Description

Feature-Length Audio Commentary
The creators of Episode I give you insight into the film like no one else can. Hear from: writer/director George Lucas, Producer Rick McCallum, sound designer and film co-editor Ben Burtt, ILM animation director Rob Coleman and ILM visual effects supervisors John Knoll, Dennis Muren and Scott Squires.

"The Beginning"
Making Episode I Documentary Film
Culled from over 600 hours of behind-the-scenes footage, this all-new hour-long documentary film takes you inside Lucasfilm and Industrial Light & Magic during the making of The Phantom Menace. Sit in on the film's production process including: pre-production, casting, principal photography, editing, rough-cut reviews, visual effects meetings and other events that few people have had access to before.

Exclusive Deleted Scenes and Documentary
All-new documentary featuring George Lucas, Rick McCallum and guests discussing the painstaking process every director must go through in determining what scenes make the final cut.View seven exclusive deleted sequences that were created specifically for this DVD and learn why they were eliminated from the final version of the film.

Multi-Angle Animatics
Discover the amazing techniques used to create two memorable sequences (Submarine and Podrace Lap 1) from storyboards to animatics to final composites.

Featurettes
Five mini-documentaries give you an insider's look at The Phantom Menace's Storyline, Design, Costumes, Visual Effects and Fight sequences through behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with the cast and filmmakers.

Web Documentaries
Originally released on starwars.com during the production of Episode I, this award-winning twelve-part web documentary series gives you a fly-on-the-wall perspective into the making of the film as it was happening.

Exclusive Production Photo Gallery
Scroll through a never-before-seen gallery of candid cast and crew shots, each with captions.

"Duel of the Fates" Music Video
One of the most popular music videos during its release in May 1999, the "Duel of the Fates" video intertwines live footage of John Williams conducting the London Symphony Orchestra with behind-the-scenes clips and dramatic footage featured in Episode I.

Posters and Print Campaign
Examine the Episode I theatrical posters (Teaser and Launch) and the International Outdoor advertising used to support the release of Episode I around the world.

Trailers and TV Spots
Watch the theatrical teaser and launch trailers, plus seven TV spots (including the five original "Tone Poems" along with "The Saga Begins" and "All Over Again").

"Star Wars: Starfighter-The Making of a Game" from LucasArts
This featurette offers insight into the making of the popular flight action combat game along with information on other Star Wars games from LucasArts.

Exclusive DVD-ROM Content
Your Episode I DVD is a key that unlocks exclusive Star Wars content only available through a special DVD-ROM website. ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

5 stars for DVD quality, 3 stars for the movie
I'm reviewing only the DVD, and not the movie itself, which was a bit of a stinker, in my opinion. Well produced, beautifully filmed, but very poorly written.

Anyway - this is an awesome and incredibly well done DVD. Lots and lots of extras. Great commentary by Lucas, the producer, the sound man, etc. Interview with the composer. Lots and lots and LOTS of background materials on the making of the film, and the entire process of putting it together from initial writing to final production, and the making of the DVD itself.

The image of the movie is *very* crisp and clean. The deleted scenes are a nice addition to the movie. I am very impressed (and surprised, to be cynical about it) that Lucas has given us the full-featured DVD the first time out, and not offered us one scaled down DVD version, only to offer us a better version in a year, and then the full-scale one a year after that, like he's constantly done with the VHS versions of his movies. Thank you, Lucas, for taking care of your fans this time, and not trying to pad your pockets a few times before giving the fans what they *really* want.

Quality-wise, this is absolutely one of the most loaded, best-featured DVDs I have in my collection.

(as a p.s. - after hearing Lucas' commentary, and talking about some things coming up in the next movies, I have realized that a few things I criticized about this movie actually make sense oin terms of the upcoming story-line. However, I still think that, overall, the writing for this movie was only a cut above old b-movies)

OK Movie, Great DVD
The Phantom Menace was probably the most heavily anticipated movie in history. It was the prequel to the original Star Wars series and George Lucas was taking the helm as director for the first time since Star Wars in 1977. The film was hyped incessantly and, of course, the final product failed to live up to the expectations. The Phantom Menace is not a bad film. It actually is absolutely amazing to look at and the special effects are incredible. The problem with the film is the plot. It seems disjointed as it bounces around from scene to scene. It seems that Mr. Lucas was to preoccupied with getting the film to look right than the actual story (which is what made the first Star Wars so great). Many people weren't happy with the casting of several roles, especially Ewan MacGregor as Obi Won Kenobi, but he does a decent job in an undeveloped role. Liam Neeson is commanding as Qui Gon Jin and Natalie Portman is quite good as Queen Amadala. The biggest complaint that most people had with the film was with the character of Jar Jar Binks and I won't disagree with most of what's been said about the annoying character. Mr. Lucas has previously shunned the DVD arena (American Graffiti is the only one of his films to appear in the format), but he goes about this release with a vengeance. The extras, including seven deleted scenes, are worth buying this DVD alone. Mr. Lucas spent an additional four million dollars on them and the money is well spent.

prequel?
in this one,there is a council of jedis who rule everything and keep the peace.yoda,ben,some black dude and on like that.a younger ben finds a little kid-who is called anakan and later vadar.that kid wins his freedom with bens help in a very cool pod race.ben recognizes the force in the little one and decides to train him as a jedi.the bad guy is darth maul who has a double bladed light saber-very cool.hes the coolest looking character yet.i think peple came down too hard on jar-jar.hes a dork but there have been a lot worse.the kids will like it.it is the 4th part but the first episode.everybody should go see this one because just anybody will like it.anakans mom was pretty nice if she cleaned herself up.this movie isnt as good as the tv says but they blow everything all out of proportion anyway.this movie is abselutely incredible though.i think the black dude may be in the matrix too.its good too.the special effects are good.after this there is one more.then there is an animated short film.there is also another one on the way next summer.

To Lucas: Eye of the Tiger, Man!!
To quote the famous lines by Apollo Creed from Rocky III, "You lost for all the wrong reasons, you lost your edge. Eye of the tiger, man!"
A good analogy when you think of it...

When Lucas made the first trilogy he was a relativly unknown up-and-comming writer/director full of desire and well, "hunger" to make his mark. That drive lead to the masterpieces of pop culture we know as ANH and ESB. By ROTJ his edge was already waning but thankfully it was the last one... or so we thought.

By the time TPM came out he lost it completely and produced a quite mediocre if at best ordinary film. Living like a king for the past 20+ years made him not "hungry and full of desire" but fat and content. He lost his edge.

Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is so much better than Lucas' last 2 efforts for this same reason. Jackson has the "eye of the tiger"!

Lucas HAS to get his edge back. Most agree AOTC is better than TPM but not by much. Will episode 3 prove that Lucas got it back??

If only reality played out like the fantasy of Rocky III and Lucas brings home a REAL winner....

What drug was George Lucas on?
I love Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I think that George Lucas should have stopped there. The two movies: The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones....SUCK! What was George Lucas thinking? Jar Jar Binks needs to tossed off the face of the earth, and Hayden Christansen (while hot), needs to take some acting lessons. Not enough special effects in the world could make me want to see the third release. Poor acting and writing have made me want to run for cover! Where's the FORCE when you need it? ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the best films of 2004, Kinsey pays tribute to the flawed but honorable man who revolutionized our understanding of human sexuality. As played by Liam Neeson in writer-director Bill Condon's excellent film biography, Indiana University researcher Alfred Kinsey was so consumed by statistical measurements of human sexual activity that he almost completely overlooked the substantial role of emotions and their effect on human behavior. This made him an ideal researcher and science celebrity who revealed that sexual behaviors previously considered deviant and even harmful (homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) are in fact common and essentially normal in the realm of human experience, but whose obsession with scientific method frequently placed him at odds with his understanding wife (superbly played by Laura Linney) and research assistants. In presenting Kinsey as a driven social misfit, Condon's film gives Neeson one of his finest roles while revealing the depth of Kinsey's own humanity, and the incalculable benefit his research had on our collective sexual enlightenment. With humor, charm, and intelligence, Kinsey shines a light where darkness once prevailed. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Pretentious Attempt
In retrospection, Kinsey is over-rated. It rides on the 21st century's fetish of sexuality and pretends to be another "Beautiful Mind" but fails and flops. It is one of those pretentious artistic attempt.

Truth or Perversity?
This became more and more difficult to watch as the movie went along.A selected biography in the style of Ray or Delovely, but quite a different choice of subject matter.

