Amazon.com

The James Bond Collection, Vol. 1 collects the same feature-packed DVDs that appeared in previous Bond boxes, but in a new combination of titles, one with a decidedly golden gleam. In 1962 Sean Connery defined the cinematic James Bond as a tough, charming, and thoroughly professional cold war spy with a license to kill in the lean, hard-edged Dr. No. With Ursula Andress (as the original Bond girl Honeychile Ryder, who makes her entrance in a bikini), Bond battles a renegade supervillain with little more than his wits, his cunning, and his Walther PPK. In Goldfinger (1964) Connery's steely presence helped forge the formula of tongue-in-cheek wit, wondrous secret agent toys created by Q, and megalomaniac supervillains bent on world destruction.

Roger Moore brought a light tone and a suave assurance to the series, and in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974), he battles million-dollar assassin Christopher Lee, one of Bond's most magnetic adversaries. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), perhaps Moore's finest hour, is a return to the extravagant set pieces and cold war thrills of Connery's pictures and introduces Richard Kiel's steel-dentured Jaws to the series. Timothy Dalton made his second and final appearance as Bond in Licence to Kill (1989), the toughest of the Bond films since Connery's early efforts. Though not a fan favorite, it's a sleek, solid adventure with an edge missing from the Moore pictures.

Pierce Brosnan is the latest to take on the 007 mantle, combining the best of Connery's cool and Moore's humor. GoldenEye (1995) is a grand globetrotting adventure with lovely Bond girls and a tough new M (Judy Dench). Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) doesn't recapture that magic mix of action, gadgetry, and romance, but does feature the first Bond girl to match 007 blow for blow: Hong Kong action superstar Michelle Yeoh. The DVD editions of the films each feature audio commentary tracks by the director and key members of the crew, making-of documentaries, and a host of stills, TV spots, and trailers. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (65)

Volume 1 of a classic line of Spy films
"The name is Bond, James Bond." With these words a franchise was born. In 1962 Ian Flemming launched a franchise that would forever change the action film genre. Starting with Dr. NO, one really couldn't tell that it was really a Bond film until that famous line was uttered. Now then, the Bond series has gone through no less than 5 different actors: Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, finally Pierce Brosnan. Each having their own style. In my opinion, Pierce Brosnan is about as close to the original Sean Connery Bond as you can get. He's got the same pizazz and pinache as Connery did.

This first set of a re-issue contains seven of the soon to be twenty installment franchise. The first is the 1962 release "Dr. NO". This was Connery's first, and Bond's first official appearance.

Then comes '64's "Goldfinger", the 3rd Bond film. This film had one of the cleverest lines in a Bond film that I can recall. Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?" Goldfinger: "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

Then comes '74's "The Man with the Golden Gun". The 9th Bond film and Roger Moore's 2nd appearance as Bond. This film stars Christopher Lee as the villian who we now know as Count Dooku from Star Wars Episode II.

Then we have '77's "The Spy Who Loved Me". The 10th Bond film and Moore's 3rd appearance. This film stared Curt Jurgens as the villian and introduced the character Jaws played by Richard Kiel.

Then let's skip way forward and stop at '89's "License to Kill". This is the 16th Bond film which was Timothy Dalton's 2nd appearance as Bond. This film also stars Robert Davi as latino drug cartel leader.

Next comes '95's "GoldenEye". The 17th Bond film and also Pierce Brosnan, the modern Bond's first film. This film spawned one of the most popular N64 video games ever. Stared Sean Bean as 006 who turns traitor.

And finally '97's "Tomorrow Never Dies". The 18th Bond film and Brosnan's 2nd film. Stars Teri Hatcher, TV's Lois Lane from The New Superman Adventures.

And so completes the first Volume of DVD reissues. Hopefully Volume 2 will come out sometime early next year.

A Very Good Addition to any DVD Collection
I originally bought this box set and the others when they were done to conicide with the release of Tomorrow Never Dies. Sadly that was not included in the box set so I had to buy it separately. While Tomorrow Never Dies is not the best, the others do not disappoint. You get some of the best Bond films Connery did. Dr No, Goldfinger. Licence to Kill with the dashing Timothy Dalton does not disappoint. Also included is Goldeneye, the first Bond with Pierce Brosnan. While it sometimes seems far fetched, the highlight of this film is really is Sean Bean who plays Alec Trevelyan. He is 006 turned bad. To watch Bean play this deliciously evil baddie is interesting and fun as he anticipates Bond's every move.He is perhaps one of the best Bond baddies in a long time because he is an intellegent bad guy who knows Bond better than anyone. The others included Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me, like many of the Bond films may seem far fetched but are great fun to watch.

Not closed captioned in English
I bought this box set as a birthday present for a friend who is hard of hearing, thinking that he could use the closed caption option.

I was shocked to find that all the DVD's in all of the James Bond boxed sets are NOT closed captioned in English!
They are only closed captioned in French and Spanish.

How can they sell these these DVDs in the USA, label them as "closed captioned" and not state on the box that they are NOT closed captioned in English?

An Endearing Man of Action and Honor
Only one person can stop the maniacal villains trying to monopolize the world: Bond, James Bond. The groundbreaking DR. NO is one of the best James Bond films of the series. Sean Connery's performance is that of the no-nonsense dedicated civil servant entrusted with a "licence-to-kill" when he chooses, where he chooses and whom he chooses. His screen presence alone conveys the physical, intellectual and moral conviction of the character. Many elements that distinguish the James Bond series were introduced in this film. The opening gun barrel trademark, "The James Bond Theme," M played by Bernard Lee, Miss Moneypenny played by Lois Maxwell, Ken Adam's distinctive melding of modern and futuristic production designs, Maurice Binder's unique main titles, the "Martinis shaken not stirred," exotic locales, just to name a few are all here. Bond is sent to Jamaica, land of the Undertakers Wind, to investigate the elimination of British field agents and strange signals that have been interfering with the American space program. Joseph Wiseman as DR. NO is one of the best villains of the series. His steel mono-toned performance is eerily unsettling. Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder leaves the most indelible image of the series as she emerges erotically from the blue waters of the Caribbean clad in her white bikini. Along with Felix Leiter and Quarrel, Bond must uncover the trail that all leads to DR. NO's mysterious Crab Key. GOLDFINGER contains a well-balanced level of depth and action leaving one emotionally charged. This is Sean Connery's finest James Bond film. The golden girl, Oddjob's bowler hat, Goldfinger's lethal laser, the Astin Martin DB5 with modifications introduced by Q, and Shirley Bassey's legendary rendition of the theme song belted out over the titles immediately became an integral part of the James Bond lore and remained in the psyche of the public. Production designer Ken Adam and art director Peter Murton gave the production a stunning and lavish distinction. The Fort Knox set and Goldfinger's playroom at his stud ranch was a testament to imagination and achievement. John Barry finally honed his distinctive style to perfection with this memorable score. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN contains one of Roger Moore's best performances as James Bond as he injects Bond's virility, worldliness and sardonic wit back into the character. Christopher Lee's performance as the enigmatic Scaramanga is refreshingly energetic giving the assassin an amiable quality on the surface hiding a darker side beneath. Bond sets out to find the person responsible for sending him a golden bullet with his 007 number on it. Maud Adams' is Andrea, Scaramanga's beautiful mistress. She brings genuine compassion to the role as the tormented individual who can not escape her master. There is also great location cinematography in this film that inspired John Barry to compose a lush exotic score. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is a big-budgeted opulent film with effective screenplay and editing delivering one of the most succinctly structured films of the series. Roger Moore clearly re-established his approach to the role as the good-natured British agent. His Bond is suave, debonair, never condescending and resorts to seriousness only when confronted with malevolence. The globetrotting THE SPY WHO LOVED ME featured a gadget laden Lotus Esprit as its centerpiece and a demented villain Stromberg whose immense wealth featured an aquatic empire aimed at global domination. Great action sequences and chases abound. LICENCE TO KILL has Timothy Dalton as an avenging James Bond turned rouge agent out to eliminate drug lord Sanchez in Isthmus City. There are many great action scenes on the land, on and under the sea and in the air. The best element of the story line is having Bond place doubt in the mind of Sanchez that henchmen in his organization were plotting against him. The film's greatest asset is Benicio Del Toro's performance as Dario, a Sanchez henchman. GOLDENEYE is Pierce Brosnan's first film as James Bond and seems more like a hybrid of Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton, combing the best elements that each brought to the role. He possesses intelligence, wit, charm and dedication and delivers these with no-nonsense passion and drive. GOLDENEYE is a great looking film beautifully filmed for mood and action. Some of the film's high points are the miniatures by Derek Meddings; probably his best work in the series, the return of the Astin Martin DB5 and Eric Serra's original if controversial score. Serra's interpretation of "The James Bond Theme" over the opening gun barrel trademark is powerful and very innovative. One can not appreciate Serra's contribution to this film unless the DVD is played through a surround stereo system with a good amount of bass and volume pumped up. In TOMORROW NEVER DIES Pierce Brosnan delivers a more definitive interpretation of James Bond above and beyond his excellent portrayal in GOLDENEYE two years earlier. In this film Brosnan has honed in on his maturity and a physical presence that consummates his overall performance of Bond when combined with his intelligence, wit and charm that he delivers flawlessly with assured confidence. This film brings a realistic and gritty look to the series that LICENCE TO KILL attempted to achieve. This is one of the best films of the series combing an integral plot with rich characters, action and suspense. Director Donald Spottiswoode never diverted the focus of the film away from the main plot, yet he gave a sense of real depth to the characters. He has a good understanding of how to deliver action with emotional impact. He did a brilliant job and has been highly underrated for his efforts. Also, the producers finally discovered a composer that could combine the traditional and highly personalized sound of John Barry with today's trends in scoring for this genre in the talented David Arnold. Arnold much evidently has a good understanding of the series and the character of James Bond.

