Reviews (280)

A surprisingly fresh and superb adventure film
In this time of fire and explosion oriented blockbuster movies it is indeed refreshing to find a remake of a classic novel of the quality of The Count of Monte Cristo currently available. I happened to nonchalantly choose this film at the DVD outlet as a source of viewing background for an evening of desk work. WRONG! This superbly made film of the Dumas' novel is excellent and gripping on every level. The quality of the film, shot in Ireland and Malta, is visually stunning, the story remains true to the original, and the cast is outstanding. James Caviezel makes a star turn in the title role, aided by the always excellent Guy Pearce, the veteran Richard Harris, the here venomous James Frain, a fine and very different role for Luis Guzman, and the elegantly beautiful Dagmara Domincyzk. The movie is beautifully paced, the long prison scenes allow Caviezel and Harris to create tremendous rapport, and the age old theme of REVENGE has rarely been played out so well. This is a beautiful period piece, finely photographed and scored and edited and directed. For a taste of just how exciting the old tales can be visually, treat yourself to an evening with The Count!

Petered out toward the end.....
The Count of Monte Cristo is the tale of naive but likeable commoner Edmund Dantes, his best friend Fernand Mondego and his betrayal at the hands of Mondego, to the government and subsequent imprisonment in Chateau D'If. Upon escape from the Chateau D'If, Dantes assumes the identity of the wealthy Count of Monte Cristo in order to take revenge upon the men who put him there.

I want to preface this review, by saying I have never read the Dumas' classic, and so this is my first experience with the count's story.

James Caviezel plays a very good Edmond. His romance with Mercedes (Dagmara Dominczyk) was convincing, his interaction with the other characters well portrayed....But I admit, I grew tired of the endless sword-fighting scenes near the end (I found my finger straying to the 'fast-forward' button), and I grew tired of Edmond's endless and obsessive need for revenge. (About three-quarters of the way through the movie, I kept thinking it might be a good idea to put Edmond back in Chateau D'If).

While the sceneary and setting were both quite spectacular, I can only give this movie an 'average' rating, because of the sheer unlikable qualities of most of the main characters. By the end of this movie, I asked myself "Who Cares about Edmond, Mercedes of Fernand?" Not this viewer.

Well Crafted
Well crafted story telling and fine performances make this an enjoyable film adaptation of a classic work.

An outstanding production and well worth a viewing.

Good Adaption of a Classic Story
I read Dumas' book, though an abridged version, and really enjoyed the pace of his story. So when I had to stay over at my uncle's house for the weekend, I got a chance to view this movie adaption from his movie library. After first choosing a Guy Pearce movie called "Memento", which had something to do with memory loss, I turned that movie off after 20 minutes, when I got too confused with it. To my surprise, Pearce is also in the The Count of Monte Cristo. I first saw Pearce in the superb L.A Confidential. Pearce is an impressive actor, even after the "what's the plot" story of Memento. Pearce plays the chief villain in the movie, Fernand, jealous of Edmond Dantes played by Jim Caviezel.

Dumas' classic story of wealth and revenge is unforgettable. Caviezel is very good as Edmond Dantes, the wrongly accused scapegoat of the Assistant Prosecutor, Villefort. The scene in which he is imprisoned and whipped with full beard, long hair made me wonder if Mel Gibson chose Caviezel to play Christ after viewing this scene. It reminded me of the crucifix scene of Gibson's "Passion" film. Dantes (Caviezel) is aided by an imprisoned priest played by an unrecognizable Richard Harris. The priest helps Dantes by helping him learn to read and improve his dexterity in dueling. The priest's death however helps Dantes the most, for Dantes uses the body bag meant for the priest to make his escape and find the treasure that will make him the Count of Monte Cristo. Once he becomes the Count, he exacts revenge (the fun part of the movie) on those who wronged him.

I suggest reading the book first, because you'll be imagining the actions taking place as you read Dumas' words. For the most part the movie stays the course of Dumas' plot, with some additional scenes and dialogue for drama's sake. This costume piece is also helped by nice scenery and good acting all around. Don't know how well it did at the box office, because most moviegoers stay away form literary adaptations, but it's well worth the rental, or buy it on VHS/DV like my uncle did.

Somewhat entertaining, but...
My objection to this movie was not that it had utterly nothing in common with Dumas' novel but for its name and that of its main character. As I'm sure anyone who's ever heard of this movie knows...Hollywood has once agian taken liberties and distorted a classic story into something else. I've gotten used to that by now. In any case, I still did not like the movie.

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that James Caviezal is really not a particularly good actor. He plays every role the same...with a sort of bewildered determination that gets very old...after about thirty seconds. There are some difficult lines in that movie, and James Caviezal makes them sound forced. Not good for a movie that has already been forced enough. Caviezal is certainly something to look at, so for a while his bad acting slips past one's guard, but in the end, nothing can hide badly delivered lines. It's a pity really, because had that role been better casted it would have greatly improved the movie. The secondary characters were wonderful. Guy Peirce, as always, did a spectacularly oily job as Ferdenand, the chief villain and Mercedes' son looked so much like James Caviezal that it made her revelation to her husband at the end of the movie a touch redundant. Richard Harris was wonderful as the priest and Michal Wincott had a humoursly sadistic little part as the prison warden. Too bad Caviezal couldn't hold up to the rest of the cast.

