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

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

Reviews (82)

Fireworks!
What was the greatest kiss ever committed to the silver screen? For me it comes from the Alfred Hitchcock thriller, To Catch a Thief. Grace Kelly tempts Cary Grant, a reformed jewel thief by the name of John Robie, with her diamond necklace, to a backdrop of fireworks over the French Riviera. Finally, having had just about enough of her tomfoolery, he says, "You know as well as I do, this necklace is imitation." To which, the stunning Kelly responds, "Well I'm not..."

That is movie magic and so is this wonderful, light-hearted and thrilling romp across the south of France as everyone goes in search of the identity of a new jewel thief reeking havoc throughout hotels on the French Riviera.

Lush cinematography, beautiful costumes, breathtaking vistas, and delightful performances by Kelly, Grant, and Jessie Royce Landis make this an extremely enjoyable film outing.

Cat on a Hot French Roof
Suspense takes a back seat to romance as former cat burglar Grant turns detective to track down the culprit behind a recent string of jewel robberies, becoming involved with beautiful heiress Kelly during the course of his investigation. Proof that lesser Hitchcock is still far above average, with Grant at his most suave and debonair; Kelly at her most ravishing; an engaging comedic turn by Jessie Royce Landis as Kelly's down-to-earth mother; and some sparkling (and suggestive) dialogue by John Michael Hayes. Add in some truly beautiful costumes by Edith Head and breathtaking, Oscar-winning color cinematography by Robert Burks ... and what's not to like? Even though the mystery is a bit slight, you won't be bored!

The DVD offers a wonderful video transfer with crisp, clear sound and a brightly color-balanced, anamorphic widescreen picture. There are three unique mini-documentaries about the making of the movie, featuring Hitchcock's daughter and granddaughter; a documentary about costumer Edith Head (which is being included on many Paramount 2002 DVD releases which feature Head's work); the Original Theatrical Trailer; and a truly grand assortment of vintage production stills and posters from around the world. All in all a quite nice package that's definitely worth a look.

With Class and Grace
To Catch A Thief marks a departure for director Alfred Hitchcock. Here, he sheds the moniker as The Master Of Suspense, going more for romance and comedy--rather than any of his well known plot twists or thrills. The film may not be the best of his career, but thanks to a strong leading man and a radiant leading lady the movie still works.

John Robie, (Cary Grant) is a reformed cat burglar, out to prove himself innocent of a recent crime spree. As he tries to capture the thief who's terrifying the French Riviera, he attracts the attention of the lovely Frances Stevens (Grace Kelly), a wealthy and spoiled American traveling the Riviera with her widowed mother (Jessie Royce Landis). However, things do not begin on a romantic note. Robie is more interested in clearing his name than in pursuing the beautiful American, but the two will not go their separate ways so easily. When Mrs. Stevens has her jewels stolen, the snubbed Frances puts the police on Robie's trail. Now the dashing Robie will have to win the confidence and assistance of Frances if he is to ever set things right.

Grant and Kelly light up the screen together, with an entrancing chemistry that sparkles, especially in the impromptu ad-libbed dialogue of the picnic scene. A series of elaborate set pieces combined with the spectacularc Riviera scenery make the film an enduring piece of American cinema. Hitchcock lets his leads pick up for any of the film's lack of excitement, that traditionally peppers the director's films. I have always had a "crush" on the late Grace Kelly, and this film just helps to solidify those feelings.

The DVD contains three well produced making of featurettes. "Writing and Casting," "The Making of To Catch a Thief," and "Alfred Hitchcock and To Catch a Thief", will give you a well rounded look at the film. But things would have worked out even better if these were edited together as one larger whole. Long time Hitchcock collaborator, costumer Edith Head, is highlighted in a fourth featurette, that also tops off the disc's bonus material.

To Catch A Thief is recommended for any Hitchcock fan..

A Hitchcock romantic mystery
Cary Grant and Grace Kelly are funny and witty and they keep you involved in the story. Not what I expected from Alfred Hitchcock, but it was a great movie none the less.

