Reviews

The movie on my favorite composer was a huge disappointment. I will not repeat the above in detail, but I lacked an image of the grandiosity of the Finnish nature and also the impact the country's history had on the composer.

The center seems to be the family but Sibelius is known as a great composer not a great father to be pictured.

Why was some of the music composed, what was his thoughts and struggles etc? I have read his biography and there is more to tell than he loved his wife all his life and was short of money.

Above, or shall I say beneath all, lay an absolute terrible quality of sound regarding the underlying music, which really is just... underlying, not the main issue.

This is maybe OK for a weekend afternoon on TV but hardly the definitive music film on Sibelius like 'Ameadeus' for Mozart.

This movie should by no means be rated on it's entertainment value as some do as the true case is way too serious to consider for entertainment purposes.

I stumbled across it on a movie channel and just went along feeling more and more sad and frustrated over the total failure of the authorities to secure the interests of this poor, wretched human experiencing for 13 years a fate much worse than death and later being less than ideally where the therapists, teachers and researches take care of no. 1 first.

I don't know if anyone in America has learned anything from this case, but some historic words come into mind:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But is America really interested in helping any of these?

I missed a sharper critical profile in the movie on this aspect rather than letting everybody off easy.

The young actor did a tremendous job and can't be applauded enough.

I am not sure I want to recommend anyone seeing it, as it is way too sad. Maybe we are better off not knowing of the cruelty and stupidity some parents can subject their children to and easily get away with it.

I was surprised to see so many love this film. As I have not seen the original I will not compare them, nor do I think it is fair to compare remakes to an original. A movie is made to be itself and should be evaluated as is.

While they may have tried to modernize the movie it was not modernized enough. It seeps through the screen that it is based on values and images decades ago. Take the architecture of the corporation premises which so clearly is designed to convey the common man of the 50's awe respect for the 'corporate giants' of his days. The architecture is an echo of the 50's not the 90's. An interesting fact is the lack of other employees in the offices apart from the secretary. But of course it can symbolize the loneliness of the corporate all-business shark.

So is the glamour girl style of Sabrina, styled over the romantic ideal for a 50's young woman. They put in a 1950's girls personality in a 1990's woman. Sabrina of the 1990's would appear much more modern and critical of the men and their behavior and not such a push-over, a willing vessel for the men's admirations. Also she would have been engaged in education and career not only seen as an object destined for the role of a wife, as was more common in the 50's.

Is Ormond doing a good job? Perhaps. If she was trying to follow the director's desire to portrait a 1950 girl. I just find her personality archaeic and out of time and place. The character is simply not believable for its time. Why portrait a classic Hollywood movie star and not a modern woman? (I think they perhaps tried too hard to make her look like Julia Roberts)

Also not believable as a corporate shark was Harrison Ford. If the director had pushed him a little more to the nerdy side, it would have worked well with the bow-tie. He did look a little funny with the old fashioned hat, black&white and the mobile phone of it's days with the immense antenna. But as with Sabrina the conversion to 1990's is only half lived. Not totally committed.

The best and most believable performance was actually the mother although also she was clearly cut out of the 1950's dominant mother. I came to think of the 30's Groucho Marx's favorite victim, Mrs. Dumont.

The pattern goes on with the immense staff of the household, which with today's salaries would be outrageously expensive and eccentric. Even for the 50's it would be a grotesquely big staff even more so for a modern family. I think we would have to go all the way back to the 30's to believe in this household.

Also unbelievable is the lightening transformation of a teenage school girl to a dazzling sophisticated self assure young woman overnight who even manages to acquire an exquisit French wardrobe on a meager photographer assistant's wage, which surely would have been meager because so many would want the job. I am not sure she would have been paid all together. "Working for the honor."

What remains for me is an uncommitted attempt to remake a(ny) success which seems picked out of coincidence; - the film doesn't show WHY it was remade and modernized. It doesn't claim its own right so to speak. It seems simply like a blind, ill thought through refreshment with no care for details or cinema art. It's neither the 50's nor really the 90's really. Not a pure romance and not really a comedy.

One overseen joke in the comments or trivia is the painting behind David in his little used office. It is actually a Pollack painting, the same name of the director. Jason/Sidney Pollack. Well, actually and actually, I simply mean it is in the Jason Pollack style. Don't know if it is an actual reproduction or copycat.