Oh yes, and one other thing...if you're going to chande every thing but the names of the characters...the least you could to is pronounce the names right. It's FRENCH people!! The name Dantes is pronounced Dante!! Please...I was wincing every time they said his name. If they insist on butchering the book...can they not at least get the names rightf?

On the upside, it was beautifully filmed and the costumes were lovelly. As I have said, the supporting cast was excellant (although Mercedes looked a bit to much like Dantes for my taste)and it was because of them that I enjoyed the movie. It is traditional cookie-cutter Hollywood with very bad bad-guys and very good good-guys, revenge, love...oh yeah and they had to toss in a bit of religion, annoying, but not overbearing...if you want to be entertained, the movie will do so...if you want a good movie...look elsewhere. ... Read more

Reviews (157)

Prince of Action Heros
Kevin Costner got a lot of... for his English accent, and while it wasn't great, it wasn't that distracting. "Robin Hood: Prince of Theives" slightly brakes from traditional myth in that Robin Hood is a returning knight from the Crusades. In the absense of King Richard, Sherriff of Nottingham attempted to take power. When Robin returns he swears vengence against the sherriff who killed his father and defamed his name. Then it's basicly "Die Hard" in the forest. The greatest change is Morgan Freeman's Moorish warrior traveling with Robin. Freeman is good, as usual. Christan Slater is full of fire and wind (putting it nicely) as Will Scarlet. Costner dose well as Robin, I really thought he did excellent. Mary Elizabeth Mastrentonio is pretty good as more or less independent Maid Marion (she has a lot of 1990s style "Thelma and Louise" attitude than was not realistic in the Dark Ages). But it's Alan Rickman's Sherriff who steals the show. He is wild, over the top, very funny to watch. This movie is dark, violent, and kind of scary with it's witch and occultic themes. This is pure action from start to finish. Just excellent.

Entertaining
First off, I wanna address this whole thing about Kevin Costner's accent. What difference does it make at all??? If you think it makes the movie more historically accurate, well, I hate to break it to you but, you're wrong. English people in 1194 weren't speaking in modern British accents, they were speaking in Old English, which is basically a dialect of German. So, with that thought, the British actors were as from the historical truth as Costner with their accents. Costner I think plays a very realistic Robin Hood, who is a lot more human than the other Robin Hoods. He shows emotion, and in the beginning, really plays well his role of a spoiled, rich boy. A lot of people commend Allan Rickman on his performance here, but I think he was one of the worst characters. When talking about him, people spoke so frightenedly about him, but in every single one of his on screen moments, he was acting like a goofy weirdo. I couldn't ever tell if what he was saying was supposed to be serious or a joke. I think his character took away from the more serious, adventurous tone of the rest of the movie, and made Prince of Thieves seem like a parody in itself. Not to say that he was a bad actor, I think that s a fault of the writers. There were a few inaccuracies, like the way that the Scots dressed. My exact first thoughts of that scene are expressed by other reviewers. They looked more like people who would have been ravaging the Roman establishments in Britain in the 4th and 5th centuries, not like Scots of the 12th. A lot of people have complained about the witch, and although I m not sure what her purpose was in the movie, she was entertaining, and kind of scary at the same time. On the whole, this was a good movie that s entertaining to watch, not too far away from Braveheart. (Although Robin's rhetoric skills are definitely much worse than William Wallace's. I could not comprehend at all what he is trying to say while he s lecturing the people from the fallen tree. He started off with something about being freedmen, and then ended with making weapons from the forest, I don't understand that connection. If they are free men then while in the hell are they living in the forest? I think that if you re free you can live wherever you want, not be forced into a "haunted" forest in the middle of nowhere. And if they were already free, they wouldn't need to fight back.)

4 1/2
Much better than the original release. This version has optimal quality in the picture and sound and has lots of bonus features. Now I can review the content of the film as this version is the best you can get! The film presented here is pretty good, well done. Im not a huge Costner fan but he does fairly well here, this story of Robin Hood did well in the theatres but skyrocketed with the help of Brian Adam's song "Everything I do, I do it for you". Its a good film with a great soundtrack and it helped sell cereal, toys and books...Good film, GREAT dvd! Must buy

Prince of Leaves
I'm rating this film so low only because of the dvd itself. Its a double sided disc that doesnt need to be flipped but the studio was so cheap they made it double sided at the time! The film itself looks average, not wonderful. Do yourself a favor...get the new extra disc version....

