Adams Movie Reviews

Is it just me, or does anyone else come to realize how tragic the character Burl Ives plays becomes. I actually feel for him. I think before one watches this movie, you have to develop an empathy for the time and lives these people led BEFORE this moment in their lives. I views the movie again with my wife (Her first viewing) and realized that if this had been me, I would felt more of a liking for Hannasey than the Major. He was a least a man of rough honor. I think most are missing this in their reviews. Ives character had a more character than all but McKay, and in a way they were more alike than one would suspect. The scene when he is preparing the dueling pistols is very poignant, where he gruffly dismisses McKays advice on how to prep the dueling pistols, that he had handled "flintlock and cap and ball" before McKay was even born, and chastises his son because he had never faced danger with "only one shot" between him and death, instead of a "fast draw" and and six shooter. Think about this when viewing, and also when he crashes the engagement party. This man had cajones! I have known few men in life with this type of character, and I feel bad for people who never have been blessed by this type of association. What a tribute to the American personality!

What we have here is a blood feud over water rights between two ranching families headed by Major Henry Terrill (Charles Bickford) and Rufus Hannassey (Burl Ives), with school teacher Julie Maragon (Jean Simmons) caught in the middle. Directed by William Wyler with stunning cinematography by Franz Planer, we follow a narrative which involves the engagement of Easterner James McKay (Gregory Peck) to Terrill's beloved daughter Pat (Carroll Baker). Frankly, what he sees in her continues to elude my understanding. Some reviewers have dismissed this as a "B" movie but I do not. The quality of the acting (notably Ives's which earned him an Academy Award for best supporting actor) is outstanding. Although in what I guess could be considered a minor role as Steve Leech, Terrill's ramrod, Charlton Heston delivers a remarkably nuanced and controlled performance as does Chuck Connors as Buck Hannassey. This is much less a western than a study of two patriarchs (Terrill and Hannassey) who play a zero sum game to gain control of access to water on which they and their herds obviously depend. But there is something else at work in this great but (for whatever reasons) under appreciated film. Julie Maragon is quite willing to allow both patriarchs access to the water. That is not the core issue: rather, it is the conflict between the inflated egos of two proud and stubborn men who detest each other.

For me, one of the most memorable scenes occurs when, just before dawn, McKay and Leech finally have it out. It is an awkward but inevitable and immensely effective fist fight, with much of it filmed as if we were observing it at a distance. Of course, the fist fight achieves nothing other than demonstrating that McKay is more of a "man" than Leech once thought. Before they begin throwing punches, McKay insists that no one know about their fight. Leech totally misunderstands McKay's reasons. Another memorable sequence of events focuses on Terrill and Hannassey as they slowly and carefully work their way through a canyon to their final confrontation. To repeat, theirs is a zero sum game except that neither wins. In these and other scenes, Planer's cinematography and Jerome Moross' music score blend effectively with the cast's superb performances under Wyler's direction.

Why has The Big Country been under appreciated, if not totally ignored among western films? I have no idea. I really don't.

As others have written very complete reviews, I just had a few miscellaneous comments I hadn't seen elsewhere.

It's interesting to contrast the quiet and unassuming confidence Peck projects in his character with the characters of the westerners, who assume Peck's low-key personality means he's a coward, or at least unwilling to defend himself, despite the fact that he's a former sea captain and has probably seen more danger on the high seas in a few years of sailing than most of the ranchers have seen in their entire lives. His manhood is constantly being questioned by the cowboy types, who don't understand Peck's more restrained nature nor his background.

For example, in one scene he rides off into the desert overnight to visit a neighbor and doesn't come back the next day. They mount a search party, thinking he's lost, but he's not. He has a map and a compass, and he knows how to use them. Eventually he rides into the camp of the searchers, who haven't been able to find him yet, apparently none the worse for wear, but the ranch foreman accuses him of lying when Peck says he wasn't lost. The ignorant cowboys have no idea that a former sea captain like Peck, who could navigate a ship over thousands of miles of open sea with no landmarks with a sextent and a chronograph, would find it easy to navigate on land with a map and a compass. But the ranchers remain unconvinced.