Kinsey's father set the tone of Kinsey's own life, with a certainty that becomes obnoxious.The certainty that he knows what the answer is, in this case to the issues of human sexuality and its associated ignorance and taboos, and as with all people who think they know, there is a fall.At the time that Kinsey was achieving his fame there were restrictions on the entire subject of sex practices and sex mores.It stands to reason that the only people who were working in this area were strange themselves, or at least unconventional.That's where I had difficulty.Were Kinsey and his associates really as perverse as they appeared in the movie?Or were their banter and actions exaggerated for the sake of a good story.

I found no sympathy for Kinsey nor for anyone else in the movie.And some of the conclusions that they reached seem so counter-intuitive that they defy belief.I didn't know whether they were trying to find truth or to present perversity.

Potent Film with Certain Foundation for Heated Debate...
Galileo Galilei and scientists alike announced through in-depth research that the Earth was not flat and faced heavy persecution.Their different thinking broke the standards of the 16th century pious beliefs, which had been used a long time before scientists questioned the validity and reliability in what they observed.This offended the Catholic Church who proclaimed that they held the highest truth, a truth deeply rooted in unquestioned morality.The questioning of the religious beliefs triggered a witch-hunt of the scientists that disagreed with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.However, the truth eventually emerged, as Galileo's theories are still the instruments of current astronomical research that continues to evolve the human existence beyond the earth.

The Catholic Church and Lutheran Church persecuted people with different ideas of Christianity.Those who desired to exercise their own freedom of religion sought refuge in America where they could exercise their freedom to express their own ideas of religion.After the War of Independence, the founding fathers formed the Congress that drafted the 10 amendments.The first amendment brings the people freedom of speech, which includes religion.However, the very same ideas that sought freedom in America later turned from being the persecuted to the persecutor, as these notions harassed new different thinkers.The notion of cyclical history comes to mind when scientists like Alfred Kinsey are being silenced based on morality and unfounded facts.

Kinsey (Liam Neeson), a biologist, was brought up under strict puritan rules, as his father consistently proclaimed being the ultimate source of knowledge.In a sense he grew up with similar persecuting standards as Galileo, but instead of conforming to the rules he broke the bond with his father when he accepted a partial scholarship to Bowdoin to study biology.Kinsey's father wanted him to become an engineer, which has a certain level of irony to it, as his father believed that all modern inventions at the beginning of the 20th century were evil.The pursuit of the biology degree brought him through Harvard to Indiana University where he took a position as an assistant professor while studying stag beetles and later the American Cynipidae also known as the gall wasp.

Years of research and collecting the American Cynipidae allowed Kinsey to meticulously catalogue his gall wasp library.During this time Kinsey met his wife Clara (Laura Linney) with whom he had three children.However, before having the children they had difficulties in the bedroom, as Clara assumed it was because they physically would not fit together.This was an unacceptable answer for Kinsey who approached the problem, as if there were an answer, which there was.It simply was painful for Clara to have sex as her hymen was too thick, and with a quick procedure by a doctor she had this fixed.Consequently, Kinsey continued to help other couples with problems of sexual nature, but realized that he did not have any real answers to the questions that were posed to him.

In the 1940s, Kinsey got his chance to do teach a marriage course in regards to sex and the social aspects of sex between husbands and wives.As the class went on his interest deepened through the vast number of questions people asked in regards to sex.This concluded in Kinsey beginning to research the taboo ridden topic, which so many have been taught to avoid at all costs except for the purpose of having children.Kinsey opposed the abstinence with his statement, "society has interfered with what should be a normal biological development..."

The sex research forced Kinsey to travel uncharted waters, as he had to find a way to collect data that were valid and reliable.Through this process he design an interview style that had to be nonjudgmental in order for the interviewee to reveal everything without having to feel any negative feelings.This process gave them surprising facts about sex, as they also encountered homosexuality, extramarital affairs, and premarital affairs.They also found evidence of deviant sexual practices, which most of the society rightfully did not tolerate such as pedophilia.An important note to this is that Kinsey was only collecting data, he did not advocate harmful sexual practices.However, in the eyes of the society Kinsey was in the end drawn into the mud, as much of his intentions was misunderstood.

Nonetheless, Kinsey helped breaking the ice of the forbidden issue that in the end opened up the society to understanding this hushed, but normal behavior.If Kinsey did not push the envelope the society might have continued its intolerance towards sexual issues, an intolerance that would force many to hide their true identity in the fear of repercussions and prejudice based on hatred and fear.For example, John Edgar Hoover created a profiling center for homosexuals and other undesirables.The very same intolerance would function as a shield that would have protected many of the Catholic priests that have been uncovered to molest children.It is thanks to Kinsey and researchers alike that it has become acceptable to discuss this taboo topic in media, where horrendous crimes such as child molesting can be caught.Yet, there are still many who believe that Kinsey was wrong to do what he did, and they are naturally free to have their own opinions.As they should let the truth be unveiled from darkness and not let erotophobia, i.e., learned negative emotional response to information of sexual nature, affect any decision-making that could help human beings discover a better future.

Kinsey is a political and potent film that will undoubtedly make many feel awkward and uncomfortable.Yet, it is also an important film, as it displays the importance of learning the truth and not hiding behind groundless rules and laws based on fictionalized morality.The film also has historical value to our contemporary society where many laws often are passed based on morality, which ends up hurting a fraction of the society and slows the progress of humanity.When this happens, history seems to be have drifted into oblivion as prejudice and intolerance continues to haunt the society.Hopefully, the film Kinsey offers an opportunity for debate and insightfulness, and not continued narrow-mindedness.

On balance, a positive contribution to human understanding
Alfred Kinsey did a great service to the study of sex.Yes, some of his methodologies were suspect, "self-selection" throwing a monkey-wrench in the whole randomization requirement.His subjects were perhaps not the most representative sampling of the population.Furthermore, he and his staff became too personally involved in the work.His assistants comprised a sort of swinger's club.Kinsey could be faulted for not having anticipated the conflicts brought about by such activities among colleagues.

Unfortunately, these aspects of his life and the film will obscure - for many - the more significant meaning of his work: Bringing the discussion of sex out of the dark corners of human consciousness and into the light.Also, by removing the shame factor from sex, a natural healthy aspect of the human animal, Kinsey legitimized the scientific study of sex.

As far as the film per se, I was impressed with the honesty of the piece.Contrary to what some reviewers have said, this film does not make Kinsey a hero.It rightly credits him for his work, yet reveals a conflicted, troubled psyche at the same time as Kinsey tries to navigate the line between his objective scientific observation and his subjective sexual experiences.This blurring is where Kinsey erred.

Interesting insight into groundbreaking study
Alfred Kinsey was a pioneer in the study of human sexuality. He was a professor at Indiana University and spent the first 20 years of his career studying an insect, the "gall wasp." This movie, starring Liam Neeson in the title role, depicts Dr. Kinsey as having an obsession with his study of the gall wasp, collecting hundreds of thousands of specimens and devoting his life to studying this species. Tapped to teach a course on marriage and the family, Kinsey developed an interest in human sexuality and he bacame as obsessive in this study as he was in his earlier endeavor. He was driven and pushed his staff hard. He employed interviewers who spoke with thousands of people in taking sexual histories. Kinsey was very hands on as he personally instructed his staff on how to put subjects at ease as they conducted the interviews.

Dr. Kinsey was the son of a morally strict father, convincingly played by John Lithgow. Neeson's depecition of Dr. Kinsey shows the results of this upbringing. His characterization of Kinsey comes across as very stiff and uptight. He is not one to really let his hair down yet, in his groundbreaking study, there is no taboo that he is unwilling to explore. Indeed, he explores his own sexuality as he has an extramarital gay affair. Despite serious misgivings at first, his wife, played by Laura Linney, is accepting.

The studies were very controversial, having been done in the 1940s, long before the "sexual revolution." Some people found his findings to be very liberating in that they discovered that they were not alone in their sexual feelings. Other people were shocked, believing that the subject was taboo and should not be discussed. There is one brief scene in which a woman, who agonized over her lesbian inclinations, was liberated by Dr. Kinsey's findings and, thereby allowed herself to enter into a relationship. Others, including Kinsey's father, were scandalized. Ultimately, however, Kinsey's father allows himself to be interviewed by his son and reveals his own, painful secrets of a repressed childhood.

