Reviews (117)

Surprising! Amazing! Better then what I thought it would be.
I normally don't write reviews. Mainly because I don't watch enough movies and such to consider myself someone who has enough knowledge to be able to write them. This time it's different though. This time I had to put my one penny worth of information in.

I was walking around a video store, not to long ago, trying to decide what to get myself with my not so hard earned Christmas money. I saw this nice little box seat of DVD's entitled "Felicity." I looked over it and, to be honest, I wasn't very impressed. I started to sit it back on the shelf when the manager of the store came by and smiled. "Ah, Felicity..." he said to me. "My family and I have spent many hours watching that show. It's one of the best family show's I've ever seen. Highly recommended. Just be warned, the first season, the one your holding in your hand, is the best season. It all goes downhill from there on." Thanking the man I bought the DVD set just to satisfy my curiosity. I had known Keri from my younger Mickey Mouse Club Days and figured at the least I could see how she has matured as an actress over time. Besides, if I happened to not like it I could always sell it.

When I got home and popped that first DVD into my DVD player. That folks was all it took. I ended up watching dang near 4 hours worth of episodes (that's right around 4 of the 22) and my viewing habits of it didn't decrease either. Within a week I had finished viewing the series and I was uetterly amazed at how engrossed I had become in it.

To start with, the characters are VERY realistic and the situations that happen are EXTREMELY realistic. It's about college life, and perhaps one of the best shows that I've ever seen that has ever truly represented what college life can be like. Though it does contain a love story (quite a love triangle actually), the story unfolds step by step nicely and in a very even flow and you never feel like things are being rushed or are happening just to act as a filler. Every episode brings out more character and advances the major plot lines.

The viewing quality for the most part is excellent as is the sound. There was one episode, I believe, that was a little dark, but that didn't bother me in the least little bit

Overall, I give this two thumbs up and an easy five. Many great hours of family viewing with this one and many life lessons to learn from it as well.

All I can say is, I'm looking forward to season two should it ever arrive.

Is it worth it? We'll soon find out...
Where to begin... I started really watching Felicity during the 2nd season, and to be quite honest, the two things that had me crying of frustration and despair during the show were the Buffy-Ben-Noel triangle that never got sorted out, Felicity's phrase "hey", and Ben's favorite insult "di**". But other than this, you've got a fun cast, fun storylines, and diverse characters. For some, it'll be a chance to relive the first year, for others, like me, a chance to find out how it all began. Now, if onlt i could know when it's coming out...
Despite being cancelled by the WB, the show was good, and only suffered because of the way it was split unevenly over the year for its'last 2 seasons. Luckily for the fans, many good souvenirs remain (Javier, Meghan, Richard!).
So, as soon as Felicity starts coming out on DVD, those tapes I've got stashed a bit everywhere are gonna vanish to be replaced with a nice slim box set containing 6 discs, 22 eps and hopefully some nice extras!
A must for fans, and also if you want to get invested in the complex lives of these characters for 60 hours worth of airtime.

How I miss the series!
I love the series and relly do miss it... this dvd collection is a great look back and I have watched it several times!

The Amazing Felicity
Okay, so I never went away to college. I went locally and bunked with the parents. When this show came out in '98 my sister, who did go away to college, told me about it. I was skeptical, thinking that I could and would never enjoy a show that I couldn't possibly relate to or understand. I was wrong. I started watching around episode 7. I was totally hooked. The characters were amazing and the scripts so well written. The acting was flawless. Every Sunday my sister and I would have a date with the TV. I don't think I missed a single episode. But, I was thoroughly bummed when the show ended. (Although, I thought that if they had continued it would be hard to pull off.)
I LOVE that I now can own all the shows and have them forever. I can watch them over and over again. I have a daughter who is three, and I can't wait to watch them all with her someday.
For some reason this show has touched me to the core. I am not sure why, but it has and does. It's worth every penny and hour spent watching.

