Reviews

There were some surprises. And I had to keep guessing how much the amounts were in 2019 $ (I estimated 20 to 1, Wikipedia said $1 = today's $30). I see it as follows: when JFK was assassinated in 1963, it was a blow to the nation's psyche, as was Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination. But now it would be quite "commonplace", as we've become jaded.

Years ago, I heard that "Easy Rider" was a mediocre movie with an incredible ending. Well, Deadpool 2 has great credit scenes at the end. But otherwise, I found the movie to be unsatisfactory, even though I enjoyed its snide comments and good technical aspects (color, slo-mo, sound).

The writing could've been better. It follows well-known ways that films use to produce a sequel. It breaks the fourth wall a little too often. I have to commend it for not being homophobic. And, racially, it seems to be studiously balanced. That being said, you can succeed on many levels, but fail, to me, if you don't have a good story!

***Spoiler Alert*** There are some surprises in this corny western. The raids of the Indians are savage, truly, with a not-too-muscular John Wayne saying in a bland voice: "they tied 3 soldiers guarding the water hole face down on ant hills." Holy cow: that is a more brutal torture than I am willing to imagine. And there are touches (just touches) of realism where a lawyer is needed to help an accused soldier ("And if a Dallas lawyer can't get him acquitted, " says John Wayne, which is a refreshing take on a NY lawyer). And both Wayne and his son know the law quite well. Meanwhile, the Indians dash across the Rio Grande (like terrorists! in this 1950 film), befuddling the US Cavalry which can't pursue and the Mexican army which can only stay on guarding the river Rio Grande. Even though both armies want to pursue (and even join forces: an Alliance of the Willing), their Orders specifically stop them.

I had to fast forward every time the film (frequently) has the soldiers serenading one another. Some horse tricks are amazing ("Roman style" – it's a thing). I was somewhat jarred by one piece of dialog that could've been said this year: As the teenage son is about to pull an arrow out of his dad's chest (John Wayne), his fellow young soldier says "Get it done" and the other young soldier says "Yo". The scenes with the Indians chanting was perhaps authentic (but who knows? – perhaps some Native Americans, that's who), but I thought it was a bit stereotypical.

The film is OK, but sappy, and I watched it more as an exercise to see what "the old Westerns looked like" than to enjoy it.

The special effects were nice. But the plot was very thin, and I blame Simon Pegg who also wrote "Hot Fuzz", "The World's End" and "Shaun of the Dead".

Those movies are completely different from Star Trek, which I've been watching for decades. Simon messed it up, and he should have used a consultant to fix the problems in the story-line, such as why the device was bad, and what the technical aspects of the ship Enterprise are. It showed the lack of attention to detail which was the hallmark of Star Trek. It's like reading a comic written for a "younger" (i.e.: pre-high school) audience.

If I saw it on TV, I would've probably been disappointed. As it was, I saw it in a theater in 3D with great comfortable, lounger chairs. But that didn't make the movie better -- it sort of meant that they paid money for special effects instead of getting competent script writers. Sad, really.

Although there is some authenticity to this film, there are some things I question; e.g. did the hustler really have a pimp who beat him up?

But, I wonder if Robin Williams was gay, and this film appealed to him and his gay desires, so he took a stab at romance. I wonder, too, if Robin's suicide may have been related to his desire not to come out of the closet.

There have been rumors of Robin being gay, and his funny denials: 'Williams added, "I'm a big fan of the puss. Always addicted to puss. Came from one".' which was in the pink news in 2006.

There are people who claim they slept with Robin, the above article continued:

'He told GQ magazine he has never considered gay encounters, "There are many websites that'll go, 'Oh, he's gay, I know he's gay.' Even our chef, who's gay, was at a gay ski lodge, and some guy came up to him and said, 'Robin Williams is gay.' He goes, 'No, he isn't.' 'Oh, I know he is… I know people who've been with him.' They should tell me, because I don't remember."'

The moments of sexual immaturity reminds me of some videos about the legal prostitution in Nevada, where a woman talks about newbies who show up and want to take them from that life (which the women don't want, since they claim to make $200k a year). But Robin in this movie acts the same in wanting to take the young hustler out of "that life". Although, Robin's sexual jealousy at another john sleeping with his hustler seems beyond naive for a 60-year old who works at a bank, and knows that the kid can't afford a place on the few hundred that Robin gives him.

