor, who mugs wildly and has one of the aforementioned Hollywood-style death scenes.

In summary, therefore, Hamburger Hill has some excellent battle sequences, but it's too wedded to Hollywood cliche to feel really shocked or saddened by anything that happens, and without any kind of emotional core the end result seems as sterile and meaningless as 'Full Metal Jacket', without the black comedy of Kubrick's film.

Outside the generally superb depictions of infantry combat, particularly so during the rainy sequences near the end of the film, there are a couple of poor special effects (a shot of a soldier being blown apart by machinegun fire is terrible, whilst some of the large-scale explosions resemble firecrackers), and the reusing of footage of Phantom jets dropping napalm, but this is no worse than any other film of the period.

The music is by Philip Glass, although fans of Glass should be aware that his score, which sounds exactly like any other piece of Philip Glass' music, is played for less than five minutes during the film (which is mostly without music, or as was the tradition with these films, contemporary pop songs such as the Animals' 'We've Gotta Get Out of This Place' - played as the soldiers are helicoptered *into* battle, do you see the symbolism?). It's curious to note that the DVD case now has a prominent American flag, where before the film's poster was a moody silhouette of a man standing in front of some helicopters. The DVD itself has no extra features of any consequence, nada, where for example a documentary about the actual battle would have been a logical addition.

Hamburger Hill is definately a different and unique Vietnam film, and it remains on my top list of favorite or best war films. It has a gritty appeal to it and has characters you actually care about and get to know on realistic terms (albeit the cliche white-black racist addition, although that is understandable in the scene I refer too).

It also touches on some issues rarely touched in other films, especially Vietnam films. The fact soldiers are criticized by civilians and even called "baby killers" is talked about - some thing I am glad for, because my father is in the military, and he himself has been called names or spat upon for the uniform he wears. It also has a great scene where the commander walks up to a reporter and tells him not to take any pictures of the dead or dying or there will be consequences. The reporters who report on nothing but the dead or dying American soldier in Iraq should watch that scene.

The film's ending is probably one of the most touching I've seen in a war film, perhaps only second to "Saving Private Ryan" or even "Stalingrad." The voice on the radio in the background adds even more of a haunting affect when you realize just what is going on.

The film Platoon ends dedicating itself to the men who fought in Vietnam. That film deserves none of that credit. This film deserves to be dedicated to the men who fought...because its actually about them.

"Full Metal Jacket" and "Platoon" are probably better movies ABOUT the war in Viet Nam - this is one of the only movies IN the War. Other reviewers have referred to a lack of plot; they're right. This is not a tale, it's a chronicle, a portrait of a series of events and of the men who lived them. Every soldier who went to war and survived two or more battles will see Truth in this movie - especially the truth that brotherhood is the only explanation for surviving combat. Those who do not assume responsibility, who do not recognize the job to be done and do it do not survive, let alone prevail. Hill 937 was one of those places where the 101st made their names to shine, and the sergeant's warning to the reporter could be the division's watchword: get out of here - you haven't earned the right to be here. "Hamburger Hill" shows soldiers earning their right, and that's enough.

Coming out at nearly the same time as 'Platoon' and 'Full Metal Jacket', Hamburger Hill did not win an Academy Award and was not directed by Stanley Kubrick. Thus, it's tempting to give the film the benefit of the doubt, as it is the underdog. Politically 'Hamburger Hill' is sympathetic towards the soldiers and anti-peacenik, which caused reviewers to loathe the film at the time. This is yet another reason to like Hamburger Hill. Which would be a mistake, as Hamburger Hill still isn't very good. It's far superior to John Wayne's 'The Green Berets', but as a piece of film-making, notwithstanding the politics, its inferior to Stone and Kubrick's admittedly flawed films. It's full of good intentions and clearly writer John Carabatsos put a lot of work and passion into it, but at the risk of seeming to kick a puppy in the face this doesn't make Hamburger Hill any better. It must be noted that I am British, born a year after the Vietnam War ended, and thus the war has no particular emotional resonance for me. Indeed my whole view of the Vietnam War is informed more by films such as this than history books.

