Reviews (27)

Good movie about a little known war
This was a war that the Soviet Union waged on Finland in the winter of 1939 to gain access to a port. They got quite a shock when they were met by extremely stiff resistance. This movie chronicles a group of friends who go together to the front to fight. This is a tough bunch of guys, but they never lose their humanity, like most of the nazi soldiers did. The Soviet forces were lacking leadership due to the fact that Stalin had decimated their ranks in one of his insane paranoid murderous purges. This is the war that convinced Hitler that the Soviets would crumble when his army attacked them. The film does have a kind of washed out, grainy look, a little more than Saving Private Ryan did, but that didn't detract from the movie. It kind of emphasized the bleakness those men were facing. This movie has great battle action sequences, and I'll bet if there were environmentalists on the set, they'd have all had heart attacks because of the number of trees that were destroyed by tanks and artillary. This movie isn't hampered by contrived plots, like SPR, or unnecessary love triangles, like what is in Enemy at the Gates (which is a good movie in every other respect). The only quibble I have with this movie is that the subtitles were sometimes hard to read and the English wasn't always correct (but that was kind of comical).

Good movie about a little known war
This was a war that the Soviet Union waged on Finland in the winter of 1939 to gain access to a port. They got quite a shock when they were met by extremely stiff resistance. This movie chronicles a group of friends who go together to the front to fight. This is a tough bunch of guys, but they never lose their humanity, like most of the nazi soldiers did. The Soviet forces were lacking leadership due to the fact that Stalin had decimated their ranks in one of his insane paranoid murderous purges. This is the war that convinced Hitler that the Soviets would crumble when his army attacked them. The film does have a kind of washed out, grainy look, a little more than Saving Private Ryan did, but that didn't detract from the movie. It kind of emphasized the bleakness those men were facing. This movie has great battle action sequences, and I'll bet if there were environmentalists on the set, they'd have all had heart attacks because of the number of trees that were destroyed by tanks and artillary. This movie isn't hampered by contrived plots, like SPR, or unnecessary love triangles, like what is in Enemy at the Gates (which is a good movie in every other respect). The only quibble I have with this movie is that the subtitles were sometimes hard to read and the English wasn't always correct (but that was kind of comical).

Great combat scenes but some boring parts
This is an okay movie. It tells the extremely dramatic story of Finnland's heroic resistance against the Soviet invasion of 1939 (this, by the way, is one of the things that the Russians would like you to forget about when they assert that they essentially won World War II on their own).

Anyway, the combat scenes are impressive for a film made in 1989. However, unless you speak Finnish, you're likely to get bored and start pressing the fast forward buttton when Talvisota gives you a series of verbose scenes at the beginning that last almost a half hour. There are several shorter (mercifully) interruptions punctuating the combat.

I've often wondered why Hollywood has never made a film about the brave fight that the Finns put up against the Russians. It would seem to me that the story would have the same appeal that "Braveheart" did. But then, I'm not a Hollywood producer.

The bottom line: If you can't rent it, I'd recommend buying it used (like I did). It simply isn't worth 45 dollars brand new.

Great Guy's Movie!
I give this film 5 stars not so much for its storyline or plot (which is virtually non-existant) but for its attempt to show a little known conflict. The combat scenes in this movie are intense. The waves of Soviet infantrymen throwing themselves upon the Mannerheim line gives the viewer a good idea what it must have been like for the Finns. The production value of this film is superb. Those are authentic Soviet T-26 light tanks, and early Yak Fighters. Again, don't look at this movie if you want to see a human interest story or standard plot. The intent of this work is docu-drama. The film accurately shows what the Finns did to resist the Soviet onslaught of 1939-40. There is not much character development here, pretty much all the Finns look like another, but what you see is a gritty determination of a small nation to defend itself against Stalin's tyranny. In the end of course the Finns had to make unfortunate concessions, but few modern wars show a more inspiring image of a small determined people fighting for their survival. This film is worth looking at for its marvalous combat scenes, equippment, and sheer grit. This is certainly a guys movie par excellenece. If you are inspired by it you should read the fine recent history of the conflcit entitled "A Frozen Hell"

Original Film Was Oscar Worthy, DVD Is Cut In Half
I wanted badly to purchase this DVD. However, the DVD running time is only 125 minutes. The film, when released, ran 3 hours and 16 minutes!!! That translates to 196 minutes. I am not surprised that this DVD has collected some very negative reviews here. It is missing an hour of content!!! I am now off on a search for an uncut version. I still have a Los Angeles Times review of this film from December 8, 1989 (when it arrived as Finland's official Oscar submission) written by Kevin Thomas who marvels at "a classic war picture, at once intimate and epic, majestic and numbing." ... Read more

Amazon.com

The extended edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was perhaps the most comprehensive DVD release to date, and its follow-up proves a similarly colossal achievement, with significant extra footage and a multitude of worthwhile bonus features. The extended version of The Two Towers adds 43 minutes to the theatrical version's 179-minute running time, and there are valuable additions to the film.Two new scenes might appease those who feel that the characterization of Faramir was the film's most egregious departure from the book, and fans will appreciate an appearance of the Huorns at Helm's Deep plus a nod to the absence of Tom Bombadil.Seeing a little more interplay between the gorgeous Eowyn and Aragorn is welcome, as is a grim introduction to Eomer and Theoden's son.And among the many other additions, there's an extended epilogue that might not have worked in the theater, but is more effective here in setting up The Return of the King.While the 30 minutes added to The Fellowship of the Ring felt just right in enriching the film, the extra footage in The Two Towers at times seems a bit extraneous--we see moments that in the theatrical version we had been told about, and some fleshed-out conversations and incidents are rather minor.But director Peter Jackson's vision of J.R.R. Tolkien's world is so marvelous that it's hard to complain about any extra time we can spend there.

While it may seem that there would be nothing left to say after the bevy of features on the extended Fellowship, the four commentary tracks and two discs of supplements on The Two Towers remain informative, fascinating, and funny, far surpassing the recycled materials on the two-disc theatrical version.Highlights of the 6.5 hours' worth of documentaries offer insight on the stunts, the design work, the locations, and the creation of Gollum, and--most intriguing for rabid fans--the film's writers (including Jackson) discuss why they created events that weren't in the book. Providing variety are animatics, rough footage, countless sketches, and a sound-mixing demonstration.Again, the most interesting commentary tracks are by Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens and by 16 members of the cast (eight of whom didn't appear in the first film, and even including John Noble, whose Denethor character only appears in this extended cut).The first two installments of Peter Jackson's trilogy have established themselves as the best fantasy films of all time, and among the best film trilogies of all time, and their extended-edition DVD sets have set a new standard for expanding on the already-epic films and providing comprehensive bonus features.--David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (1869)

Stupendous!
"They don't make movies like that any more." This is reference to Cecil B. DeMille's spectacular remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. I mention one of the few universally acclaimed film epics of all time because with THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS,
Director Peter Jackson has staked unchallengable claim to motion picture immortality. Visually the movie is staggering in technological excellence. It seamlessly combinines sweeping photographic grandeur with superlative integration of CGI and modelwork(Claymation & Superdynamation)that humbles even the work
of IL&M, and would have made Ray HarryHausen proud.

