Custom Detailing Movie Reviews

I do not think the producer's mother could sit through this all the way to the end. I managed 65 minutes. I have not seen a movie this bad in over 10 years. The plot is so disjointed and contradictory I assume they made up the dialog while filming. The characters are so absolutely ridiculous that stupidity is their only believable trait. They are ALL very unintelligent, but even that is not done in a believable way. The cameraman tripped while filming. There are numerous blank spots which may be intended as artsy but have no discernable meaning; I think it is just bad editing. Lighting and sound, to say nothing of any other technical aspects, are worse than a home video. If they paid Christini Ricci (which I doubt) to be in this movie that, along with gas for the moving vehicles, and the blank video tape had to be the only production costs. Other reviewers have mentioned Rosanna Arquette's performance, but she is not in the first 2/3 of the movie so I missed it. The other actors seemed to be stopping to think before they said their stilted lines, and what they said generally made little if any sense. The overall story and plot events might be funny in a college improv class. Unfortunately the movie is intended to be taken seriously (I think). The totally illogical events are full of holes and missing exposition (more bad editing) and your chin must actually drop as you attempt to reason why any people anywhere would do these things. My subconscious literally made me forget the movie for over 24 hours after I turned it off, and then like seasickness, it crossed over into my memory. My first thought was to find a website which would allow me to review the movie as warning to others. Be warned!

This movie, like its main character, takes time to warm up to people. Another reviewer, who didn't finish watching the movie, would have completely missed the point had he watched the whole thing. To be honest, the first time I rented the film, I got distracted ten or fifteen minutes through, and didn't get back to it until many months later. But when I finally did make a commitment to the Buffalo 66, to watch and just let the movie reveal itself, I was completely blown away. What's so satisfying about watching this movie is that, like Christina Ricci's character, the audience also has to play along with a story that we have no control of (most people find it an amusing, if sometimes tiresome ride). But, if you have faith, you'll be rewarded.

Anomie.. a word I learned from a review of Stranger than Paradise, another favorite of mine with similar cadence.
This is a great love story for all of us who are disfuntional in society, (and who is'nt in some way?) This is a marvelous story of the human psyche, our cages and our keys.

This is a movie about the wrong choices that people make in their lives. There are many things that make this a near-great movie. One of them is how the players weave in and out of each other's lives. Although the movie takes place in New York City, we see very few people outside of the cast. This gives a sense of intimacy that would be hard to achieve if the movie was handled differently. The characters are all confronted with opportunities to do the wrong thing and we see how they fare with their various choices. The main character is a well-respected eye doctor who is experiencing difficulties with his mistress of two years (a poor choice from the past). His effort to deal with this "problem" leads to the extreme example of poor choices. Other characters choose to have affairs which are shown in various levels of detail; some we witness, some we just hear about. Ironically, the second worst thing that happens to someone in the movie occurs when the Rabbi goes blind. He speaks out for making the right choices but receives no apparent reward in return. Is this possibly a suggestion that God, in his mercy, sometimes makes wrong choices? One individual, who we observe through the interesting perspective of documentary film clips, offers great wisdom and perspective and then makes the worst choice of anyone. There are other choices and other mistakes culminating with a finale that shows us that the only people who are happy are those who either shouldn't be happy or, as we can see, will soon be very unhappy with their latest choice.

The movie makes the case for some of the wrong choices that are made. At least enough of a case that we, the audience, must decide for ourselves. All this is assisted by excellent acting. It's not a movie for everyone. I started watching it with my 10 year old in the room. I'm not sure if he appreciated what he was able to see before it was his bed time. However, he did ask me the next day if the doctor's wife ever found out about his affair.

There is definitely humor in the movie, especially the glimpse of the documentary Woody Allen was making about his brother-in-law. That documentary was another example of a poor choice that was made. You would make a wise choice if you decided to watch this movie.

This is one of the only movies that I can actualy say is a favorite. It has comedy, deep ethical dilemmas, character development, everything. Some of the comedy must be subtler than I though at first, because as I get older (I first saw it when it first came out, like 10 years ago or something) I laugh more and more at some of the smallest things.
I would recommend this to anyone, even those who don't like Woody.

Woody Allen is the most deeply religious of movie directors; He just doesn't know it yet.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (an obvious nod to Fyodor Dostoyevsky) is Allen's most engrossing quest for moral order in the universe, which quest leaves him -- and the viewer -- utterly bereft.

However, unlike the bleak "Interiors" or Allen's hilarious send-up on impending death being the impetus for finding God in "Hannah and Her Sisters," Allen's treatment of God, morality and free will is multi-faceted, and doesn't come to any pat answers.

In fact, it is Allen's ambivalent contemplation of religion and ethics that conservative critics find lacking at best, or disingenuous at worst. I see it differently: Agree or disagree with him, Allen is an atheist who is nonetheless tormented by the conclusion he has reached that there is no God. His is no knee-jerk atheism, as he has clearly thought through the philosophical issues involved, wavering between Nietzschean will to power and outright denial, to existentialist reluctance in the face of the ultimate meaningless of life beyond the here-and-now.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" is peopled by a sterling cast, whose lives and choices are in direct conflict and contrast with one another; Yet, all speak with one voice, in Allen's exquisitely economical and pointed dialogue.

Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau, in the role of a lifetime, so perfectly is the dialogue tailored to his cadence of voice and gestures), like Job, is a man who has everything he could ever want. Unlike Job, when he sees his wealth and seemingly ideal family life (with wife Claire Bloom) jeopardized, he turns his back on God.

The catalyst for Judah's life crisis is Dolores (Angelica Huston), a lonely airline stewardress with whom he's having more than a fling. When Dolores realises that she means nothing more to Judah than a mistress, and that his marital overtures to her were hollow, she turns on him with neurotic vengeance, threatening to expose not only their affair, but Judah's shady financial dealings.