I would like to hear other opinions. Especially since now that Robin Williams is dead, we will not be libeling him.

In case you're scared of defaming the dead, a source notes : "The dead have no cause of action for defamation under the common law, and neither do their survivors, unless the words independently reflect upon and defame the survivors. " Judge Robert Sack, the author of one of the two leading treatises on libel, from the rights of writers ]

There are many times in this movie -- which was scary -- where I was (wrongly) afraid, just like someone yelling "Boo" out of nowhere. There are some plot holes, like wouldn't an Order of Protection (OOP) have worked? For instance, getting a visit,as well as going to the person, are prohibited by an OOP. And also getting an unwanted gift. That would've reduced the movie, much like cell phones would have reduced horror films where calling the cops solves much of the problems (instead of going down to the cellar to see who's there).

Maybe I'm a bit too mechanistic in my solutions to this psychological thriller. I think calling ahead would solve many problems, but who knows. There are some good moments in this film, but I felt manipulated.

I also wonder if some of the few reviews here for "The Gift" are by people paid by the film company. If that's the case, perhaps IMDb.com and its parent company Amazon should/can check the IP address of the submitters, to see if they're related to a film company or their agencies, sort of like what Wikipedia did to get rid of people changing their own pages / rewriting history.

*** This contains SPOILERS ***

I guess before people knew anything about sociopaths, it made sense to keep things quiet. So, perhaps this film is a time capsule of American culture in the 1940's. It is not an America that I've known all my life. My not being able to know if this is a bad script or an accurate reflection of our society back 70 years ago, makes me question how anyone can tell a movie's reality from the real reality.

The other theme is the onset of war, as shown by headlines showing ToJo and seeing soldiers in the café's and bars. So, perhaps this is an allegory of our provincialism (everyone knows everyone's names) and niceness (people dropping by for dinner unannounced) being unknowing of the evil (Hitler/ToJo and Uncle Charlie) that lurks at our door.

I was disappointed since it got 4 out of 4 stars on cable TV. Maybe it was a good movie "for its time" (that phrase is my knowing reference to the Bible which said Noah was a good man for his time – implying that after the discovery of religion, there were better men: "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time" ).

It is strange to see the Freudian hand gestures of Uncle Charlie move in a strangling motion when he sees his too knowledgeable niece. And Uncle Charlie's speech about fat, rich women was pretty bad – but (do I have to keep making explanations?) I guess it's similar to Jackie Gleason saying "One day, Alice, to the moon" being ignored for it anti-woman domestic violence.

I'd say this is a period piece, and may be worthwhile in a way to understand the time and the director, but I would NOT recommend watching this in my era of 2014.

I did not expect much of this movie, but I got a lot out of it. I don't know much about acting, but I do know story lines, and this has plenty of surprises and great plot twists ("real" not "contrived" in the sense that Superman or Star Trek can be contrived sometimes and real other times).

It is entirely plausible (as one reviewer pointed out) that this is a recycling of the "Twilight Zone" To Serve Man (TV Episode 1962) with the ending quote: "The book 'How To Serve Man' is a cookbook". The band-aids remind me of a movie I saw in the late 1950's early 1960's about a kid seeing a meteor or spaceship land, and gradually everyone he knows has a band aid on their neck and a new attitude.

The ending is cool with the girl friend sporting blue eyes for the first time ("you look different") and the #11 bowling shoes with the white heels, and the bowling ball in the desert. The creepy, but well-timed cowboy is a trip in-and-of-itself ("He left $1,000, and I don't charge that much"), and the jealous boyfriend is a cute realistic, yet sad touch to the empty, painful lives that are lived "in quiet desperation."

Like slave trades in the 1700's, there are many who'd sell their own kind to get money. (Hey, forget about back then: Afghans made big money informing on neighbors who may / may not have been enemy combatants who wound up in Guantanamo Bay Prison. That's like torture, slavery. And one guy in Guantanamo was innocent, but was tortured so much that the US Government doesn't want to release him since he'll be really angry at the USA*... gee, we do that to people?).

