Reviews (30)

Hollywood Classic
This film starts with the 1685 Duke of Monmouth rebellion. The battle of Sedgemoor rages in the background as Errol Flynn's character is wrongly accused of supporting the rebels. King James II is portrayed as an arrogant prince, something which most Protestants of the day would have agreed with, and which Hollywood does not seem to deny. James, while detached, was not the cold hearted fool we see here. But this is only a minor point. The film has historic interest, portraying England as it does during the 1680s, the reign of James II before the advent of the Glorious Revolution which sees him removed in favor of William III of Orange and Queen Mary. The movie only touches on these political developments, but its interesting to see them as factors in the background.

The rest is pure Hollywood adventure with fiction playing havoc with fact! Still, the movie is so entertaining and classy that we don't mind a few historical gaffes. Flynn is elegant in his first major role, and Olivia Dehavland is strikingly beautiful. Hard to beleive she was only 18 when this film was made. The rest of the supporting cast may be a bit standard for a 1930s production, but they pull their weight well with all the cute touches of the day. The production value of the film appears more impressive than it actually was. The fast pace combined with clever plot makes for a classic of its kind. The French as perenial villins may strike a chord with today! For period swashbuckling, romance and class, you won't find better than here.

Blood! Blood! ......And A Film Legend Was Born
"Classic", is written all over this legendary Warner Brothers production from Hollywood's heyday in the 1930's. A fine literary source in the novel by Rafael Sabatini formed the basis for what was to become easily one of the best loved pirate tales ever filmed by a Hollywood Studio. Many (myself included) believe that "Captain Blood", is THE definitive swashbuckling adventure and contains everything to satisfy the pirate enthusiast, from a dashing leading man fighting for justice in a corrupt world,a beautiful damsel in distress to be rescued by the hero, lively swordplay, brilliantly staged sea battles, and the essential quota of villianous characters to add spice to the drama. "Captain Blood", was as well a "first", in many ways. Firstly it marked the breakthrough role for Tasmanian born Errol Flynn who was perfect for the role of Dr. Peter Blood, a man of good character wrongly condemmed to a life of slavery for helping tend the injuries of a rebel soldier in the corrupt England of James 2nd. Also this film marked the first teaming of Flynn with rising young actress Olivia de Havilland and the two went on to work beautifully together in eight films over the next seven years earning them immortality as one of filmdom's most unforgettable screen couples.

It's hard to imagine nowadays anyone but Errol Flynn in the role of Captain Blood but he was not even considered in the original casting of the film being an almost complete unknown at the time. Robert Donat was set to play the lead but had to withdraw due to illness and Jack Warner took a considerable gamble in casting the untried Australian actor in the lead of one of the studios biggest productions for the year. Once the decision was made however the rest as they say was film history as Errol Flynn swashed and buckled his way to Hollywood stardom in a stunning debut which helped make "Captain Blood", one of the years most successful films and helped gain it a nomination as Best Picture of the year. "Captain Blood", relates the story of Irish Doctor Peter Blood who is called out to tend the wounds of a rebel soldier fighting the corrupt governement of King James 2nd. Caught at the scene Peter is imprisoned as a rebel of the crown and in a sham court hearing is condemmed to a life of slavery in the infamous colony of Port Royal. Suffering brutality under the cruel Planatation owner Col. Bishop (Lionel Atwill in a masterfully evil role) Peter has the chance to escape when Port Royal is attacked by the Spanish. He forms a crew with his men and together they head out to sea on a stolen ship to become pirates with no country to call home. Very soon the name of "Captain Blood" is infamous throughout the Carribean and no ship Spanish, French, or English is safe from his looting. Making an uneasy alliance with French Pirate Capt. Levasseur(Basil Rathbone in a small but effective role) Peter finds his loyalties tested when Levasseur captures Arabella (de Havilland) the niece of Col. Bishop who Peter loves, as she returns to Port Royal with Lord Willoughby (Henry Stephenson). Fighting a duel to the death with Levasseur over Arabella's safety, Peter learns from Lord Willoughby the King James has been driven out of England and the new King William 3rd has not only pardoned Peter and his men but also offered them places in his navy. Returning to Port Royal the men find the port under attack from the Spanish and Captain Blood now fighting for King and Country in a exciting finale manages to defeat the Spanish invasion and save Port Royal from falling into enemy hands. For his great service to the crown King William then makes Peter the new govener of Port Royal much to the distress of his old enemy Col. Bishop but to the utter joy of Arabella who now plans to marry Peter at the happy conclusion.

Errol flynn had no peer when it came to these types of dashing adventure roles. His performance here and in such classics as "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Sea Hawk", certainly saw him in his element being ideally cast. He teamed perfectly with Olivia de Havilland, he all bravado, masculinity and dashing energy, while she was the epitome of the demure refined young lady waiting for love. "Captain Blood", however is peopled with some other great acting talent that must not be forgotten under the bright light of Errol Flynn's screen charisma. Lionel Atwill excels as the cruel Col. Bishop in a tailor made role and character actors Donald Meek and especially George Hassell as the comical gout ridden Gov. Steed are both excellent in their smaller parts that help give "Captain Blood", some of its fine acting moments. Directed with usual high energy by Michael Curtiz, he manages to extract a marvellous performance out of the still largely inexperienced Flynn. Theirs was a definite hate relationship as the two loathed each other but by some miracle produced consistently excellent work together.The visuals of the film are first rate with the superbly staged sea battles unrivalled in their authentic look. Erich Wolfgang Korngold furnished another of his rousing musical scores that succeeds in really adding a high level of excitment to all the action secquences in "Captain Blood".

"Captain Blood", makes for ideal entertainment of the old fashioned kind and is a perfect example of Errol Flynn's great screen presence in a role idealy suited to him. Here we see him and Olivia de Havilland in the full bloom of their youthful vibrance in an exciting tale of adventure and romance,with good winning out over evil. It's Hollywood filmmaking of the old school and it is sure to leave you cheering as the good Captain romances his ladylove and fights against corruption and cruelty on the High Seas. Enjoy!

Simon Davis
Now that I have read Simon Davis' review, I dont have to watch the film?

Actually , I have seen the film a few times..and I can only add that Lionel Atwill pouts as well as any actor I have seen and Mr Rathbone begins his legacy as one of the great screen villians

CP

Shine on
Captain Blood is a great film, let alone a tremendous pirate film. There's something about the plot that has a certain resonance today as much as that of Robin Hood, namely that age-old sense of justice triumphing over rigid law and order, of robbing the rich to feed the poor. Yet Captain Blood is a little rougher edged, a little crueler in its machinations. Peter Blood (Flynn) is a well-meaning doctor who happens to aid the wrong side in one of Britain's innumerable civil wars, and is sentenced into slavery in the outer colonies along with a pack of other unfortunates. Right from the moment you see him level his icy gaze at the consumptive, soon-to-be dead Royal judge who passed the sentence, you know this party is just getting started.

Hollywood has used the 'good-man-wronged' scenario countless times since this movie, but rarely to such effect. Battered, beaten, but never broken, Dr. Peter Blood transforms into Captain Blood, the terror of the high seas that crushes his enemies without ever letting anyone affect his high-minded moral core. It was not his choice to become an outlaw, but if he has to become one, he will be the best one there ever was. Redemption, honor, and love all make their appearances in the fine script enacted by a worthy cast, but at every point Blood is a man in control of, and therefore responsible for, his own destiny. It's a great film and one you definitely should check out.