Not Good
I bought this collection from a company called Digitaleyes.net off this site as a birthday present to a friend. Problem is half of the disc's do not play (ie) "No Disc inserted" error message on my Sony DVD player.
I'm still waiting for a response back from the Digitaleyes.net about this. I would not recommend using Digitaleyes.net to order through. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

GREAT MOVIE!!
I'm not a Tom Cruise fan but this gets two thumbs up! Saw it twice in the theater, and am gonna buy it on DVD and watch it again!!

Micheal Mann will do it again
I know this movie will be awesome this is a Micheal Mann movie. Just look at the list of movies he's made Manhunter, Heat (one of my all time favorites), The Insider (another one of my all time favorites), and Ali. In all Micheal Mann's movies there are alway's awesome plot's, plot twists and performances. Ten years ago Tom Cruise was an awesome bad guy in Interview with the vampire, and again Tom Cruise will be awesome as a bad guy. I know Jamie Foxx who is always good, and Mark Ruffalo will put on good perfomances. So be ready for a night on the town. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Charismatic young stars Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus play two Irish brothers, Connor and Murphy, who believe themselves ordained by God to rid the world of evil men. Their first killing is in self-defense; but after that, they start killing with devotion, gunning down a summit of the Russian mafia. Willem Dafoe plays a gay FBI agent (he listens to opera while examining crime scenes) who knows what the boys are doing but feels that their vigilante tactics are necessary. There's not much plot to The Boondock Saints--it's mostly a series of violent scenes in which the boys are partially ingenious and partially lucky. The movie seems to want to provoke debate about vigilantism, but the scenario is too implausible to stir any real controversy. The peculiar mix of earnestness and machismo will not appeal to everyone, but it's certainly unique and may acquire a cult following. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (336)

The Quintessential Cult Action Movie
The Boondock Saints is one of the quintessential cult classic movies of this decade. When Russian mob bosses try to take the neighborhood bar, Irish Catholic Vigilants Conner and Murphy, Sean Flannery and Norman Reedus, fight back for the little guy and thwart the diabolical plot along with life long mate Rocco, David Della Rocco. But what do they do now? The answer is simple: make retribution a career. But when the FBI sends their best investigator, William DaFoe, to join the hunt along with two other mob families, our angels of retribution are in for the fight of their lives but without of course taking it too seriously. Lock and load for this light hearted, thought provoking, high action feature.

I really liked this movie because of the good story and the amusing characters/ dialogue not to mention the unbelievable action sequences. It truly does use all of the stereotypes of the traditional action movie to its advantage by making fun of them yet at the same time performing them. The two-narrator style works very well as well and I think that the whole thing is a blast because of it. The characters rule! The action is awesome! And I spent 25 bucks for the DVD willingly. Years later and I do not regret my purchase in the least. I would definitely say that this is a must own movie.

Independent Ideas
The film "Boondock Saints" far surpasses most Hollywood productions from the outset simply by incorporating a plot different from the mainstream. Although the film contains the usual amount of violence and killing for an action movie, this film has the merit that the motive for the murders is very clear, and quite possibly justifiable. The social and moral questions raised throughout the film cannot help but elicit at least some critical thought. But don't worry about being forced to think too hard; the film is routinely punctuated by witty dialogue and amusing circumstances. The main characters, two selfless Irish brothers and a stray Italian, have delightfully good hearts and are endearing from the start. Willem DeFoe puts forth one of his best performances ever, adding creativity to his rough and tough character by portraying an extremely self-assured gay FBI agent who doesn't quite admit his sexual orientation to himself. His character is an excellent addition to the underlying religious theme of the movie as it pronounces the question of what purpose religion should serve, other than to provide moral direction. The film is a must see for anyone who wants to determine what is truly morally correct, as well as anyone who just likes to watch a couple of nice Irish lads following their calling.

Don't be dazzled by all the stars - no good.
I'm shocked that people have consistently given this movie 5 stars! It Does nothing for my faith in human discrepency. This film was reccomended to me by the bottle nose in the video store. It's my fault because I should have immediately taken that as a sign that this would be just as annoying as he is, and it was! However, I'm not that hard to please, but this movie failed on all accounts - avoid this trash like diptheria. It attempts to be sharp action flic laced with witty lines, simultaneously action and comedy, but fails to be either and falls miserably between the two gernres into a rip-off/gay abyss of boring viewing. Dufoe's performance is cringe-worthy, and the rest of the acting is no better than B-grade. The renegade vigilante premise of the film has been done before, and to much better effect. If I had seen Billy Connoly's name on the box I would have dropped it like a hot-cake, am I the only one who finds this 'quirky' fool comedically inept? Luckily his role is a essentially a cameo, don't worry, the rest of the script more than makes up for his brand of NOT-FUNNY humour. I wonder why in God's name people reccomend films like this, but then I see all these 5 stars and I realise just how rotten and depraved the taste of the common man is. The film doesn't even stick to it's terrible plot and crumbles half way through like a stale cookie - it uses some extra violence as a crutch for it's weak style - And he only laugh I got was a series of hearty guffaws at the folly of my rental - give me back my 4$!

BEST MOVIE EVER
This is the greatest movie ever. The plot is good but the thing that makes this movie great is the dialoge. Every single line is a classic. The actors all do a great job and Willem Dafoe is on the top of his game. If you are into Guy Ritche or Quentin Terantino than this Troy Duffy masterpiece is for you.