So-so Hitchcock jewel caper
As a connoisseur of Hitchcock's work, To Catch a Thief was merely adequate. Lacking any real suspense, the movie was held together by the excellent cinematography offered by the picturesque French Rivera locale.

Cary Grant was at his suave and debonair best as John Robie, a retired cat burgular who is suspected when a rash of jewel thefts plagues the swanky Riviera. Realizing, he must apprehend the actual thief, whose m.o. parallels his own, he plots a scheme.

Grace Kelly, whose acting ability does not rival her beauty, plays a perfectly typecasted role for her. As a spoiled, bored, rich socialite Frances Stevens, she and her wealthy but earthy mother, played exceptionally well by Jessie Royce Landis are vacationing. The elder Mrs. Stevens has a valuable collection of jewelery that Grant theorizes would make excellent bait.

Hitchcocks creates a predictable plot, with the usual love affair. There is however, little in the way of mystery or tension or even chemistry between Kelly and Grant to make this flick anything more than mediocre. Edith Head provides a high point with her fantastic wardrobes created for the costume ball scene. ... 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 (37)

The ultimate revenge trip
This screen adaptation of the A.J. Quinnell novel has received mixed reviews, but I found it remained generally true to the spirit of the book.

Creasy (Denzel Washington) is a broken-down, alcoholic, ex-special forces assassin. Visiting his friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) in Mexico City, he ends up taking a job as a bodyguard to make ends meet. A kidnapping spree has spread throughout Latin America and a wealthy young couple hires Creasy to protect their young daughter. Less concerned with her safety, their primary reason for hiring him is to fulfill the terms of a kidnap-insurance policy.

Pita (Dakota Fanning)'s spunk and unabashed friendliness slowly penetrate Creasy's veil of pain and alcoholism. Soon, he's not only protecting her, but is also coaching her at swimming and helping with studies. Then, in the turning point of the film, despite Creasy's quick-witted defense, Pita is kidnapped from her piano lesson and Creasy left for dead with multiple gunshot wounds.

Corrupt cops, mobsters, and other officials are all taking their cuts from the kidnapping game. As Creasy begins to recover, he sets off on the ultimate roadtrip of revenge. And all hell breaks loose.

I rated this film four stars. Tony Scott has to tone down the nausea-inducing quick cuts, fades, over-exposures, and other tricks of the trade. When he gets into story-telling mode, he does his best work, as Fanning and Washington are nearly perfect in their roles. Do yourself a service and read the books. Nothing matches the entire Creasy series.

Makes "Deathwish" look like a cakewalk.
"Death is his art. And he's about to paint his masterpiece."

That is the right line for this movie, spoken by Christopher Walken, the right actor. Obsessed with the grandeur of bloodshed, "Man On Fire" is apocalyptic, spun from the roughest parts of the Old Testament. Tony Scott's movie is a kidnapping drama set in Mexico City - a "special place" according the end credits. Special indeed - take the film at its word, and half the cops are corrupt and in competition with kidnappers for ransom money. The corrupt judicial unit, dubbed "La Hermandad," is impenetrable. Unless you're Denzel Washington.

In a performance that melds elements of his Oscar-winning turn in "Training Day" and his work in "Courage Under Fire," Washington is John Creasy, a suicidal alcoholic ex-Marine offered a job through war-buddy Rayburn (Walken) to protect the daughter of a sweatshop industrialist (Marc Anthony). This daughter, Pita, played by the increasingly skilled Dakota Fanning - who's given dialogue and mannerisms better suited to a 16-year-old - charms Creasy out of his shell, makes him become her swim coach. Fanning is, in a sense, a peculiar little girl, so far beyond her years in gestures that when she laughs at a joke of Rayburn's that she'd have no way of understanding, we begin to wonder if her maturity has been misused.

So then - Pita's snatched in a setup, Creasy's shot, and after he recovers, his counterpunch makes "Deathwish" look like a cakewalk.