Frozen by fear of exposure, Judah turns to his rabbi (played by Sam Waterston) for advice. As wise as the advice is, it leaves too much to chance, that Judah can still indeed face exposure, shame and ruin. So, then he calls on his hit-man brother (Jerry Orbach) to quietly make Dolores -- and all Judah's problems -- disappear.

And they *do* disappear, but with one hitch: Judah is suddenly consumed with guilt, and the one distant God now appears to haunt him and watch his every move. It is interesting watching Judah as he tries to reconcile his amoral crime with his ambivalent beliefs towards the Almighty. The scene in which he visits his childhood home in New Jersey brings back ghosts from his past, and we see his relatives sitting around the Seder table, in heated debate over the existence of God and the search for a moral order in the universe. Being a Woody Allen movie, of course the nasal aunt who dismisses God as a childish fantasy -- given the evidence that He did nothing to stop the Holocaust -- wins the day, thus influencing the adolescent Judah, who is being watched by the older Judah, an invisible prescence within the dining room.

Two other plot threads run alternately hilarious/serious: Allen co-stars as Clifford Stern, an independent filmmaker, who lives on the financial and emotional handouts from his sexually barren wife. When she arranges for him to film the life of her brother, Lester, a successful commercial TV producer played by Alan Alda (whose sleazy character is a cross between Norman Lear and Ted Turner), Clifford bristles at Lester's shallowness. Things get wilder as Cliff tries to woo Halley (played by Mia Farrow), a public TV producer. Meanwhile, Halley -- who at first brushes off Lester's slick advances -- starts being attracted to Lester.

Meanwhile, Clifford is filming the life story of a philosopher of positive thinking, Holocaust survivor Dr. Levy. When the professor turns negative and commits suicide (and Halley simultaneously throws Cliff over for the boorish Lester), Clifford concludes that there is nothing but random moral choas, and that indeed -- echoing Nietzsche -- God is dead.

The movie ends with Clifford and Judah meeting at the wedding of Rabbi Ben's daughter. The Rabbi has now gone fully blind, despite Judah's attempts to restore his eyesight. Yet, Judah observes, the guilt over Dolores' murder have dissipated, and confides hypothetically to Clifford that life can indeed be good for a murderer, provided he feel no moral guilt for his crimes, and that morality is but an impediment to fruitful living. After all, he notes, his family life and fortune have been restored to him, and that the idea of retributive justice being doled out by God is a fairy tale, a figment of imagination.

The conclusion is that we are each responsible for our own actions and our own lives. Yet, Allen makes one huge error in logic: If there is no God, he seems to imply, and if there is no moral order to the universe, then there is no moral or ethical impediment to murdering one's fellows. Is this Allen's tacit acknowledgement of the supernatural, or is he backing up Nietzsche's notion that morality was only invented to keep lesser men from running amok, that the common mass needs laws because they are incapable of rational judgment? It seems here that Allen is making the case for utter nihilism. So, why is he a liberal on the political spectrum, liberalism being a philosophy that holds democratic action and altruism as its moral center? Is Allen making a sotto voce case for fascism?

Truthfully, I don't think he's doing the latter. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see an atheist give so much thought and obvious private anguish to the question of God. If only the faithful did, there'd be less wanton violence commited in His name.

This is a movie about the wrong choices that people make in their lives. There are many things that make this a near-great movie. One of them is how the players weave in and out of each other's lives. Although the movie takes place in New York City, we see very few people outside of the cast. This gives a sense of intimacy that would be hard to achieve if the movie was handled differently. The characters are all confronted with opportunities to do the wrong thing and we see how they fare with their various choices. The main character is a well-respected eye doctor who is experiencing difficulties with his mistress of two years (a poor choice from the past). His effort to deal with this "problem" leads to the extreme example of poor choices. Other characters choose to have affairs which are shown in various levels of detail; some we witness, some we just hear about. Ironically, the second worst thing that happens to someone in the movie occurs when the Rabbi goes blind. He speaks out for making the right choices but receives no apparent reward in return. Is this possibly a suggestion that God, in his mercy, sometimes makes wrong choices? One individual, who we observe through the interesting perspective of documentary film clips, offers great wisdom and perspective and then makes the worst choice of anyone. There are other choices and other mistakes culminating with a finale that shows us that the only people who are happy are those who either shouldn't be happy or, as we can see, will soon be very unhappy with their latest choice.

The movie makes the case for some of the wrong choices that are made. At least enough of a case that we, the audience, must decide for ourselves. All this is assisted by excellent acting. It's not a movie for everyone. I started watching it with my 10 year old in the room. I'm not sure if he appreciated what he was able to see before it was his bed time. However, he did ask me the next day if the doctor's wife ever found out about his affair.

There is definitely humor in the movie, especially the glimpse of the documentary Woody Allen was making about his brother-in-law. That documentary was another example of a poor choice that was made. You would make a wise choice if you decided to watch this movie.

This is one of the only movies that I can actualy say is a favorite. It has comedy, deep ethical dilemmas, character development, everything. Some of the comedy must be subtler than I though at first, because as I get older (I first saw it when it first came out, like 10 years ago or something) I laugh more and more at some of the smallest things.
I would recommend this to anyone, even those who don't like Woody.

Woody Allen is the most deeply religious of movie directors; He just doesn't know it yet.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (an obvious nod to Fyodor Dostoyevsky) is Allen's most engrossing quest for moral order in the universe, which quest leaves him -- and the viewer -- utterly bereft.

However, unlike the bleak "Interiors" or Allen's hilarious send-up on impending death being the impetus for finding God in "Hannah and Her Sisters," Allen's treatment of God, morality and free will is multi-faceted, and doesn't come to any pat answers.

In fact, it is Allen's ambivalent contemplation of religion and ethics that conservative critics find lacking at best, or disingenuous at worst. I see it differently: Agree or disagree with him, Allen is an atheist who is nonetheless tormented by the conclusion he has reached that there is no God. His is no knee-jerk atheism, as he has clearly thought through the philosophical issues involved, wavering between Nietzschean will to power and outright denial, to existentialist reluctance in the face of the ultimate meaningless of life beyond the here-and-now.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" is peopled by a sterling cast, whose lives and choices are in direct conflict and contrast with one another; Yet, all speak with one voice, in Allen's exquisitely economical and pointed dialogue.

Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau, in the role of a lifetime, so perfectly is the dialogue tailored to his cadence of voice and gestures), like Job, is a man who has everything he could ever want. Unlike Job, when he sees his wealth and seemingly ideal family life (with wife Claire Bloom) jeopardized, he turns his back on God.

The catalyst for Judah's life crisis is Dolores (Angelica Huston), a lonely airline stewardress with whom he's having more than a fling. When Dolores realises that she means nothing more to Judah than a mistress, and that his marital overtures to her were hollow, she turns on him with neurotic vengeance, threatening to expose not only their affair, but Judah's shady financial dealings.

Frozen by fear of exposure, Judah turns to his rabbi (played by Sam Waterston) for advice. As wise as the advice is, it leaves too much to chance, that Judah can still indeed face exposure, shame and ruin. So, then he calls on his hit-man brother (Jerry Orbach) to quietly make Dolores -- and all Judah's problems -- disappear.

And they *do* disappear, but with one hitch: Judah is suddenly consumed with guilt, and the one distant God now appears to haunt him and watch his every move. It is interesting watching Judah as he tries to reconcile his amoral crime with his ambivalent beliefs towards the Almighty. The scene in which he visits his childhood home in New Jersey brings back ghosts from his past, and we see his relatives sitting around the Seder table, in heated debate over the existence of God and the search for a moral order in the universe. Being a Woody Allen movie, of course the nasal aunt who dismisses God as a childish fantasy -- given the evidence that He did nothing to stop the Holocaust -- wins the day, thus influencing the adolescent Judah, who is being watched by the older Judah, an invisible prescence within the dining room.

Two other plot threads run alternately hilarious/serious: Allen co-stars as Clifford Stern, an independent filmmaker, who lives on the financial and emotional handouts from his sexually barren wife. When she arranges for him to film the life of her brother, Lester, a successful commercial TV producer played by Alan Alda (whose sleazy character is a cross between Norman Lear and Ted Turner), Clifford bristles at Lester's shallowness. Things get wilder as Cliff tries to woo Halley (played by Mia Farrow), a public TV producer. Meanwhile, Halley -- who at first brushes off Lester's slick advances -- starts being attracted to Lester.

Meanwhile, Clifford is filming the life story of a philosopher of positive thinking, Holocaust survivor Dr. Levy. When the professor turns negative and commits suicide (and Halley simultaneously throws Cliff over for the boorish Lester), Clifford concludes that there is nothing but random moral choas, and that indeed -- echoing Nietzsche -- God is dead.

The movie ends with Clifford and Judah meeting at the wedding of Rabbi Ben's daughter. The Rabbi has now gone fully blind, despite Judah's attempts to restore his eyesight. Yet, Judah observes, the guilt over Dolores' murder have dissipated, and confides hypothetically to Clifford that life can indeed be good for a murderer, provided he feel no moral guilt for his crimes, and that morality is but an impediment to fruitful living. After all, he notes, his family life and fortune have been restored to him, and that the idea of retributive justice being doled out by God is a fairy tale, a figment of imagination.

The conclusion is that we are each responsible for our own actions and our own lives. Yet, Allen makes one huge error in logic: If there is no God, he seems to imply, and if there is no moral order to the universe, then there is no moral or ethical impediment to murdering one's fellows. Is this Allen's tacit acknowledgement of the supernatural, or is he backing up Nietzsche's notion that morality was only invented to keep lesser men from running amok, that the common mass needs laws because they are incapable of rational judgment? It seems here that Allen is making the case for utter nihilism. So, why is he a liberal on the political spectrum, liberalism being a philosophy that holds democratic action and altruism as its moral center? Is Allen making a sotto voce case for fascism?

Truthfully, I don't think he's doing the latter. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see an atheist give so much thought and obvious private anguish to the question of God. If only the faithful did, there'd be less wanton violence commited in His name.

I saw The Maltese Falcon on TCM and I thought it was excellent and had an outstanding cast, Humphrey Bogart as private eye Sam Spade, Mary Aster as Brigid O'Shaughnessy, Peter Lorre as Joel Cairo, Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper Guttman (AKA The Fat Man) and Elisha Cook Jr as the neurotic and vicious Wilmer Cook. This is a wonderful mystery and suspence movie with a lot of red herrings. Highly recommended. I taped The Maltese Falcon when it was on TCM but I could definitely see myself buying the DVD!

John Huston's 1941 remake of The Maltese Falcon became the definitive version as it opened the doors for the film noir genre. And noir movies opened up with The Glass Key, The Postman Rings Twice, Key Largo, and Dark Passage. The dark mood of these movies were put to best effect with black-and-white film, with dimly lighting in nighttime scenes reflecting the grimness of the genre.

Sam Spade becomes involved in the search for the title artifact with the introduction of three characters--Brigid O'Shaughnessy, Joel Cairo, and Kaspar Guttman. All three are involved in one way or another with the title object. The cynical Spade though, shows his loyalties to no one, but the one who pays him the most. He is also quick to strike out at anyone menacing him, such as a pistol-wielding Joel Cairo or Wilmer, a hired gun. His steel heart extends to his relationship with his partner, whose wife Iva he has an affair with, and even that is passionless. Only Ebbie, his loyal secretary with a nice personality who can handle Spade, gets the less hard part of his hard edge.

However, two murders entangled themselves in the web. The first is that of Spade's partner Miles Archer, who charmed by Brigid, offered to shadow a man she wanted followed. The second is Thursby, the object of his hunt. And Spade's caught up also because he is suspected of his partner's murder due to his affair with Iva, and he's got to fend off the police and D.A.'s office.
Certain camera shots get great mention, such as the shadow of the "Spade and Archer" sign cast from the window to the floor. Another is the bright spotlight effect shown on Miles's surprised face as he gets shot. And the way the camera focuses on the Fat Man's belly shows the weight he has, both physically and in terms of power. The lights and shadows enhance the costumes as well. Most of the characters are dressed in black.