Wonderful College Years Relived on DVD
I just finished watching my dvd set of season one and it just made me remember how compelled I was to watch this show every week when it debuted in the fall of 98. It was my third year in university and I identified so much with felicity and her longing for someone she wanted so bad. Not having seen the show since the first season years ago, I forgot how much I loved Keri Russell and all the drama surrounding her neuroticism and the ongoing Ben - Noel fiasco. The first season really almost could stand on it's own without continuing the story into the following seasons. Though the season ending cliffhanger means I have to buy season 2 so I can find out how felicity's college years continued to play out. Even though the show ran for only four years, it was a rather appropriate run for a show set in college. Anything more and it would have been a bit contrived. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The second season of Dawson's Creek finds Dawson (James Van Der Beek) and Joey (Katie Holmes) exploring the newest phase of their lifelong friendship, leaving Jen (Michelle Williams) and Pacey (Joshua Jackson) on the outside.The former enters a downward spiral assisted by bad girl Abby (Monica Keena), but Pacey happens into a "meet cute" with one of Capeside's new residents, the impossibly perky Andie (Meredith Monroe), who turns out to be his perfect foil. The Creek also struck gold with its second major addition, Andie's brother Jack (Kerr Smith), who shows Joey that he's more than just a clumsy waiter.With the siblings' help, Pacey and Joey show the most personal growth during the season's 22 episodes.The constant parent-child crises can be a bit much, but there were numerous other developments, including a two-part sexual whodunnit, Dawson embarking on his second movie (assisted by Rachael Leigh Cook in a sizzling guest appearance), Dawson's birthday party from hell, a vicious rumor that spreads through the high school, and the emotion-wringing finale.

The only bonus feature is a commentary track on the first and last episodes just as with the first season, though executive producer Paul Stupin is by himself rather than accompanied by creator Kevin Williamson.The interplay is missed, but Stupin enthusiastically offers a lot of information about how the cast had become celebrities by the second season and had to juggle other projects, and random details and trivia.Stupin mentions how carefully he selected different pieces of music, which "would become forever part of our show."That's ironic because for this DVD set Stupin himself picked a lot of new music to replace the selections that originally aired, presumably because of the cost involved in securing the rights (a problem for many television DVD releases).A couple of episodes are unaltered, but others have had almost every song replaced.Newcomers to the series probably won't notice, but serious fans may want not want to tape over their VHS cassettes just yet.--David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (85)

BUY IT!!
I have been a "Creek Freak" since the beginning of the show. I love the season one DVD, althought I was disappointed with the exclusion of an extras, except for two commentaries. I feel the same way about the season two DVD. With all the publicity DC got, seems like there should be more extras. I was also disturbed that the majority of the music has been changed. I could understand some changes, but some songs in key moments of the show where changed (like Heather Nova's beautiful song PAPERCUP & Billie Myers KISS THE RAIN) Some changes where even made to the songs that came right from the Dawson's Creek Sountrack CD. I know that the producers chose to change the songs to try to keep the price point of the DVD as low as possible, but since fans are the ones buying the DVD, seems like they should've included the original content of the show, even if it was going to cost a little more. Die hard fans will surely be a little disappointed by it, but it is nice to have the entire season on DVD. Being from NC (where DC was filmed) I really enjoy remembering the characters and how life was during the time the show aired. I plan on buying more DC DVDs, but I just hope that not too many changes will be made to future releases.

The season which made the show a TV hit!
Fortunately, every single fan of Dawson's Creek can now own the complete second season. This is one of the most important seasons of the show, which made it popular everywhere in the world. On second season, we are introduced to Jack and Andie McPhee, we see Dawson and Joey together, in classical moments, and we watch Jen become more mature and reveal the black sheep side of her.

I think that second season represents a relevant step to Dawson's Creek. By this time, the show starts to deal with serious issues, such as Jack's sexuality and Andie's illness. Also, Abby Morgan leaves the show, in a tragic accident. We can't forget the classic kiss of Joey and Dawson in the rain ("Crossroads" episode), as well as Dawson and Andie performance during a regretable 16th birthday ("Be careful what you wish for" episode). The second season finale ("Parental Discretion Advised" episode) is great and very touching. I really appreciate the dialogues and the fact that Joey had to took part of her father's prision, for dealing with drugs again.

I hope third season is released soon, because I can't wait to watch the whole episodes again! DC forever!