"Kill them all," Pita's mother (a glammed-out Radha Mitchell) whispers as Creasy holds his Bible. This vengeance either invigorates you or it doesn't. As these films go, "Man On Fire" is among the most violent and malevolent. The script, by Brian Helgeland, pretends to ask the larger questions about sacrifice and morality, but it isn't into sparing lives. There is torture, then more of it, then death. When a nightclub is blown up, the crowd roars. That's quite a bit unlike the recent fire in Rhode Island.

The most controversial scene involves a rectum bomb set to Creasy's digital pager. "I wish - you had more time," Creasy intones ironically. A corrupt cop, stripped to his underwear and bent over a car under a freeway, has no more time.

Cynical and a bit beefier, Washington is good as the tough hombre with a rocket launcher. The mark of a good actor is to want what he wants even when we shouldn't. Washington's that guy. Walken shuffles around with his offbeat cadence, utters the movie's best line, and disappears. Anthony is jittery in a limited role. Mickey Rourke makes a cameo using his real, non-sandpaper voice. Mitchell isn't much of an actor, but she's platinum gorgeous, and a perfect trophy wife she makes. Between her and Anthony's character, you wonder where Pita got her smarts.

Mexico City, when we can get a clear view of it from Scott's dizzying camera, is a bright, messy backdrop. Scott's editor on "Spy Game," Christian Wagner, achieves the feat making sense out of chaos and vice versa, though an early scene featuring a drunk, bawling Creasy could have been pieced together more clearly. Helgeland adapts A.J. Quinnel's novel, and it's not his best work - the plot holes are big enough to drive Hummers through. Scott resorts to flashing dialogue, both Spanish and English, on the screen in a pop-art, free-verse-poetry presentation that's at first unique, then distracting, then annoying. Notice, too, that it doesn't start happening until Fanning's offscreen.

As it unfolds on a desolate bridge near a Biblical tree in the middle of Mexico, the end of "Man On Fire" is the kind of preordained, wide-shot-to-show-significance material Scott has loved since "Enemy of the State," the first of his "import" trilogy that hopefully ends with this film. Prior to that Will Smith vehicle, Scott made hard-boiled, straight-ahead popcorn flicks - "Days of Thunder," "Top Gun," "The Last Boy Scout" "Crimson Tide" - that were shallow, lurid, painfully macho but, at the very least, aware of themselves and fun. "Man On Fire" is enamored with its potential greatness when it's really a B-movie playing with an A-list star and budget.

Washington is Creasy Bear...storyline diverges from the book
If you've read the book, the movie's storyline is a little disappointing. If you've seen the movie and haven't read the book yet... You really need to. It is most satisfying, and will give you a better understanding and appreciation of the character Creasy.

The location switch from Italy to Mexico works well. Of course, we miss out on the Isle of Gozo. As with most novel-to-cinema adaptions, we miss out on a lot of subplot (Creasy's women). And as is inevitable with a major studio production, the ending has been "Hollywood-ized." (can't tell you more without giving away the ending... read the book).

However, Denzel Washington does an excellent job portraying the character Creasy, as I knew he would. Dakota Fanning is Pinta, no question about it. Christopher Walken, always a good choice, was an excellent casting choice here. A.J. Quinnell would be proud. Marc Anthony...? Well, A.J. Quinnell would understand.

Great Movie
Denzel Washington is one of the greatest actors around. And Dakota Fanning is absoultely amazing.
The script just has you on the edge of your seat the entire time. With alot of surprises and suspense.
Very enjoyable, one of the best movies this year.

Absolute Masterpiece
This movie is by far once of the best movies I have seen in a very very long time. One guy made the comment that Denzel didnt have a character that was believeable, this couldnt be anymore further from the truth. This movie is great from opening credit to the closing credits. Denzel once again not only wows me but Dakota Fanning did an outstanding job also. Anybody that hasnt seen this movie really needs to take the time and watch this. GREAT, AWESOME movie. you will all be happy you did...September 14th cant come soon enough.....5 stars isnt a good enough rating for this movie but its all i can give it

