Reviews (337)

The happiest sound in its best version yet!
Reviled by some, beloved by many, consistently referred to as the most popular movie musical ever made, THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video via DVD. This edition tops the 1995 laserdisc by allowing the sparkling, exemplary design of its 70mm. Todd-AO frame to be exhibited with increased sharpness and resolution. The 4.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is powerful and clean, but since this film was originally mixed for six-track magnetic stereo, it's curious why the effort wasn't made by Fox to split the surrounds! Nonethless, the film sounds terrific. The extra features make this package a bargain at the price. Full length commentary by director Bob Wise, with the musical numbers presented sans vocals, is a great touch. And the two documentaries are beautifully presented; full of facts and bits of arcane information that any fan will truly enjoy. A great movie, and a great DVD rendition. More like this, PLEASE!

Wonderful!!! One of the Best Musicals Ever Made!!!
First of all, I'd like to confess that I've probably watched this movie more than one hundred times in my lifetime.

"The Sound of Music" is such a popular movie that people can't enough of making fun of it, which is understandable: I mean, a nun, seven children, songs by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Austrian landscape. In reality, most of these people probably haven't sat down and watched this movie, because it is an absolutely unforgettable experience.

Julie Andrews is absolutely magical as Maria. When she runs on the mountaintop and starts singing the famous lyrics "The hills are alive...," it sends chills down my spine to this day. Christopher Plummer cuts a good figure as the captain but gave a rather stiff performance: he doesn't bring anything extra to the role. Eleanor Parker, as the Baroness, was wasted--a role like that was far beneath her talents. But the children were all wonderful, especially Charmian Carr who was charming as Liesl.

This movie is ultrasentimental and proud of it. But I'll stick with this rather than some of those one-dimensional slasher flicks which are in fashion these days. It has a plausible story, some of the world's most remembered songs, and the glorious Austrian and Swiss Alps in the background. Overall, I can't say anything other than I loved it.

The Hills Are Alive...Now and Forever
No matter how many times you've seen this 1965 musicalization of the 1959 stage classic, it's still a joy to behold. For me, there are many reasons. On location filming in Saltzburg heightens the story's magnitude. The casting of Julie Andrews as Maria Von Trapp was a coup for both 20th Century Fox and director Robert Wise. She's magnificent and ever so professional. Back then, this was only her third Hollywood movie. But she's a pro from start to finish. Everything she does it fraught with such emotion and conviction, you'd swear she was Maria Von Trapp. Opening up the stage play with several new scenes, sub plots, songs, characters and dialogue also benefits what could have been a very sticky situation. Finally, there's the DVD itself. This is the widescreen version that was shown back in theaters when the film first opened. It includes the intermission and the Act II opening music. With no formatting for television, you get to see everything in all it's technicolor glory. On video, half the Von Trapp children didn't fit on the televsion screen. Musical numbers lost there scope as did scenes where you had 13 characters in one room and only saw 7 on the screen. I highly recommend this DVD. But wait, there's more. The 87-minute documentary is awesome. So are segments showing scenes that were cut and up dates on how the kids look today.

Incredible movie, must see, but don't buy the one disc
First off. Think you have seen the Sound of Music? Well you haven't. I thought I had, many times. Of course it was always around Xmas with the commerical breaks. But that is a much edited version. There are small but significant cuts everywhere in that version. So this is a great thing to have. My 3 stars relates directly to the lack of extras on the one disc. The movie is 5+ stars, but the lack of extras warrants the 3 stars.

So this is a must buy. Also the commentary is very good here. But given the price for this on Amazon, just buy the 2 set version. I got the one disc version at a very good price so it is not a bad buy. But for $6 more, why not enjoy the double DVD? This is a must get for any movie fan, and if you are not into the extras, by all means buy this one. This movie, like all of Rogers and Hammerstein's work is emotional without ever being fake or sentimental. It is full of sentiment and completely honest sentiment at that, but never sentimentality. It totally puts to SHAME almost every director and producer and writer working in Hollywood today. Complete and total shame and disgrace. Nothing coming out of Hollywood today can hold a candle to this. Entire director's careers with academy awards can't even begin to even compare to just this one movie. So get some version, especially if you have young ones. Sit them down, and let them experience what a real movie can be.

This has been a great thing to share with my daughter.
I grew up with this video and watched it on TV every year. The songs have always stuck in my head. I even did the Sound of Music Tour when I was in Austria. But now I've got my daughter introduced to this beautiful music. This and the Wizard of Oz are her favorites.

I bought the easy piano scores for her to play the songs on the piano, and singing lessons on CD "Voice Lessons TO GO", by Vaccarino (They're great and a lot cheaper than private voice lessons!) for her, (even though I use them when she's at school). So she is confident to sing along while she plays her Edelweis and Do a Dear. We love it. ... Read more

Reviews (191)

Docked two stars for shoddy DVD treatment
First of all, let me go on the record as saying that Glengarry Glen Ross is one of my all-time favorite films. The acting is nothing short of astounding. Each actor (particularly Jack Lemmon) is at the top of their form. This is an actor's movie. There's no special effects, chase scenes, superfluous love story subplot, or pat ending. It should be obvious to anyone watching this film that it is based on a play -- specifically, David Mamet's Pulitzer-prize winning play of the same name. Mamet also wrote the screenplay, which is full of the fiery brilliance he always brings to the table. This is not a film for the timid. The language is raw and crude. The film takes no prisoners and I love it.

The film takes place in a real estate office, where cutthroat salesman do "cold calling," basically selling land by telemarketing. It's a brutal business (we've all been on the other end of that phone call and usually end up hanging up on the salesman), and the people these guys work for are brutal as well.

Case in point: during an early, crucial scene, Blake (played brilliantly by Alec Baldwin) tells the gathered crew that the top prize for highest sales is a Cadillac. The second prize is a set of steak knives and the third prize -- "you're fired." The speech is a sadistic, humiliating version of a pep talk, all macho brags and venomous insults. He dangles the new contacts, or "leads," in the faces of the salesmen. "They're for closers," he tells them. These guys would kill for the good leads, and Blake knows it. The scene was written especially fo the film and Baldwin eats it up. It's easily the best thing I've seen him do.

Jack Lemmon plays Sheldon Levene, the office's oldest employee. He used to be the best one around (they call him "The Machine"), but he's been on a bad streak lately and desperately needs his luck to change. His daughter's in the hospital and is unable to pay her medical bills. Al Pacino plays Ricky Roma, the current hotshot. His way of befriending a potential client in a bar and gaining his trust is odd, but effective (his opening monologue is totally insane, but thoroughly entertaining). Kevin Spacey is the office manager who will not bend the rules for anyone, much to the rage of the office. Ed Harris and Alan Arkin round out the rest of the salesmen. Harris plays Dave Moss, who has the world's biggest chip on his shoulder. Arkin is George Aaronow, who desperately needs to land a good sale. Most of his role consists of reacting to Harris and Pacino, but he's very good.

The day after Baldwin's talk, the salesman come to work to find the office robbed. The new leads are missing. Probably an inside job. It could have been anyone. Everyone is questioned by the police and everyone is insulted that they are considered suspects. Ricky is mad because the robbery may have screwed up his latest sale, putting his ownership of the Cadillac in jeopardy. Also, last night's client comes looking for him -- he has second thoughts. The way Ricky tries desperately to blow off his client while still playing the salesman is creepy and brilliant. Lemmon is amazing as Levene -- I've never seen desperation played so well.

Having said all that, I, along with the rest of the GGR fans, have been waiting years for this film to arrive on DVD. Especially since it's been promised as a "two-disc special edition." What a disappointing package it turned out to be.

Well, let's be fair. First of all, the film. It looks great. It sounds great. They did a great job with the film itself. But don't promise a loaded special edition and then give us something as lame as this. The only commentary track on the widescreen version is director James Foley. He only speaks during three scenes. The other commentary tracks are only available on the full-frame version (on disc two) and are not scene-specific.