Thematically, the story is truly grand and has raised film making--again--to the level of Mythological. Those familiar with Tolkien's literary epic--with rare exception--have been astounded by this director's monumental artistry in cinematically incarnating one of the greatest "stories" ever written.The cast(humans;creatures; monsters;)is brilliantly essayed.(Sean Astin deserves particular recognition as Frodo's "guardian" friend, SAMWISE). The complex plotting is clearly delineated;and ACTION(quest development;battles; epic romance interludes)ranges from apocalyptic to majestic. THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS magnificently continues what was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP of THE RING. Peter Jackson has created a unique work of film making that is both artistically wonderous and breath taking entertainment.It is a stupendous achievement.(10 Stars)

Incredibly, once again, Peter Jackson does the impossible
From gliding through the Misty Mountains and reliving Gandalf's battle with the Balrog to the Battle of Helm's Deep, the climactic scene of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, I think that, even though Frodo Baggin's (Elijah Wood) quest is still unfulfilled, a group of hard-working New Zealanders have once again created an epic adventure confection of a movie, full of fantasy, courage, imagination and flair. J.R.R. Tolkien would not have been disappointed.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, since is a continuing of a story, doesn't stop to introduce us to the quest or the characters from the first part, The Fellowship of the Ring. Beginning right where the first left off, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) must continue their quest to Mount Doom and destroy the evil One Ring. Hunting them done is the rascal Gollum (Andy Serkis) but promises to lead them in to Mordor secretely. In Fangorn Forest, captured hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) escape from the Orcs and are rescued by Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies), an ancient ent.

Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) enter the country of Rohan. After the miraculous return of Gandalf (Ian McKellan), the four see King Theoden (Bernard Hill). But the king isn't doing too well. He's doing practically everything his servant Grima Wormtongue (Brad Dourif) is telling him. Wormtongue is in league with Saruman (Christopher Lee) and therefore is kicked out of Rohan. Aragorn, Gandalf and Theoden must discuss Rohan's plans to counter Saruman and Sauron.

Saruman is preparing for war, as we've also seen in The Fellowship of the Ring. He has been crossing orcs with goblins, breeding the dreadful Uruk-Hai to launch against Men of Gondor and Rohan. Gondor has it's own problems holding off Sauron's evil army. It all comes down to Saruman against the country of Rohan: A war of 10,000 Uruk-Hai against hundreds of Rohan people. Can Men claim a victory against Barad-dur and Orthanc, the union of the Two Towers?

The Two Towers, for me at least, had a quicker pace and sharper sense of movement than the more-episodic Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson easily presents a film that will keep your attention for the full three hours. In many ways, The Two Towers is a much livlier film than it's predecessor. It takes a deeper look into it's character's own problems, dreams and future, covering many subjects: The war for Rohan, the war for Gondor, the war for the ents, and possibly the most important, the fate of the One Ring.

If The Fellowship of the Ring was a beautiful-looking movie, The Two Towers easily surpasses it visually. With the use of a program called MASSIVE, Peter Jackson and company takes flawless computer animation and simplistically adds it to real-life to create a stunning world. The Battle of Helm's Deep is one of the most memorable scenes of all time, while it uses a fantastic blend of live-action and computer animation. I say it's already got the Best Visual Effects Oscar in the bag. Not just because of the CGI, but with the camera trickery to make the hobbits small and the great backdrops.

I am appalled by the number of reviewers saying that this isn't faithful to Tolkien's book. Everyone should know that books and film are two different media, and should be treated as such. Many things in Tolkien's story would've gone horribly wrong on screen. As Peter Jackson said, if you were to film LOTR page by page, faithful to everything, what you would get is a mess. Many don't realize that what works in a book will NOT work on film. Be happy that you actually have a LOTR movie. Many filmmakers would not have been up to transferring Tolkien's story to the big screen. Jackson did make a few unnessesary changes, but he's a brave filmmaker to actually take on LOTR and still make something this good. Quit whining.

It might need a bit more humanity, but I'd say the chemistry between characters is much more alive and vivid in The Two Towers than with The Fellowship of the Ring. The relationship shared by Gollum and Frodo, or more importantly, Gollum and Sam, works wonderfully. Aragorn trying to convince King Theoden to go to war and the characterization involving Gimli was exceptionally. The Return of the King will see a lot more of this.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers continues Tolkien's trilogy with very few missteps. It is on every count as good as the first, and in many ways, even better. It could possibly be the most sinister film ever, a banquet of monsters and beasts. It's doing so much better at the box-office than the first, and it easily surpasses it in spectacle. It's still unclear how it will do at the Oscars. Being a sequel, it might not get nominated for Best Picture. However, I'd say it has already sweeped the technical awards. It certainly deserves it.

This is the best of the three!!
Usually, the second movie in a trilogy is the weakest. It doesn't have the freshness of the first movie or the finality of the final movie. The Two Towers, however, is the exception to the rule. For lack of a better phrase, it rocks!!! The extra material included in this extended version DVD really fleshes out the movie. After you watch it you'll wonder why Peter Jackson left it out; it makes the movie complete. The fight scenes at Helm's Deep are great, and you forget that a lot of what you're seeing is computer generated. Several new characters are introduced, but you feel like you've known them all along. The best part of the movie is the addition of a Boromir/Faramir scene. Of course, I could be biased. I love Boromir (Sean Bean). This movie is a cinematic masterpiece. It's great!!!

Excellent
Not just pasting in deleted scenes, this version was assenmbled from scratch with additional material that add to the depth of this movie. THIS is the version to buy for watching at home.

You haven't seen LOTR until you've seen this!
OMG! I love this movie so much, I never put it back in the case...it's always in the dvd player. If you at all liked the original theatrical version, you HAVE to get the extended version. The addded footage completes the story and fills in character developement. And you HAVE to listen to the cast commentary. Dom and Billy are hilarious. And the bonus disks are well worth the money. Forget that...added Viggo footage makes it WELL worth it. Plus, the box is beautiful. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

The ultimate revenge trip
This screen adaptation of the A.J. Quinnell novel has received mixed reviews, but I found it remained generally true to the spirit of the book.

Creasy (Denzel Washington) is a broken-down, alcoholic, ex-special forces assassin. Visiting his friend Rayburn (Christopher Walken) in Mexico City, he ends up taking a job as a bodyguard to make ends meet. A kidnapping spree has spread throughout Latin America and a wealthy young couple hires Creasy to protect their young daughter. Less concerned with her safety, their primary reason for hiring him is to fulfill the terms of a kidnap-insurance policy.