GO SEE THIS ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky (Marty) sinks his satirical fangs into this story of an American naval officer (James Garner) selected to be the first victim at the invasion of Normandy. Julie Andrews plays a prim, British war widow who falls for him. Cynical in tone, the story becomes an interesting collision of manipulative interests and renewed life, the same formula that worked so well in Chayefsky's scripts for Network and Hospital. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (17)

Nobility In Cowardice
Charlie Madison (James Garner) is pretty much content in his role as "dog robber" in World War II, providing this superiors with liquor and pliant women and keeping out of harm's way.Unfortunately, his commanding officer get's the bright idea of having a Navy man provide the first casualty at Normandy and Charlie is elected to photograph this moment.What's a committed coward to do?I can accept the film's central premise that one should be true to your nature even if you are a swine.What is a little hard to take is that the D-Day invasion was a pivotal event of World War II and critical in breaking the backs of Nazi tyranny and I find it a little hard to accept that cowardice at such a crucial time is noble.That said, Paddy Chayefsky's clever script advances this notion well under the competent direction of Arthur Hiller.Garner has the charm to make Charlie likable and, yes, noble.Julie Andrews, playing against type, is sensuous as Emily, the British war bride who falls for Charlie despite herself.The chemistry between Garner and Andrews is dynamic and was repeated years later in Blake Edwards' "Victor, Victoria".James Coburn as Charlie's "buddy" and Melvyn Douglas as the Admiral also contribute fine performances.

DVD of Classic Satire Looks Good
The Americanization of Emily is one of the best movies of the Sixties and certainly one of the very best of Julie Andrews' career.However, it was relatively overlooked at the time--sandwiched, as it was, between Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, two films that swamped everything in their massive popularity and influence.It's a pity that this film is not better known, even though it's reputation has continued to grow over the years.With its release on DVD, now is the time to discover (or rediscover) this gem.

The plot has been discussed in other reviews here, so I won't add anything to them except to say that the only fault I see in this film is its partial lack of attention to period detail.It is most obvious in wardrobe and hairstyles.This movie was filmed in 1963 (released in 1964) and the clothes and hairstyles, especially of the actresses, are right out of that time period.It's as if the actors walked in right off the street and onto the soundstage without changing a thing.Did the director forget they were making a World War II movie?This complaint aside, The Americanization of Emily is a highly enjoyable film which deserves to be more widely seen.

The DVD looks and sounds fine for the most part.There are only occasional glimpses of debris, but these are not distracting.Kudos once again to Warner Brothers for the care they put into most of their classic releases.

More dark humor than anti-war
I saw this movie in the theatre when it came out, and I love it. My favorite line is in the beginning when they meet and Garner is directing the delivery of luxury food and liquor to his admiral's quarters, and admiral's driver Andrews (seeing all the luxury items) chews out Garner by accusing Americans of "enjoying" the war. Garner replies, "Let me tell YOU something: Americans would not be here if it weren't for 2,000 years of European barbarism!" It brought the theatre down in cheers and applause.

This story is more dark humor than anti-war, and Paddy Chayefsky is the master of dark humor. In the `70s, he co-wrote with Joan Rivers "Girl Most Likely To...", a dark humor about an ugly-duckling-turned-Cinderella co-ed played by Stockard Channing, that I've been waiting for to come out on DVD.

If you haven't seen "Americanization of Emily", you must. Sure beats the new stuff out there these days.

Finally, I can see and hear this movie, that I have loved
I have loved this movie since I first saw it in the theater in the sixties.I saw it twice then.I was rapidly losing what hearing I had left at the time. I loved what I saw, could put together, and the little that I did hear.Garner's facial expressions told the story to me.
My husband finally got a VHS copy for me about 10 years ago.Unfortunately it was not captioned.I shared it with my grown children.I never thought the movie would come out captioned in DVD.And I could not understand that as Garner himself had said it was his favorite movie that he made.......I "heard" that on a captioned Larry King interview.

Now I will finally be able to know every one of the words, my own copy, with captions.

If you have not seen it, I just highly recommend that movie so highly, it is my favorite of all time.The anti war message is obvious, but it is so funny, in a biting sort of way.There is one scene with Julia Andrews and her mother, along with Garner.I love the dialogue there.