aging slowly but surely...
This was one of my favorite movies way back when it came out in '91. What may have even prompted me to see it was that it wasn't gonna be the proverbial 'men in tights' satire. But Kevin never really did much that was meant to be an intentional comedy (some only turned out to be that way not by design). Hilarity was an element was not intended to dominant the script. However, anyone who may have been expecting this to be anything like Dances With Wolves will have been thrown a curveball. Costner did not hold the directorial reigns and it shows, with no disrespect to K. Reynolds.
I bought the DVD recently and I cringe at some of the choices the project had taken. It's easy to say it in hindsight but the truth is rough considering the lineup of some high-profile actors cast. Bottom line: It fumbles from being having all components of a comedy, drama, and romance in one release. In other words, typical Hollywood fare.
I found the second supplementary disc sub-par. I'm surely not asking for anything on the level of the Lord of the Rings, Terminator 2 or Star Wars prequels, but I thought the SE version was going to merit more information and detail. I also grew weary of Costner's commentary here.
I might have given Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves three stars. But the cast did all they could do to save a rushed screenplay. The movie did do well in the theatres in '91 so it did have its charm. Get this only if there is absolutely nothing on the store shelf. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Let's be honest: this 1995 epic isn't nearly as bad as its negative publicity led us to expect. At the time it was the most expensive Hollywood production in history (it had a Titanic-sized $200 million budget), and the film arrived in theaters with so much controversy and negative gossip that it was an easy target for ridicule. The movie itself, a flawed but enjoyable post-apocalypse thriller, deserves better. Waterworld stars Kevin Costner as the Mariner, a lone maverick with gills and webbed feet who navigates the endless seas of Earth after the complete melting of the polar ice caps. The Mariner has been caged like a criminal when he's freed by Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and enlisted to help her and a young girl (Tina Majorino) escape from the Smokers, a group of renegade terrorists led by Dennis Hopper in yet another memorably villainous role. It is too bad the predictable script isn't more intelligent, but as a companion piece to The Road Warrior, this seafaring stunt-fest is adequately impressive. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Engrossing story suffers from card-board antagonists.
"Waterworld" had a lot going for it, and I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic disaster films/novels. Although the premise of the polar ice-caps melting and covering the Earth is a little far-fetched (I doubt all but Mount Everest would be covered as depicted in the movie), I forgave that improbability and enjoyed the film anyway. What I didn't really enjoy that much were the card-board characters representing the "smokers", although I have to admit, Dennis Hopper did give the movie some comic relief. If the movie would have stayed primarily on the boat and dealt a little more with the interesting relationship developing between the mariner and the woman and little girl, and gave a little less time to the "smokers", I'd have enjoyed it more. As the movie played out, I often thought I was watching Mad Max on water. With that said, I have to admit the actions scenes were first-rate, and some were quite amazing.

Actually, I enjoyed the expanded television version more than I enjoyed the theatrical release. The simple reason is because they added needed scenes (not action scenes) to round out the story. Between 1 and 10, I give the theatrical release and the VHS I purchased a 6, or a 3 star rating. The tv version, I give a 7, or a 4 star rating. (I should have taped the tv version).

Better than it's given credit for
Waterworld drowned in its own negative pre-release hype, which I along with pretty much everyone else bought into at the time (a similar set of circumstances rightfully crushed Gigli, which is so much worse than this film as to be in its own category). Upon age and reflection, Waterworld stands on its own as a coherent, enjoyable apocalypse film. It simply doesn't look like something that $200+ million was spent on (much of which went into rebuilding set pieces after a storm, so it had no effect on the look of the film). If you can get past whatever expectation that budget might have placed for you in terms of shiny effects, this is a pretty darn good movie. Costner is believable and entertaining as the Mariner, and the supporting cast does a good job. Hopper has fun chewing the scenery as the Deacon, leader of a huge pack of scavengers called Smokers due to the fact their vehicles and industry run off crude oil carried in their massive mobile oil tanker home.
Most people bash Waterworld because of either its huge price tag, which didn't "deliver," or because they feel it is simply a rehash of Road Warrior but on the ocean. I believe there are strong counterarguments to both these claims. I love Road Warrior, but I hardly believe it invented the genre; there were films coming out 25 years earlier that had the same theme. An apocalypse film is usually the only way to posit an alternative reality movie without having to bloat up on futuristic robots and/or aliens (the other possibility is a caveman film, which we all know will be a resounding success). Costner's film parallels Road Warrior really only to the extent both involve a lone warrior in a savage post-apocalyptic world, which is how every single other film in the genre is also set up. It basically IS the genre.

Waterworld takes its place in that genre quite adeptly. It has plenty of interesting but disposable side villians, neat gadgets and surprises, a cynical central adventurer with lots of deadly skills, and surprisingly good dialogue. Heck even the annoying child actor gets thrown overboard when she becomes too annoying. If only The Phantom Menace writers were taking notes. Likewise, the action in this film proves satisfying, as it is CGI free.

Waterworld was a failure at the time, but it has aged well and deserves another look. It's not as good as Road Warrior, no, but what is? I'd take a screening of Waterworld over most of the recent "summer" action films (Hulk, Daredevil, S.W.A.T. etc) of this past summer any day of the week.

