Reviews

If Jason Bourne ever put on a hat of any kind, he'd disappear. In both this and the Bourne Identity, he has the same haircut and only once, early in "Identity" does he change his wardrobe. In "Supremacy," he wears the same black coat for most of the picture.

A one point, Nicky says, "They don't make mistakes." Yeah, right.... When he goes to the hotel where Neski was shot, he doesn't know his picture has been circulated to the press, and consequently, when the politzi arrive, and he starts running, they pick him up outside the hotel walking on the crowded street, initiating an elaborate chase sequence.

Of course, if he had a hat, there wouldn't be an elaborate chase sequence.

And, I assume that if they film the other books in this series, he won't wear a hat then, even if it's raining.

I have trouble "suspending my disbelief" for "Period Pieces," amime, cartoons, and Sci Fi where the aliens look like humans with bad skin conditions.

So, I was not expecting much from this pic, and such low expectations probably helped it. I watched it to the end, and understood it, though it did it's best to "telegraph" what would come next.

Especially predictable were the scenes where the troop turns back to the town/city, first one, then another, and then all.

With starvation and disease rampant, life was much cheaper than that in the 14th century. They wouldn't have risked seven lives to save one that was old by the standards of the time, and would be dead in a few years anyway. Of course, if they'd've kept going, it wouldn't have been much of a story.

Any "round-eye" who's spent more than a vacation in Japan knows that every scene at the beginning of that movie, except where Bill Murray sees his face on a billboard, is a cliche... Boring.

I lasted 32 minutes watching the DVD, and that was all I could stand.

Then I heard that people who saw it in a theater liked it, but those who saw it on the tube didn't. So I thought maybe I should watch it until the end, which I did. No difference. If I hadn't forced myself to stay awake, I'd have fallen asleep at least twice.

Maybe someone can tell me, if the majority of the voting members of the academy didn't see it in a theater but watched the DVD version, how come the movie got the award for best screen play, which to me is a consolation prize for not getting best picture.

Something is rotten in Denmark!

What most of the write-ups for this show don't say is that it was a late night show though only one night per week. For those who can remember it, the transition of Art Carney from Newton the Waiter on this show to Norton on the Honeymooners didn't seem a big change, in name or in the actions of the characters.

When this ended, Broadway Open House took it's place. "Tonight" was not a name associated with Steve Allen, as his shows were always the "Steve Allen Show," but he was the first to do a Monday through Friday, late night show.

So there is, in my mind, a direct line from Morey Amsterdam to Jay Leno in the late night arena.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.

C. Krauthammer, Wash Post, March 5, 2004, Pg A23

For what it purported to be, a musical comedy, it did ok. I'm no great fan of rap, so this had to be light. Of course, the courtroom scene was way over the top, but if you go back and look at some of those old Jane Powell musicals, they burst into song in the strangest places and any "spontaneous" dance is choreographed and well rehearsed, as are all the "numbers" in this one.

Of course, it's much easier and the motivation is stronger [I spent money for that!]to write a bad review than a good one, so trashing it is expected. Too bad the-powers-that-be at IMDB can't sort these into two headings instead of one generic because usually the bad reviews get in first. This'll be #29 and probably will never be read. "Que sera sera, y'all, I reckon," as they say in southern Italy.

Why is it that critics, and the academy seem to love movies or TV shows about actors or the "show within a show" as is the case with they piece of...?

38 minutes was all that I could take. Why, because I've been on business trips to Tokyo and know how boring it is, and that's ALL the first 38 minutes is trying to communicate. Who cares if the screen play does a wonderful job of showing that other than those in "Show Biz?"

I'm sure the acting profession was delighted by Bill Murray mugging for the photographer the way they were for Travolta giving Devito acting lessons in "Get Shorty," but I don't see any entertainment value in that, nor people lying in bed or looking out windows, nor the blork on the "Actors Studio" TV show, nor the outakes and other junk that comes with DVD's unless I like the movie.

To use a Dorothy Parker line, "Bill Murray runs the emotional gamut from 'A' to 'B.'"

Maybe something else mildly interesting happens after that, and I may get back to it some day. Probably after I finish watching "Birth Of A Nation" and "The General," both of which have the nasty habit of putting me to sleep.

I guess if your hobby is turtle watching, this movie would excite you.

The stock company for this show was memorable, and it was a not-to-be-missed when it was on. But, the episode set in the MP station in town, was exceptional in that a parade of guest "stars" each more bizarre that the previous were dragged in by the MP's.

Details escape me, now, but I think Larry Storch was one of the bizarros in that episode.

I echo the sentiment express above, put that out one DVD, and I'd buy it.

This is listed as one of the 50 funniest sitcom episodes, and it should be. Unfortunately, there seems to be one scene missing from the current version.

The premise of the show is that there will be an attempt to set a record for inducting civilians into the army. A monkey gets mixed up in the proceedings and is sworn in a Private Harry Speakup, so named when one of the cadre says, "Name," without looking up and another say, "Hurry, speakup!"

The missing scene is a podiatrist, looking at feet of the inductees behind a screen on a raised platform. Seeing the monkey's feet, he rubs his eyes and says something about eyestrain and, "Next!" This scene was deleted, probably because it's over-the-top, but the podiatrist reappears in the final scenes and says, "I knew something was wrong" and that makes no sense without the cut scene.

What makes it such a good comedy is that it is non-stop surprises and twists including the court-martial where Bilko as Harry's defender shoots down all of the army's reasons for discharging Harry.

