Reviews (161)

Smart, scary, and unforgettable.
SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is an amazing film. It operates on three separate levels. On one level it is a story of a filmmaker, F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich), obsessed with his own ambition and vision. He is remaking the Dracula legend, changing the name of the vampire to Count Orlock. His film will be called 'Nosferatu'. He has hired the 'ultimate method actor' named Max Schreck to play his vampire. Schreck is said to get into character and stay there, only wanting to be filmed at night and only responding to the name 'Count Orlock'. But as filming progresses, the truth becomes clearer and clearer... Schreck really IS a vampire, agreeing to star in Murnau's film in exchange for the chance to dine on the leading lady. It's a delicious concept, even more so after you've seen the classic, silent original. It's easier to believe that Schreck was some kind of monster then it was to believe he was simply an actor in makeup. That's how effective Schreck's performance in the 1922 German film is. The second level of the film is more familiar. It is a horror film. It has all the elements of a vampire film and it acts on all of them, actually reaching a degree of creepiness that you wouldn't expect from a film this (excuse the phrase) 'artsy'. And finally, SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is a seething satire, one where the lead actor cannabalizes the cast and crew to get what he wants and the director is so focused on his vision that he ignores the fact that the people around him are falling ill, they are merely meat puppets (Hitchcock and Kubrick would have been proud). This is a fun little film, with aspirations towards greatness that it all but reaches. The production design and brilliant cinematography allow for an accurate reproduction of the settings of the 1922 film. So dead-on, in fact, that when actual footage of the silent film is inserted into the film, we can't tell the difference. Director E. Elias Merhige work beautifully with an amazing casy which includes Malkovich, Udo Kier (of 'Andy Warhol's Dracula' fame). Eddie Izzard, Catherine McCormack, Cary Elwes, and Aden Gillett. But the real star here is Willem Dafoe, whose performance of Max Schreck as long suffering and desperate monster is so accutely creepy and inventive that it'll make your skin crawl.

Not as good as it should have been but not bad either
As a couple of others have bravely stated, this movie is just not as good as it should have been. Somewhere during the film, the story gets lost in a big way. I understand what they were trying to say with the ending but the film should have built up to it. As it stands, the ending feels very tacked on and is, therefore, unenjoyable for me.

Having said that, there *are* plenty of enjoyable moments in this film. Willem Dafoe is exquisite. His portrayal of Max Shrek is both comic and very moving. It makes me think of a photograph of the real Max (taken during shooting of "Nosferatu") sitting on a hillside, looking very alone. If you're at all familiar with comedian Eddie Izzard, you'll love his performance as well. He had me in giggling fits (more often than I should have been, I warrant). John Malkovich is John Malkovich, as always. He's very charismatic so I can't say if I was entranced by his performance or by the man himself. I don't think he can be anything other than brillliant, even though I don't think his role was very well written. I don't feel Murnau's character was properly built up. You're left making too many assumptions. There were several times when I couldn't stop wondering what had been left on the editing room floor, and why? I felt that way quite often actually, and not just in regards to Murnau.

The best parts, for me, came when the crew was filming "Nosferatu." Malkovich was most amusing when giving directions to his actors. And it was interesting to watch the actors improvise those moments. But my favourite scene is the one in which Max (Willem) explains to Albin (Udo Kier) & Heinrick (Aden Gillett) why the book "Dracula" made him sad. It starts out very funny but quickly becomes very moving. There's quite a bit of that in the film: comedy to tragedy. Those moments kept me interested but left me desperately wanting a much better written/edited film. I can't help but wonder what got left out due to the project running out of filming time. If more attention had been paid, this could have been a masterpiece.

A film you can't miss.
Before we start, let's talk about the film's plot. This film takes place in 1929, were there filming the classic film, Notferatu(I think that's spelled wrong). The gut has hired a REAL vampire to play the part. What he doesn't know is that the Vampire is really evil and planning to kill the entire cast. I thought this was a great film because it makes you think that this actully happend. Yep not joking, you forget this is just a film some times. I thought Notrferatu was cool in this film. If you liked the classic film Notferatu, you'll like this film!

Why?
Willem Dafoe was great in this film, but that's as far as this good review goes. Maybe, I just didn't "get" what they were trying to do with this film. The story seemed extremely underdeveloped and was very rushed toward the end. Like the entire film crew suddenly realized that they had drug their feet during filming and had 10 minutes to tie it all up. Nosferatu was brilliant, and this almost downplays it's brilliance.

Definitely my Favorite vampire movie!
First of all I must admit I don't much care for most vampire movies -- different reasons for different ones. But this one I just loved! Willem Dafoe was SO camp as the very creepy looking vamp, and you could tell he was enjoying the heck out of his role. That makes it really good, when the actor is really enjoying playing a Creep. Also, the whole storyline and cinematography, other actors, screenplay, everything was just Excellent. I don't give many movies (of any genre) 5 stars, but this one I do. Awesome!! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The Bret Easton Ellis novel American Psycho, a dark, violent satire of the "me" culture of Ronald Reagan's 1980s, is certainly one of the most controversial books of the '90s, and that notoriety fueled its bestseller status. This smart, savvy adaptation by Mary Harron (I Shot Andy Warhol) may be able to ride the crest of the notoriety; prior to the film's release, Harron fought a ratings battle (ironically, for depictions of sex rather than violence), but at the time the director stated, "We're rescuing [the book] from its own bad reputation." Harron and co-screenwriter Guinevere Turner (Go Fish) overcome many of the objections of Ellis's novel by keeping the most extreme violence offscreen (sometimes just barely), suggesting the reign of terror of yuppie killer Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) with splashes of blood and personal souvenirs. Bale is razor sharp as the blank corporate drone, a preening tiger in designer suits whose speaking voice is part salesman, part self-help guru, and completely artificial. Carrying himself with the poised confidence of a male model, he spends his days in a numbing world of status-symbol one-upmanship and soul-sapping small talk, but breaks out at night with smirking explosions of homicide, accomplished with the fastidious care of a hopeless obsessive. The film's approach to this mayhem is simultaneously shocking and discreet; even Bateman's outrageous naked charge with a chainsaw is most notable for the impossibly polished and gleaming instrument of death. Harron's film is a hilarious, cheerfully insidious hall of mirrors all pointed inward, slowly cracking as the portrait becomes increasingly grotesque and insane. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (373)

A Very Short Review
Now let me start by saying, if I could have given this "film" a zero, I would have. Unfortunatly that is not possible.

This is by far, the worst film I have seen this year. Mary Harron was trying way to hard and it shows. The movie has very little substance to it, and people seem to be fond of attaching vague statements to their reviews like "brillant satire" and "amazing mind games." None of these terms can rescue this movie however, as it is a feeble attempt at art, a meaningless and shallow depiction of rich white business men in the 1980's, and a totally unconvincing portrait of a serial killer.

As far as the acting in this film I was not impressed with Christian Bales protrait of a man with no conscience. The dialogue was to "clever" to be believable, or even stomachable. Bale's voice over's are painful and irritating to listen to.

What upsets me most about this film, is not the film itself but the tendency for people to compare it to either Clockwork Orange or Fight Club. American Pyscho does not begin to compare to either film, although their were some shots(most notably towards the end) that seemed to emulate Kubricks style, but they do no justice to the late genius. As far as comparing it to Fight Club, the narrative style, and structure of the two films are vaguely similar, although Fight Club is on an entirely different level.

All in all, American Pyscho will fade into oblivion within the next few years. There is absolutely no good reason to watch this movie as you will gain nothing from it. I apologize for being a little vague in this review myself, but I was so dissappointed in the film, that a second viewing is simply out of the question.