The extras include "Magic Time," a tribute to the late Jack Lemmon, which is well-meaning but could have been a lot better. It does, however, end with a clip from Lemmon's appearance on "Inside the Actor's Studio," which is sweet. There is also "Always be Closing," another slapdash mini-documentary that features directors, playwrights, actors (including GGR's Alan Arkin and Alec Baldwin) discussing the role of the salesman in plays and films, as well as actual salespeople themselves. Sound interesting? It's not. It lacks any kind of cohesive thread. It appears to have been produced by a first-year film student. There's no structure to it. It looks unfinished.

There's also a clip from Kevin Spacey's appearance on "Inside the Actor's Studio" where an audience member acts out a scene from GGR with Spacey. I'll admit, I enjoyed that bit.

Why in the world didn't Criterion release this? They would have done a much better job and besides, they released the laserdisc version (with commentary tracks from Jack Lemmon, among others, I'm told). What we end up with here is an amazing film with an amazing transfer...and a bunch of lame extras thrown in.

If you're a fan of this film, by all means, buy the DVD...but don't expect much in the area of extras.

Best Sales Movie Ever
Exaggeration & Repetition: Performance keys to live by

There are two keys to being a good performer, whether you are writing or telling a story, whether you are selling something or selling yourself: Always exaggerate things by one thousand percent, and use repetition at least 500 percent.

Those who understate a story or product that may not be very strong in the first place, will fall victims to making that story or product look weak. The way to avoid making yourself or whoever/whatever you are representing look weak is to follow the aforementioned keys. The way to do that when the product or story is weak is to learn how to "B.S." That is where being a good performer comes in...

You are an actor, and being outgoing and to the extreme will always give the impression that whatever you are talking about is "the best." A good actor can do this perfectly and not come off as overly co.cky or obnoxious. Always say what the other person wants to hear. The customer is always right. Do whatever you can to "nail the gig."

There is something else to keep in mind when doing this particular form of "B.S.-ing," and that is the "K.I.S.S." method of "keep-it-simple-stupid." That may sound like a contradiction to the keys, but it is not. Keeping it simple, is not disclosing the real specifics, but still making your case sound like it's above and beyond every other possible option. This comes in handy particularly when someone asks you a question that you may not know the full answer to. That is where "filling" comes in---something that students do when writing an English essay on a test. If you have a general idea of what you want to say but don't have a specific reply to a portion of the question, you "fill" that essay with long winded run-on sentences. However, the whole thing must be coherent, and if your essay is well-written and has a good amount of clever puns and humor, you cannot lose. If you are a slick actor or writer, you can fool even the best of English teachers into at least giving you an "E" for effort.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you will never lose if you can "meet in the middle." What that means is this: Suppose a shirt looks like it is worth $15 to a customer but you build it up so much and make it sound like it's worth $50... By the end of the conversation, if you are doing your job, you are going to get them to meet you in the middle and the final conclusion will be that the price of the shirt is around $25. The real worth may be no more than $15 (and maybe even less), and certainly nowhere near $50, but you still get the "E" for effort and earn $25. You aren't really getting into details on why the shirt is worth so much more than the customer thinks, but you are pounding it into their head that it's worth $50. You are exaggerating and repeating. You are using adjectives that may or may not apply to that shirt but you are making it sound great and far above what it's worth. So finally, they will concede a price of $25. You were stretching the truth about the shirt being worth $50 and they may have been undervaluing it at $15. Essentially, you are both lying and both playing a game with one another, but finally, a minimum of $25 is agreed upon. No one may ever find out the true value, but it's irrelevant anyway. This works in any situation.

Exaggeration and repetition. But remember to K.I.S.S.

These keys could have been discussed in one paragraph, but it took an entire page, yet you as the reader were compelled to hang onto each word from start to finish. So I succeeded as a writer in that this essay was read from start to finish and my point was proven.

The "Whale"

A whale is a customer that you pull in, hook, line and sinker and mount on the wall. He is a golden nugget, a superstar, a monster. This type of customer that you get lucky enough to snag will be your customer for life. That means, you will either be set up for life from one deal you strike up or you will have him as a repeat customer that you can call back as a strong possible prospect forever.

Sometimes it is tough to spot a whale, he may not always be overly outgoing or obvious about being a "buyer." So anyone can be a whale. The way to learn if someone is a whale or not is to simply get into their home and learn about their life and about them. So anything you can do to get your foot in the door will work.

Start off small and discuss something that may appeal to their interest and work your way into their world. Don't pre-judge them until you learn about them. This will take time and patience, but all you need is a small "in" and then you can build on that and if you win the whale's trust, all it takes is one big deal to set you up for life.

So practice the "A.B.C." method of "always be closing" with everyone, because anyone can be a prospect. While the impression may be given that you genuinely care about them, the main objective is getting them to sign on the dotted line.

Of course the obvious "Gordon Gecko" type whales who go around showboating their spending habits and their skills are the true whales that if you are lucky enough to somehow snag, you are set.

A play trapped inside a movie.
'Glengarry Glen Ross' has good dialogue and good acting by the fine actors, but this is actually a play trapped inside a movie. They should not have made it into a movie.

Put that coffee down!
If you're looking for car crashes, gun fights and naked people you won't find them here. But if great dialogue and raw emotion hold your interest, it doesn't get any better than this. Every one of these guys should have won an award for their roles in this movie. Not sure if this particular DVD contains the interview with Jack Lemmon that was included after one of the cable TV broadcasts of the film. If not, it should!

Always Be Closing!
Most people think of explosions, car chases and action/adventure films as guy movies. Well, maybe, but those are for boys. There's no car chase in this movie, no deaths and no guns. But it manages to hold your attention while telling its story of real estate salesmen. This is the quintessential guy movie. This screen adaptation of David Mamet's Pulitzer-winning play is incredibly stagebound, which was a stroke of genius: thus, the fast-paced dialogue and the desperate, macho facades of the characters become, and stay, the focus. This allows the amazing talents of the cast to flourish. Pacino and Lemmon are untouchable. Ed Harris is outstanding. Having just the four main characters makes the whole thing seem oddly forced at times. Baldwin's slick delivery of his ball-busting speech to the three underachieving salesmen, is a scene to remember. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Nowadays it's rare to find a movie that pays attention to human weakness as well as strength, and that sees a whole person as having both. When a sports magazine gets bought by a media conglomerate, an ad sales executive named Dave Foreman (Dennis Quaid, The Rookie) finds himself playing second-in-command to Carter Duryea, a hotshot barely half his age (Topher Grace, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!) whose marriage has just fallen apart. One evening Carter invites himself over to Dave's house to escape his loneliness, where he meets Dave's daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation). The two strike immediate sparks and when they run into each other later in the city, a relationship begins--which they discreetly keep from Dave. But the heart of the movie is not in its plot, but in the way that Dave responds to the news that his wife is pregnant, or how Carter tries to fortify his self-image with a new car. These aren't jokes; the actors inhabit these moments fully and turn them into psychological events. Quaid plays Dave as a simple man, but his straightforwardness feels genuine (rather than a failure of the writer's imagination). Grace and Johansson have terrific chemistry as lovers, but so do Grace and Quaid, both as rivals and as a substitute father and son. In Good Company isn't likely to win any awards, but it's honest and honorable; there's a core of truth to its characters and their problems aren't resolved too neatly. Sometimes, that's worth watching. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (59)

Moral Fable Never Gets Sappy
Dennis Quaid plays a 51-year-old father of two daughters and head of a sales division for a sporting magazine. After a buyout, he is demoted and has a new boss, a 26-year-old coffee-drinking yuppie full of corporate speak and blind ambition who falls in love with Quaid's gorgeous daughter. The father's self-worth is tested savagely in this comic film which, exploring the absurdity and brutality of the corporate world, actually has a moral message about integrity and being true to yourself. It's rare that a comedy is both funny and packed with moral meaning as it attempts to find redemption for the father and his new boss. For a darker look at corporate life with no redemption for the characters, check out the bleak and nihilistic In the Company of Men by Neil LeBute.

