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 (332)

Excellent job Disney.
I saw this when it first came out in theaters back in 1992. I was only 7 or 8 at the time, and it just didn't appeal to me as much as The Little Mermaid or The Rescuers Down Under. I don't really know why, but having just getting the DVD in the mail, my view of the movie is completely different.

Beauty and the Beast really is one of Disney's top 4 animated films. How they managed to combine a massive cast of characters into the main plot is amazing. Beast is one of my favorite Disney characters after re-watching this. There's so much emotion inside of him. Anger, rage, pity, ambition, and love. You'll really care for him from the moment he appears on screen. Belle is possibly the most humble heroine to date. She doesn't see that she's beautiful, but just cares for helping others and reading books. The supporting cast is just as good. Gaston, the villain, is just a....well I can't use the word. You can bet your money you'll feel the same way. But the characters are just the icing on the cake. The story is what the strong point's always been. Disney did a great job adding so much more to it, whereas the original didn't focus on anyone but Belle and the Beast really. But I'm sure you all know the story, so I'll just get into the features on this DVD.

On the first disc, you get 3 different versions of the film- theatrical, work in progress, and special edition. The theatrical is what you saw in theaters or on the home video release. Work in progress is mostly drawings in black and white while the voices and everything else is put in. The special edition has a few lines changed here and there, and the added musical "Human Again" into the film. Personally, I hated "Human Again". It comes right after and before other songs in the film, making you want them to just get on with the story. Plus the animation in it really stands out since it's newer and has those annoying shadows on every character that you see in so many made for video animated movies. There's also a commentary track that adds a lot of depth and information, and a game that unlocks another game. People complain about the picture quality of the movie, but it's not that bad. On a scale of one to ten, I'd give it a 7.5.

The second disc has a well done documentary on the making of Beauty and the Beast, story origins of a few other Disney movies, art galleries, music videos, more games, and much more. Amazon lists that the Broadway Musical is on this, but it isn't. It's mentioned in the documentary, that's all. This sets the standard for extras on Disney special editions of their movies. It's too bad The Lion King has nothing compared to this. Either way, if you like Disney at all...or just movies, you should go for this while you can. It's a masterpiece, and getting harder to find.

A thinking girl's heroine
When I saw "Beauty and the Beast" in the theater, I had a rare and magical experience: I felt like a child again watching an enchanting Disney movie. In fact, "Beauty and the Beast" seemed even better than the Disney classics like "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty" that were such a wonderful part of my childhood. The animation is absolutely gorgeous--particularly the waltz scene, which feels incredibly three-dimensional. The songs are beautiful, singable instant classics.

Despite the animated characters, I felt like I was watching an old musical. The movie opens with a scene reminiscent of "The Sound of Music," with our heroine, Belle, singing on a hilltop about wanting more out of life. The "Be Our Guest" scene, featuring a Lumiere (the Maurice Chevalier-inspired singing candlestick), dancing dishes and champagne corks popping like fireworks, reminded me of the Busby Berkely musical extravaganzas of the '30s.

A big appeal for me is that Belle is a much different heroine than the Disney princesses of my childhood. Belle isn't looking for a man to rescue her from her life of drudgery. She loves to read and longs for a more interesting life. She already has the "town catch," Gaston, wanting to court her, but she's having none of it.

Belle's escape from "her provincial life" begins when her father, a kooky inventor, doesn't return from his travels. (He has sought shelter from a snow storm in a spooky enchanted castle and is being held prisoner by the Beast.) Belle tracks down her father and, out of concern for his ailing health, takes his place in captivity. The Beast, who has been placed under a spell, wonders if Belle might be "the one"--the young woman whose love will return him to his original human form.

The enchanted furniture, candlestick, clock and dishes added lots of fun characters to the traditional story. Cogsworth, a stuffy clock, and Lumiere, the match-making candlestick are a great comic duo. Cogsworth's romantic advice to Beast about wooing Belle is especially funny: Give her "flowers, chocolates, promises you don't intend to keep."

Gaston, meanwhile, wants to woo and wed Belle himself. He sings about his he-man attributes in one of the funniest ode to a redneck that I've ever heard: "I use antlers in all of my decorating," Gaston sings about himself.

When Gaston realizes that Belle loves the Beast instead of him, he stirs up an angry mob to head to the castle. In another twist on the traditional fairy tale ending, Belle ultimately rescues the Beast--not the other way around.

"Beauty and the Beast" is a delightful classic whether you are a child or a grownup who knows how to feel like a child at times.

Pure Magic!
Bringing this classic fairy tail to life is one of the best things that Disney has ever done. Every second of this film is full to the brim with wonder and magic. More than ten years after first seeing it, there are still some scenes that make me gasp at their beauty.
The movie provides all of the usual Disney elements of gorgeous animation, skilled voice actors, awesome original songs, and non-stop entertainment, but there's something special in the mix. We get one of the most believable and heart felt romances to ever grace the animated world. As a child every time I read a picture book of this Fairy Tail I found it impossible to believe that a woman could love a beast, but Disney found a way to make it happen. You truly believe that it's possible, and feel her pain when she thinks she's lost him.
In the classic Disney fashion, Beauty and the Beast brings along a message for the kids to learn. We see the value of intelligence and compassion, learn to look beyond the superficial, and discover that love knows no boundaries.