American Phycho
This film rocks!
There, now thats out of the way I may begin.This is a satirical look at life in the late Eightys in greedy New York, a group of young, rich and bored men and women live there lives on a cocktail of expensive restaurants, clubs and drugs. Howerver all is not well and good within Patrick Bateman(Cristian Bale)he has developed a intense bloodlust through bordem he gets nasty with often shocking but occasionally humourous results.
My advice : BUY IT AND WATCH IT TWICE

A satircal view of the eighties with incidental killing
Despite its title and a considerable amount of bloodshed, “American Psycho” is a superbly witty and satirical film. The film is ostensibly about a serial murderer who happens to be fabulously wealthy, handsome, fit, and successful, but it is really a sarcastic critique of the money culture that defined the nineteen eighties.

Patrick Bateman is a twenty-seven year old CEO who lives in the late 1980s and spends his leisure time in exclusive restaurants and clubs with his peers. He has occasional love affairs so meaningless that he can’t be troubled to remove his trousers during epidermal frictional activity, and of course, he kills people. Bateman is an odd bird who is obsessed with the comparative quality of business cards and who possesses an encyclopedic knowledge of contemporary (i.e. 1980s) music.

Bateman’s homicidal impulses are frequently governed by his intense hatred of the superficial world around him. (spoiler).

The message of this film is that in the yuppie culture of the late eighties, even if you were a self-confessing murderer, people would not be able to see you for who you were. In a sense, Bateman, the murderer, is like other extreme characters in literature such as Werther, Pechorin, and Merseault. Like his literary predecessors, Bateman is alienated by the superficial society around him and is driven to extreme forms of reaction against it. In a notable scene, Bateman brings two call girls to his apartment and commands them to debase themselves in front of him. Later, as he thrusts his tube steak in and out of their love pockets he makes ridiculous posses in front of a mirror, essentially laughing at himself.
To its credit, “American Psycho” is not a clinical or horrorific film. While serial killing is certainly a grizzly subject, it is a more a device and a motif than a theme in this movie. Much of the killing is performed off camera. What homicide we do see is stylized to the point of being ridiculous. In a wonderful way, the film goes out of its way to assure us that its concerned with satire, and a social critique not with simulating brutality.

"Payback" level humor combined with psychotic thoughts
Christian Bale plays a yuppie on wall street with some serious mental issues. The attitude of the movie is sarcastic and mostly humorous. The actors do a good job of following the look and feel of the movie- everything is a little corny.

Patrick Bateman (Bale) has only a few emotions. Two are greed and disgust, and the third is an uncontrollable urge to kill, which is his only escape from a dull and dreary life.

Due to the many complaints about this movie, I will state the obvious: this movie has a lot of killing in it. The presence of the word "psycho" would tip most people off, but just in case it's not for squeemish folks. But even being squeemish won't ruin it, as there is very little visible violence. In most cases, the victims are not shown much during the attack. It's about as tastefull as you can get when it comes to killing people. The most graphic displays are Bateman's pencil sketches.

The movie contains elements of satire, but the personalities of his friends were chosen to provide Bateman's personality a suitable environment, filled with others that don't find his outward displays of greed and concietedness odd. The movie may contain a lot of poking around, but the focus is definitely on the psychological aspect of Bateman- the ridiculous decade takes the back seat.

[...]

That brings us to the intellectual aspect of it. You could watch the movie without really paying attention to what happens, and just laugh at goofy scenes and pathetic yuppies. But one only has to listen to the dialog at the end to get the main idea.

For the benefit of those that don't get it (in order to preserve the surprise, I will leave one part unexplained), in the beginning Bateman kills out of boredom and addictive impulse. Only after his great frustration with the jarring issue at the end does he become frustrated with hopelessness and truly sadistic. He then suggests he will kill for the actual satisfaction of watching others suffer to make up for his own mental pain (a big difference when it comes to the rehabilitation issue, which is not addressed). This is all spelled out in the movie, with the exception of transferring vengeance to murder, but by that time we can hardly reason to doubt his inclusion of murder as an option. Since the mood of most of the movie tends to put you in a watch-only mode, I can see how some people might need to watch the last couple minutes over again, as the resolution is 99% dialog.

A few corrections to common comments. First, there are no real cries for help. Bateman reveals himself to drunk/drugged people for his own amusement (one of which he is already carrying out his plan to kill). His only serious confession is near the end, and becomes necessary for the plot, so there is no reason to believe the movie is about the armchair psychology of "cries for help." Second, the is no men/women sexism, or at least no preference. The men are selfish pigs, the women are too emotional, and both are equally promiscuous. They're all scum. Also, there are almost no similarities to Fight Club. Sure, the main characters are both nuts (though they have completely different disorders), and there is violence in it. Not much of a match. I find two real connections myself. One being that both movies require the viewer to be light hearted and not too emotional about violence (which leads to emotional types to classify them as both too violent, and thus the same). The other is that unobservant critics make the same mistake about both: they fail to comprehend that the main characters are crazy (and therefore the films purpose is not to promote whatever they do) and try to draw cliche statements about society as the theme.

Finally, if you are the type that needs to have a hero in every movie, this is not for you. Much like the Mel Gibson flick "Payback," the movie is full of unscrupulous characters, including the protagonist. To really enjoy the movie, you have to laugh at ridiculous and trite murder.

Grey humor and creepy stuff
I say grey because the movie is too goofy in so many parts to call it dark. If you like to laugh at stuff that the average whiner refers to as horrible, this movie is great. The acting is great on all parts. "Bateman" will really convince you he is nuts, and all of the other characters do a great job of playing [exagerated]corny yuppies that take themselves seriously. It's as if the director knew it was a joke but the actors didn't.

For all of the humor and rediculous eighties characteristics, it gets a little creepy at the end if you pay attention. There are a few different angles to psychotic behavior you could gather, all of them at odds with popular attitudes. If you don't get into all that, it's still a fun movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Originally produced for the Independent Film Channel, John Lurie's idiosyncratic take on the classical fishing program places the genre in entirely alien terrain--and that doesn't just refer to the strange and exotic locations. Best known to filmgoers for roles in Stranger Than Paradise and The Last Temptation of Christ, Lurie is also a composer, a saxophonist, the leader of the jazz group the Lounge Lizards, and a painter. Fisherman, however, is nowhere to be seen on his résumé, so this city-bred hipster's foray into rod and reel country is obviously another kettle of fish. Reeling in buddies Tom Waits, Matt Dillon, Willem Dafoe, Dennis Hopper, and director Jim Jarmusch to join him on his fishing trips to such faraway locales as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Thailand, Lurie takes his show completely out of the "how to" realm: imagine a talk show defined by its contemplative silences. Fishing with John teaches nothing about fishing. Instead, John simply enjoys the company of his buddies as they venture out into unfamiliar territory and drop a line in the water, tossing in a current of absurdist commentary (dryly intoned by Roy Webb) and surreal speculation for good measure. This is the ultimate fishing show for people who could not care less about fishing. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (31)

a new perspective on fish, life, and everything in between
Awkward, and at times uncomfortable, John Lurie invites the viewer to accompony him and some rather amazing film and music stars on his extreme fishing trips. While going completely off target, and abandoning all sense of reality, Lurie manages to leave everthing behind except what is fundimentally important in life (whether you're Dennis Hopper, Tom Waits, or nobody in particular), and that is: well, i'm still not quite sure. Whatever it is, John Lurie has somehow caputered in these episodes...
Brilliant work...

But what about fishing with John 2: Peanut Butter on Cheese
I can't believe that it's been ten years since John Lurie made this series and it still holds up. Great comedy fishing show that isn't over-the-top. Its more crack a smile humor most of the time but certain episodes are clearly made just to make us laugh - the episode with John and Jarmusch comes to mind (every time they show a school of fish they use the sound effect of a bunch of children playing) - and other episodes - such as the one with Tom Waits - are more thought provoking. The locations that are used - Montauk, Vietnam, Canada - are all gorgeous and are far and above any run of the mill fishing show. Even if you aren't into fishing at all - this is the show for you. Its a fishing show that isn't about fishing at all - just a guy hanging out with his celebrity friends and occasionally catching some fish. That is, until he and Willem Dafoe find themselves snowed in and unable to catch anything and they go insane and die. There aren't any fish in that episode.