There are several other incidents like this, and even his new wife doubts him. In the end, however, Peck shows himself to be twice the man of any of the other brash and blustery cowboy types who have doubted him all along when he single-handedly confronts Burl Ives and his gang alone at the end of the movie. He also realizes that his wife, who also doubted him, isn't worth the trouble and isn't the girl for him. Instead, he ends up with the Jean Simmons, who understood him better all along (and who tried to talk sense into his wife, unsuccessfully), and who is a much classier lady, anyway.

I have to agree with the other reviewers and say that Burl Ives is the real standout and surprise here, turning in a great performance as the crusty, scheming old patriarch of a disreputable family of ne'er-do-wells and ruffians who feels he deserves better, including his errant son, played by Chuck Connors, who also turns in a fine performance. It's too bad Connors didn't get that many other good roles like this, as he shows he's a much more capable actor than he's normally given credit for. The entire cast does a great job, actually, and Charlton Heston is also good in his role as Peck's nemesis, playing something of a bad guy with regard to Peck, but who eventually comes to appreciate Peck isn't the man he thought he was when he and Peck get into a fist fight. Both men end up taking and dishing out a lot of punishment during the course of the long fight, so there isn't exactly a clear winner, but Peck shows he can certainly take care of himself and isn't the pushover Heston had thought.

The movie also has a great score that really adds to the ambience and drama, which helps, since the movie is over 2 hours and 40 minutes long. Overall, it's a fine movie and a great western that isn't as well known as it should be. Big Steve says go rent it and don't Bogart the popcorn.

I have seen "Creature From the Black Lagoon" many times,and I love it. I t is one of my favorite monster movies. For a person who loves old monster movies,this is certainly a good, fun movie to watch. I especially liked the gill man costume.I also liked seeing the beautiful Julia Adams with her beautiful hair all wet while swimming in the lagoon, she looked more beautiful in the bikini and wet,slicked back hair.Anybody who loves old monster movies,and Julia Adams,I recommend this movie

Nice to go back to a simpler time, a time that reminds you of being at the movies on Saturday afternoon in the 50s/60s. And if you can't remember that cos you weren't there, TOO BAD, haha. Cool to watch vet silent film star Antonio Moreno steal every scene he's in, including the one where he's just staring at Julie Adams as she's speaking; not to mention the other character actor who plays the owner of the ship, Nestor Paiva. The young ones have great bodies of course and the creature is magnificent if a little cheesy. It's hard to see anyone seriously reviewing the film considering it probably was meant to be slightly camp. Anyway, I love it!...

Creature from the Black Lagoon....few films have a name that nearly everyone in the U.S. hasn't heard of, or wouldn't recognize a small plastic figurine if they saw it, and with good reason.

This movie was cutting edge when it was made. It's production values were phenomenal, and the DVD is extraordinary.

The film follows a group of scientists exploring the untamed reaches of the Amazon. The find a secluded lagoon where they hope to find fossils of the 'gill man'. Well folks, they find more than the bargained for when a living gill man finds them, and decides they're not leaving the lagoon alive.

The actor who plays the gill man was apparently an olympic champion swimmer, and one scene in particular shows how great a swimmer he truly was. It has that 50's feel to it, so the drama is melodramatic at times, but that's part of the appeal of these old films.

When I bought this movie, it was part of a limited run to determine the films popularity. Because it wasn't advertised well, it didn't sell well, and I ended up getting it from a collector. Now that it's available mainstream, anyone who loves classic science fiction should get a copy of it. It's a classic alright. Get a copy today, before it's gone.

Made at the height of communist fears and McCarthyism, the original version of Invasion was a film dictated by its time. Many critics see it as a metaphor for A)the effect of communism or B)a metaphor for McCarthyism. Both the original author Jack Finney and director of the first film Don Siegel denied this. For Finney it was an entertainment an example of the paranoid world we live in. For Siegel it was much more complex. It was a metaphor for the urbanization and denial of our humanity in an age of reason and logic. Both are rich interpretations and luckily neither one effects the marvelous entertainment value of the original film.