An undeserving cult classic
There's something about this movie that makes me physically ill. It's not the violence. I can handle as much violence as you can throw at me. Instead, it's the puppydog adoration that people follow this movie around with. It just isn't very good. It isn't horrible, but there are much MUCH better Tarantino knockoffs out there. Way of the Gun has better writing, a better soundtrack, and better fight scenes. Things to do in Denver When You're Dead is a much moodier film with a better atmosphere and far superior performances. I mean, you can always go and watch GOOD movies, but if you want an action movie, these are the ones to watch. This film basically has Willem Dafoe playing the same character he's played in every movie, no storyline, and depressingly cheasy plot developments. And there's a sequel coming out. I hate everyone who loves this movie. Screw you all. Hell, even Killing Zoe's better than this. ... Read more

Reviews (453)

Toy Story 2 Is Better Then the Original!
I had expected a dull child's cartoon with a meaningless plot and dull characters...wow was I ever wrong! Toy Story 2 is funny, exciting, dramatic, and very entertaining! This time around, Woody is stolen by a greedy toy collector...why? Because it turns out that Woody is a valuable doll from the 1950's when he had his own popular TV show! As Buzz and the rest of the toys frantically try to find a way to rescue Woody, our cow-boy hero meets other toys just like him---Jesse the cow-girl, the Prospector, and Woody's hillarious horse. And all this time Woody starts to wonder if maybe he's found his rightful home...or has he? The animation is tops, the plot is engrossing, and the movie is excellent! If you think an animated feauture is just a bunch of interesting graphics then you're wrong! This is a heart-warming and wonderful family film.

Toys
Toy Story (1995, 80 minutes, Dolby Digital Surround; Audio Commentary, Interviews) As 6-year-old Andy's favorite toy, Woody (Tom Hanks), a take-charge, pull-string cowboy, is confident in his role as room leader. But after Andy's birthday party, newcomer Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), a flashy space ranger with laser action and pop-out wings, crash-lands into Woody's world.

Buzz instantly wins the admiration of Andy's other toys, igniting a rivalry that lands the duo inside the home of Sid - the toy-torturing boy next door. To escape Sid's evil plans, Woody and Buzz must work together and realize they've got the perfect friend...in each other!

Toy Story 2 (1999, 94 minutes, Dolby Digital 5.l Surround EX; Audio Commentary, Sep. Film Score Audio Track, Outakes) Andy goes to summer camp and the toys face a new crisis: Woody turns out to be a valuable collectible, and is kidnapped by an evil toy collector. It's now up to Buzz and the gang to find a way to save him.

Five stars for the movies, one star for Disney
Why must they stick to this archaic way of releasing their movies on video/DVD? I could understand discontinuing collector's or limited editions, but why discontinue entire movies? Well we all know the answer, I just hate to be jerked around like this. Disney is the largest movie company in the world but our enjoyment of their films is based around their idiotic release/discontinue schedule.
Well, with that unpleasantness out of the way, I must say Toy Story 2 is my favorite animated movie of all time and the Toy Story series is my favorite animated series (if you think about it, though, that's not saying a lot). Let's just do this in the order they came out.
Toy Story blew my mind, because the things they did in that movie (the first in particular) were so like me when I was a kid (at that age). Toy Story is sure enough my second favorite animated movie ever. It's funny, and colorful, and touching. I think all good kid's movies should have a sense of wonder, or delight, and it shouldn't be in either a cynical or naive way. They should show wonder in a way that can be found in the real world, which is a balance hard to find. The original Toy Story has all kinds of wonder and awe, both in positive and negative ways (some kids could be afraid of Sid but I bet they won't be able to stop looking at him). It's about finding your place in life, and what to do with what you've got. When Buzz happens upon a commercial for himself and then tries to fly through the window-well that is one of the most touching scenes in any movie I've seen. And the whole ending sequence is beautiful, from Buzz and Woody on the RC car going through traffic, or them being blasted from a rocket through the air. Not to mention it's filled with all kinds of toy-related jokes that any kid can relate to. I think it's safe to say it'll be looked back on like the very first full-length animated movie (it was Snow White, wasn't it?).
Toy Story 2 is nearly flawless. It has one of the craziest openings for a movie ever, and I love the way it can find a way to have characters with all kinds of motives. Al is driven by his greed, the Prospector is jaded but just wants to be loved, Jessie hasn't given up hope yet so is overjoyed when she can find a way to confirm her hopefulness. The movie uses the toys as a metaphor for growing up and moving on: or not. You can aspire for your dreams or you can realize you're happy with what you've got. Toy Story 2 is/was the last movie Disney made with Pixar before they got too smug and self-indulgent. They realized they had the power to stir emotions and awe (they also realized they could make a ton of money), but instead of giving us a sweet movie like Toy Story, we got the self-congragulatory Monsters Inc, with its obvious conflicted main character, and instead of a great secondary character like the Prospector, we got Boo. Finding Nemo was a step in the right direction, but in my opinion doesn't have the heart of the Toy Story movies.
I can actually think of one thing wrong with Toy Story 2, and that's that lame Sarah Mclachlan song. I'm not one of those people with a weird Randy Newman fascination, but his songs were so much better than that one Mclachlan song. I guess it's because the scene in which it's used is already so emotional, instead of Newman's weird but effective delivery we got Mclachlan hammering the point home with her yodeling. But I love that scene because it shows how the little girl grew up. Other than that, Toy Story 2 is great: funny and vibrant, even on my crusty old VHS tape.
I wish I had these movies on DVD. They spark wonder in me at my age just like they did when I first saw them. They have plenty of in-jokes and such but also have a timeless quality (and a strong sense of innocence). Five stars for the both of them, the best animated series of all time.

It's Different.
It's different from your average animated film. So was Toy Story part 1 but this one is better. The movie plotting is a lot better in this part. I give it five stars(I'd give it six if it was in my hands!)

The secret lives of toys
Woody (Tom Hanks), who turns out to be a rare collectible, is stolen by an unscrupulous toy store owner and slated to be sold to a toy museum in Japan. Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and friends embark on a dangerous cross-town rescue mission. This is a very entertaining and perceptive film that remembers the guilt that a child can feel over outgrowing a favorite toy. Sammy the bear was my own constant companion when I was a young child. As I grew older, I sometimes felt a pang of shame when I would encounter him lying unloved and unplayed-with in the bottom of my old toy chest. I hope he's as philosophical and understanding about it as Woody is. As cheerful as this film is, it takes on an added dimension by honoring that first melancholy that a child feels upon outgrowing a formerly cherished plaything. The animation and voice talent are also top-notch. ... Read more

Reviews (332)

Open Mind Folks!
We have been watching this movie in our eighth grade English class, as well as reading the play Romeo and Juliet, as well as meeting with our Shakespearean expert who just happens to work at our school to act out scenes. Not only that, but we have also been studying the Shakespeare's time period. That being said, let me also say that Shakespeare was not this serious man who didn't understand comedy. In fact it was quite the opposite. True, Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy but is a comedy as well. That's how most of his works are. An example of this is how he would cast men as women. Just the sight of this would bring laughs from the audience. With all that understood, the movie Romeo and Juliet is a great adaptation.
We have only watched the first 30 minutes, and I might add more to this review once we finish it, or when I get the DVD, whichever comes first! But I loved the newscaster as the chorus. What a creative touch. As for the swords or guns controversy, this is set in modern times. Who uses swords in our day? But to keep the Old English was smart. After all, what is Romeo and Juliet without Old English? It would not be the same. I mean, the famous Queen Mab's speech in anything but Old English? Hard to imagine. And te contrast between Old English and modern times was a very interesting one. And even if it was written in today's language, it would be too much like West Side Story. They wanted to stick to the roots of Romeo and Juliet. Also for all those people who criticized Mercutio for being a drag queen, he is not a drag queen or a transvestite. Well what can I say? This is the modern version. The performance given by Leonardo DiCaprio is great, he speaks Old English like he's spoken it his entire life. However Juliet, I don't quite agree with. I don't think she brought her best to this film. The acting isn't the best and she looks quite bland compared to Romeo, who is quite handsome, and I don't really understand the whole Cuban thing with Juliet's family.
All in all, a great film, one that must be seen with an open mind, otherwise don't even bother to watch it at all. It was filmed to show today's fourteen year old's that yes, Shakespeare lived in the 1600's and true, Romeo and Juliet takes place in the 1400's but it has a universal message of love, one that can still be understood today, even if it is 2004.