But, as i said: it makes sense that people are promised something (bogus or real) and they're "okay with it", which is the punchline at the end of the Roseanne (Barr) episode where Arnie leaves his girlfriend, and in a note says he is traveling with Aliens, which sounds like horrible baloney from Arnie, who is an ass, plain and simple. But as the credits roll, you see 2 aliens on a ship, with Arnie sitting in a chair in the back, and the one Alien says to the other Alien in a strange language but with subtitles: "Does he know that he is coming to our planet to be a pet for our kids," and the other alien replies "Yes, and he's okay with it"

*' Yet another issue exists whereas innocent people are held. "Documents from CIA revealed that 150 Guantanamo Bay prisoners were innocent but the US government kept them locked up for years anyway, The Daily Record informs." http://goo.gl/vgWi0 Realistically, when tortures don't even work on guilty detainees, what can the US government get from innocent prisoners? ' http://debatewise.org/debates/3575-the-us-should-immediately-close- guantanamo-bay/

I really liked this film in 1988. It was funny.

But, like a 1930's film that has a problem that could've been solved by a phone call, this film wouldn't stand in the internet era.

For instance: a) the women giving money would Google the impostors for links to royalty, or the name of the person

b) the scam would've been undone by quick police action

c) the characters would've communicated by cell phone and realized where the other ones were

But it's an enjoyable film for its time.

It shows a bit too much prescience for the characters to guess what will happen, especially for the woman.

Although "Doubt" suffers from being too much like a play, it is a fine film, with complexity and depth.

********Spoiler Alert********

I think the role of the black child who is beaten up for being gay, and sees the priest as a positive figure (which he is) and wants to become a priest (sad, but often true in life), is reflected upon our knowledge, some 40 years after the events, that the Catholic Church is full of child molesting priests, who get away with it for decades and upon tens if not hundreds of kids, whether they be gay or straight.

Child abuse is serious, and the Meryl Streep character recognizes it. But, she also recognizes in that profoundly Catholic thinking, that writing with a ball point pen (which is the slippery slope to bad penmanship) and belief in magic ("Frosty the Snowman") are also evils, since the latter has a magic hat. How many fundamentalists hate the Harry Potter movie for its magic, which I personally find enchanting (pun intended?).

It's a good movie, and I appreciate the Doubt that it instills even upon an astute reviewer such as myself. In my opinion, the priest is gay and probably knows the kid would have sex with him, but chooses not to do so, out of compassion for the hard life of the kid, and perhaps for being chaste as his oath requires of him. Whether the priest has sex with adults, well, that may be another story.

And the mom is a bit scary. She is willing to let the child have sex with his mentor, basically since the benefits far outweigh the damages. I know it's shocking for America to face it, but I've known more than 1 boy who liked older men and willingly had sex with them, and would do it again if they had magically re-lived their life. A story of a kid and his track coach in the shower in Junior High come to mind. The kid later grew up as a well-adjusted gay guy, and felt the story was hot (it was, as others I told that to agreed) and the kid (now adult) looked back on that with nostalgia and pride.

As for Sister James, who amazingly or not so amazingly is drawn from real life, she is a paragon of a good nun and a naive, but real person. Sometime naivety is a blessing. "'Tis the Gift to be simple"

It saddens me that Sister James starts aping Sister Aloysius, and it only takes a few changes to profoundly affect the children, one of whom cries. I think Sister James is the strength that is the Catholic Church, open, trusting, reflective, strong, caring and deliberate. Some of the other nuns have a simplicity perhaps borne of simple minds, or of Alzheimer's, but even they have a strength beyond mine to accept blindness and spartan accommodations, which quite literally contrasts with the lives of the smoking, drinking, laughing priests. Sister James' simplicity is one of choice and deliberation, and seems like goodness personified -- even if she can be led "astray" by Meryl Streep's strong character.

**********Spoiler Alert************

But the ending is sublime, for it shows that even the bad (inflexible, actually) Sister Aloysius has doubts, and is thoughtful. And for that, I feel she has been redeemed. For as Goethe said in rescuing Faust from the Devil: "Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, Den können wir erlösen" (my translation:) Whoever continuously strives, We shall redeem them. (where We means God)

*******Continuous Spoiler Alerts ***********

This review is intended ONLY for people who have seen the film once.

If you have not seen the film, please see the film and do not read any reviews or watch the trailer and literally close your eyes / turn off the TV if the trailer comes on. The less you know, the better.

This is a good film.

I saw the ending coming. But the "13th Floor" is a better version of the same "topic", but my guess is that non-computer people could not understand the concept of a VM (a virtual machine), which I have dealt with as a computer programmer since (gasp) 1975.