Fishing with bad movie.
Fishing, in general, is dull, which makes it a bad premise for anything. Nowhere in the Amazon.com review do the words funny, laugh, amusing, or good appear. The review describes it excellently, "imagine a talk show defined by its contemplative silences." What does that mean? It means don't watch this.

Life is beautiful,for some more than others.
This DVD is the next best thing to fishing.

an odd comedy and mockumentary
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition.

This is the first non movie released through the Criterion Collection. It is a short lived TV series, which is a satire of the saturday morning fishing shows which used to be popular.

Im this show, experimental musician John Lurie goes fishing with movie stars. There are 3 half hour episodes and one two-part hour long episode.

The special features are audio commentary by John Lurie and a music video of his band, the Lounge Lizards.

This show is one of the oddest comedies I have ever seen and completly out of the mainstream. Fishermen and comedians will both like this show. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Disappointing Lives
There is a deep and profound sense of foreboding that permeates Pieter Jan Brugge's "The Clearing," which reminds me, in tone if not in execution, of George Sluizer's "The Vanishing": another film about a kidnapping. But unlike "The Vanishing", "The Clearing" is more interested in the kidnapee's (Robert Redford) family than in the kidnapping itself: particularly Helen Mirren's Eileen. And despite the presence of Redford and William Dafoe (as the kidnapper), it is Mirren's touching and sensitive performance that dominates and perfumes this film with her transcendent and refined performance.
The central story involving the actual kidnapping and the psychological battle between Dafoe and Redford is weak due to spotty writing but when Mirren is on screen "The Clearing" becomes transparent, concise and intelligent.

Boring With A Horrible Ending
[Spoiler Alert]

The Clearing is about a goodie goodie rich guy(Robert Redford) who's kidnapped by a depressed, down and out guy(Willem Dafoe). The wife(Helen Mirrin) of the rich a$$ must stay strong as possible. During the kidnapping, the rich guy and the poor guy talk to each other and discuss how much they have in common and how much they don't.

This movie is boring, but most of it is interesting. Then there's the ending. The ending proves nothing except that there's no point to the whole film. Willem's character kills Redford's character and purposely gets caught. All the conversations, the crying, the depression, only to see the hero of sorts get killed. Redford should've known better. I'd expect Dafoe to pick a bad role(he played Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ), but he actually does good. The ending comes so quick that you never really figure out why Dafoe's doing this and why he waited all day to kill him.

Was this review helpful to you?

Total Disappointment
The whole plot of this movie can be summed up as follows: penniless guy kidnaps rich guy and penniless guy either kills or doesn't kill the rich guy (I won't spoil it for you by revealing which). That's really all there is to it. It's not a story at all, it's a collection of scenes, most of them pretty dull.

Like "Memento" and "21 Grams," this movie plays tricks with time: the scenes involving the wife don't run parallel in time to the scenes involving the husband. Presumably, the director did this to make a flat movie more interesting, but it didn't work. Presenting scenes out-of-synch is becoming trendy in Hollywood. I think the technique is already getting tired and is just "artsy fartsy," copy-cat nonsense that can't put a story there when no story exists to begin with.

Of the three principal performances, only Dafoe's is interesting and well-crafted. He out-classes the film and his fellow cast members. But, in the end, even his performance is sunk by the lack of good lines: the interplay between he and Redford during their interminable trek in the woods is a marvel of B-movie banality. Mirren sleepwalks through her role. Redford seems to have had plastic surgery around the eyes. Whatever the extent of the surgery, it has limited his ability to register normal facial expressions. Just what an actor needs to enhance his perfomance. On top of that, he still looks old and worn out despite the surgery. His performance mirrors the way he looks: tired.

The actors who play Reford's grown children are totally unconvincing. The guy who plays the son overacts embarassingly in certain scenes; it's as though he's determined to make this minor part vault him into a great Hollywood career. Only a bad director lets that happen. Note that the movie's director has no prior experience as a director, only as a producer.

A scene that Roger Ebert loved, involving Helen Mirren's confrontation with her husband's elicit girlfriend, just doesn't ring true. In real life, the girlfriend would have refused to answer the wife's intimate questions and would have simply told her to go to hell. This "affair subplot," by the way, leads nowhere and contributes nothing to our understanding of the Redford character or his marriage.

Another problem is characters behaving in inappropriate ways, which may have been a sloppy way of creating false "suspects" in the minds of the audience. Even if you mentally correct for the non-parallel time lines, you still have odd situations like Redford's wife and daughter cavorting in the pool, having birthday parties, or playing with their dog... all while knowing that Redford is in mortal danger.

Overall, this was dull, sloppy and surprisingly devoid of plot. What was Redford thinking?

Don't waste your money.
The Clearing is so boring that it makes Redford's other masterpiece, A River Runs Through it, which is a 2 hour course on fly-fishing look exciting by comparison. After waiting and waiting for something to happen, the ending is a relief and brought cheers from the audience. We got up and lamented we'd wasted what seemed like at least 3 and 1/2 hours.

Desperate People do Desperate Things.
The beautiful woods with the goldenrod , ferns, wildflowers and alll the lovely trees looked like the one in which I hiked in The Great Smoky Mountains in Gatlinburg, TN, or could have been on Pine Mountain in KY or the State Forest in Alabama. Nope, it was somewhere near Pittsburgh, PA. Guess every state has these lovely clearings out in the midst of trees and trails for hikers to use on their rambles.

It looked similar to that in Cades Cove where A WALK TO REMEMBER was made many years ago near Knoxville starring Ingrid Bergman and Anthony Quinn. It looked like the Redford movie, A RIVER RUNS THROUGH which used a young Brad Pitt when he looked like a young Robert Redford.

But time changes and things change. This outdoors experience was not planned, at least by the victim of a kidnapping. The night woods were scary. The snowy woods were not explained.

There was a mile-long tunnel similar to that from Harrogate, TN to Middlesboro, KY, a state of the art structure. Their buses were like KAT's with the sideways seats, totally uncomfortable and take up more room than seats facing the front.

One man's life is dreary and humdrum compared with that of the victim with his big, fancy residence with pool. A notable thing at the dinner at which he was absent was huge wine goblets on tall skinny stems, also lots of candles. But where was the food? The wife wore gorgeous outfits but was one gritty woman like Kate Nelligan played in WITHOUT A TRACE.

These were disappointed people where everybody suffers for one indiscretion. The victim wore two wedding rings, one on either hand. He had a wife who loved him and a mistress who respects him. Guess that explains the two rings. There are levels of deception, as we see in this movie.

There was a cat and mouse chase with the ransom demands. The wife drove a car with Ohio license plates. She was determined to obtain his release and broken-hearted when she mistakenly thought he had staged his own kidnap. As she aged during the stress, she looked like Bea Arthur in THE GOLDEN GIRLS.