My Favorite Flic
Hi, to whoever's reading this, thanks for taking the time to see what I have to say. I won't say that this was one of the most brilliant movies ever, even though I think so, cause that's my opinion. If you have not seen it yet, you should watch it. Shakespeare is my favorite writer and also one of the most awesome, influential people in the entire history of man. He's able to capture you in two hours and not let you go. Romeo and Juliet is a passionate, beautifully written love story that takes in the kind of love everyone dreams about. I must admit that I rented the movie at first for two reasons: because I was a huge fan of Shakespeare and had read the story hundreds of times already, and also because of well...Leonardo DiCaprio. (He is pretty hot, you have to admit). Anyways, to all those who hated this movie, open your mind! The performances were not perfect I know, but who is perfect anyway? They all put forth their best effort. In the end, it became a popular, amazing movie that's great for couples to watch together!

It Almost Worked for me, but...
Read kerki and Eric's review. I won't be redundant and say the same things, because I agree wholeheartedly. Visually, this was quite stunning..beautiful. The outlandish, as they say "MTV" look was good, kinky, modern. If they would have dropped the accents and brought Shakespeare's words into today's vernacular, I probably would have given it 5 stars. The new story idea was that good. The cast was delicious, as were the sets. It's really too bad. With just the one change to modern English, this could have become a cult classic. As stands now, I'll just keep watching Zeferrelli's version forever. Now, that's Shakespeare.

I don't think Shakespeare's rolling in his grave, but...
Maybe my viewing experience of this film was tainted when, while seeing it in the theatre, one of the 13 year old girls sitting in the row in front of me turned to the other and said, "is Leo going to talk link this THE WHOLE TIME?".

For a Shakespeare purist (as I am myself), the problem is not the modernization of the setting and the use of the language in that setting (I personally love it), but it's the absolutle murder of the language by the majority of the cast that makes my skin crawl. This movie, in terms of the execution of the script, does a disservice in getting kids hooked on the poetry of Shakespeare's writing.

However, I will admit that visually it's great. The setting is apt. Mercutio is amazing. But, teachers, I would think twice about showing this version to your class.

The Best movie ever
This movie is awesome Leonardo DiCaprio is the best Romeo yet ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Love & Tumult in 1968 Paris
Once past the excessive, graphic nudity, or perhaps because of it, Bertolucci fashions a jarring glimpse of three fascinating young people against the backdrop of the 1968 French General Strike, which nearly toppled the government. For the three principals, hedonism, narcissism, and intoxication seem to dominate against what appear as lightly held political beliefs - socialism, love, compassion, tolerance. For example, siblings Theo and Isabelle sleep together naked, their sculpted bodies entwined. The All-American Matthew (well played by Michael Pitt) comes upon them sleeping nude (and slowly grows to love them), gathering some deeper yet perplexing knowledge. This learning process for Matthew weaves its way throughout the film: a likable youth from San Diego doing his best to slip into the idiosyncratic lives of these very French '60s eccentrics and their almost invisible, '60s uptight parents.

Bertolucci abruptly intercuts continuously with memorable past film scenes: for example, Garbo's soulful eyes laughing at Gilbert's insipid love from "Queen Christina." There are many of these lovely, thoughtful old film scenes that weld the humanity of these three characters to that of past lovers and haters. I found myself virtually loathing the insouciance of Theo and Isabelle, their adolescent adoration of things kitsch, such as Delacroix's 'Liberty Leading the People" with Liberty's face that of Marilyn Monroe. All this while exchanging drunk, violent words over politics, cinema and ragout when true fighters faced the formidable barricades in the streets of Paris.

But this is a film, I think, that one must settle into. Much of the first half appears about nothing much, perhaps a light titillating comedy. Slowly, we understand it is not that at all. The nudity, arguments, sex, politics, brilliant film cuts, and memorable period scoring give satisfaction to those of us 'lucky' enough to have lived through that tumultuous time. Perhaps younger, less authoritarian generations will view it with more intuition than we boomers. One of the director's realized intentions was to impart with his typical lyricism an inner realization of why love, even silly vacuous sex, is so much preferable to war (the General Strike and Vietnam, here). The ending is doubly startling. But by then, the parts have become the whole, the trivial vital. The significant beauty of this film lies in the director's wise, consummate vision. Well worth seeing. (For an amazingly contrasting view of the same period, see "Fog of War").

An Incisive Criticism of the '60s and Hypocrisy
The Dreamers is a new, primarily English-language film from the Italian king of cinematic controversy, Bernardo Bertolucci. If you've seen his past works, including 1900 and Last Tango in Paris, they provide a fairly clear idea of what to expect in this NC-17 foray into 1960's youth culture in France. The film is an extended analysis, really, of radicalism and some of the hypocrisies seemingly inherent in it. It forces us to confront the question of what truly is revolutionary, or conservative for that matter. The film answers that question in a way many of us will find unexpected.

Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American student spending time abroad in France. He takes in the student protests with wide eyes, gazing in awe at the pure passion igniting these young people. Though the period is the '60s, Matthew still reflects the tucked-in conservatism of a decade past, wearing a jacket and tie almost as a shield from the craziness surrounding him. He soon meets two French siblings, Isabelle and Theo (Eva Green and Louis Garrel), both of whom are full of the revolutionary spirit. They are new and therefore attractive to Matthew, who shares a mutual love of movies with both. Not long after, he moves into the home of his two new friends, whose parents have gone away on an extended trip.

Now is the time audience members may begin to squirm. In between quoting movies to one another and acting out favorite scenes, Matthew begins to notice an unnaturally clingy relationship exists between Isa and Theo--they sleep and bathe together, and play sexually-laced games that often leave one in some state of undress. But this quasi-incest has a strange effect on Matthew, as slowly, the jacket and tie disappear, he begins to walk around barely dressed, and he starts to take part in the sex games, at first begrudgingly and then yearningly.

But as intoxicated as Matthew becomes with the lifestyle, he also is disturbed when Isa confides in him that she's never been on a date before. Harboring some genuine feelings for the young beauty, Matthew tries to lead her away from a life entirely dependent upon Theo and toward one of independence. In this way, the film draws a very interesting parallel. It really is conservatism--a resistance to change--that is keeping so-called radicals Isa and Theo in their exclusive relationship. The young innocent, Matthew, has become the revolutionary in trying to shatter what has become the comfortable tradition.

The film boasts three good, but not great performances. With stronger leading work, a good film could possibly have reached the next level. Gilbert Adair's screenplay, based on his own novel, is wonderfully subtle in weaving its critique of the radical movement, but is in fact so subtle that in some ways the film feels "small." Nevertheless, the film raises probing questions, particularly in the last scene, as a throng of protesters march down a street, all chanting in unison, not a single one distinguishable from the next. It begs the old question, "If a group of anarchists organize an anarchists' meeting, are they really anarchists anymore?"

Finally, credit must be heaped upon Fox Searchlight for not yielding to any suggestion that Bertolucci's vision be compromised by editing the film to achieve an R rating. Even without such censorship, it is disturbing enough that film footage of bare genitals and some sex is considered more damaging by the MPAA than, for example, the wholesale slaughter of recent horror offerings. In any case, when going to see The Dreamers, leave any prudish tendencies (or family members) at home.