A great buccaneer epic.
I think that this is one of the greatest action - adventure films and perhaps the greatest adventure-epic film about pirates ,ever made in cinema's history. Adapted from Raffael Sabbatini's homonymous novel, "Captain Blood" introduced 26 years old Australian-born actor Errol Flynn, in Hollywood as a great star and it was the first of a movie-series that granted him the title of "swashbucklers's king".The film also created Flynn's image (solidified in the next years) as the dashing young romantic adventurer hero who always saves the day. Flynn plays the Irish doctor Peter Blood who becomes the handsome gentleman rogue pirate of the Caribbean with bravado and charisma ,appearing his great talent that made him a legend. But here we can locate some historical inaccuracy , (an inheritance of 19th century's romantic literature ) because the real pirates were quite repulsive, poor , illiterate and not fascinating and educated sea knights. The historical background on the contrary is quite accurate and very interesting. The film beggins in 1685 when Duke of Monmouth organised an unsuccessfull rebellion and portrays England during the 1680s, the reign of James II before the advent of the Glorious Revolution which sees him removed in favor of William III of Orange and Queen Mary. An other notable point is that the film portrays pro-catholic King James II as an evil and cruel tyrannical persona ,a fact that might be seen as a film's pro-protestant position on history, yet don't forget that this story is adapted from a novel and this was Sabbatini's view on historical facts.
Curtiz's direction is excellent and impressive,especially at the great terrific sea battle which is amazing. Olivia de Havilland is brilland and adorable as Flynn's sweet love interest ,with astonishing beauty. Even she is only 19 years old ,she plays her role with maturity and high professional capability. Basil Rathbone is perfect as the villain-fond of women French pirate Levasseur (and as swordfighter) using a peculiar french accent . Lionel Atwill as de Havilland's uncle is very convincing as a brutal plantation owner who finally reconciles with Captain Blood (Errol Flynn).You have also to notice the great performances by the actors who compose Captain Blood's crew. They're really charming.
A must-see high entertaining master piece epic. I give it all the stars I can . Enjoy it and love it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

After the Sunset may not be the greatest jewel-heist caper comedy ever made, but it sure is easy on the eyes. Shifting back into his crowd-pleasing Rush Hour mode, director Brett Ratner kicks off the action with a rousing chase scene that pretty much describes the entire film: utter nonsense, but adequately enjoyable. Things get very sunny thereafter, when FBI agent Woody Harrelson lands in the Bahamas to track down ace diamond thief Pierce Brosnan and his lovely accomplice Salma Hayek, whom he suspects of planning their next big heist on a cruise ship. A Bahamian gangster (Don Cheadle) wants in on the action, and the whole thing's about as fluffy as an Elmo doll and just as harmless, especially when you consider Hayek's revealing wardrobe (which, thankfully, distracts from Brosnan's less-than-Bond-like physique). There's an abundance of witty banter between everyone, and the tropical locations make After the Sunset a balmy, vicarious vacation. Critics weren't exactly kind to this breezy dose of popcorn entertainment, but it's an agreeable time-killer and an instant cure for seasonal affective disorder, even if the comedic chemistry leaves something to be desired. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Better Than I Expected
This isn't really a caper film, which is one reason I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.Sure, it has some of the elements of the Hollywood caper movie--the debonaire, super-clever and super-successful thief, the cop out to thwart him, exotic locations--but the movie isn't really about will-he-pull-it-off-or-won't-he.It's more of a cat-and-mouse buddy movie.That the heists are utterly implausible, to the point of being ridiculous (as they are in most caper movies, like Oceans's Eleven and Ocean's 12) doesn't matter as much, because it's not what the movie focuses on.

Instead, we get a lot of cute banter and bonding between Harrelson and Brosnan, who are fun to watch.There are some good, low-brow laughs in this movie--they are enough for me.I laughed out loud, for instance, when during the fishing scene Harrelson is putting tanning lotion on Brosnan's back, and Brosnan says, "My pole!" and Harrelson pulls back with disgust and says, "No way, I'm only doing your back!" (Of course, Brosnan meant, Look at the pole; I caught something.)There are other, similar crude jokes and sight gags.

Both men are good in their roles, and fun to watch.The female roles in the movie seem incidental, a formulaic requirement of Hollywood movies, and are never really developed beyond that basic requirement.And what is Don Cheadle, a great actor, doing in such a miniscule role?Anyone could have done his rolel he's sadly wasted.Chris Penn has an amusing cameo...but my goodness, has he gotten fat.I remember seeing him in movies in the 80's, before he starting hitting the Big Macs.You don't often see an actor let himself go like that.

Commercial for Bahama Tourism Starring...
After the Sunset is a fluffy piffle that is almost always beautiful to look at, but emptier than the nutritional content of cotton candy.

Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek make a good-looking couple, and the movie actually TRIES to address a theoretical dilemma that is infrequently brought up in movies.If a rich and successful criminal retires, what do they do?If, presumably, part of why they were a criminal in the first place is for the thrill of it, how can they be content simply retiring?If being a thief is both your job AND your hobby, what do you do after the last "big one"?The only film I can think of that showed the boring lethargy that sets in on a successful criminal is the end of "Scarface" when Al Pacino is lying around in the marble tub of his palatial bathroom, smoking a cigar and cursing at his wife and buddy.

But I digress.After the Sunset would be familiar territory if the only movies you had seen were the "Ocean's 11" remake(s).It's a "steal the jewel" caper.It tries to be a comedy, but Brosnan and Woody Harrelson don't have the comic chemistry we've seen both of them have in other work. Harrelson appears as the FBI agent who has been repeatedly burned by Brosnan, and wants to get his revenge.It follows the film cliche where the lawman is "hot on the trail" of the criminal - a la "Heat", etc., but instead of an edgy relationship between the Thief and the Lawman we get a bumbling comic relationship between Brosnan and Harrelson.

The "star" of the film is the way it looks, and much of that is owed to the Bahamanian resort standing in for paradise.The movie made me want to go there - but it didn't make me want to ever see this film again.

Our family has been in manure for three generations!
Did I miss something?Was there a contest going through all the Grade Schools of America to find the best story for acclaimed director Bret Ratner to bring to the silver screen?If so, why wasn't there a calendar made for those who didn't make the final cut?Oh, wait, apparently children did not write this film, but instead a guy that wrote for the TELEVISION SERIES the Weakest Link.That surely makes him ready by all means to tackle the caper genre and inherit a big payday ... right?You are the weakest link ... good-bye.This movie was a disaster from the beginning.With cardboard acting, an aging (and girth growing) sex symbol, and a corny ending that incorporated nothing that we were shown through the entire film, it is a big wonder how After the Sunset ever saw the illustrious "green-light".Perhaps it was the size of Salma's boo ... name, or perhaps the fact that Pierce Brosnan's The Thomas Crown Affair was such a cult film, or maybe because Don Cheadle was in it, because it had really no pull with just Woody headlining.So, how did this film get made?This film targeted pre-teen boys and retirement communities, and with their great pull, the financing behind this film became very easy.

This was a caper film right?We are supposed to go on this roller coaster ride of who's conning whom, coupled with lies, deceit, and a surprise ending that will make you want to rewatch from the beginning to experience anything that you missed.That is the focus, goal, and overall tone that a film like this should have followed.Instead, Ratner decided to just make a movie without any sort of excitement or drive.As I watched this film, I never once felt excited about the plot.Why?Because there was nobody getting me excited.The acting in this film was well below par for anything that Hollywood has released.Pierce tries, but just can't seem to capture the essence of the film.There is no little demon inside you rooting for anything.Salma's role was basically for eye-candy.She provided nothing spectacular either.I can literally say the same for Woody and Cheadle as well.Here we have strong actors doing absolutely nothing during the course of about two hours.These characters never drive the plot, they bring nothing but clichés to the table, and by the end we really don't have any true grasp as to whom they are.Honestly, cardboard cutouts could have replaced the actual actors and After the Sunset would have been a better film.There was no depth to the characters, no emotion, no structure, just the simple direction of "step here, say your line, step here, look surprised".It was embarrassing for all that were involved.

I think a major flaw to this film was that Ratner did not fully understand, or was prepared, for the caper genre.From the opening moments until the end of the film, you can tell that Ratner is just trying to use his friends in the industry and show the world that he has some power as well.I say this because I saw no true direction or moment of impressiveness where he defines himself as a director.He reuses the same ideas throughout the entire film, he doesn't give anything strong to his players, and nothing stood out in this movie.Sure, it was a beautiful location, but am I to believe that Salma spend a majority of the film building a deck for them to sit on?Am I to believe that Pierce is still a sex symbol even with a HUGE gut sticking out?Am I to believe that Cheadle is a bad guy/imported American who is at the top of the community?Finally, am I to believe that Pierce could still move as quickly as Ratner defined?I swear that in the final unclimactic moments of this film, I could hear Pierce doing some heavy breathing to get from point A to point B.Maybe he isn't ready for the next Bond role.