This was the film that pushed Bogart to film legend status, making it his biggest success since The Petrified Forest. Ahead of him lay greater roles such as Rick (Casablanca), Phil Marlowe (The Big Sleep), Allnutt (The African Queen), Queeg (The Caine Mutiny), and Linus Larrabee (Sabrina).

Mary Astor (Brigitte) needed this kind of film, especially to counter the 1936 headliner scandal made over her sexual exploits with playwright George Kaufman, made public with the splashing of her diary across newspapers. Sydney Greenstreet as the plummy but dangerous "Fat Man", i.e. Guttman, Peter Lorre as the slightly effeminate Cairo, and Ed Begley Jr. as the neurotic gunsel Wilmer all add to this classic. He speaks in a low but quivering and menacing tone: "Keep on riding me, they'll be picking iron out of your liver."

Cinematically, a classic, and remember that line, "the stuff that dreams are made of."

There are so many archetypes in this film because it is based on one of several books written by Dashiell Hammett who invested detective fiction with so many innovations of his own. The result is a delightful film in which private investigator Sam Spade (Bogart) attempts to answer a series of questions which somehow seem much more important to him than they do to those who see this film. The screenplay is based on one of Hammett's novels and was written by John Huston. This is also the first film Huston directed. He and Bogart worked together on four other classics: Key Largo and The Treasure of Sierra Madre (both released in 1948), The African Queen (1951), and Beat the Devil (1953). If anything, I find this film even more amusing now than I did when I first saw it. How about the names of the characters? Miss Wonderly/Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Astor), Joel Cairo (Lorre), and Kaspar Gutman (Greenstreet). Someone's tongue was firmly in the nearest cheek. The plot makes little (if any) sense but who cares? The film's greatness is explained by the consistently superior acting and by the dialogue which never loses its Snap! Crackle! and Pop! To his great credit, amidst all the harmless nonsense, Bogart maintains his gravitas. He seems genuinely interested in "getting to the truth" to explain why his partner was murdered, why the Maltese Falcon is so valuable, etc. We tag along so as not to miss any of his interactions with a truly colorful cast of characters. Yes, that's Elisha Cook, Jr. in the role of Wilmer Cook. (No relation.) And yes, that's Huston's father Walter as Captain Jacobi. If you have not already seen it, why wait? If you have, see it again. Somehow it gets better and better, time after time, year after year after year.

First, this is a remarkable movie with Sean Connery, Michael Caine, and Christopher Plummer. The Kipling story is one of his best and the acting, directing, sets, music, and all other aspects of this movie are first class. Any fan of "Gunga Din" or the "The Four Feathers" will love it.

Our story starts out with Michael Caine, playing Peachy Carnehan, stealing Christopher Plummer's, playing Rudyard Kipling, watch. When he realizes the gold charm attached to it shows him to be a Free Mason he tries to return it. It is interesting how that little Free Mason charm changes the lives of Sean Connery, playing Daniel Dravot, and Peachy.

Daniel and Peachy seek their fortune in a small country across deserts and mountains from India. No one has made the journey and survived to tell about it. They decide they will be kings and not drink or be familiar with women until they have reached that goal. They ask Kipling to witness their contract before their departure.

Once the two set off with a couple pack animals and some guns and ammunition, the adventures and dangers the two encounter are amazing. The sprawling landscapes and cultures they see keep us mesmerized. It is not what they expected and so it also is not predictable what will befall them. A wonderful adventure worth seeing.

Second, can someone explain why there are a handful of DVDs like this that require you to flip them over halfway into the movie? I absolutely hate that. Fortunately I only have a couple movies that require me to do that but it needs to changed.

There is no excuse for it as far as I can see since I have many movies that are longer that do not require me to flip them over. Furthermore neither of those I own give you any warning that you need to flip them, they just stop and the screen goes black. Consider boycotting this method of releasing movies. I know I intend to write the studio about it.

I saw this movie in the theater when it was first released. I was totally caught up in it then and I am still very impressed every time I get a chance to see it again (I have it on tape but it's a beta tape). There is a lot of adventure, mystery, action, humor and drama wrapped up in this movie. The sets, scenery and photography are terrific as well. Best of all, there is also a lot of great acting and directing. Michael Caine and Sean Connery are both excellent actors who seem to elevate their preformances a notch by working together. There is also an excellent supporting cast.

I was fascinated with the story and the concept of a tribe that had had no contact with the Western world since the time of Alexander the Great. These two British soldiers were going to go to this land that was only rumored to exist and become their kings. How they planned it, how they went there, how they attempted to acheive their goal (and how "they" came back). makes for a riveting and entertaining movie.

"The Man Who Would be King" has become something of a cult favorite over the years. However, don't let that mislead you. This is no "Rocky Horror Picture Show" that appeals only to fringe groups of movie goers. This movie was made for all audiences and can still be enjoyed by all. Something or other has left it off the "A" list of movies for the Late Show which makes it hard to find on TV. Maybe it's because movies set in India don't seem to last long in the public view Whatever, This movie is worth buying because it's worth seeing more than once

Just the sort of movie you'd like to see on a wet sunday afternoon when you have nothing better to do than watch television.

Strangely, early reviews of this movie criticise the casting, insisting that Connery should have played Carnahan and Caine Dravot. Why this is, who knows. I think the two actors play superb roles and, as has been said before, the chemistry between them is startlingly obvious.

Carnahan and Dravot are ex-British soldiers in 19th century India during the time of the Raj. Deciding that fame and fortune is to found in nearby Kafiristan, they set out to conquor the country. This they do by a quirk of fate when Danny is falsely claimed as a god and son of Alexander the Great.