After A While One Doesn't Notice It Is Animated
It is quite rare for any animated film to be treated with the same respect as any other honored non-animated one. In BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, directors Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale take the time-worn fairy tale of the outwardly loathsome beast who impossibly enough allows his inner nobility to shine forth sufficiently to cause the beauty to fall in love with him. Robby Benson is the voice of the Beast and Paige O'Hara is Beauty. Even for those readers familiar with the spoken tale or the revamped music video with Meatloaf as the Beast cannot help but allow themselves to be entranced with the seamless melding of sight to sound. The plot is simplicity itself with the Beast as the archetypal symbol of the rebirth of nobility long hidden by the evil spell of a unnamed wizard. There is nothing childish is the unfolding of the tale of Belle the Beauty who chooses to sacrifice herself in marriage to save the life of her doddering inventor father. Enter the Beast who is initially presented as the roaring brute that his tormenting wizard clearly intended him to be. Yet, as Belle ministers to his psychic wounds of self-loathing and his physical wounds incurred in defending her against a pack of wolves, the viewer can see a competing spell at work, one that is older than time itself--the power of love that the film's many songs allude to and function as as subtext that imbues it with timeless energy. There is, of course, some needed plot complications of unwanted attention heaped on Belle by the handsome but warped Gaston, who plots to snare Belle in marriage as firmly as he would stalk a reindeer for its antlers. As Gaston leads the villagers in an assault on the Beast's manor, one is reminded in reverse of the cliched villagers pounding at the walls of Doctor Frankenstein's castle, but in this case the attack in presented in comic tones that keep the real world of harm at bay.

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST has no down moments, with each fresh plot advancement heralded by stunningly effective animation and song. This film was a deserved nominee for Best Picture in 1991, and with repeated viewings, one may rest assured that the alternately gloomy and resplendent halls of the Beast will eternally resonate with the same cachet that gives Tara, Oz, or Rick's Cafe a ticket that allows the bearer to see just how awesome the human spirit can be.

The Beauty
This is a beautiful movie and is in a wonderful set. It has two discs with great behind the scenes stuff for Beauty and the Beast that you definitely wont want to miss out on.
The colors in this movie is beautiful and the music is lovely.
I really wouldn't miss out on this movie because it's a great film and a wonderful set. ... Read more

Description

A poor little boy wins a ticket to visit the inside of a mysterious and magical chocolate factory. When he experiences the wonders inside the factory, the boy discovers that the entire visit is a test of his character. ... Read more

Reviews (224)

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker. ;)
1971's "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" is a colorful cult classic that includes both a witty score and a morality tale. Based on the children's novel by Roald Dahl, the story concerns Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum), a poor yet virtuous paperboy who dreams of a better life. With no father, no money, and four bedridden grandparents to support, Charlie's future seems bleak. However, that changes when a contest is started by the town's mysterious candymaker, Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder): 5 Golden Tickets are hidden among the billions of Wonka bars sold all over the world. The lucky buyers who find the tickets will get a lifetime supply of chocolate AND an exclusive tour through the factory. The first half of the movie shows the worldwide hysteria that results from the frantic search for the Tickets. Eventually, four winners are revealed one by one: Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole) is Great Britain's ultimate spoiled brat. Augustus Gloop (Michael Bollner) is a chubby German who considers eating his most favorite hobby. Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson) bears the rude, disgusting habit of constantly chewing gum. Mike Teevee (Paris Themmen) is a cowboy couch potato who bears a distorted view on reality. When Charlie himself discovers the final ticket, he and his Grandpa Joe (Jack Albertson) both enter the factory to savor the marvelous surprises awaiting them. However, temptation comes into play: Wonka's sinister rival Arthur Slugworth (Gunter Meisner) has offered each of the children $10,000 in exchange for an Everlasting Gobstopper, a brand new product Mr. Wonka was working on.
In the latter half of the film, viewers will meet Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka, whose elusive persona and literary quotes make him strangely appealing. Is this man lying or is he telling the truth? In addition, audiences (old and young alike) will catch the delightful sights of orange-faced Oompa-Loompas, a nightmarish Boat Ride, Fizzy Lifting drinks that cause drinkers to float away, and quadruple-size Geese that lay octruple-size eggs! Throughout the journey, the group's four nasty children (and their equally despicable parents), are eliminated one by one in gruesome yet amusing ways: The gluttonous Augustus falls into a chocolate river and is sucked into a boiler. Violet samples a 3-course-dinner gum (despite Wonka's warnings) and inflates into a gigantic blueberry. When Veruca Salt attempts to steal a Golden Goose, she falls into a garbage chute, one that happens to lead down to the furnace! After trying to get photographed onto Wonka's giant T.V. camera, Mike Teevee is shrunk down to the size of a pen; the only way to restore his size is by stretching him out on a taffy-pulling machine! With imaginative sets, clever confections, and pleasant tunes like "Candyman," "Pure Imagination," and "Cheer Up, Charlie," this movie was made to entertain adults first and children afterwards. It's a guilty pleasure to college graduates, much like H.R. Puffenstuff.
I chose to give this film four stars because I felt that a couple of mistakes were made. For one thing, the nature of Wonka's factory is a little too candy-coated; Roald Dahl himself wanted to have the story as a Grimm fairytale, not a wholesome musical. Also, I personally think that the scene involving the Wonkamobile should have been cut out. The device, which is fueled by gingerale, gingerpop, gingerbeer, and double-bubble burp-a-cola (among other carbonated fluids), really doesn't have anything to do with the story. As a result, it's a little too distracting.
Now that Tim Burton plans to reimagine the tale, I am gleefully anticipating what alterations he plans to make.