As bebop987 said, "If you liked Nolan's previous films "Memento", … you will love Inception". However, I disagree with that reviewer who goes on to say "Deep down this film is about forgiveness and letting go but also has a great scifi sheen that never takes that idea away." I feel it is about forgiveness of others and of self, but there are simplicities / dumbing down of the concept compared to "13th floor".

For some reason, I'm getting to dislike Joseph Gordon-Levitt, perhaps because of a string of movies he did several years ago that were the same character re-packaged. But truly, that's minor (Sorry JGL).

I like the idea of recruitment of a student Ariadne (Page) who takes it up a notch (Bam, to quote the Chef Emeril Lagasse, and does so a little like Keanu Reeves in "Matrix" (part 1 in 1999). However, Matrix 1 is a better movie than this, in that it is so immersive, that in Matrix 1, you feel as if you may have the powers to make things bend and walk through traffic (scary, but literally true when a friend and I saw the movie in the same cinema).

I also agree (word for word) with tmldtt who says: "The story is tense, deep and disturbing. The tension is taut and it hardly ever slackens. The dreams within dreams within dreams concept is complex to say the least. It requires complete attention from the viewer if he wants to decipher every little puzzle the movie throws. The acting is top-notch." And I agree with mblueyesm who writes "And I think it does NOT stop spinning in the end!... Brilliant!!"

However, I start my review with the title "this is a really good film for the alert layman", and add to it (so I don't spoil it for others), for the psychologists/psychiatrists who listen to dreams: I hope you doc's see it before reading anything about it.

Let me go back to "The 13th Floor (1999)". In it, there is a dream within a dream. But the ending has another level dream: essentially the same story as Inception, but using dreams (which everyone has) instead of computers and virtual machines which perhaps 1-5% of the population has. And that's the difference: director Nolan took a hot concept, and popularized it in a subtle and graceful way. Kudos, Mr. Nolan. But, sadly, the trailers let me see the key parts and the ending even though I studiously (and seriously) avoided all mentions of Inception before seeing it on opening weekend (I was too tired to see the movie on Fri, 7/16/2010 – and was scared to see it under the influence of anything for fear of getting nightmares).

TMI: Too Much Information: I happen to be one of those people who have realistic controlled dreams, known as "lucid dreaming." Here are two definitions of Lucid Dreaming:

1. 'Lucid dreaming is more than just controlled dreams' ... 'Many people report "their first lucid dream was the most wonderful experience of their lives" (LaBerge: 1997). '

serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1759

2. "A lucid dream is a dream in which the sleeper is aware that he or she is dreaming. A lucid dreamer can actively participate in and manipulate imaginary experiences in the dream environment. Lucid dreams can seem extremely real and vivid, depending on a person's level of self-awareness during the lucid dream.

The term was coined by the Dutch psychiatrist and writer Frederik van Eeden (1860–1932)."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

In lucid dreams (I'm speaking about mine), I can fly away when in danger, and recognize (rarely) that I'm in a dream. I sometimes think: "wow, I'm flying away, so this must be a dream". As a kid, I wanted to fly: just like The Pee-wee Herman Show (1981). Gee, I'm dating myself with a 29 year old film reference. A "Hot in Cleveland" Cougar dates a guy 15 years younger, and she mentions a TV show (I believe), the younger guy says "I love re-runs" when she (and I) clearly saw it when it came out.

So, given my lucid dreaming, I could, if the film were reality,

1) totally adapt to the Inception world view,

2a) sadly could see myself addicted to this sleep drug (as poor Michael Jackson was with propofol)

2b) Leonardo's character was with not having REM sleep--driving you mad, a nice touch from Nolan -- also: StarTrek's episode "Night Terrors" (1991).

3) the poor 12 individuals druggist's basement.

A Playboy scifi story (circa 1960's) has a box connected to the brain's pleasure center which people easily bypass the safety feature & have it on continuously for days, dying in their chairs, with the sweet smell of their rotting flesh from not having gotten up to eat. I sure hope that is not the future of mankind. Addictive and forces you into a lifestyle that in a sense enslaves you: hopefully an illegal effect.

So, Director/writer Nolan did a great job combining science, fears, dreams, elaborate set designs, and computer theory / simulations (using a simulation to eliminate gravity and laws of physics, which is now standard, but is beyond what I can do on a computer).

I wish I had not even rented this from Netflix.

