shoolaroon's reviews

I give this show a 3 just for some entertainment value, but maybe I should give it something lower for being so misleading. History and archaeology are full of mysteries and conflicting theories, as they should be and all of these should be examined openly. I have the most OPEN of open minds and am willing to belief that civilization is FAR older - by thousands, if not tens of thousands of years, than is currently believed.

That said, I watched the show last night about an alleged "Englishman" being buried in the desert with a runic gravestone and all the furor Wolter created around this. Pure codswallop. I know something about runes, not enough to read the inscription itself, but enough to know that these were probably not Anglo Saxon runes, but Nordic runes, and even if they were Anglo Saxon - Englishmen had stopped using runes in favor of the Latin alphabet by the 12th century (after the Norman conquest. No one would have used these. If someone had gone to all the effort of carving out that inscription (his buddy was carrying a chisel around with him?), it would have been in Latin alphabet (as we use now) in Old English or in Latin (Latin most likely as it was the universal tongue).

And then to go to England to allegedly hunt down this Hurech was ridiculous - there was no evidence tying Peter de Hurech to some alleged body in the American desert. While some Englishmen did use surnames at that time (my own family has an ancient surname in Yorkshire), most people did not and just went - as someone said, by Christian names or nicknames.

The episode presented no proof of any of the allegations and was as realistic as Tolkien's hobbits. It is a shame that the HISTORY channel is presenting this bunk under its auspices and giving the merest conjecture and speculation, the lustre of legitimate archaeology. This is especially bad as so many young people watch these shows and don't know any better. We need to re-learn the value of PROOF.

Love, love, love this movie. Yeah, it's corny, some of the acting is over the top, the music is terrible,(aside from the haunting theme sung by Dionne Warwick) and the the atmosphere might best be described as "overripe". But this movie is a true icon of my favorite decade, the 60s, in which I spent my childhood, forever regretting that I was too young to be a hippie or swinger. If I had a time machine....I would go back to the 60s in a heart beat. Anyone remember F U N? In VOTD, the girls are beautiful, the MEN are beautiful (in a greasy kind of way), the fashions and hair styles are 60s flamboyant and colorful (so great to see an era where style and primary colors co-exist in peaceful harmony) and the decors are wonderful. I actually love these girls - Anne, the prim, proper Ice Queen(Barbara Parkins who physically reminds me of Eleanor Bron of the same era); Neely (a marvelous Patty Duke probably playing herself) as a manic pill popper who foams at the mouth almost as much as Bruno Ganz' Hitler; and the absolutely ethereal and sweet, Jennifer (Sharon Tate), who makes really educational French art films. The true stand out here is Tate, who was breath-takingly beautiful, and just seemed like a really sweet person - I think her real personality came through in this role, which makes her tragic demise so painful to think upon. I would have loved to see her develop as an actress as I think she had a lot of natural talent well beyond her obvious pneumatic endowments. I can only imagine what must have been Polanski's searing pain at her loss in such a terrible way.

Let's get this movie's rating UP!!! It's a very enjoyable and consistently entertaining film with a nice quota of cat fights, suicides, near suicides, and plenty of ham. For me, this is a pleasure right up there with Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (Ebert's parody), and Showgirls.

Oh, and Catwoman with Halle Berry. It's hard to beat luscious, fashionably dressed women with stiletto tongues....

I caught this last night on Turner and while this is a slight little movie, I found it quite charming, mainly in the developing relationship between the smooth, elegant, slightly dangerous Poitier and the sweet and yet sassy Ms. Lincoln. They're a good match together, and I love the very romantic seduction scene with that great Quincy Jones music playing in the background. From what I've seen of Sidney Poitier he usually plays a somewhat angry young man who's fighting the system in some way. Well, here he just gets to play a smooth hustler, and man is he sexy!!! Wish he'd made more light romantic films like this.

As for the rest of the cast - well, the plot serves them poorly. The white family come across as well meaning stooges, and the hippie look is really dated on Beau Bridges. But it's kind of the equivalent of one of those Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies with a bit more of an edge and a little bit of a conscience. Well worth watching when it comes around again.

This "show" is so bad it should be exempted from the Geneva Convention. The "writing" (everything actually seems to be improvised by brain-damaged chimps on the fly) is horrible, every single character is astoundingly unpleasant and the sets suck. The "plots" seem to be the result of a contest of which writer/cast member can dredge up the most witless and tasteless idea. The show is like a 30 minute belch. If anyone were looking for proof of the dumbing down of America and the total lack of standards or even a basic sense of humor remaining in our fair land, they need go no further than this miserable piece of road kill.

I understand that the "creators" invested about $200 in the show. It looks it. Try breaking out the Visa card occasionally.

First off, just a quick comment about the excessive level of "positivity" here on IMDb. I think it translates to a general lack of standards in our culture. It's okay to dislike something, to even hate it, and to express that opinion. Please - all of you - stop apologizing for being critical. If there is one thing we need more of nowadays, it's critical reasoning and standards.