Both saw mirages at relevant times to soothe the hurt. Who was this 'Watcher' who would and could do such a dastardly act? ... Read more

Amazon.com

Winner of nine Academy Awards and almost every critic's heart, The English Patient (based on Michael Ondaatje's prizewinning novel of love and loss during World War II) is one of the most acclaimed films of modern times. Hana, a nurse, (Juliette Binoche) tends to an archaeologist (Ralph Fiennes) who has been burnt to a crisp in a plane crash. As their relationship intensifies, he flashes back to his overwhelming passion for a married woman (Kristin Scott Thomas). Meanwhile, Hana begins a new romance with a man who defuses bombs (Naveen Andrews) and Willem Dafoe almost steals the show as the thumbless thief Caravaggio. The intricately layered flashback narrative, sounding the depths of the lovers' hearts, improves with repeated viewings--especially with the sharp picture and digital sound of the digital video disc. ... Read more

Reviews (270)

A true cinematic masterpiece
Anthony Minghella's adaption of the novel by Michael Ondaggte, is proof that directors nowadays can still produce beautiful epic romances. This has everything a great movie can ask for and it deserved every single Oscar it was nominated for (sadly no Best Actor win for Ralph Fiennes). It's a quite complicated, yet simple, story about an English archaeologist (Fiennes) and his recollections as his memory and life are leaving him over War World II under the care of an emotionally-challenged nurse (Juliette Binoche, who won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this subtle, yet superb thought provoking performance).He remembers the desert, his love for a married woman (Kristen Scott Thomas) and of course, his wrong doings while he was alive. The movie is made up of flashbacks or shots of beautiful cinematography set up against even more gorgeous music. The performances are all top-notch. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe (as a thumbless thief) are the stand-outs. The only bicker I have about the film is Kristen Scott Thomas's character. She was supposed to be overwhelmingly sensual and deep and if you ignore the acting of Thomas and instead listen to her lines it will prove more effective, but she just seemed shallow and unsexy. She nearly destroyed many of the scenes with Fiennes, but thankfully he covered up her flawed character (that for the most part, was well-written- just the wrong actress.) I would have also liked to see more of the relationship between the nurse and her lover who undoes dangerous bombs. Anyway, the movie in itself is like a sunrise beautiful and slow and meaningful. A true cinematic achievement and hopefully a classic to be remembered... Anthony Minghella is definitely a promising director although I think this magnificent accompolishment will be hard to out do.

An Affair in the Desert
Well, so much for the days of "if you can't say anything nice....". I don't mind people disagreeing with me, (as one reviewer wisely said, "Your review reveals a lot about your tastes") but when one needs to lambaste a film that is, by all accounts, well produced, I simply must Re-act. Trying to compare this film (or any other film for that matter) to others is like trying to compare animal species. Some may look similar but they ARE vastly different.

This movie on its own should be commended for its lush cinematography, brilliant actors, sweeping muscial score and fine war-era costumes. Since this film was publicly unpopular, it of course won 9 Academy Awards, just like in years past. I believe the Academy got it Right.

To those who (or know how to) care, give this near 3 hour movie a try. True, the main love story is adulterous,(I enjoyed far more the story of Hana and Kip), but the entire cast, including the desert, kept me involved. Lastly, I have yet to read the novel, since being a former drama student, you learn that different mediums require different approaches, so to compare book and film, for me, is without merit. The English Patient, the movie, however, is worth while and worth seeing.

PASSION SWEPT UNDER BY THE CHANGING WINDS OF WAR
Based on Michael Ondaatje's sweeping WWII novel, "The English Patient" is the story of a young Allied nurse, Hana (Juliette Binoche) who finds herself alone in an abandoned Italian monastery and tending to a mysterious burn victim (Ralph Fiennes). Like David Lean's Dr. Zhivago, this mystical and epic film is told through a series of flash backs integrated with a subplot that is supposedly taking place in the present. During the flash backs we learn of the tragic circumstances that have led to the current state of the stranger. Fiennes is Count Laszlo, an archaeologist - and assumed Nazi sympathizer - who is in love with Katherine Clifton (Kristin Scott Thomas). She, unfortunately, is married to the long suffering, dispassionate, Geoffrey (Colin Firth). The two are off gallivanting through the dessert in search of artifacts when the passionate relationship between the Count and Kate ignites. The resulting, all consuming, lust that overtakes these lovers is intricately balanced and compared to Hana's burgeoning romance with an East Indian soldier who defuses bombs, Lt. Kip Singh (Naveen Andrews). Willem Dafoe is brilliantly cast as Caravaggio - a man whose association with the allies (in a flash back) was exposed to the Nazis, the result being that Caravaggio had his thumbs brutally amputated with a switch blade. Caravaggio is determined to brutalize the man he believe is responsible for exposing his secret, the man he suspects is the burn victim lying helpless and dying in the monastery. Winner of nine Academy Awards "The English Patient" is a bittersweet love story between four people (two couples) who meet with untimely and destructive forces that ultimately alter the course of their lives forever.

THE TRANSFER:This disc was previously released as a flipper from Miramax in a non-anamorphic and somewhat grainy transfer. The previous disc suffered greatly from the intrusion of pixelization and edge enhancement. It also lacked anything in the way of extras. For the most part, these oversights have been corrected on this newly remastered 2-disc special edtion. The picture quality exhibits marginal improvements in both clarity and fidelity, due in large part to the fact that this time around the disc has been enhanced for widescreen televisions. Colors are rich, bold, vibrant but at times tend to be garishly unbalanced. Occasionally flesh tones may appear slightly on the pasty side. Otherwise, there is a deep, textured look to the visual presentation that is thoroughly in keeping with the subject matter. Contrast and black levels are bang on. Fine details are nicely realized. Pixelization still exists and sometimes breaks up finer background information. Also, certain scenes tend to look as though some edge effects have been added. Again, all these shortcomings are relatively minor for a picture that will surely not disappoint! The audio has been remastered to 5.1 and exhibits a very visceral and thrilling sonic experience. The sound of Count Laszlo's plane flying over the dunes is both aggressive and stirring and the musical score is wonderfully spread across all 5 channels.

EXTRAS: include a very comprehensive commentary by writer-director Anthony Minghella, producer Saul Zaentz and author, Michael Ondaatje. Minghella has more to say than the other two but all contribute fascinating tidbits to the production of the film and the inspiration for the novel. The deleted scenes segment is presented in a unique way - I won't ruin it for anyone but needless to say it's more refreshing than the treatment usually afforded deleted scenes. The CBC's documentary on the making of the film is somewhat of a disappointment, relying heavily on trailer junkets and very little but sound bytes from cast and crew. A series of featurettes round out the involvement of Zaentz, Minghella and production designer Stuart Craig. There's also a nice series of interviews with the cast and crew and a great featurette on Phil Brady, the stills photographer.

BOTTOM LINE:The culmination of all this extra material and the rather impressive quality of the film transfer lead me to recommend "The English Patient" to all who love a good story and a thoroughly engrossing, great film.

My favorite movie.
I can watch this movie over and over again. It is the best.

Tragically Passionate
I can't even count how many times I have seen this movie. Each time I watch it I cry for days. A visually beautiful film with a tragic story line that involves war, political conspiracy, a haunting love story and wonderful characters of great depth.

This is one of my all time favorite films and top five love stories. It is breathtakingly beautiful and powerfully tragic at the same time. Worth every moment!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Time has been kind to Flight of the Intruder, a rousing aviation-action adventure that looks better now than it did to critics who panned it in 1991. Perhaps they were expecting a Tom Clancy-ish blockbuster (producer Mace Neufeld oversaw the Jack Ryan franchise), but director John (Conan the Barbarian) Milius had something potentially more substantial in mind. The first 75 minutes are pure Milius: Macho bluster, male bonding among ill-fated pilots and Naval bombardiers, and a Big Wednesday-like passion for dangerous fun. But Milius's favorite topics have sharper teeth here: He's made a scathing anti-Vietnam film that still honors the bravery of soldiers who do their job even when the job itself seems pointless. That's why ace Brad Johnson (why didn't he become a huge star?) and maverick bombardier Willem Dafoe plot a renegade mission, bombing a Hanoi arms depot with their low-altitude A-6 Intruder in the movie's pyrotechnical climax. Fringe benefits abound, including early roles for Tom Sizemore, Ving Rhames, and David Schwimmer in his big-screen debut, three years before Friends and looking like the dweeby grandchild of his Band of Brothers martinet. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Not totally disappointing but could have been much better...
Jake Grafton (Brad Johnson) and Virgil Cole (Willem Dafoe) are Navy A-6 Intruder bomber pilots in the Vietnam war. After repeatedly bombing useless targets determined by questionable military intelligence and political considerations that have led to needless deaths of their fellow pilots by shootdowns, they decide to take matters into their own hands.

Choosing to fly behind enemy lines and deep into Hanoi to destroy a surface to air missle depot, they accompish the task at the expense of being subjected to the military justice system and a possible court martial for their actions.