Phil Kaufman's update (it's not really a remake as little remains of Finney's novel beyond the concept and only the bare bones outline of Siegel's film)deals with the same theme of Siegel's film; it's about the dehumanizing aspect of the urban world we live in. Kaufman, though, daringly set in in the heart of the urban myth on the West Coast--San Francisco.

Donald Sutherland plays Matthew Bennel a public health inspector. He's got varied and interesting friends including one of his co-workers Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams). She comes to Bennel complaining that her husband isn't himself. He's uncommunicative, emotionless and won't really talk to her. She suspects her husband is having an affair and follows him. She discovers he's exchanging these odd looking packages with people they don't know. Bennel suggests that she speak with a pop psychologist he's friends with and that he might have a rational explaination. Dr. David Kibner's (Leonard Nimoy)suggestion is more down to earth. He's seen this a lot lately and compares it to a virus--but a psychological one. He suggests that she's just lost touch with him and that she needs to reach out to get him more involved.

Bennel's writer/poet friend Jack Belicec (a very young Jeff Goldblum)believes Kibner's explaination and his book are garbage. His supportive (quite literally as she earns the money with her mudbath salon)wife Nancy (Veronica Cartwright)believes Jack's a little jealous and that Kibner might be on to something. Until Nancy discovers a body in her salon. It resembles--vaguely--Jack who had fallen asleep in the salon. They call Bennel as they're afraid it might be the body of a customer with some sort of communicable disease (the metaphor at the cusp of the AIDS epidemic captures the pulse of San Francisco during this time). From there, stranger things begin to happen particularly when another friend appears to be in the process of being "duplicated".

Kaufman's film holds up very well. While not as important as Siegel's ground breaking film (Siegel has a cameo with original star Kevin McCarthy and Robert Duvall as a priest at the beginning), it is a valid and very good reinterpretation of the original classic film. Kaufman makes San Francisco claustrophobic and threatening. The brooding cinematography adds to the sense of menace as does the interesting at times atonal score. W. D. Richter's (Buckaroo Banzai, Big Trouble in Little China) screenplay plays with many of the elements of the original film and has a number of set pieces every bit the equal of the original film.

All the actors give strong performances. Nimoy in particularly plays off his well known character of Mr. Spock in the early scenes with his touchy-feely pop psychology. Sutherland and Adams have considerable chemistry. Interesting note is that Sutherland did many of his less physical stunts. Kaufman was game but Sutherland's assistant told Kaufman he had the "clumsiest man alive" running around twenty feet off the ground and implied he was inviting disaster.

The DVD transfer is good. It's a bit dark but the colors are fairly true to the original prints I've seen. The print is also quite good although there are quite a few analog artifacts that crop up throughout the film. Still, it isn't distracting. The stereo soundtrack sounds surprisingly good given the age of the film. It is a tad bit compressed.

The extras include a running commentary by Phil Kaufman and trailers. There's also a nice booklet with inside information and trivia included. The film is included in both pan & scan format and widescreen on a dual sided disc (not surprising given the year it was first manufactured --1998). It's a nice package altogether.

While Invasion lacks the surprise of the first film, Kaufman knows enough to play with audience expectations and familarity with the original film from the beginning. This is to his advantage. He also manages to include a considerable amount of social satire (something common in many of his films). While his direction isn't quite as self assured as it would be when he made The Right Stuff, he manages to keep the action moving and inspire intelligent performances from his ensemble cast.

With Leonard NIMOY Jeff GOLDBLUM and Donald SUTHERLAND these three exceptionals actors, this movie can give some bugbears just after you have seen it, some spores arrives from an other planet, they cross over space and they are alives ! they are growing for the disaster of humanity, they are the body snatchers who are ables to contaminate entirely the planet these tricks are almost same as the human gender but they are not ! They forms an unique entity ! AN E-T ENTITY !!! SPLENDID MOVIE !!! One of the bests S-F HORROR FILM NEVER SURPASSED !!!

