I somewhat remember watching this , or bits of it when it came out. But when my wife picked it out to watch, I couldn't remember much of it, which is strange and unusual for me. After viewing it again, I know why. I just...
[+] Read Full Review

I somewhat remember watching this , or bits of it when it came out. But when my wife picked it out to watch, I couldn't remember much of it, which is strange and unusual for me. After viewing it again, I know why. I just didn't buy the premise. I mean, this kid kills his girlfriend, leaves it in a wide open place near a river, openly admits it to his friends, then takes them to see the body. He has now explaination for why he did it, has absolutely no remorse, and could care less about any consequenses, about the murder, or that all of his friends know. This is the basic plot that drives the movie. One of the friends, a bizzare manic played by Cripin Glover (what a shock)tries to protedt his friend, the murderer, by hiding him out and collecting money to get him out of town. Meanwhile Keanu Reeve's character sulks about the revelation, and dosn't waste much time filling the authorities in on what happened. There's a subplot involving Dennis Hopper, a drugged out, seemingly crazy old hippie, whom with Glover hides the murdering boy. Now, you could read this and think, woah, this sounds like something I may want to check out. Trust me, it's not. The premise or potential of it, is never even close to fully realized. Roebuck sleeps through his performance as Samson, the murderer. Crispin (Lane)is (as usual) bizzare and waaaay too over the top for this role, making him seem silly, and impossible to believe. Reeves ( the finker), well, let's face it, has never been the best actor in the world, but for a boy that is so haunted and disturbed by the situation, he shows practically no emotion or depth whatsoever, in a role that screams for those qualities. Skye has little to do except look beautiful, and Hopper, the great Dennis Hopper Feck is practically wasted in his role. The only scene which drew any interest from me at all, was the scene with Samson and Feck by the river, where the two exchange stories about the murders of their respective girlfriends. This is the only scene where Roebuck shows any lifesigns as an actor at all. It was a very enticing moment in an otherwise waste of a views time. What I could not buy is that..see, this takes place in a small town. And I know that small town youth can go a little crazy for lack of something to do, and having a somewhat stagnant life. But, you'd think in a town where nothing happens, a murder of one of their friends, ( not an aquaintence or just a classmate, we're talking about their own close-knit group, here) would draw a lot more emotion and drama than written or acted. These kids are numb. The way the police react to Reeve's story is unbelivable. They spend more time harassing the confessor than investigating the crime. And that's another thing..we're dealing with a small town with a big fishing river (fishing being the main sport in a small town with nothing much to do..and this body is left, over the course of two days, out in the open, and nobody sees it? And it's impossible to beleive that in any town, no matter how small and inactive, that all this bizzare and downright loud behavior can take place within this story, and not have more kids caught or arrested. The parents could care less, and there is a ridiculous subplot concerning Reeves younger brother, supposedly 12, who is the wildest and merciless kid in town. This kid goes around the whole movie with an evil sneer on his face, him and his friend drive all around town in a stolen car and are never stopped once (!!!!), ransack Hopper's house, knock him out, take his weed and his gun, all to get stoned out and kill his older brother who slapped him around a few times. He finally finds his target, then falls into wimp mode weeping when Reeves holds out his arms saying "I'm your Brother". What was all the buildup for? Not only did I expect that little anti-christ to die violently, I prayed for it. And I was cheated, damnit! All told considering the talent involved, and story potential, this was a downer of a movie, a disapointing view and a total waste of time and energy.

This is what I call the perfect modern comedy. What a plus that it's also a great action and suspense piece as well. The story is nothing all that special. This is all about the characters, chemistry, cast direction, and timing. Eddie...
[+] Read Full Review