Flight of the Intruder happens to be a dismal adaptation from Stephen Coont's book of the same name. Apart from making comparisons, this movie redeems itself in the few aspects of good aerial photography, some decent action scenes of war sequences in the jungle, and slightly above average acting performances by Willem Dafoe, Danny Glover, Tom Sizemore, and Brad Johnson.

The DVD content itself is anorexic to put it mildly. You won't find any extras here beyond the usual fare of a good digital 5.1 soundtrack, widescreen presentation, and subtitles. If you're a fan of war movies, this probably isn't a great addition to a DVD collection but I'd recommend renting it if you like the genre of film.

5 star Movie/Action/Cast/16:9Widescreen,4 Star Pix qualit,y!
The A-6 was the United States Navy's Medium (A) Attack bomber during the Vietnam conflict. It flew at tree-top level in any weather at night and alone. The A-6 had NO defensive weapons. It was called - The INTRUDER.

That is the opening statement to an outstanding action movie. The thought of flying unarmed over hostile territory circa 1972 presents a very exciting war tale indeed.

Danny Glover, Willem Dafoe and Brad Johnson are a great ensemble cast.

The "Flight of the Intruder" based on Stephen Coonts (former Naval Aviator) novel of the same name. Coonts has written an entire fictionalized series based on Jake Grafton (played by Brad Johnson) exciting Naval career. The "Flight of the Intruder" was the first in that series.

Summary: Young Naval Aviator Lt. Jake Grafton pilots the infamous A (Attack) - 6 Intruder over 1972 Vietnam. You get to experience lots of great aerial photography, plenty of action and the unbelievable daring of these A-6 Naval pilots. This includes low level (200 feet) bombing missions (dodging all kinds of enemy fire). "Iron Hand" the art of an Armed A-6 versus' SAM (Surface to Air Missles). They shoot first up to 4 missles before you can attack them!!! Great stuff!!!!

Paramount's WideScreen DVD Collection presents the viewer with some OUTSTANDING MOVIES at an economical price. The only short fall one Extra is the trailer and the Enhanced 16:9 WideScreen HDTV is some what grainy on my 55" Home Theatre Screen. The sound is outstanding!

Overall this is a great war movie for the collector!! This DVD is worth the price of admission. Enjoy

Will get your blood pressure higher if you love aviation
Yeah, yeah... I agree with many other viewers. The movie storyline is not as good as in the book in two areas: 1. the in-depth description of its characters -I guess it's just too hard a job to explore the complexity of human personalities within 90mn; 2. the ending which, in the book, is a bit more in line with the actual war in Vietnam.

And also, that's true that the special effects are somewhat dated now...

But boy, being a professional of aviation, living, breathing, dreaming of it every day of my life, I can't applaude enough to the fact of being able to watch a movie that DOES feature combat aircraft! Just count the number of good action movies that actually show these machines, and I bet you'll be able to count them on the fingers of, say, 2 hands. That's just to stay on the optimistic side of things.

Flight of the Intruder is a real cool movie in terms of aircraft footage. You are "behind the wheel", at times you are literally in control of the aircraft. Your heart pumps faster when this ugly looking -and sounding- SAM detection signal flashes to and screams at the crew. And watch these unforgettable scenes with the A-1 Skyraiders, the famous "Sandys" at the end of the film! The shots, the sounds... Everything contributes to raising the hair of your neck with passion!

The movie itself is pretty well documented too, if only a bit too simplified. Looks like the film was technically supported by both the Navy and the Air Force. The pilots' jargon is accurate, and so is the overall A-6 bombing philosophy.

And after viewing it, you'll sit back and start reflecting on it, and I'm pretty sure that you'll end telling yourself: "These fly-boys in Vietnam... They sure had real guts". Hats and heads down, ladies and gentlemen, and respect for courage!

Better then Top Gun
This movie should have been better then Top Gun.
In everyones mind though we all want the speed and cockyness of
a fighter pilot.
But, as the line states,"Fighter pukes make movies, bomber pilots make history."
I believe that because this movie wasn't as big as Top Gun is
because there was a little love story in Intruder, that was not
as big Top Guns steamy love scenes.
This movie to me was better then Top Gun because of the absence
of a steamy romance, just a hint.
This movie, should be considered a classic.

Good Action, Some Truth
Because my dad was a A-6 Bombadier/Navigator in Vietnam, I have a bias regarding this movie. It is highly entertaining and action-packed, however, the truth of the story lies somewhere in the middle and there's not much of it in this screenplay.
I'm sure that many of the Navy's aviators in Vietnam grew weary of hitting "suspected" truck parks, oil refineries and missle sites, but I have yet to hear tales from my dad or his buddies about anyone who decided to fight their own war and fly through downtown Hanoi in order to destroy a SAM (surface-to-air missle) storage area all on their own.
Guys got shot down alot during the war, yes, but they were mostly Air Force guys (that's meant to be a dig!), and rarely a Navy A-6. In this movie, we see several from one squadron on the same cruise go down. Not too realistic. The quickly referred to "Operation Linebacker" was a real mission (proud to say that my dad was in the first plane over N Vietnam on that mission) and followed up by Linebacker II later on. It was not, however, inspired because of what the two lead characters in this movie did.
The flying is pretty realistic though and it is nice to see the not-as-sexy-as-a-fighter-jet Grumman A-6 Intruder in a movie; I give it three stars for that. Still...I would rather listen to real bomber pilots and b/n's relate their adventures in 'Nam and aboard ship.
If you want a real Vietnam movie, stick with "Apocalypse Now", "Full Metal Jacket" and "Platoon". ... Read more

Amazon.com

Guns, guns, guns! And a few explosions as bodies fly through the air and crash into tables and fruit stands. Once Upon a Time in Mexico, like all Robert Rodriguez movies, is all about the kinetic kick of high-velocity action. Johnny Depp, blase and whimsical, plays a CIA agent who's drawn guitar-playing gun-slinger Antonio Banderas (long black hair flopping over his face like the ears of a Labrador puppy) into a ridiculously convoluted plot to overthrow the Mexican government. Along for the ride are a craggy-faced rogue's gallery including Willem Dafoe, Mickey Rourke, Danny Trejo, Ruben Blades, and (to balance things out) the smooth, tantalizing complexions of Eva Mendes and Salma Hayek. For sheer trashy fun, Once Upon a Time in Mexico is a step down from its predecessor, Desperado--but Desperado set the bar pretty high. For coherent storytelling, look elsewhere, but for action razzle-dazzle, this is your movie. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (245)

A bit of a letdown...
I've been meaning to write this review for weeks, but for one reason or another have not gotten around to it until now. What was lost in immediacy is now gained in perspective. As a result, I can judge the film more fairly.

Perhaps "film" is a misnomer, for within the opening credits, writer/director Robert Rodriguez makes it quite clear that none of what is about to transpire is to be taken seriously. Rather than use the standard tag, "A Robert Rodriguez Film," or perhaps, "A Film By Robert Rodriguez," the filmmaker chooses the much cheekier "A Robert Rodriguez Flick." The credits go one step further in setting the tone, when we find out that the movie was "chopped" instead of edited by Mr. Rodriguez.

"Once Upon A Time..." is billed as the final chapter in Rodriguez's now-legendary "El Mariachi" saga. It's strange then, that the star of the movie is not Antonio Banderas' El Mariachi, but instead is Johnny Depp in his second scene stealing turn in as many films (his last being Capt. Jack Sparrow in this summer's Pirates Of The Caribbean.)

Depp is masterful as the corrupt Agent Sands, a CIA operative who uses Mexico as if it were his personal playground, and delights in wearing the cheesiest of tacky t-shirts (Cleavage Inspection Agent anyone?)

The "flick" seems to have been written with the Sands character in mind, with the El Mariachi stuff added in afterwards to fill the gaps. The beautiful Salma Hayak is unforgivably underused, getting what amounts to a glorified cameo's worth of screen-time. Admittedly, the screen time is put to good use, as in one particularly thrilling scene in which Banderas and Hayak escape from would-be assassins while bound together by chains.

Overall, this was a fun picture, but I don't quite understand the four star ratings it's been getting in the press.