I agree with one of the other comments. This film is simply a mess. And an uncommitted one as well. It should have been burned, not released. I was too nice giving it a 6.

Few people seem to realize it, but this is actually a tongue-in-cheek adventure comedy. It has a great deal of self-irony. I would call this an honest film in the best of Hollywood traditions.

Take the golf-simulator they have brought along on the boat! Or the Bordeaux red wine in 40 Deg Celcius humid tropics. Only in a comedy.

There's a kind of American troops in Vietnam analogy over this. Happy go lucky with no idea what they are heading into.

One thing bothers me though - how much food does a reptile need? As I understand it, they can go as long as crocodills as they are cold blooded and shut down their metabolism between snacks.

The scenery was quite nice.

This movie is a good choice for some pure entertainment.

Very unbelievable plot, with a female lead role who can do nothing right and who has no mind of her own to make just one correct and logic decision.

Add to it's incredibility a husband who would leave his wife alone on a boat with a strange man with horse lame story in the middle of the ocean while rowing off a mile in a dingy.

The couple would surely have called around on the radio to report the alleged accidents on the deserted schooner, and surely the wife would sooner have recalled the man's advice of grabbing the gun early on.

In all it's just another of the stories where no one is doing the right and logic thing, every thing that possibly can go wrong goes wrong etc.

Predictable, boring, stupid and very ordinary.

"Fire ants came to the United States from South America some 60 years ago and are now common in the Southeast. Medical reports say as many as 80 people may have been killed in the country by fire ants." Copied from The Associated Press.

This is the zoological basis of the movie. Apparently the low budget movie has not had the opportunity to overhaul it's script in order to create remotely believable details.

Right, the actors are only giving half an effort, while they don't have any sensible materials to work with.

However the movie can run in the background and you can enjoy the scenery and blue sky of Utah. Maybe the producer and instructor have created a cult material: eco-disaster with comedy elements. Not much different from the much appreciated Dune or other flops like Jurassic Park.

Surely there are goofs, like the motor bike helmet back on the bike after the kids threw it earlier, and the teacher being a crack shooter loading a shotgun with bullets inside the sheriffs office. Any person trained with weapons wouldn't load a shotgun and waive it about inside buildings least of all the sheriffs office. He would surely have protested.

The guy claimed to be running with a broken leg actually just says he 'thinks' he broke his leg, and he is limping off with the help of a friend. Surely the prospect of being eaten by ants could make him eat his pain of a strained ankle.

The bullets fired against the ants were magnesium bullets meant for flash exploding to burn the ants, not shooting them.

Anyway, as most disaster movies the action is naturally beyond all credibility, but this movie is not different from films like Shark, the Tornado movies, Volcano movie etc etc. *½

This movie steps where angels fear to tread: an attempt to attract women to a sci-fi flick.

Hence it puts a women in charge of the mission who even refers degradingly to highly skilled engineers and physicists etc as 'you guys'.

See, this kind of derogative verbatim would quickly undermine any authority a women would have over a group of 5 highly qualified men 'off the right stuff' over 180 days. Maybe that's why it's set 50 years ahead, making up for the unlikely scenario. And lo and behold; the woman undermines her leadership authority by engaging in a romance with a crew member. Not too credible, or is it? You decide! That aside, there are several other issues that in itself undermines the movie's authority:

1) The spaceship needs to be 'parked' manually between two moons as the female commander proudly accomplish. Of course the entire trip would be automated and run from Houston. No room for a quick human error here.

2) It is not likely that such a mission is endeavoured based on a hit an run chance of avoiding a solar storm as occurs and which disables the proud ship. Either adequate protection would be enforced and/or the 'space weather' would be taken into account in the last hours by space 'meteorologists', 'parking' the ship on the backside of Mars in case of any outlook to a solar storm, which can already be predicted based on sun spot activity.

3) Given the oxygen level, even though the men could endure the max temperature 20° C (68° F), it's unlikely the could survive the night with the helmet off (for breathing after the stored O2 ran out) as the temperature drops to a minimum of -140° C (-220° F).

4) The silliness of the robot-going-killer Amee, a highly advanced machine manufactured to withstand combat situations yet malfunctions after the ballooned landing, subtracts further from the credibility of the movie. I kind of guess it's metal would brittle at the nightly temperatures, but allow for technological advances. Then again it's unlikely it would fail after a planned landing using balloons with some foreseen bumps.