Not exactly what I expected.
Dennis Quaid gives a magnificent performance as a long-time salesman who's proud of his work, and who suddenly loses his status when he gets demoted. Topher Grace plays the new boss, and he's terrific as an obnoxious but charming kid on a power trip. Quaid and Grace's awkward, amusing, and (eventually) fond friendship is the crux of the film, and the best reason to see it. The movie's flaws: First, it's slow at times, I expected more inter-office interaction. Second, for a film about cold corporations and job insecurity, the comedy is less sharp than it could be. It's almost as if the movie is too light for its subject. Characters get laid off but you never see how it would hurt their families. The only really bad thing that happens to anyone is that they have to take out a second mortgage! Another reason the comedy is so lightweight is that there no major bad guys to make fun of. Quaid and Grace (who lays off Quaid's colleagues) represent different business philosophies, but they're both essentially good-hearted. Only one or two characters are slightly villainous, and they're on screen for just a couple minutes.

An Excellent satire
"In Good Company" is a lovely movie - part romance, part drama, part satire. It strays occasionally into the obvious, but, overall, it's enormously entertaining. While the satire and drama elements are marred by pat endings, the romance part is given a blissfully hopeful, rather than a happy, ending.

Dan [Dennis Quaid] is a high powered advertising executive at a big sports magazine. At age 52, he's at the top of his game. Out of nowhere, his company is bought by a media conglomerate headed by a billionaire megalomaniac. To Dan's horror, his new boss is a 26-year old kid named Carter [Topher Grace]. In typical early 21st Century fashion, Carter has arrived through sheer ambition and charm. He has zero experience in advertising. Carter does, however, have some experience in romance. He meets and falls deeply in love with Alex [Scarlett Johansson]. As fate would have it. Alex is Dan's daughter.

The acting here is superior. Quaid was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Johansson is one of the best young actresses working today. The revelation is Grace, prior to this best known for his role in a hit sitcom. Here he creates one of the more memorable movie characters in recent movies.

Funny and original
Genre: Indie Comedy

Genre Grade: B+

Final Grade: B

This movie was disguised as somewhat more of a romantic comedy, but it indeed was not. It did have some of that in it, but mostly the movie was about the connection of a younger, naive boss taking on the older, experienced salesman. There was some hilarious moments and some really cheesy, odd ones too, but overall it had a good feel to it and was a good movie. The best part about this movie was the music - from The Shins, Damien Rice, and Iron & Wine. Unfortunately, Iron & Wine is the only bad that appears on the soundtrack to the movie. Bad mistake!

On a side note, this movie does not have a cliche Hollywood ending, but rather a more realistic approach to a very possible situation. Some people may not like the ending because of that, but I applaud the creators of this film for doing what they did. Wandering outside the box is something more movies should do these days. I would compare this movie to Garden State, and while Garden State may have seemingly followed the Hollywood guidelines more than this film did, I just think it was more appropriate in that film, because of the depth of the connection between Zach Braff and Natalie Portman. I don't think Scarlett Johannson and Topher Grace shared as much of a connection. Or maybe they did, but that was not the entire focus of this movie.

Not the greatest movie!
Kind of cute. I really thought I would have liked this movie, it was really great until the end of it.They could have done better on the end, kind of cheap.It definetly deserves three stars. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

There are three subtitle modes
Actually there are two subtitles, full english captioning and just the translated subtitles, the modes are Subtitle Off, Engligh 1, and English 2.

And the aspect ratio is actually letterboxed in 2.35:1 instead of the standard PSP widescreen, so I don't know what is being misprepresented. I've heard more people complain that it is in its original widescreen and not formatted to fill the PSP screen (Spider-Man 2 for example actually was cropped from 2.35:1 down to the PSP's screen size).

This is a great UMD, it has great looking animated menus, it actually HAS a scene selection menu, and it has extras too, a Making Of video and music videos. Compared to the rest of the UMD pack this disc is a feature packed jewel.

Looks and works great, but...
It looks and works great on the PSP, but my only complaint is that there is only two subtitle modes: All off, or all English on. In the DVD version there was an option to translate (display) only the Japanese words and not the English ones. Otherwise, a good buy if you want a great movie on the go.

Do not buy this UMD
Put everything else you have against UMD's aside for the moment (sparse extras, poor video and sound by comparison to DVD's, and insane pricing) and realize what a half-assed product this is. Kill Bill is a fantastic film that was sorely screwed over in its UMD conversion. Not only is the 2.35:1 aspect ratio incredibly misrepresented on the PSP, which means you lose a large amount of the picture on each side of the screen, but you're not even getting the complete director's cut. It's still the edited version. Since the director's cut will be out on DVD in only a few months time, there's a good chance they'll re-release the UMD again as well. And fairly soon at that I'm sure. It'll just prove to be a bigger waste of money for those of you complaining that this format is already expensive enough as it is.

price, not that big of an issue
the price isnt much higher than dvd's, and converting a movie to umd format, you can't expect it to be cheaper i mean come on...... and the quality is just as good as dvd's, if not better.

the shipping is great
i think you should have a selection of movies and ask the customer which regional psp they are getting then it will work i have 2 PSP's one american and one japanise so if i buy the any rejion UMD DVD it will work but most of i will recomend u guys definetly!!!!!!!!!!!! ... Read more

Reviews (142)

A sumptuous Renaissance feast!
Franco Zefirrelli's 1967 film was revolutionary in using teenaged actors to play the two most famous lovers of all literature. Olivia Hussey is heartbreakingly beautiful, a vulnerable and courageous Juliet, while Leonard Whiting's poetic good looks make him a sensitive and appealing Romeo. Zefirrelli's career as an opera director is put to spectacular use here--each scene is meticulously crafted to be an exact replica of the Renaissance. Stunningly beautiful clothing, jewels, furniture, food, glass, sculpture--it is an overwhelming feast for the eyes. The preserved medieval towns of Tuscany, and the lovely Borghese palace where the balcony scene is set, give the film the look of an animated Renaissance painting. Zefirrelli took some liberties with Shakespeare's original script for the sake of brevity, but unless you are a die-hard purist, this is a minor flaw. I saw this film a dozen times in the theater, and never without the sound of girls weeping by the end--I was often one of them. Leslie Howard was a better actor, and Leonardo DiCaprio/Clare Danes more modern, but if you love beauty, this is THE quintessential Romeo and Juliet on film. END

Zeffirelli's Quintessential Version! Every Aspect Excellent!
This is THE must see version of Romeo and Juliet. Zeffirelli's 1968 masterpiece stars 17-year-old Leonard Whiting and 15-year-old Olivia Hussey with great music by Nino Rota. Filmed "on location" in Italy this version also has the fingerprints of the 1960s all over it, from moddish long hair, the debut of Michael York as Tybalt, John McEnery as Mercutio, the lush balcony scenes, the nude scene, and an emotional intensity throughout. McEnery brings just the right comic touch to the comi-tragedy and screenwriters Franco Brusati, Maestro D'Amico, and Zeffirelli keep true to Shakespeare with a take on the story that's easily accessible to a wide audience, thereby making this one of the most popular films of the '60s.

Especially effective is the ambiguity of intent of the Tybalt-Mercutio duel, and the overall editing of dialogue just enough to keep it succinct and believable yet retain the poetic and philosophical virtuosity of the playwright's playwright. The music is used effectively and as it rises during the love scenes it's a manipulation that's an enhancement to rather than distraction from the emotion--a rare successful pull-off of this. And that balcony scene is extraordinary, the lush dark atmosphere, Romeo's giddiness, Juliet's beauty...I believed it.

Milo O'Shea (who later played the Judge in "The Verdict") does a believable Friar Laurence and Robert Stephens (I)(with a long list of Shakespearian roles to his name) an intensely serious Prince of Verona. It's hard not to fall in love with Olivia (watch for her new film role as Mother Theresa).

Some bits of trivia: Before 1968 Romeo and Juliet was not generally taught in US high schools and this film's popularity changed all that as most of you reading this had it in high school. Michael York turned down the role of Oliver in Love Story--one may read into this he felt it was a poor man's Romeo and Juliet...just a thought. Also Olivia Hussey briefly dated Prince Charles. And here's the clincher: Paul McCartney got the original offer to play Romeo. I'm glad he turned it down, as Whiting is perfect here. And for those who wonder, the story did not originate in historical fact, though one may wish it so. The story came from mythical legend starting in 5th century Greece, later evolving into "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" translated into English in 1562 by Arthur Brooke and originally written about 1530 by Luigi da Porto., 'til Shakespeare got a hold of it (circa 1594) and breathed into it the life that will last as long as humanity does most probably.