Run quick, save yourself.
This movie was such a waste of time. It gets a half star for having semi-decent shootouts and another for a great perfomance by Johnny Depp. Personally though, if you want gunfights you'd do better by renting a John Woo film. By the way whose idea was it to give Enrique a gun. With that said rent at your own risk.

TERRIBLE!!!!
The only reason I gave this movie 2 stars is because of Johnny Depp. As always he overshadows everyone else in the movie with his dark humor and personality, despite the All Star Cast (Banderas, Hayek, Ruben Blades,Enrique Iglesias,etc.).But this movie turned out to be just a confusing and senseless bloodbath.

Buy it only if you are a J.Depp fan. If you are looking for a fast paced fun action movie get Kill Bill Vol.1 or check out 2004's remake of "Dawn of the Dead", both are much better.

new your minute
this movie is was way better than new york minute. since this movie has bad acting.

better than freaky friday
yep this movie was way better than freaky friday. since the movie started to be corny after jamie and lindsay switched personalities. ... Read more

Reviews (1047)

Spider-man spins a complex web of humanity in characters
An excursion to Columbia University science lab transforms the bespectacled Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) with miraculous vision, sculpted body after a genetically-altered spider bits him. He possesses agility in leaping from skyscrapers and can spin webs from his wrist. Henceforth he assumes the identity Spider-man to combat evil manifested in the form of the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), a Species-look-alike perpetrator that terrrorizes the city with a glider that drops bombs.

Spider-Man embodies the heroics created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko who had graced the popular Marvel Comics to become an comic icon as a crime-buster - and now the film further increases the fanaticism. It is a US 140 million blockbuster and gaudy with sleek costumes and galvanizing stunts. It is digitally-enhanced F/X to capture panoramic swings in its most realistic and The Times Square action-sequence is one of the most dazzling in cinematic history.

Yet the superhero adventure fails to surprise because of its conventional storyline of good-vs-evil. The self-discovery and mutation renders so much punch that the second-half falls relatively lack-lustre. Fortunately Spider-Man spins a complex web of humanity and empathy for the characters - and Tobey Maguire as the lead is the emotional core who captivates with his vulnerability in handling his growth traumas, doubts and fears. No less sterling is Willem Dafoe who is all hysterics and maniacal in his split personality inherited from the aftermath of a blundered experiment. Kirsten Dunst as his love-interest Mary Jane, James Franco as his buddy and even his uncle Ben played by Cliff Robertson show surprising dimensions.

Spider-Man is thus an evocative tale of a hero struggling with his adolescence, betrayal and murder. And Sam Raimi displays the same sensitivity here with his eariler works like Darkman with his flawed avenger. He directs it with eye-popping visuals like Army of Darkness and the comic hero resonates in its true-self. Its brooding hero is what makes Spider-Man a nifty web - and Maguire has definitely triumphed the cynics with his soulful spin.

Spinning A Worthy Web
Spider-Man is an entertaining film that is a great summertime, popcorn movie. The film explores the origins of the transformation of Peter Parker from nerdy high school student to the web slinging superhero Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire is quite good in the title role. He plays the character with the right amount of torment as an outcast who has been put down all his life, but injects pride, joy and happiness into the Peter from his newly bestowed powers. Kirtsen Dunst is Peter's next door neighbor, Mary Jane Watson. Ms. Dunst is not given much to work worth in the character, she is the requisite love interest, damsel in distress but she is appealing in the role. Willem Dafoe is plays the Green Goblin who is the villain in the film. The Goblin's alter ego is Norman Osborne who is the rich father of Harry (James Franco), Peter's best friend and roommate. Mr. Dafoe is perfectly cast as the Goblin and he handles the character's schizophrenic outbursts with creepy aplomb. Mr. Franco plays Harry sullenly and he appears as if he is moping through the picture. J.K. Simmons plays Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson as a pushy, demanding blowhard who listens only to himself with hilarious results. People have criticized the fighting and action scenes, but they are really no better or worse than most current action films. There are some Matrix like sequences with the slow motion, but these scenes actually help show Spider-Man's spider senses that allow him to anticipate and react quickly to danger. The film was a box office smash and we should expect to see numerous sequels that will hopefully be as appealing as the first installment.

ETMR - Spiderman
1. Humanity: What events in the film drove Peter Parker to adopting his vigilante attitude toward crime?

2. Implications: How is Spiderman's understanding of "with great power comes great responsibility" an example of contemporary American thought? Think specifically about the nature of evil and the propensity toward intense individual classification when one's existence becomes threatened.

3. Evolution: Spiderman was a hero born out of the 60s, springing from both the dangers of genetic manipulation and the problems of substance abuse (in the form of Oscorp Chemicals). Raimi makes little mention of the chemical abuse in the story, and paints it in a much simpler picture of the probable evil in man's soul and the strange world of pseudoscience. Therefore, it is obvious that in many ways, the film departs from its traditional conditioning while remaining loyal to the original personalities of the characters. In which ways is Spiderman the hero shown to be a creation of the contemporary age, versus a creation of the 60s, in the film?

4. Realism: America has a long history, not only in comics but in legendary history, of people who take the law into their own hands. If a being like Spiderman existed, could he survive in our real world, or is he only a dream?

5. Stageplay: Spiderman is classicly a cynic, an individual thinker, an avid contemporarian (someone "in" the times), a man of passions (versus someone who could care less), an irreligious jokester and a man who is not sure of his destiny, but lives to succeed. Do you feel Maguire fulfills this role? Some critics say he is too much of a "boy" to fill Spiderman's shoes, while others claim it is his boyishness that charms us into belief. What do you think?

Spiderman
This was a good movie with lots of great special effects and action sequences. If you like superhero-type movies you'll really enjoy this family oriented movie. I would recommend this movie.

Spiderman, Spiderman, watch this movie when you can
This movie has exceeded my expectataions of it far beyond my belief. Probably because I went in thinking that it would suck. I'm just not into this kind of stuff. Of course, I'm a closet "Batman" fan so I guess it does say something. Anyway, I really enjoyed this movie. The cinematography was awesome! From all the camera dynamics following Spidey's twists and flips, you really felt that you were flying through the air with him. The cinematography also had a warm, upbeat feeling to it. It was one of the main reasons the movie kept my eyes glued to the screen.

The second reason is, of course, the actors. From Tobey Maguire's clumsy but lovable Peter Parker to Kirstin Dunst's beautiful Mary Jane Watson to Willem Dafoe's deliciously evil Green Goblin, the actors most definitely made the movie. The producers certainly picked the right people to handle the characters.

The only downside to this movie was that the opening credits were too long and too boring. ... Read more

Description

Set in 14th century England, THE RECKONING focuses on Nicholas (Bettany), a young priest who has broken his vow of chastity and in turn becomes a fugitive, escaping from his fellow monks and their judgment.Posing as an actor in a traveling acting troupe, Nicholas, along with the actors, discovers that a young woman convicted of killing a boy is actually innocent and the troupe sets out to prove her innocence by incorporating the crime into their plays. ... Read more

Description

* Commentary by director Sam Raimi, actor Tobey Maguire, producer Ani Ahrati, and coproducer Grant Curtis
* Technical commentary
* Blooper reel
* "Spidey Sense 2": Trivia track with "pop-up" facts and trivia about the film and the world of Spider-Man
* Four Web-i-sodes: original online featurettes from the film's theatrical release
* Train "Ordinary" music video
* Previews
* "Making the Amazing": A 12-part documentary from pre-production to the Hollywood premiere
* "Hero in Crisis": A deeper look into Peter Parker and his personal battles in the continuing story of Spider-Man
* Ock-Umentary: "Eight Arms to Hold You": A special look at Doc Ock from the comics to the big screen
* "Interwoven: The Women of Spider-Man": A look into the lives of Mary Jane, Aunt May and the other women in Peter Parker's life
* "Enter the Web": A groundbreaking multi-angle look behind-the-scenes at the climatic Pier sequence captured in real-time
* Art Gallery: A collection of Alex Ross' paintings used in the opening credits of the film
* Activision's "Spider-Man 2: Spinning the Game": A behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Spider-Man 2: The Game"
* Weblinks ... Read more

Reviews (251)

Setting the Bar Even Higher
This couldn't possibly have been a better movie than it is. The original Spider-man was an astounding achievement in adapting a comic book super-hero to the screen in a way that could reach both fans and non-fans alike. Spider-man 2 continues that tradition.

