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

Amazon.com

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

Reviews (424)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DVD

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

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

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

Reviews (19)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cookieman108

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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

Reviews (168)

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

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

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

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

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

SECONDHAND LIONS is not one of them.

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

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

A Message from Count Olaf

Dear Adoring Fan of Count Olaf,

Count Olaf

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

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

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

All Things Snicket

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

The Essential Lemony Snicket Books

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

More from the Movie

Original Movie Poster

Soundtrack

Wall Poster

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

For PS2

For PC

For Xbox

For GameCube

... Read more

Reviews (254)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Based on an idea by Gene Roddenberry, Andromeda confidently wears its debt to Star Trek on its sleeve, recalling the best sci-fi of Roddenberry's heyday. The two-part premiere "Under the Night" and "An Affirming Flame" make for a terrific introduction to the lead character, Captain Dylan Hunt, played by Kevin (ex-Hercules) Sorbo. He's a sympathetically flawed idealist in command of the Andromeda Ascendant, a massive starship of the now-disbanded Systems Commonwealth. The fall of civilization has meant that although she ought to be a relic she remains the zenith of technological advancement.

In the series opener we see Captain Hunt in battle against 10,000 enemy ships, winning a bout of fisticuffs with a close friend turned enemy traitor, wrestling with the shock of being frozen in time for 300 years and then diplomatically negotiating his way out of a salvage rights battle for his ship. The Andromeda Ascendant's emotionally driven, life-like computer is desired by the Eureka Maru salvage vessel, and feisty Captain Beka Valentine can barely stop her engineer Harper from drooling about tinkering with her. The Maru's shipmates are similarly driven: Rev Bem (from another sworn enemy race) has a spiritual calling, while cutesy-pie Trance Gemini's motivations are part of her winning mysteriousness. One final addition is the show's muscle, Tyr, the enemy with a conscience who would later get the spotlight in such episodes as "All Neptune's Great Oceans" and "Music of a Distant Drum."

"The Pearls That Were His Eyes" was one of the first conceived episode ideas, but was delayed until the availability of a Star Trek regular. That eventually turned out to be John (Q) de Lancie, who gives a brilliant turn as Beka's long-lost Uncle Sid."Star-Crossed" is the first-season episode that caused more gossip than any other. Stargate regular Michael Shanks guest stars, falls in love with Rommie on screen (and with Lexa Doig off screen), and then suddenly quits SG-1. There's certainly a spark between them in the show to support the gossip. The secondary cause for talk was its broadcast rescheduling in sympathy with the events of September 11 since it opens with a terrorist attack. Criticized by some for its extreme violence, the season finale "Its Hour Come 'Round at Last" will stay with you one way or another. Maybe for the sight of an alternate Rommie turning uncharacteristically nasty to everyone and seriously kicking butt. Or maybe the mind-blowing Magog Worldship, made up of 20 planets and their sun. Or maybe just the seemingly impossible scenario each major character is faced with as the show ends. --Paul Tonks ... Read more

Reviews (9)

A great, fun, action/sci-fi show
First I'll review the show, then the box set itself.
The Show:
From the first few moments I knew this show would be enjoyable. The production values are pretty magnificent. The CG battles are easily on par with feature films. The makeup could use a lot of work, but the sets are pretty solid. The characters are definitely unique. My favorite being Tyr (Anasazi, out of Victoria by Barbarossa) the Nietzschean mercenary and perfect foil to Kevin Sorbo's Dylan Hunt. The plot seems to meander quite a bit in this first season, with more filler than I like, but when it works it works spectacularly. The season finale is some seriously tense television.
Overall I love this show, dispite its flaws. It seems to think it has the epic scope of Farscape, DS9, or Babylon 5. And at times it reaches those heights, but not consistently. At its heart it is a character driven action show, and on that score it delivers by the boatloads. If you're a sci-fi nut like myself you'll find little not to like. Personally I see it as both contemporary and companion to the show Farscape.

The DVD/set:
As with all ADV products I've run across, the sound and picture quality are magnificent. That's never the problem. The box set is pretty dry on the extras I like to see, namely interviews and behind the scenes footage, both with the cast and the writers. Though there is a lot of info on the background on the world, I'll give them that. Again, as with other ADV box sets (*cough* Farscape *cough) you're truly better off waiting for the box than buying each "collection" individually. Unlike the FS boxes however, you can buy this and still afford food that month.

Overall: The show got better in the 2nd season, and it could use more interesting extras, but its still a great and underrated show.

I wish people would stop complaining
I like this series, and I'm now waiting on the Season 2 release to be delivered.

I just wish people would stop complaining about the fact that ADV released the boxed sets at a lower price than the individual discs. Buying in bulk, things are always going to be cheaper, that's just the way things are. I always wait before buying any series, including this one, because boxed sets will come eventually, and as time goes on, prices will inevitably fall on just about anything.

I don't want to be rude, but I think anyone who didn't have the foresight and patience to wait for prices to fall, and boxed sets to come out, and rushed in to buying individually packed discs at inital retail prices, deserved to get ripped off.