And as I said, the facial expressions are wonderful.That is a tribute to the actors.Who would think a movie with D Day as the center happening to which much leads could be funny, serious, yes, and it is serious, but it is also funny.That takes the sting out of the serious parts.For some reason the black and white seems to work in a way that I cannot imagine color doing.I just cannot recommend this movie highly enough.

I have waited almost 40 years to hear all the words, own the movie myself.I am sure it is worth it.I wish it had not been so long.

ginger jones

One of the BEST movies I'v ever seen
I love this movies. When I first got it for a gift I thought it would be terrible. I love Julie Andrews and James Garner but when I saw it was in black and white I thought it would be dull. I was very wrong it is one of my favorite movies along with Victor-Victoria, also staring James and Julie. I wish the dvd has some special features but atleast its finally coming out on dvd. I have watch the video so many times I think it's begining to break. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of visual and aural metaphor, allegory and performance...and it's on this ground that I think the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" more than merits its classic status. It is a magnificently "cinematic" film that uses the expressive capacities of the medium to produce a richly layered experience that is truly moving and that lingers long afterward, sometimes for years or even a whole lifetime. I first saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on TV one rainy afternoon in my childhood and it left indelible impressions that have impelled me to go back to the film time and again: The haunted eyes of Jane Darwell's Ma Joad as she sits in the truck cabin, lit from beneath, driving into an uncertain future, the winds of history howling oustside; the terrifying collision montage as the monstrous "cats" move in to destroy the Okies' homes; the soulless gas station attendants, standing together in uniforms like corporatized automata, muttering that the Joads are too miserable to be human. It's a film dense with iconic richness and an enduring testament both to the artistry of the many workers that created it, and to the democratic spirit of popular cinema at its very best.

As good a restoration as possible
This DVD restoration is probably as good as possible given that the original camera negative was lost. This is the one to get.

By the way, there is NO widescreen version of "The Grapes of Wrath." This DVD release exhibits the full frame aspect ratio of the original (1.33 to 1 ratio). Essentially, films made between 1917 and 1952 were filmed with a full frame aspect ratio. Standard televisions were proportioned 4:3 to copy the standard cinema ratio. Widescreen (Cinemascope, etc) was a gimmick introduced by Hollywood in the 1950s to compete with television. So if a film was made between 1917 and 1952 don't go looking for a widescreen version of it because there isn't any! ... Read more

Description

Those acclaimed Gilmore Girls are back for a second seasonof warmth, charm, zingy repartee and heart-stopping moments of drama. In this 6-disc set are all 22 irresistible year-two episodes about the people you've grown to love: young single mom Lorelai, her super-achieving daughter Rory, her elitist parents Emily and Richard, and a whole town of dreamers and eccentrics. New faces also come to Stars Hollow, including Luke's nephew Jess, whose rebelliousness offends the town, but whose passion for books attracts Rory. Hearts break and mend, careers end and begin, folks stumble and pick themselves up in a series that's "blissfully brilliant" (Ken Parish Perkins, Fort WorthStar-Telegram). ... Read more

Amazon.com

Since its network debut in 1960, The Andy Griffith Show has been a viewer favorite thanks to its folksy, nostalgic charm and memorable cast, both of which shine in this set featuring the series' debut season. Originally spun off from an episode of Make Room for Daddy (both series shared producers Sheldon Leonard and Danny Thomas), The Andy Griffith Show centered around the lives of small-town sheriff Andy Taylor (the marvelously dry Griffith), his son Opie (Ron Howard), cousin and deputy Barney Fife (multiple Emmy winner Don Knotts), and the other gentle eccentrics of Mayberry (which was based on Griffith's real hometown). But while other "rural" programs poked fun at its characters (The Real McCoys, The Beverly Hillbillies), The Andy Griffith Show never stooped to stereotypes, preferring instead to draw its humor from the fine writing and cast, which counted Frances Bavier as Aunt Bee, Howard McNear as Floyd the Barber, and Hal Campbell as Mayberry's benevolent drunk, Otis, among the first season ensemble. All 32 episodes (including the epilogues, which are rarely aired in syndication) are compiled on this four-disc set, which regrettably lacks any supplemental features. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Description