Things are fine until Danny takes a wife (played by Caine's real-life wife, Shakira). She bites him, he bleeds blood- indicating he is an ordinary mortal. Then things really go belly-up. Danny is sent plunging to the bottom of a very deep gorge and Peachy is crucified.

Fine acting by Caine, Connery and Plummer. A special mention must go to Saaed Jaffrey who plays the part of Billy Fish, the loyal ex-Ghurka.

Huston took his time to make this but, in the end, it was surely worth it.

In "First Blood" Sylvester Stallone is John Rambo a wandering ex-Green Beret looking for a former Vietnam buddy in a small hostile town. Rambo is unjustly harassed and arrested by over zealous Sheriff Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy). When Rambo is pushed to the limit he strikes back and single handedly beats up several officers in route to an escape into the surrounding hills.

Now that Rambo is back in his element things get interesting as a member of Teasle's posse unwittingly draws "First Blood" (hence the title) unleashing the wrath that is Rambo! The subsequent hoopla and bombast that accompanied the remaining two installments to the series really overshadow the quality of "First Blood." Stallone is at his monosyllabic best with a screenplay that keeps the dialogue down and revs the action up. Veteran action director Ted Kotcheff expertly handles the key set piece of the film that shows Rambo deftly ambushing several unsuspecting victims with such precision that none of them is fatally wounded. Finally Rambo comes face to face with his accuser Sheriff Teasle to issue an ultimatum that actually does more to up the stakes rather then cool the situation down. Rambo's former commanding officer Trautmen (Richard Crenna) is brought in for advice but instead issues his own declaration when he tells Sheriff Teasle that if he continues to pursue Rambo he better have a lot of body bags.

"First Blood" is really a study in wills and the stubbornness not to know when to back down. Sheriff Teasle is not able to admit that he is over matched and Rambo uses the injustice he has suffered both in the small town and in Vietnam as a reason to let his fury rage on an unsuspecting populace. Recent films like the disappointing "The Hunted" would have done well to mimic the terse sensibilities that served "First Blood" so well.

This 1982 film introduced the character "John Rambo", and was followed by other films that portrayed a powerful but misunderstood superhero. Rambo is arrested for walking through a small town, but makes his escape against great odds. He flees into the wilderness, Sheriff Teasel's men in hot pursuit. [Does this remind you of some early Hitchcock films?] The many forces combined against one man prove unequal. ["A Fistful of Dollars" or "Yojimbo"?] Like some Hitchcock films, the visuals are used more than dialog for the story.

Most of the film is devoted to the hunt for Rambo in the cold, rainy forest. Rambo eludes his pursuers, the hunted becomes the hunter. The dead and wounded are brought out of the wilderness. The forces against Rambo are escalated, yet success eludes them. Colonel Trautmann, who trained Rambo to be the best killing machine, shows up to confront the Sheriff, and attempts to end the conflict by a political solution ("let him go, get him later").

The burning gas station echoes that scene in "The Birds", a film about Nature taking revenge. Shooting into electrical transformers creates a blackout that is all too familiar. The explosions and fires are another disaster. Does the ending with the Colonel remind you of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men"? While Rambo walks away, the rest of the story is left to your imagination.

The military trains its guard dogs to be vicious, and to obey only their handler. When the handler leaves the service, his dog is destroyed; it has outlived its usefulness. This film is important as an example of propaganda in the movies. A psychotic drifter who kills police and National Guardsmen is portrayed as a hero! Could this happen in real life? Does the failure of the hunt for Rambo echo the Vietnam war? Does the attack on the town portend future terrorism?

Before it became one of the most cliche'-ridden action franchises in history, the saga of John Rambo was actually a very compelling and moving one. Much like actor Sylvester Stallone's other famed movie franchise 'Rocky', this series debuted with a story that was built upon elements of the human condition and focused on the interactions of the main characters. Where as the sequels in both series resorted to pandering story lines and overblown plot devices, the originals were well crafted.

The first episode in the Rambo saga, 'First Blood' (it was not called 'Rambo', despite what many moviegoers think.) tells the tragic tale of a Vietnam veteran's inability to return to a normal life in his own mind and the inability of many people to let him because of their own feelings about that misbegotten war. John Rambo (Stallone) was a highly trained Army killing who machined who commanded well-trained men and operated high-priced military machinery. He was Congressional Medal of Honor winner for whom there was no honor to be found when he returned home. All Rambo wanted to do was find an old Army buddy and grab a bite to eat in a small town as he made through and onto to wherever his next destination would be. Unfortunately, the prejudices and hatreds of a small-town sheriff's department and its vile, redneck sheriff, Will Teasle (played with slimy intensity by Brian Dennehy) just can't leave Rambo in peace. Teasle harasses and taunts Rambo before arresting him on a nebulous charge of 'vagrancy'. While in lockdown, the mistreatment his receives at the hand of other members of the sheriff's department triggers horrifying memories of his time in a P.O.W. camp and he snaps. Rambo attacks the abusive officers and then escapes to the mountains overlooking this sleepy town. Not content to let well-enough alone, Teasle and his men follow him into the mountains where Rambo's Green Beret training makes the odds of 8 to 1 (and later 200 to 1) turn in favor of the 1. Teasle was warned: 'Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe.'

'First Blood' deconstructs the world as Rambo has come to know it. It's an unforgiving one for Vietnam veterans and the mercilessness of some people's perceptions of the men who fought that war made the United States as inhospitable a place for them as the thickest jungles in 'Nam. Rambo wants to forget and move on, but most of all, he just wants to be left alone. His battle with the sheriff and his deputies isn't about attrition or killing, it's about survival. He doesn't kill the men after him; he just incapacitates them. Rambo is the quintessential anti-hero whose plight we can empathize with, if not sympathize. You understand the world he is facing and what made him flip the way he did. While certainly not as well known or publicized as its glitzier sequels, 'First Blood' is an underrated gem worth investing 90 minutes in.