Hello? Am I the only one that understands what Fiction means
First I want to state that I really enjoyed this movie. I liked it's post apocolypitic view of the world covered in water. The story was done well and the look and feel of a watered down Mad Max was creatively done. I enjoyed it from start to finish.

Now on to all the people that apparently do not know what ficiton is. This movie is fiction! That means it's not real or based on total possible reality! So all these people saying, it's not possible for a guy to have gills, or that one scene just couldn't be possible, go get an A&E special if you want reality. If you find yourself repeating to yourself "It's only a movie", go get an imagination too!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but sometimes I wonder how people allow their ideas to be skewed by the majority.

By the way after the 4th viewing I just barely noticed Dry Land is Mt. Everest!

Um... Yeah
In the scene where the little girl is in the water and Kevin Costner bungees down to get her, even if Costner had not retrieved the girl, the two water-jetting enemies would have crashed into each other anyway.

I just wanted to point out this humerous fact, I'm sorry.

They should release the extended version
I first saw this movie as a rental of the theatrical version. It was okay. But I liked it much better when I saw the extended version on broadcast tv. About 45 minutes of footage is added to the extended version, which actually helps the movie a great deal in my opinion. While the extended version is shown on sci-fi channel from time to time (in a four hour time slot), it is not available on video. Nor is the additional footage contained on the DVD release - to my knowledge. So they should release the extended version on DVD, which would be worth buying. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

A must see (relatively) unknown movie
I saw this movie while I was in college and could totally relate...and it rates as one of my all time favorites. This is a guy movie, but most of the girls I know who have seen it like it as well. The soundtrack (although as far as I know, never been released) is awesome and fits the movie perfect. If you like the Pat Metheny songs in the movie, then definitely get the Pat Metheny and Lyle May's CD "As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls". It includes 'September 15th' (parts of which are in the movie) and 'It's For You' (song during wedding). The Blind Faith track 'Finding My Home' helps complete one of the best endings of any movie. I enjoy telling people this is one of my favorite movies and getting a reply of, "Never heard of it" ah...perfect....keeps it a hidden treasure.

Seen it 20 times
This is it. The first real introduction to Kevin Costner, Judd Nelson, Sam Robards, Suzi Amis, Elizabeth Daly, and of course the writer and director Kevin Reynolds. Although Costner and Reynolds didn't always see eye-to-eye on the rest of their collaborations, this one is the best. It is also my favorite movie period. Three particular scenes will leave your stomach hurting from laughter, they are: 'out of gas on the side of a dirt road', 'snake crawling up my pants leg', and 'skydiving with a stoner'. The last one has been rewound and played so many times on my copy that it was ruined during the last viewing. The story is a typical coming of age movie, but how can you have anything to write about in the plains of west Texas. You have to see it to understand and you will not be disappointed. Remember, 3 of Costner's best movies were filmed in 1985 (Fandango, Silverado, and American Flyers).

My Favorite
I have only one thing to say and that is this movie is my favorite. I've read all that true fans have to say about this movie and they all it home. I just have one thing to add, I have a VHS copy of this movie that I hardly EVER play or watch. Reason, it's reserved for SPECIAL OCCASIONS and die hard fans know what I mean. I wish to GOD that a DVD would come out of this movie. My wife had a hard time finding a copy of FANDANDO on VHS and I don't want to ruin my copy by playing it over and over again. If your from Texas you'll understand, the first time I saw this film was on AMC late at night drinking a cold SHINIR. I tell aeverone I know about this movie, to bad they can't rent it any more.

Please, the forces that be, release this CLASIC as a DVD, PLEASE!!!
Rusty

ONE FOR YOUR LIBRARY!
The makers of this movie owe ME money for the times I've been in a video store and said to friends looking for something to rent, "Have you ever seen Fandango? It's classic---you MUST have it!"
To say it is a 'coming of age movie' or a 'road trip movie' is kinda like saying, The Wizard of Oz is a 'homesick movie.' Fandango mixes hilarity with poignance seamlessly. The soundtrack is awesome and perfect, the capturing of Texas college boys making a road trip over the border. the dusty little towns using local folks, the conversations, Truman,......well, every last mooning bit of it is startlingly authenic to watch---ESPECIALLY for any of us graduating in the early 70's from UT or a Texas university in central or west Texas. I just can't imagine what it would be like to watch this without that lucky perspective. There are probably scores of Texan viewers who have seen this and said, "Oh my gosh, this is about US!" and for 'US' the nostalgia is thick.
My ONLY criticism would be an occasional attempt at a Texas accent not quite hitting the mark....(the majority of accents were fine, but when one is even a little off, a Texan can hear it as loud as a train wreck, and for just that blink it wavers the authenticity of the film. These were tiny in comparison to some) However, for me, the true test of a great movie is being able to view it countless times and STILL discover yet another facet to a character, see or hear something new, and never lose the "I-always-laugh-at-this" "I-always-cry-right here" moments. Fandango is like that. You rediscover it any time you see it. While appearing to be a tiny movie that slid past most, it is loaded with subtle dimension and truly a treasure. And if you are one of those who has said, "Oh yeah, I think I saw that once on cable" you need to try again, because you haven't really SEEN it....you would have remembered better than that!
Bravo Kevin Reynolds, bravo whoever put together that soundtrack---and the filming/editing was beautiful and smart. Kevin Costner's best movie hands down......I'll bet that if you ASKED Kevin Costner, he would not only say the same, but confess that Gardner Barnes WAS Kevin Costner at that time in his life.
DVD? Come on distributors---you're losing money here. We all want it, and buying the VHS version for graduation presents is getting pretty silly---VCRs are disappearing!