Timeless classic!
(Spoiler included) I watched this movie on TV for rhe first time when I was 6 years old and I haven't outgrown it since! It is a wonderful story about the power of imagination and how good things eventually come to those who do the right things.
The movie is based on the Roald Dahl book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Willy Wonka is an eccentric candy maker who starts a contest offering a factory tour to five lucky winners who find a golden ticket in their Wonka bars. One of them is Charlie Bucket, an impoverished, but good natured, child who hopes for a better future for himself, his mother and his four grandparents. The other four winners are nasty obnoxious and bratty children. Augustus Gloop is an overeating glutton, Violet Beauregard is a gum chewing fanatic with no manners (digging up her nose while talking about how disgusting spitting is), Veruca Salt is a spoiled brat who wants everything she sees and whines until she gets it and Mike Teavee is a television addict with a smart mouth. One by one, they are eventually done in by their bad habits. Augustus falls into the chocolate river against Wonka's protests and is sucked into a pipe, Violet chews a piece of Wonka's "meal gum," once again against his objections, and turns purple and blows up into a giant blueberry, Veruca goes on a tantrum when Wonka tells her she can't have one of his giant geese and she falls down a garbage chute and Mike wants to be on television so badly, he willingly gets zapped into the size of an insect by Wonka's TV camera. Charlie, by being the respectable child that he is and by not compromising his integrity, not only completes the tour, he wins a prize beyond his wildest dreams.

The parents make it obvious why their children are so impish. When the children get into trouble at the factory, the parents blame Wonka instead of the kids' own bratty behavior. From the moment they step into the factory, they're complaining and finding fault with everything Wonka does and they take things way too seriously (much like the critics of this film)! I bet if the Oompa Loompas, with their wisdom, raised these little demons, they'd be much better.

Don't miss this film. It is not only a fun to watch diversion from reality, the messages are very timely and it makes you think about the good that still exists in this world. The critics and nitpickers may not get it but anyone who watches with an open mind and doesn't take it too seriouly will.

Still a great one!
OK, I know you are saying to yourself, that movie is ancient ~ my kid wouldn't enjoy it. Well, trust me your kid will enjoy it. It is a great movie! For all who may have missed it over the years (is there anyone out there?), the story is about a giant chocolate factory run by a never seen owner (Wilder). Over the years of the factory's operation he has become quite the legend. He decides to open the factory to a few lucky winners of a contest ~ all but one of the winning kids are truly rotten. And as all good stories go, the bad kids get their just "desserts" (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) leaving the good kid to win. A lot of good lessons taught about sharing, greed, gluttony and theft. Pop some popcorn and enjoy it with your kid; you'll be glad you did.

A Great Metaphor for Life
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was my favorite book as a child, this movie remains a favorite of mine even to this day.

This film was made back in 1971 and is very simple in its style. The special effects are see-through and campy but the story line is a facinating metaphor for life that is forever timeless in its message. Willy Wonka is the creative genius who becomes a recluse in his chocolate factory because of society and its greed and malice. But he never loses his belief that someone in the world exists who can still believe in imagination and dreams. He finds this person in Charlie, a poor child who lives with his mother and four grandparents in a dirty basement home. Charlie has every reason to become dispirited and negative yet he remains a shining light of great positivity regardless of his circumstances. I suspect his attitude comes from the fact that his Grandfather Joe always supports his dreams, the boy never has to hear the word "can't"!

The chocolate factory holds a contest and several children, including Charlie, get invited behind the doors with Willy Wonka. While on tour they are tested with fame, fortune, greed and honesty until one by one they succumb to the failure of a human heart. All except Charlie, who keeps a smile on his face and wonder in his eyes while being faced with the simple adversities that cause the other children to fail. Sadly I feel the parents are to blame creating children who thrive on material wealth, constant TV watching, gorging on food, and looking for constant attention. The parents of the children who fail refuse to believe in the dream of Willy Wonka surrounding the atomsphere with doubt and negative beliefs. How could anyone survive under such circumstances?

The Chocolate Factory is filled with wonder, color and silly songs. Regardless of your age it will satisfy your sweet tooth and fill even a hardened heart. It certainly brings to life how parent's affect their children with their own actions and attitudes. Telling a child they "can't" accomplish all that they imagine only assists in stopping the world from greatness. Don't be afraid to dream!

Candy is dandy...
The film is based on a much-loved children's book, 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', by Roald Dahl. Dahl wasn't always happy with the changes made between his book and the film, and wasn't always consulted on them. Today probably more people are familiar with the film sequence of events than the book. Charlie is a down-on-his-luck boy who is nonetheless optimistic and happy. He and his mother work to tend for their bed-ridden family members, all living together in a one-room home.

One day there is an annoucement that Wonka is going to open his factory to visitors, to be chosen more or less at random through finding the Golden Tickets, contained in Wonka bars (a brilliant marketing device back then). Scenes of shoppers' frenzy are shown all around with world, including a Wonka delivery van shown arriving at the White House.

