Amazon.com

Anyone familiar with writer/director James L. Brooks (Broadcast News, As Good As It Gets) knows the man has a real feel for interesting women and a disarming way with a one-liner. The main women in Spanglish are Deborah Clasky (Téa Leoni), a moneyed SoCal mom, and non-English speaking Flor Moreno (Paz Vega), the beautiful Latina whom Deborah hires as a housekeeper. The one-liners, some of them amusing, are everywhere. Brooks provides an intriguing set-up for the two women to butt heads--Deborah's pudgy daughter Bernice (Sarah Steele) needs the affection at which Flor excels, while Flor's clever, bi-lingual daughter Cristina (Shelbie Bruce) is enamored of the financial advantages Deborah can provide--then proceeds to make Deborah so hatefully ignorant you can't imagine why her neuroses are the main thrust of the film. And Deborah's celebrated chef husband John (Adam Sandler, way over his head) is such a perfect parent he doesn't seem human--what happened to the Brooks who had Terms of Endearment mom Debra Winger turn to her scowling little boy and grunt "Don't make me hit you in the street"? Cloris Leachman has a nifty supporting role as Deborah's boozy, ex-jazz singer mother, but it's only one offbeat chord in an earnest film that hits all the wrong notes. --Steve Wiecking ... Read more

Reviews (93)

what is wrong with Hollywood and New York?
They seem to have a prejudice against Mexican-American actors.
Not too many roles for Hispanics out there, but you would figure that at the very least Mexican actors would get parts in stories about Mexicans, right? Nope. "Selena" the story about a Mexican-American that sings Tejano music...had a Mexican actor right? Nope. Puerto Ricans and Cubans. "Spanglish" the story of a Mexican woman that comes to America...Mexican playing the part, right? Nope. They went to Seville, Spain to get this one...daytime soap operas, not very many Hispanics there...when there is a part for a Hispanic (once in a blue moon), it goes to Puerto Rican actors...Mexicans on tv? George Lopez and Cheech Marin...name 3 more...I can name 50 African-American actors just off the top of my head...20 Asian actors off the top of my head...10 Puerto Rican actors off the top of my head...4 Mexican actors off the top of my head (George, Cheech, Maria Conchita Alonso, and Fernando Lamas)...Hispanics are the largest Minority Group in America...Mexican-Americans make up 58% of that group...that is right...more than half of the largest Minority Group in America is of Mexican decent...so, when was the last time that you saw Mexicans on tv or in the movies?
Dr. Pepper has about a 14% marketshare...How would it be if you could only find one can of Dr. Pepper in every ten stores? Wouldn't you say, "Woo, something is seriously wrong here"...then they make the story of how Dr. Pepper was created....but...you used Mr. Pibb in all the product shots of the story of Dr. Pepper...about the same thing when you make movies about Mexicans, but use no Mexican actors.

So, who was the movie "Spanglish" made for? Mexicans? too far from true life for them...Puerto Ricans and Cubans? Can't relate to a movie about "Coming to America poor, for a better life" (Puerto Ricans were born Americans, Cubans were mostly either rich and/or educated escaping the overthrow of an Autocratic Government)...Spaniards? I don't think that even a handfull escaped poverty by coming to America so they can't relate to the story either...Caucasians? some yes, some no...African Americans? some yes, and some no...Asian Americans? some yes and some no...South Americans? They can relate to the story in it's purest form, but not in this Hollywood/Disneyland version...so, right from the start, this movie had a handful of potential viewers...so, again I ask, Who was this movie made for?

While I am on a tirade: Why is Cajun a language and Spanglish not? Both are a conglomerate of languages, but one is considered delightful while the other is considered an abomination...if you consider the amount of people speaking either, Spanglish is spoken by maybe 1000 times more people than Cajun is.( and believe it or not, Spanglish does have it's own set of gramatical rules...it's not just Spanish and English words thrown together haphazardly...to simplify the rules: Spanish verbs with English Nouns along with a mix of both in adverbs...Spanglish syntax is a beautiful orphan...try and mesh the opposing sytaxs of English and Spanish...Spanglish syntax somehows gets the job done.)