This towers over the 1st film version with a 34-year-old Norma Shearer and a 43-year-old Leslie Howard, and as for the 1996 mess sorry guys; American accents, present day gang violence, over-the-top overacting, LA locales, and Leonard DiCaprio do not great Shakespearean tragedy make. This 1968 one is the one to see over and over.

Excellent movie...Great actors
Watching this as part of a highschool assignment, the teacher only allowed us to watch about 15 minutes of it. When I saw it playing on cable, I sat down to finish it. This, I must say, is the best version of Romeo and Juliet. In the '68 version The actors are young and even though it was made in '68, you can relate to them in this day. The acting is superb, no one better could have been picked for the parts. It was a real tearjerker. Not to mention the soundtrack...the songs were just amazing to hear. Just watch the movie once, you'll fall in love with it.

The Defintive R & J
I could watch this version of Romeo and Juliet over, and over, and over. The performances are dead on, especially John McEnry's turn as Mercutio (you understand the reason why he's killed off: people would have cared more about him than about the tragic heroes if he'd been around too much longer!). I would advise teachers, however, that this is not the first version they show students of the show. While most ninth graders read this play, the giggling that can abound in a classroom watching Romeo in tights often distracts from the meaning of the film.
So, for with the exception of ninth graders, this is the Romeo and Juliet to see.

Zeffirelli and Shakespeare: A Perfect Match
There is nothing worse than bad Shakespeare but not to worry here-- Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare come together here in a lavish, opulent production of ROMEO AND JULIET, just when we thought there was nothing fresh to say about them. Zeffirelli has broken new ground by casting Leonard Whiting, who is 17, and Olivia Hussey, who is all of 15 but looks even younger, in this timeless classic story about "star-crossed" lovers. With the possible exception of some parts of the musical score-- although much of it soars-- this film is as good today as it was when first released in 1968. (The musical theme was beautiful the first 50 times I heard it on the radio. Then it became trite.)

There are no bad actors here. In addition to the two lovers, Michael York as Tybalt and Pat Heywood as the nurse give outstanding performances, just to name two. My only negative comment about the acting is that Romeo always seems to run to and from an event or meeting; he never walks. Perhaps that is what a seventeen-year-old, testosterone-laden lad does, however. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet's tragic story is completely believable and will put chills on your spine. Additionally, the dance scenes and duel scenes are quite wonderful. The wardrobe department got everything right as well.

A word about the language-- it goes without saying that Mr. Shakespeare is and ever shall be the greatest writer in English. Hearing his words again is a transcendent experience. ... Read more

Description

The is the year 2022. Overcrowding, pollution, and resource depletion have reduced society's leaders to finding food for the teeming masses. The answer is Soylent Green -- an artificial nourishment whose actual ingredients are not known by the public. Thorn is the tough homicide detective who stumbles onto the secret so terrifying no one would dare believe him. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

3 1/2 stars for sharply written and directed sf classic
THe 70's were a strange time for science fiction films. There were a number of minor classics (Westworld, the absurd and pretentious Zardoz, Logan's Run) and major space operas (Star Wars)that dominated the scene. While none of these films were perfect, Soylent Green was one of the outstanding efforts from the era. Although it's a flawed minor masterpiece, the strong performances from Heston, Robinson, Leigh Taylor-Young and Chuck Conners help the film continue to shine. All the actors benefit from the assured direction of veteran Richard Fleischer. The film was produced during one of MGM's bleakest periods and, in turn, has a rather bleak out look about the future.

Set nearly twenty years from now, humanity has used up most of our resources and spoiled the planet. There isn't enough to eat and there's even less space to live in; the cities are crowded with street people everywhere. The middle class is virtually extinct and only the wealthy have lives approaching the comfort to which we've become accustomed.

A executive with a major food corporation is murdered. The company produces a variety of pre-processed foods that are popular among the general population. Fresh fruit and foods are almost as extinct as many of the species that have disappeared from our overburdened, overdeveloped planet. Charleton Heston plays Detective Thorn who is investigating the murder. In the process, his life is threatened and he comes into major conflict with the police force about his methods. What Heston's character discovers about the food maker could unravel the fabric of the comfortable society that runs the world.

Soylent Green is based on Harry Harrison's fine novel Make Room, Make Room!. The adaption incorporates a lot of common themes from films during the 70's particularly the issue of the ecology. That isn't to say this film is obsessed with issues. While there are a number of importance observations, all of them are well integrated into this sharply written science fiction murder mystery. The direction by Richard Fleischer (Fantastic Voyage, 20,000 Leages Under the Sea, Treasure Island)isn't as stylized as one would expect but he does manage to get the most out of the material. The director's commentary is often wry and observant--a rarity now on most DVDs.

This was Edward G. Robinson's last film and his 101st. A talented, popular actor often misused by Hollywood, Robinson gives a startling fresh and powerful performance as Heston's roommate and assistant Sol. His final scene in the film is both powerful and gives Heston's character the faith to carry on his investigation. The dinner scene between Heston and Robinson (which was ad libbed) is terrific and much of the dialog and banter between the two actors is both funny and touching.

The DVD looks terrific particularly after all the poor prints that have circulated on television. Yes, there's analog artifacts but this is probably about as pristine a print as were likely to see. The transfer is vivid and well balanced. The sound is fairly strong given the fact that this was pre-THX and stereo. The DVD includes a couple of short featurettes about Heston and the making of the film. Robinson also gets due notice. A vintage theatrical trailer is also included.

Soylent Green's importance in science fiction cannot be underestimated. There were a number of bad films produced after 2001 and Planet of the Apes (including many of the sequels to the original Apes film)that had cheapened the luster these two fine films had temporarily given to science fiction. Soylent Green is a somber, powerful film. It's also an entertaining mystery. After this the genre would fall back into decline (although there were a few highlights) until the success of Star Wars in 1977. Thoughtful, impactful science fiction films were rare during the 70's. Although Soylent Green hasn't aged as well as one would expect, it's intent and the power of the performances, script and direction still make it a potent look into the future.

'Soylent Green' still nourishing after all this time!
If there was ever such a thing as 'sci-fi-noir', this is it. This wonderful, pessimistic, science fiction flick works as a cautionary tale, an action-mystery and a love story to boot. Charlton Heston fans will love it! It's 'Taylor-made' for the big guy (pardon the 'apes' pun). Heston excells at playing the cynical, tough yet decent sort; here a cop who's trying to unearth a cover-up reaching into the very top of government and industry. The movie is paced well and allows us to experience the gritty, sooty, reality of an exhausted, failing industrial society in the all too near future. The story line is supported by wonderful supporting performances by notable actors like Leigh Taylor-Young, Brock Peters, Chuck Connors, Joseph Cotten, and the great Edward G. Robinson, in what I believe is his last move. Unlike some 70's science fiction movies, the premise of 'Soylent Green' has not proved dated. It's as frightening and riviting today as it was when it was filmed nearly three decades ago. It's also poignant. The scene where Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson) weeps out of sadness as the delighted Thorn (Heston) tasts the first real food he's ever eaten, is pristine, pure, gut-level story telling. Thorn's ultimate abandonment of his love interest, (Leigh-Taylor Young) to her unhappy fate is in keeping with the film's hard edge. Ultimately Thorn and Roth uncover a secret best left hidden. This movie never flinches. It's not as well known as Heston's other science fiction classic, 'Planet of the Apes' but 'Soylent Green' is great entertainment and perhaps the most underrated science fiction movie of the 1970's!

"Sorry We Went" Green
My wife and I saw this film in his initial theater release, expecting a good couple of hours entertainment, because of our faith in Charlton Heston. Bad move! Though it did depict rather well a bleak Malthusian future, its focus was entirely on efforts to obtain the wondrous Soylent Green as food, since it was so much superior to the other 2 colors. Alas, as soon as we had guessed the "shocking" source of the Green, there was nothing more to this one-trick-pony of a movie.