The on-screen quality of the video is bad: in other words, it's like (and may well be) a DVD copy of a video of a video.

I guess there's an element of being a spoof to consider, but it is so infantile, and so USA centric, that it does not qualify as reasonable joke about documentaries and conspiracy theories.

It is not even worth viewing to see how bad it is.

It blends minor true facts (such as the Secretary of Defense Forrestal committing suicide) and outright garbage (such as a sister planet of Earth being on the other side of the sun 1,000 years ago) to make a paranoid person's idea of likelihood (as Judy Tenuta would say: "It could happen")

Maybe it was low expectations, but I thoroughly enjoyed "Watchmen". It ranked up there with the first Matrix movie.

Even though I have become jaded with movies of the action genre (I was not a great fan of the Batman movies, nor the Superman movies, except the first one), Watchmen was well done, great action scenes, and some plausible people. It was a good "alternate universe" (genre) of movie.

So, if you have not seen the movie yet: please go see it without reading about it, and be prepared to follow a complicated story line.

And, yes, if you have NOT seen the movie yet, please rate this a good review that was helpful to you, and then see the movie, but don't read the rest of this review. Okay?

**Spoilers below**

I was surprised and glad that they had male nudity: somewhat a first for such a series. I guess part of it was the opposite of gratuitous violence: most action movies throw in violence, and most US movies do not show nudes, even when it is appropriate. And like the "Southland Tales" movie, sometimes low expectations and surprises can make you appreciate something even more.

The movie, by the way, is a bit too long, but you know, it's worth it. There's a lot of good stuff in the movie, and the irony and plot twists are great.

Some things are a little strange: the dumbness of some of the characters, their incredible skills, and some great technology. Examples of that are: 1) female super-hero pushing buttons without thinking 2) one character's weird Chinese style way of speaking (dropping the word "is" and articles "a" and "the") -- but that fits in with the original comic book 3) their ability to fight -- although a bit more realistic than Kung Fu movies 4) Gee, I want to list some of the technology, but I feel I can't without ruining the movie for those who haven't seen it. 5)Rorschach's totally appropriate name.

I read the comic book, and it was okay, but not great. The movie (for whatever reason) is great. Maybe I took too long and couldn't follow the comic, but I could follow the movie, with its twists and turns.

Okay: I liked "Eastern Promises," and it has a good story line and nice twists. But what is it with those stupid English films that has people fighting with knives. What *#&@! year is this anyhow – we have guns to kill people. And the baby scene at the end, what a horrible plot device. I was happy, though, in the cellar scene, the Kirill did not smash the bottle on the floor at the end – at least some restraint. The tattoos were cool and scary, and the element of unknown certainly added to it. It was a good film. Not on the par with "Godfather" or "Goodfellas," but still better than a lot of movies. For example: the knife scene in the baths was good, but the burning of the diary was pretty fake since the girl had made one xerox copy already and could've had another. Would a mobster son actually turn on his kingpin dad (and especially about killing a baby?), especially when the son is gay (and hence a pariah)? And don't they have security videos in hospitals (in 2007 after 9/11 happened 6 years earlier)?

Okay. I will put in my 5 cents. I liked "Wall-E", but they could have used a fresher story, instead of re-cycling (paying homage to) old movies. And one of them was Noah's Ark. But, I did like the animation. What I hated was the: 1. hyper-drive (okay for Star Trek, but aren't we beyond that?) 2. not attached head (for Eve) 3. over-crowded skies of junk (Futurama did it better when the female captain squeegee's off the windshield and removes insects and the Voyager space probe) 4. transporter rays 5. "too resilient" cockroach 6. too fast return to earth and re-adaptation 7. too many coincidences (garbage chute reappearance, people knowing Wall-E being next to each other)

Now, there were some great things in the film, including astronomy shots (did they credit APOD? www.apod.NASA.gov )

So, I gave it an 8, and would give it higher if they corrected the "technical" flaws and added a real story-line.

On the other hand (my third hand), I liked the 2001 homage, the tactile memory sequence, the trauma to Wall-E, the repressed memories of Eve coming back, the new and improved internet.

The movie was like a documentary. But unlike a documentary, it has a lot – and I mean a lot – of historical flaws that just mean shoddy craftsmanship. (Check out the "Goofs" section.) ****Spoiler Alert**** (I saw the DVD unrated extended version)

I rooted for the black guy, as well as the white. They were both archetypes trying to do a quality job. Unfortunately, the black one killed people without much remorse; although: I have to say I liked the gun to the head in the middle of the crowded street. Yup, nobody here saw nothing.