So, without a good story, or decent characters, maybe there was some humor in it that could pull us away from the sour sensation cultivating in your mouth.Well, guess who is placed in to do the humor element? Woody Harrelson.Now, I don't mind Woody, but in this role, he just wasn't believable and his humor was so cliché that I had trouble believing that he brought anything to this character.He literally plagiarized his entire role.Teachers, and film viewers of the world, should be very upset with him.Instead of bringing a new twist to his character, he resorted to weird sex humor, skimpy bully humor, and that ever-popular drunken humor while fishing that is sure to make that senile woman in the front burst out with laughter. To me it was pathetic and a worthless attempt to make a joke out of already dead film.

Overall, this was a massive disappointment.Here you had a decent director, some strong players, but the worst story ever written by a man who wrote for a game show.Which piece does not fit?There was this huge sense of apathy throughout this entire film and clichés riddled it that I just couldn't get past.Brosnan had trouble with this film, and I couldn't tell if it was because he just didn't care, or because he was working with such low-talent that his heart just wasn't in it.The ending hurt as well.There was no excitement or intensity, just plain ... "here it is ... like it or not".I personally couldn't digest this film with its poor acting and below-par story.This may be a good film for some that are not familiar with the caper genre, but for me it was just hogwash.

Grade: * out of *****

I Liked It
I liked this movie alot. I watched it twice. I really enjoyed the little twist it had at the end.

AFTER THE BOREDOM! (21/2 ) STARS
Where the hell was the action in this movie! It started off
decent, then went down hill from there. The only thing that
kept me watching this lame script, was Salma Hayek! I gave the
movie 1 1/2 stars, and Salmas body 1 extra diserved star! ... Read more

Description

In the second chapter of the Matrix trilogy, Neo (Keanu Reeves), Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) continue to lead the revolt against the Machine Army. In their quest to save the human race from extinction, they gain greater insight into the construct of The Matrix and Neo's pivotal role in the fate of mankind. ... Read more

Reviews (1449)

Only the third film can make it good
Warning - Spoilers ahead . . .

When I first saw the film, well, I didn't like it too much. It seemed to be over-packed with CGI Fight scenes and a storyline that didn't really mean anything. While Zion is under attack, Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus must find the keymaster to unlock the doors to the mainframe and end the war, thus freeing Zion.

This entire storyline, to me, seemed contrived, making the fight scenes seem meeningless, their overzealous and sometimes long running effects just becoming tiresome.

But, then I got it. Weeks after seeing it, it finally clicked.

They symbolism of these films is much deeper than the average action-movie viewer is usually given. Yes -- the entire "The One-Saves the world" storyline is meaningless, and that's the point. While paying too much attention to events within the computer-generated fantasy world of the Matrix, the real world, and Zion, fall into greater danger.

We are introduced to two 'french' characters, programs, which exist simply to experience life. While they are among the long list of villians in this piece, they are also the key to the story. They describe the situation in as much in the film, seeing our heroes as mere puppets in a meaningless plot, which, in fact, they are.

While are main characters are engaged in a meaningless task, struggling to achieve goal after goal in a virtual world, events of the real world are dire, and, just perhaps, if more attention were paid to the real-world events, perhaps the situation would not be so dire.

It is not until Neo discovers that his existance as 'the one' is simply another level of control set in place by the machines, that the entire struggle within the virtual world of the Matrix has no real meaning, only then does the truth come to light, just in time for this second chapter to come to a close.

Think about it, how many people do you know who obsess on politics, or sports, or their favorite television show, or even the Matrix itself? We engage in meaningless struggles to achieve goals that, in the end, really have no meaning but to feed our own ego.

A very profound statement to be made by an action film, that is, if the third and final installment draws this observation out.

As I see it, the value of this second episode is entirely dependent upon the content of the third chapter, but the potential is much greater than most people give it credit for.

Thank you for your time.

Spectacularly average
"The Matrix" (1999) delivered an engaging mix of Eastern religion, martial arts and digital cool, all wrapped in a story which was as well-written as it was well-told. "Reloaded" gives us more mysticism, though it's less interesting; more fights, though they're less convincing; and more digital trickery, but without a strong narrative to hang it off. The result is a film which feels like a two-hour philosophy lecture you occasionally spice up with a surreptitious burst on your Gameboy. The film's digitized set pieces - Neo's fight with a legion of Agents Smith, and the much-anticipated freeway sequence - are admittedly thrilling, but they try too hard. When will directors realize that the instant characters start looking like Nintendo sprites, the audience completely disengages? There's no spirit in this movie, no heart, and despite the alleged threat to a pretty invulnerable looking Zion, it doesn't feel like anything's really at stake. Neo's climactic meeting with The Architect should have been the film's most compelling moment. The chilling performance from Aussie uber-director Helmut Bakaitis means it almost is, but the dense dialogue and distracting TV screens ensure you'll probably miss the point - ergo, you'll need to see the film again, which guarantees the kind of repeat business on which boxoffice bonanzas are built. But this was never going to be anything but a billion-dollar hit, so I'm surprised the Wachowskis played it so safe. Why stake the film's appeal on some ultimately vacuous and surprisingly transparent digital imagery, when they had the chance to give a captive audience something audaciously original? It's not like they don't have the talent. I went home after seeing this and watched the first film again on DVD - it's so much better it hurts. The strength of the first film and the weakness of the second come down the same thing: the power of the premise. The idea of an illusionary universe and one man's messianic enlightenment is endlessly appealing (and as old as Hinduism). The philosophy of causation, on the other hand, is dense, complex and ultimately paradoxical - and for those reasons terminally boring. That doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring. It just means that the local Cineplex is probably not the best place to have the conversation.

Excellent movie
The fight scenes were great; the graphics were amazing... the dancing was a bit fluffy (is that all they do down there... well, but, hey, what else is there to do?)... worthy of being the Matrix 2 (but, of course, not even close to beating #1).

Say What?
If you disengage your brain you might enjoy Elrond of Rivendale by case attacking Neo in his Priest's get up, but by the time, you are skirting dangerous toward brain burnout! I have watched it several times, thinking maybe it was the mood I was in, but nope. Matrix was a mind-blowing one-trick-pony that just did not stretch into to a second movie well. There are a lot of interesting scenes, but Neo aka up up and away, just brought a giggle out in me. The LONG action sequences make you want to go okay, enough! Less is More is NOT the banner of this movie! After Neo b**** slap's Elrond and his brother Elrond and his other brother Elrond 100 times it just redefines redundant. Then Neo reaching in to pull out the magic bullet...oh, please...sigh...and the religious overtones are so pretensious.

It was good to see Anthony Zerbe a long under rated talent get a nice spot. The effect are good, just overdone ad nauseoum. Elrond take the ship to into the West quickly!

Surpasses Reloaded but falls quite short of the original...
I absolutely loved the original Matrix. I still do. It got me thinking about things I'd never considered all that seriously, such as the potential negative implications of artificial intelligence and ultra-sophisticated technology. I was also drawn to the philosophical issues it raised, and I was motivated to learn more about the ideas presented in the story. For me, no other film has held such strong intellectual appeal. I've watched the DVD an embarrassing number of times. I've never grown tired of it.

When I learned that two more Matrix films were in the works, I was overjoyed. Unfortunately, my joy came to an abrupt halt when I saw Reloaded. I fully admit that my high expectations contributed to my disappointment, but that certainly doesn't account for all of it. Among other things, Reloaded is so top-heavy with bombast and claptrap that I actually stopped caring about the characters and had no further interest in what might happen. I definitely don't enjoy these kinds of feelings.

I wanted so much to like Reloaded that I actually saw it several times hoping I'd missed a crucial element, or that it would grow on me, or *something*. But it continued to leave such a bad taste in my mouth that I had no desire to see Revolutions.

As luck would have it, however, I recently had an opportunity to rent Revolutions for practically nothing -- so out of curiosity, I went for it. I'm glad I did, because it helped redeem the overall trilogy for me, although not as much as I would have liked. The only expectation I brought to Revolutions was that it couldn't possibly be worse than Reloaded. Luckily it isn't, but it still can't touch the original.

One of the other reviewers has mentioned that an indefinable "something" is missing from Revolutions. Well, I can identify at least three things that are absent from this film: a plot, convincing dialog, and decent acting (with one exception, which I'll get to momentarily). I also discovered that Revolutions essentially has no human stars, despite the presence of Reeves, Fishburne, Moss, et al. The only true stars of this film are its special effects.