Big disappointment
Dawsons creek has to be one of my all time favorite TV shows, and season 2 was probably my favourite. With that in mind I cannot begin to tell you how awful this set is. What is wrong with you WB? Have you no respect for the fans of the show? No pride in what you put on the shelves? These sets are intended as keepsakes for people to remember the show.
The picture quality is almost as bad as the first season, but the real thing which is going to make me return this dvd is the replaced music. What WB or whoever made the changes obviously does not understand is that the music was a very very important part of the show, and scenes and episodes are connected to certain songs for all the fans. Well not with this DVD.

Why can't Dawsons Creek get the same respect and treatment on DVD that shows like Buffy, or Smallville, or countless other shows get on DVD? Raise the price $10 or $20 - fans will pay it if you make it worthwhile - which its currently is not.

I'm not going to purchase any more seasons of dawson creek until they stop with the cheap crap they are putting out and release a proper DVD set.

Just Love Dawson's Creek!!!
Wow, this is a wonderful season. I only began watching Dawson's Creek in its last few seasons and I am watching these episodes on DVD for the first time. I must say that Season 2 is unbelievably funny and addicting as chocolate. I must have watched 1 dvd a sitting!!! This is as great season, and I'm hoping that Season 3 will be as entertaining and enjoyable as well.

Spectacular
This show is truely remarkable!!! There will never been a drama like it, it was engaging, fresh, exiting, new, and amazing. The acting is truely superb. In comparison to some of the resent shows on TV they are all mere copies of this breathtaking show. I can't say enough about Dawson's Creek.. it's just that good. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

¿Winds of War¿ Is A Good Historical Yarn
As historical miniseries go, the "Winds of War" and its sequel, "War and Remembrance" add up to one of the most ambitious made-for-TV productions of all time. (A confession here: It's me Mum's favorite video series.) It follows Herman Wouk's two massive tomes which put the reader at the center of Worlds War Two, through the vehicle of Captain Victor 'Pug' Henry and his family. Victor and his wife take tea with Hitler, meet Stalin and Churchill, and share martinis with Roosevelt. Son Byron ("Bry") Henry manages to get stranded in Poland during the 1939 German invasion, and Pugs other son, Warren, joins the navy. Daughter Rhoda goes into the radio business in 1940s New York, the center of the universe. Pug's daughter -in-law Natalie Jastrow, a Jew, is imperiled in fascist Europe.

"Winds of War" is the more interesting of the two books and mini-series, since it covers the odd time from just before the start of the war in Europe in 1939, and ends at Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Wouk uses American's neutrality (while Roosevelt positions for America's entry into war) to allow his characters to travel to Britain and Russia,, and to get Pug Henry assigned as military attache to Berlin.

Most of the script is faithful to Wouk's book, and the movie is heavily stocked with first-tier actors. Robert Mitchum is an excellent, authoritative elder-statesmanlike Pug Henry in "Winds of War", even though he becomes more of a walking statue in "War and Remembrance", unable to visibly change facial expressions. Lisa Eilbacher does officer's wife Madeline Henry to the nines, enjoying the status of being high in the ratings' list while casting nets elsewhere. Jan Michael Vincent, staple of many 1970s miniseries, does OK as a the black-sheep Bry. Of the main characters in "Winds of War", only Ali McGraw is problematic. Fortunately, the producers replaced McGraw in the sequel with the leaner, more serious Jane Seymour, which avoided unthinkable scenes of McGraw ("But Bry-an!') wallowing about in a death camp. Ralph Bellamy's Roosevelt ius unmatched anywhere.

This is a first class, high quality production, and well recommended. Despite its scope, it avoids major distortions of history and is, best of all, fun to watch.

Recommendations: Herman Wouk's novels, "Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance"
Olivia Manning's WW2 novels, "The Balkan Trilogy" and "the Levant Trilogy", and if you can find it on tape, the British miniseries "Fortunes of War."

Rember When...
This mini-series has many problems: Mitchum is far too old for the part of Pug Henry, plus his romance with Pamela Tudsbury (ineptly played by Victoria Tennant) is not credible. And, the character of Natalie Henry remains problematic: Although supposedly a fiesty go-getter, she makes one foolish decision after another, so many that it becomes difficult to sympathize with her.

But the recastings are all improvements over "The Winds of War": John Gielgud, Robert Morley, Jane Seymour (without whom the project would have foundered), and even Hart Bochner are welcome upgrades. And pros Polly Bergen, Jeremy Kemp, Topol, and David Duke successfully reprise their roles from the first entry.