Not your typical Adam Sandler Movie!
I have never been an Adam Sandler fan; however, this movie is really wonderful. Sandler has matured as an actor and is apparently taking roles with more meat and less physical comedy. His character is the polar opposite of Tea Leoni's. His love for their children and his understanding of human nature just shine through. Leoni is perfect as the neurotic, narcissistic wife and mother. A wonderful foil to Sandler's even tempered character. While you might think this is a great date movie, I think it's a better married with children couple date movie. Lots of truisms here. Favorite line: When Leoni's character tells her mother she isn't helping with her low self esteem, and the mother replies " these days your low self esteem is just good common sense". Sandler just might make it to my must see list for the future.

Rent it?Definitely. Buy it?You could do worse.
Let's start off with; this wasn't a bad movie, it simply needed some work.

The story itself is a feel good kind of movie...often referred to as a `chick flick.'There are no explosions, no guns, and no fist-fights.Other than a nonnudity sex scene where Te'a Leoni tries to do an orgasm scene that just doesn't cut it, there isn't much to be embarrassed about when watching this with young kids.

Overall I feel the director wanted his actors to be too over the top.Te'a Leoni was waaaaaay over acting.This is something that someone just doesn't do, but is told to do.Cloris Leachman also had a few moments of over acting but for the most part was good and had some of the best lines in the movie to bring about a laugh.

Shelbie Bruce who plays Christina did a great job.She was very convincing and pulled out some fine scenes.Paz Vega who plays Flor is breathtakingly beautiful and is able to act extremely well.(I hope she does many more films)Sarah Steele who plays Bernice is bound to be a very popular actor because she can act.

The `big' name, Adam Sandler was okay.He isn't doing his normal funny guy thing in this film.I feel his character wasn't well written so much of the fault lies with the writer, who by the way is the director.

Overall, I watched it twice and enjoyed it both times but it's definitely not one I'll buy.

Just on the edge of getting 4 stars
Genre: Comedy, Drama

Genre Grade: B+

Final Grade: B-

This was a good movie with great effort put into it from the cast and director James L. Brooks (As Good As It Gets). However, some moments of pure cheesiness, as well as silly cliches, and some serious over-doing it caused this good movie to fall short of being a great one. However, there are some laugh-out-loud hilarious moments (mostly from Tea Leoni and Cloris Leachman) and some really great dialogue (something Brooks is known for), as sappy as it is. Adam Sandler gives a good performance, especially in his moments of being out of control, you can really sense his calmness is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. This movie, though very unbelievable under the circumstances, does its job, and although it has some serious cheese factors, it's still definitely worth seeing. And now for a great line from the movie...

Evelyn Norwich: We have to talk.
Deborah Clasky: Mother, are you buzzed?
Evelyn Norwich: No. I quit drinking weeks ago! No one noticed, but I guess that's a pretty good indicator that I conducted myself quite well when I was drunk. But this isn't about me right now.

What is the point of this movie?
I feel compelled to write a review on this movie because it was by far the worst movie I have seen in the past couple of years. It was an utter disappointment. I'm still scratching my head on why so many people gave it such good reviews. I think the `deep' moments the movie was supposed to portray just came across as annoying and over the top. I really hated Tea Leoni's character. Yes, I realize that not every character in every movie is supposed to be likeable, but they should at least be somewhat relatable. She was just way too over the top for me.

Also, I really did not understand the point of this movie. The movie starts off with Flor's daughter narrating her college essay, yet her daughter isn't even a centralized character in the movie...in fact her character is hardly even in the movie. Her ultimate point of her college essay at the end of the movie was that she was `her mother's daughter'. This really was not evident throughout the movie and I would not have guessed that this would be the point if she hadn't said it at the end. There really was no point to this movie; it was completely pointless in my opinion.
... Read more

Reviews (347)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazon.com

Originally filmed in IMAX format, The Discoverers features some astoundingly spectacular footage all centering around the act of discovery. The story of the great navigator Magellan's search for a passage to the Pacific is presented with film of spectacular sunsets and scenery, and a visit to a re-creation of Sir Isaac Newton's laboratory while he refracts lightwith lamps and prisms is equally beautiful. The various vignettes, which range from a child and her father discovering paintings of bison painted on cave ceilings thousands of years ago to a scientist on a team analyzing data sent back from a probe sent to the planet Venus, don't proceed in a linear path. But that's the whole idea. The production was inspired by the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Discoverers by Daniel J. Boorstin, and the goal was to put the viewer alongside those who explore the unknown as they experience the joyous moments of discovery. There is some serious science presented in the course of the film, but fear not, it's all presented in a highly entertaining manner. All that's required is to simply sitback and immerse yourself in the utterly gorgeous cinematography. --Robert J. McNamara ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Awful... !!@
The picture quality is not as good as the other titles.... and the storyline is ridiculous....Don;t waste your money on this one...