Bumpy and the mob boss were poorly written: maybe that's how they are, but they came across as stilted.

And, I disliked the Puerto Rican beauty queen – although god knows she grew into the role. I liked the mom's comment: "She's an angel." That sentence conveys so much: the judging of goodness by looks alone (can't judge a book by its cover), the straight from the heart comments of the Mom, and that an angel is supposed to represent the ultimate (that word archetype again) of what a person can be. And, maybe because I have issues with my elderly mom, I really liked that the Mom slaps her son and says "Don't lie to me." Go, mom.

Of course, I liked the putting away of 150 criminals by the white and black man working together. And the cops. Wow, I hated the cops. How could they follow a rule that says: "Cops kill cops they don't trust"? And by not trusting: meaning cops who do not take bribes or do not steal. That is a shame. We still have the blue wall of silence, where cops do wrong and do not "rat" on each other. Well, my feeling is that if you don't rat on fellow cops, you are implying that you, too, are a rat!

Yes it was a cool film, if only for the woman who does what she must to survive.

--THE ENTIRE REST OF THIS IS A SPOILER --

I recall that Mario Puzo modeled the "Godfather" after his mom. Well, this woman is the positive version of such a Mom.

She was trapped in a nursing home, and when someone comes to get her, it doesn't take her long to pack. All she needs is her wits and a few essentials.

And she cooks for the men, and cleans, and life is good. In fact, when the father walks her to the room, she kisses him on the lips. He is startled. But then she says, "I'm sorry." Well, in retrospect, we know why: she will sleep with the man just to get out of the nursing home. She overplayed her situation, and need not have done that.

Basically, she is the maid / cook for the two hapless guys, and she gets free room and board. And the food can be as good as she can make it, which is quite good. And freedom, and TV.

By the way, the beginning of the movie was a bit contrived, since a "woman" would not be able to throw the TV from the window (I guess she could have moved it to the elevator, and then into the street.) But it is sort of like the TV commercial where the woman breaks up with the guy and dumps his clothes (etc) out the window.

Anyhow, a good short movie, funny, O'Henry like, and still sad for what desperation that woman must have endured to go through a situation like this.

I am glad the ending was as it was.

Sadly, this takes place in 1980, so that cell phones, video cameras and other technology is not around to simplify the story.

**** Spoilers below *****

It has a MacGuffin, which is a plot device for characters to chase around to find. It also uses our high-technology present to look back upon a "simpler" time. And, golly gee whiz, it has MacGyver plot tricks in it. And, let me add, it has elements of "Dogs of War" (a great film for its time: 1981, which had a unique weapon and a sadistic anti-hero). And, I have to say, it had an ending most people won't like, but I found quite satisfying. Hey, like Yogi (cartoon reference) I'm not your average bear.

By the way, I sort of would like to say more about the film, but I really hate it when plot twists are given away, so I am exercising some restraint: I'm not even going to hint about them. But the dialog at times is authentic, but there are predictable moments (to me).

Since I have noted that this contains spoilers, let me add a spoiler from not this film, but from the Terminator series. In that, one character licks the face of a woman who is not under her own control: it is a mild form of rape. And as soon as I saw that, I thought: they are going to kill this guy by first making the audience unsympathetic to him -- and bingo: he was killed in a minute. Similarly for "No Country for Old Men."

************* Warning: SPOILERS AHEAD********************

I feel that Departed was not excellent: I thought the film had

a) too many coincidences (2 moles passing each other on their first day, both fall for the same girl and sleep with her, good cop seeing incriminating envelope on bad cop's desk)

b) trivial things ala Hitchcock McGuffin in the form of 20 computer chips for $1million

c) confusing plot (and I'm above average in following them). Like: why didn't the police arrest Costello -- as the good cop said -- for the many things they had him on. In real life, Al Capone was put away for tax evasion.

It wasn't quite on the level of a James Bond flick where the villain says "I'm about to kill you Mr. Bond, but first let me give you a tour of my laboratory." (Gee: I am ambivalent if I should watch the new Casino Royale movie coming Nov 17 2006.)

On the other hand, I felt that it was a bit like "Easy Rider", which was called a mediocre movie with a great ending.