Granted, the effects are spectacular. The battle for Zion is a feat of CGI splendor -- although I would have appreciated it more had it been shorter. It's almost like the Wachowskis are trying to compensate for the film's shortcomings by clobbering the audience with protracted high-tech eye candy.

I was relieved that there aren't many hand-to-hand (or should I say foot-to-head?) combat scenes in Revolutions. There are only so many ways to kick a bad guy in the face, and I got more than my fill of such things in Reloaded.

Of the fight sequences that *are* in Revolutions, I found the super-duper burly brawl between Smith and Neo -- in the rain, no less -- to be cartoonish and silly. It was almost as bad as the "Trinity crashes through a window and repeatedly shoots at an agent while falling about a million stories toward the pavement" sequence in Reloaded.

Revolutions also continued the nonsensical double-talk so prevalent in Reloaded. I'm sure it's meant to sound profound, but to me, it only sounds foolish. "Why are you here?" "Because I choose to be." "What are you going to do?" "What I need to do." "What's going to happen?" "What's meant to happen." (Where's a wall that I can smash my head into?) Both Reloaded and Revolutions perfected the art of answering questions without answering them.

And what's with all of the endless squabbling in Zion, which started in Reloaded and continues in Revolutions? You'd think that people who have so much at stake would learn to work together more harmoniously and effectively. Instead, they engage sniping, whining, cursing, yelling, tantrums, petty jealousies, and head-butting. This became so tedious that I stopped caring whether or not Zion and its residents would survive.

Be that as it may, I consider Revolutions to be a worthy diversion if taken at face value. Any meaningful philosophical underpinnings vanished for me after the original Matrix. I approached Revolutions with the intent of trying not to think too much and just going wherever it wanted to take me. On that level, I feel it succeeds.

The one character I thoroughly enjoyed throughout all three films is Agent Smith. In Revolutions, I love the way Hugo Weaving pulls out all the stops and chews the scenery with such diabolical glee. In contrast, the other characters are merely boring. In some places, they're boring and irritating.

As other reviewers have noted, Revolutions ends in a way that leaves a back door open for a fourth Matrix film. Well, I have something to say to the Brothers Wachowski about that, starting with some hokey dialog that they, themselves wrote: "Everything that has a beginning has an end." (Naaah...really?) For me, the Matrix ended after the first film. That's where it should have stopped. Please don't make it worse by grinding out a fourth installment. Let it end now.

Meanwhile, since "cookies need love like everything else does," I'll be doing my part. I love cookies. ... Read more

Description

Catch him if you can. The Fugitive is on the run! Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones race through the breathless manhunt movie based on the classic TV series. Ford is prison escapee Dr. Richard Kimble, a Chicago surgeon falsely convicted of killing his wife and determined to prove his innocence by leading his pursuers to the one-armed man who actually committed the crime. Jones (1993 Academy Award and Golden Globe winner as Best Supporting Actor) is Sam Gerard, an unrelenting bloodhound of a U.S. Marshal. They are hunted and hunter. And as directed by Andrew Davis (Under Siege), their nonstop chase has one exhilarating speed: all-out. So catch him if you can. And catch an 11-on-a-scale-of-10 train wreck (yes, the train is real), a plunge down a waterfall, a cat-and-mouse jaunt through a Chicago St. Patrick's Day parade and much more. Better hurry. Kimble doesn't stay in one place very long! ... Read more

Reviews (126)

Fugitive is Dr. Richard Kimball: Go get this movie.
If I were stranded on a desert island and all I could have was my abysmally sparse movie collection, I would make sure "The Fugitive" was in it. Thankfully, it is. This is one of the most entertaining and engaging movies ever, far superior to a lot of movies playing these days. For the few of you who don't know the plot, I'll run it past you without spoiling much...

The story revolves around a Chicago surgeon named Dr. Richard Kimball (Harrison Ford) who is convicted of murdering his wife (Sela Ward). He pleads innocent, claiming that a one-armed man committed the heinous crime (the opening sequence, showing the murder in flashback style, is chillingly realistic). Well, no one believes the good doctor's alibi, and he is sentenced to death. However, after his prison bus crashes into a train, he escapes back to Chicago to find the murderer, while keeping away from US Marshal Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones) and his team of deputies.

Having never seen the old TV series, this movie was nevertheless fantastic. The thrills just keep coming, as well as the tongue-in-cheek humor, courtesy of Tommy Lee Jones and Joe Pantoliano (as Cosmo, Sam's deputy), who really steal the show in a lot of scenes. The screenplay is obviously very sharp. The train-and-bus wreck will take your breath away, as will the waterfall sequence. Aside from these action scenes, it's great that this movie is shot in Chicago, one of the greatest cities in North America. Sorry, personal bias, I loved Chicago when I visited a couple years back. The acting is very well done, and the characters are very three-dimensional. Sometimes it feels like you're watching a modern "Les Miserables". Nice transition from action thriller to action-mystery as the film enters its second half. If you follow the plot, which is fairly easy to keep up with, the ending will shock you. All in all, "The Fugitive" is definitely worth the bang for your hard-earned buck. If you haven't seen this wonderful piece of movie-making, do so ASAP.

Quality-wise, the DVD is pretty good. Director Andrew Davis does a cool little documentary on how the train wreck was filmed.

MOVIE-10/10
DVD EXTRAS-8/10

Ford hits another home run
Ditto what that other reviewer said: this is another great Harrison Ford vehicle. They really DON'T make movies like this any more. It needs not typical DVD additions, not cut scenes, not trailers, or interviews.

Back in the day, Wednesday morning school was dominated by the discussion of the latest episode of "The Fuge" from the night before. This is the only film I can think of which actually did justice to the classic television show from which it sprang.

Tommy Lee Jones is a fantastic U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard. He appears not to be obsessed with the capture of Dr. Kimble (as was his television predecessor, portrayed by Barry Morse). Nonetheless, we get the feeling that he brings the same determination to every case he has. Ford once again is the "everyman" (if a doctor who gets sent to prison for killing his wife and then escapes can be thought of in those terms) who prevails through all manner of adversities. [As an aside, I wonder how well Ford could stretch himself - could he ever be convincing as a real bad guy, like a John Malkovich or Anthony Hopkins?]

This movie has a lot of pluses. It is a great story, updated from one of the sixties' best shows. Sure, there were great stunts. The bus crash/train wreck was stunning (made even more so by seeing Ford almost comically hobbling along, trying to outrun the carnage while wearing leg shackles).

However, it is the competition between the two dogged adversaries Jones and Ford that makes this work. They are one real pair of incredibly strong personalities- (and screen presences) Nothing better than the sequence in the dam early on with Ford protesting his innocence and Jones equally sincere reply "I don't care". Both smart, even though Jones hides his behind a gruff and self-deprecating exterior. The good and decent Doc must be determined (after all, it is his can on the line), but seeing him persevere - hiding his own persona in a hospital, evading the police while tracking down the one armed man is intense, even though we know the outcome.

Great editing; especially when we think the Marshals are getting close to the big bust, and we find out that they are actually making a collar across town.

This one is a winner.

A classic action thriller
What makes "The Fugitive" such a successful and superior film is that it knows what it is: an action/mystery film. It makes no attempt to make itself bigger or more intellectual than it is (as did the American version of "The Vanishing"). Harrison Ford, surprisingly underplaying the role of Dr. Kimball--others might have overworked his grief and angst--turns in a brilliant performance. And the always reliable Tommy Lee Jones does an icy, sparkling job as Kimball's persuer, US Marshal Sam Gerard. So good a performance that he earned a well-deserved Oscar for it.

The other key to the movie's success is Andrew Davis' dazzling direction. He keeps the pace frenetic for a good deal of the film, and the pot is always kept boiling. Close calls and intense chases keep the tension and suspense at fever pitch. "The Fugitive" will endure for a long time as a classic action thriller.