The five golden tickets are found all around the world - the first one in Dusselheim, Germany, by the fat boy, Augustus Gloop (played by Michael Boliner, who is now a tax accountant in Munich, and is still rather large). The second ticket was found in the UK, by spoiled brat, Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole, the only Wonka child still acting), whose father, Roy Kinnear, is a well-known actor in British cinema. The third ticket was found in the USA, by gum-chewing Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson, now an accountant at a nuclear plant in Colorado), whose used-car-salesman father was played by Leonard Stone (who was selected over Jim Bakus). The fourth ticket was also won in the USA, by Mike Teevee (Paris Themmen, considered a real brat by most of the cast and crew); his frantic mother was played by Dodo Denny (later Nora Denny), who was one of the few minor characters in the film to consistently act after this film. The final ticket at first is reported to be won by some shady businessman from Paraguay, but in the end, that is proven to be a forgery. Of course, Charlie buys a Wonka Bar expecting nothing, and gets the ticket.

An ominous figure, Slugworth (the arch-enemy of Wonka - who knew chocolate makers also made arch-enemies?), appears to each of the winners, whispering in their ears. Charlie is also confronted, and promised a reward should he bring Slugworth an example of Wonka's latest creation, the Everlasting Gobstopper. One wonders why (a) any candy maker would make a candy that never wears out (thus defeating re-sales), and (b) why Slugworth can't just buy one himself when they are released, analyse it and ruin his own factory the same way? But I digress... Gunter Meisner, a very prolific German actor, played the villain, who wasn't in the book (nor was the 'gobstopper plot').

The grand day of the event, the winners enter the factory with great fanfare, meeting Wonka (Gene Wilder) for the first time, and get the first taste of his bizarre sense of theatre. (It is reported not only Wilder's idea for the limping/somersault introduction to the crowd, but also a condition of his accepting the role.) From that point on, what was truth? It is ironic that Wonka's entrance doesn't occur until the film is half over. What we remember of the film comes after this, but over half the film is actually set-up. This is rather like the Wizard of Oz, where most of the film is done before we see 'the major character', although admittedly Wonka is far more prominent than Oz's balloonist.

Wonka, the man of mystery, only ever became even more of a mystery as the tour progressed. He is constantly switching his words ('we have so much time and so little to do'), and there are surprises at every turn. Wonka borrows a lot of his key phrases (Ogden Nash, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde) and there are a lot of fantasy-inspired elements (Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings).

At each major scene, something ghastly seems to happen, but in epic-fantasy form, it doesn't seem to matter to the majority, who proceed onward with their quest. In the chocolate room, Augustus Gloop meets his untimely exit from the factory by falling in the chocolate river. Violet turns into a blueberry by chewing experimental gum, and has to be squeezed (squoozed?). Veruca, in the room with the geese who lay the golden eggs, turns out to be a bad egg herself, but has a sporting chance of going down a chute with an inactive furnace. Mike Teevee shrinks in the Wonka version of the Star Trek transporter beam, leaving in the end only Charlie, who is denied his prize of a lifetime of chocolate for a minor infraction.

It would seem that Wonka had a sinister side in many ways - the boat that carries the prize winners only seated eight, implying that Wonka knew someone would be missing. The Wonkamobile only had seats for four guests. Of course, the children apparently all had sinister sides, too, including Charlie, until the end. None of them let Wonka know of their Slugworth contact.

In the end, we never know what becomes of the fallen questers - we are led to believe that in this candy factory they got their just desserts. The Oompa-Loompas put the moral to each downfall in song, with a 1970s karaoke-type presentation of the lyrics as they sing. In the end, of course, goodness and justice win out, as the factory is given to Charlie after his act of unwarranted kindness toward Wonka.

Director Stuart always saw this film as a 'realistic' fantasy film. Those things that are not over the top are very ordinary. The people are not superheroes, and the situations, while fantastic, are not beyond the credible. Stuart also did his best for 'real' reaction - the kids had never seen Gene Wilder before his appearance at the door, the chocolate room in the factory, or the Oompa-Loompas prior to the first scene, either, so their reactions are more natural.

A great film for children and adults! ... 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

An epic in the spirit of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, this widely acclaimed motion picture is a meticulous recreation of the turbulent era of Jesus and the events that changed the course of history! Narrated by Golden Globe nominee Christopher Plummer (Best Supporting Actor, AMERICAN TRAGEDY, 2000), it’s the bold and powerful story of Jesus as told by his disciple John. The best-loved but least understood of the gospels, John presents a uniquely human portrait of courage and passion encompassing Jesus' entire three-year ministry, the final years of his life. Intimate and reflective, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN offers an unparalleled opportunity to experience the incomparable life and times of Jesus Christ. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Very Graceful Storytelling.
I have watched both the 3 hour version and the 2 hour version and have found both to be very accurate in their presentation of the Gospel of John.I think the film will along with the free 'Jesus' film being distributed by Billy Graham are good tools in presenting the message of the Gospel.My middle son who has dyslexia and finds it hard to read his bible without help especially likes it.

Since it is an almost direct word for word presentation of the Gospel of John it does suffer somewhat in entertainment value but the original source was written to inform not entertain.

It is definitely a more graceful telling of the Gospel than 'The Passion of the Christ', and is probably a better medium for reaching unbelievers.