In "First Blood" Sylvester Stallone is John Rambo a wandering ex-Green Beret looking for a former Vietnam buddy in a small hostile town. Rambo is unjustly harassed and arrested by over zealous Sheriff Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy). When Rambo is pushed to the limit he strikes back and single handedly beats up several officers in route to an escape into the surrounding hills.

Now that Rambo is back in his element things get interesting as a member of Teasle's posse unwittingly draws "First Blood" (hence the title) unleashing the wrath that is Rambo! The subsequent hoopla and bombast that accompanied the remaining two installments to the series really overshadow the quality of "First Blood." Stallone is at his monosyllabic best with a screenplay that keeps the dialogue down and revs the action up. Veteran action director Ted Kotcheff expertly handles the key set piece of the film that shows Rambo deftly ambushing several unsuspecting victims with such precision that none of them is fatally wounded. Finally Rambo comes face to face with his accuser Sheriff Teasle to issue an ultimatum that actually does more to up the stakes rather then cool the situation down. Rambo's former commanding officer Trautmen (Richard Crenna) is brought in for advice but instead issues his own declaration when he tells Sheriff Teasle that if he continues to pursue Rambo he better have a lot of body bags.

"First Blood" is really a study in wills and the stubbornness not to know when to back down. Sheriff Teasle is not able to admit that he is over matched and Rambo uses the injustice he has suffered both in the small town and in Vietnam as a reason to let his fury rage on an unsuspecting populace. Recent films like the disappointing "The Hunted" would have done well to mimic the terse sensibilities that served "First Blood" so well.

This 1982 film introduced the character "John Rambo", and was followed by other films that portrayed a powerful but misunderstood superhero. Rambo is arrested for walking through a small town, but makes his escape against great odds. He flees into the wilderness, Sheriff Teasel's men in hot pursuit. [Does this remind you of some early Hitchcock films?] The many forces combined against one man prove unequal. ["A Fistful of Dollars" or "Yojimbo"?] Like some Hitchcock films, the visuals are used more than dialog for the story.

Most of the film is devoted to the hunt for Rambo in the cold, rainy forest. Rambo eludes his pursuers, the hunted becomes the hunter. The dead and wounded are brought out of the wilderness. The forces against Rambo are escalated, yet success eludes them. Colonel Trautmann, who trained Rambo to be the best killing machine, shows up to confront the Sheriff, and attempts to end the conflict by a political solution ("let him go, get him later").

The burning gas station echoes that scene in "The Birds", a film about Nature taking revenge. Shooting into electrical transformers creates a blackout that is all too familiar. The explosions and fires are another disaster. Does the ending with the Colonel remind you of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men"? While Rambo walks away, the rest of the story is left to your imagination.

The military trains its guard dogs to be vicious, and to obey only their handler. When the handler leaves the service, his dog is destroyed; it has outlived its usefulness. This film is important as an example of propaganda in the movies. A psychotic drifter who kills police and National Guardsmen is portrayed as a hero! Could this happen in real life? Does the failure of the hunt for Rambo echo the Vietnam war? Does the attack on the town portend future terrorism?

Before it became one of the most cliche'-ridden action franchises in history, the saga of John Rambo was actually a very compelling and moving one. Much like actor Sylvester Stallone's other famed movie franchise 'Rocky', this series debuted with a story that was built upon elements of the human condition and focused on the interactions of the main characters. Where as the sequels in both series resorted to pandering story lines and overblown plot devices, the originals were well crafted.

The first episode in the Rambo saga, 'First Blood' (it was not called 'Rambo', despite what many moviegoers think.) tells the tragic tale of a Vietnam veteran's inability to return to a normal life in his own mind and the inability of many people to let him because of their own feelings about that misbegotten war. John Rambo (Stallone) was a highly trained Army killing who machined who commanded well-trained men and operated high-priced military machinery. He was Congressional Medal of Honor winner for whom there was no honor to be found when he returned home. All Rambo wanted to do was find an old Army buddy and grab a bite to eat in a small town as he made through and onto to wherever his next destination would be. Unfortunately, the prejudices and hatreds of a small-town sheriff's department and its vile, redneck sheriff, Will Teasle (played with slimy intensity by Brian Dennehy) just can't leave Rambo in peace. Teasle harasses and taunts Rambo before arresting him on a nebulous charge of 'vagrancy'. While in lockdown, the mistreatment his receives at the hand of other members of the sheriff's department triggers horrifying memories of his time in a P.O.W. camp and he snaps. Rambo attacks the abusive officers and then escapes to the mountains overlooking this sleepy town. Not content to let well-enough alone, Teasle and his men follow him into the mountains where Rambo's Green Beret training makes the odds of 8 to 1 (and later 200 to 1) turn in favor of the 1. Teasle was warned: 'Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe.'

'First Blood' deconstructs the world as Rambo has come to know it. It's an unforgiving one for Vietnam veterans and the mercilessness of some people's perceptions of the men who fought that war made the United States as inhospitable a place for them as the thickest jungles in 'Nam. Rambo wants to forget and move on, but most of all, he just wants to be left alone. His battle with the sheriff and his deputies isn't about attrition or killing, it's about survival. He doesn't kill the men after him; he just incapacitates them. Rambo is the quintessential anti-hero whose plight we can empathize with, if not sympathize. You understand the world he is facing and what made him flip the way he did. While certainly not as well known or publicized as its glitzier sequels, 'First Blood' is an underrated gem worth investing 90 minutes in.

In "First Blood" Sylvester Stallone is John Rambo a wandering ex-Green Beret looking for a former Vietnam buddy in a small hostile town. Rambo is unjustly harassed and arrested by over zealous Sheriff Will Teasle (Brian Dennehy). When Rambo is pushed to the limit he strikes back and single handedly beats up several officers in route to an escape into the surrounding hills.