When will this be released on DVD?
Spectacular film! Complete disaster that they have not released this film on DVD. Does anyone know when it might be? ... Read more

Reviews (54)

Underated desert war film - You can almost smell the dust!
This a great film as those few who have seen it will testify - Really gritty stuff. They must have changed the name because I distinctly remember it used to be known as 'The Beast of War', a better title.

It is pretty graphic in areas, I saw it as a kid and the scene with the guy getting driven over by a tank certainly didn't help me get to sleep. War is hell, to say the least.

As people have pointed out, they used actual soviet T-62 tanks in the film and it really added to the realism and overall effect. Suffice to say it's not going to make you want to become a tank commander any time soon. The T-62 is dark and dingy inside and definitely didn't come with any cupholders.

Performances are great across the board. It's interesting to see Jason Patric in such an early role, but George Dzunda as the tank commander spearheads the cast.

Yes, some people have noted the helicopter isn't an actual Mi-8, but I don't know how they could have gotten their hands on one back in 1988 anyway, it's a minor quibble and I'm just glad they didn't respray an M-1 to make it the T-62!;)

The desert landscape is cruel and unrelenting, yet strangely beautiful.

All up, five stars, this is tight, solid film, that will hold your interest throughout and is superbly shot. Perhaps somewhat topical at the moment, it's well worth a view.

The Hunter Becomes the Hunted
Kevin Reynolds directed this film with a script by William Mastrosimone. Although stylized and a little exaggerated, the film is a great at showing how techonology doesn't always get the upper hand in certain environments: nowhere is this truer than in Afghanistan. The rugged mountainous and desert terrain is mostly inhospitable and full of hiding places for guerrilla fighters such as the Mujahadeen.

I found Jason Patric to be the least believable character in this story. I find it hard to believe that a Soviet tank driver, even if he were to disagree with his superiors or the war, would suddenly join the Afghans in fighting his compatriots; an act tatamount to desertion and treason. The best performance was that of George Dzundza who played the hard and tempered tank commander. The movie follows the tank as it wanders lost through the desert like a wounded animal being stalked by hunters. Altogether an enjoyable action movie that is well paced with good acting.

Important film in 2004.....
Cuban-American actor Steven Bauer (aka. Rocky Echevarria) who played Manolo in "Scarface" does a great job as a Mujahideen freedom fighter in this film. All his lines are delivered in Pashto. Fantastic acting! This film actually serves as a very important propaganda piece by the current Karzai government in Afghanistan and is now shown throughout the country.

Great flick; despite the tactical inaccuracies
This movie is great! ... I have since watched it over and over. Some reviews I have read focus on the tactical mistakes and lack of a "real" Russian helicopter in the film. The interesting thing about this is, war is chaotic. Sometimes tactics go out the window when faced with flying bullets. Even if the Russians used Motorized Rifle units as escorts for their armor, there's no saying that armor NEVER ventured out on their own. Heck, maybe this armored unit was part of a larger force that was simply making a reconnaisance-in-force. Also, the helicopter used in the movie was NOT that much different than the Mi-8 which, as it turns out, looks exactly like the one in the movie. If you don't believe me, check it out. Anywho, being a veteran and knowing how the rules of war are almost always broken, the so-called tactical "mistakes" made in the movie are easily overlooked. The main point of this movie is to give the viewer a feeling of the brutality of war and how it changes ordinarily sane people, into first monsters, callous to their nature, then fearful refugees to the carnage they created. This movie is both entertaining and yet, emotionally invoking. You get the sense that the real "enemy" is not the Mujahadeen pursuers, but the maniacal tank commander, driving his men to the brink of destruction. The last thing I'd like to say about this movie is its WONDERFUL soundtrack. The music definitely sets the mood. Now, if only I could find the soundtack. Arista records doesn't seem to know where to find it. I wish I knew!

Buy this movie, you won't be disappointed!