Two years after the events of the first movie, Peter Parker is still saving the day as Spider-man, while at the same time shirking his other responsibilities and trying to maintain and ordinary life. As he tries harder and harder, he comes to realize that for Spider-man, there is no ordinary life. He's failing college classes, losing his job, and not keeping up with his friends and family.

Things get rougher when Harry Osborn's new ticket to progress has an accident. Professor Otto Octavius demonstrates the ability of his fusion device that will generate new, reusable power when something goes wrong. His additional limbs that were used to manipulate the fusion environment have been fused to his own spine.

While the ads focus heavily on Doc Oc, the real plot here is Peter Parker's dilemna. Doc Oc might have seemed like an after-thought had not the writers kept Harry closely involved with Peter, reminding him again and again how he wants to kill Spider-man for what he did to his father.

I don't blame the critics who dislike the movie. For most of it, Peter is in misery, as his life spirals down the toilet due to the conflicting sides of Spider-man and Peter Parker. There's humor dispersed evenly throughout to make the experience a little lighter. It's a hard movie to watch because of this, as Peter has to decide between what he wants and the responsibility he has, and even I was a little uncomfortable as his suffering continued.

But Sam Raimi's never been one to leave the audience without a pay-off, either. His love for the material continues to show as it did in the first movie, making Spider-man 2 even more visually dynamic and dramatically endearing than its predecessor. Bruce Campbell also makes a cameo, but people probably guessed that months before it was announced, and that was still months before the movie was released.

The musical score is as spectacular as before, and Danny Elfman wisely maintains the theme he composed for the first movie. Rather than simply supporting the movie or carrying it, the music works with it, something rarely accomplished in film.

I honestly can't think of something negative to say about this movie. I don't think I could have been more pleased. The goal set after Spider-man was a hit was to make the second one even better, and the film-makers succeeded. I can only wonder if they will be able to do the same for the third after such an excellent film as this.

"Isn't it about time someone saved your life?"
I knew it was going to be good, but I had no idea it was going to be THIS good. "Spider-Man 2" is everything a sequel of it's caliber should add up too: better special effects, breath-taking action sequences and a deeper story-line. "Spider-Man 2" succeeds at respecting and building off of the story established in the first movie. Two years later, and Peter Parker is struggling to keep his head above water. His obligations to his alter-ego, Spider-Man, keep him from holding a steady job, making ends meet, keeping in touch with family and friends, and most importantly: being with the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson. As Peter starts to doubt himself, his abilities start waning away, and he finds himself conflicted and forced to make the choice of saving the world, or living a happy life. To make matters worse, a new super-villian is on a the loose by the name of Dr. Octopus, a respected scientist controlled by his own invention. The stakes in this movie are raised really high and the result is a more powerful and gripping film than the first one. So, yes, "Spider-Man 2" is better than the original, which is quite an accomplishment considering the standards it set. Sam Raimi's vision and passion for the material oozes through with each scene. Raimi is easily the most underrated director of the moment. Each scene is played to perfection, and all of the actors have grown into their characters a bit more, especially Rosemary Harris (Aunt May) and James Franco (Harry), both of whom give much more dimension to seemingly peripherral characters. Tobey Maguire shines through in this one, with an improved performance (looking and acting less and less like Keanu Reeves kid-brother) and Kirsten Dunst is fantastic as always. Considering this is a monstrous Hollywood block-buster of the grandest sorts and will no doubt break records throughout the summer, "Spider-Man 2" is intelligent and fun at the same time. Everyone who has interest in it will walk away happy, fully satisfied -- and most importantly -- salivating for what the inevitable "Spider-Man 3" will bring us.

a 13-year-old review
I love this movie i will buy it and i hope you buy it too Tobey Maguire Returns in this awsome action movie. All the same stars return with a new star who is Alfred Molina a great person to do the part in this movie a great action movie that all generations most likely will love i saw it in theaters 2 times and a third time tommarrow so i again this is a great movie just like the first one even better. I think this is an awsome experiance for you i recomened it to anyone!

Spider-Man 2 Pretty Cool Sequel despite it's flaws
Tobey McGuire returns in this special effects loaded sequel however, I unlike some fans was disappointed with this sequel.

Toby McGuire once again stars as Peter Parker/Spiderman, now confronting a new enemy Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina).

The special effects were awesome, no doubt about that, however unlike the first one, the second half is pure nonsense and I was left unsatisfied.

Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus is tremendous, just like Willem Dafoe's characters as "Green Goblin" we see his rise to power.

(Spoilers) Yet Raimi's dumb writers in the second half of the film have him playing as a patsy.

Spiderman clashes with Dr. Octopus several times and actually the fights are fair, however Dr. Octopus eventually gets Mary Jane (Dunst, who really doesn't do much as far as acting) and uses that to his advantage while creating a new weapon.

Tobey as Spiderman again like the first film is not a strong presence, yet I know some nerds are trying to hype him up to be like Christopher Reeve but please give me a break. He will never have the same charisma as him.

Alfred Molina is great as Dr. Octopus, but the story seems to go nowhere and we get the same crap from the same movie, like Parker, still being the nerd recluse who is unable to go after what he wants, though this is hilarious in retrospect, but then becomes tiring.

The special effects and action are what saves "Spiderman2" from being a disappointment as far acting and plot go, and that wasn't a surprise was it.

Still though I was left wanting more, and the cheap ending and the way Dr. Octopus out of the thin blue sky has a change of hear for not killing "Spiderman" was pathetic though, that wouldn't have happened really, still I know there will be many nerds seeing the movie 10 times and saying it was the greatest movie ever, but they aint kidding anybody.

"Spiderman 2" is what it is a great special effects bonanza with some great action scenes, but not great character development and predictable plot lines.

Caught in a web of indecision...
It's really hard to say that I did or didn't like this movie; I mean, on the one hand, it surpasses the original in effects, storyline, character development, everything. But as they say, too much of a good thing is bad, and that's part of my feeling about this film.

The story, unlike the original, instead focuses on the negatives of being Spider-Man; Peter Parker is struggling to balance a life of his own, but Spidey always gets in the way. He even forgets his own birthday! And it also shows the effects it has on his family and friends, especially Mary Jane. And to top it all off, Doctor Otto Octavius, a brilliant scientist, is turned into Doctor Octopus, complete with four mechanical arms attached to his body, thanks to a failed fusion experiment.