A nightmare every time closer
In 2022 the population's growth may reach eight billions people So the awful warning call given by Aldous Huxley ( A new visit for a brave new world) , George Orwell (Animal's farm or 1984) will suppose several restrictions about the free circulation vehicles and also an estimated amount of liters of water by each one of us.
This film is a very clever scifi story about a overcrowded world, where the reduced free spaces of the world we know actually , may be more narrow.
The story holds a deep reflection about the effects of a claustrophobic world, the lack of certain benefits you assumed almost naturally till now.
This movie shows us about a reality not so far. This work was the last appearance of Edward G. Robinson; thanks to Heston efforts for including him in that role. The last sequence in which you watch the ancient world like it was; it depicts a bucolic landscape; and the Pastoral Symphony works out perfectly with this goal. You may feel it something tearful, but the remarkable point is the hidden message. Still we are on time to avoid it. But who'll take this dangerous flag?
This film was released just one year after since Roma's club establihment, in 1972. In that age I had the opportunity of reading that fundamental work of Barry Commoner titled The circle that it closes.Watch for this one. Because with these raising reflections about the enviroment concern around the world made it possible, by instance, avoid to throw several hazardous weapons over Vietnam, whose direct and collateral effects had not studied enough. Chernobyl was just only fourteen years before and Long island twelve years.
Only with this long introduction you'll be capable of understand why this film,together with Farenheit 451, Capricorn one, The Omega man, Zardoz, The planet of the apes , 2001 and Solaris were made between 1967 and 1972. We are taking about movies of film makers so distant in style and view directorial as Kubrick , Tarkovski, Truffaut, Schafner ,Hyams and Boorman, but surrounded by that cloudy atmosphere who involved the world in those days.
A must for you to watch. It will let you thinking for a long, long time.

An Underrated SF Thriller
I just rediscovered this classic movie on DVD recently. It is an extraordinary and haunting film with a powerful message. The performance by Edward G. Robinson is moving, and it's almost obligatory to say that Charles Heston chews up the scenery (as usual).

Some of the reviewers here have bemoaned the fact that there are so many 70s-type vehicles in the world of Soylent Green, which detracts from its setting in the year 2022. Nothing could be further from the truth. I remember watching this film in 1973 and was very conscious of that fact that it was projecting what NYC might look like 49 years from then. Why so? Read on.

Not to state the obvious, but this is a film about a dystopian future. The planet is overpopulated and running out of resources. All of the major oil fields on earth have passed peak production (our experts tell us that the last major fields in Saudi Arabia and Iraq will reach peak production in just a few years from now). Most of the automobiles are old and broken down. Infrastructure is decaying. Even in 2004, here and now, you can see this process beginning. In many parts of the city where I live, people are driving vehicles manufactured from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Things are run down. People are working harder and making less money. Richard Fleischer's vision of the future is brilliant and spot on.

So what about the cheesy 70s background music, you say? All I can say is that by 2022 there might very well be a 70s renaissance, because by then people will have realized how good things were in the 1970s. Look at us in 2004, we're still playing Beatles music, and it is quite likely that the music industry will dramatically change or won't even exist by 2022.

And finally, to underscore the scope and brilliance of this film, just do some investigative research into today's Monsanto Corporation and see if you can't find an overwhelming parallel with the Soylent Corporation depicted in the film, whose aim was to control the world's food supply.

And who knows, by the year 2022, food processing and Chicken McNuggets will be so pervasive that NOBODY will know where their food really comes from. What a chilling thought.

I wish that every person on this planet owned this DVD. It's not just a great Heston film, or a brilliant science fiction thriller, it's an important film for all of mankind...because it's still not too late.

p.s. the amazing quality and sharpness of the images in this film are astounding. This is the film that I saw in 1973. All other versions have been muddy and dark. Another outstanding transfer!! ... Read more

Reviews (177)

The Depths Of Depp
Johnny Depp plays George Jung, your every day man turned multi-millionaire drug dealer. The amazing journey starts with just a bit of weed going to people on the beach, soon he and his friends are working their way to Mexico in major exports. After a brief stop in jail Depp changes from marijuana to cocaine. Soon Depp has so much money he can't fit anymore in his house. It is in this time he meets his wife-to-be decently played by Penelope Cruz. A mishap with his wife later and he is in jail again. The part about this film that sets it apart from most drug movies is that it shows the highlights of the illegal exchange business but it also shows the bottoming out. The other thing it has is a connection with the characters. You actually begin to feel for Depp as he is separated from the one thing that he loves in his life, his daughter. Franka Potente (Run Lola Run) and Paul Rubin (Pee Wee Herman) also have roles in this film that has heart and substance(s).

Strong Powder
BLOW is based on the true story of George Jung (Johnny Depp). In the 70s and 80s, Jung was the single largest importer of Columbian cocaine, to the United States. Therefore, he alone, changed America, and helped to create the "drug culture" in this nation. At the film's center is the partnership between Jung and Pablo Escobar, (Cliff Curtis) and how they operated, with and against each other. It really is true what others have said about Depp's performance in the film. He doesn't let this highly complex role intimidate him. He pulls it off brilliantly. He scenes with Penelope Cruz are pure magic. Directed by the late Ted Demme, BLOW offers viewers an inside look into how some people got very rich off of other people's addiction to drugs. Even though some have blasted the film because, in their opinion, it glorifies drug use, I see it more as an anti drug film. Having said that, dont expect an overt anti-drug message in the movie either. My take on it is that the "message" hides as a subtext as an implied theme. If the film does have any connection to any indictment against drugs, that comes from the fact that Demme died last year from apparently using the stuff himself.

The DVD is part of New Line Cinema's Infinifilm series. Like all other discs in the series, it is packed with extras, allowing viewers to have more of an interactive experience, while watching the film. Hearing Demme talk about drugs on the commentary track with Jung, may unsettle some, given what happened to him, but there really isn't much of that on the track. The deleted scenes don't really add much to the film and were properly edited out of the picture. The Ted Demme Production Diary is cool because it takes us through how movies are made (I always enjoy that stuff). Rounding out the standard features are trailers, filmographies, and a Nikka Costa Music Video. The disc also has a few DVD-ROM extras. The Infinifilm extras include interviews with Jung conducted by Demme, a trivia track, among others. Use of the Infinifilm mode gives you access to these features for a unique look at BLOW.

Thanks to powerful performances and solid, well produced extras, BLOW is a Highly Recommended film/DVD **** and a half stars.

Blow is about the life of Mr. George Jung from childhood to
his final drug bust for which he is still serving time. Johnny Depp carries this movie very well, like all movies about gangs or drugs or anything crime related, this movie starts off with everything going well and then everything starting to go downhill again, it is a true story, obviously with quite a bit of Hollywood fabrication but none the less, it inspires sympathy for the characters, I for one am someone who isn't really a very emotional person when it comes to movies, at least I don't think so, but this movie brought a tear or two to my eye, especially the ending, where Depp recited a poem written by Jung and it is the saddest thing, the special features are quite amazing, I would recommend this movie to people over 14 because it does have an R rating which is due to a lot of language, drug content, extremely brief nudity and some violence here and there. Enjoy.