Final Grade: B

Bold, brave and inquisitive
Bertolucci displays with this unnecessarily controversial movie more bravery than many other directors half his age. Anyone who is young should see it to observe the contradictions that youth's idealism brings upon the three protagonists. Anyone who is older should watch it to remember the bravery of times gone by, to remember a time when many of us still believed protests could change the world and to acknowledge the validity of both youth's panache and experience's fountain of knowledge.

Not all said up front
There are alot of things that are underneath the serface of this film. You might have to watch the film more than once to get it all. Things that have to obtained from the time and the charecters themselves.(I will not ruin them for you finding them is half the fun) The film is not one that you watch when you are bored with your buddys it is a film that takes all your attention to actually get it.The film ends with no changes in the people only an experience that changed their lives but could not change who they were nomatter how much they tried. I hate movies that charecters change because of an experience this movie seems real in that aspect because the people dont change. It is a little overthe top in certain aspects but it makes you think and is an enjoyable experience.

dreamy
Beautiful, disturbing, erotic, political, comic, thrilling, and thoroughly immersing. One of the most satisfying cinematic experiences I've had in a long time. Not to be missed! Much thanks to Bertolucci, who continues to make exquisite and exciting films! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The original cowriter and director of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was Alex Cox, whose earlier film Sid and Nancy suggests that Cox could have been a perfect match in filmingHunter S. Thompson's psychotropic masterpiece of "gonzo" journalism. Unfortunately Cox departed due to the usual "creative differences," and this ill-fated adaptation was thrust upon Terry Gilliam, whose formidable gifts as a visionary filmmaker were squandered on the seemingly unfilmable elements of Thompson's ether-fogged narrative. The result is a one-joke movie without the joke--an endless series of repetitive scenes involving rampant substance abuse and the hallucinogenic fallout of a road trip that's run crazily out of control. Johnny Depp plays Thompson's alter ego, "gonzo" journalist Raoul Duke, and Benicio Del Toro is his sidekick and so-called lawyer Dr. Gonzo. During the course of a trip to Las Vegas to cover a motorcycle race, they ingest a veritable chemistry set of drugs, and Gilliam does his best to show us the hallucinatory state of their zonked-out minds. This allows for some dazzling imagery and the rampant humor of stumbling buffoons, and the mumbling performances of Depp and Del Toro wholeheartedly embrace the tripped-out, paranoid lunacy of Thompson's celebrated book. But over two hours of this insanity tends to grate on the nerves--like being the only sober guest at a party full of drunken idiots. So while Gilliam's film may achieve some modest cult status over the years, it's only because Fear and Loathing is best enjoyed by those who are just as stoned as the characters in the movie. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (424)

"We can't stay here, this is bat country!"!!!
This movie is a masterpiece, and also very very funny. It is a near perfect adaptation of Hunter S Thompson's novel. The book was based on the true story of a drug crazed self proclaimed doctor of journalism and his sidekick turned loose in Las Vegas to cover a dirt bike race called the mint 400. Thompson, known as Raul Duke (Depp) and his attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta known as Dr.Gonzo (Del Torro) run amok in their desperate search for the American dream. Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Torro are absolutely great in this movie. And the cameos are great: Flea, Lyle Lovett, Gary Busey, Christina Ricci, Tobey Maguire, Ellen Barkin, Cameron Diaz, Steven Schirripa, and even Dr. Thompson himself all make an appearance in the film. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a savage journey into the heart of the American dream. If you haven't seen it, you need too, and fast.....

Extreme entertainment
Prepare yourself for a wild journey into the world of bright lights, flashy people, and non-stop substance abuse. Hunter S. Thompson's book about covering a motorcycle race in Las Vegas through pure "gonzo journalism" has been excellently adapted for the big screen by former Monty Python member Terry Gilliam. The movie stays very true to the story, the product of one of the founding fathers of the drug culture of the 70's. This movie covers both extremes: you will love it or hate it, and it won't allow you to stay anywhere near the middle. People who are interested in the drug culture and beat culture, or even a cynical look at one of America's craziest cities, will probably find themselves enjoying the film immensely, laughing and gasping at the insane antics of a drug-abusing "doctor of journalism" and his attorney. People looking for a more down to Earth experience without the odd visual trip and inexplicable dialogue will only be confused and repulsed, wondering what kind of person enjoys this kind of thing. Johnny Depp's performance is absolutely first-rate, Benicio Del Toro sheds the mediocrity he produced in The Usual Suspects, and cameos by Gary Busey, Cristina Ricci, and Thompson himself add to the perfect blend of acting that make this film one of the best of its kind.

Absolutely Hilarious
This isn't your average movie. Based on the H.S Thompson novel, tt quite succesfully captures the literary insanity of Thompson's books (I'm actually 16, not twelve). Here's the scenario, two stoners running around Las Vegas. All the jokes are based around the wild, outrageous hallucinations of Raul Duke, and his "side kick" Dr. Gonzo. But damned if the many variations of the same basic joke aren't guiltily hilarious every single time. In one scene, Raul and Gonzo are in a bar, When Raul freaks out, thinking that all the bar patrons have been turned into monstrous lizards.
Weird- absolutely Funny- You bet.

It took two viewings to make it through
The first time I started to watch this movie I got a big headache. At my friend's urging I watched it again, and still got a headache. Maybe a little less of a headache, but that's besides the point. It wasn't a headache because the movie's plot made me think, it was a headache because the film was just damn strange.

Offbeat camera angles and dim colored lighting are used throughout the movie. The film quality seemed low and it was hard to understand Johnny Depp's narration at times. The film is very strange in all aspects, including its plot. Hunter S. Thompson (Depp) is supposed to be going to Las Vegas to cover a race in the desert for Sports Illustrated. His lawyer accompanies him on this journey for some reason. They don't really get much reporting done and spend most of the time taking illegal drugs. I kind of lost track of the plot and hardly remember how it ends. Was there even an ending? It seemed kind of like the movie just trailed off.

At one point in the movie they mention something about following the American Dream. Somehow I don't believe the American Dream has anything to do with a suitcase full of illegal drugs. Maybe it was just an attempt to find some rationale behind the entire film.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I found it hilarious at times. I laughed hysterically when at one point Thompson thinks he's standing in a bog and everyone is a lizard. When I was laughing I kept thinking, this is based on a true story, and now this guy is making money off of it? I felt kind of bad for supporting his drug-induced craziness. However, it's almost kind of an anti-drug movie in it's own strange way. Hunter S. Thompson looks like he's having the worst time of his life, and surely should have been arrested multiple times. I don't know, maybe this movie appeals more to stoners and druggies since they can relate to Thompson.

This film is definitely not for everyone. If you are easily offended, I wouldn't recommend it. If you're looking for a normal movie, you really should be someplace else. Look at the cover of the DVD. The whole movie is kind of like that.

---------------------------
http://www.filmstatic.com - We take reviewing movies seriously and with an attitude...but not a serious attitude.

Review of the DVD, not the film
First things first: FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, the film, is quite good. If you can stomach its content, it IS a rather fun drug odyssey with a fair amount of underlying social commentary. Some of it becomes muddled and the reviews were horrible (Ebert gave it 1/4) but I enjoy this more than Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL, to be honest (which, ironically, Ebert also gave a negative review).

THE DVD

An overall wonderful experience. First, the packaging: superb. Criterion is always good at packaging their DVDs and this is one of my favorites. On the inside is an essay by a film critic and two discs. The first has the film, newly remastered under the supervision of Gilliam, along with three commentary tracks: by Gilliam, Depp and Del Toro, and Hunter S. Thompson. Wisely, they had someone interview him most of the time since he's obviously a bit of an oddball and would be prone to sitting there and saying nothing.

