E Cotton

The past Salem's Lot movies were well cast and kept a quick pace. This show was neither. Either a) Stephen King had no say in the casting or just didn't give a damn; or b) the casting person never read the book; or c) both. Seems like every character was so stereo-typed that it was impossible to see them as real people or care about them. Adults who were clueless; evil ones so over-the-top that they were funny, not scary; bullies who were sissies, whinny kids who were tough; secondary characters who seemed to not know why they were there; religious figures who seemed sneaky, etc. The first episodes moved so slowly, I could read a novel waiting for something to happen. The poor lighting was apparently to cover up poor scenes. What would have helped? 1) replacing MacKenzie Leigh and Jordan Preston with more talented actors who could inspire empathy and allow you to root for them. Instead, I just hoped they'd get killed off, rather than the ones who did die. The rest of the cast was passable, if not memorable. It's easy to see why the release date keep getting pushed back. Starting all over would have been a better option.

Great movie. It's centered around an orphan in London who scrouges through the mud on the banks of the Thames for food or valuables. He finds a picture of Queen Victoria who is in seclusion in Windsor Castle following the death of Prince Albert. The boy decides to see the queen, so breaks into the castle and chaos follows. The plot is somewhat incredulous, with both humor and serious issues. The acting is first rate, particularly the boy, the lady playing Queen Victoria, and the guy playing Disraeli. It's in black and white, and the soundtrack is sometimes difficult to follow, but it's worth it.

Since the original movie was so great, I was hesitant to watch this. However, it was so far removed from the movie, it could have had a different title. The first 10 minutes are so boring, it took patience to keep watching - it only got a little better. Three things made the original movie great. 1) the short scenes with so many super stars - Sean Connery, Katherine Helmond, the Monty Python guys. This series had none of that. 2) the performance of Craig Warnock as Kevin in the movie was outstanding. His reactions to the absurdities around him (both mental & physical) were exactly how a 10 year old would react. The "new Kevin" was pretty good, but didn't seem real and he didn't dominate the scenes as Warnock did. 3) in the movie, the constant bizarre humor of the midget robbers carried over from scene to scene. The comedy in the series seemed forced and predictable. The big question-- WHY?? The movie was so great, no remake could stand up to it. Is the British cinema out of ideas? Besides this, the remakes of Agatha Christie movies are Awful!! Watch the original Death on the Nile (Betty Davis, David Niven, Maggie Smith, etc.). The recent remake will make you want to puke and boycott British movies.

Great! We saw the Broadway show years ago, but just recently saw the movie. Surprisingly, I believe the movie is even better. The story is of a Jewish family in Yonkers in 1942, narrated by a 15 year old boy. I won't go through the set-up, as other reviews do that. Mercedes Ruehl was outstanding as the boys' low functioning aunt. She made her disability clear in fits of weirdness and anxiety, but never went over the top into parody. Richard Dreyfus, as the possibly gangster "wanta be" was only in about half the movie, but at his best. But it was Mike Damus and Brad Stoll, playing 15 and 12 year olds who draw most of the laughs. They are simultaneously terrified and amused by their situation of living with a monstrous grandmother. They seem to recognize their aunt's mental health issues, but still bond with her. My only real issue with the movie is that the 2 gangsters pursuing Richard Dreyfus were a bit too cartoonish to be seen as a threat. Finally, I would point out that it's easy to miss some of the humor, as many of the funniest parts are when characters make little side comments in response to the craziness. However, that's typical of Neil Simon plays -- you may find yourself stopping the video and rewinding a few seconds to catch a remark you missed. You can't do that at a Broadway play. If a new revival of the play opens, I'll certainly return to Broadway.