The only quibble I have with the presentation is that Mary Magdelene seems to appear everywhere.She is in the upper room, she is at Gethsemane, places where it is not mentioned she actually was.It is as if she is the 13th disciple.It is almost as if they are trying to play to the Davinchi Code mania.

Visual John...
So much positive feedback has been given about this film that to say anything remotely negative about it seems like the highest form of blasphemy. But what the film's supporters fail to grasp is that we curmudgeons are not attacking the content nor the message, but instead, its delivery.John's gospel is as intricate as it is explosive in its spiritual implications and this film conveys neither its richness nor its power.'The Gospel of John' falls far short in its attempt to recreate this supremely complex evangel.Phillip Saville simply wasn't equal to his task.

I approached this film with trepidation and great expectation. At last, John's power put onto film.Needless to say, I was greatly disappointed with what opened before my eyes.So much so that my interest waned and I pressed 'stop' at John 18.Therefore, my review isn't completely fair, but in its defense, I doubt Saville's depiction of the Passion and Resurrection would have proved any more powerful than the first half of the film.

Other reviewers have done a much better job of illuminating this film's many faults, so I wouldn't like to repeat them.Instead, I would like to examine 'why' this daring project doesn't succeed.The main problem is its over-riding tone.From the opening scene of the evening sun floating down over the water and Christopher Plummer enlightening us with the 'Word became flesh,' I felt I was back again in Sunday school. The film wants to instruct rather than show and thus fails at both.Its greatest drawback dogs it the whole way through: a lifeless literalism.OK, be true to the text. Include every and, but and thus, but at least make it come alive!Visceral energy and power are absent from this film.Although John is the 'most spiritual' of the Gospels, that doesn't mean it is in any way two-dimensional.Rather, there is layer upon layer...but we only get the bare surface withSaville's 'The Gospel of John.'

The source of such flaccidity is the amateurism that pervades in scene after scene. With their undisguised Brit accents and wooden presentation, the Baptist and followers ruin things from the start. They are hardly believable and the film cheats with the 'inserted' baptismal scene, another homage to the certain 'interpretation' that the film seeks (under-the-cuff) to present.And ironically, such creative allowance is none too 'literal' as John is oddly silent about Jesus's baptism.

With the Baptist's cry of 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,' Henry Ian Cusick's Yeshua comes before us.As one reviewer stated correctly, Cusick does the best he can and helps to save the film from complete mediocrity.According to John's Gospel, Jesus is God incarnate who visits us sinful humans to fulfil His redemptive mission.To play God incarnate?Is that possible?Cusick should have declined and Saville should have been thinking. Unable to give us neither the Son of Man nor the Son of God, Cusick falls into a bland no-man's-land.He gives neither passion, nor power--human or divine--and instead shouts and smiles his way through the Gospel. He states his part, but has he come to terms with it?I doubt it.Instead, what Cusick does manage to capture sometimes is the impenetrable authority of the Rabbi from Nazareth.The scenes when Jesus returns to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles provide a glimmer of what this film could have been.Jesus's stern corrections of the Pharisees contain a fragment of the righteous anger that is found in the text.(And yes, anger is there!)These spiritual sparring matches hold the viewer until a grinning Cusick lets out a mundane, 'You belong to your father the devil!'

Outside of Cusick's performance, nothing can hold its own.Only the integrity of the text remains, but the lack of power in its presentation seems almost blasphemous.The miracles are all there:Cana, feeding the 5,000, walking on the water and Lazarus, but all shown so shoddily that they lose their 'unbelievability.' Isn't that the point of a miracle????How can you believe that the water indeed became wine when it is served up in plastic cups????How can we believe when Cusick walks across the waves with the left over background from the Ten Commandments??? And the Samaritan woman?Her forced facial contortions invoke more laughter and revulsionthan sincere consideration of Jesus's words.

If this film had been truthfully marketed for what it is--an evangelical tool--then, I wouldn't have felt so cheated.I would have known what to expect.And had it been done more professionally--with true craftsmanship and respect, dare I say, awe, for its source material, then its message would have hit harder.Gibson's 'Passion,' with all its faults, succeeds in forcing the viewer to react, to confront, to decide.'The Gospel of John' provokes more blasphemous laughter than meaningful tears or serious self-inspection. For those who want the real kingdom, power and glory, then READ The Gospel of John rather than watch it.

Inspirational and illuminating
This movie is cast and acted and directed with great sensitivity and veracity. It brings the familiar words of The Gospel of John to life in an entirely convincing way. It is both inspirational and educational. Every member of the cast is believable in his or her role. This is the best Biblical movie I have ever seen, not detracting from its source but illuminating it. Outstanding!!!

Excellent
If you've seen The Gospel of Matthew (TGM), know that this movie is as excellent as TGM is horrible; thus it's excellent indeed. I watched it soon after seeing The Passion of the Christ, and it's even superior to that. The Gospel of John excels on every level, particularly with the performances of those who play Jesus and John the Baptist. It's not simply great "entertainment" as the AP says in its review. The Gospel of John DVD has transformative power. I recommend that you read John's gospel first, then watch the film; you'll see how exact this word-for-word rendition is. I can't recommend it more highly.

