How old should they be to see this?
This movie's a little too intense for the little kids, but it could be an important lesson in the power of the human spirit and the brutality of one view of prison life for the older teenagers. I'd say 15 or 16 could handle the intensity.
It was one of my first picks for DVD
I was looking forward to the day when my wife and I finally save up enough to get our dream house and fill it with all those things we've put off until we get our house. Well, we didn't get a house yet, but we did get that a DVD player, and this movie was in that initial purchase of films.
Sure, this movie plays on TNT all the time, being a Drama and all, but I still had to get it on DVD to own. Why?
- I hate commercials
- I hate popup ads and promo things
- If I need to go to the bathroom, I can pause it
- I don't have to wait for Ted Turner to play it for the fifth time that week to see it
Of course, my wife still manages to catch it on TNT while she's doing laundry or something or other, and I keep telling her "But we have it on DVD." She always responds "I know, but it was on."
I don't think I'm ever going to understand her.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Excellent review - hardly twisted at all, and I love the line, "but it was on."
2 - Kevin Murphy
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.
3 - Stephen S. Power
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.
4 - Stephen S. Power
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.
5 - your mom
whos your daddy and what does he do?
6 - your sister
whos your mummy and what does she do?
7 - your dad
whos your sister and what does she do?
8 - your brother
whos your brother and what does he do?
9 - cornell wallace
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