Pita (Dakota Fanning)'s spunk and unabashed friendliness slowly penetrate Creasy's veil of pain and alcoholism. Soon, he's not only protecting her, but is also coaching her at swimming and helping with studies. Then, in the turning point of the film, despite Creasy's quick-witted defense, Pita is kidnapped from her piano lesson and Creasy left for dead with multiple gunshot wounds.

Corrupt cops, mobsters, and other officials are all taking their cuts from the kidnapping game. As Creasy begins to recover, he sets off on the ultimate roadtrip of revenge. And all hell breaks loose.

I rated this film four stars. Tony Scott has to tone down the nausea-inducing quick cuts, fades, over-exposures, and other tricks of the trade. When he gets into story-telling mode, he does his best work, as Fanning and Washington are nearly perfect in their roles. Do yourself a service and read the books. Nothing matches the entire Creasy series.

Makes "Deathwish" look like a cakewalk.
"Death is his art. And he's about to paint his masterpiece."

That is the right line for this movie, spoken by Christopher Walken, the right actor. Obsessed with the grandeur of bloodshed, "Man On Fire" is apocalyptic, spun from the roughest parts of the Old Testament. Tony Scott's movie is a kidnapping drama set in Mexico City - a "special place" according the end credits. Special indeed - take the film at its word, and half the cops are corrupt and in competition with kidnappers for ransom money. The corrupt judicial unit, dubbed "La Hermandad," is impenetrable. Unless you're Denzel Washington.

In a performance that melds elements of his Oscar-winning turn in "Training Day" and his work in "Courage Under Fire," Washington is John Creasy, a suicidal alcoholic ex-Marine offered a job through war-buddy Rayburn (Walken) to protect the daughter of a sweatshop industrialist (Marc Anthony). This daughter, Pita, played by the increasingly skilled Dakota Fanning - who's given dialogue and mannerisms better suited to a 16-year-old - charms Creasy out of his shell, makes him become her swim coach. Fanning is, in a sense, a peculiar little girl, so far beyond her years in gestures that when she laughs at a joke of Rayburn's that she'd have no way of understanding, we begin to wonder if her maturity has been misused.

So then - Pita's snatched in a setup, Creasy's shot, and after he recovers, his counterpunch makes "Deathwish" look like a cakewalk.

"Kill them all," Pita's mother (a glammed-out Radha Mitchell) whispers as Creasy holds his Bible. This vengeance either invigorates you or it doesn't. As these films go, "Man On Fire" is among the most violent and malevolent. The script, by Brian Helgeland, pretends to ask the larger questions about sacrifice and morality, but it isn't into sparing lives. There is torture, then more of it, then death. When a nightclub is blown up, the crowd roars. That's quite a bit unlike the recent fire in Rhode Island.

The most controversial scene involves a rectum bomb set to Creasy's digital pager. "I wish - you had more time," Creasy intones ironically. A corrupt cop, stripped to his underwear and bent over a car under a freeway, has no more time.

Cynical and a bit beefier, Washington is good as the tough hombre with a rocket launcher. The mark of a good actor is to want what he wants even when we shouldn't. Washington's that guy. Walken shuffles around with his offbeat cadence, utters the movie's best line, and disappears. Anthony is jittery in a limited role. Mickey Rourke makes a cameo using his real, non-sandpaper voice. Mitchell isn't much of an actor, but she's platinum gorgeous, and a perfect trophy wife she makes. Between her and Anthony's character, you wonder where Pita got her smarts.

Mexico City, when we can get a clear view of it from Scott's dizzying camera, is a bright, messy backdrop. Scott's editor on "Spy Game," Christian Wagner, achieves the feat making sense out of chaos and vice versa, though an early scene featuring a drunk, bawling Creasy could have been pieced together more clearly. Helgeland adapts A.J. Quinnel's novel, and it's not his best work - the plot holes are big enough to drive Hummers through. Scott resorts to flashing dialogue, both Spanish and English, on the screen in a pop-art, free-verse-poetry presentation that's at first unique, then distracting, then annoying. Notice, too, that it doesn't start happening until Fanning's offscreen.

As it unfolds on a desolate bridge near a Biblical tree in the middle of Mexico, the end of "Man On Fire" is the kind of preordained, wide-shot-to-show-significance material Scott has loved since "Enemy of the State," the first of his "import" trilogy that hopefully ends with this film. Prior to that Will Smith vehicle, Scott made hard-boiled, straight-ahead popcorn flicks - "Days of Thunder," "Top Gun," "The Last Boy Scout" "Crimson Tide" - that were shallow, lurid, painfully macho but, at the very least, aware of themselves and fun. "Man On Fire" is enamored with its potential greatness when it's really a B-movie playing with an A-list star and budget.

Washington is Creasy Bear...storyline diverges from the book
If you've read the book, the movie's storyline is a little disappointing. If you've seen the movie and haven't read the book yet... You really need to. It is most satisfying, and will give you a better understanding and appreciation of the character Creasy.

The location switch from Italy to Mexico works well. Of course, we miss out on the Isle of Gozo. As with most novel-to-cinema adaptions, we miss out on a lot of subplot (Creasy's women). And as is inevitable with a major studio production, the ending has been "Hollywood-ized." (can't tell you more without giving away the ending... read the book).

However, Denzel Washington does an excellent job portraying the character Creasy, as I knew he would. Dakota Fanning is Pinta, no question about it. Christopher Walken, always a good choice, was an excellent casting choice here. A.J. Quinnell would be proud. Marc Anthony...? Well, A.J. Quinnell would understand.

Great Movie
Denzel Washington is one of the greatest actors around. And Dakota Fanning is absoultely amazing.
The script just has you on the edge of your seat the entire time. With alot of surprises and suspense.
Very enjoyable, one of the best movies this year.

Absolute Masterpiece
This movie is by far once of the best movies I have seen in a very very long time. One guy made the comment that Denzel didnt have a character that was believeable, this couldnt be anymore further from the truth. This movie is great from opening credit to the closing credits. Denzel once again not only wows me but Dakota Fanning did an outstanding job also. Anybody that hasnt seen this movie really needs to take the time and watch this. GREAT, AWESOME movie. you will all be happy you did...September 14th cant come soon enough.....5 stars isnt a good enough rating for this movie but its all i can give it

GO SEE THIS ... Read more

Reviews (347)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

The Battle of the Bulge: Nazi Panzer forces stage a last-ditch Belgian front offensive that could turn the tide of WWII. Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw and Robert Ryan in the spectacular recreation of a crucial campaign.

Battleground: Van Johnson, Ricardo Montalban and George Murphy star in this remarkable war film, nominated for six Oscars(R) (including Best Picture) about courageous American G.I.s caught up in the battle at Bastogne.

