Amazon.com

The extended edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was perhaps the most comprehensive DVD release to date, and its follow-up proves a similarly colossal achievement, with significant extra footage and a multitude of worthwhile bonus features. The extended version of The Two Towers adds 43 minutes to the theatrical version's 179-minute running time, and there are valuable additions to the film.Two new scenes might appease those who feel that the characterization of Faramir was the film's most egregious departure from the book, and fans will appreciate an appearance of the Huorns at Helm's Deep plus a nod to the absence of Tom Bombadil.Seeing a little more interplay between the gorgeous Eowyn and Aragorn is welcome, as is a grim introduction to Eomer and Theoden's son.And among the many other additions, there's an extended epilogue that might not have worked in the theater, but is more effective here in setting up The Return of the King.While the 30 minutes added to The Fellowship of the Ring felt just right in enriching the film, the extra footage in The Two Towers at times seems a bit extraneous--we see moments that in the theatrical version we had been told about, and some fleshed-out conversations and incidents are rather minor.But director Peter Jackson's vision of J.R.R. Tolkien's world is so marvelous that it's hard to complain about any extra time we can spend there.

While it may seem that there would be nothing left to say after the bevy of features on the extended Fellowship, the four commentary tracks and two discs of supplements on The Two Towers remain informative, fascinating, and funny, far surpassing the recycled materials on the two-disc theatrical version.Highlights of the 6.5 hours' worth of documentaries offer insight on the stunts, the design work, the locations, and the creation of Gollum, and--most intriguing for rabid fans--the film's writers (including Jackson) discuss why they created events that weren't in the book. Providing variety are animatics, rough footage, countless sketches, and a sound-mixing demonstration.Again, the most interesting commentary tracks are by Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens and by 16 members of the cast (eight of whom didn't appear in the first film, and even including John Noble, whose Denethor character only appears in this extended cut).The first two installments of Peter Jackson's trilogy have established themselves as the best fantasy films of all time, and among the best film trilogies of all time, and their extended-edition DVD sets have set a new standard for expanding on the already-epic films and providing comprehensive bonus features.--David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (1869)

Stupendous!
"They don't make movies like that any more." This is reference to Cecil B. DeMille's spectacular remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. I mention one of the few universally acclaimed film epics of all time because with THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS,
Director Peter Jackson has staked unchallengable claim to motion picture immortality. Visually the movie is staggering in technological excellence. It seamlessly combinines sweeping photographic grandeur with superlative integration of CGI and modelwork(Claymation & Superdynamation)that humbles even the work
of IL&M, and would have made Ray HarryHausen proud.

Thematically, the story is truly grand and has raised film making--again--to the level of Mythological. Those familiar with Tolkien's literary epic--with rare exception--have been astounded by this director's monumental artistry in cinematically incarnating one of the greatest "stories" ever written.The cast(humans;creatures; monsters;)is brilliantly essayed.(Sean Astin deserves particular recognition as Frodo's "guardian" friend, SAMWISE). The complex plotting is clearly delineated;and ACTION(quest development;battles; epic romance interludes)ranges from apocalyptic to majestic. THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS magnificently continues what was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP of THE RING. Peter Jackson has created a unique work of film making that is both artistically wonderous and breath taking entertainment.It is a stupendous achievement.(10 Stars)

Incredibly, once again, Peter Jackson does the impossible
From gliding through the Misty Mountains and reliving Gandalf's battle with the Balrog to the Battle of Helm's Deep, the climactic scene of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, I think that, even though Frodo Baggin's (Elijah Wood) quest is still unfulfilled, a group of hard-working New Zealanders have once again created an epic adventure confection of a movie, full of fantasy, courage, imagination and flair. J.R.R. Tolkien would not have been disappointed.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, since is a continuing of a story, doesn't stop to introduce us to the quest or the characters from the first part, The Fellowship of the Ring. Beginning right where the first left off, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) must continue their quest to Mount Doom and destroy the evil One Ring. Hunting them done is the rascal Gollum (Andy Serkis) but promises to lead them in to Mordor secretely. In Fangorn Forest, captured hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) escape from the Orcs and are rescued by Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies), an ancient ent.

Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) enter the country of Rohan. After the miraculous return of Gandalf (Ian McKellan), the four see King Theoden (Bernard Hill). But the king isn't doing too well. He's doing practically everything his servant Grima Wormtongue (Brad Dourif) is telling him. Wormtongue is in league with Saruman (Christopher Lee) and therefore is kicked out of Rohan. Aragorn, Gandalf and Theoden must discuss Rohan's plans to counter Saruman and Sauron.