We live in a more sexually open era than we did, generations ago. This movie gives an insight into one of the reasons this is so. I recommend this dvd. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the best films of 2004, Kinsey pays tribute to the flawed but honorable man who revolutionized our understanding of human sexuality. As played by Liam Neeson in writer-director Bill Condon's excellent film biography, Indiana University researcher Alfred Kinsey was so consumed by statistical measurements of human sexual activity that he almost completely overlooked the substantial role of emotions and their effect on human behavior. This made him an ideal researcher and science celebrity who revealed that sexual behaviors previously considered deviant and even harmful (homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) are in fact common and essentially normal in the realm of human experience, but whose obsession with scientific method frequently placed him at odds with his understanding wife (superbly played by Laura Linney) and research assistants. In presenting Kinsey as a driven social misfit, Condon's film gives Neeson one of his finest roles while revealing the depth of Kinsey's own humanity, and the incalculable benefit his research had on our collective sexual enlightenment. With humor, charm, and intelligence, Kinsey shines a light where darkness once prevailed. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Pretentious Attempt
In retrospection, Kinsey is over-rated. It rides on the 21st century's fetish of sexuality and pretends to be another "Beautiful Mind" but fails and flops. It is one of those pretentious artistic attempt.

Truth or Perversity?
This became more and more difficult to watch as the movie went along.A selected biography in the style of Ray or Delovely, but quite a different choice of subject matter.

Kinsey's father set the tone of Kinsey's own life, with a certainty that becomes obnoxious.The certainty that he knows what the answer is, in this case to the issues of human sexuality and its associated ignorance and taboos, and as with all people who think they know, there is a fall.At the time that Kinsey was achieving his fame there were restrictions on the entire subject of sex practices and sex mores.It stands to reason that the only people who were working in this area were strange themselves, or at least unconventional.That's where I had difficulty.Were Kinsey and his associates really as perverse as they appeared in the movie?Or were their banter and actions exaggerated for the sake of a good story.

I found no sympathy for Kinsey nor for anyone else in the movie.And some of the conclusions that they reached seem so counter-intuitive that they defy belief.I didn't know whether they were trying to find truth or to present perversity.

Potent Film with Certain Foundation for Heated Debate...
Galileo Galilei and scientists alike announced through in-depth research that the Earth was not flat and faced heavy persecution.Their different thinking broke the standards of the 16th century pious beliefs, which had been used a long time before scientists questioned the validity and reliability in what they observed.This offended the Catholic Church who proclaimed that they held the highest truth, a truth deeply rooted in unquestioned morality.The questioning of the religious beliefs triggered a witch-hunt of the scientists that disagreed with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.However, the truth eventually emerged, as Galileo's theories are still the instruments of current astronomical research that continues to evolve the human existence beyond the earth.

The Catholic Church and Lutheran Church persecuted people with different ideas of Christianity.Those who desired to exercise their own freedom of religion sought refuge in America where they could exercise their freedom to express their own ideas of religion.After the War of Independence, the founding fathers formed the Congress that drafted the 10 amendments.The first amendment brings the people freedom of speech, which includes religion.However, the very same ideas that sought freedom in America later turned from being the persecuted to the persecutor, as these notions harassed new different thinkers.The notion of cyclical history comes to mind when scientists like Alfred Kinsey are being silenced based on morality and unfounded facts.

Kinsey (Liam Neeson), a biologist, was brought up under strict puritan rules, as his father consistently proclaimed being the ultimate source of knowledge.In a sense he grew up with similar persecuting standards as Galileo, but instead of conforming to the rules he broke the bond with his father when he accepted a partial scholarship to Bowdoin to study biology.Kinsey's father wanted him to become an engineer, which has a certain level of irony to it, as his father believed that all modern inventions at the beginning of the 20th century were evil.The pursuit of the biology degree brought him through Harvard to Indiana University where he took a position as an assistant professor while studying stag beetles and later the American Cynipidae also known as the gall wasp.

Years of research and collecting the American Cynipidae allowed Kinsey to meticulously catalogue his gall wasp library.During this time Kinsey met his wife Clara (Laura Linney) with whom he had three children.However, before having the children they had difficulties in the bedroom, as Clara assumed it was because they physically would not fit together.This was an unacceptable answer for Kinsey who approached the problem, as if there were an answer, which there was.It simply was painful for Clara to have sex as her hymen was too thick, and with a quick procedure by a doctor she had this fixed.Consequently, Kinsey continued to help other couples with problems of sexual nature, but realized that he did not have any real answers to the questions that were posed to him.

In the 1940s, Kinsey got his chance to do teach a marriage course in regards to sex and the social aspects of sex between husbands and wives.As the class went on his interest deepened through the vast number of questions people asked in regards to sex.This concluded in Kinsey beginning to research the taboo ridden topic, which so many have been taught to avoid at all costs except for the purpose of having children.Kinsey opposed the abstinence with his statement, "society has interfered with what should be a normal biological development..."

The sex research forced Kinsey to travel uncharted waters, as he had to find a way to collect data that were valid and reliable.Through this process he design an interview style that had to be nonjudgmental in order for the interviewee to reveal everything without having to feel any negative feelings.This process gave them surprising facts about sex, as they also encountered homosexuality, extramarital affairs, and premarital affairs.They also found evidence of deviant sexual practices, which most of the society rightfully did not tolerate such as pedophilia.An important note to this is that Kinsey was only collecting data, he did not advocate harmful sexual practices.However, in the eyes of the society Kinsey was in the end drawn into the mud, as much of his intentions was misunderstood.

Nonetheless, Kinsey helped breaking the ice of the forbidden issue that in the end opened up the society to understanding this hushed, but normal behavior.If Kinsey did not push the envelope the society might have continued its intolerance towards sexual issues, an intolerance that would force many to hide their true identity in the fear of repercussions and prejudice based on hatred and fear.For example, John Edgar Hoover created a profiling center for homosexuals and other undesirables.The very same intolerance would function as a shield that would have protected many of the Catholic priests that have been uncovered to molest children.It is thanks to Kinsey and researchers alike that it has become acceptable to discuss this taboo topic in media, where horrendous crimes such as child molesting can be caught.Yet, there are still many who believe that Kinsey was wrong to do what he did, and they are naturally free to have their own opinions.As they should let the truth be unveiled from darkness and not let erotophobia, i.e., learned negative emotional response to information of sexual nature, affect any decision-making that could help human beings discover a better future.

Kinsey is a political and potent film that will undoubtedly make many feel awkward and uncomfortable.Yet, it is also an important film, as it displays the importance of learning the truth and not hiding behind groundless rules and laws based on fictionalized morality.The film also has historical value to our contemporary society where many laws often are passed based on morality, which ends up hurting a fraction of the society and slows the progress of humanity.When this happens, history seems to be have drifted into oblivion as prejudice and intolerance continues to haunt the society.Hopefully, the film Kinsey offers an opportunity for debate and insightfulness, and not continued narrow-mindedness.

On balance, a positive contribution to human understanding
Alfred Kinsey did a great service to the study of sex.Yes, some of his methodologies were suspect, "self-selection" throwing a monkey-wrench in the whole randomization requirement.His subjects were perhaps not the most representative sampling of the population.Furthermore, he and his staff became too personally involved in the work.His assistants comprised a sort of swinger's club.Kinsey could be faulted for not having anticipated the conflicts brought about by such activities among colleagues.

Unfortunately, these aspects of his life and the film will obscure - for many - the more significant meaning of his work: Bringing the discussion of sex out of the dark corners of human consciousness and into the light.Also, by removing the shame factor from sex, a natural healthy aspect of the human animal, Kinsey legitimized the scientific study of sex.

As far as the film per se, I was impressed with the honesty of the piece.Contrary to what some reviewers have said, this film does not make Kinsey a hero.It rightly credits him for his work, yet reveals a conflicted, troubled psyche at the same time as Kinsey tries to navigate the line between his objective scientific observation and his subjective sexual experiences.This blurring is where Kinsey erred.

Interesting insight into groundbreaking study
Alfred Kinsey was a pioneer in the study of human sexuality. He was a professor at Indiana University and spent the first 20 years of his career studying an insect, the "gall wasp." This movie, starring Liam Neeson in the title role, depicts Dr. Kinsey as having an obsession with his study of the gall wasp, collecting hundreds of thousands of specimens and devoting his life to studying this species. Tapped to teach a course on marriage and the family, Kinsey developed an interest in human sexuality and he bacame as obsessive in this study as he was in his earlier endeavor. He was driven and pushed his staff hard. He employed interviewers who spoke with thousands of people in taking sexual histories. Kinsey was very hands on as he personally instructed his staff on how to put subjects at ease as they conducted the interviews.

Dr. Kinsey was the son of a morally strict father, convincingly played by John Lithgow. Neeson's depecition of Dr. Kinsey shows the results of this upbringing. His characterization of Kinsey comes across as very stiff and uptight. He is not one to really let his hair down yet, in his groundbreaking study, there is no taboo that he is unwilling to explore. Indeed, he explores his own sexuality as he has an extramarital gay affair. Despite serious misgivings at first, his wife, played by Laura Linney, is accepting.