The Big Red One Special Edition: "The real glory of war," Samuel Fuller said, "is surviving."A decorated combatant with the famed U.S. First Infantry in WWII, Fuller survived.His 1980 film version of his war experiences did not...until now.Working with 70,000 feet of vault materials and Fuller's shooting script, critic/filmmaker Richard Schickel heads a reconstruction that adds over 40 minutes and transforms a truncated but admired war film into an epic masterwork.Lee Marvin, in a richly layered performance now revealed as one of his finest, stars as the sergeant of peach-fuzzed riflemen fighting from North Africa to Normandy and across Europe.The film is the squad's combat diary, war as it's fought and sweated and bled, and, maybe, survived.

The Dirty Dozen: Twelve jailbirds will earn their freedom...if they survive a suicide mission against the Nazi brass. Tough-as-nails Lee Marvin leads a nothing-to-lose convict squad of Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, John Cassavetes, Trini Lopez, Telly Savalas, Donald Sutherland, Clint Walker and more in the all-time action trendsetter.Where Eagles

Dare: The mission is clear. Get in. Get the general. Get out. Commandos charged with freeing a U.S. general from an Alpine fortress should also be told to trust nothing - including the search-and-rescue orders just issued. Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood go Where Eagles Dare in this twisty World War II thriller written by action master Alistair MacLean (The Guns of Navarone, Ice Station Zebra) and directed by Brian G.Hutton (Kelly's Heroes). Known for fiery dramatic roles, Burton ventures into the realm of movie pyrotechnics with dynamic efficiency. And Eastwood's cool-fire presence heightens one searing action sequence after another. The film became Eastwood's then-largest hit and its studio's #1 moneymaker of the year. ... 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

Description

This 4-title boxed-set contains all of the titles in the Batman series, including: Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin. ... Read more

Reviews (49)

The Dark Legend
BATMAN.......this movie was a classic, the original Batman, we've got Michael Keaton as the alleged Masked hero, and outstanding performance by Jack Nicholson playing the one and only Joker, of corse we've got outstanding makers of this film, Tim Burton's first time directing which was extrordinary, he really put the right image of the Dark comic book version of Batman in Gotham City, and let us not forget the beautifle masterpiece of Batman's theme and the score by Danny Elfman in which he won an oscar for. Batman Returns,a very most darker tone, the same people,includinge new stars; Michelle Pheiffer and Danny Devito as the sick and twisted Penguin, this movie had some insite with its story of Batman, Catwoman and, Penguin. Batman Forever.......this movie was a completly different point of view of the Dark Batman Knight, with Zanny Jim Carrey as the Insane Riddler [aside from the possible oneliners to be said, it was a great role] and of corse the great Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face, but this wasn't Batman, Keatonless, Burtonless, Elfmanless, the greats that made the first 2 landmarks, yet the director did capture the cartoonish Batman comic style introducing Robin. As for Batman & Robin, whew! nice cast and all but, these guys are flying through the air,swinging from strings, Mr.Freeze is frozen not Mr.super human strength, Poisun Ivy.....just think Uma Thurman, it was a nice role, too many pointless oneliners, interfacing with God only to put a dramatic realization to the un real, un dark, un batman story and not only that they dragged it on for 2 hours or so, the only thing worth the price of admission is the cast and the "action". Aside from the 4th, the first 2 are absolutly incredible movies the 3rd is entertaining and watchable and.......worth the price.

Batman Legacy
The film version of BATMAN saw director Tim Burton ditch the campy 60s "KAPOW!" action and outrageous villians and go much deeper and darker. Michael Keaton IS Batman, evoking the same troubled character from the DC comics, and of course, Jack Nicholson as The Joker, a great character played brilliantly. Burton, master of the bizzare, was the perfect man to bring the legendary comic book to the screen, and he does it wonderfully. Danny Elfman's excellent score is another added plus, and the action is well done. The look of Gotham City is inventive and fascinating, creating a nuance of comic book-styled-action and dark storytelling.

BATMAN RETURNS is much darker than the first film, yet still satisfying, popcorn-munching fun, with an apt blend of comic book action and trademark Burton weirdness. With Michael Keaton returning as the bat, Danny DeVito as the creepy pengiun and Michelle Pfeiffer as the sexy Catwoman, Batman Returns has everything fans could want. The styilised look of Gotham City is fantastic. Danny Elfman's exciting yet creepy score fits perfectly with the film's tone. The only thing slightly amiss is the plot, but that hardly matters when it's Burton at the helm, and a sharp script and some witty one-liners make up for it's flaws.

BATMAN FOREVER has it's flaws, but it's still a solid entry into the franchise. Val Kilmer takes over the role of Bruce Wayne, and while he's not as good as Michael Keaton, he manages to portray the character well. Joining Kilmer is Chris O'Donnell as Robin, and the bad guys; Tommy Lee Jones as the disfigured "Two Face" and the suitably manic Jim Carrey as the crazed Riddler. There are problems; the action takes over most of the time, leaving little in the way of exposition or plot for that matter. And the vertigo-inducing camera angles and frenetic pacing leaves the audience wanting something perhaps a little more grounded.
And then BATMAN AND ROBIN came along and killed the franchise. One of the worst movies ever made. Joel Schumacher owes me two hours of my life back!

BATMAN REVIEW
Okay, for all those people who are wanting to know which of the four batman movies are the best. Well here is my two cents.
Batman#1- staring Michale Keaton as the dark night himself batman, Jack Nicolson as the dark comical feind joker,and Kim Basinger as the sexy Vicki Vale. This was a dark beginning for the series and it explained the troubles of Bruce Waynes two lives Billion Dollar buissness man, and the dark night. Michale Keaton played an awsome batman, his two attitudes as both characters Bruce Wayne and Batman never reveal that they are the same person. Jack Nicolson as the joker was pure brilliance. His facical expressions through out the movie and his remarks make him the number one batman movie villian. This movie was directed by the brilliant mind of Tim Burton.
Batman#2- Batman returns- staring- Michale Keaton returns as the role of Batman , Michelle Phieffer as the sly sexy Cat Woman, Danny DeVito as the sewer ridden Penguin, and Christopher Walken as the notorious Max Shreck. This movie was again directed by the brilliant mind of Tim Burton. This was the darkest of all four movies. It shows the trials and errors of masterminds against the dark knight. Danny DeVito played a spectacular role as penguin. He was definitly the man for the part. Michelle Phiffer as cat women was a great selection. Props on the skin tight body suite. This was another good movie from a good cast, and a great director. Until #3
Batman#3-Batman Forever- staring- Val Kilmer as Batman, Nichole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian, Chris O'Donnelle as the boy wonder Robin, Tommy Lee Jones as the physcotic Two Face, and Jim Carrey as the clever Riddler. This was the worst of the 4. Jim Carrey played an awsome Riddler, Tommy Lee Jones played a fantastic two face. Nicole Kidman played a beautiful role as the sexy physco-therapist. But the other two was the downer. Starting with the least of the worst, Chris O'Donnell as robin. He was good in the beginning but as the movie progressed, his image slowly died out. Drew Barrymore played a quick role as one of two faces girls. But the number 1 reason for the faliure of this movie is the man himself Batman, played by a no personality Val Kilmer. Dont get me wrong Val is an awsome actor, but not for Batman. He had no personality, except when he tried to rival with Edward E. Nigma (The riddler for the non true batman fans) other than that he had no personatlity split between the two Bruce Wayne and Batman.