That said, this film is simply awful. AWFUL. Back in ancient times, when a king was buried, they would kill all the slaves who built the tomb, and all the soldiers and priests who witnessed the burial so no one would know where the tomb was. This is what should be done with all reels of this movie and everyone involved with it. It is THAT bad.

Brooks 1968 film was brilliant, a quirky work of genius that reflected the true talent, and eccentricity of various members of its cast. The quirkiness and eccentricities were what made the movie so brilliant. That, and the obvious factor that Brooks was trying to finally destroy the Nazis and what they had done through the medium of his satire. That 1968 movie had conviction, and a heart. This 2005 movie is nothing but a series of clichés and formulas strung together in the most heartless, calculated, totally unfunny way. I have literally watched thousands of movies, and have only walked out on two, but I was strongly tempted to do so with this one. It was only out of curiosity to see how Brooks managed to maim his own masterpiece, that I stayed.

Nathan Lane does not have the solidity and persuasiveness that seemed inherent in Zero Mostel. He's obviously fake - you would NEVER believe that he's a macho, conniving Broadway producer. He's far too simpering to be convincing. Broderick is okay, but one longs for the unique appearance and style of Wilder - Broderick is far too tame in the role. Will Ferrell is not bad - actually he's pretty good - the unfortunate thing is how Brooks again - MAIMED his own original movie by changing the role of Leibkind. The rest of the cast basically filled any number of loathsome stereotypes, whether it be about gay theater types, or little old ladies, with none of the charm or originality or uniqueness of the originals. None of these people are convincing in any of the performances. One of the most wonderful things about the 1968 movie was the sense that all of these characters actually could exist somewhere in real life. They seemed alive and vital and unique - nothing could be further from the truth in this utterly dreary piece of dreck.

The one bright spot was Uma Thurman, who is not only one of the most gorgeous women in movies, but can also sing and dance.

Speaking of singing and dancing, the music also stunk. THere was nothing memorable in any of the music except the original music from the old movie. The choreography was plodding and unimaginative where it varied from the old movie.

Bottom line for me, and most disappointingly, this movie was not even funny. That people were laughing at this is a sad reflection of the general lack of taste and sophistication in our society. I found it not only disappointing in respects to the 1968 movie, but quite depressing as well. This production adds NOTHING to the 1968 movie - if you want to see Mel Brooks at his peak - rent the 1968 version. Don't bother with this complete piece of garbage.

Saw this last night and it is pretty nigh unwatchable. We kept debating whether to walk out but stayed in the bleak hope that there might be one small gram of redeeming humor or insight in the entire 2 hours. Where do I begin to dissect this abortion of a movie? The characters that Carey and Winslett play are both visually disgusting (everyone in this movie badly needs a bath and a wardrobe that has not been acquired primarily from dumpsters), and are whiney, and utterly annoying creations. Carey is dull, lifeless, totally uninspired and looks physically ill. He NEEDS to go back to the comedies for which he has a true gift rather than making these dreadful "artistic" movies. Winslett's character is obviously insane, and if I were a man to whom she made advances I would flee in horror. The "impulsiveness" she attributes to herself would obviously be the hallmarks of several major mental illnesses in real life. When you put these two together, the only party who could gain any advantage from the match would be a manufacturer for razor blades. The desire to erase either of these grungy losers from one's mind would be only natural and logical. The movie simply makes no sense - the "plot" is extremely difficult to follow as the movie jumps back and forth with no apparent logic or design. The effect is jarring and nerve-wracking. There is no apparent editing, which might have created the semblance of a cohesive narrative. There is no apparent script -the characters look like they are manufacturing their assorted incoherent rantings and mumblings on the spot. As for direction - I think the only direction this movie needed ultimately was the sign directing us to the EXIT.

I first saw this movie probably over 25 years ago when I was quite a bit younger. At that point I enjoyed it for its party scenes, sense of joy and life and vitality and....Marcello Mastroianni. Now that I'm older myself and have just recently seen the movie again, I find that I have a much deeper understanding of it. Maybe it takes some age to find some meaning. In a nutshell, Marcello is at a crossroads in his life, he's unable to settle down or move foreward into any direction - he's a diletante with aspirations but no real goals. He's wrapped up in himself and in projecting rather dreamy ideals onto other people. But as he keeps projecting on to others he comes to find in each situation that he doesn't really know the person and they are a mystery and probably a disappointment to him. certainly steiner is the biggest disappointment and disillusions him to a degree that he is apparently lost to a life of corruption and decadence as a result. but it's not that these people are difficult to understand to someone other than marcello - i think we can see that anita ekberg's character really is just a big good-natured blond and not the mysterious goddess marcello makes her out to be; his father is again - the typical traveling salesman and perhaps not the paternal figure that marcello would like him to be. his amour maddelena lives up to her name even as marcello starts believing himself in love with her - he's literally seduced by nothing more than an image he creates in his own mind. his friend steiner seems to have it all to marcello and to be the renaissance man that he would like to be - but, of course, he is dissatisfied and disturbed and we see what the end is. the only one whom marcello forms a somewhat realistic connection with is his girlfriend whom he treats badly and neglects despite her obvious love for him. he refuses to actually work on the one relationship that he could actually succeed at - he would rather dream about possibilities than actualize something.

marcello cannot communicate with others because he cannot see them as the people they really are - he just sees them as projections of his own needs, aspirations, desires and goals. when he finds out what they're really like, he either turns away or falls apart. this is an outstanding movie - 10 out of 10 and beautifully photographed. if you don't get it now, try again in 10 years - it will wait for you to catch up.