I "Discovered"... not to buy this.
I didn't know there's such thing as a bad IMAX movie until I came across this.

Not the greatest of the IMAX titles
I have pretty much all of the WMVHD disks (including the more obscure ones like Muffin Man and Step Into Liquid).The film transfer of this title isn't as crisp as the other IMAX titles, and in general, the cinematography is not as stunning.Still nice, but it just doesn't compare to the others.The story line is a little campy, but they do a good job of covering a lot of ground, from 1600's to the future, showing how explorers risk everything to break new ground.

The film is an accurate reflection of the book...
... a disjointed, disjuncted pastiche.

An even worse book of the same ilk is Connections by James Burke.

Lost Discoverers
I purchased this DVD as a teaching aid. It is worthless from a pedagogical point of view. It is nothing more than a pastiche of disconnected topics. It displays none of the intelligence nor logic of Boorstein's book. It's not even very entertaining-- a colossal waste of time, money, and film. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Lost Souls is certainly one of the most gorgeous-looking moviesto come out in 2000. The cinematography has a striking, visual texture reminiscent of old photographs, all the color bleeding out into rich and evocative shades of grey and black. The movie doesn't quite live up to its look, though it's not without its pleasures. The broader outlines of its story--about a true-crime writer (Ben Chaplin) who discovers, through the efforts of a former victim of possession (Winona Ryder), that he's about to become the Antichrist--lack any surprises or ingenuity. But individual scenes are largely well-written, spookily directed, and acted with commitment and intensity. Chaplin is particularly good, Ryder does her best, and a crew of superb character actors (including John Hurt, Elias Koteas, and Philip Baker Hall) flesh out the skeletally scripted supporting characters with skill and intelligence. Some of the special effects go a little overboard, but the movie is surprisingly free of the cheesy, demonic posturing and portentous speeches that afflict too many religious thrillers. Fans of The Exorcist or The Omen may find Lost Souls to be a modest but flavorful variation on the "devil-is-coming-to-get-you" genre. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (68)

LOST SOULS IS TERRIFYING AND WILL LEAVE YOU SHAKING!
LOST SOULS IS SO TERRIFYING THAT AFTER I SAW IT, I COULDN'T STOP SHAKING MY HANDS AROUND! THE IMAGES IN THIS MOVIE ARE SO WEIRDLY PRETTY IT'S SCARY! THE MOVIE IS ABOUT MAYA LARKIN, WINONA RYDER, WHO BELONGS TO A GROUP OF EXORCISTS WHO MUST WARN A MAN NAMED PETER KELSON, BEN CHAPLIN, THAT HE IS THE TARGET OF A SUPERNATURAL CONSPIRACY. THE ACTING IN THIS MOVIE IS PHENOMENAL AND THE PLOT IS SURPRISINGLY GOOD. SOME OF THE SCENES IN THIS FILM ARE SO SCARY AND INTENSE THAT I SUGJEST THAT YOU BRING A BLANKET AND A PILLOW IN CASE YOU FEEL LIKE PASSING OUT! I WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE AGAIN BECAUSE IT REALLY GIVES YOU A GREAT RIDE OF INTENSE, SCARY AND CREEPY STUFF! THIS FILM IS IN COMPETITION WITH THE EXORCIST BUT IN SOME WAYS IS MORE FRESH AND NEW THEN THE EXORCIST: THE VERSION YOU NEVER SEEN. LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE GIVING THIS FILM BAD REVIEWS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT! THIS FILM IS GREAT! IT HAS EVERYTHING YOU WANT IN A GOOD SCARY THRILLER! WINONA RYDER DOES A ASPECIALLY GOOD JOB PLAYING HER PART AS MAYA LARKIN. SHE REALLY CONVINCES YOU THAT SHE IS THAT PERSON AND CHARACTER. THE SPECIAL EFFECTS IN THIS FILM ARE SO SCARY AND UNIQUE. SO OVER LOOKING THIS GREAT AND SCARY FILM, IT REALLY MAKES YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT RELIGION IS YOUR RELIGION. SO I GIVE THIS MOVIE 5 STARS. THAT'S RIGHT. FIVE STARS! THIS MOVIE IS GREAT! GO SEE IT RIGHT NOW!