Now that Rambo is back in his element things get interesting as a member of Teasle's posse unwittingly draws "First Blood" (hence the title) unleashing the wrath that is Rambo! The subsequent hoopla and bombast that accompanied the remaining two installments to the series really overshadow the quality of "First Blood." Stallone is at his monosyllabic best with a screenplay that keeps the dialogue down and revs the action up. Veteran action director Ted Kotcheff expertly handles the key set piece of the film that shows Rambo deftly ambushing several unsuspecting victims with such precision that none of them is fatally wounded. Finally Rambo comes face to face with his accuser Sheriff Teasle to issue an ultimatum that actually does more to up the stakes rather then cool the situation down. Rambo's former commanding officer Trautmen (Richard Crenna) is brought in for advice but instead issues his own declaration when he tells Sheriff Teasle that if he continues to pursue Rambo he better have a lot of body bags.

"First Blood" is really a study in wills and the stubbornness not to know when to back down. Sheriff Teasle is not able to admit that he is over matched and Rambo uses the injustice he has suffered both in the small town and in Vietnam as a reason to let his fury rage on an unsuspecting populace. Recent films like the disappointing "The Hunted" would have done well to mimic the terse sensibilities that served "First Blood" so well.

This 1982 film introduced the character "John Rambo", and was followed by other films that portrayed a powerful but misunderstood superhero. Rambo is arrested for walking through a small town, but makes his escape against great odds. He flees into the wilderness, Sheriff Teasel's men in hot pursuit. [Does this remind you of some early Hitchcock films?] The many forces combined against one man prove unequal. ["A Fistful of Dollars" or "Yojimbo"?] Like some Hitchcock films, the visuals are used more than dialog for the story.

Most of the film is devoted to the hunt for Rambo in the cold, rainy forest. Rambo eludes his pursuers, the hunted becomes the hunter. The dead and wounded are brought out of the wilderness. The forces against Rambo are escalated, yet success eludes them. Colonel Trautmann, who trained Rambo to be the best killing machine, shows up to confront the Sheriff, and attempts to end the conflict by a political solution ("let him go, get him later").

The burning gas station echoes that scene in "The Birds", a film about Nature taking revenge. Shooting into electrical transformers creates a blackout that is all too familiar. The explosions and fires are another disaster. Does the ending with the Colonel remind you of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men"? While Rambo walks away, the rest of the story is left to your imagination.

The military trains its guard dogs to be vicious, and to obey only their handler. When the handler leaves the service, his dog is destroyed; it has outlived its usefulness. This film is important as an example of propaganda in the movies. A psychotic drifter who kills police and National Guardsmen is portrayed as a hero! Could this happen in real life? Does the failure of the hunt for Rambo echo the Vietnam war? Does the attack on the town portend future terrorism?

Before it became one of the most cliche'-ridden action franchises in history, the saga of John Rambo was actually a very compelling and moving one. Much like actor Sylvester Stallone's other famed movie franchise 'Rocky', this series debuted with a story that was built upon elements of the human condition and focused on the interactions of the main characters. Where as the sequels in both series resorted to pandering story lines and overblown plot devices, the originals were well crafted.

The first episode in the Rambo saga, 'First Blood' (it was not called 'Rambo', despite what many moviegoers think.) tells the tragic tale of a Vietnam veteran's inability to return to a normal life in his own mind and the inability of many people to let him because of their own feelings about that misbegotten war. John Rambo (Stallone) was a highly trained Army killing who machined who commanded well-trained men and operated high-priced military machinery. He was Congressional Medal of Honor winner for whom there was no honor to be found when he returned home. All Rambo wanted to do was find an old Army buddy and grab a bite to eat in a small town as he made through and onto to wherever his next destination would be. Unfortunately, the prejudices and hatreds of a small-town sheriff's department and its vile, redneck sheriff, Will Teasle (played with slimy intensity by Brian Dennehy) just can't leave Rambo in peace. Teasle harasses and taunts Rambo before arresting him on a nebulous charge of 'vagrancy'. While in lockdown, the mistreatment his receives at the hand of other members of the sheriff's department triggers horrifying memories of his time in a P.O.W. camp and he snaps. Rambo attacks the abusive officers and then escapes to the mountains overlooking this sleepy town. Not content to let well-enough alone, Teasle and his men follow him into the mountains where Rambo's Green Beret training makes the odds of 8 to 1 (and later 200 to 1) turn in favor of the 1. Teasle was warned: 'Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe.'

'First Blood' deconstructs the world as Rambo has come to know it. It's an unforgiving one for Vietnam veterans and the mercilessness of some people's perceptions of the men who fought that war made the United States as inhospitable a place for them as the thickest jungles in 'Nam. Rambo wants to forget and move on, but most of all, he just wants to be left alone. His battle with the sheriff and his deputies isn't about attrition or killing, it's about survival. He doesn't kill the men after him; he just incapacitates them. Rambo is the quintessential anti-hero whose plight we can empathize with, if not sympathize. You understand the world he is facing and what made him flip the way he did. While certainly not as well known or publicized as its glitzier sequels, 'First Blood' is an underrated gem worth investing 90 minutes in.

I wouldn't have bet that anyone could pull it off. The original series had such a unique and whimsical voice, I assumed that a movie maker would either overplay the feel of the film or just miss the point entirely.

But Barry Sonnenfeld gets it! And the cast is top-notch. Christina Ricci is more menacing than words can express. The late Raul Julia nails the character of Gomez.

Wonderful in its humor and its overall feel, this one is a keeper to enjoy over and over again.

Anyone my age would have to love this movie (I'm not telling how old that is) because we grew up seeing these characters every week on television. The plot......well someone is trying to take away the Addams house and fortune...interesting!
Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia were perfect for their roles and Raul Julia will be missed greatly by us all.
The children were great, spooky, ooky and everything you would expect to find in their personalities was there. Good job!
I enjoyed this one, it was quite entertaining!

A near-worthy successor, to be more exact. The 1991 remake of the classic 60's series was taken into the hands of director Barry Sonnenfield (Men In Black films). Sonnenfield's use of computer enhanced effects and tongue-in-cheek, slapstick surrealism contributed to the success of this film, which spawned a sequel, "Addams Family Values" and a made for video film.