This is what I call the perfect modern comedy. What a plus that it's also a great action and suspense piece as well. The story is nothing all that special. This is all about the characters, chemistry, cast direction, and timing. Eddie Murphy is flawless..and I mean flawless as Axel Foley. And considering that he came into the project two weeks before filming to replace Sylvester Stallone, (No, I am not kidding you), and that the final script was being re-written while filming, only adds to the legend of Murphy's talent. So much of the dialogue was based on improv. And what a cast..most of them brought on when Stallone was still the lead. Martin Brest knows how to direct and get the most out of this cast of fine performers. Judge Reinehold and John Ashton are absolutely hilarious as Taggart and Rosewood, two cops who are more like an old married couple. The routine in the car about the undigested red meat is priceless, as well as the Butch and Sundance reference near the end. (What movie buff didn't get that one?) Ronny Cox is great as the stone faced, put-upon Bogelmill, their boss. Lisa Eilbacher is stunning, and the villain of the piece, Victor Maitland played with a smug, icy perfection by Steven Berkoff, also shines. If anyone can be said to have stolen anything from Eddie in the entire movie..and in two very short scenes, it is Bronson Pinchot as Seirge. What an ingenious characterization! But it is, in the end, Eddie Murphy's vehicle and he drives it, no-holds-barred through the wall. Over the top only when needed, most of the time playing it fairly low keyed..his Axel Foley is always believable and likable. This movie gives him so many chances to shine, so many classic routines, so many lines, quoted endlessly by my friends who saw the movie at least twice in the theaters. Eddie would unfortunately, spend the rest of his career in the shadow of this movie. Don't get me wrong..he did some great stuff after this, but this was his peak..this one, he would never outdo, and he knows this..and he's okay with it. After all, how many actor/comedians are out there searching for their Beverly Hills Cop, and will never find it? Eddie...had his. And it will live forever.

This is a fantastic package, and for a Godfather fan...a must see. If you got "The Godfather DVD Collection" you know that there is a wealth of cut scenes in the extra features (For one and Two..Godfather three has always been an...
[+] Read Full Review

This is a fantastic package, and for a Godfather fan...a must see. If you got "The Godfather DVD Collection" you know that there is a wealth of cut scenes in the extra features (For one and Two..Godfather three has always been an expanded directors cut since it's arrival on video years ago.) Seeing these on their own is special, but seeing them woven back into the story is rapture. As we all know, seperately..these are loooonnng movies in and of themselves. Woven together with the extras, you're looking at an eleven and a half hour presentation. When Coppola presented a packaged version of the first two films for broadcast on NBC titled "The Godfather:The Complete Novel For Televison", it was the first time Vito's backstory from 2 was put to the beginning of the story, and added some deleted scenes. Later, a boxed VHS set..The Godfather:The Complete Epic was the same, but with even more scenes added. Now..adding still more footage, plus the third installment, came this entry.. The Godfather Trilogy. Now let's talk extras..this is the real meat. Speaking about all the footage would take too long, I don't think I can remember it all, and I want to leave something out so you can discover it for yourselves! All the same, this might take a while. The extras of young Vito's story arent all that spectacular, but some intersting bits. For instance, we get to see the assasination attempt on Don Fannuci which leads to him being a real tyrant..a few extra scenes of Genco and Vito, the full talk between Vito and Clamenza before Peter offers to give the carpet..First meeting with Tessio, and a gun-dealer scene,meeting (and naming) a young Hyman Roth...best of all..when Vito goes back to Corleone for his vengence... we get to witness him killing the actual men who killed his family, not just the Don. The footage from The Godfather is a more extensive. In the original film, there is NO scene between Pacino and Brando until the hospital after Brando is shot, and none with dialogue until the garden scene when Michael comes back from Italy. Here, we get a treat. Right after the wedding, they have two exchanges. The most telling is in the hospital, visiting a dying Genco, where Vito discusses with Michael things about their estrangement. The tension between Father and Son here is thick, and you can see how much Michael despises his Father just by his expressions. There is extra footage of Woltz's estate which show a scantily clothed very young starlett in the mogul's upstairs rooms. There is also an extra scene with Michael and Kaye in a hotel. The most extensive footage comes immediately after the shooting of Vito. You get to see Sonny getting the call, mobilizing his forces, and even telling his Mom. We learn here that Sonny immediately suspects Clamenza of betrayal. Another scene is right after Michael arrives at the house, he sits in on a meeting with Sonny and Tessio where it is discovered that Paulie is the betrayer, then we see Tom come home after his release from the Turk's clutches. There is more Brando footage which lengthens his stay in the film, but not much. The missing footage from 2 that has to do with Michael's story, is almost exclusively takes place during the wedding.. extra meetings, party scenes, discussions, ..including, and most importantly, locating and killing Fabrizio, the man who killed Michael's beloved Apollonia. The fact that this was left out at all is almost incomprehensible. Like I stated, there's more, but why spoil it all? The extra footage all adds to character development, story continuity, and action. It must have been very difficult for Coppola to decide what to leave in or out. People will only sit in a theater for so long. Or for that matter..to read a film review. So I'll close by saying one more thing..if your a Godfather fan..and you haven't seen this version...see it! You'll be in for a treat.