Powerful & riveting film!
What a wonderful movie made about Jesus. This is an extremely powerful and riveting film. It is a word-for-word adaptation of the 21 chapters of the Gospel According to John. Christopher Plummer narrates parts of the film. Henry Ian Cusick is the most realistic Jesus I have seen portrayed on film. My other favorite Jesus performance is by Robert Powell in "Jesus of Nazareth" - a mini-series that first appeared on TV in 1977 and is 382 minutes long. That is also an excellent movie and worth buying on DVD.

The directing, acting and musical score are done extremely well. This is an inspirational movie with a positive message and I highly recommend it to everyone.

I recently bought the 2-disc DVD set of "The Gospel of John". My only complaint about this new 2-disc DVD set is that they got rid of the 3-disc DVD set and replaced it with the 2-disc set. So far, the only difference between the two sets that I can see are that this new 2-disc set dropped the DTS audio track but kept the Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Also, this new 2-disc set includes a new 2-hour version of the film plus the original 3-hour theatrical version. I have no idea why someone would want to only watch a cut up version of a "word-for-word" movie version of "The Gospel of John".I'm assuming that because they included this chopped up version of the film, they dropped the DTS audio track to make room for this other version of the film. I tried to buy the 3-disc set version of this film but I waited too long. I cannot find it (brand new) even on the film's website. But I'm still glad I bought this 2-disc set - It's a lot less expensive than the 3-disc set was. I haven't finished watching everything on it yet so I hope it has all the extras that the original 3-disc set had. It seems to have most of the extras except the DTS soundtrack.

This movie is HIGHLY recommended for anybody and everybody but especially those who prefer to SEE and HEAR the Gospel of John in a "visual" way in addition to reading and studying the Bible. It's a treasure to keep forever. I think the Gospel of Mark is coming soon to theaters made by the same people that did this movie.I hope they do as good of a job with that movie as they did with this one.My rating: A+ ... Read more

Reviews (347)

Good History, Good Film
Movies based on history fall into one of two categories. They're either wonderful stories that are flawed on facts (Braveheart, JFK, for example), or they're faithful to the facts but lack drama (The Battle of Britain, produced by Harry Saltzman in the late '60s). This film, written and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell, manages to be fairly accurate storytelling and compelling drama at the same time. That Maxwell's movie embodies these two qualities in an almost four-hour picture is no small feat either.

The movie recreates the pivotal battle of the Civil War, when General Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia sought to destroy the Union forces under General George Meade at Gettysburg, a small town in Pennsylvania. Maxwell's towering achievement in this movie, besides the many well-staged battle scenes, is to highlight the personal, emotional anguish of the soldiers on both sides, some of whom had been quite close before the war began. Witness the scene in the tent of General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger) as General Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan, in one of his last screen roles) speaks emotionally about his friend, General Hancock, who he knows is just over the ridge where they will attack the next day. Tears well up in Jordan's eyes as he recalls the deep affection that he developed for Hancock and his wife many years before.

Gettysburg is not a great movie, but it is a very good one, and well worth viewing for any American who is interested in the war that tore this nation asunder and, in some ways, made it more unified afterwards.

Absolutely excellent film making from a historical novel.
I am writing this review after my review of "Gods and General." I realized the measure of any subsequent movie would be "Gettysburg," and the problem is going to be that it is a hard act to follow. Gettysburg is everything a historical novel to movie should be. Start with a Pulitzer prize winning book, "Killer Angels." This is impeccable story telling. On the confederate side, Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee and Tom Berenger contributed career best performances and compelling chemistry. On the Union side, Jeff Daniels as Colonel Chamberlain, C. Thomas Howell as his brother and Lieutenant, and Kevin Conroy as the tough old Mick Sargeant /veteran, provide the compelling chemistry. Sam Elliot fits the part of a veteran cavalry General perfectly. In fact, I can't think of anyone that fits the part of acting from the saddle better.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived and had surrounded the federal troops at Chancellorsville, the war might have ended. If Lee had listened to Longstreet and withdrew from Gettysburg to high ground of his own choice, he might have won the battle and ended the war. This defensive style of fighting is why Lee earned the nickname "Gray Fox." Lee made the same mistake as Union General Burnside at Fredericksburg in advancing troops uphill against an entrenched enemy while taking canon fire on three sides. If General Meade had pursued Lee out of Gettysburg to where he was backed up against a storm swollen and impassable Potomac River, the war might have ended. Instead, war went on for more than two more years, and the death toll rose to over 615,000 Americans. This section of American history is critically important and what will be a set of three movies will serve a very commendable purpose.

Gettysburg-an exciting and dramatic review of the final days
I absolutely LOVE this movie. Based on the bestselling novel 'The Killer Angels' by Michael Shaara, Gettysburg is an engaging and [MOSTLY accurate] retelling of the events surrounding what was probably the most major battle of the War of Northern Agression (no offense to anyone, I AM a southerner, but I harbor no serious prejudices toward anyone). Some minor details, such as Chamberlain's position during the battle are slightly off, but most of the historical action is dead on. Martin Sheen delivers an excellent performance as Gen. Robert E. Lee. Although this movie was released earlier, 'Gods and Generals' by Jeff Shaara (same name as the book, and Michael Shaara's son) precedes Gettysburg in historical order. Recommended to anyone interested in the American Civil War and history buffs alike.