The second disc has some extraordinary specials, including an old BBC documentary about Thompson (whose semi-truthful novel this is based upon), TV spots, the theatrical trailer (with optional commentary by Gilliam - which I've never seen before), poster and photo galleries, Hunter Goes to Hollywood (an amusing short documentary about Thompson visiting the set of the film), a selection of somewhat bizarre letters between Depp and Thompson that date back to the pre-and-post-production of the film (Depp reads all of them to the camera for us).

Overall, one of the best DVDs I own. The film isn't a classic, per se, but it IS enjoyable. I'm sure part of my appreciation for it comes from this superb DVD, which is one of the finest I own in terms of special features.

Criterion can sometimes disappoint with single-disc DVDs priced in the $40 range but this one is fairly reasonably priced (compared to some of the others) and packed with special features to whet any die-hard fan's appetite.

A must-buy for fans, and a must-see for others - I wouldn't necessarily recommend it as a blind buy for a number of reasons. It's very selective taste. You love it, or you hate it; it might be good to rent it first. But definitely rent this version, not Universal's. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) is a talented young psychic who's frittering his gifts away betting on the ponies. That is, until he's coerced by his old pal and mentor Dr. Paul Novotny (Max von Sydow) into taking part in a dream research project in which his psychic abilities make him indispensable. The project concerns "dreamlinking," whereby talented individuals like Alex hook up via electrodes and project themselves into some troubled subject's nightmares, in which they not only observe butparticipate in the dream, hopefully effecting some remedy. Alex is by nature a feckless guy, a charismatic scoundrel sporting a Cheshire cat's grin. But he warms easily to his new role as dream-dwelling psychotherapist, having a core of decency. Not so his nemesis, Tommy Ray Glatman (David Patrick Kelly), a dreamlink prodigy and pawn of Bob Blair (Christopher Plummer), who runs the research project for the government (he's described as the "head of covert intelligence"). Blair is worried about the President (Eddie Albert), whose nightmares of nuclear holocaust cause him to escalate disarmament talks with the Russians, much to Blair's dismay, being your basic evil, slick, smarmy covert kind of guy. Turns out Blair's real aim is to use the project to train dreamlink assassins, his star pupil being psycho Tommy Ray and his test case the President. Only Alex is there to stop them.

Dreamscape is all business, with a well-structured screenplay that lays the groundwork for the film's many admirable performances. Kate Capshaw in particular is very dreamy as a research scientist and Dennis Quaid's love interest. And David Patrick Kelly is likely to become your worst nightmare, especially when he's the Snakeman, giving an often fantastical performance. But what you're most likely to remember from this wonderful thriller is the many vivid dream sequences, aptly surreal images from the troubled psyche. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Eighties sci-fi/Thriller doesn't hold up...at all!
I saw this during the eighties when it originally came out and thought it was terrific and scary. However, this movie does not hold up at all. It's not just the technological advancements in special effects that makes this movie so dated, afterall movies like "The Thing" and "The Exorcist" came out before this. A scary movie is scary no matter when it came out. This movie is just silly. The president's fear of nuclear war is treated so brazenly that it doesn't hold up now that the Day After decade is over. The story is so brisk in the extreme nothing is giving time to develop. Only the ideas are presented and not explored. Quaid and Sydow are good but even they can't save this movie. The dialog is very stilted at parts. Christopher Plummer is just silly, not menacing. Tommy Ray isn't scary any more. The snake man looks so rubbery and stupid that I can't believe I was ever scared of it in the first place. They did a terrible job with it. The transformation effects are now laughable. They didn't have to be. Kate Capshaw is awful (she always was; maybe that's one of the reasons you don't see her in much anymore now that she is married to Spielberg). This is just not that strong a movie and time has not been kind to it. I thought it was great when I was 10 but it just isn't scary or fun. Awful music by Maurice Jarre. Not because it is an electronic eighties keyboard soundtrack like Jerry Goldsmith's Runaway. No this is just bad and it sounds bad on this DVD. No themes develop and even the chase music is boring. Very weak. Similar genre movies from the eighties that hold up and you might want to check out instead: Twilight Zone the Movie, Gremlins, Poltergeist, Brainstorm, Fright Night.

DVD-This dvd is also not very good either. The picture quality is very crisp most of the time. There is some wavering in some scenes. The special effects unfortuneately don't benefit from all that detail in picture quality. The worst part is the sound. It comes in DTS and Dolby Digital. It is hardly 5.1 like the box advertises. Occasionally you get some weak directional effects. But for I would say 80% of the movie everything is in the center speaker.

The best thing about this DVD is the menus. They were a pleasant surprise. The movie and this DVD were not.

What a fun movie!
This movie is kind of obscure to most but it's still an exceptional film. Dennis Quaid was pre-Inner Space, pre-Dragonheart and was sort of on the threshold of being one of the more fun and interesting actors of our time. This was also an overshadowed film by the mega horror spectacle "A Nightmare on Elm Street" but it's still great fun to enjoy. Very imaginative and different. The dream sequences were phenominal for the time when this film came out. Sort of an Indiana Jones meets Jacobs Ladder. With the exception of a weak ending and geeky special effects it's a great story and one that should be a addition to any collection. Enjoy!

I have a dream...for an unedited version...
Do you ever remember your dreams? I rarely do...unless they are of the really intense kind and I wake up during the dream, and even then the images tend to slip from my conscious like grains of sand through your hand. Why am I bothering telling you this? Well, I needed some kind of opener for my review of Dreamscape (1984), a film that deals with dreams and such, and this was the best I could come up with at the time, lame as it may be...directed by Joseph Ruben, who later did Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Money Train (1995), Dreamscape presents quite a cast with Dennis Quaid, Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer, Kate Capshaw, Eddie Albert, and even George Wendt (Norm!).

Dennis Quaid plays Alex Gardner, a young man of fantastic psychic abilities who has since dropped off the radar, preferring to use his 'gifts' to manipulate women and pick winners at the horse track, rather than continuing to subject himself to an endless series of tests meant to study and learn of his abilities, tests conducted by Doctor Paul Novotny (Von Sydow). Seemingly content to squander his skills, Alex's path once again leads him back to Dr. Novotny and his assistant, Jane DeVries (Capshaw) as they've developed a machine that would allow someone with Alex's talents to enter the dreams of others, and possibly help those plagued with reoccurring nightmares, specifically in the President (Albert) who is suffering from apocalyptic dreams that are beginning to affect his ability to do his job. Seemingly concerned with the President's well being, Bob Blair (Plummer), government head of Dr. Novotny's project and shadowy leader of an intelligence group even the CIA fears requests Dr. Novotny assist in relieving the President of these nightmares, but we soon learn he has other plans, plans of a sinister nature involving another, less stable psychic within the project by the name of Tommy Ray Glatman (David Patrick Kelly). Can Alex uncover the plot, help the President, and stay alive? Possibly, but the odds are certainly against him...

Given some of the films that came out in 1984 like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters, Amadeus, Footloose, Romancing the Stone, Starman, A Passage to India, and The Killing Fields, it's no surprise this 'sleeper' got lost in the shuffle. I've always enjoyed it, and thought it deserved a bit more credit than it's gotten. Dennis Quaid is really good and charming as hell as the smart alecky Alex Gardner, a character who seems to be able to handle himself, yet exhibits a smidgen of naiveté which possibly stems from a core belief of decency, despite his ventures into gray areas, specifically using his skills to determine winners of horse races, earning him money to live. Max Von Sydow is also very good, although I feel as if I've seen him in similar roles so many times before, as a doctor involved in ground-breaking research, not being able to see the forces which conspire to use his research for their own, sinister means until it's too late. As far as Kate Capshaw, I have to admit I've never cared for her all that much as I found her character in Temple of Doom to be highly annoying and distracting. She's not bad here, even though she does suffer from a common malady of the 80's here in big-hairitis syndrome. Plummer is good as the conniving powerful government agent with a secret agenda, although I've seen this whole 'evil government stealing research meant for the good of mankind for it's own corrupted means' theme about a thousand times before. Even so, he's perfectly suited for the part, oozing a smarmy, almost quiet charm that hides disturbing ulterior motives...I did like the aspect that his goals were driven mostly by his desire to protect what he thought needed protecting, even if he was misguided by his own sense of twisted patriotism.