Saruman is preparing for war, as we've also seen in The Fellowship of the Ring. He has been crossing orcs with goblins, breeding the dreadful Uruk-Hai to launch against Men of Gondor and Rohan. Gondor has it's own problems holding off Sauron's evil army. It all comes down to Saruman against the country of Rohan: A war of 10,000 Uruk-Hai against hundreds of Rohan people. Can Men claim a victory against Barad-dur and Orthanc, the union of the Two Towers?

The Two Towers, for me at least, had a quicker pace and sharper sense of movement than the more-episodic Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson easily presents a film that will keep your attention for the full three hours. In many ways, The Two Towers is a much livlier film than it's predecessor. It takes a deeper look into it's character's own problems, dreams and future, covering many subjects: The war for Rohan, the war for Gondor, the war for the ents, and possibly the most important, the fate of the One Ring.

If The Fellowship of the Ring was a beautiful-looking movie, The Two Towers easily surpasses it visually. With the use of a program called MASSIVE, Peter Jackson and company takes flawless computer animation and simplistically adds it to real-life to create a stunning world. The Battle of Helm's Deep is one of the most memorable scenes of all time, while it uses a fantastic blend of live-action and computer animation. I say it's already got the Best Visual Effects Oscar in the bag. Not just because of the CGI, but with the camera trickery to make the hobbits small and the great backdrops.

I am appalled by the number of reviewers saying that this isn't faithful to Tolkien's book. Everyone should know that books and film are two different media, and should be treated as such. Many things in Tolkien's story would've gone horribly wrong on screen. As Peter Jackson said, if you were to film LOTR page by page, faithful to everything, what you would get is a mess. Many don't realize that what works in a book will NOT work on film. Be happy that you actually have a LOTR movie. Many filmmakers would not have been up to transferring Tolkien's story to the big screen. Jackson did make a few unnessesary changes, but he's a brave filmmaker to actually take on LOTR and still make something this good. Quit whining.

It might need a bit more humanity, but I'd say the chemistry between characters is much more alive and vivid in The Two Towers than with The Fellowship of the Ring. The relationship shared by Gollum and Frodo, or more importantly, Gollum and Sam, works wonderfully. Aragorn trying to convince King Theoden to go to war and the characterization involving Gimli was exceptionally. The Return of the King will see a lot more of this.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers continues Tolkien's trilogy with very few missteps. It is on every count as good as the first, and in many ways, even better. It could possibly be the most sinister film ever, a banquet of monsters and beasts. It's doing so much better at the box-office than the first, and it easily surpasses it in spectacle. It's still unclear how it will do at the Oscars. Being a sequel, it might not get nominated for Best Picture. However, I'd say it has already sweeped the technical awards. It certainly deserves it.

This is the best of the three!!
Usually, the second movie in a trilogy is the weakest. It doesn't have the freshness of the first movie or the finality of the final movie. The Two Towers, however, is the exception to the rule. For lack of a better phrase, it rocks!!! The extra material included in this extended version DVD really fleshes out the movie. After you watch it you'll wonder why Peter Jackson left it out; it makes the movie complete. The fight scenes at Helm's Deep are great, and you forget that a lot of what you're seeing is computer generated. Several new characters are introduced, but you feel like you've known them all along. The best part of the movie is the addition of a Boromir/Faramir scene. Of course, I could be biased. I love Boromir (Sean Bean). This movie is a cinematic masterpiece. It's great!!!

Excellent
Not just pasting in deleted scenes, this version was assenmbled from scratch with additional material that add to the depth of this movie. THIS is the version to buy for watching at home.

You haven't seen LOTR until you've seen this!
OMG! I love this movie so much, I never put it back in the case...it's always in the dvd player. If you at all liked the original theatrical version, you HAVE to get the extended version. The addded footage completes the story and fills in character developement. And you HAVE to listen to the cast commentary. Dom and Billy are hilarious. And the bonus disks are well worth the money. Forget that...added Viggo footage makes it WELL worth it. Plus, the box is beautiful. ... Read more

Description

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

Reviews (224)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A great film for children and adults! ... Read more

Amazon.com

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

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

Reviews (19)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cookieman108

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (37)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GO SEE THIS ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

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

Reviews (17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ginger jones

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

Amazon.com

The Waltons' nearly 10-year run on network television grew out of the popular, 1971 made-for-TV movie The Homecoming, which was derived from a Depression-era, rustic setting ("Walton's Mountain"), and characters based on Earl Hamner Jr.'s autobiographical novel Spencer's Mountain--itself the source for a very nice 1963 feature film starring Henry Fonda and Maureen O'Hara.That's a lot of entertainment sprouting from Hamner's prose. But something about his seminal story of family values, rugged independence, and big dreams amidst a hardscrabble existence captured the hearts of American audiences, many of whom personally recalled severe economic adversity in the 1930s.