One of my fav war movies
I just love this movie and its great to see it made it to the dvd format i had a tape of it it's so old half the audio and graphics are gone do to time and age of tape. now i can retire the tape. great movie if you dont have it get one while you can. ... Read more

Description

For the good of all men, and the love of one woman, he fought to uphold justice by breaking the law. In this richly-detailed, action-packed retelling of the legendary story, Robin Hood must battle the evil Sheriff of Nottingham not only to save King Richard the Lionhearted and England but also to save his love, the noble beauty Maid Marian. ... Read more

Reviews (157)

Prince of Action Heros
Kevin Costner got a lot of... for his English accent, and while it wasn't great, it wasn't that distracting. "Robin Hood: Prince of Theives" slightly brakes from traditional myth in that Robin Hood is a returning knight from the Crusades. In the absense of King Richard, Sherriff of Nottingham attempted to take power. When Robin returns he swears vengence against the sherriff who killed his father and defamed his name. Then it's basicly "Die Hard" in the forest. The greatest change is Morgan Freeman's Moorish warrior traveling with Robin. Freeman is good, as usual. Christan Slater is full of fire and wind (putting it nicely) as Will Scarlet. Costner dose well as Robin, I really thought he did excellent. Mary Elizabeth Mastrentonio is pretty good as more or less independent Maid Marion (she has a lot of 1990s style "Thelma and Louise" attitude than was not realistic in the Dark Ages). But it's Alan Rickman's Sherriff who steals the show. He is wild, over the top, very funny to watch. This movie is dark, violent, and kind of scary with it's witch and occultic themes. This is pure action from start to finish. Just excellent.

Entertaining
First off, I wanna address this whole thing about Kevin Costner's accent. What difference does it make at all??? If you think it makes the movie more historically accurate, well, I hate to break it to you but, you're wrong. English people in 1194 weren't speaking in modern British accents, they were speaking in Old English, which is basically a dialect of German. So, with that thought, the British actors were as from the historical truth as Costner with their accents. Costner I think plays a very realistic Robin Hood, who is a lot more human than the other Robin Hoods. He shows emotion, and in the beginning, really plays well his role of a spoiled, rich boy. A lot of people commend Allan Rickman on his performance here, but I think he was one of the worst characters. When talking about him, people spoke so frightenedly about him, but in every single one of his on screen moments, he was acting like a goofy weirdo. I couldn't ever tell if what he was saying was supposed to be serious or a joke. I think his character took away from the more serious, adventurous tone of the rest of the movie, and made Prince of Thieves seem like a parody in itself. Not to say that he was a bad actor, I think that s a fault of the writers. There were a few inaccuracies, like the way that the Scots dressed. My exact first thoughts of that scene are expressed by other reviewers. They looked more like people who would have been ravaging the Roman establishments in Britain in the 4th and 5th centuries, not like Scots of the 12th. A lot of people have complained about the witch, and although I m not sure what her purpose was in the movie, she was entertaining, and kind of scary at the same time. On the whole, this was a good movie that s entertaining to watch, not too far away from Braveheart. (Although Robin's rhetoric skills are definitely much worse than William Wallace's. I could not comprehend at all what he is trying to say while he s lecturing the people from the fallen tree. He started off with something about being freedmen, and then ended with making weapons from the forest, I don't understand that connection. If they are free men then while in the hell are they living in the forest? I think that if you re free you can live wherever you want, not be forced into a "haunted" forest in the middle of nowhere. And if they were already free, they wouldn't need to fight back.)

4 1/2
Much better than the original release. This version has optimal quality in the picture and sound and has lots of bonus features. Now I can review the content of the film as this version is the best you can get! The film presented here is pretty good, well done. Im not a huge Costner fan but he does fairly well here, this story of Robin Hood did well in the theatres but skyrocketed with the help of Brian Adam's song "Everything I do, I do it for you". Its a good film with a great soundtrack and it helped sell cereal, toys and books...Good film, GREAT dvd! Must buy

Prince of Leaves
I'm rating this film so low only because of the dvd itself. Its a double sided disc that doesnt need to be flipped but the studio was so cheap they made it double sided at the time! The film itself looks average, not wonderful. Do yourself a favor...get the new extra disc version....

aging slowly but surely...
This was one of my favorite movies way back when it came out in '91. What may have even prompted me to see it was that it wasn't gonna be the proverbial 'men in tights' satire. But Kevin never really did much that was meant to be an intentional comedy (some only turned out to be that way not by design). Hilarity was an element was not intended to dominant the script. However, anyone who may have been expecting this to be anything like Dances With Wolves will have been thrown a curveball. Costner did not hold the directorial reigns and it shows, with no disrespect to K. Reynolds.
I bought the DVD recently and I cringe at some of the choices the project had taken. It's easy to say it in hindsight but the truth is rough considering the lineup of some high-profile actors cast. Bottom line: It fumbles from being having all components of a comedy, drama, and romance in one release. In other words, typical Hollywood fare.
I found the second supplementary disc sub-par. I'm surely not asking for anything on the level of the Lord of the Rings, Terminator 2 or Star Wars prequels, but I thought the SE version was going to merit more information and detail. I also grew weary of Costner's commentary here.
I might have given Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves three stars. But the cast did all they could do to save a rushed screenplay. The movie did do well in the theatres in '91 so it did have its charm. Get this only if there is absolutely nothing on the store shelf. ... Read more