The studies were very controversial, having been done in the 1940s, long before the "sexual revolution." Some people found his findings to be very liberating in that they discovered that they were not alone in their sexual feelings. Other people were shocked, believing that the subject was taboo and should not be discussed. There is one brief scene in which a woman, who agonized over her lesbian inclinations, was liberated by Dr. Kinsey's findings and, thereby allowed herself to enter into a relationship. Others, including Kinsey's father, were scandalized. Ultimately, however, Kinsey's father allows himself to be interviewed by his son and reveals his own, painful secrets of a repressed childhood.

We live in a more sexually open era than we did, generations ago. This movie gives an insight into one of the reasons this is so. I recommend this dvd. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like any IMAX movie, Coral Reef Adventure is so vivid, vast, and colorful that you can't help but be astonished by its visual splendor. But this undersea exploration has a deeper, more serious agenda as well, warning its viewers that the natural magnificence of the world's most impressive coral reefs is, in most cases, a mere 30 years away from extinction due to the devastating effects of global (and oceanic) warming. Whether or not that timeframe is accurate (and there's not enough solid science presented here to prove it either way), it's tragically obvious that we are in the process of losing entire ecosystems that cannot be replaced, and when you witness these awesome coral reefs in their still-thriving vitality, you experience a sense of urgent responsibility toward our stewardship of planet Earth. By showing us the commitment and potentially life-threatening work of reef explorers and world-class undersea cinematographers Howard and Michele Hall, the film provides an all-access pass to some of the most exotic, playful, and dangerous creatures in the ocean, presented with the kind of intense, almost three-dimensional clarity that can only be achieved in the IMAX format. And while the giant-screen awesomeness of IMAX is lost in translation to DVD, Coral Reef Adventure offers the best-to-date use (on disc 2 of this two-disc set) of High Definition DVD-ROM formatting. For PC users equipped with Windows XP and Windows Media Player 9 series (or later) software, the amazing images in Coral Reef Adventure achieve an almost life-like resolution. The ultimate conclusion remains: If we don't do something to protect these delicate, endangered wonders of nature, we will lose a part of ourselves. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Endangered coral reefs exposed for all to see
I may be a bit biased- as I have dived all the reefs shown in this movie, and have enjoyed diving in Fiji with Rusi Vulakoro, focus of the film (and dove with Rusi again for two weeks in November 2003, for the last time, as he has now retired.) The footage is superb- showing Australia's enormous Great Barrier Reef, French Polynesia's Rangiroa Atoll (with a huge school of about 300 grey whalers / grey reef sharks) and lots of Fiji's world-class reefs- from its spectacular soft corals to the eutrophication of a once-vital reef just offshore to one of Fiji's islands. One even sees how the huge IMAX camera is maneuvered in "Rangi's" stiff currents, as well as in 107 meters / 350 feet of depth as cinematographer Howard Hall and scientist Richard Pyle discover fish completely new to science, using CIS Lunar Mark 4-P rebreathers.

The sound track is excellent, the footage outstanding, and the explanation of why coral reefs are failing, while basic, is quite accurate: overfishing of reef inhabitants, silt from logging and development, and waters warmed by the global warming some still deny and the El Niño / Southern Oscillation phenomenon.

Unfortunately gone missing in the simplification are fishing for aquarium specimens and food fish with cyanide, dynamite fishing, coral removal for various commercial schemes, and inflow of insecticides and fertilizers, as on barrier reefs off Australia and Central America. And some explanations and scenes are, shall we say, a little bit "embellished" up for effect... but in the end, this is an awesome movie. Divers will love it, those who do not dive will begin to get an idea of why we who do actually dive and travel to such wonderful places. Those concerned about reefs' well-being will be gratified there is some information how people can help conserve reefs, with some prominent mention being given to NGO Reef Check and its activities involving sport divers.

If you enjoy underwater film, this is a "MUST SEE". A very good supporting book (Living Mirrors: A Coral Reef Adventure, by Jack Stephens, Umbrage Editions, ISBN 1-8844167-26-8) is available, and Coral Reef Adventure is also available in VHS and DVD editions; I bought the DVD, and it's nice to still be able to see Rusi diving and all Fiji's underwater denizens, even when I am at home.

Incredible DVD!
This DVD has beautiful underwater scenes of coral reefs and sea life, and occasional flyovers of mountains and reefs look amazing. The music and narration are finely balanced. If you live outside the US or Canada like me, you can still play the WMVHD DVD! As long as you own a region free DVD-ROM drive in your computer, or own a copy of DVD Region Free, you can still play the high definition version on disc 2 in any country with no DRM license hassles. You got to have a powerful pc (especially the CPU) to play it though! You should also have a HDTV connected to your pc as well to make the most of the quality.

Simply Beautiful
I bought this DVD only for the eye candy WMVHD version...and I wasn't disappointed. The video quality is simply spectacular !

Microsoft has a lot to learn about HTPCs
I bought this for the HD WMV version on disc 2, hoping to play this with my HD capable Home Theater Personal Computer (HTPC). I have had nothing but problems:
1. There were problems with software codecs. The web site pointed to on the disc explained how I might need to manually install some components, which apparently I needed to do. Troubling, but overcome.
2. DVD-ROM required on the computer. My HTPC didn't have a DVD-ROM drive. I have a separate DVD player in my stereo stack, and DVD drives in other computers. My plan was to copy the files over to the HTPC. This didn't work because of the Microsoft DRM (Digital Rights Management). Even when I mapped the DVD-ROM on the other computer so it appeared locally, no luck. Worst of all, I only figured out this was the problem by debugging the Microsoft scripts on the disc. There was no explanation given, just a cryptic error message. Overcome with purchase of a DVD-ROM drive.
3. Bad audio format. As another reviewer has noted, the multi-channel audio is in a Microsoft format and I can't pass it over the optical connection from my HTPC to my DTS and Dolby Digital capable receiver. I have no problems with AC3 files and DTS encoded files. Not overcome - stuck with standard stereo.
4. Things cut off the screen. I'm running at 1920x1080 for 1080i resolution. My HDTV has a little overscan. The menus for configuring the player were cut off. I don't know if this is because it assumes 4x3 or the overscan, but someone needs to recognize that overscan exists. Overcome by playing disc in another computer and learning where the menu entries were.
5. Can't pause, etc. The player doesn't seem to respond to keys on my "media enabled" keyboard. The keyboard works fine in other applications. Not overcome.
BTW, the video looks awesome.
-frustrated

HD-DVD Wow!
I bought this disk because it was the first-ever high definition 1080progressive scan DVD made to run on a pc that has windows media 9 and a fancy graphics card.
This is a drop-dead gorgeous movie to watch. And unlike the other existant HD-DVD, it is easy to use.
I look foward to purchasing other nature films released in this format. My only regret about this beautiful, intelligent movie is that it is an advocacy film for environmental preservation of coral reefs but it does not give its intended audience a clear push out-of-the-door to act in a meaningful way to save the oceans through legislation etc. Maybe I am being policy-wonkish here, but feel-good propaganda that does not motivate people is dishonest to its intents.
Liam Nieson narrates excellently, the underwater cinematography is pristine and the audience develops an appreciation of the coral reef milleau. music is goofy but fun.
see this movie on a 1200x1600 monitor if you can, there is nothing like it! ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

5 stars for DVD quality, 3 stars for the movie
I'm reviewing only the DVD, and not the movie itself, which was a bit of a stinker, in my opinion. Well produced, beautifully filmed, but very poorly written.

Anyway - this is an awesome and incredibly well done DVD. Lots and lots of extras. Great commentary by Lucas, the producer, the sound man, etc. Interview with the composer. Lots and lots and LOTS of background materials on the making of the film, and the entire process of putting it together from initial writing to final production, and the making of the DVD itself.

The image of the movie is *very* crisp and clean. The deleted scenes are a nice addition to the movie. I am very impressed (and surprised, to be cynical about it) that Lucas has given us the full-featured DVD the first time out, and not offered us one scaled down DVD version, only to offer us a better version in a year, and then the full-scale one a year after that, like he's constantly done with the VHS versions of his movies. Thank you, Lucas, for taking care of your fans this time, and not trying to pad your pockets a few times before giving the fans what they *really* want.

Quality-wise, this is absolutely one of the most loaded, best-featured DVDs I have in my collection.