The special effects, while seeming quite dated now, were actually very good for the time this film came out, especially the dream sequences of the President detailing post-apocalyptic visions of decimated cities and ruinous wastes. The stop motion work, while not really appreciated by many, is really pretty good and reminds me of those old Ray Harryhausen films I love so much. One thing that annoyed me the most about this release is what's missing due to a hack editing job on a few scenes, all within dream sequences, I suppose, to more aptly fit the movie's PG-13 rating. One scene involved Quaid and Capshaw and a romantic interlude on a train with some pretty steamy stuff, but here it's cut short, removing the nudity. A second edited scene had Quaid inside a mousy man's dream about his wife, which contained some nudity that was excised out of here, and finally another scene has to do with Quaid's character helping a little boy overcome a terrifying reoccurring nightmare about a monstrous snake man. The part removed had a bit of gore in it, but it certainly wasn't anything, in my opinion, that deserved to be removed.

It says the movie is available in full and widescreen anamorphic formats, but I only saw the widescreen available. The picture quality is pretty good, but the transfer print does suffer very minor age deterioration at some points, but it's hardly noticeable. The audio is much better, with Dolby Digital 2.0, new Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Audio available. Special features include an audio commentary track by producer Bruce Cohn Curtis, writer David Loughery, and special effects artist Craig Reardon that's pretty good, although dry at more than a few points. Also included are a behind the scenes special effects makeup test reel and a slide show. I really wanted to give this four stars, but given that's it missing parts from a few scenes, I have to go with three...

Cookieman108

Dream A Little Dream
Dreamscape is a solid little sci-fi film, that thanks to good casting, rises above its problems.

Alex Gardner (Dennis Quaid) is a gifted young man, endowed with strong psychic powers, so far, he has only used his abilities to win money at the track. All that changes, when his former mentor, Dr. Novotny (Max von Sydow) and his lovely assistant (Kate Capshaw), recruit him to aid patients disturbed by their dreams. When a corrupt goverment official (Christopher Plummer)discovers what Alex can do, he has more sinister plans in mind--that involve the President Of The United States (Eddie Albert)

Director Joseph Ruben gets the most from a strong cast. Quaid is pitch perfect as Alex, and gives what I think is, one of his best perfomances of his lopsided career. Plummer is at his best when playing a heavy, von Sydow is also tops here as well. Capshaw, on the other hand, is only serviceable, but thankfully, not as annoying as she is in Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom. The script from David (Star Trek V) Loughery has a few hiccups in it, and even though some of the story seems like its right out Stephen King's The Dead Zone--the problems are minor and not that big of a deal. The special effects are a bit chessey at times, but I can overlook that as well. As I said, the performances make the film work, above all else.

The DVD has a fine audio commentary track with producer Bruce Cohn Curtis, Loughery, and special effects artist Craig Reardon, giving their perspectives on how the movie came together--I wish Quaid could have joined in as well though for an actor's take. A behind-the-scenes special effects makeup test reel and a still gallery top off the bonus material.

Dreamscape is worth a look and is better than the DVD cover art would have you believe. It's a step above, and then some, from a B grade flick.

original movie!
I saw the film now for the first time and were very surprised with the argument. A lot of parts are very similar to the "Elm Street" movies, which began one year later, even the knife-fingernails of the murderer, but especially that all victims were killed in their dreams.
I agree with the other reviews, the film has great performanes.
On the other hand there're a lot of mistakes and contradictions in the argument. For example, the last victim (the bad guy from the government) is killed although the protagonist is far away and can't influence his dream. But all in all I think you'll not loose your time seeing this movie, especially if you're a great science fiction/horror fan. ... Read more

Description

This comedic and touching family film follows the adventures of a shy young boy (Haley Joel Osment) who is sent to spend the summer with his eccentric uncles (Michael Caine, Robert Duvall).At first shocked by his uncles' unconventional behavior that includes ordering African lions through the mail, the boy soon becomes enthralled with unraveling the mystery that has followed the uncles for years. Hearing tales of their exotic adventures involving kidnapped princesses, Arabian sheiks and lost treasure, not only brings him closer to his uncles but also teaches him what it means to believe in something... whether it's true or not. ... Read more

Reviews (168)

Something for Everyone.
The best way to describe SECONDHAND LIONS is that it's like an independent art film for families. The movie is a hodge-podge of genres and varies between the sublime to the parodical. The plot revolves around a young boy named Walter and how he ended up being raised by two crazy bachelor uncles in the mid 1960s. The uncles (played by Duvall and Caine) have been missing for forty years and have recently returned to Texas to live out the rest of their days. Rumor has it that the old coots have millions of stolen loot stashed away somewhere and every salesperson and relative within a thounsand miles is trying to get their hands on some of the cash.

Children will like this movie especially for the cheesy flashback scenes that appear to be a cross between Indiana Jones and Saturday morning cartoons. However, cheesy as those scenes appear, they fit for the purposes of the film.

The movie also has something to say about faith and honesty. In fact, this is probably the best film I've seen about faith since SIGNS. It takes faith to believe the unbelievable, but when you find out what you were believing really was true, it becomes even that much more amazing.

Highly recommended for families, old codgers, and eccentrics like myself.

Wonderful family film! Rare these days.
This was a great movie. I just saw it last night -- for the second time. With Robert Duvall, Michael Caine, and Haley Joel Osment, how could they go wrong? But there's many a film out there that boasts a multi-talented all-star cast and yet still fails to deliver the goods.

SECONDHAND LIONS is not one of them.

The story is about young Walter who is just barely in his teens and is sent to live with his two great uncles. He constantly hears rumors of their hidden treasure that they stole from Al Capone, or took from a wealthy Arab, or obtained through a lawsuit, or...whatever you want to believe. Throughout the movie, Walter learns from his uncles, Hub and Garth, how to grow into a man and what the truly important things are in life; and Garth and Hub learn from Walter how to enjoy life to the fullest.

The drama here is fantastic, and only once does the emotionalism get a little over-the-top (which is why I gave it four stars instead of five). The acting is fantastic. In this adventurous film you'll be reminded of images of INDIANA JONES, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, among many others.

...

I wish every goofball (i.e. summer blockbuster) filmmaker in Hollywood -- you know, the ones that think creative filmmaking means having alot of CGI characters jumping around on skyscrapers and fighting villains in Power Ranger suits -- would simply sit down and watch SECONDHAND LIONS. Then they would know how to make a good movie.

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
It was sad for me to see adults pushing their kids in the long-winded queues for Spiderman2 and Pokemon at the local theatre, while this touching entertainer was tossed aside (relatively) to the sidelines.

There is no doubt that Secondhand Lions is a semi-manipulative film, it has its fair share of smarmy feel-good contrivances that betray its zeal to tug at our heart strings. But the quirky mirth of all its characters, the idiosynchratic plotline, and a healthy dose of moving, meaningful moments makes this a very wholesome experience.

Duvall and Caine, as two reclusive millionaire uncles drunk on guns and eccentricity, pitch in very well. Caine warms up to his part in the film first, but the screen is really owned by a very fit Duvall, who soon becomes the pivotal character in the film as the uncle that the kid (Hailey Osment) turns to for advice. Osment does remarkably well to hold his own against these two big tykes. A barnful of cute animals and a truckful of drooling relatives round up the doozy cast.

