SETI Movie Reviews

Although I don't regard Last Year as a complete waste, it certainly doesn't present a very realistic view of life at a small Bible college. I spent three years at a small Baptist university in a small town and my spouse spent four years at a moderately sized Presbyterian university, so we spent much of the movie cringing at the conflicts between our observations of reality and the portrayals in the movie.

From the description, we expected to see young gay men struggling to reconcile their sexual identity with their religious convictions. Indeed, from comments by the actors and director/writer/producer in the additional material on the DVD, that was the intent. However, two of the gay characters came to the college by mandate of their parents and had little or no religious conviction and the third had obviously discarded much, if not all, of his religious belief as he had embraced his gay identity. The frequent mention of St. Jude and the few seconds he is portrayed on screen prior to the end credits doesn't qualify as reconciliation of gay identity and religious (Christian) dogma. The reference to St. Jude is problematic as well, since emphasis on saints is a Catholic reference and all the other religious references in the film imply the college setting is a Protestant/Fundamentalist, possibly Baptist or Pentecostal.

The production quality of the movie is dismayingly amateurish, as is the performance of most of the actors. Although some of the scenes seem to have been actually filmed in the facilities of a small school, which added the benefits of existing ambient sound, the sound effects and score were very lacking. And, as much as I have often joined in condemning movie and television producers who fail to utilize gay actors to play gay parts, it would have certainly improved the quality of Last Year to have cast straight actors in at least some of the straight roles. It was almost impossible to suspend belief and see Robby as anything other than gay. In the most confrontational scene between the gay bashing jocks and Paul, it almost seems like Paul and the lead jock want to kiss as they stand nose to nose. And, in fact, the outtakes include that scene ending with Paul leaning the additional inch in and planting a kiss on the jock's lips. Another criticism I have of the casting is that I saw no chemistry between the actors portraying Paul and Alex, although these are the two characters that develop a physical and emotional relationship as the film progresses. Mike Dolan, who portrays Alex, brings the most professional and close to believable performance to the movie, but it simply isn't enough.

As for cautions, I think anyone with unresolved issues about suicide might want to skip this movie. Also the movie really doesn't provide any serious help to resolving gay identity and religious conviction; so if you are struggling with this issue, don't expect too much help there either. If you want to see a movie for light entertainment, I wouldn't discourage you from Last Year. But it is better as a rental rather than a purchase, because I am not sure many would want to devote the time to watching it a second time.

This movie is worth viewing for the strong performances turned in by the two male leads ("Alex" and "Paul"). The plot revolving around the fundamentalist Bible school setting was overly melodramatic. With a few changes, this same film could have been made more believable with a "regular" college backdrop, as most of the same "problems" exist therein.

Despite what Mr. Moseley says, I know people who did attend Christian colleges while dealing with the issue of reconciling their faith with their sexuality, and this picture is right on target.

I also had the opportunity to see a day's filming on this picture and know it was shot on a small budget with people who cared about the subject matter enough to get it onto the screen and make it as real as the 'censors' would allow.

I was pleasantly suprised at the final product when I attended the intitial California screening . This is not the slick formula film that Hollywood would want to make on the subject. It is a film that deserves attention and careful consideration of its subject matter.

I did not agree with the theme of this movie. I believe there is entirely too much said about the topic of criminals and children. Children under the age of ten may find it entertaining, however.

O.K. I'll admit that Home Alone 3 wasnt as good as the first two. But DAMN PEOPLE. Alex tried his best. Give him that at least. The movie was kind of funny. I read some other reviews about how Mac. was better than Alex. Of Course. Nobody's better than the original. But give Alex his props for trying his hardest. Alex for sure has mine for stepping up. Not many would've done that I'm sure.