This 4-title boxed-set contains all of the titles in the Batman series, including: Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

The Dark Legend
BATMAN.......this movie was a classic, the original Batman, we've got Michael Keaton as the alleged Masked hero, and outstanding performance by Jack Nicholson playing the one and only Joker, of corse we've got outstanding makers of this film, Tim Burton's first time directing which was extrordinary, he really put the right image of the Dark comic book version of Batman in Gotham City, and let us not forget the beautifle masterpiece of Batman's theme and the score by Danny Elfman in which he won an oscar for. Batman Returns,a very most darker tone, the same people,includinge new stars; Michelle Pheiffer and Danny Devito as the sick and twisted Penguin, this movie had some insite with its story of Batman, Catwoman and, Penguin. Batman Forever.......this movie was a completly different point of view of the Dark Batman Knight, with Zanny Jim Carrey as the Insane Riddler [aside from the possible oneliners to be said, it was a great role] and of corse the great Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face, but this wasn't Batman, Keatonless, Burtonless, Elfmanless, the greats that made the first 2 landmarks, yet the director did capture the cartoonish Batman comic style introducing Robin. As for Batman & Robin, whew! nice cast and all but, these guys are flying through the air,swinging from strings, Mr.Freeze is frozen not Mr.super human strength, Poisun Ivy.....just think Uma Thurman, it was a nice role, too many pointless oneliners, interfacing with God only to put a dramatic realization to the un real, un dark, un batman story and not only that they dragged it on for 2 hours or so, the only thing worth the price of admission is the cast and the "action". Aside from the 4th, the first 2 are absolutly incredible movies the 3rd is entertaining and watchable and.......worth the price.

Batman Legacy
The film version of BATMAN saw director Tim Burton ditch the campy 60s "KAPOW!" action and outrageous villians and go much deeper and darker. Michael Keaton IS Batman, evoking the same troubled character from the DC comics, and of course, Jack Nicholson as The Joker, a great character played brilliantly. Burton, master of the bizzare, was the perfect man to bring the legendary comic book to the screen, and he does it wonderfully. Danny Elfman's excellent score is another added plus, and the action is well done. The look of Gotham City is inventive and fascinating, creating a nuance of comic book-styled-action and dark storytelling.

BATMAN RETURNS is much darker than the first film, yet still satisfying, popcorn-munching fun, with an apt blend of comic book action and trademark Burton weirdness. With Michael Keaton returning as the bat, Danny DeVito as the creepy pengiun and Michelle Pfeiffer as the sexy Catwoman, Batman Returns has everything fans could want. The styilised look of Gotham City is fantastic. Danny Elfman's exciting yet creepy score fits perfectly with the film's tone. The only thing slightly amiss is the plot, but that hardly matters when it's Burton at the helm, and a sharp script and some witty one-liners make up for it's flaws.

BATMAN FOREVER has it's flaws, but it's still a solid entry into the franchise. Val Kilmer takes over the role of Bruce Wayne, and while he's not as good as Michael Keaton, he manages to portray the character well. Joining Kilmer is Chris O'Donnell as Robin, and the bad guys; Tommy Lee Jones as the disfigured "Two Face" and the suitably manic Jim Carrey as the crazed Riddler. There are problems; the action takes over most of the time, leaving little in the way of exposition or plot for that matter. And the vertigo-inducing camera angles and frenetic pacing leaves the audience wanting something perhaps a little more grounded.
And then BATMAN AND ROBIN came along and killed the franchise. One of the worst movies ever made. Joel Schumacher owes me two hours of my life back!