extras no good
I rated this movie 5 stars, until I got a load of the DVD extras. These extras actually serve to drag down the enjoyment of the movie. First, there are the "character outtakes" whatever that term is supposed to mean. These consist of various characters being interviewed about George Jung - the character, not the real person. They say poorly thought out and inarticulate things like, "This guy... he's like... this guy don't care what anybody thinks, you know?" My impression was that the actors just got in front of a camera "in character" and extemporized. The results are pretty ghastly. Also, there is the jailhouse interview that director Ted Demme makes of George Jung, the real person. This is also pretty disedifying, consisting at the end of Demme sitting next to Jung on a bench and saying similarly inarticulate and poorly thought out things, like, "Yeah, its like schoolteachers make minimum wage and there's truckdrivers making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year..." Now, I am an ex-schoolteacher and though I did not make a mint at my job I certainly did not make "minimum wage" and I worked for one of the most underfunded school districts in the country. One has the impression of being a witness to a guy blowing his mouth off on the balcony of somebody's post-college get-together. Not pretty. How Demme ever got people to trust him with millions of dollars remains a mystery: the man is simply not preposessing intellectually. Also, his world is morally vague and equivocal. He tells Jung he takes a non-judgemental stance to his crimes and then says that he himself has skeletons in the closet, its just that his are not so well known. Now, I kind of doubt that Ted Demme is himself a serious criminal who has simply evaded discovery. But that is what he is in effect implying, in bad faith to George Jung - a hardcore criminal. The real implication is that any degree of malfeasance is equivalent to any other. If one man has smuggled enormous quantities of drugs, and another man has left the cap off his toothpaste well, they're pretty much the same: we all do bad things. Interestingly, the stance that Demme takes is NOT that what Jung did was not morally wrong. His stance is that, though it was wrong, so what? I can respect and perhaps agree with someone who says that smuggling drugs, though illegal, is not immoral. I can understand the argument that by and large it is an utter liberal myth that anybody is forced to use drugs by anybody else. Peer pressure? One gravitates to "peers" with similar interests. If you get into drugs and your friends don't, you find new friends: druggie friends. This happened in my circle of friends and I have seen it happen first-hand. I had many druggie and non druggie friends and I never saw anybody use drugs who did not want to. And there is simply no substance so addictive that it turns a straight arrow into a degenerate against the straight arrow's will and inclination. Drugs simply help you along in the direction you are inclined.
All this being said, I can agree with someone who does not morally judge George Jung. Personally I am morally indifferent to his actions. But this is not the same thing as saying that what he did was wrong but so what we all do bad things. If I once ignored a parking ticket, is this the same thing as being a murderer? I suspect that Demme's thus cozying up to Jung actually lowered him in Jung's regard.

Luff ist der drug
Let me be clear, this is a great film. It actually reassures me that all movies are not garbage. But for me the best part of the movie is Franka Potente's performance as Barbara, a comely stew who, so far as I can tell, is not supposed to be German. It is a special pleasure for me to watch Franka Potente, with her thick Cherrrmann accent, ya? trying to speak in a vey zat iss recognizeable as chust typical yanqui American dialect. I also thrilled to her performance in The Bourne Identity, hearing her deliver such lines as, "But he vas chust shining us all on" like the Munchen-frau she is. Yeah, I'll get all liquored up on Spaten Premium, or maybe even brave the forbidding slopes of the Optimator, then I'll hunker down for a triple-bill of Run Lola Run, Bourne Identity, and Blow. Its like my own private Oktoberfest that I chust by myself heff got going on, ya?
unt ich bein auss. ... Read more

Description

The next installment in the Harry Potter series finds young wizard Harry Potter (DANIEL RADCLIFFE) and his friends Ron Weasley (RUPERT GRINT) and Hermione Granger (EMMA WATSON) facing new challenges during their second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry as they try to uncover a dark force that is terrorizing the school. ... Read more

Reviews (649)

Fascinatingly enchanting as it is entertaining
Summer vacation is a dreaded time for Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) as it means having to endure the histronics of his mean aunt and uncle. Returning back to his Hogwarts School of Witchcraft would seem a much wiser option but Dobby the House Elf warns him of "a plot to make most terrible things" is in the brewing. With disregard of the warning, the boy wizard begins his sophomore year at the school of magic - and things happen - when his schoolmates are 'petrified' into statues. In fact this is only the beginning when he later takes on gigantic spiders, screeching mandrakes, Fawkes the phoenix and the fearsome Basilisk.

The second entry adapted from J.K Rowling's legacy has neither the epic sweep of the fourth book (The Goblet of fire) nor the mystery of the third (The Prisoner of Azkaban) but is nonetheless an engaging adventure and a riveting story. What's more with director Chris Colombus at the helm who shows more precision and familiarity after his first attempt, Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets is a majestic adventure filled with visionary sets and fluid CGI effects that astonishingly enhance the darker fantasy tale and adventure. The soaring adventure thrills with its enshrouding perils, awesome moments of wonder and enlightening morality and friendship.

It thus resembles more of an awkward adolescence stage in this saga for the three main casts. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch as Harry, Hermoine and Ron reprises their role with the loss of their innocence along with veterans Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, the late Richard Harris as the benevolent headmaster Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane as giant Hagrid and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. The new interlopers are equally scene-grabbing in their own rights: Kenneth Branagh does a rib-tickling interpretation of braggadocio Gilderoy Lockheart as well as Jason Issacs as the wicked Lucius Malfoy.

With a solidly ensembled cast and sumptuous sets, the second installment is fascinatingly entertaining as it is enchanting enough to sustain its 3 long hours without any misgivings.

Just as good if not better!
This DVD gives you a great movie, lots of special features, and great commentary from the stars and people behind the scenes. Just as good a movie as the first Harry Potter installment, this is definitely a great addition to anyone's DVD collection!

Not as goood as the book
This film is not as good as the book, but still a very good film. There are a few scenes from the book that I wish had made the final cut. It does drag a little after the climax, but those scenes are need to tie up loose plot lines as well as items that might have an impact in future editions.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets-Widescreen Edition
This movie was definately a great work of theatre and art alike. The entire movie was captivating, and while the director, Christopher Columbus, could of done better on some parts, this movie does what most do not, and it stayed true to the book. I loved this, and I watched it about 3 times before I was satisfied with it! Go get the movie and see it, and you'll see what I mean!!! The scenes with the Chammber of Secrets were beautifully detailed, giving you a clearer picture than even the book did! So buy this, sit back and be amazed by the production of Harry Potter's second year at Hogwarts school of Withcraft and Wizardry! Enjoy!

Harry Does It Again! Better Than The First!
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" pulls off something that only "The Empire Strikes Back" has done. It's better than the first film! Not only is the story more interesting(though the first was tops as well), it's packed with even more wonder and imagination than the first as well. The castmembers of the first flick return, as well as Kenneth Branagh in a superb performance as Lockhart, the bumbling, vain writer of "Magical Me."

I'm sure the naysayers had a wonderful time bashing this sequel for its evil undertones. Students get "petrified" and the basilisk takes shots at Harry, but all in all, Harry prevails. He makes the right choices, does the good deeds and fights a good fight. How dare he promote such horrible values!

Please folks, I used up a lot of space harping on how kids need to have fun in my review of the first film. The same applies to this movie as well. Don't worry about your kid becoming a warlock or praying to Satan, just let them have a little fun. If you raise them right, you won't have to worry about any of that anyway.

The "Potter" books encourage kids to read and use their imagination. That's a good thing in my book. The movies encourage kids to use their imaginations as well.

You've just got to love something that promotes so many good things. We need more heroes like Harry. He's a good character to let your kids read about and watch on the big screen. He's caring to others, takes his studies reasonably serious(you might want to promote Hermione's study habits to your kids, though) and he always tries to do the right thing.

Overall this movie is fun and enjoyable for the whole family. Some of the scenes might scare the little ones, but this movie is worth explaining those scenes in order to get the message across.

Watch this one and have a ton of fun. It's great for everybody. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (349)

Fantastic!
Quentin Tarantino's debut film RESERVOIR DOGS broke new ground that many other directors and screen writers were afraid to tread upon. This amazingly well-written, directed, and acted film is about a jewel heist gone wrong and the consequences of each man's suspicions. Harvey Keitel is wonderful as tough but compassionate Mr. White(Each man is given an alias name, no one's real name is used), Michael Madsen is cool and psychotic as Mr. Blonde, Sean Penn delivers a strong performance as Nice-Guy Eddie, Lawrence Tierney is very intimidating as Joe, the crime boss, and Quentin Tarantino gives a great cameo performance as the short-lived Mr. Brown. The really great performances definitely go to Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi. For Roth(Mr. Orange), this was a breakthrough role in which he spends a good deal of the movie drenched in his own blood and in his screams of pain never once goes into an over-the-top performance. It's right on the money. Buscemi is dripping with attitude and gives one of his best performances until FARGO in RESERVOIR DOGS. From the moment he appears on screen, you know its gonna be a bumpy ride. A must-see for anyone who enjoys lotsa suspense, catchy dialogue and music, and some great action scenes.