Batman#4-Batman and Robin- staring George Clooney as the role of Batman, Chris O'Donnell as the return role as Robin, Uma Thurman as the sensual Dr. Pamela Isley, also known as Poison Ivy, amd the governator himself Arnold Schwarzenegger as the bone chilling Mr. Freeze. This was an alright movie but not the best. Again the role of batman was trivialized by another actor. George Clooney as batman was good, on paper, but his performance was too wity for some. Again not seperating the lines between batman and Mr. Wayne.
So all in all the batman series is a definite DVD collection to have my ratings on the movies are.
BATMAN#1-*****
BATMAN#2-****
BATMAN#3-**
BATMAN#4-***
TAKE FROM A TRUE BATMAN FAN. ITS A GOOD BUY.

Its all about personal taste!
Whats there to say about these four movies? Plenty!

The first Batman stars "Michael Keaton" as Bruce Wayne A.K.A"Batman" and Jack Nicolson as "The Joker" the plot evolves from the major crime boss of Gothem played by Jack Palance gets a little upset to find out one of his men is having an affair with his girl! So he sets him up to be captured by the police, only to have that man be accidently tossed over a rail into a batch of toxis waste and thought to be dead! But he's not, after he recovers and has some surgery he has become a new man, and calls himself "The Joker" and he takes over as the new crime boss of Gothem, and beeing ruthless he has sent out a mysterious virus that is killing people off slowly and Batman comes along to save the day, along the way there action, explosions , new gadgets and some cool effects! Kim Bassinger plays the leading lady and this movie is worth watching, its the best of what came out of these four movie....the first may not be the original, but its the original to this series of the Batman saga, and its the best of these four!

Batman returns has had alot of mixxed reviews. some like it, some dont! Me personally I dont think its a great movie! Batmans back and this time he has a new villian to deal with, a man who was abandend by his parents almost after birth and has been living in the seweres since .... and when he emerges he has become the golden boy of gothem, suckering people into making him beleive hes a good guy. That man is the Penguin played by Danny Devito! Batman knows he's dirty and sets out to proove it! Also Michelle Pheifer plays the Catwoman, many i think liked the film because of seeing her in a tight costume, seeing as how sex doesnt sell in my book, it may be why i dont see this film as beeing any good! Also stars "Christpher Walkin" he plays a wealthy buisness man who is not a nice man, and with such scum running around gothem, Batman is there to try and save the day once again from the crime around gothem!

Batman Forever I would bet money on is in any ones top 10 worst movies of all time list! This movie starred a new leading man for Batman "Val Kilmer" as Batman and also bringing in the new villians of The Riddler (Jim Carey) and Two Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the new leading lady is played by barf girl (Nicole Kidman) even with a cast like that this movie failed! Its plot is bad, the whole serisness and almost beleiable first two movies have just completly taken a 180 turn and gone into a stupid comic book looking city with some of THE worst acting of all time! The only actor who played a decent role was the other new comer to the series Robin (Chris O'donnel)

Batman & Robin introduces "George Clooney" as Batman, Chris O'donnel returns as Robin, and introduces Alicia Silverstone to play Bat Girl.... two new villians have emerged in Gothem , Mr.Freeze (Arnold Shwartzenegger) and Posion Ivy (Uma Thermon) this movie was a bit better then the last one, but Arnolds acting is by far some of his worst! And Uma's parading around in tights trying to sell a sexy image does not do it for me! George Clooney IMO did not play that bad a role as Batman, he is certinlly better then Val Kilmer, but no where near as good as Keaton!

Final Advice on these movies
1 - Good, well worth watching ***** five stars!
2 - Eh, wasnt as good as the first **** four stars
3 - ONE OF THE WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME! / Zero Stars
4 - An improvment on the last, but not good enough *** 3 stars!

My advice is to buy only the first one and maybe the second one if you liked it! But if you buy Batman Forever, you will make one of the worst purchases of all time! You will regret it! And the 4th isnt really worth having...if you get a great deal on all four, then go for it, but IMO part one and two is the only ones worth getting!

The worst downfall to ALL of these movies, is not one of them comes with any bonus features!!!! I remember heaps of stuff that was around when all 4 of these films where made, starting with the trailer to the first movie "a man in black" and its very disapointing that they neglect some of the biggest movies of all time like this!

Great Box Set
This is a great movie and I recomened it too anyone who has ever liked Tim Burton, Batman, or action movies. So you should think about getting this set. Some of these films can be dark sometimes but they will always remain entertaining. Michael Keaton is the best actor for Batman. George Clooney is a great actor but he wasn't too good as Batman and Val Kilmer was almost as good Michael. If they ever did make a 5th Batman movie, they should use Michael Keaton, even thou he is getting quite old. But who the hell cares. These are great films that you could watch with your kids, just don't let kids under 5 watch the second one. It is a bit too dark for younger viewers. But I'm sure you can let your kids under 5 watch the other ones.

Batman-This is the best one of the series of coarse and has the best bad guy, The Joker played by, who else but Jack Nicholson. He's the only one who could have done the Joker. This film isn't as dark as the others and is a great action film.

10/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, mild graphic violence, stylized action and some language.

Batman Returns-This is a great film and was one dark dark movie. Danny DeVito was great as the Penguin and made it an enjoyable bad guy, not like alot of bad guys out there today.
Michael Keaton is Batman for the last time in this one.
8/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, dark humor, language, and stylized action.

Batman Forever-Val Kilmer should have been Batman is Batman and Robin. He is almost as good as Keaton is. This time the bad guys are The Riddler played by the one and only Jim Carrey, and Two Face as the great Tommy Lee Jones. The thrid time around is great for most third sequels never really work out.
9/10
Rated PG-13 for violence, dark humor, and stylized action.

Batman and Robin-This is an ok entry in the Batman series but could have been much better. I think Joel rushed through it to get it out as quick as possible. George Clooney puts up an ok job as Batman and Arnold is awsome as Mr. Freeze. And that's my opinian.
7/10
Rated PG-13 for violence and stylized action.

So all in all I would have to give this set a 9/10 and is well worth your money. ... Read more

Description

In this best-selling video, Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming instructs and demonstrates "the Eight Pieces of Brocade", one of the most popular sets of Chinese healing exercises. These gentle breathing, stretching and strengthening movements activate the Qi energy and blood circulation in your body, helping to stimulate your immune system, strengthen your internal organs, and give you abundant energy. With both a sitting and standing set, anyone can practice these simple and effective exercises in as little as 15 -20 minutes a day.