Greatest Civil War Movie
Gettysburg is by far the best movie on the ACW ever made. I saw it in the theater as a kid and I am still impressed with it. It is much better than Gods and Generals and I think its better than Glory for the simple fact that it shows BOTH sides displaying their own feelings, emotions, and desires. I dont think Sheen was bad as Lee but at the same time I dont think Duvall had enough on screen time to properly compare him to Sheen's performance. Richard Jordan was superb in his performance as Armistead and it is a lasting tribute that his last movie before his death to a brain tumor was so powerful and emotional; sometimes I wonder if Jordan was thinking on his own death while filming those magnificent scenes for the movie.

And a little FYI to settle the harsh criticism of Maxwell picking Sheen as Lee: ROBERT DUVALL WAS MAXWELL'S FIRST CHOICE TO DO LEE IN GETTYSBURG BUT DUVALL WAS UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME B/C HE WAS FILMING SOME OTHER MOVIE; SO MAXWELL WENT WITH A BACKUP CHOICE OF MARTIN SHEEN FOR LEE!!!

Gettysburg
I liked this movie very much, but yet I do believe that if it were made at the same time Gods and Generals was, it would have been a much better film. I thought that Sheen did a fair job at playing the great General Robert E. Lee, but he is no match for the outstanding performance of Robert Duvall. I like Tom Berenger as General Longstreet, who was also from my native state, South Carolina. Jeff Danials did a spectacular job in this film as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in Gettysburg as well in Gods and Generals. The effort these actors put in to this movie are so dramatic, it takes your breath away to see these men, in fact, you don't see Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger, or Jeff Danials, you see Robert E. Lee, Jamse Longstreet, and Joshua Chamberlain. But I must say, if you are going to watch Gettysburg, you mite want to watch Gods and Generals first. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like a Hardy Boys mystery on steroids, National Treasure offers popcorn thrills and enough boyish charm to overcome its rampant silliness. Although it was roundly criticized as a poor man's rip-off of Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Da Vinci Code, it's entertaining on its own ludicrous terms, and Nicolas Cage proves once again that one actor's infectious enthusiasm can compensate for a multitude of movie sins. The contrived plot involves Cage's present-day quest for the ancient treasure of the Knights Templar, kept secret through the ages by Freemasons past and present. Finding the treasure requires the theft of the Declaration of Independence (there are crucial treasure clues on the back, of course!), so you can add "caper comedy" to this Jerry Bruckheimer production's multi-genre appeal. Nobody will ever accuse director Jon Turtletaub of artistic ambition, but you've got to admit he serves up an enjoyable dose of PG-rated entertainment, full of musty clues, skeletons, deep tunnels, and harmless adventure in the old-school tradition. It's a load of hokum, but it's fun hokum, and that makes all the difference. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (263)

Entertaining movie!
Imagine a cross between "Indiana Jones" and "Mission Impossible" and you have some idea of what's in store for you with this movie.Nicholas Cage plays the current generation of a family which long ago was given the secret of the location of the Knight's Templar treasure.Succeeding generations of the family have hunted for the treasure with no success.Cage takes the hunt one step further and discovers that vital clues are on the back of the Declaration of Independence.Unfortunately some of the men who were originally helping him look for the treasure have decided that they want it all to themselves and they plan to get to the Declaration before he does.Throw in a beautiful government agent and an amusing sidekick and you have all of the ingredients for an entertaining evening.Enjoy!

A Fun Movie
I liked this movie. Lots of adventure, history and it reminds me of the Indiana Jones Trilogy. Some of it is a little formulaic and you might roll your eyes when 200+ year old torches light up like they were made yesterday, but the story is intriguing and gets your attention. If you don't know the story line by now it involves Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates whose Family has been convinced about a massive treasure older than colonized America, hidden away during the revolutionary years. Through each succeding clue he finally learns that there is a map on the back of the Declarition of Independance, the only drawback is his partner has turned on him and is going to steal it for himself. No on in the government will listen to him, so Gates decides he'll steal it first to protect the document and the treasure. Lots of High-Tech action, spooky Mason intrigue and history, although some of it is a little questionable. All in all, definetely recommended.

Accomplishes An Entertaining Goal
One of the first things taught at journalism schools is that most "news stories" are to be written at a 6th grade level of education - the editorial page is the place for more erudite discussion.National Treasure is written at a level that would make the "average" person think "hey, that's pretty clever!", keeping in mind that the "average" person might not know that Benjamin Franklin wrote anonymous letters to newspapers while a teenager under the name "Silence Dogood". (He wrote hundreds of OTHER letters under other fictitious names as well and, given the piddling state of education in the U.S. I'd guess that the "average" person doesn't know that Old Ben was also "Poor Richard" or even know what his almanac was all about.) But I digress. Some people love to trash things that they think aren't up to their level, and so "National Treasure" didn't receive stellar reviews from the professional critics. I think it's safe to say the movie wasn't made for professional critics.

It's an entertaining little adventure and anyone who claims that it has no clever parts must be very clever indeed.Much of the movie is a historical scavenger hunt that the founding fathers have laid out for the person who can decipher the clues - with the treasure of the Templar Knights at the end of the rainbow.One of the first clues is carved into the stem of a meerschaum pipe. The stem of the pipe detaches from the carved bowl, andhas raised etchings.Our hero figures out that these etchings are intended to be used like an ink stamp, so he pricks his finger to use his blood as ink and rolls the pipe stem out to reveal the next clue.I thought that was pretty clever.