I liked Home Alone. I loved Home Alone 2. I didn't think anything could possibly top the sight of Tim Curry on his knees telling a fictitious hotel patron that 'he loved him'.
Boy, was I wrong.
Many people seem to have taken issue with Home Alone 3 because it does not follow on directly from the 2nd film in the series. Really, is that such a huge deal? If anything, it's what made this movie work. They didn't try to make another 'Kevin' story, but went for something totally different, just using the same plot - David vs. Goliath in a house of horrors that David set up.
And as for trashing Alex D. Linz in the role, please.... At least this child could act. My biggest gripe with the first two Home Alone movies was that Macauly Culkin constantly sounded like he was reading his lines straight out of the script, rather than something that was rehearsed.
But back to the story. The premise of this tale is that four criminal masterminds have obtained a stolen chip, with the intention of selling it to a mega-rich (mega-dangerous) buyer.
Through a totally plausible mix up at the airport, the chip (which is hidden inside a remote controlled toy car) ends up in the hands of an elderly lady. The crooks chase her all the way back to Chicago to try and recover the chip and save their own rear ends.
This is another factor which worked well for the movie. Whereas with the first two films, it was funny because Harry and Marv were such an obvious pair of morons. The four crims in HA3 are supposed to be smart, which makes it so much more delicious when Alex makes idiots of them.
The hero of the story, Alex, is by himself not through any family holiday mix-ups, but rather because he has chicken pox, and both parents have to work. Like Kevin McAllister, Alex is portrayed as being rather hard done by as far as his family goes. He's the butt of endless jokes and tormenting by his older brother and sister, and when he begins reporting the suspicious activity going on his neighbourhood, no one will believe him.
Hence, he decides eventually to take matters into his own hands, find out just what is going on and do something about it.
There are some absolutely hilarious scenes in this film. Particularly the scene when Alex sends the car with a video camera taped to the top to try and get evidence to prove he is not lying.
And the inevitable confrontations in the end with the crooks have to be seen to be believed.
The best parts to watch for are firstly the incident with the mouse and the iron bar. If you thought Marv's screams in Home Alone 2 (when the pigeons were attacking them) were hysterical, then this one surpasses all possible expectations. Who would have thought a grown man was capable of hitting such a perfect high note...?
And secondly, the parrot is a complete crack-up. Watch for the shower scene, it's the best.
Like the first two movies, this has the standard little-boy-makes-friends-with-aloof-and-outcast-neighbour ploy. The plot is basically the same in all three movies, but the introduction of a completely new cast has done wonders.
This film is not the disaster that some would have you believe, and if you enjoyed the first two Home Alone movies, then it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't like the 3rd installment. Just do yourself a big favour, see it for yourself and make up your own mind. Because it really is worth it.

its sorta weird but cool and Green like you've never seen him before. You have to see it to beleive it

This is not your common movie because it is basically all inside someone's mind. Awesome symbolism and some of the best unexpected frightful image sequences ever (if you saw it you know which ones i am talking about). This movie will have you doubting whats real and will literally drive you insane...but of course thats the beauty of it :)

The Attic Expeditions, met most unfairly by a storm of rejection, is not a film for the atypical movie-munching masses. In fact, when my friends first saw it they told me that this was a throwaway and that it was something to avoid, but, defying their wishes because of Mr. Combs, I picked it up, watched it, and was thoroughly smitten by the complexity of the product itself. It is this exact reason that I think this film finds many a negative opinions because, unlike most movies, it works through multifaceted means, coupling a rich plot and the stunning array of quality actors with a concept to grasp the attention of those wanting a bit more than blood and the beastly. Typified as "the thinking person's horror movie," and rightly so, it spends a great deal of time addressing the psychologically barred windows within the human condition and adding in a dash of the esoteric to boot.

Here we have an oddly enjoyable experience pitting the incomparable Jeffrey Combs, playing the wonderfully diabolical Doctor Ek, against the psyche of our main character, Trevor Blackburn, a man awakening in a sanitarium after a four year hiatus from reality with only fragments of yesterday to feed from. The good doctor muddles the matter for our memory-devoid lead even more by telling him that he was involved in the bloody murder of his fiancee while participating in, as Blackburn himself supposedly described it before his little 48 month nap, "a magikal ceremony gone awry." Ek then tells Blackburn not to worry about the reluctancy of his mind, that he will be giving him the best care possible by sending him to the esteemed "House of Love" and that his memory may come back to him there. From the moment he steps foot into the House that Ek Built Blackburn can tell something is awry, though, for everything from those strangely patterned walls that induce a feeling of Deja-vu to the introductions to his curiously deranged cohabitants that seem oddly untrustworthy makes him uncomfortable, making him (and the viewer) wonder what's really going on. His dreams further complicate things, showing him a place in the attic with a somewhat familiar trunk in it, one that holds secrets in both reality and within Trevor's mind.