"...thousands of illnesses vanish into dust..."

Known in China as the Ba Duan Jin, the Eight Pieces of Brocade has been practiced for over 1,000 years. Also included are the ‘secret words’ - poetry that has been used to pass this knowledge down from generation to generation, which contains the key to each of these ancient medical qigong movements.

This DVD edition includes a detailed and fascinating qigong lecture by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, with over an hour of additional explanation and instruction of each of the qigong movements, and the history of the Eight Pieces of Brocade.

• Two complete sets of exercises • Time-tested, traditional Chinese healing art • Modern scientific explanation of healing principles • Multi-Language Edition- Narrated in English or French, with original Chinese poetry narrated by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming

Special Features: Over 50 Scene Selections • Menus in English or French • Language: English, French and Chinese • Subtitles: English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch • Interactive YMAA Product Catalog • Chinese Glossary • Biography: Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming • History: YMAA

"8 Simple Qigong Exercises" • Written & Performed by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming • Edited by David Silver and Media Manic • Video Production Supervision by David Silver • DVD Production by Media Manic • Directed by Dr.Yang, Jwing-Ming and David Silver

195 minutes - color/ DVD9 - NTSC -All Regions © Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming 2003 ... Read more

Reviews (6)

I agree, excellent DVD!!
I have to agree with the others, this is an amazing DVD, with tons of information. I found it very easy to navigate and the material is easy to follow. I don't think you'd really need to buy anything else to learn this qigong, since the master explains everything so completely. Maybe after you learn this set you might get another book or video from the same author, into intermediate and advanced qigong training. Perfect for beginners!

So great to finally understand qigong thanks to this video!

Good video
With some patience, I came to realize that this DVD is great. I do wish the formatting was faster and easier to get to, but the instruction is great. There is a lot to this subject, so it makes sense that you might want to purchase other material on the subject.

Fantastic DVD!!
This was my first Qigong video and it still by far the best I've found. This teacher leaves no questions about how or why to do any of the movements and explains everything with clarity in a straightforward manner. It is very much like a Yoga routine with a more internal focus.

The movements are simple and can be done sitting or standing, so it is excellent for all ages. Though it seems too simple to be effective, you'll find that after you practice along with this video, you have stretched and toned your entire body. Just doing this gentle exercise a few times a week for 20 minutes a day, I feel very strong and relaxed, I am remembering to breathe deeply and slowly all day and I have a lot of energy.

The poetry and music add a nice touch of class to the instruction and the teacher is an absolute pleasure to learn from.

Excellent Quality video
This DVD is nicely produced with very high quality digital footage and sound. the instruction is clear and the movements are simple. There are two complete sets of exercises. the first on is sitting, and it is meant to be done right when you wake up to get your Qi energy circulating. I found this to be a surprisingly powerful set of exercises, and its taught me to be much more aware of the energy in my body. The standing set of exercises is more physical, and after only a few months I have found that it has made me very limber and much stronger. I have more muscle and less fat and I feel 'connected' to every cell in my body. I wake up with more energy than I ever have in my life.

The greatest part of this DVD is that after you've learned the movements, and seen them demonstrated, Dr. Yang explains each one and gives additional information about each movement that you can get much more out of your practice.

Save your money
I write this in an effort to save you the money I wasted on this DVD. If you presently move any part of your body, in any way, there is nothing you will gain from this DVD.
I've done karate and yoga for over 20 years and hoped this would expand my learning, but found it a complete waste of time. ... Read more

Reviews (42)

Finally, we get Alien vs Predator !
Wow, this movie has been in the works for too long! It's about time!

From what I've read, Lance Henriksen is in AvP as the original Charles Weyland, the 'father of modern robotics', thats why the android looked like him in Aliens, and his great grandson is the character in Alien 3.

That would make Alien vs Predator a 'prequel' to the other 4 Alien films, and so there is no continuity error in the stories.

In any case, I'll wait to see it before I pass any final judgements. Im sure the action & effects will be great, lets just hope there isnt too much cheap CGI. :P

Whoever wins, we lose!
I can't for this film to come out! It's been on the shelf for years, and I'm surprised "Aliens vs. Predator" will premiere in August 2004. I don't know why it took so long for both creature franchises to pair up together for one film. I mean, both are produced by studio Fox, but I think the story was the problem. I don't know that many details about it, but i heard the film is set in the near-future, with soldiers likely being the heroes from exterminating the alien beings.

I'm not really a big fan of the "Alien" series, and I never seen any "Alien" film entirely,except for the medicore "Alien Resuruction." Don't count on heroine Siguorney Weaver to return, she's a recycled character and doesn't even have first billing for this movie.Lance Henriksen, who potrayed a robot in a couple of "Alien" films, does return. I can't wait with the new race of creatures this film will have for the "Alien" franchise.

Now "Predator" I'm familar with. The "Predator" should be the ultimate foe to beat. It kills for sport, and has an amazing array of gadgets, each armed to kill. It has the ability to become self-invisible. Even a dummy will know "Ahhnold" Schwarzenegger won't return (he's busy saving California), he didn't even return for the sequel. Despite making only two movies, the Predator creature surely lasted a mark in creature making and I can't wait to see another Predator again.

"Alien vs. Predator" basically got the idea from the successful comic book and video game franchises. Hopefully this film will succeed because the technology of computer graphics has improved dramatically that it would make this film outstanding. Happy Kills! (For the aliens and predators, I mean.)

Alien and Predator go PG-13
Let's face it: any movie that pits two of the coolest sci-fi creatures of all time against each other, while killing lots of human beings (completely nessecary mind you) has to be cool, right? Every person (including myself) who saw this movie went into it with that decieving mindset; coming out six bucks in the hole, and none too satisfied. Take the worst of every Alien and Predator movie (i.e. Arnold S./Danny Glover), a watered down plot, horrible acting, and a WHOLE LOTTA CRAP, and blend it all together - and you get this. The vs. part is the hook, the hope of seeing an actual Alien vs. Predator battle is the line, and the movie? The sinker. The humans do not die fast enough! Any movie where lots of humans die trying to stop something a) of no concern to them and b) that is going to ruin their chances of greed - is okay by me. I was waiting for a cameo by Danny Glover telling us veterans of age that we are indeed "too old for this @#$%!" (Lethal Weapon throwback there) However, this review isn't all bad: the Aliens and Predators look tremendous, with awesome detail, and the Predator makes use of that cool weaponary it possesses. This "PG-13" is the training wheels to its "R-rated" predecessors. And if this battle ever turns into a series, pray it finds its way into space...where all franchises go to die.