The Waltons: The Complete First Season collects those initial episodes from the series building on the strengths of the Homecoming pilot, which introduced the extended Walton clan led by a strong-willed mill owner, John (Andrew Duggan), and his equally resolute wife, Olivia (Patricia Neal). The Waltons recast those key roles (as well as a few others) with Ralph Waite and Michael Learned (yup, a female), but Richard Thomas carried over as oldest child John-Boy Walton, an aspiring writer whose cusp-of-manhood view informs the series. Will Geer (Seconds) replaced Edgar Bergen as Grandpa Walton, Ellen Corby remained as Grandma, and John and Olivia's large brood (seven kids in all) were filled out by largely unknown, young actors. The episodes, still delightful and touching, strong on production values and unusually tight and polished for primetime drama, tended to focus on creator Hamner's pet themes of self-sacrifice and heroic effort when the going got tough.

Year 1 highlights include "The Carnival," in which the impoverished Waltons, who can't pay for tickets to see a circus performance, end up sheltering stranded carney folk. "The Typewriter" is a classic about John-Boy "borrowing" a museum's antique typewriter, only to have his sister Mary Ellen (Judy Norton) sell it as junk. "The Sinner" concerns the arrival of a fundamentalist minister on Walton's Mountain, finding comfort in the words of religious iconoclast John Walton after the clergyman makes a fool of himself with moonshine. That's Hamner himself providing touches of narration. During the long run of the multiple-award-winning The Waltons, there were many changes in casting and storylines. But this boxed set reveals a fine series in its pristine state.

Year 2 still finds the original cast complete and the show humming along nicely on nostalgia for an earlier America, specifically the Depression-era 1930s, a time of sacrifice and family unity as The Waltons portrays it. The characters we came to know so well in season 1 continue to live in a spirit of cooperation and generosity, and with hope that a younger generation of Waltons will prosper and dream new dreams for everyone. The 24 episodes included in this boxed set feature a number of very strong stories, including a handful of classics, all immersed in the series' typically old-Hollywood production values. (Several season 2 shows were directed by Waltons star Ralph Waite.) Among the best is the premiere, "The Journey," in which the ever-noble, college-bound John-Boy (Richard Thomas) passes on a school dance and an important date to take an aging neighbor, Maggie Mackenzie (Linda Watkins), on a special, final journey. "The Separation" finds Grandpa (Will Geer) and Grandma (Ellen Corby) Walton feuding--even living apart--after the former crafts a secret plan to raise money to pay the family's electricity bill. (Their reconciliation is one of the series' most enjoyable and tender moments.) The memorable "The Thanksgiving Story" is a nail-biter in which John-Boy, facing a hopeful future as he awaits college and a visit from his girlfriend, endures a head injury in the family mill and must undergo surgery. Finally, "The Honeymoon" sees John (Waite) and Olivia (Michael Learned) finally taking their honeymoon after 19 years of marriage and seven kids. Throughout all the major storylines is a constant buzz of subplots concerning John-Boy's younger siblings--their joys and disappointments, first loves, accomplishments and relationships with one another. The Waltons never slows down, but it is capable of revealing the most delicate of feelings within shared or private moments. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (33)

One of my Favorite TV Shows...But 5 Discs??
I absolutely love this show. The first time I watched it, it seemed to much like an ultra-violent soap opera and I wasn't sure if I liked it. I watched the second episode and it grew on me and by the third episode I was hooked. It's so over-the-top that you can't help but be entertained. They should put it on HBO or something so they don't have to hold back on anything. You can tell the show wants to be worse, content wise, than it already is.
The one thing I find odd about this set is that it's five discs. That seems a little weird considering that there were only 13 episodes in the first season. This set should be 3 discs, 4 at the most. The first two or three should be just episodes then either put the Special Features on the third or on a fourth disc. The price seems a little high, but it's totally worth the money. Wow Nip/Tuck Season 1, Simpsons Season 4 and Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 2 on the same day. I can't wait! Second season starts June 22nd. YES!

"A Perfect Life"
When I heard great things about this series from friends, I simply had to check it out. Unfortunately for me, I don't have cable. However, when this DVD set came out I was lucky enough to find it for rent at a local video store and thus I rented and watched all five discs. I'm glad I did! This is a great series that shouldn't be missed.