Yup, I felt that a top star dying before the end was incredible, just like "Dressed to Kill". The realistic ending of the cop who quits coming back using all his cop skills to act as an avenging angel was great. That showed real ingenuity and realism.

By the way, I apologize in advance for not reading the 53 pages of other people's reviews before writing mine.

Well, this film is not so bad, when it's free (when you watch it on TV). And I agree with those others who said the story line held up well for being 100 years old.

I look upon the beasts as Palestinians who are mistreated and rebel. Yet they do so by destroying the society around them. There is the Ghandi appeal of the underground dwellers (the blind sage); but the wild killers win out and destroy much of what is there. And the few educated animals (again read Palestinians) are left without the society that an educated person needs and wants.

And, like the Palestinian conflict, there is a cycle of violence that continues, even when there are moments where peace can prevail (when Brando pardons the killer creature).

I guess I am writing for the moment, instead of for all time, but on the NBC news today and yesterday (Monday, July 10, 2006), an Iraqi woman (Sunni) whose kid is killed asks "Is this Islam?" A good question. I would say "Yes, it is Islam." Although, if you go to Ireland, you could have a mother cry out "Is this Catholicism?" What is it with these poor, religious people who just kill one another? Get to a peace table already and start disciplining those miscreants who literally degrade society and their own lives by their violent, power hungry actions.

I thought `The Cooler' was not that good (a friend thought it would make cult status, but he's a gambler). It was based on a magical premise, that someone could (all the time!) magically within a second make someone lose. I guess if you are a superstitious gambler, then that makes much sense, but for a scientific adult, it is a bunch of garbage. Maybe it's that I am getting older and am tired of cliché movies I liked as a kid, e.g.: James Bond, Superman, time traveling, action movies where people revert to hand to hand combat. I have to agree with one reviewer here on imdb who thought the writing -- not the actors or the script concept -- was bad. This is a sub-average movie.

**SPOILERS BELOW**

There were some good moments: that the unbelievable chance of the guy meeting his son in a diner actually turned out to be a plan of the son, that the girl was set up (ala the 1993 movie `True Romance') to have sex with the cooler, and that the Harvard MBA kid actually put a contract out on Shelly. But there were lots of unbelievable scenes: the last minute of the movie, the winning money streak near the end, the predictable plants coming back to life. By the way, the quality of the celluloid where I went (Sutton Theater, 57th St, NYC) was pretty crappy. I thought this would be a nice one hour tv movie, but was a boring at twice the length.

(Correction of a reference I made in my review of April 12,1999)

1. The feel of "The Matrix": This is a movie that envelops you, and is reminiscent of two works: a movie and an excerpt from a novel. The first is the 1-hour made-for-TV-film "The Lathe of Heaven," by Ursula K. Le Guin which was broadcast on Channel 13 / Educational TV back in 1980: after the film, I felt I was a character living in the film. "The Lathe of Heaven" was about a character whose dreams become reality; every time he wakes up, he is in a new future / futuristic setting where everything changes in accordance to his dream.

Kurt Vonnegut (in "Breakfast of Champions") had a small sci-fi concept in one of his books called (approximately) "A message from the creator." In this story, God writes a book to the only person in the world. God tells him that the entire world was created for him, all religions were invented so he could have a choice of religions, and other people were merely robots who had a specific purpose, such as fighting with him. Thus, whatever he does doesn't matter, since no one else is real but him. The character reads this book, and goes insane, thinking that it is true.

Similarly, when you leave "The Matrix," you wonder what is real and what is a simulation. After the movie, my friend walked across the street blindly ignoring cars, perhaps trapped in the illusion that this was not real. It took several minutes for him to escape this fantasy world. It affected me similarly.

2. Personal Reactions: a) Movie was great (tentatively on my list of "top 12 movies" for me). b)I did not like Fishburne's pockmarked face and grimaces. c)Some corniness in the awakening kiss given to Keanu/Neo, that in my mind, could be traced to reality: people in comas do hear and can respond after what appears to be death.

3. Plot Holes: How did the Operator recover from being killed/shot? How did the Oracle know what would happen?

4. Political Correctness: a) Two to four black heroes who could easily have been white; b) a possible lesbian; c)a Latino; d)a short person; e)bad white guys(and no bad ethnic types); f) a middle-aged kindly motherly type, g)even a few kids as potential heroes, with one being a guru.