BATMAN REVIEW
Okay, for all those people who are wanting to know which of the four batman movies are the best. Well here is my two cents.
Batman#1- staring Michale Keaton as the dark night himself batman, Jack Nicolson as the dark comical feind joker,and Kim Basinger as the sexy Vicki Vale. This was a dark beginning for the series and it explained the troubles of Bruce Waynes two lives Billion Dollar buissness man, and the dark night. Michale Keaton played an awsome batman, his two attitudes as both characters Bruce Wayne and Batman never reveal that they are the same person. Jack Nicolson as the joker was pure brilliance. His facical expressions through out the movie and his remarks make him the number one batman movie villian. This movie was directed by the brilliant mind of Tim Burton.
Batman#2- Batman returns- staring- Michale Keaton returns as the role of Batman , Michelle Phieffer as the sly sexy Cat Woman, Danny DeVito as the sewer ridden Penguin, and Christopher Walken as the notorious Max Shreck. This movie was again directed by the brilliant mind of Tim Burton. This was the darkest of all four movies. It shows the trials and errors of masterminds against the dark knight. Danny DeVito played a spectacular role as penguin. He was definitly the man for the part. Michelle Phiffer as cat women was a great selection. Props on the skin tight body suite. This was another good movie from a good cast, and a great director. Until #3
Batman#3-Batman Forever- staring- Val Kilmer as Batman, Nichole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian, Chris O'Donnelle as the boy wonder Robin, Tommy Lee Jones as the physcotic Two Face, and Jim Carrey as the clever Riddler. This was the worst of the 4. Jim Carrey played an awsome Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones played a fantastic two face. Nicole Kidman played a beautiful role as the sexy physco-therapist. But the other two was the downer. Starting with the least of the worst, Chris O'Donnell as robin. He was good in the beginning but as the movie progressed, his image slowly died out. Drew Barrymore played a quick role as one of two faces girls. But the number 1 reason for the faliure of this movie is the man himself Batman, played by a no personality Val Kilmer. Dont get me wrong Val is an awsome actor, but not for Batman. He had no personality, except when he tried to rival with Edward E. Nigma (The riddler for the non true batman fans) other than that he had no personatlity split between the two Bruce Wayne and Batman.

Batman#4-Batman and Robin- staring George Clooney as the role of Batman, Chris O'Donnell as the return role as Robin, Uma Thurman as the sensual Dr. Pamela Isley, also known as Poison Ivy, amd the governator himself Arnold Schwarzenegger as the bone chilling Mr. Freeze. This was an alright movie but not the best. Again the role of batman was trivialized by another actor. George Clooney as batman was good, on paper, but his performance was too wity for some. Again not seperating the lines between batman and Mr. Wayne.
So all in all the batman series is a definite DVD collection to have my ratings on the movies are.
BATMAN#1-*****
BATMAN#2-****
BATMAN#3-**
BATMAN#4-***
TAKE FROM A TRUE BATMAN FAN. ITS A GOOD BUY.

Its all about personal taste!
Whats there to say about these four movies? Plenty!

The first Batman stars "Michael Keaton" as Bruce Wayne A.K.A"Batman" and Jack Nicolson as "The Joker" the plot evolves from the major crime boss of Gothem played by Jack Palance gets a little upset to find out one of his men is having an affair with his girl! So he sets him up to be captured by the police, only to have that man be accidently tossed over a rail into a batch of toxis waste and thought to be dead! But he's not, after he recovers and has some surgery he has become a new man, and calls himself "The Joker" and he takes over as the new crime boss of Gothem, and beeing ruthless he has sent out a mysterious virus that is killing people off slowly and Batman comes along to save the day, along the way there action, explosions , new gadgets and some cool effects! Kim Bassinger plays the leading lady and this movie is worth watching, its the best of what came out of these four movie....the first may not be the original, but its the original to this series of the Batman saga, and its the best of these four!

Batman returns has had alot of mixxed reviews. some like it, some dont! Me personally I dont think its a great movie! Batmans back and this time he has a new villian to deal with, a man who was abandend by his parents almost after birth and has been living in the seweres since .... and when he emerges he has become the golden boy of gothem, suckering people into making him beleive hes a good guy. That man is the Penguin played by Danny Devito! Batman knows he's dirty and sets out to proove it! Also Michelle Pheifer plays the Catwoman, many i think liked the film because of seeing her in a tight costume, seeing as how sex doesnt sell in my book, it may be why i dont see this film as beeing any good! Also stars "Christpher Walkin" he plays a wealthy buisness man who is not a nice man, and with such scum running around gothem, Batman is there to try and save the day once again from the crime around gothem!