NO [P] SOUP FOR YOU!!!!
A BRILLIANT vision from the mind of director KAMINSKI of the 'other side' taking over ..... after all as it is said in this movie "If You Believe in GOD .... you have to believe in the devil {capable of manifesting physicality}".

It's an odd sedate little journey starting with a botched exorcism .... and along the lines of a film-noir the clues to more and more horror are slowly peeled away until the 'innocent' is convinced by the ordinary that he is the chosen one ......

RYDER, CHAPLIN, KOTEAS, HURT spearhead this dark journey - beautifully lensed [almost black and white color]; sound direction is excellent as is the powerful score.

FOR something different about old nic, try this one on for size, but be cautioned, there's no pea-soup or spinning heads, just the dread and awakening .....of all sorts of possibilities ..........

Rosemary¿s Baby Meets the Exorcist
Starring my favorite shoplifter, Winona Ryder, Lost Souls is about the Devil, those who worship him, and those who seek to stop him. A man has been marked to be taken over by the Devil come to earth. Soon. A group of priests and Ryder work to stop Lucifer. Ryder's character had previously been inhabited by demons, and ever since, she sees things. Despite some sometimes dark makeup, Ryder has never looked lovelier.

Although made on a shoestring in Canada, this movie does not have a cheap or amateurish look. The director, Janusz Kaminski, is Steven Spielberg's favorite cinematographer (Schindler's List, Saving Pvt. Ryan). This is Kaminski's only movie so far as a director, and his ability to create a terrifying atmosphere without reliance on special effects, may remind you of M. Night Shyamalan. Although Ryder is the only big name in the cast, some wonderful faces are on display, most notably John Hurt and Philip Baker Hall, as two very different kinds of priests, and Alfre Woodard in a memorable but brief, uncredited turn, as a psychiatrist.

Nicely shot, good music, but dull, disappointing script
As a fan of occult films, I have had to wade through my fair share of garbage. I guess that's why I had my hopes up for something really good after watching the first half hour of this movie.

The film's cinematography sets a beautifully dark mood, and its music effectively further augments it. Things were looking up. This film actually had some quality to it.

Although I usually find Winona Ryder kind of irritating, I thought I could stand her in this if the movie turned out to be as good as it was looking.

But unfortunately although the script very effectively builds up expectations, in the last half of the movie it never delivers on these expectations and instead becomes very predictable and lame. After the totally anticlimactic ending, I found myself asking "WHAT??? Is that all there is to this movie?" -- What a disappointment! I felt as if I had been cruelly tricked into wasting 2 hours of my life. (--Is that Satan's laughter I hear? ;) )

So yes, this film does have very high production values which do make it look great, but unfortunately the story just does not have the punch to match. Better luck next time!

Waste of 2 Hours!
I thought the movie was just awful! Bad story and bad acting! Don't waste your time and energy! ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Leprechaun Part 2
The little Irish Leprechaun returns in this horror film. Although it isn't at all scarey, it is still pretty good. It is not as good as the first but it is still okay. This time the little Irish monsteris back looking for love after being robbed a few years before, actually about 1,000 years before by an arch rival. I suggest you buy this first rate movie.

The terror of Ireland
The Leprechaun has return vile and evil as ever. Not as good as the first on but still a good movie. Ending not as good as the first.

The Leprechaun is back he is qafter a bribe which he can old posses once every 1000 years. Leprechaun tries to get his bribe the Bribe father stop him. Leprechaun is forced to wait another thousand years to get another bride.

A good movie with an explosive climax inside the Leprechaun Lair. If you like this one she you four other sequels and the prequel.