This movie is odd, well-acted, and totally captivating. The weird attitudes of the boys' grandparents eventually make sense. Bruce Dern and Genevieve Bujold are exceptional as the grandparents, each alternating between hero and anti-hero. The boy, played by Seamus P., is excellent - trying to balance his loyalties to each grandparent as they battle each other. It's hard to believe that this is the kid who played the demon in The Omen. He made his emotional struggles clear. A lesser child actor would have caused this movie to become overly sentimental and less believable -- kudos to the casting agent. This movie will probably not be greatly praised by people wanting everybody to become wonderful and happy at the end; it's too realistic for that. However, all three lead characters elicit enough introspection to allow viewers to understand and accept their short comings. It's easy to see why Bruce Dern is a former Oscar winner, as he makes us care about a basically unsympathetic character. So - great acting, a unique story, and a believable ending. These are rarities in movies today.

I hadn't heard of this movie, so my expectations were low. Although I agree with other reviewers that the ending was too ambiguous, I felt the acting (particularly the boy and the grandfather) was so good it made up for some shortcomings. I sometimes stop watching movies part way through, but this one kept my attention. I believe most movies made today are too long and could benefit from substantial editing (i.e., shortening) -- however, this one would have benefited from more scenes - especially to better portray the relationships between the characters, particularly the grandfather & the boy. Also, nothing about the actions of the parents made any sense - did they care about their son? Did they care about each other? A few more scenes with them and the boy would have vastly improved the movie, as would a conversation between the mother and grandfather. Why have excellent performances by the boy and grandfather, but make the role of the parents an enigma? Despite these flaws, this movie is definitely better than 90% of the junk put out by major studios, particularly for people who have sons or grandsons in this age group (10-12).

Everything about this movie is perfect! It's hard to believe that it was directed by Rob Reiner, who is now known primarily as an internet troll who espouses hate and intolerance. What happened to turn him from the guy who made this hilarious movie to such a bitter old man? Hard to say. Michael McKean sets just the right tone of presenting the idiotic, over-the-top actions and statements of rock lead singers in that era. Christopher Guest's facial expressions are reminiscent of actual rock star interviews in the 60s & 70s -- spacey and drug-impacted. I think it's impossible to watch this movie without laughing aloud about every 3 minutes. The Stonehenge part is worth the price of the movie. However, even the most hard hitting satirical parts are "softened" by the feeling that even the people who are being satirized will laugh at it. Since a sequence is being made, I wonder if younger audiences will understand many of the time-specfic references. I do hope the sequel will be directed by someone else -- someone who hasn't lost his sense of humor; someone who can satirize people without letting personal attacks and irrationality destroy the humor.

I didn't expect to like this, but I enjoyed every minute of it. Although the acting by all the boys and the teenage girls was great, Jacob Trembly really carried the movie - which he also did in several other films. Although most of the reviews on this site were very positive, a few were very negative - which is hard to understand. Who doesn't like to laugh? There were so many hilarious parts, it's hard to single one out. My "tween" aged grandchildren have watched it several times, and still laugh from the opening bedroom scene to end.

It's interesting to see ratings from 1 to 10. I'm not a fan of Rob Reiner, as he often posts ignorant, offensive, non-factual items (no journalistic ethics present). But he can direct films pretty well. (A+ for Spinal Tap) I saw this movie years ago and watched it again yesterday. Despite one major flaw (more later), I think it's great. Not only did my kids love it in the 1990s, my grandsons love it now. Maybe the critics who panned it should try watching it with kids. I won't repeat the plot because 1) other reviewers did that; 2) it's not that important - each scenario can stand alone. I enjoyed it as taking a wild ride with Bruce Willis and Elijah Wood - both were excellent. But just as great was the performance by a slew of top echelon stars (George & Elaine from Seinfeld, Alan Arkin, Reba & Dan Ackroyd, Jon Lovitz, Kathy Bates, and many more). Although each of these had no more than 5-10 minutes of screen time, their performances were memorable. For the Ebertesque reviewers - lighten up. Humor, even stereotypical in nature, can be hilarious. Another reviewer pointed out the similarities to Monty Python shows - I'll bet those same reviewers didn't get that humor and hated it too. People who enjoy seeing everything as offensive will only like boring, PC movies and books. Dull. As for what I considered the major flaw (and lowered my rating by one) -- the ending. Any movie that spends 90+ minutes enveloping audiences in a story, then bails out by making it all a dream, is disgusting. A fantasy is demeaned when it's turned into a dream.