Not Bad, not bad at all!
I saw this movie twice, I liked most of what I saw, there were somethings that I did not like in Alien vs. Predator, one of them being how the quickly and how the first 2 predators were killed in this movie, and the second is how cheazy looking the predators shoulder cannons looked. Other than that the movies was spectacular, strange but still a good movie regardless. I have been a fan of both the Aliens and Predator franchises since I was 10 and I have to say that this alien vs. predator movie has been long overdue.

Hope it's good....
I love all of the alien and predator films, So I'm incredibly excited. This movie comes out on my birthday so I'm really phsyced( Don't know if i spelled it right). But I heard that the director also directed Resident Evil which was kinda a let down... But i personally think that people that like the Alien and Predator movies are still gonna love it. I hope it doesn't fall into crap like Freddy vs Jason but also i know for a fact people love these characters alot more than 2 mediocre( but still cool) horror killers. Im just hoping for the best. But please if you are gonna see this movie watch all 4 Aliens and 2 Predators!!!! They are all good in my opinion. August 13, 2004
Smash Hit or Hit Smashed in the ground... ... Read more

Reviews (98)

Solid, entertaining classic restored
It's a fun movie. You can argue with the the "science"; you can argue with some of the optical effects (the use of poorly matted lizards vs. stop motion animation is a minor drawback to the film)and you can argue with some of the deviations from Verne's classic novel but none of this off sets the sheer aura of fun that surrounds this 50's classic. Made at the tail end of the science fiction boom that made the cinema profitable again during the threat of television, Journey succeeds through the top flight direction, witty dialog and performances of the cast.

James Mason is perfectly cast as Professor Lidenbrook and Arlene Dahl plays his spirited romantic interest. The plot is fairly well known so I'll stick to the quality of the film, restoration and DVD transfer. Pat Boone's career as an actor was often blighted by his singing career. He wasn't considered a "serious" actor. He gives a energetic performance that counter balances Mason's intense take as Liddenbrook.

The direction by Hollywood vet Henry Levin sparkles with a number of inventive set pieces. Michael Todd's spare no expense production allows this lavish production to continue to shine nearly 45 years later. The art direction is often imaginative and, despite the limitations of the time, manage to convey the wonder of Verne's original novel.

The optical effects are quite good half a century later. The matte paintings and miniatures still allow one to suspend disbelief and sink into the world portrayed here. The use of redressed lizards for the grand finale does undermine the conclusion a bit. Surprisingly, Todd and director Levin opted for using this approach instead of the more time consuming stop motion animation of Ray Harryhausen or Willis O'Brien. Although it would have delayed the film a bit and increased the budget as well, this brief sequence would have been more believable and lively if it had been made using O'Brien or Harryhausen.

All of this would have been to no avail if not for Bernard Herrmann's moody, inventive and idiosyncratic score for the film. Herrmann's best scores (North by Northwest, Psycho, Citizen Kane among many other classic scores)helped elevate the quality of many films. Hitchcock, Welles, Ray Harryhausen, Brian DePalma and Martin Scorese all recognized that Herrmann's scores were important characters in the films they directed.

The transfer is beautiful given the age of the original negative and condition of many of the films from this time frame. While the restoraation isn't as rich as that given to cinematic classics like Vertigo and Spartacus, the film benefits from the restoration efforts. The colors are vibrant and rich and, with few exceptions, the transfer is sharp and not as grainy as one would expect (particulary during the optical effects sequences).

The DVD transfer is quite good as well. Again, grain problems to crop up now and again and the widescreen transfer isn't flawless but these are fairly minor complaints. Fox has, on the whole, done a marvelous job restoring this classic adventure film. Sadly, Mason, director Levin and Todd are all deceased so we don't get any first person observations about the production of the film on a second audio track. Since Pat Boone is still very much with us, it would have been interesting to hear his memories on the production of this fine film.

I have very fond memories of watching this on the 3:30 Afternoon movie on KGO-TV in San Francisco (and, if memory serves, a couple of times on John Stanley's Creature Feature program as well). It's a perfect rainy day Saturday movie. It's enjoyable for the kids and, yes, even for this adult despite the wonderous explosion in visual effects over the years. While you're at it, you might also enjoy Jon Amiel's The Core an update of sorts of this classic film. Amiel's film vividly recaptures the sense of wonder and power of this type of film with his modern day take on the same theme.

Grand "Cinemascope" family entertainment from the 1950s!
OK, there's been some controversy here about the quality of this release, so let me put it to rest. This DVD is spledid! I think this adaptation of Jules Verne's 1864 French novel is a prime example of 1950's wide-screen motion picture family entertainment -- it's wholesome and has a little something for everyone. This is the best film version of this story, the most recent of which was done for the USA Channel on cable in 1999 and was very campy. They couldn't match the 1959 production values of this 20th Century-Fox film that has excellent color photography and art direction, and Bernard Herrmann's wonderfully atmospheric music score. These elements have continued to make it a favorite with fantasy film fans who can appreciate older movies, though it's true that some of it is silly at times, but I don't think the film's makers were trying for a serious movie. It also contains one of James Mason's best performances (He was always good). It's wonderful "Cinemascope" escapism from the bygone Eisenhower-era of the 1950s. Even though I've been watching it on TV since I was a kid in the sixties, I'd only seen pan&scan versions, and it wasn't until I got it letterboxed on laserdisc that I finally saw what a big-screen entertainment this movie was meant to be. It has splendid scope and a score by Bernard Herrmann that takes you right down into the bowels of the earth. Listen to it and you'll notice what I mean, as the movie progresses the music keeps going into a lower and lower register. Five organs were used, including one meant for a Cathedral. (The complete original recordings of the score are available on CD from Varese Sarabande.) Sure it's long in the telling and takes a while to get you down that extinct volcano in Iceland, but it's fun all the way with great special effects work by L.B. Abbott and matte paintings by Emil Kosa Jr. It's been a long wait for this to come out on DVD but it's now worth it. Although Fox should have known that fans would want more extras, including a production and poster still gallery and audio commentary by Pat Boone and Arlene Dahl perhaps?, or an expert on the production? (Perhaps we'll get it in a future release?), they have thankfully included the original theatrical trailer, whic is a lot of fun. They've also gone to great efforts to restore the color negative, and this 16X9 ANAMORPHIC TRANSFER has been struck from a newly made interpositive print, and has been further enhanced with digital video. The original 4-track MagOptical soundtrack is here offered in Dolby Digital 4.0 surround. Although the directionalized dialogue is often off the mark, the aged soundtrack sounds great and will really rumble your room if you've got a subwoofer. If you are a fan of 1959's JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, you'll be very happy with this DVD. I'd give this DVD five stars but for Fox skimping on the extras. Boy, you people at Fox can be real dummies!

A film for the whole family
Fox Studios was so successful with this film that they immediately made another Verne classic, "The Lost World" with Claude Raines as Professor Challenger. "Lost World" didn't fare as well. The reasons were obvious.