The plot centers on Dr. Sean McNamara (Dylan Walsh) and his partner in crime Dr. Christian Troy (Julian McMahon). They are both plastic surgeons who share their medical practice. Together they help people to hide on the outside what they can't face on the inside. Sean McNamara has a wife (Joely Richardson) and two children, and seems to be relatively content with his life. That is, if you ignore the fact that he doesn't talk to his wife and kids as much as he should because of his work hours. Furthermore, his wife feels resentment towards him because she raised the kids alone and helped support him through medical school while ignoring her own dreams. Christian Troy is the antithesis of Sean in many ways. He is a commitment-phobic sex addict who tries to get out and enjoy what life has to offer. The fact that he makes a ton of money and can wave that notion in women's faces certainly aids him in his quest. Undoubtedly, he has made several enemies along the way.

The relationship between these two is complex. They are more than mere business partners. They are best friends and confidants, and together they get themselves mixed up in strange medley of unsettling incidences that will test their friendship and ultimately bring them closer than ever before. Throughout the course of this first season, they will be unwillingly involved in trafficking drugs across the border, disguising child molesters, and even getting rid of a dead body. In addition to the roller coaster ride of events they experience together, they each have their own separate personal ordeals that must be dealt with. Dr. McNamara's crumbling marriage is a constant reminder of his failures, and Dr. Troy's risqué love life will come back to haunt him.

The ultimate theme for the series is that no matter how beautiful we look on the outside, there can still be hideousness on the inside. We are a society of grit and grime, and no amount of money and technology will change that. Nip/Tuck portrays that harsh reality in a brutal, in-your-face manner that is both intriguing and addicting. The symbolism seen in the opening of each episode is a great way to emphasize this point.

I must admit that I wasn't all that interested in this series after the first couple of episodes. They seemed to plunge the viewer right into the plot without spending much time developing the characters. I wanted to know who these people were and why they would do some of the things they were doing. However, I'm glad I stuck with it and continued to watch. With each new episode, small tidbits of each character's personality are revealed. These are complex characters that can't be explained in a few episodes. The writing for each episode is phenomenal, with each one being better than its predecessor.

I definitely suggest this series to fans of good television. I should note that the plastic surgery scenes tend to be quite graphic and are definitely not suitable for everyone, but don't let that keep you from checking this out. I can't wait for the second season to come out on DVD!

Searingly hot-sexy, provocative, involving.
Wow did I love this series! I missed it during the original broadcast, but based on what people have told me, I gambled on this box set. I feel like I hit the jackpot.

It's definitely not for everyone though. No sirree.

First of all, if you're squeamish, the brilliantly reproduced surgeries can be a bit nauseating. (I'm a surgeon, and I loved 'em. My wife, an ex-nurse, had to close her eyes...)
Second, if you are at all uncomfortable with the topic of sex, stay away. This series will plant you into situations you have not even imagined. Bouncing between hilarity and discomfort, sex is definitely a theme throughout the 13 shows.

Third, if you appreciate good acting, it does not get any better than this. Seriously. This is "Sopranos" good; "NYPD Blue" good. The two lead performances are pitch-perfect, both deeply flawed and often morally reprehensible individuals who at the end of the day, you can't help but root for. The "supporting" players are a heck lot more than that, and provide tons of drama, amusement and eye candy.
There is beauty and ugliness everywhere, from an absolutely gorgeous female figure to a purely evil drug dealing psychopath. That's just in one episode.

Fourth, the screenwriting is bling-bling eye-popping, smart as all hell and consistently surprising. The thirteen episodes link nicely together, the first ones dovetailing back into the last ones. I was constantly taken aback at the twists, the lines, the situations they came up with. Let's just say that I learned in the very first episode that crocodiles prefer ham to human flesh. And that fact is actually important to the story...

I haven't even had a chance to go through what appears to be fairly extensive supplements and deleted scenes. I HAD to write in...I will recommend this to ANYONE, anyone over 18 I should say, who likes good television and may like to be pleasantly shocked from time to time.

With great restraint I have withheld many (if not all) plot points, because the exhilarating thrill of discovering them on your own is something you'll only feel once. Without spoiling too much, the show centers on the Miami plastic surgery practice of McNamara/Troy.
Sean McNamara is a questionably happily married man, with one teenage son, and one grade schooler daughter.
Julia, the wife, is plagued by doubts surrounding her love for her husband, the urge to go back to medical school and sexual attractions/distractions galore.
One of whom might be Christian Troy, Sean's best friend and partner, and one of the most gleefully decadent characters in TV history. I mean "decadent" in a good way. Sort of.
His travails include, but in no way are limited to, a continuing parade of sexual partners, a number of hysterical surgical propositions, problems involving his boat, his cars, his apartment and the plastic surgery competition across town.
Other important characters include the melting hot staff psychologist and the defiant, embittered, proudly lesbian anesthesiologist. The cast has such chemistry that they not only react to one another, they generate this bubbly heat together...it's fun to watch them prod each other to new heights.