I did not kill my wife
That is well known sentence from this action hit which put an Oscar in hands of Tommy Lee Jones. Somebody killed dr. Richard Kimble's (Ford) wife, but all clues are against him. After all, who can be stupid enough to say that - One arm man did it?! His escape after bus accident will be his second chance to proove his innocents. But, that will be damn hard. Especially because after him is federal marshal who "doesn't care" about anything, except to bring the fugitive back (by any costs). Kimble will discover that he was in strong net made of lies and conspiracy, and that his only way out is to find proofes to clear his name and bring killer in front of justice. Jones supposed to be a good guy, but you'll hate him all the movie (well, it's not his falt, he's just good actor). Harrison is great, older, but still in good shape. Since Indiana Jones, he never has better role than this. You'll be right next to him, trying to solve the puzzle, hoping that he will succeed to find who ruined his life. Excellent story, good locations and ideas. Definetly collection material.

Train Wreck of Action
This is one of the best-crafted action/suspense films I've ever seen. I've viewed this many many times and have been rewarded each time by picking up on different subtle nuances.
Every element of this film works in unison and are what make this a great film and give it the punch that it has. There's the story which is as finely crafted as they get, a cast that couldn't have been any better (and boy do the actors deliver in their performances), tight pacing, great photography, and some unbelievable effects.

This is a modern masterpiece! ... Read more

Reviews (453)

An OK movie for my favorite book
POA was my favorite book of the sieries. but in the movie, i have MANY complaints.

Things that were left out

-cho chang
-how sirius got out of azkaban
-how sirius betrayed lily and james (no mention of fidelius)
-no mention of word secret keeper
-who moony wormtail padfoot and prongs are
-why sirius hates lupin, james, sirius
-why crookshanks was attacking scabbers
-why all of a sudden sirius isn't the bad guy
-why sirius tried to attack ron (oh wait, that never happened)
-that ron and peter pettigrew were in the paper is why sirius broke out of azkaban
-what hogsmeade is
-why there is a tunnel from the whomping willow to the shrieking shack
-connection between the stag patronus and "prongs"
-draco malfoy is the slytherin seeker

things that were changed
-hermione shows up late to everyclass. come on it's HERMIONE.
-the firebolt comes later
-much more interaction between past selves and future selves in time turner sequence. (made harry being his father predictable instead of shocking)
-the patronus was just lame (looked like an atomic bomb or those superballs on dragonballZ)

basically i think the movie was really good as long as i don't think about it being the same as the book.

parts of it were really good. i'm just kind of annoyed that i knew the book too well to really enjoy it. i sppent most of my time going "that never happened" (harry serching for peter pettigrew)

Marvelous Mischief!
I have not read the books yet because I like to be surprised. So I only view the movie on it's own merits.

The third installment was indeed a pleasant one. A new director,Alfonso Cuarón, handled the performances perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe ...Harry Potter is becoming a fine actor and he is great in this movie. He loses his temper with his Aunt and he plays the scene brilliantly.
Gary Oldman ...Sirius Black is always so great that you don't know it is him until the credits.
Rupert Grint ...Ron Weasley is very funny.
Emma Watson ...Hermione Granger has become a fantastic young actress and her character is strong and confident and also caring which makes her a great role model.
Alan Rickman ...Professor Severus Snape, Robbie Coltrane ...Rubeus Hagrid, and the new Dumbledore were superb as well. (I was sad to learn that the original Dumbledore, who was wonderful, has died.)

The visuals of Hogwarts and it's grounds were beautiful and for me the high point was flight of the Hippogriff with Harry. The Hippogriff was an amazing creation.

I reccomend the movie even if you are a total muggle.

Well Done!
I am an avid Harry Potter fan and I have read all the books at least four times each. I think that the "Prisoner" movie was done much better than the first two. To start, it shows how the magic world is changing for Harry and how it will continue to change as the story unfolds throughout the future novels. It's important to point out that the new director has been known in the past to put a dark spin on his interpretations in movies. But I thought that this dark point of view is what is needed at this point in order to show that Harry and co. are no longer children and are entering into more dangerous territory. Although the director did edit some parts of the book that I would have like to see, I think the movie overall does a great job in showcasing the future of the series. I think the actors are really starting to come into their own and showing more depth in their interpretations of the characters. I love to see how comfortable they are with each other in this film and to see how they are growing with these characters. Overall, I think this movie is great and I can't wait to see "Goblet". Although I do agree that "Goblet" should be longer or made into a two part movie because to edit book four too much will ruin the movie and movie goers that don't read the books will be completely lost then.

Some people just don't get it...
One of the joys about the Harry Potter series is that the style of the books matures with the characters. This is finally true with the movies as well. Yes, this is a much darker film than the first 2...so is the book. Yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione act more like real teenagers and less like 1950's television children. There were choices made in this film that were risky, but in my opinion the risk paid off! This is the perfect progression in the films of Harry Potter!

new look to a changing story
I thought the newest Harry Potter movie was VERY WELL DONE. A new look for an ever changing story line. Why would anyone want to watch a movie thats done exactly like the first two? Change it up a bit and keep the audiance wondering how their favorite books are going to be brought to screen. It doesnt hurt to have many peoples different views bring a great book to screen in another way then the first two. As long as the story gets told, isnt that all that matters? ... Read more

Amazon.com

The greatest trilogy in film history, presented in the most ambitious sets in DVD history, comes to a grand conclusion with the extended edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.Not only is the third and final installment of Peter Jackson's adaptation of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien the longest of the three, but a full 50 minutes of new material pushes the running time to a whopping 4 hours and 10 minutes.The new scenes are welcome, and the bonus features maintain the high bar set by the first two films, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.

What's New?
One of the scenes cut from the theatrical release but included here, the resolution of the Saruman storyline, generated a lot of publicity when the movie opened, as actor Christopher Lee complained in the press about losing his only appearance.It's an excellent scene, one Jackson calls "pure Tolkien," and provides better context for Pippin to find the wizard's palantir in the water, but it's not critical to the film.In fact, "valuable but not critical" might sum up the ROTK extended edition.It's evident that Jackson made the right cuts for the theatrical run, but the extra material provides depth and ties up a number of loose ends, and for those sorry to see the trilogy end (and who isn't?) it's a welcome chance to spend another hour in Middle-earth. Some choice moments are Gandalf's (Ian McKellen) confrontation with the Witch King (we find out what happened to the wizard's staff), the chilling Mouth of Sauron at the gates of Mordor, and Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) being mistaken for Orc soldiers.We get to see more of Éowyn (Miranda Otto), both with Aragorn and on the battlefield, even fighting the hideously deformed Orc lieutenant, Gothmog. We also see her in one of the most anticipated new scenes, the Houses of Healing after the battle of the Pelennor Fields.It doesn't present Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) as a savior as the book did, but it shows the initial meeting between Éowyn and Faramir (David Wenham), a relationship that received only a meaningful glance in the theatrical cut.

If you want to completely immerse yourself in Peter Jackson's marvelous and massive achievement, only the extended edition will do.

And for those who complained, no, there are no new endings, not even the scouring of the Shire, which many fans were hoping to see.Nor is there a scene of Denethor (John Noble) with the palantir, which would have better explained both his foresight and his madness.As Jackson notes, when cuts are made, the secondary characters are the first to go, so there is a new scene of Aragorn finding the palantir in Denethor's robes.Another big difference is Aragorn's confrontation with the King of the Dead.In the theatrical version, we didn't know whether the King had accepted Aragorn's offer when the pirate ships pulled into the harbor; here Jackson assumes that viewers have already experienced that tension, and instead has the army of the dead join the battle in an earlier scene (an extended cameo for Jackson). One can debate which is more effective, but that's why the film is available in both versions.If you feel like watching the relatively shorter version you saw in the theaters, you can.If you want to completely immerse yourself in Peter Jackson's marvelous and massive achievement, only the extended edition will do.

How Are the Bonus Features?
To complete the experience, The Return of the King provides the same sprawling set of features as the previous extended editions: four commentary tracks, sharp picture and thrilling sound, and two discs of excellent documentary material far superior to the recycled material in the theatrical edition.Those who have listened to the seven hours of commentary for the first two extended editions may wonder if they need to hear more, but there was no commentary for the earlier ROTK DVD, so it's still entertaining to hear him break down the film (he says the beacon scene is one of his favorites), discuss differences from the book, point out cameos, and poke fun at himself and the extended-edition concept ("So this is the complete full strangulation, never seen before, here exclusively on DVD!"). The documentaries (some lasting 30 minutes or longer) are of their usual outstanding quality, and there's a riveting storyboard/animatic sequence of the climactic scene, which includes a one-on-one battle between Aragorn and Sauron.