The battles between Spidey and his foe were terrific, unsurpassed by most action films to date. But I found myself wanting more of these scenes...in the end, you really sympathize with Peter, but I just wish we could've seen our favorite webslinger in action more. But at least the ending was good (left WIDE open for Spider-Man 3.) ... Read more

Description

* Commentary by director Sam Raimi, actor Tobey Maguire, producer Ani Ahrati, and coproducer Grant Curtis
* Technical commentary
* Blooper reel
* "Spidey Sense 2": Trivia track with "pop-up" facts and trivia about the film and the world of Spider-Man
* Four Web-i-sodes: original online featurettes from the film's theatrical release
* Train "Ordinary" music video
* Previews
* "Making the Amazing": A 12-part documentary from pre-production to the Hollywood premiere
* "Hero in Crisis": A deeper look into Peter Parker and his personal battles in the continuing story of Spider-Man
* Ock-Umentary: "Eight Arms to Hold You": A special look at Doc Ock from the comics to the big screen
* "Interwoven: The Women of Spider-Man": A look into the lives of Mary Jane, Aunt May and the other women in Peter Parker's life
* "Enter the Web": A groundbreaking multi-angle look behind-the-scenes at the climatic Pier sequence captured in real-time
* Art Gallery: A collection of Alex Ross' paintings used in the opening credits of the film
* Activision's "Spider-Man 2: Spinning the Game": A behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Spider-Man 2: The Game"
* Weblinks

Gift set items:
* Exclusive limited edition portfolio of artwork: Over 25 well-known comic book artists created artwork inspired by Spider-Man 2 specifically for, and only available in, this collector's edition DVD
* Collectible "Concept to Screen Comparison" portfolio: view the transformation of various scenes of Spider-Man 2 from sketches and concepts to images from the final production
* Postcard collection of Spider-Man 2 Artwork: five postcards which feature original artwork used in the theatrical advertising campaign of "Spider-Man 2" including the well-known trilogy campaign of "Sacrifice," "Choice," and "Destiny"
* The Amazing Spider-Man #50 comic book: reduced-size reprinting of the original comic book in which Peter Parker decides to give up being Spider-Man ... Read more

Reviews (251)

Setting the Bar Even Higher
This couldn't possibly have been a better movie than it is. The original Spider-man was an astounding achievement in adapting a comic book super-hero to the screen in a way that could reach both fans and non-fans alike. Spider-man 2 continues that tradition.

Two years after the events of the first movie, Peter Parker is still saving the day as Spider-man, while at the same time shirking his other responsibilities and trying to maintain and ordinary life. As he tries harder and harder, he comes to realize that for Spider-man, there is no ordinary life. He's failing college classes, losing his job, and not keeping up with his friends and family.

Things get rougher when Harry Osborn's new ticket to progress has an accident. Professor Otto Octavius demonstrates the ability of his fusion device that will generate new, reusable power when something goes wrong. His additional limbs that were used to manipulate the fusion environment have been fused to his own spine.

While the ads focus heavily on Doc Oc, the real plot here is Peter Parker's dilemna. Doc Oc might have seemed like an after-thought had not the writers kept Harry closely involved with Peter, reminding him again and again how he wants to kill Spider-man for what he did to his father.

I don't blame the critics who dislike the movie. For most of it, Peter is in misery, as his life spirals down the toilet due to the conflicting sides of Spider-man and Peter Parker. There's humor dispersed evenly throughout to make the experience a little lighter. It's a hard movie to watch because of this, as Peter has to decide between what he wants and the responsibility he has, and even I was a little uncomfortable as his suffering continued.

But Sam Raimi's never been one to leave the audience without a pay-off, either. His love for the material continues to show as it did in the first movie, making Spider-man 2 even more visually dynamic and dramatically endearing than its predecessor. Bruce Campbell also makes a cameo, but people probably guessed that months before it was announced, and that was still months before the movie was released.

The musical score is as spectacular as before, and Danny Elfman wisely maintains the theme he composed for the first movie. Rather than simply supporting the movie or carrying it, the music works with it, something rarely accomplished in film.

I honestly can't think of something negative to say about this movie. I don't think I could have been more pleased. The goal set after Spider-man was a hit was to make the second one even better, and the film-makers succeeded. I can only wonder if they will be able to do the same for the third after such an excellent film as this.

"Isn't it about time someone saved your life?"
I knew it was going to be good, but I had no idea it was going to be THIS good. "Spider-Man 2" is everything a sequel of it's caliber should add up too: better special effects, breath-taking action sequences and a deeper story-line. "Spider-Man 2" succeeds at respecting and building off of the story established in the first movie. Two years later, and Peter Parker is struggling to keep his head above water. His obligations to his alter-ego, Spider-Man, keep him from holding a steady job, making ends meet, keeping in touch with family and friends, and most importantly: being with the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson. As Peter starts to doubt himself, his abilities start waning away, and he finds himself conflicted and forced to make the choice of saving the world, or living a happy life. To make matters worse, a new super-villian is on a the loose by the name of Dr. Octopus, a respected scientist controlled by his own invention. The stakes in this movie are raised really high and the result is a more powerful and gripping film than the first one. So, yes, "Spider-Man 2" is better than the original, which is quite an accomplishment considering the standards it set. Sam Raimi's vision and passion for the material oozes through with each scene. Raimi is easily the most underrated director of the moment. Each scene is played to perfection, and all of the actors have grown into their characters a bit more, especially Rosemary Harris (Aunt May) and James Franco (Harry), both of whom give much more dimension to seemingly peripherral characters. Tobey Maguire shines through in this one, with an improved performance (looking and acting less and less like Keanu Reeves kid-brother) and Kirsten Dunst is fantastic as always. Considering this is a monstrous Hollywood block-buster of the grandest sorts and will no doubt break records throughout the summer, "Spider-Man 2" is intelligent and fun at the same time. Everyone who has interest in it will walk away happy, fully satisfied -- and most importantly -- salivating for what the inevitable "Spider-Man 3" will bring us.

a 13-year-old review
I love this movie i will buy it and i hope you buy it too Tobey Maguire Returns in this awsome action movie. All the same stars return with a new star who is Alfred Molina a great person to do the part in this movie a great action movie that all generations most likely will love i saw it in theaters 2 times and a third time tommarrow so i again this is a great movie just like the first one even better. I think this is an awsome experiance for you i recomened it to anyone!

Spider-Man 2 Pretty Cool Sequel despite it's flaws
Tobey McGuire returns in this special effects loaded sequel however, I unlike some fans was disappointed with this sequel.

Toby McGuire once again stars as Peter Parker/Spiderman, now confronting a new enemy Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina).

The special effects were awesome, no doubt about that, however unlike the first one, the second half is pure nonsense and I was left unsatisfied.

Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus is tremendous, just like Willem Dafoe's characters as "Green Goblin" we see his rise to power.

(Spoilers) Yet Raimi's dumb writers in the second half of the film have him playing as a patsy.

Spiderman clashes with Dr. Octopus several times and actually the fights are fair, however Dr. Octopus eventually gets Mary Jane (Dunst, who really doesn't do much as far as acting) and uses that to his advantage while creating a new weapon.

Tobey as Spiderman again like the first film is not a strong presence, yet I know some nerds are trying to hype him up to be like Christopher Reeve but please give me a break. He will never have the same charisma as him.

Alfred Molina is great as Dr. Octopus, but the story seems to go nowhere and we get the same crap from the same movie, like Parker, still being the nerd recluse who is unable to go after what he wants, though this is hilarious in retrospect, but then becomes tiring.

The special effects and action are what saves "Spiderman2" from being a disappointment as far acting and plot go, and that wasn't a surprise was it.

Still though I was left wanting more, and the cheap ending and the way Dr. Octopus out of the thin blue sky has a change of hear for not killing "Spiderman" was pathetic though, that wouldn't have happened really, still I know there will be many nerds seeing the movie 10 times and saying it was the greatest movie ever, but they aint kidding anybody.

"Spiderman 2" is what it is a great special effects bonanza with some great action scenes, but not great character development and predictable plot lines.

Caught in a web of indecision...
It's really hard to say that I did or didn't like this movie; I mean, on the one hand, it surpasses the original in effects, storyline, character development, everything. But as they say, too much of a good thing is bad, and that's part of my feeling about this film.

The story, unlike the original, instead focuses on the negatives of being Spider-Man; Peter Parker is struggling to balance a life of his own, but Spidey always gets in the way. He even forgets his own birthday! And it also shows the effects it has on his family and friends, especially Mary Jane. And to top it all off, Doctor Otto Octavius, a brilliant scientist, is turned into Doctor Octopus, complete with four mechanical arms attached to his body, thanks to a failed fusion experiment.

The battles between Spidey and his foe were terrific, unsurpassed by most action films to date. But I found myself wanting more of these scenes...in the end, you really sympathize with Peter, but I just wish we could've seen our favorite webslinger in action more. But at least the ending was good (left WIDE open for Spider-Man 3.) ... Read more

Amazon.com

More than a few critics hailed Spider-Man 2 as "the best superhero movie ever," and there's no