Description

A vicious high school student is dead.A gang hit?An act of sudden rage? Or did a once-idealistic teacher finally snap?The issues and the tension hit home when Samuel L. Jackson stars in a gritty urban-school thriller that's "gripping, high-octane entertainment" (Newhouse News Service). ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Sometimes intelligent,sometimes silly
Sam Jackson plays a hard working New York teacher.At the very start of the movie we see him get brutally stabbed by the Wu Tang Clan's Method Man because he flunked him.After he recovers from his ordeal what happens?He gets transferred to another,even more violent school in Los Angeles.Lucky guy.He immediately makes an ill advised enemy of Hispanic ghetto thug Caesere(Clifton Clifton Gonzalez),whom he just wants to teach. .... The film was written by a teacher and makes some very good points.Teachers are here to help you so don't screw them up. But sometimes the script succumbs to Death Wish vigilante revenge type terrority and Jackson and Gonzalez' final showdown ...is just silly.Sam should've struck down on the punks with great vengeance and furious anger. By the way,DO NOT expect a happy ending.The ending in this movie is as bleak as the ending of Se7en.

its good
this is a great movie has some pretty cool gansters in it and sh*t(i had to use the asterisk and dont be a b*tch and say its gangstas not gangsters) but why did it take place in the valley??????? i mean theres no way that could be the worst school in america. not even the worst school west of L.A. they should have made it in city terrace or echo park or boyle heights but the valley???? i just dont get it. ive visited the valley and its disney land compared to city terrace or boyle heights or echo park. great movie though

An underappreciated masterpiece
Having attended an inner city high school, I will attest that while some of this was exaggerated, similar things do happen. I think the director took a lot of creative license and pushed things to a bit of an extreme with Garfield and Cesar's characters, but it only served to improve the quality of the film.

This is less "Dangerous Minds" or "The Substitute" than it is "Taxi Driver". Samuel L. Jackson does a superb job with his character Trevor Garfield, a man of deep moral convinctions and idealism who crumbles psychologically throughout the film. The way it is shot, along with the ominous soundtrack, creates an atmosphere of palpable doom and chaos. Garfield's speech to a fellow teacher who is beginning to realize the odd connection between the disappearance of troublesome students and his relation to them is really disturbing. The director should have worked more on the "teacher snapping" bit and had it a little less covert, but overall I would say this movie falls into cult classic, if not classic, range. The darkness is unforgettable, and the film does raise some relevant issues as to how people with values interact with those who have none. There is a certain flavor to this movie, somewhat inarticulate, that for me makes it worthy of the most lavish praise. This is no uplifting, Sidney Poitier film of redemption. It is simultaneously a vigilante film and a comment on conscious man and his place in the world. This is a must own, for Jackson's performance and the powerhouse ending.

not latin its HISPANIC
wow this movies was mind blowing. the ending reminded me of the 'godfather' movie. samuel jackson and clifton gonzalez give an amazing performance and i really like watching them intereactive with each other. this movie deserves five stars!!

and for those of you reffering latin people, its hispanic! not latin. lets get that strait, aight? peaze out yall.

smiley

A Pyrrhic Victory: Teaching America's Forgotten
"187" does not provide the viewer with a realistic insight into America's schools. Science teachers do not stalk students and then drop them with morphine injections, launched from a bow. But I did not pick up "187" expecting the classic teacher-makes-a-difference-in-children's-lives film. The very title moves one away from this depiction. Instead, "187" provides an interesting look into the job of educators when they are dealing firsthand with the violence that exists in many of America's communities.

One thing that I would have liked from this film is a slower transition from Samuel L. Jackson's former self to his newer self. The audience believes that they know his character and (quite suddenly) he has snapped and we are a bit unsure of the movement. This film is an intense experience-I found my nerves quite strained at the prospects of the chaos that exists in these communities. Above all, this film neither glorifies the student's actions nor the teacher's retaliation-a fact that prevents it from becoming a simple bloodbath movie. One leaves this film with a sense of loss on both sides and the utterly hopeless situation that we have created in our school systems. Jackson's character does, despite what some may say, have an impact on the students he teaches. But his victory is not without devastating losses; a Pyrrhic victory, as the movie (not so subtly) alludes.

