Excellent review - hardly twisted at all, and I love the line, "but it was on."

Great review, great movie.

I thought the movie was really about the relationship of Red and Andy, and the titular redemption was Red's -- Red didn't suffer Brook's fate because of Andy.

I put the DVD on my Christmas list last year and didn't get it (I did get Groundhog Day), so I'm happy TNT still shows it.

I would argue that another movie which was better than its source text was JURASSIC PARK.

True, the book was a huge bestseller and I, for one, couldn't put it down. But the movie improved it in two crucial ways.

One, the character of the park owner. In the book he was portrayed as your standard evil corporate head who must, according to the morality of popular entertainment, die in the end. And he does in a way so contrived it's ridiculous. But in the movie the character is more complex. He has corporate ambitions, but a good heart, the latter embodied in his grandchildren. Thus he's brought into conflict by the events of the movie, which is shown beautifully by him eating ice cream alone at night while the dinos rage around JP HQ. He doesn't die in the end because he comes to a good decision in the movie. He's portrayed as redeemable and he redeems himself, whereas the character in the book is beyond redemption.

Two, the narrative. In the book there's a long, pointless digression (nearly 100 pages as I remember) through a pterodactyl "cage." This served only to show off Crichton's research and to stuff more dinos into the book. In the movie, the whole section is removed, tightening up the action in JP. Nicely the section is reworked for the second sequel, where it makes some narrative sense. It can't save that movie, though from being lame in comparison.

I would argue that another movie which was better than its source text was JURASSIC PARK.

True, the book was a huge bestseller and I, for one, couldn't put it down. But the movie improved it in two crucial ways.

One, the character of the park owner. In the book he was portrayed as your standard evil corporate head who must, according to the morality of popular entertainment, die in the end. And he does in a way so contrived it's ridiculous. But in the movie the character is more complex. He has corporate ambitions, but a good heart, the latter embodied in his grandchildren. Thus he's brought into conflict by the events of the movie, which is shown beautifully by him eating ice cream alone at night while the dinos rage around JP HQ. He doesn't die in the end because he comes to a good decision in the movie. He's portrayed as redeemable and he redeems himself, whereas the character in the book is beyond redemption.

Two, the narrative. In the book there's a long, pointless digression (nearly 100 pages as I remember) through a pterodactyl "cage." This served only to show off Crichton's research and to stuff more dinos into the book. In the movie, the whole section is removed, tightening up the action in JP. Nicely the section is reworked for the second sequel, where it makes some narrative sense. It can't save that movie, though from being lame in comparison.

whos your daddy and what does he do?

whos your mummy and what does she do?

whos your sister and what does she do?

whos your brother and what does he do?

i played laundry leonard in the film and it was the most amazing experience.frank nicki and morgan were terrific.please write in support of a sequel