The plot is simple; for the first half of the film we are introduced to a bunch of soldiers and learn about how they function as a group, and for the second half of the film we witness them assault a hill which seems to be of limited strategic importance. As with 'We Were Soldiers' the battle sequences are the key, the one part of the film which works well; although 'Saving Private Ryan' has upped the bar since then, the depiction of combat as a confused mess of people firing great quantities of ammunition at nothing is much more vivid than the fighting in either of the more illustrious films aforementioned. Although critics tend to ignore or bypass the effect of battle action sequences in war films, and film-makers try to minimise their screentime for fear of running over budget, a war without fighting is not a war, and one can more easily understand the pain and terror of war by seeing explosions and gunfire, rather than through sentimental speeches or symbolic shots of rain falling into muddy puddles. There is friendly fire, torrential rain, and the fighting often becomes more reminiscent of WW1 trench warfare than something taking place a month before mankind first stepped on the moon.

Also as with 'We Were Soldiers', the non-battle sequences are entirely disposable, with hokey, cliched 'Vietnam War' dialogue delivered none too convincingly by a cast who seem much too well-scrubbed and attractive to be a true microcosm of a certain section of American society. It is the kind of film where people manage a final speech before they die, during which time the noise of battle fades into the background; it is the kind of film where one character turns over a body and - gasp - it's a man we saw earlier, and we are supposed to feel sad although we don't know any of the people or care much about them; it is the kind of film where a shot of a helmet bouncing down a hill is meant to make us feel reflective. In this respect it is rather like one of the bleaker WW2/Korean war films, such as 'Pork Chop Hill', which had a similar premise, or 'Hell is for Heroes'. Or for that matter the earlier, far superior 'All Quiet on the Western Front', albeit at an incline. The message that one should not condemn the fighting man, even when the war he is fighting is a giant political mistake, is an admirable one, and it's a shame that this message could not have been put across by a better film.

Because it is impossible to care about the characters - they don't seem real, they don't say real things and the actors don't seem real - the film fails right there. One of the film's points is that the soldiers attacking the hill are meat, cut down like cattle, but I feel nothing when cattle are killed, and thus I feel nothing when the characters in Hamburger Hill bite the mud. There is an attempt at portraying racial tension between the soldiers, something which 'Platoon' and 'Full Metal Jacket' ignored, but it's Hollywood-style racial tension and ultimately has no bearing on the plot. The evil white rednecks abuse the poor, soulful blacks - one of whom is even called 'Motown' - until they eventually see sense and become brothers over the space of a single conversation. The cast are mostly neophytes who went on to careers in television; particularly noteworthy is Courtney Vance as the Doctor, who mugs wildly and has one of the aforementioned Hollywood-style death scenes.

In summary, therefore, Hamburger Hill has some excellent battle sequences, but it's too wedded to Hollywood cliche to feel really shocked or saddened by anything that happens, and without any kind of emotional core the end result seems as sterile and meaningless as 'Full Metal Jacket', without the black comedy of Kubrick's film.

Outside the generally superb depictions of infantry combat, particularly so during the rainy sequences near the end of the film, there are a couple of poor special effects (a shot of a soldier being blown apart by machinegun fire is terrible, whilst some of the large-scale explosions resemble firecrackers), and the reusing of footage of Phantom jets dropping napalm, but this is no worse than any other film of the period.

The music is by Philip Glass, although fans of Glass should be aware that his score, which sounds exactly like any other piece of Philip Glass' music, is played for less than five minutes during the film (which is mostly without music, or as was the tradition with these films, contemporary pop songs such as the Animals' 'We've Gotta Get Out of This Place' - played as the soldiers are helicoptered *into* battle, do you see the symbolism?). It's curious to note that the DVD case now has a prominent American flag, where before the film's poster was a moody silhouette of a man standing in front of some helicopters. The DVD itself has no extra features of any consequence, nada, where for example a documentary about the actual battle would have been a logical addition.

Hamburger Hill is definately a different and unique Vietnam film, and it remains on my top list of favorite or best war films. It has a gritty appeal to it and has characters you actually care about and get to know on realistic terms (albeit the cliche white-black racist addition, although that is understandable in the scene I refer too).