Even in the opening sequences you can tell that this movie is going to have some plot complexities and defy the atypical approach to psychological horror, introducing the viewer to a strange framework from the initial "waking up on the operating table and not knowing who you are or what's going on" stages to the diced bits of memory that Blackburn slowly beings to recall and, finally, to both the build and the ending that keeps you guessing until the end. There are even a few Great Old One connotations sprinkled in there for the fun (and to make the ceremony seem a bit more delicious), further getting my Lovecraftian blood pumping. Its worth watch multiple times if only for the torment of it all.

"Not Without My Daughter" is the true-life story of American Betty Mahmoody (Sally Field) who married an Iranian man who had moved the US. Together they had a daughter, Mahtob. The three pay a visit to the husband's native Iran, only to learn that it is not in fact a visit but that they are there to stay, and under Iranian law Betty automatically became an Iranian citizen once she married an Iranian man, and as a woman she does not have many of the rights she is accustomed to in the USA. Betty is trapped in a world she does not understand, and she wants to return to her home. She is told that she may return to the US, but must leave the daughter in Iran. She resolves that she will return but ... not without her daughter.

I found "Not Without My Daughter" to be a gripping story because I could relate to what it is like to be in foreign lands and feel at the mercy of those around you, to be in a situation where not only do you not speak the language but the culture itself is alien. One realizes that "reality" is highly subjective. Also, a friend of mine lived through a very similar incident, albeit in the same country (luckily, my friend's father returned her to her mother in the USA). So, I myself cannot accuse this movie of being unrealistic or biased when I know that such incidents do occur. And I must add that "Not Without My Daughter" makes no secret of the fact that while it was Iranians who tried to prevent Betty Mahmoody from leaving Iran with her daughter, the people who aided Betty in doing so were also Iranian - and they are depicted as doing so at great personal risk and with no certainty of payment or personal benefit whatsoever. In fact, I found this to be the most moving aspect of the movie.

Andrew Parodi

Faithful to the book, this movie tells some truths that many people will not like because these facts violate their political prejudices. But like it or not, this is a true story and Betty is not the only woman trapped behind this particular iron curtain.

As drama, it is tight, beautifully acted by all, including the little girl, and builds to a triumphant conclusion.

Set your politics aside and enjoy this excellent movie.

Don't listen to the reviews that say this is not a great film because it is too one-sided. It is her story, from her point of view, so natuarally is seems one-sided. In her book by the same title she pays very careful respect to Muslim culture. The film is gripping and Sally Field is excellent. See it!

Vertical Limit does not accomplish its goals as a action/suspense thriller, yet in itself it is still an entertaining movie.

The acting isn't half bad--much better than could be expected of films of similar quality. What kills this movie is the plot and the details. Characters die off for little good reason other than to say, "Look, mountain climbing is dangerous, particularly when you have sun, heat, and shock-sensitive nitroglycerine on your back!" Fun factoid: the Pakistani military apparently keeps this stuff on hand for some reason and is happy to lend it out to would-be mountain rescuers.

The screenplay is done in typical thriller movie fashion and actually doesn't deviate much from the tried and true formula by drawing the movie out beyond its proper end or other typical blunders. Basically, a party stranded and in grave danger of death due to freezing, altitude sicknesses, etc., must be rescued; the ambitious leader of the lost party of course cares only for himself and becomes a bad guy really overwhelmed by the antagonist represented by the forces of nature.

In the end, parts of the movie supposed to build suspense end up instead giving a few good laughs due to poor execution. I don't think I was ever on the edge of my seat--much less the edge of a cliff--during this film, but I was entertained.

I enjoy this film for "bad movie" nights a la Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I cannot recommend it for casual viewing. Still, if action films are your genre and you've exhausted the field, you might want to give this one a try.

This is a good mix of mountain climbing, action, and drama. If you like movies like Cliffhanger, K2, and Eiger Sanction you will probably enjoy it. It is easy to judge people as not caring until you have to decide to cut people loose to keep more from dying on the side of a mountain. Good cast, great scenery, and good music.