Tarantino Makes His Mark
Quentin Tarantino's directorial debut, Reservoir Dogs is a brilliantly written, unique film that paved the way for Mr. Tarantino's breakthrough film, Pulp Fiction. The plot of Reservoir Dogs revolves around a diamond heist that goes afoul. A group of criminals who have never worked together are assembled and given names like Mr. White, Mr. Pink and Mr. Blonde. The film is intercut with flashbacks in which the characters played by Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth are explored in more detail. Mr. Madsen is incredible as the psychotic Mr. Blonde and his scene in which he brutalizes a cop in medieval fashion is alternately disturbingly brutal and humorous. Steve Buschemi is a scream as the jumpy Mr. Pink and Mr. Keitel provides the film with its backbone as Mr. White. Mr. Tarantino has keen eye for detail and the opening scene in a diner in which the crooks are discussing everything from what Madonna meant in her song "Like A Virgin" to 70's songs to tipping contains some of the sharpest dialogue in years. Mr. Tarantino also uses music to great effect and he overlays scenes with the voice of comedian Steven Wright as host of a radio show K Billy's Super Sounds of the 70's. Reservoir Dogs is a tremendous debut film and introduced Mr. Tarantino as a force.
The 10th Anniversary Edition is nice a step up in sound and quality from the first edition. The extras are good, but just the overall better sound and picture is worth purchasing this version if you already own the first.

Stylized, intelligent--but someone tell Quentin he can't act
To a degree amateurish, but to an equal degree compelling and original, Reservoir Dogs is a stylistic, gritty look at the gangsters of Quentin Tarantino's imagination. The story, such as it is, is the weak point of the film. The strange tale of an undercover cop who tries to bust up a family-sized gangster ring is just plain silly at times. The strong points, however, are many. Each character has a terrific, interesting voice; the dialogue is snappy and artistic; the music choices are inspired. And that infamous "ear" scene? Frankly, it's one of the few scenes that doesn't work. It just comes off as dumb.

Think of Reservior Dogs as the rough sketch for a movie yet to come: Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction is superior in every respect, but it's a treat to see its progenitor.

Bold enough to be a new genre
Quentin Tarantino has done an amazing job at taking a very low budget, and using a unique method of story telling and raw dialogue to turn it around. He was also lucky to get a great cast much like Pulp Fiction did. This film creates a new genre, because his un-chronological and very raw vision will be and is being copied all over the world. Many people criticize Tarantino for worshipping violence and profanity. However, when you examine the film's plot, it is really quite reasonable that characters swear as much as they do. And also, the violence in the movie only seems as bad as you make it in your mind, as the worst parts are only partially shown. This is another one of Tarantino's tricks. Some great performances are had too, for example Michael Madsen. His cold-blooded and partially psychotic character misleads us, up until a scene where he attempts to burn a kidnapped police officer, where our adoration of him turns to hate. However, Quentin quickly balances that out wonderfully. The ending may be a little "off" for some people, but all in all a great film.

Awesome movie. Awesome DVD. Definitely one of the Best!
First and foremost, this is indisputably Quentin Tarentino's best film ever. After having seen it some dozen-plus times, it still captivates and intrigues me with every watching. The way the plot works itself out is ingenius, the suspense is second-to-none. Steve Buscemi, as Mr. Pink, is a highlight of this movie: He plays his character ridiculously well.

The entire two hours of this film are violent, disturbing, riveting, captivating, and raw: All said, this film is like a cinematic car accident - you rubberneck, you gasp, you feed this primordial urge to see violence and power. The story of five men - Mr. Blue, Mr. Pink, Mr. White, Mr. Brown, Mr. Blonde - converge when they are called into do a jewelry store heist. However, theyf ind out that one of their fellow gangsters has set them up: That the heist failed because someone among them had ratted them out.
The entire movie unfolds as, really, a two hour dialogue between Mr. Blonde, Mr. Pink, and Mr. White - as well as with the subsequent intruders into the wharehouse. The entire film, essentially, takes place in a wharehouse with sporadic flashbacks and cuts to other instances which lead up to the final scene.

This DVD is an awesome buy. It comes with a fullscreen and widescreen edition, as well as lots of special editions: trailors, posters, picture galleries, etc. Definitely, this movie is an excellent addition to anyone's DVD collection. One of the best values I have in my collection! ... Read more

Amazon.com

After the Sunset may not be the greatest jewel-heist caper comedy ever made, but it sure is easy on the eyes. Shifting back into his crowd-pleasing Rush Hour mode, director Brett Ratner kicks off the action with a rousing chase scene that pretty much describes the entire film: utter nonsense, but adequately enjoyable. Things get very sunny thereafter, when FBI agent Woody Harrelson lands in the Bahamas to track down ace diamond thief Pierce Brosnan and his lovely accomplice Salma Hayek, whom he suspects of planning their next big heist on a cruise ship. A Bahamian gangster (Don Cheadle) wants in on the action, and the whole thing's about as fluffy as an Elmo doll and just as harmless, especially when you consider Hayek's revealing wardrobe (which, thankfully, distracts from Brosnan's less-than-Bond-like physique). There's an abundance of witty banter between everyone, and the tropical locations make After the Sunset a balmy, vicarious vacation. Critics weren't exactly kind to this breezy dose of popcorn entertainment, but it's an agreeable time-killer and an instant cure for seasonal affective disorder, even if the comedic chemistry leaves something to be desired. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Better Than I Expected
This isn't really a caper film, which is one reason I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.Sure, it has some of the elements of the Hollywood caper movie--the debonaire, super-clever and super-successful thief, the cop out to thwart him, exotic locations--but the movie isn't really about will-he-pull-it-off-or-won't-he.It's more of a cat-and-mouse buddy movie.That the heists are utterly implausible, to the point of being ridiculous (as they are in most caper movies, like Oceans's Eleven and Ocean's 12) doesn't matter as much, because it's not what the movie focuses on.

Instead, we get a lot of cute banter and bonding between Harrelson and Brosnan, who are fun to watch.There are some good, low-brow laughs in this movie--they are enough for me.I laughed out loud, for instance, when during the fishing scene Harrelson is putting tanning lotion on Brosnan's back, and Brosnan says, "My pole!" and Harrelson pulls back with disgust and says, "No way, I'm only doing your back!" (Of course, Brosnan meant, Look at the pole; I caught something.)There are other, similar crude jokes and sight gags.

Both men are good in their roles, and fun to watch.The female roles in the movie seem incidental, a formulaic requirement of Hollywood movies, and are never really developed beyond that basic requirement.And what is Don Cheadle, a great actor, doing in such a miniscule role?Anyone could have done his rolel he's sadly wasted.Chris Penn has an amusing cameo...but my goodness, has he gotten fat.I remember seeing him in movies in the 80's, before he starting hitting the Big Macs.You don't often see an actor let himself go like that.

Commercial for Bahama Tourism Starring...
After the Sunset is a fluffy piffle that is almost always beautiful to look at, but emptier than the nutritional content of cotton candy.

Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek make a good-looking couple, and the movie actually TRIES to address a theoretical dilemma that is infrequently brought up in movies.If a rich and successful criminal retires, what do they do?If, presumably, part of why they were a criminal in the first place is for the thrill of it, how can they be content simply retiring?If being a thief is both your job AND your hobby, what do you do after the last "big one"?The only film I can think of that showed the boring lethargy that sets in on a successful criminal is the end of "Scarface" when Al Pacino is lying around in the marble tub of his palatial bathroom, smoking a cigar and cursing at his wife and buddy.

But I digress.After the Sunset would be familiar territory if the only movies you had seen were the "Ocean's 11" remake(s).It's a "steal the jewel" caper.It tries to be a comedy, but Brosnan and Woody Harrelson don't have the comic chemistry we've seen both of them have in other work. Harrelson appears as the FBI agent who has been repeatedly burned by Brosnan, and wants to get his revenge.It follows the film cliche where the lawman is "hot on the trail" of the criminal - a la "Heat", etc., but instead of an edgy relationship between the Thief and the Lawman we get a bumbling comic relationship between Brosnan and Harrelson.

The "star" of the film is the way it looks, and much of that is owed to the Bahamanian resort standing in for paradise.The movie made me want to go there - but it didn't make me want to ever see this film again.