Much more intriguing, involved, suspenseful and horrifying than the original 1956 film. Much better by far. However I will say that you should see the original, uncut version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956) to fully understand what is going on in the 1978 remake and to fully appreciate it. Yes, that is Robert DuVall as the priest on the swing. And, yes, that is Kevin McCarthy as the scared, crazy man in the street. Of course you remember Kevin McCarthy in the original 1956 film. This film has a good all-star cast, Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Leonard Nimoy, Jeff Goldblum, and Veronica Cartwright. Leonard Nimoy is chilling. Jeff Goldblum who we remember from Death Wish (1974) is a nice surprise and is a great addition to the cast. Veronica Cartwright has a wonderful mature role. Great acting from her in this one.

The quotation from Wordsworth's poem from which William Inge derived the title of his screenplay (for which he received an Academy Award) offers an insight into the tendency of young people to ignore or minimize the importance of certain decisions they make which can have significant long-term impact on their adult lives. This is essentially a sad movie in several respects as Wilma Dean Loomis (Natalie Wood) and Bud Stamper (Warren Beatty) struggle without much success to establish a stable relationship while in high school. Both are goaded (driven?) by parents who set ambitious goals for them which frustrate and confuse them. By nature, most adolescents live day-to-day, measuring their happiness in terms of immediate and sustainable social acceptance. For them, tomorrow will somehow take care of itself. Bud seems to live an unexamined life whereas, early on, Wilma seems emotionally vulnerable to self-doubt. Bud is content to get along by going along whereas Wilma becomes increasingly more dependent on carefree Bud. As directed by Elia Kazan, most of the main characters in this film are (to varying degrees) dysfunctional. As a result, communication between and among them is seldom successful. This is especially true of the relationship between Bud and his father (Pat Hingle), perhaps most evident while Bud struggles with his life at Yale.

While seeing Splendor in the Grass again recently, I was much less sympathetic with Wilma and Bud than when I first saw it decades ago. Oh sure, that is partly explained by my current age and all of my life experiences as a father and (now) a grandfather. But I also now think that the film (because of Inge's script and Kazan's use of it) too often substitutes melodrama for drama. There is almost no personal development by Bud throughout the film. Wilma recognizes that after seeing him for probably the last time. In contrast, she seems to have learned a number of important life lessons (albeit at a substantial cost) and now possesses -- as the film ends -- a worldly wisdom which Bud will never obtain. This is a brilliantly crafted soap opera. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, it was immensely popular because the emotional world it explores was then so accessible and because that world was presented so simplistically. My guess (only a guess) is that most of today's teenagers will find this film to be quaint. A few may find it endearing. For me, it retains some of its charm but not much else.

Splendor in The Grass, Directed by the late Elis Kazan is undoubtly something most of us who look at love and life idealistically have all gone through. Based in rural Southeast Kansas in 1928, this passonate love story about two young lovers who are troubled by the sexual urges they have for one another and the sexual represson of this age. Warren Beatty makes his film debute as "Bud" Natalie Woods's character "Deanie" love interest. "Bud" is torn between his love and sexually desire toward "Deanie" and his father who is pressuring him into attending Yale to get his degree. "Deanie" as a young "good girl" is urged by her mother to not let a boy "spoil" her. Reluctantly, "Bud" agrees to his fathers wishes and breaks his relationship off with "Deanie" sending her into a "psychopathic" spin. The lesson to be learned is that life will go on no matter how much heart break you suffer, "What Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendor in the grass." Absolutely a wonderful love story with a surprise ending. I found both Warren and Natalie's preformance at such a young age exciting, knowing what outstanding preformers they grew up to be. Bring your girlfriends and watch this movie!!!

I hope no one in Hollywood will attempt to remake this movie because it can't be done. I don't think any actors can duplicate the emotional realism and "connection" to the audience that Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood so effectively conveyed. I think this movie is far superior to any film adaptations of "Romeo and Juliet."

I mean, I'm the straight guy raised on Sci-Fi, and I practically wept when this movie ended. It's that real. In a way it's not possible to remake this film given the, er, "relaxed" social norms of today. Most young people watching this film will probably just shrug and say, "so what's the big deal?"

SITG is a snapshot of another era, yet all (or most) of us can relate to the question: "what if?" or "what might have been" when we look back at growing up and our love lives, no matter what era you grew up in. This film is not representative of my generation, neither with regard to the era in which it was filmed nor the era it depicts, yet I was transfixed by it. If you can relate to that kind of experience then this film will touch you like no other film.