Word to the wise: this is not an uplifting film. Do not rent it thinking you're in for a "To Sir, With Love" experience. Just read the title. But if you're in the mood to look at the darker side of life (think "Requiem for a Dream"), by all means. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Let's be honest: this 1995 epic isn't nearly as bad as its negative publicity led us to expect. At the time it was the most expensive Hollywood production in history (it had a Titanic-sized $200 million budget), and the film arrived in theaters with so much controversy and negative gossip that it was an easy target for ridicule. The movie itself, a flawed but enjoyable post-apocalypse thriller, deserves better. Waterworld stars Kevin Costner as the Mariner, a lone maverick with gills and webbed feet who navigates the endless seas of Earth after the complete melting of the polar ice caps. The Mariner has been caged like a criminal when he's freed by Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) and enlisted to help her and a young girl (Tina Majorino) escape from the Smokers, a group of renegade terrorists led by Dennis Hopper in yet another memorably villainous role. It is too bad the predictable script isn't more intelligent, but as a companion piece to The Road Warrior, this seafaring stunt-fest is adequately impressive. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (115)

Engrossing story suffers from card-board antagonists.
"Waterworld" had a lot going for it, and I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic disaster films/novels. Although the premise of the polar ice-caps melting and covering the Earth is a little far-fetched (I doubt all but Mount Everest would be covered as depicted in the movie), I forgave that improbability and enjoyed the film anyway. What I didn't really enjoy that much were the card-board characters representing the "smokers", although I have to admit, Dennis Hopper did give the movie some comic relief. If the movie would have stayed primarily on the boat and dealt a little more with the interesting relationship developing between the mariner and the woman and little girl, and gave a little less time to the "smokers", I'd have enjoyed it more. As the movie played out, I often thought I was watching Mad Max on water. With that said, I have to admit the actions scenes were first-rate, and some were quite amazing.

Actually, I enjoyed the expanded television version more than I enjoyed the theatrical release. The simple reason is because they added needed scenes (not action scenes) to round out the story. Between 1 and 10, I give the theatrical release and the VHS I purchased a 6, or a 3 star rating. The tv version, I give a 7, or a 4 star rating. (I should have taped the tv version).

Better than it's given credit for
Waterworld drowned in its own negative pre-release hype, which I along with pretty much everyone else bought into at the time (a similar set of circumstances rightfully crushed Gigli, which is so much worse than this film as to be in its own category). Upon age and reflection, Waterworld stands on its own as a coherent, enjoyable apocalypse film. It simply doesn't look like something that $200+ million was spent on (much of which went into rebuilding set pieces after a storm, so it had no effect on the look of the film). If you can get past whatever expectation that budget might have placed for you in terms of shiny effects, this is a pretty darn good movie. Costner is believable and entertaining as the Mariner, and the supporting cast does a good job. Hopper has fun chewing the scenery as the Deacon, leader of a huge pack of scavengers called Smokers due to the fact their vehicles and industry run off crude oil carried in their massive mobile oil tanker home.
Most people bash Waterworld because of either its huge price tag, which didn't "deliver," or because they feel it is simply a rehash of Road Warrior but on the ocean. I believe there are strong counterarguments to both these claims. I love Road Warrior, but I hardly believe it invented the genre; there were films coming out 25 years earlier that had the same theme. An apocalypse film is usually the only way to posit an alternative reality movie without having to bloat up on futuristic robots and/or aliens (the other possibility is a caveman film, which we all know will be a resounding success). Costner's film parallels Road Warrior really only to the extent both involve a lone warrior in a savage post-apocalyptic world, which is how every single other film in the genre is also set up. It basically IS the genre.

Waterworld takes its place in that genre quite adeptly. It has plenty of interesting but disposable side villians, neat gadgets and surprises, a cynical central adventurer with lots of deadly skills, and surprisingly good dialogue. Heck even the annoying child actor gets thrown overboard when she becomes too annoying. If only The Phantom Menace writers were taking notes. Likewise, the action in this film proves satisfying, as it is CGI free.

Waterworld was a failure at the time, but it has aged well and deserves another look. It's not as good as Road Warrior, no, but what is? I'd take a screening of Waterworld over most of the recent "summer" action films (Hulk, Daredevil, S.W.A.T. etc) of this past summer any day of the week.

Hello? Am I the only one that understands what Fiction means
First I want to state that I really enjoyed this movie. I liked it's post apocolypitic view of the world covered in water. The story was done well and the look and feel of a watered down Mad Max was creatively done. I enjoyed it from start to finish.

Now on to all the people that apparently do not know what ficiton is. This movie is fiction! That means it's not real or based on total possible reality! So all these people saying, it's not possible for a guy to have gills, or that one scene just couldn't be possible, go get an A&E special if you want reality. If you find yourself repeating to yourself "It's only a movie", go get an imagination too!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but sometimes I wonder how people allow their ideas to be skewed by the majority.

By the way after the 4th viewing I just barely noticed Dry Land is Mt. Everest!

Um... Yeah
In the scene where the little girl is in the water and Kevin Costner bungees down to get her, even if Costner had not retrieved the girl, the two water-jetting enemies would have crashed into each other anyway.

I just wanted to point out this humerous fact, I'm sorry.

They should release the extended version
I first saw this movie as a rental of the theatrical version. It was okay. But I liked it much better when I saw the extended version on broadcast tv. About 45 minutes of footage is added to the extended version, which actually helps the movie a great deal in my opinion. While the extended version is shown on sci-fi channel from time to time (in a four hour time slot), it is not available on video. Nor is the additional footage contained on the DVD release - to my knowledge. So they should release the extended version on DVD, which would be worth buying. ... Read more