Our family has been in manure for three generations!
Did I miss something?Was there a contest going through all the Grade Schools of America to find the best story for acclaimed director Bret Ratner to bring to the silver screen?If so, why wasn't there a calendar made for those who didn't make the final cut?Oh, wait, apparently children did not write this film, but instead a guy that wrote for the TELEVISION SERIES the Weakest Link.That surely makes him ready by all means to tackle the caper genre and inherit a big payday ... right?You are the weakest link ... good-bye.This movie was a disaster from the beginning.With cardboard acting, an aging (and girth growing) sex symbol, and a corny ending that incorporated nothing that we were shown through the entire film, it is a big wonder how After the Sunset ever saw the illustrious "green-light".Perhaps it was the size of Salma's boo ... name, or perhaps the fact that Pierce Brosnan's The Thomas Crown Affair was such a cult film, or maybe because Don Cheadle was in it, because it had really no pull with just Woody headlining.So, how did this film get made?This film targeted pre-teen boys and retirement communities, and with their great pull, the financing behind this film became very easy.

This was a caper film right?We are supposed to go on this roller coaster ride of who's conning whom, coupled with lies, deceit, and a surprise ending that will make you want to rewatch from the beginning to experience anything that you missed.That is the focus, goal, and overall tone that a film like this should have followed.Instead, Ratner decided to just make a movie without any sort of excitement or drive.As I watched this film, I never once felt excited about the plot.Why?Because there was nobody getting me excited.The acting in this film was well below par for anything that Hollywood has released.Pierce tries, but just can't seem to capture the essence of the film.There is no little demon inside you rooting for anything.Salma's role was basically for eye-candy.She provided nothing spectacular either.I can literally say the same for Woody and Cheadle as well.Here we have strong actors doing absolutely nothing during the course of about two hours.These characters never drive the plot, they bring nothing but clichés to the table, and by the end we really don't have any true grasp as to whom they are.Honestly, cardboard cutouts could have replaced the actual actors and After the Sunset would have been a better film.There was no depth to the characters, no emotion, no structure, just the simple direction of "step here, say your line, step here, look surprised".It was embarrassing for all that were involved.

I think a major flaw to this film was that Ratner did not fully understand, or was prepared, for the caper genre.From the opening moments until the end of the film, you can tell that Ratner is just trying to use his friends in the industry and show the world that he has some power as well.I say this because I saw no true direction or moment of impressiveness where he defines himself as a director.He reuses the same ideas throughout the entire film, he doesn't give anything strong to his players, and nothing stood out in this movie.Sure, it was a beautiful location, but am I to believe that Salma spend a majority of the film building a deck for them to sit on?Am I to believe that Pierce is still a sex symbol even with a HUGE gut sticking out?Am I to believe that Cheadle is a bad guy/imported American who is at the top of the community?Finally, am I to believe that Pierce could still move as quickly as Ratner defined?I swear that in the final unclimactic moments of this film, I could hear Pierce doing some heavy breathing to get from point A to point B.Maybe he isn't ready for the next Bond role.

So, without a good story, or decent characters, maybe there was some humor in it that could pull us away from the sour sensation cultivating in your mouth.Well, guess who is placed in to do the humor element? Woody Harrelson.Now, I don't mind Woody, but in this role, he just wasn't believable and his humor was so cliché that I had trouble believing that he brought anything to this character.He literally plagiarized his entire role.Teachers, and film viewers of the world, should be very upset with him.Instead of bringing a new twist to his character, he resorted to weird sex humor, skimpy bully humor, and that ever-popular drunken humor while fishing that is sure to make that senile woman in the front burst out with laughter. To me it was pathetic and a worthless attempt to make a joke out of already dead film.

Overall, this was a massive disappointment.Here you had a decent director, some strong players, but the worst story ever written by a man who wrote for a game show.Which piece does not fit?There was this huge sense of apathy throughout this entire film and clichés riddled it that I just couldn't get past.Brosnan had trouble with this film, and I couldn't tell if it was because he just didn't care, or because he was working with such low-talent that his heart just wasn't in it.The ending hurt as well.There was no excitement or intensity, just plain ... "here it is ... like it or not".I personally couldn't digest this film with its poor acting and below-par story.This may be a good film for some that are not familiar with the caper genre, but for me it was just hogwash.

Grade: * out of *****

I Liked It
I liked this movie alot. I watched it twice. I really enjoyed the little twist it had at the end.

AFTER THE BOREDOM! (21/2 ) STARS
Where the hell was the action in this movie! It started off
decent, then went down hill from there. The only thing that
kept me watching this lame script, was Salma Hayek! I gave the
movie 1 1/2 stars, and Salmas body 1 extra diserved star! ... Read more

Description

Catch him if you can. The Fugitive is on the run! Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones race through the breathless manhunt movie based on the classic TV series. Ford is prison escapee Dr. Richard Kimble, a Chicago surgeon falsely convicted of killing his wife and determined to prove his innocence by leading his pursuers to the one-armed man who actually committed the crime. Jones (1993 Academy Award and Golden Globe winner as Best Supporting Actor) is Sam Gerard, an unrelenting bloodhound of a U.S. Marshal. They are hunted and hunter. And as directed by Andrew Davis (Under Siege), their nonstop chase has one exhilarating speed: all-out. So catch him if you can. And catch an 11-on-a-scale-of-10 train wreck (yes, the train is real), a plunge down a waterfall, a cat-and-mouse jaunt through a Chicago St. Patrick's Day parade and much more. Better hurry. Kimble doesn't stay in one place very long! ... Read more

Reviews (126)

Fugitive is Dr. Richard Kimball: Go get this movie.
If I were stranded on a desert island and all I could have was my abysmally sparse movie collection, I would make sure "The Fugitive" was in it. Thankfully, it is. This is one of the most entertaining and engaging movies ever, far superior to a lot of movies playing these days. For the few of you who don't know the plot, I'll run it past you without spoiling much...

The story revolves around a Chicago surgeon named Dr. Richard Kimball (Harrison Ford) who is convicted of murdering his wife (Sela Ward). He pleads innocent, claiming that a one-armed man committed the heinous crime (the opening sequence, showing the murder in flashback style, is chillingly realistic). Well, no one believes the good doctor's alibi, and he is sentenced to death. However, after his prison bus crashes into a train, he escapes back to Chicago to find the murderer, while keeping away from US Marshal Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones) and his team of deputies.

Having never seen the old TV series, this movie was nevertheless fantastic. The thrills just keep coming, as well as the tongue-in-cheek humor, courtesy of Tommy Lee Jones and Joe Pantoliano (as Cosmo, Sam's deputy), who really steal the show in a lot of scenes. The screenplay is obviously very sharp. The train-and-bus wreck will take your breath away, as will the waterfall sequence. Aside from these action scenes, it's great that this movie is shot in Chicago, one of the greatest cities in North America. Sorry, personal bias, I loved Chicago when I visited a couple years back. The acting is very well done, and the characters are very three-dimensional. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a modern "Les Miserables". Nice transition from action thriller to action-mystery as the film enters its second half. If you follow the plot, which is fairly easy to keep up with, the ending will shock you. All in all, "The Fugitive" is definitely worth the bang for your hard-earned buck. If you haven't seen this wonderful piece of movie-making, do so ASAP.

Quality-wise, the DVD is pretty good. Director Andrew Davis does a cool little documentary on how the train wreck was filmed.

MOVIE-10/10
DVD EXTRAS-8/10

Ford hits another home run
Ditto what that other reviewer said: this is another great Harrison Ford vehicle. They really DON'T make movies like this any more. It needs not typical DVD additions, not cut scenes, not trailers, or interviews.

Back in the day, Wednesday morning school was dominated by the discussion of the latest episode of "The Fuge" from the night before. This is the only film I can think of which actually did justice to the classic television show from which it sprang.

Tommy Lee Jones is a fantastic U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard. He appears not to be obsessed with the capture of Dr. Kimble (as was his television predecessor, portrayed by Barry Morse). Nonetheless, we get the feeling that he brings the same determination to every case he has. Ford once again is the "everyman" (if a docto