Batman Forever I would bet money on is in any ones top 10 worst movies of all time list! This movie starred a new leading man for Batman "Val Kilmer" as Batman and also bringing in the new villians of The Riddler (Jim Carey) and Two Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the new leading lady is played by barf girl (Nicole Kidman) even with a cast like that this movie failed! Its plot is bad, the whole serisness and almost beleiable first two movies have just completly taken a 180 turn and gone into a stupid comic book looking city with some of THE worst acting of all time! The only actor who played a decent role was the other new comer to the series Robin (Chris O'donnel)

Batman & Robin introduces "George Clooney" as Batman, Chris O'donnel returns as Robin, and introduces Alicia Silverstone to play Bat Girl.... two new villians have emerged in Gothem , Mr.Freeze (Arnold Shwartzenegger) and Posion Ivy (Uma Thermon) this movie was a bit better then the last one, but Arnolds acting is by far some of his worst! And Uma's parading around in tights trying to sell a sexy image does not do it for me! George Clooney IMO did not play that bad a role as Batman, he is certinlly better then Val Kilmer, but no where near as good as Keaton!

Final Advice on these movies
1 - Good, well worth watching ***** five stars!
2 - Eh, wasnt as good as the first **** four stars
3 - ONE OF THE WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! / Zero Stars
4 - An improvment on the last, but not good enough *** 3 stars!

My advice is to buy only the first one and maybe the second one if you liked it! But if you buy Batman Forever, you will make one of the worst purchases of all time! You will regret it! And the 4th isnt really worth having...if you get a great deal on all four, then go for it, but IMO part one and two is the only ones worth getting!

The worst downfall to ALL of these movies, is not one of them comes with any bonus features!!!! I remember heaps of stuff that was around when all 4 of these films where made, starting with the trailer to the first movie "a man in black" and its very disapointing that they neglect some of the biggest movies of all time like this!

Great Box Set
This is a great movie and I recomened it too anyone who has ever liked Tim Burton, Batman, or action movies. So you should think about getting this set. Some of these films can be dark sometimes but they will always remain entertaining. Michael Keaton is the best actor for Batman. George Clooney is a great actor but he wasn't too good as Batman and Val Kilmer was almost as good Michael. If they ever did make a 5th Batman movie, they should use Michael Keaton, even thou he is getting quite old. But who the hell cares. These are great films that you could watch with your kids, just don't let kids under 5 watch the second one. It is a bit too dark for younger viewers. But I'm sure you can let your kids under 5 watch the other ones.

Batman-This is the best one of the series of coarse and has the best bad guy, The Joker played by, who else but Jack Nicholson. He's the only one who could have done the Joker. This film isn't as dark as the others and is a great action film.

10/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, mild graphic violence, stylized action and some language.

Batman Returns-This is a great film and was one dark dark movie. Danny DeVito was great as the Penguin and made it an enjoyable bad guy, not like alot of bad guys out there today.
Michael Keaton is Batman for the last time in this one.
8/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, dark humor, language, and stylized action.

Batman Forever-Val Kilmer should have been Batman is Batman and Robin. He is almost as good as Keaton is. This time the bad guys are The Riddler played by the one and only Jim Carrey, and Two Face as the great Tommy Lee Jones. The thrid time around is great for most third sequels never really work out.
9/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, dark humor, and stylized action.

Batman and Robin-This is an ok entry in the Batman series but could have been much better. I think Joel rushed through it to get it out as quick as possible. George Clooney puts up an ok job as Batman and Arnold is awsome as Mr. Freeze. And that's my opinian.
7/10
Rated PG-13 for violence and stylized action.

So all in all I would have to give this set a 9/10 and is well worth your money. ... Read more