2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Very interesting
12 January 2001
Okay, I admit it. I am a 15 year-old Beatles fan. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

As a Beatles fan, I have read almost every book worth reading, seen almost every documentary or movie worth seeing, and listened to countless interviews. In short, I just about know all there is to know about John Lennon. So when I heard about a new NBC movie based on his life, I had two simultaneous thoughts. The first one was, "Whoo-hoo!" The second was, "Gee, I wonder how badly they're going to distort John's life." It being a TV movie, I didn't expect too much.

I'm glad I got it on tape, because I think that nobody really gets every nuance of a movie the first time they see it. I recently viewed it again, and I think I can now give an better presentation of my opinions.

The movie, as far as movies can go, was very accurate. I only had problems with a few scenes: i.e., the scene with Julia at the docks, the scene where Stuart was beaten up, and the final scene. I'm not sure the first one ever happened; or if it did, the scene may well have been taken from different conversations, and then put together to make it all fit. The second scene I'm not completely sure happened, because according to various people's accounts, it occurred at Litherland Town Hall or at another place after the Beatles (or whatever their name was at the time) played a gig. And according to still others' accounts, it never happened at all. Incredibly confusing, but oh well. The final scene of the movie did in fact happen, yet probably not quite in that way.

I hope I didn't sound like *too* much of a dork just now. I have a tendency to get bogged down with detail, which has frequently been my downfall.

But back to the movie. It really was very good, in terms of historical accuracy, with relatively little dramatization. The actors were very good, too, though the guy playing John's accent was...well, strange, to say the least, and only slightly Liverpudlian. See this movie if you're into the Beatles, or even if you're not. It's a good watch.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Stand (1994)
A great film with only a few minor problems
18 August 2000
I purchased the book "The Stand" from the library during a book sale last year. One day I decided to pull it out of the paper bag and read it. I found myself unable to put it down, and I read it over and over before discovering a movie promo on the very last page. When I read the cast list, I knew I was going to have to watch it sooner or later.

As soon as the first scene was over and the opening credits began to roll (with Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" playing, making the perfect theme song), I knew I was hooked. Like some other people have said, I was annoyed a bit by Molly Ringwald as Fran Goldsmith. I personally would have preferred Sandra Bullock or (don't laugh) Kelli Williams, but hey, not everybody agrees with me on that point. Also, the melding of Rita Blakemoor and Nadine Cross sort of irritated me, as Rita was mostly the reason Larry changed so much.

A lot of people have complained that the movie was too different from the book and a lot of things were left out. I actually thought Stephen King did a very good job adapting his book for television. A lot of dialogue had to be changed for the movie because, well, a lot of it included four-lettered words that can only be said on cable. But part of the fun of adapting a book to a movie is seeing what they had to change and what they were able to keep. My advice is, see the movie before you read the book.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

Recently Viewed