Some fantastic (literally) flashbacks form an interesting trope for the movie's core message: that in our lives having conviction in things we may doubt to be untrue is ultimately a critical virtue. This leads to a somewhat corny twist at the end but it's an interesting one to make the point. There's plenty of action and some amusing gags that even evoked loud guffaws in the theatre.

All in all, whether you have kids or not, but especially if you do, this deserves a recommendation of the highest order.

Best Family Movie in a long time
I loved this movie. Laughed and cried. I do not usually buy movies, I only own three - we rent alot, but this was a must have. It is the best family movie we have seen in a very long time. I can't wait to see it again.

Wow (for sure)
I cannot understand why Amazon uses paid reviewers who are afraid to like the films they review and don't even bother to see many of them, as indicated by the errors of fact in the second quoted review. Make no mistake, folks, this is the real thing: a truly mesmerizing family film that is able to be humorous, scary, thrilling and inspiring - frequently all at the same time. How many years has it been since three generations of your family were able to repeatedly laugh and cheer loudly for a film? This is in the rare class of films that will go on and on, like Wizard of Oz, Shane, Dragonslayer, High Noon, Miracle on 34th Street, and a very few others, except that it is better than several of them. It is a film for all time and all ages. It is definitely not just a "kid's picture". Perhaps I am partial to "modern legends." I think we all are. ... Read more

Amazon.com

If you spliced Charles Addams, Dr. Seuss, Charles Dickens, Edward Gorey, and Roald Dahl into a Tim Burtonesque landscape, you'd surely come up with something like Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. Many critics (in mostly mixed reviews) wondered why Burton didn't direct this comically morbid adaptation of the first three books in the popular series by Daniel Handler (a.k.a. "Lemony Snicket," played here by Jude Law and seen only in silhouette) instead of TV and Casper veteran Brad Silberling, but there's still plenty to recommend the playfully bleak scenario, in which three resourceful orphans thwart their wicked, maliciously greedy relative Count Olaf (Jim Carrey), who subjects them to... well, a series of unfortunate events. Along the way they encounter a herpetologist uncle (Billy Connolly), an anxious aunt (Meryl Streep) who's afraid of everything, and a variety of fantastical hazards and mysterious clues, some of which remain unresolved. Given endless wonders of art direction, costume design, and cinematography, Silberling's direction is surprisingly uninspired (in other words, the books are better), but when you add a throwaway cameo by Dustin Hoffman, Law's amusing narration, and Carrey's over-the-top antics, the first Lemony movie suggests a promising franchise in the making. --Jeff Shannon

A Message from Count Olaf

Dear Adoring Fan of Count Olaf,

Count Olaf

*Count Olaf will not be held liable or accept blame in any way for any and all liability, loss, damage, or personal injury (including death), without limit and without regard once Aunt Josephine is thrown in, due to the unpredictable behavior of hungry leeches.

Stills from Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (Click to Enlarge)

Violet, Count Olaf, and Klaus	Aunt Josephine	Count Olaf and Aunt Josephine	Directing Jim Carrey
Klaus, Mr. Poe, Sunny, and Violet	Count Olaf	Olaf Ascending	The Baudelaire Orphans

All Things Snicket

See a complete list of all Lemony Snicket's creations, including books from the Series of Unfortunate Events, calendars, and more.

The Essential Lemony Snicket Books

A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Ominous Omnibus, Books 1-3	The Situation Worsens: A Box of Unfortunate Events, Books 4-6	The Dilemma Deepens: A Box of Unfortunate Events, Books 7-9
The Slippery Slope: A Series of Unfortunate Events, Book 10	The Grim Grotto: A Series of Unfortunate Events, Book 11	A Library of Unfortunate Events, Books 1-10
Behind the Scenes with Count Olaf: A Series of Unfortunate Events Movie Book	Lemony Snicket: The Unauthorized Autobiography	The Puzzling Puzzles Activity Book

More from the Movie

Original Movie Poster

Soundtrack

Wall Poster

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events Computer & Video Games

For PS2

For PC

For Xbox

For GameCube

... Read more

Reviews (254)

Well Done, Witty
This is a VERY witty, whimsical, and surprisingly dark film. I don't see very many similarities between this and Harry Potter, like everyone says. The only Harry Potter that is remotely similar is Prisoner of Azkaban.
I really enjoyed this movie, you will too.

Lemony Snicket
I love his books!They are so facinating!Sometimes I just can't put them down! I first started reading them in 6th grade then I just couldn't stop.Then I decided to get my own copies of all of the books.I like Lemony's sense of humor, especially in Book 1, on page 94.Authough I wish he would continue with the series by writing books 12 and 13 because I would really like to find out if the Baudilares will really defeat Count Olaf an his troupe for good.One more thing:In the movie they pronounce Klaus as (Kl-aW-se) and Olaf as(O-lav).I prefer to pronouce the names (clause)for Klaus and (Ol-if)for Olaf. It is ok if you don't but my preferances would make more sense.
Thanks
P.S. My favorite is Violet, authough you may have a different favorite.You should read the books....I have a feeling you would love them.

.... GOOD ART direction doth naught a moving picture maketh
'SOMEONE' should REALLY have a frank discussion with Mr. Carrey ~ [a super talent - really] about these artistic career choices that lead to cul-de-cat-in-the-sacks ?????

REALLY a dreadfully, boring little feature, showing lots of $$$ on screen, but Oh My - the Horror! The Horror!

Meryl Streep with a REALLY bad wig, check the hairline .... ditto Jim's eyebrows ...... and the Count Costume [Goodness is he ?? over? Andy Kaufman?] but do check 'Heartbeeps' the lost Kaufman movie with Bernadette Peters - and compare the costume[s].

.....pity ....[and was that a tribute to Robin William's 'Popeye'?]

Good but the books are better!!
When I got this I thought I would like the books better and well I was right. Don't get me wrong it was good but it was hard to follow if you didn't read the books. Defintely read the books before watching.

Why Lemony, why?
How could Lemony Snicket allow Hollywood to do this to his great books? Lemony Snicket wrote 11 books of "A Series of Unfortunate Events.I have only the first 9 but that doesn't mean I can't bash this trash.
Let's talk about the story: Three children who have this really big house with a library and everything lose the house and their parents in a fire.The children now become orphans and have to live with their third cousin four times removed (or was it fourth cousin three times removed?) named Count Olaf (Jim Carrey).Olaf is a mean greedy man who intends to have the three orphans killed in order to get a hold of their tremendous fortune their parents left behind before the fire.
That's also the story of the first book.What the movie does is it tries to get cute and funny (far more than the books).The books were hardly ever cute and funny.They were serious and (as the title tells you) unfortunate.They were describing the pain and misery that the three children had to go through in their lives.The movie turns them into kids you couldn't give a crap about.
Another thing I hate about this movie is that they started out with the first book and went to the second one without having the first one end the way it did in the book.Then they skipped a bunch of parts in the second and third book.Instead of going to the fourth book, the movie actually ends the same way the first book did (just thought that those of you who have read the books ought to know that before you witness this cheesy adaptation).
Those of you who have not read the books nor seen the movie, OK, you could give this movie a try but you would probably find the books more interesting and more serious.
Those of you who have not read the books but have seen the movie and you're viewing this review just so you can say, "Oh, what a jerk.This movie is excellent", well, read a book, wait for them to make movie out of it, and then you'll know how that "jerk" felt. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

A Disney Great
I recently rediscovered this film in our video collection. I loved it as a young child and still love it now!

Disney's Robin Hood is so funny! There is plenty of silliness for kids and great humor for adults. I find something new to laugh at with each viewing. My favorite line, however, has to be Prince John's "Hiss! Hiss! You're never around when I need you!" (Hilarious in context, I promise) Portraying the characters as animals works well for the film. It makes the story (a classic itself) more accessible to children. The score is simple, but superb and the songs are delightful. Althou