One DVD Set to Rule Them All
Peter Jackson's trilogy has set the standard for fantasy films by adapting the Holy Grail of fantasy stories with a combination of fidelity to the original source and his own vision, supplemented by outstanding writing, near-perfect casting, glorious special effects, and evocative New Zealand locales.The extended editions without exception have set the standard for the DVD medium by providing a richer film experience that pulls the three films together and further embraces Tolkien's world, a reference-quality home theater experience, and generous, intelligent, and engrossing bonus features.--David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Latest Details On ROTK: Extended Edition
Not sure why there's such a vacuum of information available here on ROTK- the platinum extended edition release.

Its no secret that Peter Jackson has finished the version - and that it contains a whopping 65 minutes of additional footage that was cut from the theatrical version, putting the final movie at four hours and ten minutes. Awesome!

Apparently there was some rumor that New Line Cinema was going to cheap out on the special effects for the extended release version - and go with a cut-rate American outfit instead of the New Zealand firm they've worked with on the prior two films - but this was just that - a rumor, as far as I've been able to obtain.

New Scenes from the book to appear in the extended release version include the following: Confrontation with Saruman at Isengaard in which the Palantir is acquired (tossed out tower by Wormtongue), Parley with the Mouth of Sauron outside the Black Gates, Merry pledging his swoord and allegiance to Theoden, Sam and Frodo, disguised in Orc garb, marching with (and then escaping from) Orc Troop in Mordor, Eowyn and Faramir meet in the Houses of Healing in Gondor, and finally, a scene in which Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron in the Palantir.

All in all, good stuff. The only liberty it sounds Jackson has taken with the material is that Saruman is killed in the confrontation at Isengaard - falls to his death from the tower - rather than simply cast from the order, stripped of his power and humiliated by Gandolph, as the book. We can certainly live with that, can't we?

The KING of the Entire Trilogy
I loved "The Return of the King" in the theater. I thought it felt much different than the previous films, with more humor, more story, and definitely more battle sequences. Some people might wonder why I gave the film 4 stars. Well, it's because I didn't enjoy the ending. After the Mount Doom sequence, I think the film gets pretty boring. But, it is a great movie.

In this Extended Edition, we will see the death of Saruman, which was covered up in the theatrical release with a few cheesy lines from Gandalf and Treebeard. We will also see a pledge scene from Merry to King Theoden. There are many other extended sequences, including a song from Arwen (which makes the White Tree of Gondor grow), a new Palantir sequence where Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron, and a Houses of Healing scene revealing the romantic backstory between Faramir and Eowyn.

Another scene that will be added is the confrontation at the Black Gate between the Mouth of Sauron (played by Bruce Spence) and our heroes. Also, an awesome battle sequence between Gandalf and the Witch King will be added and the death of Gamling on Pelennor Fields will be able to be viewed, along with a scene where Frodo and Sam (disguised as orcs) escape a column of orcs marching to Cirith Ungol on their final leg of the journey to Mordor (this is the stupid "Where There's a Whip" scene in the Rankin/Bass "Return of the King").

As for the special features, Peter Jackson will proabably include his usual documentaries, the commentaries by all of the cast members, a few pre-viz and photo galleries, along with a special easter egg of an MTV "Lord of the Ring" spoof (as he has done before with "The Council of Elrond" parody with Jack Black and the MTV Awards Gollum acceptance speech).

All in all, this Extended Edition of "The Return of the King" will be a great way to end the Special Edition series. I look forward to watching it.

An amazing cinematic accomplishment
I think these films have done an EXCELLENT job of capturing the essence of Tolkien's writings. Once I read the Silmarillion I was completely drawn in. Vividly imaginitive and truly epic story-telling. The films stay true to these themes even with the changes done in the story! I really don't mind them. The Extended DVDs are a must for any fan of Tolkien! I'm anxious to get the third one! For me the Return of the King is THE best film ever made.

Best of the BEST!
The entire LOTR Trilogy is out of this world!! Return of the King is definitely the BEST of the BEST!!!!!!!!!! I have read the books hundreds of times and I waited for the movies with great anticipation! Peter Jackson and everyone involved with LOTR did extremely well. Return of the King proves, without a doubt, that the best can only keep getting better!

awesome feat of wonder
These films are incredible. I feared the worst (I couldn't imagine how anyone could make these books into film without totally screwing it up, but Peter Jackson and his team did it and did it superbly). I've read the books about 5 or 6 times + the appendices (one has to read the appendices to appreciate the films) + the Silmarillion. Yes Jackson did indeed deviate from the film at different points, but frankly, to do a film that perfectly follows such a long and detailed story would have made for some incredibly long boring film stretches. In other words, what works in a novel doesn't always translate well in film (i.e. Stephen King's "The Stand" Great book, lousy movie). Different form of story telling. Jackson and crew did a tremendous job in staying true to the basic story and if certain characters are missing (like Tom Bombadill)it's because they weren't central to the tale. I noticed the changes, but I wasn't offended by them. I am amazed. Have purchased both extended versions of FOTR and TT. I wait with anticipation for ROTK extended edition (when will it be out? Tell them to hurry). ... Read more

Description

Australia's breathtaking Victoria Alps set the backdrop for this spectacular epic saga. Tom Burlinson and Sigrid Thornton, two of Australia's brightest film talents, star in a fast-paced, action-packed story of a stormy romance caught up in a violent feud between landowners. Acclaimed actor Brian Dennehy (LEGAL EAGLES, COCOON) gives a gripping performance as the powerful patriarch determined to keep them apart. Visually unforgettable and packed with rugged adventure and masterful stuntwork, RETURN TO SNOWY RIVER is a thrilling and memorable film! ... Read more

Reviews (34)

The Man from Snowy River is Back!
The man from Snowy River is back! After a few years trying to earn money to marry Jessica Harrison (Sigrid Thornton), Jim Craig (Tom Burlinson) returns to Snowy River. But he finds that a lot of things have changed. The succesful ranchers and bankers want to buy up all of the land of the beautiful Australian mountains where he was brought up. He also finds that Jessica's father, Harrison (Brian Dennehy) wants her to marry Alistair Patton (Nicholas Eadie), son of landowner Patton Sr. (Rhys McConnochie). With a sort of silent feud between the landowners and the mountain men going on, Jim and Jessica must decide if they're love is worth firing up the feud even worse.

As most of the cases, I prefer the first movie to "Return to Snowy River" though I think they both deserve 5 stars. One of the reasons is I enjoy the first one more is that Kirk Douglas played Harrison in the first movie. Yes, Brian Dennehy was superb in that role, I still like Kirk Douglas.

All right, to the fine parts of the movie. Beautiful and magnificent scenery of the Australian mountains! Excellent acting by all actors and actresses, the suspense, action, and adventure will keep you on the edge of your seats! And Tom Burlinson sure know how to ride when he performs some pretty cool stunts while riding horses. Especially the earlier part of the movie where he proves that he can certainly ride better than Nicholas Eadie who plays the part of the jealous bad guy for Jessica's affection.

I recommend this movie along with the first movie, "The Man from Snowy River". These movies are classics and one of the family movies I watch at home. Can't be missed!

The Man from Snowy River is Back!
The man from Snowy River is back! After a few years trying to earn money to marry Jessica Harrison (Sigrid Thornton), Jim Craig (Tom Burlinson) returns to Snowy River. But he finds that a lot of things have changed. The succesful ranchers and bankers want to buy up all of the land of the beautiful Australian mountains where he was brought up. He also finds that Jessica's father, Harrison (Brian Dennehy) wants her to marry Alistair Patton (Nicholas Eadie), son of landowner Patton Sr. (Rhys McConnochie). With a sort of silent feud between the landowners and the mountain men going on, Jim and Jessica must decide if they're love is worth firing up the feud even worse.

As most of the cases, I prefer the first movie to "Return to Snowy River" though I think they both deserve 5 stars. One of the reasons is I enjoy the first one more is that Kirk Douglas played Harrison in the first movie. Yes, Brian Dennehy was superb in that role, I still like Kirk Douglas.

All right, to the fine parts of the movie. Beautiful and magnificent scenery of the Australian mountains! Excellent acting by all actors and actresses, the suspense, action, and adventure will keep you on the edge of your seats! And Tom Burlinson sure know how to ride when he performs some pretty cool stunts while riding horses. Especially the earlier part of the movie where he proves that he can certainly ride better than Nicholas Eadie who plays the part of the jealous bad guy for Jessica's affection.