Not too good.
This movie had it's ups and downs. I'll give some of each. Here's some of the good. 1. Some laughs 2. Some scares 3. Good effects 4. Good death scenes (particularely the scene where the dude got his face scalded by hot steam. Bad 1. REALLY bad acting! 2. Weird plot 3.Bad diologue. Well you get it. D+

BETTER THAN THE FIRST ONE
THIS MOVIE WAS SIMPLY MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THE FIRST. THE LEPRECHAUN RETURNS TO GO AFTER A GIRL THAT'S A DESCENDENT OF A GIRL THAT HE WANTED 1,000 YEARS AGO. HAS BETTER CHARACTERS AND EVEN BETTER MURDER SEQUENCES. THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES IN THE SERIES. THIS IS A GOOD HORROR SEQUEL THAT FANS OF THE SERIES SHOULD ENJOY.

Just When You Thought it Was Safe to Wear Green
The initial response to 1993's "Leprechaun" (starring a confused looking, pre-"Friends" Jennifer Aniston) had hardly died down when the geniuses at Trimark unleashed "Leprechaun 2" on an unsuspecting public. How could a sequel follow so closely on the heels of the original? Inquiring minds want to know, but don't push too hard in your quest for an answer to this mystery of the ages. The "Leprechaun" franchise ultimately totaled six movies released within ten years (the latest installment will appear on video store shelves in December 2003), so the powers that be must have given this horror series a high priority from the start. Maybe the producers of this franchise keep making the films because they hope Jennifer Aniston will return to star in another entry, just like Jamie Lee Curtis did with the "Halloween" movies in recent years. If this is the case, the guys behind "Leprechaun" better keep dreaming. Aniston would probably rather sell pencils on a street corner than appear in another one of these pictures. The original "Leprechaun" film possessed a few interesting ideas, but the grim law of diminishing returns knows no pity concerning movie sequels. This means "Leprechaun 2" suffers from major problems either minimized in or completely absent from the original.

Warwick Davis returns as the foul mouthed imp in "Leprechaun 2," a movie that finds the little man concerned about securing himself a bride. According to the film the leprechaun can only marry once every thousand years or so (I know; he said he was 600 years old in the first installment. What do you want from me? I didn't write any of these movies.). Since it is quite difficult to find a woman when your face looks like a burnt pepperoni pizza, Leppie decides to use those old Irish charms of magic and trickery when he spots a fair haired lass hanging laundry out in the middle of a forest (!). Things don't work quite as planned, so the leprechaun keeps track of the offspring of his fetching lass through the ages. In fact, a map at the beginning of the film tracks the descendents down through time, even showing a point when one of the women sails to America. The thousand years are just about up, meaning the diminutive beastie must once again find and marry for love, and this time the potential bride is Bridget, a blonde airhead who looks suspiciously like the leprechaun's original cutie from the beginning of the film. Imagine that!

On this outing the leprechaun has some competition. Bridget likes Cody, a guy who works for one of those "dead celebrity" tours in Los Angeles. Unfortunately for Bridget, Cody's loyalties lie with his job and his deadbeat, drunken boss Morty. When good old Mort ties on another massive drunk, Bridget's boyfriend takes over the tour and drags her along. The inevitable blow up occurs, with Bridget taking off with another guy who is willing to spend some time with her. Bad mistake. Leppie suddenly appears on the scene and dispatches her new found lover with gruesome haste, and then abducts Bridget right out from under Cody's eyes. This leads to several scenes concerning Cody and Morty attempting to battle the leprechaun and find Bridget. During these pitched battles, we watch Leppie get drunk, learn that wrought iron burns leprechauns, and see Morty give birth to a huge pot of gold. If that isn't enough for you, we even get to watch the sprite ride a souped up go cart (shades of the first film, to be sure, but this time Leppie actually runs someone down). The movie ends with a showdown between Cody, Bridget, and the malevolent elf in the leprechaun's lair.

My biggest problem with "Leprechaun 2" concerns an issue that really starts in earnest here and becomes a greater problem in subsequent sequels: the people who make these films keep changing the rules of the game. In the first film, the pot of gold and a four leaf clover played a central role in the plot. In this sequel, it is a bride and the dangers of wrought iron that inform the bulk of the movie. We see even more outlandish changes in the other films. I guess the makers of these movies think that sticking to just pots of gold and clovers could bore an audience, and maybe so, but introducing all of these different leprechaun traits often makes the films difficult to follow.