Well, I'm a harsh critic of this one..primarily because I've been a Spidey fan all my life. I have every comic, and know the history backwards and forwards. I should say, first of all.. I liked the movie. After a bad television series, and a...
[+] Read Full Review

Well, I'm a harsh critic of this one..primarily because I've been a Spidey fan all my life. I have every comic, and know the history backwards and forwards. I should say, first of all.. I liked the movie. After a bad television series, and a cartoon on Fox that was a little too hokey for it's own good..and years of waiting for this one.. ongoing stops and starts embroiled in legal hassles and the like..I have to say it was worth the wait. Let's take the pros first. McGuire was an excellent Peter Parker. Kirsten Dunst made a fine Mary Jane. The most inspired casting was Simmons as JJ Jameson. How perfect was that? Right down to the look, his Jameson almost stole the entire movie right up from everybody. And Aunt May is also perfect. Rosemary Harri's portrayal is sensitive to the role's needs, while just being modern enough to believe. Cliff Robertson as Ben Parker, would never have been my first choice, but he surprised me on this one. The role of Ben Parker, whoever short, is, aside from Peter, perhaps the most crucial role in Spidey's story. And the fact that Robertson came back to reprise the role two more times (for flashbacks!), says a lot for the actor. Much respect! Also, kudos for making the focus where it should be. Peter Parker, not Spider-Man. The mythos of the character and the story has always been how this change and the Spidey persona effect Peter and the lives and events around him, not the action of the Spider-man sequences. Anyone who disagrees was obviously never a fan of the book. Now onto the cons.. and top of the list..is the Goblin. Always one of my favorite villains, and the one I most wanted to see in a filmed Spider-Man story. However, although I understand his commercial value as the first villain.. from a story telling standpoint, it was the wrong choice. The appeal and mystique surrounding the Goblin has always been A: The fact that Norman Osborn is by nature a very powerful, dangerous and corrupt businessman who has a multi-national corporation at his disposal even without being the Goblin. .B: The fact that he is the father of Peter's best friend and C: The suspense of the cat and mouse game between Parker and Osborne due to the fact that both know each other's identities. A: Osborne is not the frighteningly powerful and corrupt entity that he was in the comic. He is depicted as being a brilliant (and rich) doctor who is a company head, and before the story is halfway over, he is booted from his own company? The story does not need this plot device for character motivation. The insanity and lust for power would have done just fine as a reason for Osborne's actions. And the power of his company would have made him an even more dangerous enemy. And what is the deal with the split-personality nonsense? In the comic, there was none of this. A couple of times, he faked amnesia to rest and re-group from his defeats, but was secretly always fully aware of who he was and his purpose. Now why did they alter the character that much? Because he was chosen as the first villain. There was no time to set up the character of Osborne strictly as Osborne. We had to move things along to get to the Goblin stuff, and besides...audiences with our sound-bite long attention spans wouldn't possibly be able to deal with two long origins, could they? But if they had chosen..let's say..Doc Ock? Look how great that worked for the second movie. Ock dosen't need as much prep, yet they got a great actor to play him, and UNLIKE the comic, gave us plenty of time to know Octavius before he becomes Ock. He would've been a great choice, and in the meantime, introduce Osborne, his company and his power, then in the third movie...POW! But..money talks, and they had to do Gobby first, and I think they lost a great opportunity. Closing the Goblin discussion, that was an awful costume! C'mon guys, you couldn't have done better than that? And some of Dafoe's dialogue.."We'll meet again, Spider-Man!"...oh, my God. Pa-lease! Willam Dafoe , while an exceptional actor, was the wrong choice for this roll. John Malcovich, the director's first choice, would've done much better. Dafoe is way too over the top. Want to know what Osborne should be like? Check out David Xanatos from Disney's animated Gargoyles series. Robbie Robertson is a great character from the comics who is terribly underused in these movies, as is Betty Brant. Again, the attention span thing. But this could've been corrected in later installments instead of giving us our umpteenth scene in which Dunst get's to be in danger and scream her head off! Honestly, the fact that MJ survives all three of these movies considering the dangers she's put in, is not only difficult to believe, it's impossible to believe! All that said, and taken for what it is, I still liked it. It is ashame though such an emotionally rich character and story was not given the depth and attention to character as say..the X-Men films. It was fun, and..like I said, certainly worth waiting for.. but this hero means so much to me. And with a few pen strokes, and a little more patience and planning, could have been so much more.