Brilliant - waiting for more box set releases
This really is brilliant SciFi. I thoroughly enjoyed series 1 box set. The best treat was I thought that Voyager was the end of an era. I'm so glad to find another series that matches or exceeds the StarTrek series.

Studio: Please release some more full season box sets. Buying the 5 individual collection sets is way too expensive. I agree with the other reviewer -- just release series box sets. We don't need these 2 disk collections.

One last comment. The packaging is ok. But why do these box sets need to be so big. Take a leaf out of Fireflies box set. They use super thin individual disk boxes. The other annoying thing is that with these big multi-DVD boxes the disks actually fall out of the clip during the long transit to Australia, resulting in scratches on the surface. The FireFly box on the other hand hold the disks in place super firmly.

Congratulations on an outstanding series everyone involved in the production.

A fresh and original sci-fi series
A highly underrated series. After hearing some negative comments, I didn't expect much from Andromeda. However, I was very pleasantly surprised and I am now a big fan.

After watching the dissapointing Voyager, with its cliche storylines and mediocre character development, Andromeda was a refreshing experience. The plot and back story are excellent, the writing intelligent and original, the acting and character development superb. Special effects are some of the best I've seen on a television show.

One thing I really like about Andromeda is that the characters are not black and white like other science fiction series. All the major players have their own agendas, and only a little is revealed at a time. The show is full of plot twists, surprises and a lot of action. Several important themes are explored, such as philosophy, morality and science.

I highly recommend this collection to anyone who is open to something new and different.

"Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda"
I recently got hooked on "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda" when Sci-Fi began airing the series; I was hooked from the first episode. I'm not sure about some of the science; for example, is it possible for a starship to edge close to the event-horizon of a black hole, yet not get sucked into it, since even light cannot escape a singularity? And why is there a starfield in front of the black hole, and the "Maru," as she's towing the "Andromeda" away from the event-horizon? Wouldn't the black hole swallow any star systems in the area-as well as both ships? Or does the "Andromeda Ascendant" have capabilities which allow her to safely maneuver that close to a collapsar? And why does the technically advanced "Andromeda" not have tractor beams for towing?

Other than that, its a great show-so great in fact, that the occasional science inaccuracies don't seem so bad.

The First Season DVD is a keeper. It has pretty good special features; the timeline of the Systems Commonwealth adds a nice bit of background history, as do the Argosy/High Guard ship specs. My only complaint is that the ship specs should feature blueprints of the ships along with the specs. Still, I s'pose that's a minor complaint. The print for the ship specs and actor/character bios are very small and difficult to read. But I can live with that. I like the commentaries and actor/producer interviews as well.

The second season "Andromeda" DVD graphics and features are a bit slicker and more sophisticated than those of season one, still, though season one's very much worth owning if you're a fan.

All-in-all, a worthy addition to the Roddenberry corpus of fine sci-fi shows. Its nice that Majel Roddenberry, "Star Trek" TOS's Nurse Chapel, and Roddenberry's widow, is executive producer. And series developer/producer Robert Hewitt Wolfe, of "Star Trek Deep Space Nine" does his usual great job on this series as well. This series has an epic scope that comes across real well-you can actually believe there was a vast Systems Commonwealth, which collapsed three hundred years in Dylan Hunt's past.

If you're a fan, you'll need to order the season one boxed set. ... Read more

Description

In 1964, the Beatles had just recently exploded onto the American scene with their debut on "The Ed Sullivan Show." The group's first feature, the Academy Award-nominated "A Hard Day's Night," offered fans their first peek into a day in the life of the Beatles and served to establish the Fab Four on the silver screen, as well as to inspire the music video format.Songs: I'll Cry Instead, A Hard Day's Night, I Should've Known Better, Can't Buy Me Love, If I Fell, And I Love Her, I'm Happy Just to Dance with You, Ringo's Theme (This Boy), Tell Me Why, Don't Bother Me, I Wanna Be Your Man, All My Lovin', She Loves You. ... Read more

Reviews (264)

Wonderful Film with FABulous Extras
This is one of the great films from the 1960s and should be seen by everyone at least once during their lifetime.

The film has held up very well and the editing still looks innovative nearly 40 years later. One thing that is very noticeable with this set is that the music has been digitally remastered and the sonic quality of the songs is markedly different from the dialogue in the rest of the movie.

The extra disc provides a lot of insight into the making of the film and the whole Beatles scene. Everyone from Richard Lester to the tailor and hairdresser on the film talk about their memories. Klaus Voorman gives an interesting interview where he shows drawings that he made during the early years of Beatlemania. There is also a documentary on the first disc that repeats clips from some of the interviews on disc 2 but most of the insights are unique to this special.

Despite the fact that there is a lot of bonus content, even more would have been appreciated. While there is an interview with the man who designed the film's movie poster, an actual gallery of posters and lobby cards would have been appreciated. It would have also been appropriate to include theatrical trailers for the film. This set does include DVD-ROM content but I did not have access to it so perhaps these things are located there.