The 60's tv show magic is lost in the wake of modern cinema and even the actors, try as they did, could not match the sophisticated humor that John Astin and Carolyn Jones shared- they were the original Gomez and Morticia. But nevertheless, the film is worth watching, if anything for the special effects and performances by Christopher Lloyd as Uncle Fester and Christina Ricci as Wednesday Addams. Noteworthy is also Lurch and Thing, whose dismembered hand is a computer generated illusion.

The plot of the film revolves around Uncle Fester's amnesia. He has returned from the Bermuda Triangle (something which in itself is impossible, says the doubting Christina Ricci's Wednesday) and brought home his mother. His "mother" is a villainous woman bent on claiming the Addams Family fortune, their estate. When she has managed to influence Fester, the rest of the Addams are forced out of their home and obligated to work for rent in a slum's apartment. Eventually, the villainous woman is defeated and the Addams reclaim their home, and Uncle Fester regains his memory.

The film has its comic moments, i.e. when Gomez (Raul Julia) is watching day time talk show Sally Jesse Raphael and asks where voodoo witch doctors have their meetings, when Pugsley and Wednesday engage in a play and duel (with fake, splurting blood) and the Halloween party in which all the Addams are invited- a host of grotesque, zombie creatures appear, including the two-headed sisters. Cousin Itt also makes an appearance.

Although Raul Julia and Angelica Houston try to imitate the artistic, witty repartee and passion that John Astin and Carolyn Jones shared, they fail to do so. Raul Julia can pass off for Gomez, especially because he is Latin, but Angelica Houston does not portray a convincing Morticia- cast only because Angelica Houston's has pale, dark, "witch" like features. A striking element in the film, besides its cinematography, is its music. The soundtrack, elegant, haunting, romantic, Gothic, which sounds like the same music to the scores of "Edward Scissorhands" or "The Nightmare Before Christmas"- orchestral subtle tones, lush romanticism, tango, etc. An enjoyable film, although what would have been preferable was for the producers of the original tv show (which ran from 1964 to 66), would be to have had John Astin, Carolyn Jones and the rest of the black and white tv show's cast- Ted Cassidy (Lurch) Blossom Rock (Grandmama) Lisa Loring (Wednesday), Ken Weatherwax (Pugsley) and Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester) to star in a color film directly after the show ended (1966) in an attempt to save the show from a brief syndication. Apparently, this was done in the late 70's, but by then the series had ended years before and a lot of the cast members were quite old.

I wouldn't have bet that anyone could pull it off. The original series had such a unique and whimsical voice, I assumed that a movie maker would either overplay the feel of the film or just miss the point entirely.

But Barry Sonnenfeld gets it! And the cast is top-notch. Christina Ricci is more menacing than words can express. The late Raul Julia nails the character of Gomez.

Wonderful in its humor and its overall feel, this one is a keeper to enjoy over and over again.

Anyone my age would have to love this movie (I'm not telling how old that is) because we grew up seeing these characters every week on television. The plot......well someone is trying to take away the Addams house and fortune...interesting!
Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia were perfect for their roles and Raul Julia will be missed greatly by us all.
The children were great, spooky, ooky and everything you would expect to find in their personalities was there. Good job!
I enjoyed this one, it was quite entertaining!

A near-worthy successor, to be more exact. The 1991 remake of the classic 60's series was taken into the hands of director Barry Sonnenfield (Men In Black films). Sonnenfield's use of computer enhanced effects and tongue-in-cheek, slapstick surrealism contributed to the success of this film, which spawned a sequel, "Addams Family Values" and a made for video film.

The 60's tv show magic is lost in the wake of modern cinema and even the actors, try as they did, could not match the sophisticated humor that John Astin and Carolyn Jones shared- they were the original Gomez and Morticia. But nevertheless, the film is worth watching, if anything for the special effects and performances by Christopher Lloyd as Uncle Fester and Christina Ricci as Wednesday Addams. Noteworthy is also Lurch and Thing, whose dismembered hand is a computer generated illusion.

The plot of the film revolves around Uncle Fester's amnesia. He has returned from the Bermuda Triangle (something which in itself is impossible, says the doubting Christina Ricci's Wednesday) and brought home his mother. His "mother" is a villainous woman bent on claiming the Addams Family fortune, their estate. When she has managed to influence Fester, the rest of the Addams are forced out of their home and obligated to work for rent in a slum's apartment. Eventually, the villainous woman is defeated and the Addams reclaim their home, and Uncle Fester regains his memory.

The film has its comic moments, i.e. when Gomez (Raul Julia) is watching day time talk show Sally Jesse Raphael and asks where voodoo witch doctors have their meetings, when Pugsley and Wednesday engage in a play and duel (with fake, splurting blood) and the Halloween party in which all the Addams are invited- a host of grotesque, zombie creatures appear, including the two-headed sisters. Cousin Itt also makes an appearance.

Although Raul Julia and Angelica Houston try to imitate the artistic, witty repartee and passion that John Astin and Carolyn Jones shared, they fail to do so. Raul Julia can pass off for Gomez, especially because he is Latin, but Angelica Houston does not portray a convincing Morticia- cast only because Angelica Houston's has pale, dark, "witch" like features. A striking element in the film, besides its cinematography, is its music. The soundtrack, elegant, haunting, romantic, Gothic, which sounds like the same music to the scores of "Edward Scissorhands" or "The Nightmare Before Christmas"- orchestral subtle tones, lush romanticism, tango, etc. An enjoyable film, although what would have been preferable was for the producers of the original tv show (which ran from 1964 to 66), would be to have had John Astin, Carolyn Jones and the rest of the black and white tv show's cast- Ted Cassidy (Lurch) Blossom Rock (Grandmama) Lisa Loring (Wednesday), Ken Weatherwax (Pugsley) and Jackie Coogan (Uncle Fester) to star in a color film directly after the show ended (1966) in an attempt to save the show from a brief syndication. Apparently, this was done in the late 70's, but by then the series had ended years before and a lot of the cast members were quite old.