It's up there with "Who's on first?" and Curly Howard's "Take your hat off." Neither of which runs anywhere near as long as the Court-Martial Of Harry Speakup.

George Kennedy, in addition to doing a bit part(s) as an MP was in the Army and was assigned as the Technical Advisor to the show. Phil Silvers told the story that one day George told him he was getting out of the army and was thinking of trying acting. Phil encouraged him, and, of course, George went on to win an Acadamy Award for Cool Hand Luke.

Just as my mind said, "This would be a great place to end this movie," the credits started to roll.

Though I'm afraid most weren't in tune with it that much. A great flick for some, and a "What happened?" for most.

But, don't miss it, if you can...

It's "Lady Or The Tiger" ending leaves it open for a sequel, though it's hard to imagine what that would be like. ANYTHING would be possible. As in the sequel to The Graduate (Rumor Has It). Or, in the way Whoppie Goldberg's character brought Kevin Klein's character back in "Soapdish" when that character had left the show after being killed by decapitation. They never said how it was done, they just did it.

It's a pity that this series isn't available for sale on any format. The premise of a pretty clumsy Scotland Yard inspector on loan to the San Francisco PD sets up a background that is well exploited in many episodes, starting with the local detectives laughing at what a lameo they've traded to the Brits in an "exchange" deal. What the Brits send them is Inspector Hart who walks in, introduces himself and promptly puts his umbrella through the glass on the Lt. Gennero's door.

In the following episodes, we meet such characters as "Careful Eddie" who seems to need to go to the ER every time he encounters inspector Hart. Cassis Yates is great in her role as the only female detective who unfortunately gets stuck as being Hart's sidekick.

Of course, in his own bumbling way Inspector Hart manages to solve whatever case he's handed through some of the trickiest plot ploys around.

Too bad the series is not available. I'd buy it.

Just caught this on cable 21 years late...

The interplay of the characters and the dialog make a seemingly trite plot more interesting. I'm impressed with the writing, and the placement and interaction of the various zany characters.

Of course, it does rely on the standard "romantic" plot of two people who start out hating each other and wind up in each others arms. Suspending my disbelief on that old saw, I found the way they got there interesting. I stayed with it to the end, and that's saying something for a guy who won't watch if it gets too "soapy."

Donald as in duck, Howard as in duck...

A high point in this film is Sid's interpretation of a war movie called "Wings Over Boomerschnitzel." He does the entire film in one shot, with sound effects, in about three minutes. This was years before "Your Show of Shows," but it is the same type of material as the movie take-offs done on his various TV series.

woman] who has seen this movie and [the hard part] remembers it. I refer to it as the "least discussed movie in th IMDB."

Anyway, I wouldn't remember it except that at the time, I thought it was the strangest pic I'd seen. The plot was straight TV fare, but the characters seemed to all be in a different movie. They seemed to only cooperate where it was necessary to move the plot along. When it showed up on TV years later, I watched it a few times to see if I'd remembered it's strangeness... I did, and about that time I added the Peck/Basehart version of Moby Dick to the "strange" list.

In Moby Dick, the characters seemed to move through the story as do the characters in Monsoon. Of cours, they had the advantage that we all knew the Moby Dick story, so in trying for a "fresh" presentation, a lot of what the characters did they did without any motivation that I could figure out. So I watched Moby Dick a few times, but I just never "got it."

Watched it on DVD. Quickly learned that any scenes where the two "friends" are in a two-shot screaming at each other or fighting, has nothing to do with any plot. So, this must be a character study of two people I couldn't care less about.

Box Score:

Plot = 20% of the screen time

Close order screaming by the protagonists(?) 80%

Some thought it was a comedy. Why?

Out of ten, ZERO!

At the beginning of this film, the "Lady With The Lamp" isn't a slide. It's an actress who takes off running. Who played the part?

BTW: I was never interested in "Strangelove, After the Fox, The Lady Killers, etc." but this one was good enough to generate a sequel.

Is this the first picture to use the cliche that anyone who jumps or falls off a building and is scheduled to die MUST land on a car? e.g., "Die Hard."

Nobody around here seems to know.

But, I'm a sucker for scam plots like The Sting, or more recently, Payback. Or the type that start out with a character who is, presently, not what is needed for the job though we find out later that he/she has hidden talents. e.g., Under Siege, and earlier Mr. Majestyk and Raven Hawk.

Or any "caper" movie from Topkapi to the Thomas Crown Affair.

If you have trouble "suspending your disbelief" by assuming that Liam Neeson is only a serious, dramatic actor, go back and watch High Spirits. Schindler's List, Rob Roy, and Nell not withstanding, I feel that High Spirits and Gun Shy are his best work. Comedy is far tougher than drama.

And, obviously from what's been said before, once you decide you don't like this movie, then it is necessary to find a bunch of nit picks to prove your case. Or, at least that's what I do. But, then I remember that a movie isn't about what it's about but how it's about it...

Three great scenes and no bad ones.

One great scene is Neeson's first speech to the "group." It has bad ones, so it's not a "Great" movie, but I liked it.

Those that didn't like this movie are used to a lot less plot and "Leave It To Beaver" character depth. If comic book plot, like SWE1, are your speed, avoid this movie. The characters are bizarre, and the story line strange, AND worst of all, no Hollywood Ending. If you preferred the Director's Cut of Blade Runner to the original, then this might interest you.