"Journey" was put together by a team of Hollywood professionsls at all levels: script, direction, actors, production deisgners. They were all dedicated to one goal: to entertain the audience while not pandering to them. The actors take their roles seriously, bringing them to vivid life.

This is a long film for a general release, family oriented project. It goes into good, solid character development, rather than settling for action over story, as they did with "The Lost World." The only thing both films have in common appear to be dinosaurs.

The special effects are excellent. Try not to compare them to what can be computer-generated today. Matte painting artists of the old Hollywood studio system could truly be called artists; this film is a prime example of this art.

Bernard Hermann's score is one of the true stars of the picture. It supports the film; it is like a character all its own; it complements the story rather than overpowering it.

This is a movie that can be seen over and over through the years and it still appeals. Once again, the DVD format presents the film in its original CinemaScope aspect ratio, which is the only way to appreciate a truly excellent example of the old Hollywood in its finest form.

all time classic
i remember seeing this movie as a re-release in t he 1960's
these are the type of movies that should never be put to dvd,
instead released to the theatres every so often where
mom's can drop off the kids for saturday afternoon fun.
james mason did a great job
alene dahl was hot to trot
pat boone played a 2nd fiddle good performance
thayer david ( what a wimpy creep..!)

Rated "G" for "Great"
This movie captured my imagination as a child, and I'm pleased to say that it retains all its adventurous charm twenty-five years later.

Based loosely on the Jules Verne novel, the movie tells the story of a group of scientists (and a scientist's widow ... and a hunky Icelander ... and a duck) as they follow the trail of a long-dead explorer into - wait for it - the center of the Earth. The film is partly a vehicle for Pat Boone's singing career, partly an excuse to design one fantastic set after another (partly filmed in Carlsbad Cavern National Park), but it's mostly a decent adventure story with the ever-wonderful James Mason leading the way. Sure, some effects are poorly done with blue screens, matte paintings, and miniatures (not bad by late '50s standards, though), but it doesn't take much suspension of disbelief to get into spirit of the thing (my 4-year-old screamed at the Dimetrodons), and an emotional connection is built between the audience and the characters (Count Saknussem's fate is richly deserved). Be sure to watch for Alfred the Butler (Alan Napier) as a University of Edinburgh dean.

The limited bonus materials are all worthwhile (as opposed to DVDs that cram in the extras, mostly mediocre). Included are movie trailers for nine Fox sci-fi movies (Sean Connery's Zardoz must be seen to be believed) as well as the trailer for Journey. The only other bonus is a before-and-after comparison of how the film was restored. There's no documentary showing the process, but the side-by-side and split-screen comparisons help you realize how close this treasure was to being lost.

This is a great film that deserves to be part of anyone's collection. The effects may be dated, but the adventure and characterizations are as powerful today as they were in 1959. If you're looking for a film the whole family can enjoy that isn't so sugary sweet it necessitates a visit to the dentist, Journey to the Center of the Earth fits the bill. ... Read more

Description

Nazi Panzer forces stage a last-ditch Belgian front offensive that could turn the tide of WWII. Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw and Robert Ryan in the spectacular recreation of a crucial campaign. ... Read more

Reviews (81)

A seemingly controversial film!
Judging from all the previous opinions written on this movie, it is obvious few see it in the same light.This movie, while highly Hollywoodized (is there such a word?) is entertaining and only remotely connected to any historical reality. There is a star-studded cast with heavyweights (all gone now, I believe) like Henry Fonda, Robert Shaw, Robert Ryan, and Dana Andrews, among many others, and it is an interesting, and I found it to be, a very entertaining movie. I have owned this movie for many years on VHS and was disappointed for many of those years that it was unavailable on DVD.Why was it not available?Who cares now--it is finally out on DVD.If you don't like the movie, DVD won't change that, however.

This movie, with whatever faults (and it has many) you wish to attribute to it, is a must in any collection of war genre movies simply because of the stars and the insight it gives to movies made in 1965 while another, but realtively unpopular, war was going on. Even if you're not into war movies per se, I think it is enjoyable to watch.

If you are looking for a documentary on the history of The Battle Of the Bulge, this isn't it. As others more knowledgable than I have pointed out already, there are many inaccuracies, historically, with equipment, etc,etc.Most Hollywood movies are that way--Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor, MacArthur, Patton--that's just a movie fact of life.I am sure only period films of actual combat would please some purests, so put that aside, it is worth a look soley as entertainment.In my opinion, a movie that generates this much controversy also generates curiosity as to why the controversy.See it, if you can, before buying and make up your own minds.

As comic book man would say..."Worst War Movie Ever!"
Mildly entertaining, this movie lacks in so many areas I don't know where to begin. I like to watch war movies to relive my days in the Army (I was in a tanker unit for awhile), and this movie just loses all realism and historical accuracy to the point that it resembles a circus. I saw it as a kid and liked it of course, and viewers who aren't so discerning might actually like it also, but watching it as an adult who has already watched the greatest war movies ever, I now have to give a thumbs down to this flick.
There are no unit patches on any of the soldiers whatsover. Obviously the studio must have had to cut costs somewhere. The German Tiger and Panther tanks suspiciously resemble American made tanks, the acting is so horrendous and hollywoodish, that I actually found myself rooting for the Nazis to kill them so I would no longer have to listen to their phony imitation of real soldiers over and over. Yes it was a big budget film and yes they did assemble a very all star cast, but did any of those actors ever spend 15 minutes trying to learn how actual soldiers act and talk? Actors are supposed to be believable in their roles, and this group just couldn't do it. They obviously didn't even know the right military expressions or jargon at all. Example: One of the generals making a call to HQ asks for "One hundred and fifty fives" (Howitzers), which to my knowledge has always been called one five fives (especially over a radio). Small error though it is, to me it's enough to remove any belivabilitythat the actor has ever spent a day in uniform.
The special effects are laughable, but you do have to remember the era in which this movie was filmed.High explosive tank rounds only cause a puff of smoke on enemy tanks followed by gasoline being lit on the turret.Dont expect to see turrets flying off as would be the case, oh and, soldiers don't bleed when shot either.
The end of the movie was so preposterous that I couldn't help but chuckling as Henry Fonda and Savalas rolled barrels of gasoline towards an entire column of German tanks and then tossed grenades at them and singlehandedly won the Battle of the Bulge.
This movie just seems like a sorry excuse to put Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas in other movie together to attempt to entertain the public.I'll stick to "Band Of Brothers", "When Trumpets Fade", "The Thin Red Line" or even "The Big Red One", when I need my WWII fix.

WW II Action Drama of the 1944 Ardennes Counter-Offensive
Warner Brother's 1965 epic war movie that portrays the German Ardennes Counter-Offensive in December of 1944 during WWII."Battle of the Bulge" depicts Adolf Hitler's gamble that committed three German armies to attack west to Antwerp, Belgium, and halt the Allies to force a negotiation for peace.Producer Milton Sperling and Director Ken A