Disclosure

Disclosure
$12.98
Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 11/03/2009 Run time: 129 minutes Rating: R

Exempt from Disclosure: The Black World of UFOs: WP Vaults & Roswell, Site 51, Los Alamos
$16.27
1. Why were the notes not cleaned up for publication ?
a writer with a 9th grade education? or were they put in for a touch of "authenticity"?
ill grant the writer may have been so blown away or disoriented while writing his diary-that it was irrelevant to him-at the time
2.*But surely an advanced civilization would know about time, physics and wormholes? and that all 3 million known dimensions are sitting right here in front of us-right now- just step on through the door to the next "room"-its just that WE dont know HOW to see them or the door yet (or at least we didnt PUBLICLY know this back in the 50s & 60s)
Why take 9 months of boring sickening pokey warp 7 travel when it can be done almost instantaneously via wormhole or time loop singularity?
clue: such subjects were unknown when this was written-hence the author(s) could hardly have suspected that this story was going to be rendered obsolete by OUR new discoveries in Physics;
Or-maybe the Ebens just discovered wormholes in the last 50 years-or better yet -they didnt want earth people to get wise to the fact that the meter was running on the voyage there and back -OR maybe God hadnt invented them yet
ALL unlikely
2a; 10 years seems like an awfully long time to impose on hosts- or onto mission volunteers;
And time dialation-we all know from many episodes of THE TWILIGHT ZONE that while ONE year goes by on SERPO for the team-1,000 have passed on Earth
The place would probably be deserted-poisoned by radiation war etc etc when the mission returned--or theyd meet their sons/daughter's offspring 3 (cubed)-at least-but maybe the Ebens have allowed for that-yet they take 9 months to get home-go figure
3. Why is anyone remotely connected with this still alive and breathing?
THEY kill to keep this knowledge secret;
ie no auto or small plane 'accidents', being pushed out of 10th story windows, found hanging in a cheap motel, hands tied behind back, family threatened, publisher raided etc etc etc
Granted the 'Intelligence' agencies can be as full of bunglers and unreliables as any other profession
4. Several notes I read regarding this info show the authors UNDUE concern that this information should FINALLY oughta convince the DIEHARD DEBUNKERS;
a. Secret Gov Mission personnel could care less
b. UFO -logists know it is a lost cause to try to win the non believers

I dont invalidate that some of this book may be true-BUT....
it dont all smell kosher

Fatal Attraction (Special Collector's Edition)
$9.98
"Fatal Attraction" tells the story of a Manhattan attorney (Michael Douglas) who foolishly decides to have a weekend affair with a sharp blond (Glenn Close) while his wife (Anne Archer) & kid are away visiting the grandparents. The situation turns increasingly harrowing and horrifying when the woman refuses to end the union.

The film was hugely popular when it was released in 1987, but I didn't see it until a decade later. I saw it again this week and I had forgotten how good it is.

It's easy to compare to Clint Eastwood's "Play Misty for Me" (1971) since both films deal with a sexual affair gone bad and the clingy psycho woman, but other than the obvious similarities the stories, characters and locales are totally different. In other words, just because you've seen one doesn't mean you shouldn't see the other. Both are very good, even great, and worth your time if you're in the mood for such a flick. That said, however, if I were to compare the two unbiasedly I'd have to give the edge to "Fatal," even though "Misty" has better locations (beautiful Carmel, California).

Many question why Douglas would even consider cheating on a wife as beautiful as Archer, but the film clearly shows that Douglas was starting to get sexually frustrated (there's a scene where Douglas is looking foward to sex but his daughter ends up sleeping on the bed with his wife while he gets stuck on the couch). It's also clear that Douglas didn't plan to commit adultery; the opportunity presented itself while his wife was away and it simply didn't take much for him to fall into the temptation. I'm not defending his unfaithfulness, in fact I'm totally opposed to it, but at least his actions weren't premeditated.

Others complain that Glenn Close isn't attractive in the film, but she looks pretty dang sharp to me. As the story progresses and we see how truly disturbed she is it's only natural to view her as ugly; in fact, she becomes absolutely hideous! Regardless, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The drama and acting are outstanding here. As Close becomes increasingly irritating and clingy you can see Douglas's progressive horror on his face, as if he's saying, "What did I get myself into? I'm so stupid! How can I get rid of her? -- AaaaaAAAAHH!"

Some complain about Douglas breaking into Close's apartment and attacking her, but in light of her actions this is a very realistic and understandable reaction.

Then there's the debate about who's the real villain -- Close or Douglas -- and that Close deserves at least a little compassion, especially on the grounds that Douglas' character views their sexual union as a mere physical encounter and Close as a throwaway object in which he can satisfy his lust and pride (of course, you could argue the same vice versa). On the contrary, Close is a real person who apparently sees their union as something deeper. Something not just physical, but emotional and spiritual as well. Is it any wonder that she starts to increasingly lose it after Douglas breaks off the fling? Not that I'm justifying her actions. I'm just pointing out how "Fatal Attraction" potently illustrates the possible consequences of treating people like throwaway sex objects. In the vast majority of cases, of course, the consequences aren't nearly as extreme, but there are always repercussions, even if it's just a broken or hardened heart. Try as we might, separating the physical from the spiritual is a lost cause. Nevertheless, the story makes it clear that Douglas "made the bed he's sleeping in"; he certainly deserves to experience the consequences of his foolish actions, if for no other reason than to learn from his mistakes, but by the end of the film anyone who believes he (and his family) hasn't suffered enough is a sadist! As for compassion on Close's character: Yes, up to a point she deserves an ounce or two of human compassion (we all screw up and make wrong choices from time to time, don't we?), but only up to a point. After all, she walked into this fling fully knowing he was a married family man, not to mention she adamantly claimed to be discreet and insisted the same in him. Besides, it takes two to tango. Regardless, there is zero justification for her actions as the story progresses; she clearly earns the label of villain and Douglas the foolhardy victim.

I do have a few cavils with the film: The phone plays too big of a role and gets bothersome after awhile. Plus, Douglas and his wife act too naively late in the story. The psycho woman is missing and has already broken into their house and kidnapped their kid from school. Shouldn't they be extremely on guard? Also, the 'kid' is actually a girl named Ellen, but throughout the film she looks like a boy named Allen. Go figure.

Be sure to check out the original ending on the dvd. The original ending [SPOILER ALERT!] has Close committing suicide and getting back at Douglas as his fingerprints are on the knife and he gets arrested. But Douglas' wife finds a cassette with Close admitting that she was going to kill herself so he gets off the hook. [END SPOILER]. All the principle filmmakers, including Douglas, felt the original ending was ineffective and test audiences verified this; only Close and Archer defended it. Hence, eight months after completion they shot a different ending. Did they make the right choice? That's for you to decide, but I agree with the filmmakers that the deleted climax is rather flat whereas the newer ending is simply more entertaining. Less believable, perhaps, but more exciting and entertaining (but certainly not outside the realm of possibility, except for one horror cliche).

Filmed on location in Manhattan and the New York countryside; the film runs 2 hours.

Disclosure
$2.99
The concept behind this movie is intriguing - a sexual harassment suit in which the guy is the victim. Michael Douglas is great. However, Demi Moore can't act at all. Much of the script sounds like a bad political speech rather than actual dialogue. The music would work for an international spy thriller, but sounds out of place here. I'd like to see this concept, with Michael Douglas, but redone a bit better.