And give director Dan Curtis credit: No one before or since has presented a narrative with this kind of force and sweep. Moreover, he presents the inner workings of the Third Reich fairly convincingly. Ultimately, these attributes overcomes problems of characterization and script. I have to admit that I watch it once a year, and it always holds my interest. (This review covers Part 2 as well.)

We Are Walking, We Are Walking...
If you sat through Winds of War, then you must sit through this
production. Several of the leads have been replaced, for the better. True, Mitchum shows his age, but for me, he IS Pug, no matter what. The Henry family struggles on through the early days of WW2, in almost constant upheaval. This doesn't paint war as a glorious battlefield, nor does it wallow in angst. The story is being told and carries you along, because you have learned to care for the Henrys'.

Amazing
This boxed set version of War and Remembrance is amazing! After seeing the whole thing on VHS, I'm amazed at the DVD quality in comparison. Was very happy with my purchase. The cast is strong all around.

The single best account of the war mingled with romance
The account of WWII is excellent and the acting is at its finest. Who could ask for more when u look at the entire cast...it's no wonder this series, done in the late 80s holds up so well. After viewing the entire program, it honestly stayed with me for many days. In fact, I will probably recall scenes from this film for the rest of my life, especially the reenactment of the concentration camps and the transferring of the jews to the camps. I am pleased that the director/producer decided to continue Winds of War with this account--I think it will be viewed in years to come as a notable and important account of world history. ... Read more

Reviews (332)

Open Mind Folks!
We have been watching this movie in our eighth grade English class, as well as reading the play Romeo and Juliet, as well as meeting with our Shakespearean expert who just happens to work at our school to act out scenes. Not only that, but we have also been studying the Shakespeare's time period. That being said, let me also say that Shakespeare was not this serious man who didn't understand comedy. In fact it was quite the opposite. True, Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy but is a comedy as well. That's how most of his works are. An example of this is how he would cast men as women. Just the sight of this would bring laughs from the audience. With all that understood, the movie Romeo and Juliet is a great adaptation.
We have only watched the first 30 minutes, and I might add more to this review once we finish it, or when I get the DVD, whichever comes first! But I loved the newscaster as the chorus. What a creative touch. As for the swords or guns controversy, this is set in modern times. Who uses swords in our day? But to keep the Old English was smart. After all, what is Romeo and Juliet without Old English? It would not be the same. I mean, the famous Queen Mab's speech in anything but Old English? Hard to imagine. And te contrast between Old English and modern times was a very interesting one. And even if it was written in today's language, it would be too much like West Side Story. They wanted to stick to the roots of Romeo and Juliet. Also for all those people who criticized Mercutio for being a drag queen, he is not a drag queen or a transvestite. Well what can I say? This is the modern version. The performance given by Leonardo DiCaprio is great, he speaks Old English like he's spoken it his entire life. However Juliet, I don't quite agree with. I don't think she brought her best to this film. The acting isn't the best and she looks quite bland compared to Romeo, who is quite handsome, and I don't really understand the whole Cuban thing with Juliet's family.
All in all, a great film, one that must be seen with an open mind, otherwise don't even bother to watch it at all. It was filmed to show today's fourteen year old's that yes, Shakespeare lived in the 1600's and true, Romeo and Juliet takes place in the 1400's but it has a universal message of love, one that can still be understood today, even if it is 2004.

My Favorite Flic
Hi, to whoever's reading this, thanks for taking the time to see what I have to say. I won't say that this was one of the most brilliant movies ever, even though I think so, cause that's my opinion. If you have not seen it yet, you should watch it. Shakespeare is my favorite writer and also one of the most awesome, influential people in the entire history of man. He's able to capture you in two hours and not let you go. Romeo and Juliet is a passionate, beautifully written love story that takes in the kind of love everyone dreams about. I must admit that I rented the movie at first for two reasons: because I was a huge fan of Shakespeare and had read the story hundreds of times already, and also because of well...Leonardo DiCaprio. (He is pretty hot, you have to admit). Anyways, to all those who hated this movie, open your mind! The performances were not perfect I know, but who is perfect anyway? They all put forth their best effort. In the end, it became a popular, amazing movie that's great for couples to watch together!