I recommend this movie along with the first movie, "The Man from Snowy River". These movies are classics and one of the family movies I watch at home. Can't be missed!

The Snowy River Movies are awesome!!
I've seen both 'The Man From Snowy River' and 'Return to Snowy River' and loved them both. They are wholesome movies to watch with a lot of action, but not violent. Whenever we had sleepovers these were the movies to watch. I definetly recommend watching 'The Man from Snowy River' first though. The scenery is beautiful, the cast is great, Kirk Douglas playing double roles is always good. The story line, and if you love horses this is a movie for you. It's a movie for all ages and both guys and girls. It's not a total 'chick flick' or a 'guys' movie.

Return to Snowy River
THis move WAS very exciting BUT it was also a terrible one as at least ONE horse was REALLY killed in the filming. They tripped the little buckskin horse and he did not survive his tumble down the hill!

A Letdown
Like many sequels, it disappoints. Tom Burlinson and Sigrid Thornton did nice work as the lovers Jim Craig and Jessica Harrison. Brian Dennehy stepped ably into the shoes of Kirk Douglas as Harrison. The scenery is glorious and the action and riding quite cool. Notable was Jim Craig's unique demonstration around the skill at arms course after meeting his new rival.

So, what is the problem? It simply lacked the movie magic and spark and, perhaps, storyteller's art which made the "The Man from Snowy River" a success. I have watched "The Man from Snowy River" many times over many years, and still love it. I have watched "Return to Snowy River" perhaps twice. ... Read more

Description

Only the combined superpowers of Earth's greatest heroes can stop the unthinkable dangers that jeopardize humanity in these 16 episodes from the beloved animated TV series. Superman, Batman and Robin, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Zan and Jayna battle villains from the darkest regions of outer space to the depths of the ocean in their fight for justice. They face extraordinary perils at the core of the Earth and defy the laws of nature to shrink to microscopic size to defeat a radioactive monster. Even Dracula returns from the grave to challenge the Super Friends to a showdown! And with this exciting release that boasts cool extras, you can join the Super Friends for the ultimate victory celebration! Super Friends - Volume Two includes the following bonus features:

The Wonderful World of The Wonder Twins: featurette on the sensational space-born Wonder Twins
Pajama-Rama SuperFriends Retrospective with Kevin Smith and guests, celebrate loveable goofiness and good times that is "The Super Friends" ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Keep 'em coming!
So glad to see Superfriends brought to life on DVD. This was hands down my favorite Saturday morning cartoon. Volume 2 delivers the lesser seen 1977-78 season of episodes that were excellent. The animation was really starting to develop here. The best are Battle of the Gods, Batman: Dead or Alive, Terror From the Phantom Zone and Attack of the Vampire. The latter being a prequel to Superfriends Meet Frankenstein (one of the all time best episodes where the 3 Superfriends are combined into one monster and Robin finally gets to save the day as a true superhero).The worst episode in this set is definitely the Anti-Matter Monster which is more of a who-dunnit from a Scooby-Doo episode than the Superfriends saving the world.

There is also a humorous retrospective from 30-something "celebrities" which is worth a watch.

I wish they had done more to enhance the sound and picture, but I'll take this collection over the VHS ebay hacks that we've had to endure until now. This is a must buy for all Superfriends enthusiasts. Looking forward to the next season!

A bit of a letdown...
The Super Friends were riding high after just coming off of the incredible "Challenge of the Super Friends" series, which success was arguably lent to the presence of the Legion of Doom. So to build on this success, what did they do? Raise the Hall of Doom? No. Have a select few of the most amazing villains ever (Black Manta, Sinestro and Cheetah) battle the Justice League? Nope. What they did was scrap all the known and beloved villains! No more Lex Luthor, no more Scarecrow, not even The Toyman. Instead we get lame...er new baddies such a Dracula, robot cowboys and a big green thing that likes to hold Superman.

I know everyone hates them, but I feel a special place in my heart for the Wonder Twins and Gleek. They had that cool sounding intro to their powers and Zan could only be water-based objects. Trust me, if we had never of had the Wonder Twins, then we could never have been given that awesome episode of Harvey Birdman where we see Wonder Woman bathing with Zan as the bath water!

DC = Donnie and marie Clones!Someone, please kill me.
Wonder Twin powers ACTIVATE!

Shape of an out of chronological order DVD set!Form of borderline litigious crosses between Donnie and Marie and Vulcans joined by that popular trope that ruined many a Hanna Barbera cartoon in the 1970s and 1980s, the oft-nonsensical (oftener still-animal) sidekick (see: Fonzie's dog on the Happy Days time travel cartoon, the pig drill sergeant on Laverne and Shirley, Baby Plas on Plastic man, Son on Captain Caveman and Son, "the dangerous not to cities, just himself" Godzookie on Godzilla, and the anti-Christ: Scrappy-Doo) this time being Gleek, a blue monkey.

Yes, coming from the same period that saw the Fantastic Four trade in the Human Torch for H.E.R.B.I.E. (they were afraid kids would set themselves on fire, but replicating the piling on of rocks that turned Benjy Grimm into The Thing was perfectly fine) and predated those half hour commercials for products that would dominate the mid-late part of the 1980s (My Little Pony, Potato Head Kids, Care Bears, Transformers, Rainbow Brite.You played with them.Rep-ra-ZENT!) the latest installment of the HB releases of The Superfriends cartoon.

Is it good for nostalgia?Yeah, sure.It's just far enough on this side of "sane" that you aren't like the forty-something virgin denizens of comics shops who ditched their jobs to wait in line for Episode III (Gee, d'ya think he really turns into Vader at the end?)The animation isn't as bad as, say, the Filmation stuff from the late 1960s or the mid late1970s superherowise, but still, of all the periods of the cartoon, this was my least favorite.

Why the Marvin and Wendy period is being avoided like a hand grenade with Herpes, I have no idea.This is the same company that has yet to touch any of its late 1950s/early 1960s cartoons like Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound and/or Quickdraw McGraw.Who knows?

Signed,
epsteinsmutha

A Blast from the Past
Get ready to experience again all the feel-good fun of the classic animated comic book series with "Super Friends: Volume Two". Within the Hall of Justice, the galaxy's greatest superheroes have assembled to defend the planet Earth from the forces of evil. In their latest series of adventures, the Super Friends will face gigantic monsters, hostile invaders, space pirates and much more. "Super Friends" was an early adaptation of the popular DC Comics' characters that premiered on ABC in 1973 and was later featured in a number of revivals. Produced by the creative team of William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, the 1978 incarnation featured the adventures of the DC Comics' heroes along with two shape-shifting superheroes in training battling dangerous villains and stopping terrible disasters. Though the stories, characters and animation are often campy and pretty straightforward, this Saturday morning series still delivers some worthy amusement.

"Super Friends: Volume Two" is well recommended for any comic book fan who started watching television in the Seventies and Eighties. All 16 episodes are presented in standard full screen format. This 2-disc DVD has a simple but well defined video transfer and a pleasant 2.0 Dolby Digital sound. Its supplemental features include the short "Pajama-Rama: Super Friends Retrospective" featurette and "The Ballad of Zan & Jayna" music video. Despite the lack of good extras, "Super Friends" earns a decent "C".