5) I also didn't like the very foggy, unprecise and extremely belated report of 'life on Mars' which the sole surviving 'guy' accidentally reports in a side comment at the final rescue. Any astronaut would surely alarm the spaceship immediately of the sensation but waits until the final minutes. Besides, he vaguely reports 'it eats through everything' - given they want to move inside the spaceship, partly made of the same material as the eaten spacesuit was made of, I wonder how they would keep the bugs from eating the spaceship and the cannister it's been captured in?

6) The probability of the 'guys' being caught in the only ice storm on the planet is? 1 to some millions?

7) Given the alleged ice storm to under -50 C, I wonder how both bugs and algae survives? Lava I could understand, but bugs and algae?

8) Out of nowhere on the surface of Mars, the 'guys' can suddenly solder to produce the radio? Solding tools from where? and the power source?

9) Even more surprising is the roll of tape the 'guys' produce to support the astronaut with the broken rib.

The list of improbabilities goes on and on.

Credits earned for great landscaping and good visual effects and the design of the spaceship.

Summing up I would say a good effort by many was wasted on a weak script and a leading female with no screen authority to support her role.

What a disappointment.

Predictable, bad cutting, bad voice recording.

Suited only for a 4 part TV-series.

I have seen much better historic cinemas on TV also with Derek Jacobi.

The battle against the German barbarians was quite unnecessary as it added nothing to the plot.

The only okay was the formation of Roman troops.

The clothes was also fine.

All in all a low level entertainment movie.

I am glad I did not pay to see it.

The start is way to slow and the movie should have been paced up and quicker.

An energetic and entertaining movie with some pretty original scenes although much of the plot is from real life.

Weaver is doing a fine and wholehearted job trying to grab the main role, but the role is more suited for Goldie Hawn.

Cumming is delivering a 100% effort as general Batista which also threatens to steal the main part.

The role of Fidel Castro is also well performed.

McGrath as office Quimp on the other hand is weakly covered, although I grant he can sing.

Surprisingly the uncredited Woddy Allen appears but is more Woody Allen than being the role he covers. Woody is totally out of sync with the movie and does as he pleases apparently.

The mission of the movie could be to criticize CIA's secret missions for the US and does a fine job of that.

The problem with the movie seem to be the instruction alone.

A promise of a follow-up, this time in Vietnam is made in the end.

This movie is really hard to criticize mostly because not much is happening.

The whole plot seem to be this stranded guy misses his fiancé and his love keeps him going, bot lo and behold he is for 2nd deserted when he returns and gets stranded on the plains of America this time along with a symbol of Americn consumerism - an off-roader.

The only time some real cinematography is on the verge of breaking out (probably an oversigt by the director) is the first camera motions which lends itself from North by Northwest by the great master.

I can truthfully state that this was about the dullest film I have ever been unfortunate to witness. I see no dramatic storyline, no depth of character, no development, only a captain's log of things the stranded fellow does to survive, none of which is even original apart from the dental operation (Don't try it at home) Imagine the great monologues the main character could have given in the depth of the Pacific night elaborating with newly gained wisdom like an Indian hermit.

Helen Hunt does a fine job creating a character though but the exhaustion of blowing life into the shallow script takes the better of her and she faints. Probably what the director conceives of a climax.

The movie is going nowhere as was the stranded fellow, and it is all rounded symbolically up by Hanks returning to the point he started, only with a loss of 4 wasted years. He was lucky. The spectator wastes 2 fine hours.

I can only say: Avoid this Scyllian reef at all cost and cast it away if the movie strands on your coast.

This movie comes closer to define mistreatment than even the best encyclopedia.

The script or storyline is mondiane and unimaginative and if you feel you have seen it all before, so you have. 'Innocent' fighting the system - getting a bad rap - finally wins... or loses? You be the judge.

The philosophical or social aspects of the relation between the severity of the crime and the punishment, the effect of environment or character, should have been treated with much more respect and more in depth. The movie is more focused on the young lawyers first case, bringing the stray thought that the intended audience is in fact lawyers ripe for some commercials.

Of the few highlights are the costumes and settings and most of all the powerful judge who makes the most of the only wholesome role in the picture.