It Almost Worked for me, but...
Read kerki and Eric's review. I won't be redundant and say the same things, because I agree wholeheartedly. Visually, this was quite stunning..beautiful. The outlandish, as they say "MTV" look was good, kinky, modern. If they would have dropped the accents and brought Shakespeare's words into today's vernacular, I probably would have given it 5 stars. The new story idea was that good. The cast was delicious, as were the sets. It's really too bad. With just the one change to modern English, this could have become a cult classic. As stands now, I'll just keep watching Zeferrelli's version forever. Now, that's Shakespeare.

I don't think Shakespeare's rolling in his grave, but...
Maybe my viewing experience of this film was tainted when, while seeing it in the theatre, one of the 13 year old girls sitting in the row in front of me turned to the other and said, "is Leo going to talk link this THE WHOLE TIME?".

For a Shakespeare purist (as I am myself), the problem is not the modernization of the setting and the use of the language in that setting (I personally love it), but it's the absolutle murder of the language by the majority of the cast that makes my skin crawl. This movie, in terms of the execution of the script, does a disservice in getting kids hooked on the poetry of Shakespeare's writing.

However, I will admit that visually it's great. The setting is apt. Mercutio is amazing. But, teachers, I would think twice about showing this version to your class.

The Best movie ever
This movie is awesome Leonardo DiCaprio is the best Romeo yet ... Read more

Reviews (87)

'Yo Adrian!
I LOVE THE ROCKY MOVIES!!! my god my god my god. they are totally awesome. the first is amazing because it details the beginning of Rocky Balboa's(Stallone) career & relationship w/Adrian(Talia Shire)..that fight against Apollo is one of the best boxing matches & is widely recognized. Follow your love for this movie onto Rocky II where Apollo Creed has a rematch w/the hero Rocky. in Rocky III, Mr. T fights Rocky.. Rocky & Apollo are best friends now & Rocky is really rising(hits the big bucks) meanwhile Adrian & he are still together. she's a very loyal wife. in part IV, Rocky heads off to Russia to fight Ivan Drago(Dolph Lundgren)..this is another gr8 fight..totally & completely nail-biting. & in Rocky V, well Rocky's had many downs in his life/career right now.. audiences find Rocky managing an ambitious youngster & having father-son issues..i suppose what makes these movies one of my faves & one of those well-loved movies is: it demonstrates how a common guy can have a dream,fulfill it, rise up in his career & life, then suddenly fall because of a stupid mistake..the important thing is to realize who is w/him throughout all this time. Rocky's a very courageous, down-to-earth type character. combined w/gr8 fighting sequences & renowned music themes, the ROCKY movies are immediate take-home Blockbuster material. Why are you wasting time reading this?? Buy the movies!!! the DVD is gr8! complete w/awesome features. well hope ya like it!

ROCK-Y! ROCK-Y! ROCK-Y! ROCK-Y! ROCK-Y! ROCK-Y!
So many people have written about the things that make the Rocky movies so successful, and I have no doubt that I'll be repeating some of them in my review. But I have to throw my hat in the ring anyway, so to speak.

Rocky Balboa certainly qualifies as one of the most unique and determined heroes in cinema. His story is truly an inspiraton to us all. In the first movie, of course, he starts out with basically nothing, gets a chance to fight Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers), and loses. In the second movie, he wins the heavyweight title from Creed in a rematch. By the third movie, Rocky is basking in the glow of his success; he and Adrienne now have a son. But Clubber Lang (Mr. T) has been making his way to the top as well, and he challenges Rocky to a match. Rocky trains hard and tries his best, but his concerns about his manager Mickey's (Burgess Meredith) health make it difficult to concentrate, giving Lang the advantage...and Rocky's title. With encouragement from Adrienne and his former rival Apollo Creed, who takes over as manager after Mickey's death, Rocky rediscovers his Eye of the Tiger in the rematch and puts Lang in his place.

In the fourth movie, Apollo is killed in battle by Russian champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). In one of the most intense boxing matches of the entire series, Rocky finds the "chink" in the Russian's seemingly impenetrable armor. It's worth getting the fourth movie just for that match.