Even with this significant problem, I still found it impossible to completely dislike "Leprechaun 2." The Morty character, played with over the top hilariousness by the late Sandy Baron, really clicked with me. Every time this guy appeared on screen I laughed at his antics, and it was a little hard seeing him go the way he did. Warwick Davis is good as always, cackling and wisecracking his way through the role of the evil demon. The actress who played Bridget is memorable solely for her terrible performance. This gal couldn't act if her life depended on it, and it shows in every miserable scene. In fact, I think this is the worst performance in the entire series and that is saying A LOT (see "Leprechaun 3"). Look for Clint Howard in a small role as one of the tourists taking Cody's tour.

Once again, the DVD picture transfer looks pretty good for such a cheap film. A trailer for the film appears on the menu, along with several other trailers for some Trimark films. "Leprechaun 2" is a little gorier than its predecessor, and is also a little sleazier considering that the pint sized monster is trying to land a babe. Far from great, but also far from a complete waste of time, this movie will work for you if you've got a bit of time to burn and nothing better to do. ... Read more

Description

From the earliest voyages that mapped the Earth to today's launches into space, The Discoverers reverberates with the passion to explore our universe. Based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Dr. Daniel J. Boorstin, The Discoverers examines our desire to expand the boundaries of knowledge. The stories presented in this film span space and time, taking us around the world to participate in the act of discovery. Stand alongside Sir Isaac Newton in his British lab; then travel to the present to observe Dr. Louis Herman working with his very cerebral dolphins in Hawaii. Ever wonder "how did they do that?" The Making of 'The Discoverers' puts you behind the camera and provides further insights into the world of science and discovery. Learn more about the research and effort that went into recreating the inspiring historical events presented in The Discoverers. Shot using high definition television cameras, The Making of 'The Discoverers' is a fascinating retrospective on a movie that made history. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

The fillm is an accurate reflection of the book...
... a disjointed, disjuncted pastiche.

An even worse book of the same ilk is Connections by James Burke.

Works great with an LCD projector or a mega-sized plasma dis
If you're in the mood of "beautiful cinematography"c

Cutting-edge cinematography successfully capturing astonishing clips of nature - as with many other IMAX films - but only a small fraction presented in this piece of work. The story of Magellan's search for the passage to the Pacific captures a long shot of mega-icy-glaciers of the North and the teeny row boat of Magellan's team (understandably, the package cover) which is purely my favorite scene. "WOOOW!!" guaranteed on a mega-sized plasma display, but a "wooOOOOOWWWW!!!" guaranteed on a 100inch+ LCD projector.

If you're in the mood of "beautiful cinematography + dynamic sound"c

I wouldn't expect much on the sound quality. My BOSE system has seen much better production (e.g. IMAX "The Living Sea"). The documentary structure of the film makes it hard to enjoy combining your own-taste of music (unlike "The Living Sea" which works amazingly with house/ drum 'n bass/ techno).

Bottom linec
All-in-all for me, "the glaciers & the row boat" scene is the film's worth. The scene is precisely "Discovery" - human challenge to define nature and upon that, being thunderstruck.

Lost Discoverers
I purchased this DVD as a teaching aid. It is worthless from a pedagogical point of view. It is nothing more than a pastiche of disconnected topics. It displays none of the intelligence nor logic of Boorstein's book. It's not even very entertaining-- a colossal waste of time, money, and film.

Disjoint, unconnected and bad audio too!
Not up to the normal standards of IMAX movies. The flow is a very disjointed and unconnected of random events. The audio is poor enough that even following what is there can be difficult. I normally love IMAX movies, but this one leaves a lto to be desired.

Great Experience
When I first got into DVD, I was pleasantly surprised that it seemed to be an excellent documentary. This is probably the most impressive IMAX I have ever seen before. A complete and enthralling.. I have this DVD and I'd highly recommend it. This is a DVD that anyone can enjoy, it is really educational, you can actually stay home and watch this DVD with your whole family. ... Read more