To make up for the thin script (too numerous flaws to mention), the cameramen are doing their best to beef up the movie and doing quite well.

(A minor glitch seen in blitzing flashes as the condemned is taken out, as no photography was allowed in the room, hence the shot of the sketching reporters).

All in all the movie is mistreating the subject while not enough to put the crew behind bars, which would have served as good research.

An undemanding movie set in historic rural England. Many lovely scenes from the village life, good costumes and sympathetic characters.

There's an air of Icelandic saga simmering over the movie all the time with unnerving background music. Women have the central stage here and the movie will talk to many both girls and boys, although it is somewhat bloody at times.

A few lapses in cutting and continuation.

Outstanding performance as Claudius by Jack Shepherd who nearly steals the movie in his first scene from a time before statesmanship became a bad joke.

Steven Waddington plays his low-key role gallantly giving room for the ladies before chivalry became modern.

They missed one obvious line delivering two heads: 'I made an early start' where the line could have been: 'I made a head start'. Well, maybe they wouldn't make the killing into a comedy.

A fine movie for its budget and sure to entertain many a home audience while teaching a bit of history.

To balance the reviews, I have to call this movie highly overrated.

Action and lines are highly cliché-like and many features are too unrealistic even for fiction.

Take the motor vehicles (tractor like bulldozer-thing) with their noisy combustion engines. Surely we can expect something better in the distant future of Aliens.

Or think about a marine on combat mission entering a potentially hostile environment on a planet in her bare skin. No protection gear. Reminds me of Iraq. (ed. Jan 2005).

Communication equipment connected by cable? I mean, this is sci-fi, remember? Couldn't they at least have thought of wireless? We've had radios for a hundred years. Intercomm with cables??

Besides the actions lingers on with no purpose for at least 70 minutes.

Calling this a great film is simply crazy. At best it's a waste of good time.

This is a pretty shallow edition with no great depth in acting and directing. The scenery and robes look great but it's merely a moving cartoon.

The fat New Yorker dialect of the heroine similar to Jodie Foster is so out of place that it gives me stomach cramps.

It seems to be fairly historical correct, so it could be recommended to kids but other than that it's a waste.

This can't be meant as entertainment for any thinking creature. This has got to be a collection of clippings removed from other movies. This is prostitution of the movie industry. How can anyone in their right mind read the script and accept to board this disaster movie.

I have serious doubts of the future of man kind after this.

All right - Dante's Peak, Volcano, Twister and Earthquake was worse, but that's about it. Great films are made in Italy and France.

I have tried to find something positive to say about this movie but nothing springs to mind.

O, yes: there's so few people in it that it's really easy to keep track of who is who

Another positive: Luckily it is not as long as it feels (it feel like 3 hours.)

A sweet and entertaining story of the isolated community on the island of Vestoe, who's prize cow is in danger of being abducted by the 2WW German occupation forces. The British agricultural department have the eyes on the cow as well and a huge effort to recover the attractive Jersey takes place. However the main object for the operation does not appear until the last frame.

Loodicris collection of movie clichés with a special effects department gone berserk in what is today routine ingredients.

The movie is a strange hybrid - something between a naive Lassie movie and a science fiction alien invader movie from the 50's with few opportunities for the characters to make an impression and use their talent for character building.

Whatever urged Bosnan and Hamilton to waste their talent on this is beyond comprehension.

I still don't know what the staff wanted to tell us with this epic.

The moviegoer's nightmare during this trial surely surpasses by far that of the unlucky citizens of Dantes' Peak.

I give it minus 1 out of 5.

Historically rather accurate after my reading of Thomas Paine on the situation concerning the rule of England in the period.

Of course Stewart Granger as Mr Brummel is a farce. Peter Ustinov as the Prince of Wales is doing a rather well show.

Nice shooting of mountain tops, but action dragging along. Actors performing like a summer camp. Passengers very fresh after many days of malnutrition. Where's all the frostbites? Where's the investigation of the missing search? Why did the plane crash? Why was the technician/mechanic insane? Are there really no flares and emergency kit in a plane crossing the Andes?

A shoot'em down silly teenager movie featuring a 16 year old steering a city size starship on vision. Also featuring troopers with one clip of ammo firing 10,000 shots.

A waste of everybody's time, but the teenager love-story and

glitz of war will probably make it a classic.