It also touches on some issues rarely touched in other films, especially Vietnam films. The fact soldiers are criticized by civilians and even called "baby killers" is talked about - some thing I am glad for, because my father is in the military, and he himself has been called names or spat upon for the uniform he wears. It also has a great scene where the commander walks up to a reporter and tells him not to take any pictures of the dead or dying or there will be consequences. The reporters who report on nothing but the dead or dying American soldier in Iraq should watch that scene.

The film's ending is probably one of the most touching I've seen in a war film, perhaps only second to "Saving Private Ryan" or even "Stalingrad." The voice on the radio in the background adds even more of a haunting affect when you realize just what is going on.

The film Platoon ends dedicating itself to the men who fought in Vietnam. That film deserves none of that credit. This film deserves to be dedicated to the men who fought...because its actually about them.

"Full Metal Jacket" and "Platoon" are probably better movies ABOUT the war in Viet Nam - this is one of the only movies IN the War. Other reviewers have referred to a lack of plot; they're right. This is not a tale, it's a chronicle, a portrait of a series of events and of the men who lived them. Every soldier who went to war and survived two or more battles will see Truth in this movie - especially the truth that brotherhood is the only explanation for surviving combat. Those who do not assume responsibility, who do not recognize the job to be done and do it do not survive, let alone prevail. Hill 937 was one of those places where the 101st made their names to shine, and the sergeant's warning to the reporter could be the division's watchword: get out of here - you haven't earned the right to be here. "Hamburger Hill" shows soldiers earning their right, and that's enough.

When I was a kid growing up in the 70's and 80's, there were many movies that I wanted to see because they looked so scary when their commercials aired on T.V. Also, the fact that they were RATED R also fueled my fears. Now that I'm older (and wiser) I have viewed ALL OF these movies that instilled fear in my once innocent soul and I can't figure out what the heck was I so scared of? ? ? CREEPSHOW has to be the UNSCARIEST movie ever made. Not only does it lack thrills, chills and logic, it's pathetically over the top, load, and cheesy. I don't know if the CHEESE factor was done purposely or by accident but the result is an over-acted mess of a horror film. That said, it still entertains. Why? Because it's absolutely hilarious and some of the performances are quite good- especially Adrienne Barbeau who plays a rather unpleasant but likable shrew.

The Special effects are also quite attrocious. I understand the film was made over 20 years ago but that doesn't excuse the poorly constructed make-up effects. Considering this was a star studded Hollywood production more care should have been taken, unless they purposely designed these ghouls and monsters to look fake and if that was the case, then mission accomplished.

I think I would have liked the movie better had they not had the ATTROCIOUS second story. Steven King is not much of an actor. As a matter of fact, he is rather irritating and since he was the sole protagonist of that lacklustre tale, it made it all the more unbearable.

The idea is rather interesting for a horror movie and I am a big fan of horror anthologies but everything in this movie was very poorly done. It's even more grating when the talent involved is taken into consideration. Romero and King have done WAY better than this. The film's AMBITIOUS but CHILDISH and the end result is as scary as an episode of DENNIS THE MENACE.

Just watched Creepshow on DVD the other night. This is one of my favorite horror movies. The stories are great...both funny and scary, with a wonderful cast of familiar faces who all seem to be having a good time with the material.

Although this is one of the DVD's you can pick up very cheap, the picture quality is terrible. I found the first story to be crystal clear, then suddenly the rest of the movie looked like a VHS quality print. Blurry and dark overall. It's a shame really, because this is an awesome horror movie. Creepshow definitely deserves a remastered print at the very least. Deleted scenes and some commentary by Romero and/or King would be nice too (Come on, what else is George working on at the moment and Steve is technically retired!). Bottom line is, who knows when or if we may ever see a SE edition of this great film. Until then, for the price, it's worth it to have in your collection, but be warned: it's overall quality pales compared to a lot of other DVD's out there.