(as a p.s. - after hearing Lucas' commentary, and talking about some things coming up in the next movies, I have realized that a few things I criticized about this movie actually make sense oin terms of the upcoming story-line. However, I still think that, overall, the writing for this movie was only a cut above old b-movies)

OK Movie, Great DVD
The Phantom Menace was probably the most heavily anticipated movie in history. It was the prequel to the original Star Wars series and George Lucas was taking the helm as director for the first time since Star Wars in 1977. The film was hyped incessantly and, of course, the final product failed to live up to the expectations. The Phantom Menace is not a bad film. It actually is absolutely amazing to look at and the special effects are incredible. The problem with the film is the plot. It seems disjointed as it bounces around from scene to scene. It seems that Mr. Lucas was to preoccupied with getting the film to look right than the actual story (which is what made the first Star Wars so great). Many people weren't happy with the casting of several roles, especially Ewan MacGregor as Obi Won Kenobi, but he does a decent job in an undeveloped role. Liam Neeson is commanding as Qui Gon Jin and Natalie Portman is quite good as Queen Amadala. The biggest complaint that most people had with the film was with the character of Jar Jar Binks and I won't disagree with most of what's been said about the annoying character. Mr. Lucas has previously shunned the DVD arena (American Graffiti is the only one of his films to appear in the format), but he goes about this release with a vengeance. The extras, including seven deleted scenes, are worth buying this DVD alone. Mr. Lucas spent an additional four million dollars on them and the money is well spent.

prequel?
in this one,there is a council of jedis who rule everything and keep the peace.yoda,ben,some black dude and on like that.a younger ben finds a little kid-who is called anakan and later vadar.that kid wins his freedom with bens help in a very cool pod race.ben recognizes the force in the little one and decides to train him as a jedi.the bad guy is darth maul who has a double bladed light saber-very cool.hes the coolest looking character yet.i think peple came down too hard on jar-jar.hes a dork but there have been a lot worse.the kids will like it.it is the 4th part but the first episode.everybody should go see this one because just anybody will like it.anakans mom was pretty nice if she cleaned herself up.this movie isnt as good as the tv says but they blow everything all out of proportion anyway.this movie is abselutely incredible though.i think the black dude may be in the matrix too.its good too.the special effects are good.after this there is one more.then there is an animated short film.there is also another one on the way next summer.

To Lucas: Eye of the Tiger, Man!!
To quote the famous lines by Apollo Creed from Rocky III, "You lost for all the wrong reasons, you lost your edge. Eye of the tiger, man!"
A good analogy when you think of it...

When Lucas made the first trilogy he was a relativly unknown up-and-comming writer/director full of desire and well, "hunger" to make his mark. That drive lead to the masterpieces of pop culture we know as ANH and ESB. By ROTJ his edge was already waning but thankfully it was the last one... or so we thought.

By the time TPM came out he lost it completely and produced a quite mediocre if at best ordinary film. Living like a king for the past 20+ years made him not "hungry and full of desire" but fat and content. He lost his edge.

Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is so much better than Lucas' last 2 efforts for this same reason. Jackson has the "eye of the tiger"!

Lucas HAS to get his edge back. Most agree AOTC is better than TPM but not by much. Will episode 3 prove that Lucas got it back??

If only reality played out like the fantasy of Rocky III and Lucas brings home a REAL winner....

What drug was George Lucas on?
I love Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I think that George Lucas should have stopped there. The two movies: The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones....SUCK! What was George Lucas thinking? Jar Jar Binks needs to tossed off the face of the earth, and Hayden Christansen (while hot), needs to take some acting lessons. Not enough special effects in the world could make me want to see the third release. Poor acting and writing have made me want to run for cover! Where's the FORCE when you need it? ... Read more

Reviews (495)

A cinematic masterpiece!
Meet Oskar Schindler. A German living in occupied Poland during World War II. A member in good standing of the Nazi party. A womanizer, a war profiteer...and ultimately a man of conscience. A man who became one of the great unsung heroes and humanitarians of the war.

"Schindler's List" chronicles Oskar Schindler's spiritual odyssey from war profiteer to humanitarian and hero. Winner of seven Academy Awards® in 1993, including Best Picture, this harrowing and heart-rending film is Steven Spielberg's masterpiece, and perhaps one of the finest and most important movies ever made. It depicts Schindler's ultimately successful attempt to rescue 1,100 Jews from Hitler's "Final Solution" by getting them to safety outside Poland.

Dynamic performances abound in this beautiful movie, Especially noteworthy are Liam Neeson as the suave Schindler, Ralph Fiennes as the monstrously depraved Nazi colonel, Amon Goeth, and Ben Kingsley as the dignified, principled Jewish prisoner Itzhak Stern.

"Schindler's List" is definitely not light entertainment! This beautiful movie allows viewers to feel like they're actually a part of one of the darkest, most horrific periods in history. (I'm sure this is the reason the film was shot in black-and-white, with only minor "colorized" bits included.) The story of the Holocaust needs to be told over and over again, in hopes that future generations can understand the horrors perpetrated on an entire race of people and prevent future occurrences. "Schindler's List" is perhaps one of the best and most effective vehicles for telling that story I've ever experienced.

Whoever Saves One Life Saves the World Entire!
That's the tagline of Steven Spielberg's 1993 holocaust epic, SCHINDLER'S LIST (a film that has inspired me with my own film, TRIANGLE). What is this film? A documentary? A memorial service? A biopic? The answer is all of the above. It is a realistic look at a man who began as a womanizing criminal and ended as a sympathetic savior to thousands of Jewish people.

Based on Thomas Keneally's bestselling novel, it is passionate look at the Jewish struggle during the ghetto liquidation by the Nazis and in the concentration camps.

Filmed entirely on location in Poland and in black-and-white, with some color aspects, SCHINDLER'S LIST brings to life one of the saddest chapters in history. Starring Liam Neeson as industrialist Oskar Schindler; Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth; Ben Kingsley as Schindler's accountant Itzhak Stern; and Caroline Goodall as Schindler's wife, Emilie.

This is a film too sad to imagine, but also very important to watch and shameful to miss. Neeson does an extraordinary job in showing us the man who saved so many lives. A man whom most would call a pirate, he has shown us a brighter light. But, honestly, the one who impressed me (and shocked me the most) was Ralph Fiennes as a Nazi superior. Fiennes was known for playing romantic heroes on the London stage before playing such a dastardly role. (In the end, you can't help but cheer when he is eventually hanged.) And to Ben Kingsley (Oscar-winner for GANDHI), always the dependable one! His Stern provided me enough time to breathe a sign of relief and smile at his nervously mousy character. From his being trapped inside the train to his trying to reason with Schindler about the one-arm man's dependability working in the factory (a rare comedic moment in the film).

This is a triumph in every way possible! To watch a man, whom we never even heard of, save thousands of lives is heart-breakingly wonderful. Good job, Steven!

Winner of 7 Academy Awards including: Best Picture - Steven Spielberg, Branko Lustig & Gerald R. Molen; Best Director - Steven Spielberg; Best Adapted Screenplay - Steven Zaillian; Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski; Best Art Direction/Set Decoration - Allan Starski, Ewa Braun; Best Score - John Williams; and Best Film Eediting - Michael Kahn.

Approximately: 3 HOURS and 17 MINUTES

**Schindler's List **
This film from Steven Spielberg was shot in black and white and is very effective as a film to portray what happened to the Jews in Germany/Poland etc.. from the ghettos to the concentration camps. The film is very realistic in its portrayal and the environment of that time in history of the 1930's and 1940's. This is a film that you may only want to watch once. It is an excellent film. The acting is very good, the reality of the killings is very graphic. The cinematography is excellent. The only reason I think that is a film to viewed once or twice in one's life is due to the depressing nature of the film. I think it is a film that younger generations (teenagers and some people in their 20's) should see because many are coming out of school without even knowing who Adolf Hitler was and what he had done. I think it's important that they see what occurred so a repeat of history does not happen. This is an important film, but not necessarily one you want to view over and over again.

Some other reviewers on this forum start bringing up that "other genocides occurred in history" and how come only this one is made into a film. I'm afraid folks that Spielberg didn't make an all encompassing film to include all of the past atrocities that happened in the past 1000 years. He focused just on the Holocast. Also it is just pure ignorance to deny that 5-6 million Jewish civilians were killed/murdered. Even if it was 10,000 Jews, it does not make it any better. It doesn't really matter if they were Jews or any other religion. The fact is that 6 million PEOPLE who were civilians were murdered. They were Germans, Polish, French and many other nationalities. It just happened they were of the Jewish faith that was targeted by the Nazis(Jews were used as a scapegoat to blame all of Germany's economic ills as a country on. The Nazis also killed and murdered gypsies too. The people (men, women and children) killed were white people (Jewish is not a race. It is a religion).
Actual documentation of what the Nazi's did is on film shot by British news cameras as the American and British soldiers entered these concentration camps throughout 1945. Disease was rampant in these camps due to all the mass graves and thousands of bodies that were left to rot (by the Germans) as the British bulldozers needed to bury these corpses. My father and grandfather were in the 2nd World War as part of the American and British invasion of Germany and witnessed it first hand. That's enough proof as far as I am concerned. Yes. Not all Germans were bad people, but there were enough of them to throw the world into a World War in 1939 and to allow this to go on just a few miles from their towns and villages.

This is a good film. Good coverage of a very bad time in world history.

Not the best Special Edition one can expect, but still...
Although this 5 time Academy Award winning film certainly gets a beautiful presentation on disc, I both do and do not understand the complaining of the DVD presentation of Schindler's List. But first, let me discuss the benefits of the disc first.

The picture here is impressive, although there are noticeable flaws. The 1.85:1 anamorphic picture showcases excellent detail and rich black levels; at times the picture looked so good I thought that the movie was remastered by Lowery Digital Services. But then minor flaws show up, such as excessive grain and minor print flaws (such as in the sequence where Schindler Jews are calling out their names, I spotted a vertical line). Flaws aside, the picture is still beautiful and Janusz Kaminski's photography is put to good use here.

The audio is presented in Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Surround. All Dolby and DTS tracks give a sense of place to the film, and while the tracks aren't bass-heavy, they fit the movie's tone perfectly. It demonstrates excellent stereo separation and bass response, all the while not calling attention to itself. The two-sided disc cuts down on cost, and the menus allow one to access each part of the DVD with considerable ease. (The movie is also given French and Spanish spoken languages and subtitles, while the extras have optional subtitles in English, French, and Spanish.)

Now, the disadvantages. I know people were expecting an extras-packed version of this movie, but we only have two real extras included; the "Voices From the List" Featurette and "Behind the Shoah Visual Foundation" Featurette. Both are good extras detailing the various stories recounted by actual Schindler Jews, and while these are substantial enough, I had the feeling more could've been added. If Spielberg were to do commentaries, I would appreciate one done for this film, and the addition of the theatrical trailer would help too. Inclusion of those two extras would've added much more to the DVD.

Still, quibble about the extras aside, the disc release of this film gives newcomers a chance to be introduced to one of Spielberg's greatest cinematic achievements ever made, with great picture and sound. It may not always be easy viewing, but the impact it leaves is indelible and unforgettable. For fans of Spielberg's work and this movie, this disc is a must-have, despite the slim extras. (If you're intent on having more, the gift set is a viable option. Along with the DVD, it also includes a booklet, the movie's soundtrack CD, certificate of authenticity, a photo still book and a Plexiglas keep case.)

History repeating it's self?
Why don't we hear about other genocides, like the ones in Russia and Turkey that inspired the German one? The movie was so distorted and stereotypical it's ridicules. The nazi's weren't all-bad and the Jews weren't all good. Jews aren't as innocent as they are portrayed. This could be due to Hollywood being monopolized by them. See how much trouble Mel Gibson had when he tried make a movie that portrayed Jews as less than perfect. If they had really went through all that trauma, why would they go to Palestine and commit the same atrocities only decades before to the Arabs? Schindler's List is just one of the yearly Jewish propaganda films that are thrown at us, like the pianist for ex. And worst of all, every year schools have to show this movie to young children. And Disney show's this movie every yr on the wonderful world of Disney. Why is this gruesome movie targeted at kids I have no idea. "so we won't forget the past my A**" ... Read more

Description

Rodrigo Mendoza (ROBERT DE NIRO) was a violent soldier-for-hire in 1750s South America. Now he is a man of peace serving the Rain Forest Indians he once enslaved. But armies of Spain and Portugal threaten the lifestyle and safety of the native peoples. Now Rodrigo may have to pick up his sword and musket once again. From the producer of Chariots of Fire and the director of The Killing Fields comes a powerful epic co-starring JEREMY IRONS and graced with dazzling Academy Award-winning cinematography, set to a memorable music score and scripted by the Oscar-winning screenwriter of A Man for All Seasons and Doctor Zhivago. ... Read more

Reviews (158)

Theodicy or Corrupt Politics
The Mission

The Mission directed by Roland Joffe is the story of the struggle between theocracy and theodicy. Ironically the church has the mission to bring theodicy to the world and it does this through the message of God's Love and Forgiveness. It tries to accomplish this through the sending out of missionaries, in this case the Jesuit priests, to tell the story and bring others to the knowledge of God's Love and Forgiveness. Tragically politics and greed for power in the hierarchy of the church (in this case the Roman Catholic Church) brings about a situation where the people of God are killed supposedly in the name of God. This story opens and ends with Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally) dictating a letter to the Pope informing him of the events that had transpired after giving church missions in South America over to the Spaniards and Portuguese. The nature of the setting is beautiful. Views of the waterfalls are breath-taking and spectacular.

The message of theodicy is played out in the story involving two main characters Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) and Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro). Father Gabriel brings theocracy to the Natives of South America. At the beginning of our story Rodrigo is a slave trader who undergoes a traumatic conversion experience and serves those whom he had sold into slavery before. His story of transformation is one of heartache, murder, repentance and extreme penance which he imposes upon himself. It is the forgiveness and acceptance of those who he former hunted that sets him feel to serve both God and the Natives. Another film that shows a similar vein of acceptance after tragedy is the classic movie Hawaii (1966) based on James Michener. Rev. Hale accepts the Native Hawaiians as he begins to mellow in the aftermath of his losses. In Rodrigo's case is his acceptance by the tribe that helps them to fight against the imposed theocracy of the Cardinal later on.

At issue here, in spite of the beautifully portrayal of conversion to Christianity of the Native people of South America, is the imposed will of governing forces of politics around greed ownership of land. Yet this was done under the auspices of the Church as God's Will, which is called theocracy. The people of the land had no say, they were the conquered, to be exploited and were considered as chattel, for them there was not theodicy. Their willingness to share and work for the common good of all, even though a principle of Christianity was considered a threat to the economy of others with political clout. Because they would not give up that which they had worked for, they were condemned to death. When Cardinal Atlamirno orders them to leave the Mission; they wanted to know why? His answer was that they had to submit to the will of God. Their answer was had God changed his mind? They were doing what they had been taught was God's will for them. Theodicy was not served as there was no justification in this case.

The Mission portrays the mission of Christ
The Mission is a powerful movie with a powerful message about sin, redemption, and love. It probes deep into the evils of the Catholic Church in Spain and Portugal in teh mid 18th century. Robert De Niro brilliantly portrays Rodrigo Mendoza, a dynamic character who transforms his life to a murderer who trades slaves to a Jesuit priest who fights for those seemingly 'enslaved' natives - the Guaranese. Jeremy Irons ixquisitley plays the role of a truly Christ-like figure. Father Gabriel is the epitomy of compassion, lvove, and understanding. With an incredibly written screenplay by Robert Bolt (who also wrote A Man For All Seasons), the Mission is an incredible film which explores the depths and beauty of morality and life ont he path to Jesus Christ.

the beauty and the horror of the catholic church
i think tom keogh's a bit 'off' kilter and it echoes the reviews that came out when the film was released.
the charge of emotional vacancy has since been rendered somewhat mute by the films growing status.
now admittedly, the overriding emotional sense that most people seem to experience when seeing this is one of anger, rather than one of tragedy and ,yes, that is partly due to our never really getting to know the indians who are, predictably, massacred.
we are emotionally more jolted upon seeing the murder of the priests who we have gotten to know.
that aside, i think joffes direction works because what he is attempting to show, and succesfully does so, is both the beauty and the horror of catholicism.
there is a touching beauty upon seeing deniros character finally reaching his muddy penneance,and in the scene where he cooks a steaming stew for his fellow priests.
perhaps one of the most beautiful, simplistically effective moments is when deniro narrates first corinthians 'love is not puffed up'.
yes, the conclusion is all too predictable. not just because we know the history, but because as much as we all can see the beauty in the church, everyone is also well aware of its ugliness.
i am suprised that the catholic church showed its support of this non flattering film, which shows, perhaps, a certain amount of theoretical penance on its part.
one of the last scenes which shows two naked indian children aloft in a boat after the massacre is an example of a picture telling a thousand words.
in one sense mr keogh is correct in recognizing an inherent coldness in the film but i think that is a realization of the harrowing cold heartedness that catholic church has shown in its history, which paradoxically is unified with its undeniable beauty.

This Sucks!!!!!! Very Very Sucky and Boring
I just watched this movie in Morality class and it is a really boring movie that just drags on and on. How does end by every one including De Nero and Irons (major characters) along with everyone else. There is only one movie that pulled off having all the characters die in it and that was Glory. I don't under any circumstances think anyone should see this movie unless you have a boring life or just sad than see it otherwise see Glory a much much better movie except different plots.

Emotionally Wrenching, Enchanting Film
Not for the squeamish, "The Mission" explores the duality of Europe's presence in South America -- the salvation brought by the Jesuits and the condemnation brought by "civilization."

Roland Joffe, the director, pulls few punches. The film opens with the dictation of a letter to the Pope by a prominent religious figure, Altamirano, who has just undergone the events that will transpire in the film, and we learn that these events are not pleasant: "the local savages are now free to be enslaved by his Holiness . . ."

These events "were brought about" by the horrifying martyrdom of a Jesuit priest, who had journeyed to the "uncivilized" lands of the Indians above the falls (and what falls!). The local Indians, apparently rejecting his Christian teachings, crucify him and toss him into a river . . . a river that soon flows to the falls, and the descending cross is one of the most haunting images you will ever see on film.

In response, another Jesuit priest, Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) heads above the falls, and uses his music (score by Ennio Morricone of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" fame) to win the trust of the locals. Soon he is preaching the Word of God among them.

Unfortunately, the slaver/mercenary Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro) is hunting the Indians for slavers. He ominously warns Gabriel about the futility of building a mission among the Indians, and he seizes several.

On his return to "civilization" below the falls (the dusty town stands in marked contrast to the lush greenery above the falls), Rodrigo learns that his beloved Carlotta does not love Rodrigo, but has fallen for Rodrigo's younger brother, Felipe (Aiden Quinn). Rodrigo, far from a reasonable sort, kills his brother shortly thereafter in a trumped-up quarrel. Distraught, Rodrigo eventually agrees to do his penance above the falls with Gabriel and his fellow Jesuits (including a young Liam Neeson).

Following a tortuous climb above the falls with his lodestone of arms and armor, Rodrigo finds salvation and seeks to become a Jesuit. The mission above the falls takes shape, and all seems to be right with the world.

Of course, this is not to be. The slavers need their slaves, and they exert enormous pressure against the church -- the Catholic Church is not as strong as it once was, and the militant Jesuits are becoming a nuisance by sapping the supply of slaves (apparently it is too inconvenient to enslave Christians, so the slavers argue that the Indians are monkeys without souls -- nice).

Altamirano agrees to visit both the local mission (a gorgeous, mammoth structure complete with farm and Indian priests) as well as the more primitive mission above the falls . . . which is even more impressive despite (and perhaps because of) it's remoteness.

But, politics being politics, the missions are doomed and the Indians will be enslaved. Rodrigo and the younger priests decide to fight, leading to one of the more disturbing battles you will see on-screen. It's not "Saving Private Ryan" in its horrors, but it is emotionally wrenching to see the Jesuits and the Indians fight such in such a foregone conclusion.

Even more gut-wrenching is Gabriel, who chooses a non-violent response. In a pitch-perfect performance, Irons emobodies the Jesuit commitment to the simple words of Christ . . . not that it does him or the Indians much good in this world.

A haunting spectacle and far from a feel-good movie, "The Mission" deserves full marks for its depiction of a common conflict (Europe versus the New World) in a different setting. A top-notch cast and a wonderfully shot film make this one for the video library. ... Read more

Description

Get ready for fun! (Leah Rozen, People) with the "feel good movie of the year!" (Clay Smith, Access Hollywood)Love Actually is the ultimate romantic comedy from the makers of Bridget Jones's Diary and Notting Hill.Funny, irresistible and heartwarming, an all-star cast (Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth and Emma Thompson, to name a few!) will take you on a breathtaking tour of love's delightful twists and turns.Fall under the spell Love Actually and share the laughs and charm again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (397)

Romantic fluff, but a little romance never hurt anyone
I was only mildly interested in seeing this movie, but I really enjoyed it. Yes, there was an amazing amount of different threads to follow as this film told the story of nine or ten different people and their partners over a five week period leading up to Christmas. Nevertheless, the witty script and the first rate acting made the whole process relatively painless.

There was charm in abundance from Hugh Grant, playing Hugh Grant as usual, but he does it so well that you can't help but warm to him. Martine McCutcheon as his love interest was surprising unannoying, and not in the least bit chubby!

Plenty of laughs from Bill Nighy and Gregor Fisher as a faded rock star and his long-suffering manager. Colin Firth in pursuit of his Portuguese maid also provided a few laughs courtesy of the language barrier, and the nerdish caterer with his dreams of being a sex god based soley on the strength of the lure of his British accent would have on American women kept the humour flowing.

Acting kudos go to Alan Rickman, Liam Neeson and most notably Emma Thompson. Ms Thompson once again plays the kind of gung-ho, upper middle class woman who has contributed to my usual dislike of her chosen roles, but she outdid herself in this slight role. I was moved to tears by her brilliant acting performance in the scene where she retreats to her bedroom to adjust to the knowledge that her husband is having an affair with his secretary.

Eye candy was provided for both sexes in the shape Keira Knightley and Andrew Lincoln. I enjoyed their storyline, despite it's flaws, but that may be because I'm just a sucker for physical beauty. Laura Linney and her erstwhile Latino lover were also very attractive, but slightly less sympathetic. And what can I say about the wonderful performances given by young Thomas Sangster and Liam Neeson as his grieving stepfather? Excellent, believable acting rescuing a storyline that verged on unashamed bathos.

Overall, I would recommend this film and commend Richard Curtis for an enjoyable, feel-good movie that left me smiling with tears in my eyes.

Lovely actually
Love Actually is a wonderful movie in all respects. Its cast, script, and direction are all absolutely top-notch. Set at Christmastime, the story encompasses numerous plots, all of which are equally interesting and effective in leaving one on the edge of one's seat, waiting to see what's going to happen with each group of characters next.

One of the most wonderful aspects of the film, in my opinion, is how we eventually discover that every single one of the vignettes is interwoven. For example: one story is about Karen (Emma Thompson) and her husband (Alan Rickman). The latter, although certainly not without affection for his wife, has begun to dabble in infidelity - thanks to his attractive secretary. Working with Rickman's character is Sarah (Laura Linney) who has been desperately in love with her co-worker Karl (unfortunately, I can't recall the actor's name, but he does a nice job) for years. And then of coure there's David, the prime minister (Hugh Grant) - who just happens to be Karen's brother.

Wonderful performances are also given by Liam Neeson (as a recent widower), 13-year-old Thomas Sangster (as Neeson's young son), Rowan Atkinson (who does a hilarious job as Rufus the Jewelry Salesman), and in one of the best vignettes, my personal favorite, Colin Firth.

This is an extremely funny and extremely touching movie. As usual, I hesitate to give away too much more about it. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, should deter you from seeing it.

One of the Best Current British Comedies I've Seen in Ages.
I saw this in the theater when it first came out and, despite the fact that a couple behind me kept talking through it, I fell in love and decided to own it as soon as it was released on video. Now I have it on DVD, and want to spread the word. Love Actually is a great English romantic comedy full of several different stories going on at the same time, and each engages you in its plot quickly.

1. We have a young couple who are just married, and the groom's best friend is in love with the bride. Keira Knightley plays the role of Juliet with such sweetness and innocence, that even her dialogue free acting is powerfully convincing. Watch the scene where she views Mark's video of her wedding day and realizes he's in love with her.

2. Liam Neeson is Daniel, a newly widowed father who has to bridge the communication gap between himself and his son Sam. Sam's crush on an American girl provides this link, and the story is touching to watch as it unfolds throughout the film. Thomas Sangster is a promising child actor in his role as Sam, so keep your eyes on him. He is sure to be cast in more movies down the line.

3. Emma Thompson is always exceptional in every movie she's in. This is no exception as she plays Karen, a devoted and loving housewife who must come to terms with the fact that her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) is cheating on her with the office tramp.

4. Laura Linney plays Sarah, an American office worker who is in love with another American at work, but her sick brother makes the relationship difficult to see to its fruition.

5. Hugh Grant is David, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Britain, and he falls for his staff caterer Natalie, played by Martine McCutcheon. This story line is not without charming, laugh-out-loud moments, but it's also a bit corny and Benny Hill-ish at times.

6. One of my absolute favorite stories is the one involving Colin Firth's character Jamie, a writer who leaves England for the European countryside to write after discovering his brother is cheating with his wife, and he falls in love with his Portugese housekeeper Aurelia (Lucia Moniz). Neither of them can speak the other's language, but they manage to communicate in their own way, and the plot is very sweet.

7. Chris Marshall is very funny as Colin, the ugly, rude guy who strikes out romantically with English women, so he thinks he'll have better luck in America because of his "cute" accent. He goes to Milwaukee and discovers supermodel-type girls hanging out in a bar that fall for him instantly which really makes me laugh. I live an hour away from Milwaukee, and we are NOT plentiful with thin beautiful girls hanging out in bars. This was one joke that wasn't lost on me for a moment, and I couldn't help laughing quite loudly.

8. My favorite storyline is Billy Nighy as Billy Mack, a washed up 50-something rock star who makes a comeback on the charts with a shameless revamp of the old Troggs song, "Love is All Around" for Christmas. He is absolutely hysterical with his outrageous behavior as he publicly bashes the song and pulls all kinds of defiant public stunts. Of note is his relationship with his longtime manager Joe (Gregor Fisher) who, despite all the headaches his charge gives him, is still admirably loyal and proud of him.

One small storyline I detest is the porn actors we see a few times, conversing as they shoot dirty scenes on a movie set, and I also don't like the anti-American plot of the evil lecherous US president played by Billy Bob Thornton. These are two points for my not giving this film 5 stars.

Other than my minor grievances, I couldn't recommend Love Actually more highly. This movie is rated, R so please don't expose children to it just because one of the stories involves a little boy. This is great adult entertainment, and some of the DVD extras are a bit blue as well. Moving, funny, and full of clever dialogue (A favorite line: "Ten minutes with Elton John, and you're as gay as a maple!"), Richard Curtis has directed one of his best comedy projects yet. With the exception of small children, there's something here for everyone. You shouldn't just come away liking this one; it should be Love Actually.

Quite simply the worst movie I have ever seen...
Really! This has to be one of the worst movies ever produced and speaking as a Brit, I am ashamed. The plot or lack of any plot(s) is absurd. The jokes aren't funny, the premise is farcical and it is about as entertaining as being stung by a wasp.
Really, avoid this movie at all costs - it is that bad.

Not for the kids!
My inlaws came over to visit me from England, and raved on about this movie. They were keen to take us to the movies with our 2 children, 8 and 10 yrs to see it again with them. In the end we chose something more fun for the kids, as children don't want to go to the movies to watch a love story.
Anyway, not long after it came out at Blockbusters, and we hired it out of curiosity.
After the first 5 minutes we and sent the kids off too bed, as it wasn't really the swearing /cursing but the just that it seemed a little too explicit for my kids to watch.)
I would say that some scenes are just too crass, and they could had done without them.
In the second half of the movie, I noticed that the swearing and the sexual content tended to calm down...unless I was just getting used to it by then. The story was very funny at times, but alittle confusing having so many couples to follow...hard to get into their characters, or you forget at times that someone was in the movie, until they showed up on screen 20 minutes later, and would have to remember what their life was all about.
I'm not a prude in the slightest, and love comedies like Euro Trash, Coupling (the BBC Series) and American Pie etc...but the beginning half of this movie really did make my husband and I cring at times.
I'm surprised that my inlaws, who are in their late 50's really wanted to show this to my children...especially as they are very conservative.
Anyway it does get better, if you can stick with it after the first 30 minutes.
Hugh Grant's story line was also bit too cheesy. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Good, but bogged down slightly
This was an enjoyable movie, but unfortunately it had many, many plot holes that made liking it difficult.

A spy-movie-enthralled young woman named Linda Voss ("half Jewish, half Irish") gets a job with a man named Ed Leland whom she suspects is a spy. Before long, they are lovers, but their budding relationship is dashed by World War II. Before you can say "Berlin strudel" she's whisked off to Germany as an undercover operative, to discover secret plans in the house of a handsome and sympathetic Nazi (the always-good Liam Neeson)

One of the problems is Melanie Griffith. She might be good in other roles, but as Voss she fails. Voss comes across as amazingly lucky and none too intelligent, constantly licking her lips in a very distracting way. Michael Douglas is completely convincing as Ed Leland, although he looks slightly embarrassed sometimes. Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson are excellent in their smaller roles.

Second problem is the attitude of the heroes. When Voss does not show up in time for the rendezvous, Leland disregards orders in favor of carrying her to the Swiss Border. Though it may seem heartless, an actual spy would have followed his orders and left Voss to die. In fact, we see the evidently smarter Germans such as Neeson's Dietrich and Richardson's Margrete following their orders despite their personal feelings about Voss.

Watch the movie if you are interested, but do not expect great accuracy.

A good comedy -- a bad war drama
I think I might have enjoyed "Shining Through" more if I'd been drunk. This movie is a fantastic ensemble comedy, but I don't think they were trying to make one! The only redeeming points of the movie were Liam Neeson and Joely Richardson's performances as a pair of Nazis.

Melanie Griffith plays Linda Voss, a young woman of mixed Irish and Jewish ancestry in World War II. Because of her linguistic skills, she's hired as a translator for Ed Leland (Michael Douglas), who works for the government as a spy (he keeps denying it, but she's seen movies so she knows better!). They become lovers, until his work comes between them. But no sooner have they been reunited than a spy is needed to sneak into Germany to find some bomb-related plans.

She's accompanied into Germany by Konrad "Sunflower" Friedrichs (Sir John Gielgud, who looks like he's always thinking "What am I doing in this movie?") and his niece Margrete Von Eberstein (Joely Richardson). Her position as a chef blows up on the first night, and she quickly finds herself hired as a nanny by elite Nazi official Franz-Otto Dietrich (Liam Neeson, Richardson's now-brother-in-law). And now that she's inside his house, she has only a limited amount of time to find the plans.

I don't think the people who made this movie wanted me to like the Nazis more than the Americans, but unfortunately the Nazis are a lot more likeable. Richardson comes across as competant and multifaceted, divided in her loyalties; Neeson comes across as a loving father, a nice sensitive guy (we don't ever hear of him actually doing anything bad!) with big puppy-dog eyes. Frankly it's hard not to like him, especially compared to the insensitive clod Leland. Douglas looks unhappy and embarrassed all throughout the movie, he's as stiff and cold as a pine board, and Griffith's performance is the stuff of nightmares.

It doesn't help that the best description of Linda is "ditzy blonde." She gets all her info about spies from movies, whines when Douglas goes on missions, and thinks she's qualified to be a spy because she can make strudel. (In one scene she runs through a crowded street chanting a secret password out loud!) She also mouths off to everyone in a way that would not be tolerated in a mere secretary (prepare to cringe when she says "My other half's Irish"), and bungles everything spy-related.

I would say this is a movie best shown to young children but there's a fair amount of profanity, violence, and a detailed sex scene. The direction is pretty terrible -- you'd think WWII included only a handful of people. The Nazis have none of the casual amorality that the real people did. There are one or two creepy, freaky moments that work, like the German woman who exults that the house they took from a Jewish family had everything they wanted (even bedsheets with correct monograms), but they're few and far between. If they'd had Dietrich doing something, anything wrong, then it might have worked. There are a few moments of intentional comedy ("That pompous little (butt) ate a raw bird to prove it was edible!") but most of the comedy is totally accidental. ("What's a war for if not to hold on to what we love?" Gaaaaaggg!)

I only can recommend this to fans of Joely and Liam, because they are the only ones who actually have good roles to play. "Schindler's List" this ain't!

Shining Through
If it were possible to give this movie a six star rating, I would. Besides being a GREAT movie, the soundtrack helps push this movie to more enjoyment. Moonlight Serenade, I'll Be seeing You, Goodnight Sweetheart and the main musical score lingers pleasantly in your mind long after the movie ends. I recommend it to all who has ever been in love.

Rips the emotional guts from the book
I have a hard time liking this movie because it made such a travesty of Susan Isaacs' book. The book, as originally written, was a classic ugly duckling-to-swan story set in New York, Washington, and Germany during World War II. Linda Voss, the character played by Melanie Griffith, was a working class girl in love with and eventually married to her gorgeous cad of a boss. She had the brains; he had the social cachet. They move to Washington, she gets a job as secretary to a top intelligence agent (played by Michael Douglas), the marriage founders, and in despair she signs up as an undercover agent. The rest of the movie follows the book's plot fairly closely, although the Douglas character does NOT figure in as a romantic interest until the very end. In the book, he's Linda's unexpected reward--pure gold where her husband was only gold-plated. The movie, by simplifying the story, guts its emotional core and turns a contemporary fairy tale into your basic trite Hollywood production--glitzy but without a heart.

That said, there are some strong performances in the movie. Douglas's stiffness makes much more sense in the context of the book, but doesn't work in the movie as filmed. Griffith is Griffith--you either love her or hate her. Liam Neeson is good, as i