The one thing that struck me the most about these shows is the amount of genuine heart that stands at the center of each episode. There is a large amount of provocative, politically incorrect but unassailable truth here...nothing you'd like to admit, but stuff you instantly recognize. As you get to know these characters, establshing empathy fir them is easy. It's darn near irresistible. I was hooked from the first five minutes.

I could write more, but I need to go check out the extras, AND the four NEW episodes I have on tape. I have just GOT to get my Tivo hooked up...

Not for the faint-hearted
This is a gritty, down-to-earth show. From the start, I knew I was hooked. Originally I watched the show because Julian Macmahon was in it, I had seen him in Charmed and thought he was great. This show really lets him shine. Sure, there's lots of blood, realistic surgery, and sex in it, but don't let that distract you from watching theese two great actors (who do NOT play two brothers - watch the show with you eyes and ears open before writing a review) show what real life can be like. You can really get a sense of what someone may go through when they feel the need to seek out a plastic surgeon's help. Combined with the back story of the two doctor's lives outside the office, and it just makes for great viewing. It's something you have to watch yourself, do not let someone else tell you that it's good or bad - just try it, I bet you'll like it.

Dawson's Creek without the Creek
I caught an episode of this one night on F/X. The dialogue is like the tracks on a roller coaster. It makes for a great ride. I decided to pull away and wait for the DVDs. I was not disappointed.

Drs. Sean McNamara and Christian Troy are not as shallow as their profession would have you assume. I think that is the focal point of the show. These two guys care more than they should, and they care about each other most of all.

Each episode has a story in itself, as well as advances an overall story of the season. You'll find yourself addicted to the next episode. You'll want the next story and you will want to know what is going to happen to these characters, Sean and Christian, Sean's wife and son, as well as the patients that come through or in and out of the plastic surgeon's lives. This is a show where you care about the principle characters along with the second tier story tellers, i.e. the patients.

Definitely give this series a try. F/X has got the best one-hour dramas out there. ... Read more

Description

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

Reviews (49)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Sweetness that doesn't turn saccharine is hard to find these days; Finding Neverland hits the mark. Much credit is due to the actors: Johnny Depp applies his genius for sly whimsy in his portrayal of playwright J. M. Barrie, who finds inspiration for his greatest creation from four lively boys, the sons of widow Sylvia Llewelyn Davies (Kate Winslet, who miraculously fuses romantic yearning with common sense). Though the friendship threatens his already dwindling marriage, Barrie spends endless hours with the boys, pretending to be pirates or Indians--and gradually the elements of Peter Pan take shape in his mind. The relationship between Barrie and the Llewelyn Davies family sparks both an imagined world and a quiet rebellion against the stuffy forces of respectability, given physical form by Barrie's resentful wife (Radha Mitchell, High Art) and Sylvia's mother (Julie Christie, McCabe and Mrs. Miller). This gentle silliness could have turned to treacle, but Depp and Winslet--along with newcomer Freddie Highmore as one of the boys--keep their feet on the earth while their eyes gaze into their dreams. Also featuring a comically crusty turn from Dustin Hoffman (who appeared in another Peter Pan-themed movie, Hook) as a long-suffering theater producer. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (245)

A very beautiful movie.
I agree with T burger.I did do some research after watching this & the main point of the movie is the same.He created this world after meeting & falling in love with those boys.If they made every movie that's based on fact word for word they would probably be boring.They're usually loosely based & meant more to entertain than to inform.I loved it.Story, great, sets, great.Johnny Depp Double great.

wow...
This movie is truly captivating. I am a sucker for fantasy-sort and movies packed with lots of imaginiation. I guess its the kid coming out of me. (which doesn't often go away)
This movie really does make you go back and remember all your dreams as a little child. Wishing you could fly, dreaming of far off places, magic, fantasy lands, and so on.
The reason for this movie is to take a look at how Peter Pan related to its author and his life. It is really interesting to see the parallels between the movie and the events and people he had in his life. I highly recommend it. Its touching and captivating.

Handsome-looking, sentimental tripe
Marc Forster's FINDING NEVERLAND isn't a bad movie, I suppose. In its depiction of playwright J.M. Barrie's creation of the classic PETER PAN, it has its occasional moments of real wide-eyed wonder (mostly during re-enactments of moments in the actual play), and it has generally fine performances from its cast---not even the prestige-pic atmos