I doubt a truer ad line was ever concocted. Back when it was made, Creepshow was a serious happening. The world's bestselling horror writer and the respected and fiercely independent director of two icons of horror cinema [Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead] had joined forces to make a horror movie. Needless to say, more than a few stars were willing to take a trip out to The Burg for the honor of getting rubbed out by zombies, crate monsters, weeds, or cockroaches. King's script (his best in my opinion) is simplistic as a comic should be and Romero's direction is highly stylized (great care was taken to give the sets a simplistic look, as if they could be drawn instead of photographed), thus making Creepshow one of that last truly great anthology horror movies. No fan of King, Romero, or horror movies should be without a copy. Highly recommended.

eddie murphy is a comical guy, but is he really the right guy to play in something as stupid as this? Of course, who is the right guy for it? One of the questions i can't stand to think about in this movie, is how Dolittle hears the animals speak, but their lips move and nobody notices. Can't they connect the dots? Obviously not. And obviously, the filmmakers couldn't either.

This is a movie I bought first, primarily for the kids because of the reviews. No one ever asked to watch it a second time. I say this because one of my kids was watching the Lion King last night, for the umpteenth time. So yes, I agree that eddie murphy impressed me again with his talent... but it just didn't grab my kids, 3 boys and 2 girls. I had to give it a good rating of 3 rather than a 2 to encourage the making of good movies.

Dr. John Dolittle (Eddie Murphy) has the so called "perfect life", a beautiful wife, two loving daughters and a career that could not be better. All that changes one night when he nearly hits a dog with his car. As he is leaving, the dog calls him a bonehead then runs off. From that day on his childhood ability to communicate with animals is back. Soon, animals are showing up at his home to get help. His colleagues suspect he's going crazy and many decisions still have to be made regarding the sale of the clinic. Just as everything is about to fall apart, a circus tiger falls seriously ill and it's John's turn to prove to everyone that he's not crazy.

I bought this dvd without having ever seen it and it was an ok movie, but they should've played it as a straight forward horror movie. It could've been great without all the extremely cartoonish sound effects, but they went for laughs and that was a mistake. As it is, this movie is ok if you have some time to waste but it is nothing special. Bottom line, it's worth watching once.

An excellent homage to the "big bug" movies of the 1950s, and I thought the spiders' vocalizations in the street scenes were hilarious.

The first time i heard a movie called "Eight legged freaks" i thought it was some comedy show with spiders in it, mostly because of the word "Freaks", but when i saw it on TV i couldn't even bother jerking my head away from the screen when my mom came in asking what i wanted for dinner. I'm not arachnaphobic at all and i would personally LOVE to be the guy at the beginning with a "spider zoo", i like to bring around my spider that i found downstairs, it's about the size of a quarter, and scare people with it. Anyways, my favorite parts of the movie are when all those spiders are chasing the guys on motorcycles, and when they all get blasted apart at the end. It pretty much lets you know what it would be like to be a bug, except there's not an army of spiders chasing after you. Also, correct me if i'm wrong, i don't think spiders really wrap their prey like that.

I bought this dvd without having ever seen it and it was an ok movie, but they should've played it as a straight forward horror movie. It could've been great without all the extremely cartoonish sound effects, but they went for laughs and that was a mistake. As it is, this movie is ok if you have some time to waste but it is nothing special. Bottom line, it's worth watching once.

An excellent homage to the "big bug" movies of the 1950s, and I thought the spiders' vocalizations in the street scenes were hilarious.

The first time i heard a movie called "Eight legged freaks" i thought it was some comedy show with spiders in it, mostly because of the word "Freaks", but when i saw it on TV i couldn't even bother jerking my head away from the screen when my mom came in asking what i wanted for dinner. I'm not arachnaphobic at all and i would personally LOVE to be the guy at the beginning with a "spider zoo", i like to bring around my spider that i found downstairs, it's about the size of a quarter, and scare people with it. Anyways, my favorite parts of the movie are when all those spiders are chasing the guys on motorcycles, and when they all get blasted apart at the end. It pretty much lets you know what it would be like to be a bug, except there's not an army of spiders chasing after you. Also, correct me if i'm wrong, i don't think spiders really wrap their prey like that.