This is a very enjoyable flick about the powerful and enduring relationship between a man and his horse. But far more than that, it's a story with a wonderful old fashioned hero - a man who is courageous, loyal, honest, persistent, who can't be bought or seduced, who is kind to children and animals and respectful of women, who keeps and lives by his word and for whom human life is more precious than money. He is one of nature's gentlemen - something we see little of nowadays. We need men like Frank Thompson and we don't just need them in the movies. After all the scandals of the past decade with CEOs and executives from churches through government agencies and corporations - we need HEROES. I'll settle for heroes on the screen to begin with. Yes, the story is kind of hokey but all stories based on romance and adventure can be pretty hokey. Mortenson's character holds up through it all and gives us, especially children, the kind of guy we can look up to, emulate, and be inspired by. A cynical, money-grubbing society like ours needs that. An excellent throwback to an earlier cinematic time - and you can take the kids with no fear of being insulted by either gratuitous violence, sex or language. How refreshing.

This is beyond a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I saw it in the theater originally and thought that it was pervously bizarre and just plain nasty. The scenes with Ripley and the Alien are disgusting. The death of the Newborn is disgusting. The acting is terrible. There is no discernible plot. The writing is terrible. The sets are terrible. Ryder is totally miscast which might be relevant if her character were of any unearthly use. This is a terrible movie - beyond camp. Avoid it like a face hugger.

although i love charlton heston and stephen boyd in the 1959 version, this is the better movie - if it were a sub sandwich it would have everything including hots - incredibly well done, especially the spectacles such as the sea battle (much better than the 50s version which was all too obviously done with models), and the chariot race. the chariot race has some amazing shots especially the ones from the ground looking up into the chariots as they race past. the acting is pretty good, especially by navarro, and bushman is a beefy and nasty messala. the only thing that seems kind of weird to me is the depiction of christ as just a hand coming into the various frames - it just looks odd. but i guess that was convention of the time, and the 50s version is no more realistic in that respect. this movie may well be the peak of the silent era, certainly as far as spectacles and action movies go.

saw it again tonight, this is a great kung fu movie. what can i say about bruce lee that hasn't already been said by everyone who loves him? the man not only had the most amazing physical moves but he had the belief and philosophy to back him up and provide him with the drive and will to success frequently against odds in his personal life. he was a hero to everyone who believes in the little guy and the triumph of good over evil. bruce lee lived kung fu - he was a true warrior that we have the great good fortune of being able to witness over and over again through the richly deserved immortality of the screen. he is the greatest. this movie has some wonderful fight scenes and i just love mr. han, the villain. he is "right out of a comic book". one thing i haven't seen other reviewers mention is the wonderful parody of this movie in Kentucky Fried Movie - if you haven't seen it, try to - it's one of the most hysterically funny things i've ever seen in my life and it doesn't detract from the original film in the least. what a great double feature that would be!

after seeing part of this dreadful movie, i can fully sympathize with michael myer's desire to kill everyone in the cast. totally annoying cast, implausible situations, badly written, badly acted.....the most realistic part of the movie is that william shatner mask.....now if michael could only find his way to the studio maybe we can end this series.

this version has several wonderful things to recommend it - the delightful winniger as captain andy who does a truly remarkable piece of physical comedy, the duet of robeson and mcdaniel, which is sadly missing from the 50s version, and the more logical plotline. i was impressed by the staging of the Old Man River number especially the inclusion of the 2nd verse, and helen morgan's rendering of "Bill" which was touching and beautiful. but overall the movie has dated badly. dunne's singing is just terrible - one octave below a screech owl. jones is pretty wooden and without charisma as well - no match for howard keel. in fact the 30s cast in general with the exception of robeson and mcdaniel, and dunniger, come off far worse than the 50s case - musically speaking at least. there can be no comparison between the rather plain and dowdy helen morgan and the exotic and radiant ava gardner, who truly gives a remarkable performance in the 50s version. howard keel is infinitely better than allan jones - hell, i'd run away with howard keel. the champions are great, and even paul warfield holds up well to comparisons with robeson. i prefer warfield's version of Old Man River actually. I guess i just generally prefer the 50s version - i just wish they could have stuck hattie mcdaniel in there somewhere. she didn't win an oscar for nothing......