I remember hearing some really bad things about this movie, and being the climbing maniac that I am, I decided I had to see for myself. And although there were some obvious flaws (how could Peter survive the Death Zone when he had no previous high altitude acclimatization?) I found that this movie erased many stereotypes about climbing movies created by "Cliffhanger". I enjoyed the actors' performances, especially Scott Glenn (whom I had never heard of before seeing this movie). His character, the legendary, yet reclusive sage Montgomery Wick, reluctantly agrees to lend his efforts to Peter's rescue group. Wick comes across as being rather harsh, and unkindly, but in the later scenes of the film, everything changes. (There's one part in the film that I can't get out of my head: when Wick finds his long-lost wife, Myama, frozen in the snow.) I also like the fact that all of the actors actually CLIMBED, although the film was shot on Mount Cook in New Zealand, not the real dreaded K2. I liked how they were realisitc in the fact that after prolonged exposure in the Death Zone, you will almost certainly get pulmonary edema, and will die shortly after. I also like the fact that it's not a boyfriend who's girlfriend is climbing the mountain, so he HAS to help her because he loves her. Yes, Peter loves Annie, but because they're siblings. There is a nice blend between family conflict and the extreme of the mountain, not to mention that even if you hate the movie, the music'll at least jolt you to attention.

Vertical Limit does not accomplish its goals as a action/suspense thriller, yet in itself it is still an entertaining movie.

The acting isn't half bad--much better than could be expected of films of similar quality. What kills this movie is the plot and the details. Characters die off for little good reason other than to say, "Look, mountain climbing is dangerous, particularly when you have sun, heat, and shock-sensitive nitroglycerine on your back!" Fun factoid: the Pakistani military apparently keeps this stuff on hand for some reason and is happy to lend it out to would-be mountain rescuers.

The screenplay is done in typical thriller movie fashion and actually doesn't deviate much from the tried and true formula by drawing the movie out beyond its proper end or other typical blunders. Basically, a party stranded and in grave danger of death due to freezing, altitude sicknesses, etc., must be rescued; the ambitious leader of the lost party of course cares only for himself and becomes a bad guy really overwhelmed by the antagonist represented by the forces of nature.

In the end, parts of the movie supposed to build suspense end up instead giving a few good laughs due to poor execution. I don't think I was ever on the edge of my seat--much less the edge of a cliff--during this film, but I was entertained.

I enjoy this film for "bad movie" nights a la Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I cannot recommend it for casual viewing. Still, if action films are your genre and you've exhausted the field, you might want to give this one a try.

This is a good mix of mountain climbing, action, and drama. If you like movies like Cliffhanger, K2, and Eiger Sanction you will probably enjoy it. It is easy to judge people as not caring until you have to decide to cut people loose to keep more from dying on the side of a mountain. Good cast, great scenery, and good music.

I remember hearing some really bad things about this movie, and being the climbing maniac that I am, I decided I had to see for myself. And although there were some obvious flaws (how could Peter survive the Death Zone when he had no previous high altitude acclimatization?) I found that this movie erased many stereotypes about climbing movies created by "Cliffhanger". I enjoyed the actors' performances, especially Scott Glenn (whom I had never heard of before seeing this movie). His character, the legendary, yet reclusive sage Montgomery Wick, reluctantly agrees to lend his efforts to Peter's rescue group. Wick comes across as being rather harsh, and unkindly, but in the later scenes of the film, everything changes. (There's one part in the film that I can't get out of my head: when Wick finds his long-lost wife, Myama, frozen in the snow.) I also like the fact that all of the actors actually CLIMBED, although the film was shot on Mount Cook in New Zealand, not the real dreaded K2. I liked how they were realisitc in the fact that after prolonged exposure in the Death Zone, you will almost certainly get pulmonary edema, and will die shortly after. I also like the fact that it's not a boyfriend who's girlfriend is climbing the mountain, so he HAS to help her because he loves her. Yes, Peter loves Annie, but because they're siblings. There is a nice blend between family conflict and the extreme of the mountain, not to mention that even if you hate the movie, the music'll at least jolt you to attention.

Vertical Limit does not accomplish its goals as a action/suspense thriller, yet in itself it is still an entertaining movie.

The acting isn't half bad--much better than could be expected of films of similar quality. What kills this movie is the plot and the details. Characters die off for little good reason other than to say, "Look, mountain climbing is dangerous, particularly when you have sun, heat, and shock-sensitive nitroglycerine on your back!" Fun factoid: the Pakistani military apparently keeps this stuff on hand for some reason and is happy to lend it out to would-be mountain rescuers.

The screenplay is done in typical thriller movie fashion and actually doesn't deviate much from the tried and true formula by drawing the movie out beyond its proper end or other typical blunders. Basically, a party stranded and in grave danger of death due to freezing, altitude sicknesses, etc., must be rescued; the ambitious leader of the lost party of course cares only for himself and becomes a bad guy really overwhelmed by the antagonist represented by the forces of nature.

In the end, parts of the movie supposed to build suspense end up instead giving a few good laughs due to poor execution. I don't think I was ever on the edge of my seat--much less the edge of a cliff--during this film, but I was entertained.

I enjoy this film for "bad movie" nights a la Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I cannot recommend it for casual viewing. Still, if action films are your genre and you've exhausted the field, you might want to give this one a try.

This is a good mix of mountain climbing, action, and drama. If you like movies like Cliffhanger, K2, and Eiger Sanction you will probably enjoy it. It is easy to judge people as not caring until you have to decide to cut people loose to keep more from dying on the side of a mountain. Good cast, great scenery, and good music.

I remember hearing some really bad things about this movie, and being the climbing maniac that I am, I decided I had to see for myself. And although there were some obvious flaws (how could Peter survive the Death Zone when he had no previous high altitude acclimatization?) I found that this movie erased many stereotypes about climbing movies created by "Cliffhanger". I enjoyed the actors' performances, especially Scott Glenn (whom I had never heard of before seeing this movie). His character, the legendary, yet reclusive sage Montgomery Wick, reluctantly agrees to lend his efforts to Peter's rescue group. Wick comes across as being rather harsh, and unkindly, but in the later scenes of the film, everything changes. (There's one part in the film that I can't get out of my head: when Wick finds his long-lost wife, Myama, frozen in the snow.) I also like the fact that all of the actors actually CLIMBED, although the film was shot on Mount Cook in New Zealand, not the real dreaded K2. I liked how they were realisitc in the fact that after prolonged exposure in the Death Zone, you will almost certainly get pulmonary edema, and will die shortly after. I also like the fact that it's not a boyfriend who's girlfriend is climbing the mountain, so he HAS to help her because he loves her. Yes, Peter loves Annie, but because they're siblings. There is a nice blend between family conflict and the extreme of the mountain, not to mention that even if you hate the movie, the music'll at least jolt you to attention.

And really it fails to deliver with both story and any seductive scenes. The only + is that there is a very pretty girl in the movie which we see on the cover.

I wouldn't buy it, but if it's a cheap hire and your bored why not hire it and see for yourself?

Bold & The Beautiful soap fans should note "Eric Forrester" plays the role of Psychiatrist in this film.

This movie offers two good reasons to watch - Tane McClure and Wendy Schumacher. They are both very well endowed, and you will put up with the paper thin (although interesting) "plot" just to get another eyefull of these beauties. The DVD is not wide-screen format, but overall not too badly done. If you are looking for a suspense filled thriller, buy "The Fugative". If you are looking for blonde bombshells, buy this today.

I GAVE IT 5 STARS FOR TWO REASONS TANE AND WENDY.PRETTY GOOD SEQUEL.DOESN'T SURPASE THE ORIGINAL BUT WHAT MOVIE DOES.THIS IS A MUST SEE,AND HAVE FOR FANS OF THESE KINDS OF MOVIES...........CAN'T WAIT TILL PART 3 COMES OUT IN 2002 SHANNON WILL SUPPOSEDLY BE RETURNING IT WILL ROCK...........

A savagely bad movie, adapting John Irving's novel wherein the baby boomer generation attempts to digest the muddled narcissism of the '70s. That description, however, gives this flick too much credit. Mostly this is just a terrible film -- badly written, uninvolving and lurching about without apparent purpose, and without an emotional center. An incestual relationship between brother and sister, amid a wacky, unconventional family is supposed to somehow elicit our sympathies -- but its execution is as flat an unbelievable as the rest of the film. The cast, however, has some nice celeb-spotting eye-candy: Jody Foster, Wallace Shawn, and a 9-year old Seth Green. Rob Lowe is the movie's sole saving grace... As the perv-bound sibling, he was certainly breaking out of his brat pack bimbo typecasting; it's fascinating to see him working on the quirks and mannerisms he later built into a solid acting style. And at age 19, he's pretty hunky... easy on the eyes. But other than a chance to see a bunch of famous folks at an odd moment in their careers, this film is a total waste of time. (See also: "The Royal Tennenbaums.")

"The Hotel New Hampshire" is a very pretty movie with a strong cast, good direction and interesting ideas - so why does it fail to be a great film? Largely because as it stands, it's very disjointed; it appears that the screenwriters took only small snips from the book without bothering to segue from one development to the next, leaving the viewer who hasn't read the novel to flounder in bewilderment.

In a nutshell, we view the family through Rob Lowe's character's eyes, as he tells us about their struggles over the years. While the story focuses on John (Lowe) and Frannie (Foster,) everyone has an important part to play. The family faces trial after trial, from death to rape to incest to relocating themselves to another continent, but their ties to each other keep them strong. That is, most of the time: There are moments and actions when suddenly the family can't keep itself cohesive, with disastrous results that are only barely explained. It seems everyone is looking for something bigger, better and *more*, but they cannot seem to find it, either within themselves or without. John tells the story in a very matter-of-fact way, without casting blame or judgment on anyone for their thoughts or behaviors, even though some would find room for condemnation. He seems to be saying "Folks are folks, and sometimes behave in unusual extreme ways; but that doesn't mean they're bad people, or without feeling."

However, motives are usually not clear; characters act completely out of character for no imaginable reason, on small and grand scales, leading to large developments which have no foundation. Rob Lowe and Jodie Foster perform very well, especially given their age and experience in 1984, and they actually do a good job with what they're given. Paul McCrane's character could have been much more interesting, but he is relegated almost to cameo status, and we're never quite sure why he and Seth Green's character are so obsessed with Sorrow, the family's unfortunate dog (and the basic underlying theme to the entire story.)

There are some very warm and funny moments in the film, as well as a couple of poignant ones - but we don't know or care about the characters well enough to truly feel their pain when someone important to them passes away. The audience is left with far more questions than answers, when it all comes right down to it.

It's not a bad movie on it's own, but neither is it *good*.

I first wanted to see this movie because I am a fan of Jodie Foster. I rented it and found it a little muddled. I liked it, I was just confused as to what was going on in certain parts. After watching the movie, I decided to read the book (which is very, very good!!!), and I rented the movie again after a while and found it much more enjoyable. My advice is to read the book before you see the movie!!! It's an oddly entertaining film... but you might get lost without the help of John Irving's novel.

This movie is only good for the sex scene with the hot young guy. I wish I knew what his name was. I liked his line "oh, boy". He has a great face and body, his acting needs a lot of work though. Just to let you know I am a straight teen boy...

Great looking girls.Who said to watch a 100 woman instead?100 WOMAN WAS NOTHING BUT A SAD ATTEMPT AT A MOVIE.This sort of remind me of the Hand That Rocks The Cradle.Anything that Karrie si involved in is superb.100 woman what a laugh to try to substitute that with this.A great watch!!!

Poison is not a great movie, but it so entertaining that it doesn't matter. Kari Wuhrer plays a young gal whose husband commits suicide after being fired from his job. After learning from her husband's former boss that the company had hired someone to replace him long before he was even fired because he wasn't a good worker, Kari's character snaps (she blames the company for her hubby's death). She then decides to exact revenge; first on the boss guy, and then on the woman who replaced her husband (played by soap star Barbara Crampton).

Poison is dark, sexy, and a lot of fun as well. There are a couple of instances where the acting could be a bit better (such as the Garrett's original housekeeper and their daughter) but Kari Wuhrer and Barbara Crampton make up for that. The pacing is quick, the death scenes well done, and there's enough nudity to please any fan of skin (you eventually see every female character in various stages of undress...although it looked like Ms. Crampton may have used a body double).

The DVD features Audio Commentary from the director, cast bios, original trailer, and photo gallery. The picture in in 1.85:1 widescreen and it is pristine and crystal clear. The audio is offered in 5.1 and 2.0 surround sound. The 5.1 mix is good. Loud where it should be, and the surround channels are used occasionally for emphasis.

Overall, a good choice for purchase or rental.