SITG helped launch Warren Beatty's career. Natalie Wood was, of course, already a star but this was arguably one of her most sensational performances. I always felt she sort of overdid her performances a bit--eye and facial movements seemed over exaggerated, etc., but physically and emotionally she still owns the screen. Many have already pointed out that her tragic death was foreshadowed in the scene in the bathtub and at the waterfall (and the boat on/from which she died was named, yep, you guessed it).

I actually like Pat Hingle's (Commissioner Gordon from the Batman films) over the top performance as Ace Stamper: "You want that? You got it boy! I'll get it for you! This world is your oyster!" He's not so much a character as a characature--in this case he's the emotional polar opposite of Jim Backus as the father in "Rebel Without A Cause."

Complex, raw, brilliantly acted. Leaves you with many questions. When Deanie hugs Bud Jr you almost know that she's thinking "what if?" while projecting her love to a pure and innocent child. I just can't believe that encounter was the end and the two of them said goodbye forever. The film begs for a sequel yet no sequel can do it justice. It can and should stand alone.

Terence Malick's "Days of Heaven" is famous for its breathtaking images and beautiful musical score. It is also known as the last film the great director made before his self-imposed 20-year exile from the film industry. Watching "Days of Heaven" makes you wonder what great works Malick would have produced if he decided to continue filmmaking throughout the Eighties and the Nineties. His absence from the industry truly was a loss for all film enthusiasts everywhere.

"Days of Heaven" is set in the year 1916. America is becoming more and more industrialized as time goes on. In one Chicago steelmill, Bill (Richard Gere) attacks a foreman and is forced to go on the run. He takes along his girlfriend, Abby (Brooke Adams) and his younger sister Linda (Linda Manz) with him to Texas. The three of them find employment as laborers with a wealthy farmer (Sam Shepard) with Bill passing off Abby as his sister. Eventually, the farmer and Abby marry after Bill tells her he discovered that the farmer is ill and will soon die. Once the farmer passes away, Bill and Abby will be able to live off his wealth and leave behind their nomadic lifestyle. However, the farmer manages to hold onto his health and tragedy strikes when he eventually discovers the true relationship between Bill and Abby.

All of the praise "Days of Heaven" has received over its visual splendor is well deserved. Malick has always had an eye for filming nature in all its beauty and the way he employs the sky, the streams, the wheat fields, and the animals of the prairies in his narrative essentially establishes nature itself as a character in the film. The musical score of Ennio Morricone is equally compelling and perfectly captures the varying moods the characters go through. However, the one element that keeps "Days of Heaven" from being considered a true masterpiece is its story. The love triangle that lies at the core of the film is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill soap opera drama. Manz's recollection of the events through her narration gives the events an added dimension as the tale becomes intertwined the loss of her innocent childhood. Yet, the story unfortunately does not rise to the same level with the images and music that accompany it. Still, "Days of Heaven" should still be watched. There is a power in the imagery of the film that must be seen. Additionally, all of the principal actors are outstanding with the lesser known Adams and Manz being true revelations. One wishes both actresses made more films as their talent shines through in every frame they are in.

Elegant, and exuberant images, combine with the right music produces the real cinematograhic result, which is what this film is about. Nestor Almendros does (as always), a lightnig that is both exquisit and smooth,he won the Academi Award for this picture. Terrence Malick directs this piece with a tremendous undertandig of that very simple but very beautiful story (1978 winner Cannes Film festival, best director).
Days of Heaven has the tradition of the very first silent pictures, the music carries the emotional line of the story, with images so beautiful and dream like, that resembles every ones ideal first kiss. This DVD edition captures the beauty of the film with it's fine transfer, but, nevertheless, the studios have the capasity to make better works in transfering such presious materials. Details and sound in this case demands a much profund atention, so they can deliver versions worth of the quality of this kind of pictures, and Days of Heaven is a little jewel that deserves the real treatment.

The story is not done in a dramatic style, but is viewed from a distance, with an atmosphere of realism, regardless of what real life actually is. But the real great thing about the movie is imagery - there is no comparison as far as sheer visual beauty.

Unfortunately, the imagery cost the movie bigtime. A lot of the effect came from shooting the film at only certain hours of the day, and if you can only film for a few hours a day the bill for keeping up the production crews, cast, and rent mount up high. This movie was unable to recoup it's immense cost, which is why Malick made no more movies for a long time, and part of why these kind of movies will not be made often. So enjoy this gem!

Let's see. It's not scary. It's not funny. And for a film that is so short . . . it's boring!!!!

In London, 1925, Detective Inspector Trout and his assistant, Tom Schenley, are beset by the horrible deaths of eminent doctors and physicians. Dr. Dunwoody is found with his face torn up by bats, and it turns out that a Dr. Thornton had been killed a week earlier by bees in his library.

After the killing of Dr. Longstreet, played with great aplomb by Terry-Thomas, the killer makes a mistake, which Trout capitalizes on. He discovers a pattern to the killings thanks to a rabbi (Hugh Griffith-who played Audrey Hepburn's father in How To Steal A Million). They are based on the gatakh, the curse visited on the Pharaohs, which in order are: boils, bats, frogs, blood, rats, beats, locusts, death of the first-born, and darkness.

Trout also gets help from Dr. Vesalius (Joseph Cotten), an eminent surgeon who knew the victims, and from him, discovers that they worked on a Regina Phibes, who died during surgery. The only person who would want revenge is her husband, Dr. Anton Phibes, but he had been killed in a car crash in Switzerland. But then how...

What makes this interesting to watch is the stylishly kitsch interludes that take place after each killing, usually a musical number involving Vulnavia. And the drawn images of Phibes's profile and rear of head on the windows of his car give this a kind of surreal look.

The most horrible killing is that of Dr. Longstreet, followed by that of Nurse Allen. The most sudden is that of Dr. Whitcomb. After the discovery of the gatakh connection, the audience is left wondering how and if the killings would be carried out.

Vincent Price plays Phibes as a man thirsting for revenge, a master strategist, yet in his soliloquys to his dead wife, one finds someone for whom life has become unbearable. He wants to avenge her death and afterwards... This would be a warmup for his other revenge movie, Theatre Of Blood. Check out the way he drinks his wine!

Peter Jeffrey (Trout) was a well-known British TV-actor, with appearances in Dr. Who and Yes Minister. He also played the headmaster in Lindsay Anderson's if...

Virginia North (Vulnavia) proves that one can have a vital screen presence without saying a word. As the goldsmith says, she is tall, attractive, young, and fashionable, wearing all kinds of cool outfits throughout, but mostly a black furry Russian hat, beige blouse, and black pantaloons and boots. And love that white violin she plays!

Norman Jones (Tom Schenley) appeared in two Doctor Who stories: The Silurians (Major Baker) and The Masque of Mandragora (Hieronymous).

Other notes: the sergeant who finds Dr. Hedgepath is played by James Grout, best known for playing Inspector Morse's superior, Superintendent Strange. The goldsmith is played by Aubrey Woods, best known as Bill in Willy Wonka. Finally, the frog mask worn by Dr. Hargreaves, or a cousin of it, would later make an appearance in Dr. Who-The Twin Dilemma, as one of Mestor's decorations.

An enjoyable, effective, and stylish revenge movie with a great cast.

Vincent Price was one of those rare actors who never took himself that seriously...unlike some of those around today. As a result, he was able to move from being a romantic lead in light comedies to horror films to the '60s program "Batman." Few can claim such a career. Dr. Phibes is a perfect example of Price not taking himself that seriously. I mean, here is a guy who drinks from the side of his neck. And who plays one of those organs you see in every cliched horror film. This is a movie that is half humor/half horror, and completely worth seeing.