Other things that could've been added to disc 2 include deleted scenes shown in "You Can't Do That! The Making of 'A Hard Day's Night'" and the "I'll Cry Instead" intro that was added to the film when it was re-released in the 1980s. Richard Lester's "Running Jumping Standing Still" film should have also been included since it's mentioned so much on the DVD.

For fans of 1960s cinema or the Beatles, this set is a keeper. Here's hoping "Help!" gets similar treatment someday.

Fab -- A very clean old movie
"A Hard Day's Night" makes most critics' best-ever lists. It's widely considered an electrifying mix of great music and hip comedy, both a time capsule of the swinging '60s and a timeless entertainment. Roger Ebert calls it "one of the great life-affirming landmarks of the movies."

Respect hasn't led to respectful treatment. Legal wrangling followed "A Hard Day's Night" throughout its home video life, resulting in oddities like the "tribute to John Lennon" musical prologue tacked on for VHS. The first DVD version, from MPI in 1997, disappeared after a few months of distribution.

Here, finally, is an up-to-date rendition worthy of the film.

"A Hard Day's Night" looks and sounds about as good as could be expected. The carefully lit black-and-white images should please most viewers -- even though they're on the flat side, with persistent minor speckling. The stereophonic songs swing as they must, smoking the tracks on Capitol's (shamefully outdated) soundtrack CD. (The MPI video had significantly worse sound but deeper contrasts.) Try this: Put on the Capitol version of "Tell Me Why" and then play the movie version. Perhaps Capitol can tell us why they continue to sell 15 year old Beatles CDs.

The film, shot in 35mm, is presented in widescreen, letterboxed with a ratio of about 1.66:1, enhanced for 16x9 televisions. The spiffed-up audio comes via Dolby Digital, with the musical numbers in stereo.

The first disc contains the movie as well as "Things They Said Today," a new promo film that gives the big picture. The second disc is all interviews, arranged by category (cast, crew, etc.).

Martin Lewis, a Beatles historian and pal to most of the filmmakers, conducted 30 video interviews for the package. They include key players -- Martin, director Richard Lester, United Artists exec David Picker, cinematographer Gilbert Taylor ("Star Wars") and Beatles publicist Tony Barrow -- as well as those who were just lucky to find themselves working on a film project "at the center of the universe."

The reminiscences get infusions of energy from upbeat clips, some amplifying the talkers' points and others making Beatle-esque visual jokes. The production was extensively filmed and photographed, with hours of that material first seen in this collection. The interviews are tightly edited, surprisingly focused and often a great deal of fun. It becomes clear that contributing to the film profoundly changed the lives of most of these people.

Seriously Lacks Originality
An overrated band starring in an overrated documentary. I was under the impression that the goal of a film such as this was to convey a sense of time and place, and realism, but apparently the cliched "flop tops" couldn't be bothered for that. In 90 minutes, these third-rate musicians skip a television rehearsal almost ruining the entire program, neglect responding to fan mail, harass their manager, harass young women, harass old women, harass the police, encourage school drop-out, endanger the elderly, and let's not forget play horrible generic pop music (which is obviously lip-synched, completely destroying any realism the director might have been going for). I'm surprised they weren't arrested, seeing as how all of their deeds were caught on film. If anyone had a Hard Day's Night from this film, it was me from the nightmares I had after seeing it. God bless Aaron Carter - now there's a candidate for a documentary!

An Original
This could have been a "B" movie exploitation film of a short lived pop group. Instead, it turned out to be the precursor to MTV and music videos, shows what made the Beatles so much fun and manages to play a few of their great tunes at the same time. The plot is minimal, consisting of the Beatles entourage getting the Beatles to a live television show on which the Beatles are to perform. Nearly from the beginning to the end, the Beatles are chased by pimple faced young teens, the police, their handlers, and everyone else. And throughout the film, Paul's grandfather, played by William Brambell (a very clean old man), keeps stirring up problems.

The nominal plot allows the Beatles natural likeability to shine. This film established the personas of the individual Beatles (as portrayed to the media) -- Paul -- straightforward and good natured, John -- incessantly sarcastic, George -- subtle with a dry sense of humor, and Ringo -- quiet, shy and introspective. The movie is irreverent, inventive, funny, droll, deadpan, filled with non-stop movement, and some great, if dated, rock-n-roll! A wonderful film showing the exuberance of youth, the innocence of an earlier time, and Beatlemania in all its glory!

The DVD's extras include interviews with about everyone still living who participated in the film except the surviving Beatles. While it is nice to have all of the insiders reminiscing about the film, it would have been nice to hear from some of the Fab Four.

Movie is great but extra features aren't that spectacular
A Hard Day's Night is a GREAT movie and the DVD does help with the quality of the film. However when i bought this i thought possibly some of the extra features would contain interviews with the Beatles and so on. THERE WERE NONE..But since the movie is great and so is the quality i would still recommend buying it. ... 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

Amazon.com essential video

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

Reviews (45)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead