Amazon.com

Although it's not as bold as Oscar darling Chicago, The Phantom of the Opera continues the resuscitation of the movie musical with a faithful adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's blockbuster stage musical. Emmy Rossum glows in a breakout role as opera ingénue Christine Daae, and if phantom Gerard Butler isn't Rossum's match vocally, he does convey menace and sensuality in such numbers as "The Music of the Night." The most experienced musical theater veteran in the cast, romantic lead Patrick Wilson, sings sweetly but seems wooden. The biggest name in the cast, Minnie Driver, hams it up as diva Carlotta, and she's the only principal whose voice was dubbed (though she does sing the closing-credit number, "Learn to Be Lonely," which is also the only new song).

Director Joel Schumacher, no stranger to visual spectacle, seems to have found a good match in Lloyd Webber's larger-than-life vision of Gaston LeRoux's Gothic horror-romance. His weakness is cuing too many audience-reaction shots and showing too much of the lurking Phantom, but when he calms down and lets Rossum sings "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" alone in a silent graveyard, it's exquisite.

Read our CD buying guide

Those who consider the stage musical shallow and overblown probably won't have their minds changed by the movie, and devotees will forever rue that the movie took the better part of two decades to develop, which prevented the casting of original principals Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman. Still, The Phantom of the Opera is a welcome exception to the long line of ill-conceived Broadway-to-movie travesties.

DVD Features
The two-disc edition of The Phantom of the Opera has two major extras. "Behind the Mask: The Story of The Phantom of the Opera" is an hourlong documentary tracing the genesis of the stage show, with interviews by composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, director Harold Prince, producer Cameron Macintosh, lyricists Richard Stilgoe and Charles Hart, choreographer Gillian Lynne, and others. Conspicuously absent are stars Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford. Both do appear in video clips, including Brightman performing with Colm Wilkinson at an early workshop, and Crawford is the subject of a casting segment. Other brief scenes from the show are represented by a 2001 production. The other major feature is the 45-minute making-of focusing on the movie, including casting and the selection of director Joel Schumacher. Both are well-done productions by Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Group.

The deleted scene is a new song written by Lloyd Webber and Charles Hart, "No One Would Listen," sung by the Phantom toward the end of the movie. It's a beautiful song that, along with Madame Giry's story, makes him a more sympathetic character. But because that bit of backstory already slowed down the ending, it was probably a good move to cut the song. --David Horiuchi

More on The Phantom of the Opera

The Phantom of the Opera (Special Extended Edition Soundtrack) (CD)	The Phantom of the Opera (2004 Movie Soundtrack) (CD)	The Phantom of the Opera (Original 1986 London Cast) (CD)
Evita (DVD)	Andrew Lloyd Weber: The Royal Albert Hall Celebration (DVD)	Visit the Andrew Lloyd Webber Store

... Read more

Reviews (659)

RJ from Blacksburg, VA
Excellent!!The movie is much better than the Broadway production - better character development, better acting, better singing.Madame Giry is a much more intriguing character in the film.Christine's attraction to the Phantom is more understandable and believable. Plus, we get to see the Phantom's past and why he is the way he is.

In response to the comment about the sword fight:The Phantom would know very little about fencing because he's lived alone beneath an opera house all his life.You must practice fencing to become good at it.

All of my family members (ages from 10 to 47) highly recommend the film version of The Phantom of the Opera.(good music, comedy, suspense, romance, lavish costumes and sets)

Beautiful film, great transfer to DVD
I am not going into a long detailed explination of the script, acting, or performances, they are all what the producers wanted, and it all works very well, the film is gorgeous to look at, and the transfer to DVD is the best I have seen so far, it even surpasses the Lord of he Rings trilogy, and that is saying something, the effect is so good it's three dimentional (an almost impossible task when viewed on a 73" screen), my one gripe, and it's a big one, is intelligibility. or rather the lack of it, there was a time when film studios and record companies went to great lengths to make sure every word could be understood, in recent years this is a rarity, this film has far to much of the massed voices recorded so that way to much of it can't be understood, considering the quality of todays recording equipment, I find this to be a disapointment, if not downright disgraceful, but at least there is an english subtitle track, which of course most likely means they know it's the only way to be sure that all the dialog is understood, complaints based upon seeing the stage production just don't fly with me, what works on stage rarely if ever work on film, if it did, Producers could save millions and just film the stage production, view stage productions filmed for PBS, of the many I have seen the only two that have been successful at it are The Merry Widow, and Oklahoma

Film rivals book!
*gasp*

Dare I say it?

Yes, Webber's production is much better than Leroux's novel.

Will everyone agree with what seems to be my very deluded opinion?Of course not!

Perhaps I think like this because while reading Leroux's novel, I couldn't imagine a horrifying, stenchy Erik aka phantom...
forgive me but I just couldn't.I tried, and I shed a couple of tears when Daae ripped off his mask and he taunted her with his ugliness, but that's because I felt sorry for him.

The kidnapping part in the film ROCKED! it had so much action and suspense! while in the book the lights simply go out...*yawn* The chandelier falls in the movie! it also does in the book but while Carlotta is belting out her toad voice.

He horrifies Daae in the book, while in the film he seduces her.Both make sense, and I really can't argue on behalf.

The ring Daae wears as a gift from the phantom should have been included in the film.This makes Erik less of a lunatic.
He actually gave her permission to leave him so long as she didn't take the ring off or lose it.

The sword fighting scene was awesome! it totally makes sense how the phantom would lose to the viscount Raoul de Chagny.
This guy was trained to swordfight, while the phantom's department is music.Yeah it probably makes him look like a sore loser but it makes sense...he loses christine what's losing to a swordfight right?

Now for what I thought about the casting.

Emmy Rossum did a very sweet and innocent Christine. She has a very sweet voice!no complaints except for 2 major details.
1)While Rossums voice could charm a bird out of its nest, it's hard to believe that with such a voice you're expected to believe this girl to be visited by the so-called angel of music who gives her free voice lessons.Don't get me wrong, Rossum has an exquisite voice, but to say that it sounds inhuman is impossible.
There are MANY women out there who are privileged to posess inhuman pipes.I expected something ethereal, haunting, beautiful, jawdropping, INHUMAN, as the book mentions.
2) Perhaps it's because she was only 16 when she filmed the movie, or perhaps she does need to improve on her acting.
I didn't believe for a second that she was hypnotized at the sound of Erik's voice (but then again, who would be listening to Gerard sing right?) I really wasn't convinced that she was Christine Daae, I merely saw her as Emmy Rossum.I think she did good, but I expected for the second star of the movie to be more believable, real.

Patrick Wilson may have the voice, but the guy needs to relax those shoulders and ACT.You'd think he'd know since he's done broadway but then again stage isn't the same as camera.
I forgive him.

*sings* As for our star Mr. Gerard Butler...lol
Let's just say that in my opinion, he BECAME the phantom.
He became Erik.I would've never guessed it!
While his singing leaves much to desire, his acting is among the best around!I was impressed! He delivers presence, emotion, mystery, charisma, sensuality, menacy...
The man is spell-binding in this film.He manages to seduce both Daae and most of the female audience! At the same time, he manages to inspire compassion and a tear here and there.
He's very real!

Webber failed to clue us in on the name! so what's the phantom of the opera's name? As if murdering cold bloodedly and having a disfigured complexion weren't enough to subtract from his humanity.Now he's nameless? he's not an IT you know.

Regardless, it's a very dark and seductive film.
I recommend it any day at any time.Now if you're like my buds who've turned it down for seeming too lovey dovey, weird, or just because it's a musical...you're missing out BIG TIME!

Beautiful and sad!!
Anyone who doesn't like this movie probably doesn't like much of anything.It is visually beautiful and full of emotion.I have the soundtrack of the original play with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman; I also saw the play on Broadway with other actors.Frankly, I think the movie is better.Emmy Rossum sings like the innocent she is portraying and her voice is clear and sweet.Patrick Wilson has a nice tenor and is believable as her young suitor, ready to conquer the world for her. (Loved the hair!!)However, it is Gerald Butler who steals the show; he should be called the "Man of a thousand faces" and looks different in every movie I've seen him in.He freely admitted in an interview that he's not a singer; in fact, he had to take a crash course in vocalizing to sing the part.Given that bit of information, I think he did a fine job and his acting is superb. The only complaint is that it must have been hard to make him look bad, given his Scottish good looks. I was rooting for the Phantom for most of the movie, and I wouldn't mind if he wanted to lock me up in his dungeon. He is extremely seductive in the part, and I can't think of anyone in Hollywood who could have done a better job. With his mask, the Phantom is powerful, commanding, fearsome and magical.Without it, he is like most of the rest of us in the world--weak, vulnerable, and emotionally fragile.Minnie Driver was a bit of comic relief, as were the 2 owners of the opera, who made a fortune in "scrap metal" (junk). So far, I have watched the DVD 5 times since I got it, and I reach for the tissues at the end every time.I loved this movie!!!

LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Yes, I know the last exclamation mark is a 1

This film has taken its place among my top 3 favorite movies, the first 2 being The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first Pirates of the Carribean movie (they're making a sequel).

First, let's talk about the music. The music is brought to the grand scale that Andrew Lloyd Webber had always dreamed of, now that it is being played by a full orchestra and not a pit band.

The production design is extraordinary. I was rooting for the art department to win the Oscar for Best Art Direction. The grand scale of the stage show has been elevated to new heights.

The treatment of the show itself is excellent. I loved the added touches of backstory and action and mystery. I personally preferred the sword fight in the cemetary because it works better on film than what actually happens on stage (the Phantom throws fireballs.) I also love how Schumacher gave the characters of Madame Giry and Joseph Buquet so much more to do than in the stage version. Frankly, they're just throwaway characters in the stage version but in the movie, we realize what Buquet is all about and we get to see that Madame Giry had a more vital role to play in the Phantom's life.

Now for the cast:

Emmy Rossum has the voice of an angel and is perfect for the part. She's the right age and has a young, crystalline voice.

Gerard Butler as the Phantom. I don't agree that his singing voice is the best in the world. I know he's not really a trained singer but they could have trained him just a tad harder. Then again, Schumacher did not want a pretty voice for the Phantom. So, I forgive him. To tell the truth, his voice isn't that bad.

Patrick Wilson has vocal chords made of gold, which is only right since he has done Broadway. He is perfect as the dashing, romantic, swashbuckling, and somewhat wimpy Raoul.

Minnie Driver is hysterical as La Carlotta (I 'ATE MY 'AT!!!!)It's a pity that she's not really an opera singer.

Miranda Richardson has an ok singing voice. She also puts on a convincing French accent. I've noticed that Madame Giry is normally the only member of the cast who has to do a French accent. She's less of a throwaway in the movie than in the stage version and more of a driving force. We see that she truly cares about Meg and Christine. So when the new managers are checking the two out, she's like, "Don't even think about it!"

Simon Callow and Ciaran Hinds (pronounced KEE-ran HINDS; long I) are hysterical as the two managers (this never happened in the junk business; scrap metal!)I feel that Simon Callow's singing voice rivals Ciaran Hinds by far.

Jennifer Ellison is a little delight as Meg Giry. And she's the first Meg I've ever heard who can sing. She's so petite and adorable that I thought Kristen Chenoweth was playing the part!

Victor McGuire as Piangi is wonderfully hammy and henpecked. He has a wonderfully exaggerated tenor which gets crappy in all the right places. (Sad to return to find the la-a-a-and we love).

I still don't understand why that midget was there all the time.

Kevin McNally as Buquet. Well, he's better than the stage Buquet, who was a total throwaway character. At least he has more to do (like trying to catch the Ballet Girls getting dressed)

The makeup on the Phantom was somewhat of a let down. It looked more like he had an encounter with acid as a young child. Then again, in the movie, it's never established that he was deformed from birth, so that may be what happened.

The guy who played Monsuier Reyer was also funny (UNDERSTUDY!? There is no understudy for La Carlotta!)

Just for the record, the horse in the title song is a homage to the original novel. The Phantom takes Christine to his lair on a horse.

And now the special features:

The featurette on the history of the musical was really cool. I especially liked the film clips of the Sydmonton production, the current production in England and clips from the music videos (the British DVD has the full, unedited music videos. Lucky dogs! Oh, well, they've had this show and Andrew Lloyd Webber longer.)

The deleted song, No One Would Listen, is lovely even if it is really the first draft of Learn to Be Lonely.

It's an awesome film and if the upcoming movie versions of Rent, The Producers, and Dreamgirls once again kill the movie musical which has barely been resurrected by Chicago and Moulin Rouge, this will be a reminder that this generation had its share of movie musicals. What can I say? I'm a sucker for movie musicals. I even liked Man of La Mancha. ... Read more

Amazon.com

An elite U.S. counter-terrorism squad loses a member while decimating half of Paris in the reckless pursuit of Middle Eastern maniacs; a Broadway actor with a traumatic childhood secret is naturally hired to replace him. Oh--and they're all marionettes. South Park maestros Trey Parker and Matt Stone (along with co-writer Pam Brady) came up with this shameless satire of pea-brained Hollywood action flicks and even smaller-minded global politics, so don't expect subtlety or even a hint of good taste. Team America is soon on the trail of North Korea's evil Kim Jong Il, who treats us to a tender song about his loneliness before ensnaring Alec Baldwin and the rest of the oblivious Film Actors Guild (F.A.G. for short) in a plot to blow up every major city on the planet. Just as the mindless squad cheerfully demolishes everything in sight, so do director Parker and company. Throwing punches Left, Right, and in-between, the movie's politics leave no turn un-stoned; there's even time to bludgeon the musical Rent. It's offensive, irresponsible comic anarchy seemingly made by sniggering little boys. Painfully funny sniggering little boys.--Steve Wiecking ... Read more

Reviews (249)

"Team America"....f*ck yes.
Alot of people will dig this movie. It's accessable to mainstream audiences whether or not they get beyond the surface humor that might have linked "Team America" back to "Basketball", but it's also damn smart on so many different levels. There's the obvious connotations of the marionettes, but they've done so much more than strip bare the Hollywood blockbusters that too many people can watch with a straight face while the rest of us stand outside the theater gagging; they've displayed the cheesiness that seeped out of michael bay movies into the modern American mentallity. During no other 20th century war has cliche fiction had so many striking similarities to our hero-enemy soap opera ideas of what liberty is. But is the patriotism of the right really reminiscent of the hot blooded Reagan-era action flicks this film spoofs? Is the media role-playing of the left the result of Hollywood refusing to leave childish namecalling and immature ideology to elementary school playgrounds? Well, it's never seemed so familiar and never felt so much like there's been a mudslinging contest with the tactics and wit of a simple puppet show going on right under our noses.

"From the Guys who brought you SouthPark"...
That says it all right there, if you are unfamiliar with the now infamous landmark of the Comedy Central channel on cable, 'Southpark' are basically poorly drawn children characters that curse and make bodily function jokes at each other all day. The aim of it's creators is to basically smash every barrier of good taste and offend every group in society that they can, but where do you go from there? Team America functions along the same lines. The puppets in here are amazingly filmed, and I would recommend you see the way they look on screen. However, only see this film if you are a liberal and have a healthy sense of humor. There are a lot of infantile jokes, gross out humor and some very, very offensive material, often in poor taste. There's plenty of harsh language and this film is definitely not for children. I don't offend easily, but I even turned away during the puppet making love scene, in which they mimic all sexual positions and then go too far I feel, in showing the puppets deficate and urinate on each other. The premise of the film is obviously poking fun at Bush and the war on terror and a thinly veiled way of saying that we often poke our nose in other countries affairs. No one is left unoffended in this film. I would mainly say that if you like that Southpark
type of humor, this is your film. If that type of humor offends you, stay far away from this film.

Disgusting!
I thought this movie was going to be very funny, but I should have known better, being created by the people of south park. This was one of the worst things I have ever seen. The movie was filthy, the language grotesque, extremely perverse and total garbage!
The creators, producers and anyone involved in this movie should be extremely ashamed of themselves.
This movie should have been rated X or XXX.
If this is your version of what America should be then i feel terribly sorry for you.
Even if this IS your type of movie, it wasn't even funny.
Don't subject yourself to watching this blight on humanity.
0 starts!

I have not laughed as hard all year as I did at the scene...
...involving all the vomit. The sex scene got all the attention from critics and pundits but for my money, the extended regurgitation scene took the prize.I realize some people probably found it disgusting but they were probably watching the wrong movie.

And maybe I'm just jaded but I actually didn't think it was as raunchy as it's rep proclaimed.There's actually kind of a sweet undercurrent to the whole thing, despite the fact that it's basically making fun of the left, right and everyone in between.

Another highlight: Kim Jong Il's musical number.In fact, all the songs were dead-on parodies.You really have to pay attention to pop country anthems to nail them the way Parker and Stone did.

The extra features on the disc are pretty good, too.I never thought watching puppeteers could be so interesting.

Kinda Funny
3 and a half stars for me, please. There is no real reason for this to be uncensored, but it just did not turn out to be as funny as I hoped. Don't get me wrong...it's still entertaining. This is how things are when you mix terrorism with celebrities and Kim Jong Il with marionettes. That's it. All I can really say is that I'm at a total loss to describe this movie. I can relate most to Kim Jong Il's feelings............


"MATT DAMON!!" ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like a Hardy Boys mystery on steroids, National Treasure offers popcorn thrills and enough boyish charm to overcome its rampant silliness. Although it was roundly criticized as a poor man's rip-off of Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Da Vinci Code, it's entertaining on its own ludicrous terms, and Nicolas Cage proves once again that one actor's infectious enthusiasm can compensate for a multitude of movie sins. The contrived plot involves Cage's present-day quest for the ancient treasure of the Knights Templar, kept secret through the ages by Freemasons past and present. Finding the treasure requires the theft of the Declaration of Independence (there are crucial treasure clues on the back, of course!), so you can add "caper comedy" to this Jerry Bruckheimer production's multi-genre appeal. Nobody will ever accuse director Jon Turtletaub of artistic ambition, but you've got to admit he serves up an enjoyable dose of PG-rated entertainment, full of musty clues, skeletons, deep tunnels, and harmless adventure in the old-school tradition. It's a load of hokum, but it's fun hokum, and that makes all the difference. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (263)

Entertaining movie!
Imagine a cross between "Indiana Jones" and "Mission Impossible" and you have some idea of what's in store for you with this movie.Nicholas Cage plays the current generation of a family which long ago was given the secret of the location of the Knight's Templar treasure.Succeeding generations of the family have hunted for the treasure with no success.Cage takes the hunt one step further and discovers that vital clues are on the back of the Declaration of Independence.Unfortunately some of the men who were originally helping him look for the treasure have decided that they want it all to themselves and they plan to get to the Declaration before he does.Throw in a beautiful government agent and an amusing sidekick and you have all of the ingredients for an entertaining evening.Enjoy!

A Fun Movie
I liked this movie. Lots of adventure, history and it reminds me of the Indiana Jones Trilogy. Some of it is a little formulaic and you might roll your eyes when 200+ year old torches light up like they were made yesterday, but the story is intriguing and gets your attention. If you don't know the story line by now it involves Cage as Benjamin Franklin Gates whose Family has been convinced about a massive treasure older than colonized America, hidden away during the revolutionary years. Through each succeding clue he finally learns that there is a map on the back of the Declarition of Independance, the only drawback is his partner has turned on him and is going to steal it for himself. No on in the government will listen to him, so Gates decides he'll steal it first to protect the document and the treasure. Lots of High-Tech action, spooky Mason intrigue and history, although some of it is a little questionable. All in all, definetely recommended.

Accomplishes An Entertaining Goal
One of the first things taught at journalism schools is that most "news stories" are to be written at a 6th grade level of education - the editorial page is the place for more erudite discussion.National Treasure is written at a level that would make the "average" person think "hey, that's pretty clever!", keeping in mind that the "average" person might not know that Benjamin Franklin wrote anonymous letters to newspapers while a teenager under the name "Silence Dogood". (He wrote hundreds of OTHER letters under other fictitious names as well and, given the piddling state of education in the U.S. I'd guess that the "average" person doesn't know that Old Ben was also "Poor Richard" or even know what his almanac was all about.) But I digress. Some people love to trash things that they think aren't up to their level, and so "National Treasure" didn't receive stellar reviews from the professional critics. I think it's safe to say the movie wasn't made for professional critics.

It's an entertaining little adventure and anyone who claims that it has no clever parts must be very clever indeed.Much of the movie is a historical scavenger hunt that the founding fathers have laid out for the person who can decipher the clues - with the treasure of the Templar Knights at the end of the rainbow.One of the first clues is carved into the stem of a meerschaum pipe. The stem of the pipe detaches from the carved bowl, andhas raised etchings.Our hero figures out that these etchings are intended to be used like an ink stamp, so he pricks his finger to use his blood as ink and rolls the pipe stem out to reveal the next clue.I thought that was pretty clever.

The hero, Benjamin Franklin Gates, is the Grandson of John Adams Gates, and the Gates have been thought of as the mad scientists of American History because every generation has handed down the story of the hidden treasure and spends decades of their life trying to find the treasure, or at least get other historians to take them seriously.The plot takes them to Washington (to steal the Declaration of Independence in a concise little caper that's at least as clever as the one in "After the Sunset", and THAT was SUPPOSED to be a "caper" movie.) Ben has an assistant named Riley who serves two purposes: to add clever little comments like "so who wants to go down the creepy tunnel first?" and to provide someone that Ben can give exposition to: such as who Silence Dogood was.Diane Kruger is the love interest - a Washington Ph.D. who works at the National Archives.She's the pretty face used to represent all the keepers of the Declaration of Independence.Sean Bean is a rival treasure hunter and the movie goes to great lengths to show that Heroic Ben is only after the treasure for it's historical significance while Bean's Ian is only out for the money.Harvey Keitel plays the FBI agent who becomes interested after the Declaration is stolen, but he's little more than a plot marker himself.A couple of times he gets to say "SOMEBODY's going to prison."

Hmmmm... Will good Ben or Evil Ian be the one going to prison?Will Ben and company find the magnificent treasure? For the answers to those questions check out National Treasure.... but is it too much of a clue if I tell you it's a Disney movie?

Fun for the WHOLE family!
It is very unusual to find action films in today's society that is appropriate for kids and adults alike. That is just one reason that I was thrilled to see National Treasure. It has the wit and humor one would expect from a Disney film as well as a lot of action and adventure thrills, but steers clear of gratuitous language and violence. If you like "Indiana Jones" or "Pirates of the Carribean", this film is a must see. Be sure to bring your kids, though, because they're sure to love it too!

national treasure
this is avery good movie, i watched it last night. the things that ben(nicholas cage) does are hard to predict and the story has many twists. i would recomend renting this movie because it is not as goodf the second time around and there after because you now what is going to happen ... Read more

Amazon.com

In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, director Wes Anderson takes his familiar stable of actors on a field trip to a fantasy aquarium, complete with stop-motion, candy-striped crabs and rainbow seahorses.And though Anderson does expand his horizons in terms of retro-special effects and a whimsical use of color, fans will otherwise find themselves in well-charted waters. As The Life Aquatic opens, Zissou (Bill Murray), a self-involved, Jacques Cousteau-like filmmaker, has just released a documentary depicting the death of his best friend Esteban, who was eaten by some sort of sea creature--possibly a jaguar shark. Zissou’s troubles also include his waning popularity with the public, and a nemesis (Jeff Goldblum) who hogs up all the grant money. Hope arrives in the form of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), an amiable Kentuckian who may be Zissou’s son. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for fatherhood, Zissou welcomes Ned--and Ned in turn saves Zissou’s new documentary (in which he seeks revenge on the jaguar shark) in more ways than one.

One of Wes Anderson’s greatest achievements as a director to date has been launching the autumnal melancholy phase of Bill Murray’s career, starting with Rushmore in 1998, and Murray delivers a similarly comedic yet low-key performance here. Unfortunately, Zissou is one of the few characters in this ensemble to achieve multi-dimensionality. Even co-star Wilson doesn’t get to develop Ned much beyond Noble Southerner, and he ends up seeming more like a prop for illustrating Zissou’s emotional development rather than his own man. The Life Aquatic probably won’t be remembered as a great film, but it is still one that no Anderson (or Murray) fan can afford to miss.--Leah Weathersby ... Read more

Reviews (152)

Stinks
worst movie of the year. This movie has alot of great actors but the story is lame and the jokes are not funny. In short stay away from this bomb.........

A beautiful, intelligent, and fun film
I loved this film from start to finish and it only got better the second and third times I watched it.There is a very nice feel to it: mellow, easy and cool, even when the action is on.This feel is perhaps captured best in the remarkably enjoyable Brazilian covers of classic David Bowie songs.

One thing worth noting about this film, beyond the "quirky" stylings that you expect from Wes Anderson (and that don't always come off, to my mind, as I just couldn't get in to The Royal Tenenbaums much as I wanted), is the way the film plays with and responds to the popularity of the "nature documentary," especially those of Jacques Cousteau.In the nature documentary, we feel as though we are getting "closer" to nature.We believe that we are getting at something real.What we tend to forget or be unaware of, is how much mediation is involved in the presentation of nature.The nature we see on film is never nature "as it is" but nature as it has been framed and captured in accordance with certain expectations of what will sell, what values will play to a wide audience.

It should also be remembered that this is a Disney film, and Wes Anderson appears tobe very self-conscious of the fact that a large part of Disney's name and popularity was established through Disney wildlife films.Walt Disney himself once remarked that he saw his live action wildlife films to be merely an extension of his animations -- because he knew how much the editor and filmmaker are involved in showing what you want to show.What they did show was not Darwin's "nature red tooth and claw" but a sanitized nature, where danger was always contained, and family values were reinforced by the behaviors of animals: a mother and her pups, for example.

That, it seems to me, helps explain the fact that Wes Anderson chose not to employ "real" underwater animals but chose stop motion animation as his medium.It reminds us that nature appears on screen always mediated, through a "nature hero" (as Zissou once was) and through a set of decisions about what to include, how to edit it, what to value.

Anyhow, I could go on and on about what I liked and thought about this film, but I can say that I didn't expect to like this film but found myself surprised feeling very nice (and a bit odd, not sure what to think) about half way through and leaving with a smile and a hint of sadness as I walked the theater.Any film that can do that to someone as jaded as I am has something going for it.

ZZZZZ....Is This A Movie?!
Holy cow! I tried staying awake long enough to see if this movie would develop a plot, have some intersting special effects, but nothing even remotely resembling a movie ever took place. I barely was able to keep my eyes open. I thought maybe it was an artsy attempt at being clever, but this was absolutely the lamest, low budget, poor plot-movie I had ever seen. Even the usually likeable and clever Bill Murray fell FLAT in this movie. I watched it wih my brother and wife. She only made it through the first 20 minutes. My brother and I are more optomistic and somehow made it through the first 70 min., fast forwaded to the end, and didn't even carre that Owen Wilson's character had died!! If you want a movie that will put you to sleep, this is it!

Call me weird...
...but I really enjoyed watching this film. Willem Dafoe carried a manic comic energy throughout that was the perfect foil to Bill Murray's well developed drollery. I thought the take off on the Jacques Cousteau TV specials was spot on and truly humorous. I did not laugh out loud all the way through this film mind you, it is chock full of dull stretches and things that just make you want to scratch your head in puzzlement. I do that all the time with Wes Anderson movies, so I guess this one should be no surprise. I found this film to be clever, smart, profoundly silly, and usually just plain fun. The views of the fanciful sea critters encountered by the crew were very well done and showed a great deal of imagination and wonder at work. The fellow who kept popping up singing David Bowie songs in Portuguese somehow stole my soul and I couldn't get the sounds out of my head. Lovely idea squeezed into a wonderfully odd little film. C'mon, since when does everything have to make sense to be fun?

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
This was a pretty funny, ironic, amusing yet realistic story. I think it deals with some interesting existential issues. Giving wrong people too much credit and basing your life on it. Like in real life, it is not always (or ever?) that better people win and suceed. You can base your whole life on wrong assumptions and pay for it dearly...
I was definitely inspired to re-examie the values I base my life on and instincts I trust. The music is brilliant and many scenes were extremely beautiful. Anjelica Houston is very good. ... Read more

Amazon.com

From Hollywood's legendary Cocoanut Grove to the pioneering conquest of the wild blue yonder, Martin Scorsese's The Aviator celebrates old-school filmmaking at its finest. We say "old school" only because Scorsese's love of golden-age Hollywood is evident in his approach to his subject--Howard Hughes in his prime (played by Leonardo DiCaprio in his)--and especially in his technical mastery of the medium reflecting his love for classical filmmaking of the studio era. Even when he's using state-of-the-art digital trickery for the film's exciting flight scenes (including one of the most spectacular crashes ever filmed), Scorsese's meticulous attention to art direction and costume design suggests an impassioned pursuit of craftsmanship from a bygone era; every frame seems to glow with gilded detail. And while DiCaprio bears little physical resemblance to Hughes during the film's 20-year span (late 1920s to late '40s), he efficiently captures the eccentric millionaire's golden-boy essence, and his tragic descent into obsessive-compulsive seclusion. Bolstered by Cate Blanchett's uncannily accurate portrayal of Katharine Hepburn as Hughes' most beloved lover, The Aviator is easily Scorsese's most accessible film, inviting mainstream popularity without compromising Scorsese's artistic reputation. As compelling crowd-pleasers go, it's a class act from start to finish. --Jeff Shannon

DVD Features
In his commentary track, director Martin Scorsese offers his own impressions of Howard Hughes and rattles off his memories of experiencing Hughes's films.He mentions how he made Cate Blanchett watch every Katharine Hepburn film from the '30s on the big screen, and observes that Kate Beckinsale had "a real sense of the stature of a Hollywood goddess."But in general he doesn't talk much about the craft of making the film.That area is covered better by editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who also appears on the commentary track, and producer Michael Mann makes a few appearances (all were recorded separately).The picture is brilliant, but the 5.1 sound is not as aggressive in the rear speakers and subwoofer as one might expect, other than some nice surround effects in the Hell's Angels flying sequence.

The second disc collects almost three hours of features.There's one unnecessary deleted scene, and an 11-minute making-of featurette that's basically the cast and director heaping praise on each other.More interesting are the short featurettes on visual effects (including the XF-11 scene, of course), production design, costumes, hair and makeup, and score, and Loudon Wainwright discusses his and his children's musical performances.Historical perspective is provided by spotlights on Hughes's role in aviation and his obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a 43-minute Hughes documentary from the History Channel (part of the Modern Marvels series, it focuses on his mechanical innovations and spends less than a minute on his movies).More unusual are DiCaprio and Scorsese's appearance on an OCD panel, and a half-hour interview segment DiCaprio did with Alan Alda.--David Horiuchi

The Personalities ofThe Aviator

Click the links to explore more movies by these stars.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes "Sometimes I truly fear that I... am losing my mind. And if I did it... it would be like flying blind."

Cate Blanchett as Katharine Hepburn Howard Hughes: "You're the tallest woman I have ever met." Katharine Hepburn: "And all sharp elbows and knees. Beware."

	Kate Beckinsale as Ava Gardner Howard Hughes: "Does that look clean to you?" Ava Gardner: "Nothing's clean, Howard. But we do our best, right?"

Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow Jean Harlow in Hell's Angels: "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?"

Jude Law as Errol Flynn Errol Flynn in Captain Blood: "Up the riggings, you monkeys! Break out those sails and watch them fill with the wind that's carrying us all to freedom!"

Director Martin Scorsese "You get a sense of Howard Hughes being Icarus with the wax wings. Those wings were great for a while, but he flies too close to the sun." --Martin Scorsese

Other Movies by The Aviator's Oscar® Winners

Production Designer Dante Ferretti
Film Editor Thelma Schoonmaker
Costume Designer Sandy Powell
Cinematographer Robert Richardson
See all the Oscar® winners atOscar Central

The Aviator at Amazon.com

The Aviator soundtrack

The Screenplay

Howard Hughes: The Real Aviator

Howard Hughes movies

Great movies of the 1930s

The films of Martin Scorsese

Reviews (147)

"Bring in the milk!"
Let me state a few facts about myself and, in doing so, set up a very sincere question about "The Aviator."

1) I'm a huge fan of Howard Hughes, an absolute buff on the guy.I've read two biographies of him and have to say he's one of the most interesting historical figures of the past century: His brilliance, his wealth, his flaws, his successes, his peculiarities and the periods in which he lived all combine to create a fascinating figure.

2) I'm a tremendous fan of Martin Scorsese.He's made some of my favorite movies and I think he's probably one of the top five greatest directors working today.There's just something about the way he photographs images and people that makes even his worst movies worthwhile.

3) I also think Leonardo DiCaprio is a really good actor, a fact that has been publicly obscurred (but not hampered) by the "Titanic" hype and by some poor choices (or lack of choices, in recent years).

4) And I think "The Aviator" was probably the best produced movie of 2004.The cast is excellent, the sets and costumes and designs are fabulous, the cinematography is exquisite.

So, THAT SAID, why didn't I like the movie more?It's an impressive achievement but I seem to appreciate the parts more than the whole.And as good as DiCaprio is, I think he may have been miscast.Only a star of his level could've gotten this kind of budget, but he simply doesn't look right in the part.It's not until after he grows a moustache that he really start to resemble Hughes.Most of the time, Hughes looked like a guy who was quietly trying very hard not to leap out of his skin but DiCaprio seems more intent on burrowing deeply *into* his body.
He just doesn't have the same kind of intrinsic uncomfortability.

Still, it's an impossible movie not to recommend.There are long stretches of space but every so often, there's a brilliant explosion.

The opulance and scope. Brought to you by Scorsese.
This film is entertaining, and much more effective than any one biography of Howard Hughes. The pace of the movie, coupled with the fantastic acting by Leonardo DiCaprio as the livid Howard Hughes, gives an aura of 3hrs much in the way of inspiration. For underachievers this is a shockingly, unbelievable film. You can feel the energy pulse out of the life of Howard. Sharing his passions for aviation. Revealing the breadth of his contributions to air america. The esprit de corp is flavorful, in symbolisms of the fastest jet planes and the hardest hitting reality at zero hour. A much more breaking of the usual norm of film. It is so wonderful to think that movies such as these aren't being overlooked by the latest craze. When will Scorsese win a *(**( academy award for best director!

IT WAS OKAY!
THE AVIATOR WAS OKAY I REALLY DIDN'T CARE TOO MUCH ABOUT IT IT WAS TOO LONG!

FROM KIRSTEN

Another Oscar-worthy epic from Martin Scorsese.
Director Martin Scorsese makes filmmaking look so easy sometimes.With "The Aviator" he once again breaks from the Gangland themes of his more famous films such as "Mean Streets" and "Goodfellas" and journeys off on yet another unexpected road (e.g. "The Age of Innocence," "Kundun," "The Last Temptation of Christ").Yes, he recently directed "Gangs of New York," but he followed that with yet another left turn by doing a biography on the intensely eccentric Howard Hughes, "The Aviator."Leonardo DiCaprio owns his role here of the off-center genius who has frequent and exponential mental breakdowns, leaving all around him wide-eyed and wondering why he keeps repeating himself as if a record in his brain is skipping.This is easily the best work he has done in years.There are two other actors here that match him.One is Cate Blanchett who nails her characature of the late, great Katherine Hepburn and her short-lived romance with Howard Hughes.Her performance is a breath of fresh air amid all the seriousness of the story.The other is a diabolical and utterly slimy turn from veteran actor Alan Alda.It doesn't hurt that he has some of the best lines in the script, but his scenes with Leonardo DiCaprio have some of the best ebb-and-flow, subtelty acting that I've seen in a very long time.The two pros are butting heads and enjoying every minute of it!There are many solid acting performances from a stellar cast of name actors, though it would have been nice to see the character of Ava Gardner, played competently here by Kate Beckinsale, in depth and her more substantial connection to Howard Hughes.But the movie was long enough, anyway.The visual effects and overall production value are excellent, and the scope of the picture is epic and professionally done.This is top-notch filmmaking in every respect, and is easy to recommend.

Hughes Air West
You have to give credit where credits due. "The Aviator" is a fantastic film.I think it will be more appreciated by film fanatics, it's not what I would call a "popcorn movie".I enjoyed the cinematography more than anything.I have never seen a film using the shades of colours they used.It was enough to wake up the senses.The acting was phenomenal, Leo was fantabulous as were the rest of the cast.Cate Blanchett soared as Katheren Hepburn, in some scenes emulating Ms. Pac Man with those outrageous red lips flapping away."The Aviator" soared with creativity and good quality film making.The score, which evokes a deep yet frantic appeal tells the story of a flawed, troubled soul as it unravels into a quary of intense and manic emotions. Martin Scorsese directs another classic film, although overlooked by the Academy (which seems to have cast a blind eye).R U blind or do u have 20/20 vision, "The Aviator" paints an abstract portrait of someone who had too much and didn't know what to do with it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

After creating the last great traditionally animated film of the 20th century, The Iron Giant, filmmaker Brad Bird joined top-drawer studio Pixar to create this exciting, completely entertaining computer-animated film. Bird gives us a family of "supers," a brood of five with special powers desperately trying to fit in with the 9-to-5 suburban lifestyle. Of course, in a more innocent world, Bob and Helen Parr were superheroes, Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl. But blasted lawsuits and public disapproval forced them and other supers to go incognito, making it even tougher for their school-age kids, the shy Violet and the aptly named Dash. When a stranger named Mirage (voiced by Elizabeth Pena) secretly recruits Bob for a potential mission, the old glory days spin in his head, even if his body is a bit too plump for his old super suit.

Bird has his cake and eats it, too. He and the Pixar wizards send up superhero and James Bond movies while delivering a thrilling, supercool action movie that rivals Spider-Man 2 for 2004's best onscreen thrills. While it's just as funny as the previous Pixar films, The Incredibles has a far wider-ranging emotional palette (it's Pixar's first PG film). Bird takes several jabs, including some juicy commentary on domestic life ("It's not graduation, he's moving from the fourth to fifth grade!").

The animated Parrs look and act a bit like the actors portraying them, Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter. Samuel L. Jackson and Jason Lee also have a grand old time as, respectively, superhero Frozone and bad guy Syndrome. Nearly stealing the show is Bird himself, voicing the eccentric designer of superhero outfits ("No capes!"), Edna Mode.

Nominated for four Oscars, The Incredibles won for Best Animated Film and, in an unprecedented win for non-live-action films, Sound Editing.

The Presentation
This two-disc set is (shall we say it?), incredible. The digital-to-digital transfer pops off the screen and the 5.1 Dolby sound will knock the socks off most systems. But like any superhero, it has an Achilles heel. This marks the first Pixar release that doesn't include both the widescreen and full-screen versions in the same DVD set, which was a great bargaining chip for those cinephiles who still want a full-frame presentation for other family members. With a 2.39:1 widescreen ratio (that's big black bars, folks, à la Dr. Zhivago), a few more viewers may decide to go with the full-frame presentation. Fortunately, Pixar reformats their full-frame presentation so the action remains in frame.

The Extras
The most-repeated segments will be the two animated shorts. Newly created for this DVD is the hilarious "Jack-Jack Attack," filling the gap in the film during which the Parr baby is left with the talkative babysitter, Kari. "Boundin'," which played in front of the film theatrically, was created by Pixar character designer Bud Luckey. This easygoing take on a dancing sheep gets better with multiple viewings (be sure to watch the featurette on the short).

Brad Bird still sounds like a bit of an outsider in his commentary track, recorded before the movie opened. Pixar captain John Lasseter brought him in to shake things up, to make sure the wildly successful studio would not get complacent. And while Bird is certainly likable, he does not exude Lasseter's teddy-bear persona. As one animator states, "He's like strong coffee; I happen to like strong coffee." Besides a resilient stance to be the best, Bird threw in an amazing number of challenges, most of which go unnoticed unless you delve into the 70 minutes of making-of features plus two commentary tracks (Bird with producer John Walker, the other from a dozen animators). We hear about the numerous sets, why you go to "the Spaniards" if you're dealing with animation physics, costume problems (there's a reason why previous Pixar films dealt with single- or uncostumed characters), and horror stories about all that animated hair. Bird's commentary throws out too many names of the animators even after he warns himself not to do so, but it's a lively enough time. The animator commentary is of greatest interest to those interested in the occupation.

There is a 30-minute segment on deleted scenes with temporary vocals and crude drawings, including a new opening (thankfully dropped). The "secret files" contain a "lost" animated short from the superheroes' glory days. This fake cartoon (Frozone and Mr. Incredible are teamed with a pink bunny) wears thin, but play it with the commentary track by the two superheroes and it's another sharp comedy sketch. There are also NSA "files" on the other superheroes alluded to in the film with dossiers and curiously fun sound bits. "Vowellet" is the only footage about the well-known cast (there aren't even any obligatory shots of the cast recording their lines). Author/cast member Sarah Vowell (NPR's This American Life) talks about her first foray into movie voice-overs--daughter Violet--and the unlikelihood of her being a superhero. The feature is unlike anything we've seen on a Disney or Pixar DVD extra, but who else would consider Abe Lincoln an action figure? --Doug Thomas

More Incredibles at Amazon.com

The Incredibles Toy Store	CD Soundtrack	The Art of The Incredibles Book
Game Boy Advance	On VHS	The Essential Guide Book

The Pixar Feature Films

Toy Story, 1995 A Bug's Life, 1998 Toy Story 2, 1999

Monsters, Inc., 2001 Finding Nemo, 2003 The Incredibles, 2004

More Animation DVDs

Favorite Animated Performances	Previous Animated Oscar Nominees	If You Like The Incredibles...
Our Disney DVD Store	Looney Tunes Golden Collection	Walt Disney Treasures

More Superheroes on DVD

Batman Blade The Hulk

Justice League Robocop Space Ghost

Spider-Man Superman Teen Titans

Wonder Woman X-Men Also see our Comics & Graphic Novels Store

Also from Filmmaker Brad Bird

The Iron Giant (Writer/Director)	"Family Dog" on Amazing Stories (Writer/Director)	Batteries Not Included (Cowriter)
The Simpsons (Director/Consultant)	King of the Hill (Consultant)	The Critic (Consultant)

... Read more

Reviews (281)

The Incredibles
Disney-Pixar's 2004 animated feature about a super hero and his family who come out of hiding to battle a new villain.Mr. Incredible and his wife Elastigirl live quiet normal lives as Bob and Helen Parr in suburbia under government supervision due to previous public lawsuits that put them and other superheroes out of business.All is not well though as their superhero instincts and talents clash with mundane work and little excitement.Elastigirl has managed to adapt, but Mr. Incredible discreetly moonlights with his pal Frozone on "bowling night" saving people from fires and knocking out common criminals.Mixed in this trial are the children Dash and Violet, confused about their inherited superpowers while trying to cope with the difficult social challenges at school.Lastly is Jack-Jack the baby brother who appears to have been spared of any super talents.

Just when Mr. Incredible feels he has hit rock-bottom, he's hired by an apparent secret government organization to defeat a renegade robot at their base on a remote island.Mr. Incredible is successful and looks forward to more exciting assignments.It isn't long, however, before he finds out he's been duped into serving as a test bed for robots at the hands of Syndrome, an evil genius posing as a new superhero through clever gadgets.When Elastigirl learns of her husband's whereabouts, she heads out via jet to find out what's going on.Dash and Violet secretly follow their mom, and through a series of events, all find themselves battling Syndrome and his army of bad guys and robots.

This is a gem of an animated feature.While Pixar has ratcheted another progressive advance in animation, the characters and the story are terrific and not overshadowed by the techno-visual display.Dash and Violet are a joy to watch as they learn how to use their superpowers in the fight against evil, especially Dash's chase sequence when he's pursued bybad guys flying saucer hovercraft.Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl sorting out their family problems in the midst of this excitement are humorous and all the actors who voice the characters could not have done better.And not to be forgotten, Jack-Jack reveals his special powers near the conclusion of this feature.

Obviously the ending of this movie leaves options open for a sequel, and while this looks like a promising proposition, Pixar will have to work hard to compliment this feature successfully.

More For Adults?
This is a great movie for families, very funny and enjoyable to watch. Many of the themes will go over the head of younger children, more so than in most animated movies.But it's more fun for adults than most, and kids will still really enjoy it.I was pleasntly surprised by this movie, and would highly recommend it.

Not as good as Finding Nemo
Genre: Computer-Animated, Comedy

Genre Grade: A

Final Grade: A-

This was a great addition to Pixar's wonderful collection of films. While I believe Finding Nemo and even Toy Story were better than this movie, it still had some hilarious moments and great characters, namely Holly Hunter. I will say, however, that this is the most stunning computer animated movie I've ever seen. It's INCREDIBLE! Hahaha, sorry. I would have liked to have seen Samuel Jackson in more of the movie, and I think they could have made their characters a bit more quirky, honestly. Why was Finding Nemo so good? Because of a little fish named Dori. One character can make a movie (Toy Story hada number of them that made it), and I guess to me, this movie was just lacking in any incredible characters. Still great though!

Could not stop watching it over and over again
I have always been impressed with Steve Jobs and Pixar's work but this is the first time I was just blown away by what I took in with the multi viewing of The Incredibles. I didn't see this picture in the movies when it was released. I rented with a mail order online store. This movie was awe inspiring from begining to end. From its throw back look and feel to its technologically fantastic special effects. It brought me back to a time when having a super hero on your wall in your room meant something. I was never a big fan of comic book hero's but I would have loved to see The Incredibles in comic book form back in my younger days. As a african american male I was deeply touched by the movie having an african american super hero. One that didn't die in the begining of the film but really had an impact to the whole story line. I also enjoyed the fact that it depicted flawed super hero's that were not perfect and made mistakes. They seemed so real to life and genuine in all the things that happened to them. I only own one other Pixar movie Finding Nemo but this one hands down is my ultimate favorite yet. I do hope Pixar continues in this series for I am looking forward to the Incredibles 2.

Not just a "kid movie"
Some people love animation and some people could do without it. I'm addressing this review to the second group of people whom I urge to watch this for a number of reasons.

First, the characters. I guarantee that most people will forget this is animated for large stretches because of how interesting the characters are AND how well they are developed. Two methods are used to accomplish this brilliantly. One is the great interplay and dialogue which is typically confrontational between close friends and family members as well as between the heroes and villians. Another is the "historical backdrop" provided at the beginning of the movie where the heroes are shown "back in the day" before the primary plot conflict begins. This, I believe, is key to the success of every great story from "Lord of the Rings" to "Star Wars (IV,V,VI)" to "Harry Potter".

Secondly, the plot is superior among animated movies. I admit I liked "Toy Story I & II" as well as great Japanese stuff like "Spirited Away", but although they are spectactularly animated they're still kid movies. This flick has a great complex superhero plot which has several great surprises and twists and isn't revealed to the audience all at once. The suspense continues until the very end which ends on an uplifting family note and ties off all the subplots for each character beautifully.

Lastly, the comedic aspect is superb. From the strained family relationships stemming from the inability to use their super-powers to the "ever had one of those days?" theme this movie will draw in even those most critical of this budding genre of computer-aided animation by, once again, the film's ability to suspend the audience's realization that these aren't "real people". The overcoming of personal obstacles which characterizes the best of superhero movies is front and center in this movie, but unlike Batman and Spiderman, the family aspect gives the movie a kind of "everyman" applicability that the average film-goer will appreciate. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

To Be Continued
I am a big Star Trek fan and I enjoyed the idea of going back to where it all began, 150 years from now but also 150 years before the original with Capt. Kirk and crew.The problem I have is the continuing story line that started at the end of season 2.There are too many shows on TV where you have to have seen the previous show to know what's going on.It works for Deadwood and Desparate Housewives, but not for Enterprise.They tried to fix this in season 4 where they were like a series of mini series, but I much prefer stand alone episodes.I have some life and don't have time to keep up with all the shows that are now using this soap opera format.To be fair to this second season most of the shows are stand alone but ends with a major cliff hanger.Season 3 is one very long episode.

Well written, acted, and filmed - just one thing wrong...
As a long time fan of the Star Trek franchise, I tend to be among the more lenient fans as far as where the writers and producers take the stories.I suppose this is what to expect from a fan who was drawn in by Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed Enterprise as a series on it's own, but it is very obvious that there are differing views on where the fans wanted the series to go as opposed to the writers.

I understand the producers desire to explore new ideas (Temporal Cold War, Xindi) but we Trek fans are nitpickers, and there were so many good opportunities to "fill in the gaps" created by the other four series.What caused the various conflicts with the Klingons and the Romulans?How was Section 31 started?And season four left me wanting for more about the early development of the Federation.

There were some very notable episodes this season, particularly Carbon Creek, Horizon, and Bounty.Minefield makes you want for more of the origins of the Starfleet-Romulan conflict, and Dead Stop seems to foreshadow the Borg storylines better than Regeneration, as I feel it was unnecessary to actually have the Borg in Enterprise at all.

The ultimate shame is that the last season was the one that the fans wanted, and was actually so good that I was anxiously awaiting the next episode after watching each weeks' story.It might be nice to see an occasional made for TV movie with this cast, maybe with a creative idea for a Romulan war (hint, hint.)

I will say, though, if you are only willing to invest in a single season, wait for the fourth one.It's truly worth it.

The Worst of the Four Seasons
If in season one "Star Trek:Enterprise" lurched to its feet like an amnesiac zombie formerly known as "Star Trek:Voyager," it just resigned itself to keeling right back over by season two.Retread plots, inconsistent characterizations, and a thumb to the nose regarding continuity with the original series were just some of the offenses that helped drive millions of viewers away.Most of the blame rests with the producers, who seemingly saw fit to endorse these obvious shenanigans, and the writers, who took a paint-by-numbers approach to plot and dialogue. Scott Bakula, despite a fine turn in "Quantum Leap," continues to register "zero" in the charisma department; it's amazing that William Shatner is so often lampooned for his staccato and swagger in later episodes of the original series when Bakula, with his herky-jerky, angry-for-no-reason approach to Jonathan Archer, is just as affected in his acting style--he's simply not remotely as effective.The rest of the cast is fine.In fact, Connor Trinneer, Jolene Blalock, and John Billingsley easily could have carried the show without Bakula, even if the producers and writers insisted on propping up his bland character as someone of significance while making the others look like sycophantic observers.Too bad the U.S. ethnic minorities on the show generally get less attention than the guest aliens of the week or the many cumbersome and jargony phrases that no real person would utter, like "polarize the hull plating." However, many episodes of season two are blessed with topnotch special effects, so there are pretty pictures to look at, even if the pacing and music that accompany them are usually as directionless as space itself.

By season three, "Star Trek:Enterprise" started to show signs of life, even if it had turned into a soap-operatic serial involving a "Star Wars"-ish race to stop a planet-killing weapon.The best season easily is its last--save for the high-school-quality "Daedalus" and the insultingly awful "These Are the Voyages."Cheers to Manny Coto for a valiant effort at breathing life back into a series so determined to commit dramatic suicide.Too bad he wasn't around from the beginning, when it would really have mattered.

Enterprise crosses intoSeason two
The second season dealt with the completion of the Shockwave cliffhanger. Unfortunately the show really took a turn for the worse viewer-wise as many trek fans abandoned the show. I liked the idea of the temporal cold war but it was indeed a bit ambiguous and confused fans. Not enough appearances by the Andorians or Tellarites in season 2-two races that helped form the UFP. This show had so much potential and by the end of this season, with an exciting episode "The Expanse" ,we see a Xindi story-arc that would take us through all of season 3.

In all honesty the seeds of failure were planted in the second season with some truly weak episodes, despite that the idea of this show remained bright, it was only the poor writing that drove off viewers. Cannon violations and lack of addressing important pre-federation issues was obvious.

But I still loved ENTERPRISE...after all it was in its infancy as a series.

Reboot or parallel timeline?
With the second season, ENT continued to anger many long-time fans as Archer and his crew tangled with the Borg, the Ferengi and the Romulans long before TOS and TNG did. The back door excuse that continuity was maintained was that the crew never learned of their names (though the Borg issue remains very muddled). Brannon Braga -who was asked by a fan to explain the Borg episode Regeneration - seemed to confirm that this Trek was a complete Reboot of the franchise or a Star Trek that occurs in an alternate universe. There is something called Many Worlds, a parallel time theory that contends that most historical occurrences, such as the signing of Magna Carta and what not, did happen only that principles might have been slightly different.And that essentially, since Star Trek: First Contact, the entire franchise now exists in this parallel timeline.Essentially, what happens is the Borg and TNG Enterprise journeys into the past and changes history. Here, then, reality splits into two versions -one road depicting the changed history, and the other road is were the original reality exists before the change.In the end, it is the only way to explain the Borg episode and Star Trek: Enterprise. Had Braga and Berman basically thought this out, maybe I could've forgiven them for the drivel they put out for three seasons until Paramount and UPN let Manny Coto take over the last season (which has been the best since DS9). I'm sad to say that Trek really ended with DS9. All others, have just been pale imitations.
... Read more

Description

THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW - THE COMPLETE SECOND SEASON, is a comedy about a North Carolina widower named Andy Taylor who divides his time between raising his son, Opie (Ron Howard) and being sheriff of the small and virtually crime-free town of Mayberry.With next to no crimes to solve, Andy spends time philosophizing and trying to calm down his cousin, Deputy Barney, played by Don Knotts. ... Read more

Reviews (29)

I don't want to make a big mulage, or anything
this is a wonderful collection!Great quality--- love the "lost snippets" that we never see due to television chopping these up so painfully!My ONLY complaint is about the previews on Disc 1 -- First of all, why would ANYONE who loves TAGS want to see previews to McGyver and Charmed???? puuuuleeeeeeeease!Secondly, if they MUST put previews, WHY can't we at least fast-forward them?I think it was pretty low for the company to make the previews unable to be forwarded through-- low!

The Andy Griffith Show - The Complete Second Season
For those that complain, about the 7 minutes of advertising - obviously you all don't have the kind of DVD player I have, because I had no problem hitting the fast forward button a few times to 4th speed and I'm there. I'm watching all the wonderful episodes, while everyone else is complaining. My suggestions get some cheese with your wine!
Besides if you all think you can do a better job, by all means do it and stop complaining!

GREAT TV!!!!
What A Wonderful Set!!! The Added Sponser Spots By The Cast Are Very Funny!!! Lots Of Great Guest Stars, & Terrific Episodes!!! Bill Bixby, Barbara Eden & Alan Hale!!! As For The Paramount Ads....WHO CARES!!!!!!! Ten Minutes Of Ads To Get A Season Full Of Warmth, Heart & Humor Seems Like A Small Price To Pay!!! Keep The Seasons Coming!!!!!!!!!

I'm not "forced" and I love the DVD!!!!
I agree with David.I had little problem advancing passed the commercials, so I was not "forced" to watch any of them.Of course, Paramount could have been nice and left the commercials off, but their main concern is making money, and lots of it.The inconvience of spinning through the commercials (which takes me approximately 10 seconds) is nothing when compared to the rest of the DVD's content!This is easily the best situation comedy of all time and has never stopped being aired in the nearly 45 years since it first ran on CBS.This DVD will be highlighted in my DVD collection, just as season one is.I especially like the added "original sponsor spots",many of which I don't remember ever seeing before.Does anyone know if these "spots" ran during the first season of the show?If so, I hope they tag them on to the season three set along with the season three spots.

Commercialism Destroys The Enjoyment of Mayberry
Paramount Studios (owned by Viacom) has taken their commercialism to an all time low.The Andy Griffith Show has been one of my favorite, most relaxing shows for many years.I purchased the complete 2nd season, anticipating laughs and relaxation.But, hold on.Paramount forces the viewer to sit through at least 10 MINUTES of advertisements on disc one - you cannot fast forward through it - you cannot switch to the top menu.The viewer must endure 10 miserable minutes, watching advertisements for other DVD's (which many of us have no interest in).This was not done on the complete first season.I'm seriously considering the return of this DVD set - I do not like to be exploited / forced to endure 10 unending minutes of commercial trash.I don't even watch regular TV - to avoid commercials.What a shame.What a shame that such a materialistic, moronic company owns the rights to The Andy Griffith Show.This has taught me to avoid ALL Paramount DVD's in the future.Burn me once, shame on you - there will not be a second time.

Comments / complaints can be sent to:



Paramount Studios
5555 Melrose Avenue
Hollywood, CA 90038

323.956.5000

...Tom ... Read more

Amazon.com

Meet the Parents found such tremendous success in the chemistry produced by the contrasting personalities of stars Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller that the film's creators went for broke with the same formula again in Meet the Fockers. This time around, Jack and Dina Byrnes (De Niro and Blythe Danner) climb into Jack's new kevlar-lined RV with daughter Pam (Teri Polo), soon-to-be son-in-law Gaylord (Stiller), and Jack's infant grandson from his other daughter for the trip to Florida to meet Gaylord's parents, Bernie and Roz Focker (Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand in a casting coup). The potential in-laws are, of course, the opposite of Jack, a pair of randy, touchy-feely fun-lovers. The rest of the mo