I thought this movie was made in the 80's when I recently watched it, but low and behold its early 90's (although an arguement can be made that early 90's is still the 80's). Anyway, I rented this a couple nights ago after reading other amazon reviews about how this movie is so terrifying and so on... I'm afraid I can't agree. Now maybe I've just been spoiled with such good horror such as 28 days later and the ring, but this movie did not age well. I think it completely falls apart when the kid goes BACK to the house after escaping to rescue that girl. I found myself saying... "no movie, please end, don't go back to the house! I don't want to sit through another half-hour!" The mom and dad were pretty annoying. The comedy fell on its face most of the time...

peope under the stairs has all the right things to make a good filme the story is full of twists with some grate acting by the cast.the action is fast and not over the top like some films.and best of all its a wes craven film.

I have been waiting soooo long for this movie to be released on DVD. This bizarre horror film has a very dark side similiar to Flowers In The Attic but also a comic side. This is one of my all time favorite films.

Give me a break. I could not believe my eyes when I saw a 50 year old woman play a 21 year old Judy Garland. This movie totally avoided some very important parts in Judy's life. Basically, this movie made it seem as if Judy Garland was some maniac. I thought at the end of the movie there would be some clips of the REAL Judy Garland, like there were clips of Selena in the movie about her life, but nothing. If someone wants to know about Judy Garland's life, read a book on her. If you watch this movie without knowing a thing about Judy Garland you will be confused. End of story. By the way, the "Behind the Scenes" was 10 minutes. What a great extra.

If you like movies based on celebrities lives, then you will love this one! Judy davis is BRILLIANT as Judy Garland. Even if you're not a Judy Garland fan, you'll find her life story captivating. Buy this DVD today, you won't be disappointed!!!!!

This movie contains brilliant portrayals of Judy Garland by Judy Davis and Tammy Blanchard. The costumes are amazing; they look exactly like the ones from her concerts and films. I also have to "give a hand" to Lorna Luft, Judy's daughter, who wrote the book, and co-produced the movie. It was nice to finally see a biographic picture on Judy that was written by someone who actually knew her; and not only knew her; she's her daughter. The re-creations of her movies are spectacular; this film deserved it's 5 Emmies. Any fan of Judy Garland, or of the golden actresses of Hollywood, should definitely get this film. Highly recommended.

This is actually a pretty informative and entertaining look at Star Trek fans and how they love the shows and movies of Star Trek. Denise Crosby did a good job hosting the film and I wish someone would make a similar film that looks at the fans of Star Wars.

While I'll admit that many of the people in this film are far more fanatical about Star Trek than I am, I must say that I found myself identifying with them at more than one turn. It is the blessing of Trekkies/Trekkers/Spiner Femmes that they are able to love Star Trek but also joke about their own obsessions. I often found myself breathless during this film, but I don't think I would have found it so funny if I didn't see small elements of myself in the people involved. It is my love for Star Trek that allows this movie to find a good natured place with me. I'm sure some people who don't like Star Trek find this enjoyable as a mean spirited form of humor, but to me, and I'm sure for the producers, it is a good natured laugh with the fans of a fantastic show.

I've fallen away from the Star Trek phenomenon since TNG went off the air, but in many ways this documentary has reinvigorated me in the year 2003. People are fascinating when they relax enough to reveal themselves. Many in this film reveal sides that would make any mother shudder, but these are basically very good people with a quirky passion.

This is actually a pretty informative and entertaining look at Star Trek fans and how they love the shows and movies of Star Trek. Denise Crosby did a good job hosting the film and I wish someone would make a similar film that looks at the fans of Star Wars.

While I'll admit that many of the people in this film are far more fanatical about Star Trek than I am, I must say that I found myself identifying with them at more than one turn. It is the blessing of Trekkies/Trekkers/Spiner Femmes that they are able to love Star Trek but also joke about their own obsessions. I often found myself breathless during this film, but I don't think I would have found it so funny if I didn't see small elements of myself in the people involved. It is my love for Star Trek that allows this movie to find a good natured place with me. I'm sure some people who don't like Star Trek find this enjoyable as a mean spirited form of humor, but to me, and I'm sure for the producers, it is a good natured laugh with the fans of a fantastic show.

I've fallen away from the Star Trek phenomenon since TNG went off the air, but in many ways this documentary has reinvigorated me in the year 2003. People are fascinating when they relax enough to reveal themselves. Many in this film reveal sides that would make any mother shudder, but these are basically very good people with a quirky passion.