The hero, Benjamin Franklin Gates, is the Grandson of John Adams Gates, and the Gates have been thought of as the mad scientists of American History because every generation has handed down the story of the hidden treasure and spends decades of their life trying to find the treasure, or at least get other historians to take them seriously.The plot takes them to Washington (to steal the Declaration of Independence in a concise little caper that's at least as clever as the one in "After the Sunset", and THAT was SUPPOSED to be a "caper" movie.) Ben has an assistant named Riley who serves two purposes: to add clever little comments like "so who wants to go down the creepy tunnel first?" and to provide someone that Ben can give exposition to: such as who Silence Dogood was.Diane Kruger is the love interest - a Washington Ph.D. who works at the National Archives.She's the pretty face used to represent all the keepers of the Declaration of Independence.Sean Bean is a rival treasure hunter and the movie goes to great lengths to show that Heroic Ben is only after the treasure for it's historical significance while Bean's Ian is only out for the money.Harvey Keitel plays the FBI agent who becomes interested after the Declaration is stolen, but he's little more than a plot marker himself.A couple of times he gets to say "SOMEBODY's going to prison."

Hmmmm... Will good Ben or Evil Ian be the one going to prison?Will Ben and company find the magnificent treasure? For the answers to those questions check out National Treasure.... but is it too much of a clue if I tell you it's a Disney movie?

Fun for the WHOLE family!
It is very unusual to find action films in today's society that is appropriate for kids and adults alike. That is just one reason that I was thrilled to see National Treasure. It has the wit and humor one would expect from a Disney film as well as a lot of action and adventure thrills, but steers clear of gratuitous language and violence. If you like "Indiana Jones" or "Pirates of the Carribean", this film is a must see. Be sure to bring your kids, though, because they're sure to love it too!

national treasure
this is avery good movie, i watched it last night. the things that ben(nicholas cage) does are hard to predict and the story has many twists. i would recomend renting this movie because it is not as goodf the second time around and there after because you now what is going to happen ... Read more

Reviews (368)

Full blown comedy with a killer cast
Meet the Parents is one of the best comedy movies to hit the shelves in recent years. With an all-star cast including Ben Stiller, Robert DeNiro, and the one and only Owen Wilson, this movie delivers the laughs perfectly!

Greg Focker, male nurse, is about to propose to Pam, his "special friend" of ten months, when he hears about her recently engaged sitster, whose husband to be made the right move and asked her father first. Now he's got to do the same, which means he's got to meet the parents. And with the plot set, the laughter ensues...

What really makes this movie work is the characters we can all relate to. First there's Greg, who is desperately trying to win the parents' approval, but somehow manages to screw up everything he possibly can along the way. And to make matters worse, he's got to to deal with Pam's ex fiance while he carries out this death sentence of a weekend. And then there is Pam, whose father is well...just a little strange to say the least.

Also, Owen Wilson is just insane in this and the movie is worth it for his performance alone, not to mention being able to see DeNiro do a comedy this good.

See it for the laughs, see it for the cast, see it for the experience, because this is one of the best lately. And if that is not insentive enough, I leave you with a quote..."Well I have nipples Focker, could you milk ME?"

Skip This Meeting
Stale, unoriginal humor is the downfall of this take-it-or-leave-it Ben Stiller comedy. Stiller plays male nurse Gaylord Focker (whose name is the inspiration for at least a quarter of the movie's jokes), a hapless soul whose attempts to propose to his girlfriend (Teri Polo) are interrupted by a phone call announcing her sister's engagement. This leads to the wedding trip, and Stiller's opportunity to meet the parents.

What follows are a series of mildly amusing situations and one-liners, none of which you'll probably be itching to repeat at work tomorrow. Owen Wilson is a bright spot, as usual, playing Polo's ex-fiance. He also delivers the best line in the movie, a deadpan joke about the inspiration for his hobby, carpentry. Robert DeNiro and Blythe Danner, however, are both too woefully underchallenged to be able to turn in memorable performances.

The DVD's extra features include the standard outtakes, commentaries, and deleted scenes, as well as interactive personality quizzes which are fun to take but whose answers seem somewhat random. Overall, Meet the Parents is only worth renting if you're desperate to see a movie and this is the just about only thing left on the video store shelves.

Calamity after calamity - Very Funny
"Meet the Parents" is funny, outrageous, and full of fun. Pratfalls and pitfalls await our comic star Ben Stiller as he pursues his love and ingratiates himself with his father-in-law to-be, Robert DeNiro. DeNiro is a crazed, over protective, retired CIA agent who zealously protects his daughter from her would-be suitor.

Calamity follows calamity, and the sight gags cascade until the end unwinds all the zaniness in a satisfying ending. It is a lot of fun with several belly laughs thrown in for good measure.

Oh no, no, no, no, no, it's not very good. Way over rated.
This movie is not funny, just dumb. Is saying "focker" over and over and over again really that funny? I'm sorry, folks, but NO, it's just not all that funny, and this is the same dull plot that we've seen over and over again in the movies and on tv. Not recommended.

Unwatchable
I wanted to leave the theater halfway through this garbage but I already ponied up my $8. Predictable gag after predictable gag after predictable gag, this movie made me hate Ben Stiller. ... 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!