I loved Superfriends as a Child!
I have Challenge of The Superfriends,now I have to get this and Superman:The Animated Series,and Wonder Woman,the Complete Third season. I loved watching Superfriends as a child,it was my favorite shows,I also loved Wonder Woman's invisable jet. ... Read more

Amazon.com

You get two hostage crises for the price of one in Hostage, an overwrought but otherwise involving thriller grounded by Bruce Willis's solid lead performance. Making a dramatic pit-stop on his way to Die Hard 4, Willis plays a traumatized former Los Angeles hostage negotiator, now working as a nearly-divorced police chief in sleepy Ventura County, California. Willis suddenly finds himself amidst two potentially deadly stand-offs when a trio of hapless teenagers seize hostages in the fortress-like home of an accountant (Kevin Pollack) whose connections to organized crime result in Willis struggling to rescue his estranged wife and daughter, who are being held hostage by faceless thugs at an undisclosed location. Having directed two of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell video games, director Florent Siri brings plenty of slick, competent filmmaking to Willis's desperate dilemma, and the film boasts a gritty, graphic style that draws attention away from implausible plot twists. The bothersome, over-the-top performances by the teenaged villains also slightly compromise this gloomy but emotionally gripping adaptation of Robert Crais's novel, named as one of Amazon.com's best books of 2001. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (25)

WORST OF WILLIS
I DID NOT HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR THAT MOVIE.BUT AT LEAST IT IS A WILLIS MOVIE I SAID TO MYSELF.IT WAS MUCH LOWER THAN EXPECTED.THE THEME WAS INTRIGUING BUT THE SCRIPT IS HORRIBLE.YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO IS WHO.THERE ARE THOSE VILLAINS YOU DO NOT KNOW TO WHICH ORGANISATION BELONGS,A PYSCHO KID WHO STARS ALL AND OVERWHELMINGLY TAKE CARE OF ALL PROFESSIONAL KILLERS.A FATHER IN A LETHAL CONDITION WHO GETS WELL MY A MAGIC!! INJECTION.A KID WHO KNOWS ALL SECRET PASSAGES OF A RATHER COMPLICATED BUILDING.
ALOT OF SOUND AND VISUAL EFFECTS HAS BEEN USED TO COVER THE SHAME BUT UNNECESARLY HEAD BLOWING.AND THE STORY END WITH A LOT OF LOOSE ENDS.
SORRY MR.WILLIS BUT THIS IS YOUR WORST MOVIE EVER.MY SECOND WORST AFTER K.COSTNER'S POSTMAN.

WILLIS IS GREAT!!!
devistated by a hostage situation which resulted in the deaths of a young mother and her child, LAPD negotiator jeff talley (willis) exits los angeles for a low profile job as chief of police in the low-crime town of bristo camino in ventura county.
when three delinquent teenagers follow a family home intending to steal their car, they inadvertantly pick the wrong house on the wrong day. the trio find themselves trapped in a multi-million dollar compound on the outskirts of town owned by an accountant. panicked, the teenagers take the family hostage, placing tally in exactly the kind of situation he never wanted to face again. soon after, talley readily hands authority of the hostage situation over to the ventura county sheriffs department and leaves the scene. after it becomes clear that the sheriffs department cannot handle the crisis, talley is forced to resume the command he had abandoned where the stakes quickley evolve into a hostage situation far more volitile and terrifying than anything he could ever imagine.
based on the novel by robert crais.

Wait for the Video
Hostage begins with Bruce Willis as a LAPD hostage negotiator, and not a very good one at that. In the opening sequence, Jeff Talley (Willis) waves off a SWAT sniper from killing a would-be assassin, while raising a sign stating, "No one dies today". Well someone forgot to inform the killer, because moments later the killer, the killer's wife and kid were all dead. Oooops......

Flash forward one year later. Talley is now the chief of police in the hick town of Bristo Camino, CA. He is separated form his wife, but they still meet for weekends. He has issues with his teenage daughter. Talley's life to this point really sucks. But wait there's more.

Three high-school dropout stoners are casing possible car jack-able vehicles, when one of them recognizes a fellow student riding with her family in an Escalade. Bingo! The three punks follow their prize home, only to have the silent alarm on the house tripped, while they're in the middle of their heist. This in turn, sets up another hostage situation. (Did we have any doubts?)

Talley, however, after reporting to the scene of the crime upon receiving reports of an officer being down; turns jurisdiction over to the state authorities. Only after Talley receives a phone call for one of the hostage victims, and has his family kidnapped; does he return to the scene of the crime to negotiate for the victim's freedom.

In a completely unrelated storyline, Kevin Pollack (the hostage family's father) is an accountant for some underworld organization (i.e. drug lords, dirty cops, etc.). Who these people are is never revealed to the audience. However, he has encrypted the entire underworld banking information onto a "Heaven Can Wait" disc, which is located within the confines of the house. The house which is now surrounded by cops, television camera, etc. Talley's family has been kidnapped by the underworld villains in order to motivate Talley (Willis) to retrieve this banking disc from the house; without anyone else finding out.

There are several loose ends in this film that are foreshadowed, but never come into play. For example, the movie makes a point to introduce two "Heaven Can Wait" DVD boxes; however, neither comes into play. Talley negotiates to keep $1 million dollars of the accountant's money for himself; again, it doesn't come into play. Lastly, who is this villainous group seeking the banking disc? With the way the film ended, doesn't anyone fear that they might be back?

Anyways, this is definitely a film worth waiting for. I bought this movie on a disc with four others, all for the low, low price of $5. So I really can't complain all that much.

http://farisreel.com

Waste of time!!!!
OK, this movie is just terrible.In my opinion movies can get away with a lot. if they are great action movies then they dont need a great plot to be good movies, and vice versa.If they are suspense movies they dont need amazing special effects or ground breaking science fiction.But what a slow moving suspense "thriller' needs is content!!!Be very clear, this not an action movie, maybe for about 15 minutes at the end, but for 1 hour and 45 minutes this is suppose to be a plot based thriller, a situational drama.

I am not going to go into a recap of the movie(thats why this is a "review" and not a "recap").The main villians in the movies have no background given on them whatsoever, ni fact you dont even know who the agency controlling all the moves is EVER!!!Who is the kid thats controling everything inside the hostage situation?I wish I could tell you, but all I can say is he's some messed up punk kid, but what normal person kidnaps a total stranger, so of course hes really messed up.The movie does nothing to establish a reason that anything in the movie happen, except that the "voice on the other end of the phone" says so.

This movie tried to tackle too much. You get two hostage situations in the plot, but never really know anything about either one of them. The result is that you are left with two stories that you have no idea what or why anything happened in either one of them.Although I have not read the book, I am sure, like so often happens with book movies, the background required to really get into the movie was cut out to save time, BAD MOVE!!!

The other beef I had with this movie was the whole Virgin Mary thing with the young girl in the movie.I mean it was a little, and when I say a little I mean way, over the top.I hate when artsy directors throw things into a movie that have nothing to do with the plot or story, but just want to show their pseudo-creativity.

Not just good ~~~~ GREAT!
Not going to relate the whole movie for you but will simply say that if you like action and Bruce Willis you better see this FOR SURE!
Best performance by Willis that I've seen yet, guy really can act which I hadn't seen to this degree before.
Kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Something like a perfect artistic union is achieved in the major components of Paris, Texas:the twang of Ry Cooder's guitar, the lonely light of Robbie Muller's camera, the craggy landscape of Harry Dean Stanton's face. In his greatest role, longtime character actor Stanton plays a man brought back to his old life after wandering in the desert (or somewhere) for four years. He has a 7-year-old son to get to know, and his wife has gone missing. The material is much in the wanderlust spirit of director Wim Wenders, working from a script by Sam Shepard and L.M. Kit Carson. If the long climactic conversation between Stanton and Nastassja Kinski renders the movie uneven and slightly inscrutable, it's hard to think of a more fitting ending--and besides, the achingly empty American spaces stick longer in the memory than the dialogue. Winner of the top prize at the 1984 Cannes Film Festival. --Robert Horton ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Paris, Texas
I truely hope this wonderful film is released on DVD soon. If it's been released by the time you read this review however, please disregard that first line.

The script for Paris, Texas was written by playwrite and actor Sam Shepard. Shepard has written numerous plays (and the Book Cruising Paradise) including True West and The Burried Child, both of which won numerous awards and put The Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago on the map.

Paris, Texas is the simple story that begins with a man who's been found wandering in the desert for what could have been years. He cannot speak and seems unwilling to communicate. He is brought back to his brother's home in LA, where his seven year old son is now living. Father and son hesitantly become reaquainted with each other and the memories of thieir past together. And as they do so, the man begins speaking again. They grow closer and eventually decide to find the boy's mother.

Directed by the visionary Wim Wenders and scored by the brilliant slide guitarist Ry Cooder, the film is both subtle and beautiful. Scenes and shots are drawn out and realistic. Do not expect anything cliche, formulated or predictable. Essentially, do not expect a "Hollywood" film. Unfortunatley, with todays media pace, you will have to watch the film with some patience. This is not a crtiticism however. It is a large component of why the film is so warm and almost haunting.