But, by the time of the fifth and final movie, things are quite a bit different. (As I'm writing this, I've just finished watching the fifth one for the very first time.) Not only do Rocky and his family find out that they're broke, but Rocky seems to be suffering from brain damage as a result of his fight with Drago. He becomes a manager for a new young fighter, Tommy Gunn (upsetting his son quite a bit), who allows his ego to cloud his judgement, thus luring himself into the sleazy side of the boxing business. When Tommy gets a shot at the heavyweight title, the audience is already in a bad mood because Rocky isn't there on stage with him. But when Tommy takes the title in just over three rounds, the audience is REALLY in a bad mood; at least Rocky had class.

Rocky and Tommy end up resolving their differences in a street fight, and for several agonizing minutes it looks like it could be the end...but Rocky has the spirit of Mickey with him, and for the fourth time, the Italian Stallion wins, proving that he's still a champion and always will be, even after fifteen years.

Whenever I watch these movies I can still feel the excitement of seeing them for the first time. When the odds are stacked against him, even in the face of several brushes with death (Tommy Gunn makes Ivan Drago and Clubber Lang look like pussycats somtimes), he still manages to triumph.

I love you, Rock...you the man!

Awsome Series
I luv all 5 Rocky movies. It was by far one of the best series I have ever seen; along with all Star Track, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings!!! I just finished watching them all this 4th of July weekend when and most of them I watched twice!!! It was an all day Rocky Fest on AMC. I watched them with my girls and they loved it just as much as I did. The movies had a moral to every storyline althrough sometimes repeating itself...It was still good. It was just like I saw it for the first time. I luved it!!

WOW!
I-5 stars-an underdog story
II-5 stars-the rematch
III-5 stars-he gets soft then he gets mad
IV-5 stars-do you believe in miracles?stupid soviets
V-3 stars-it wasnt that good
it teaches you to beileve and never give up-its about heart
once i saw them i got some boxing gloves and started beating up
my best friends.
and i dont get what u yankees and people dont like about #IV,
its better than #V and just as good as the other ones.
dont like my review? say it to my face!

His Entire Life Was A Million To One Shot
American classics only come along once in awhile. Films like Star Wars, The Godfather, and The Terminator are among many. Sometimes you say to yourself, "If that movie never existed, it would have a real effect on culture today." And you're quite right. Star Wars brought us immortal lines like "Luke, I AM your father." and "May the force be with you." The Godfather brought the American fascination with the mafia to life. Just think, No Godfather, No Sopranos. And The Terminator established Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron's careers as well as the "technology gone wrong" and "I'm from the future" genres. Yes, films like these have believe it or not had an effect on everyone. And who can forget the world's sporting people. Everyone who participates in sports has to train hard and balance their personal lives with their professional lives. When I played basketball in high school, I had to. And we all need something to motivate us. To drive us. And being a film fanatic, I got my inspiration from a movie. That movie Was Rocky. Sylvester Stallone's masterwork series that showed us the stages of a man's life through his sport of boxing. From his one shot that put him on the map (Part 1), to his rematch that won him a world title (Part 2), to a rise and settlement, loss, and redemption (Part 3), to a burning vengeance (Part 4), to a retirement, betrayal, and final fight(Part 5). This series shows us that you can be the poorest, dumbest guy in the country, and become a legend just by taking your one chance. Now these movies are on DVD in a beautifully crafted boxed set. Now you can enjoy one man's journey from zero to hero anytime with a great DVD transfer and good special features on the first disc only (didn't understand that one.). This movie can change your life. Now, I recommend the first Rocky over them all because it's very realistic and humanistic. I recommend Rocky 2 as a good sequel with a shocking conclusion. Rocky 3 was the best sequel not only because of the performances of Hulk Hogan and the talented Mr. T, but because it shows how fame can cloud your mind and how putting bitter rivalries and materials behind to regain your drive can help you overcome. Rocky 4 was my least favorite not only for a far fetched storyline and that damned robot, but because it lost it's humanism to go for the revenge plot.Plus it was Stallone's blatant "let's end the Cold War" peace offering. It was saved by good performances, a great fight sequence, a cool villianous contender, and good 80's music. It also screws up the timeline of the story a bit. Rocky 5 regained the humanism and returned Rocky and Adrian back to their roots and it was good because it was different. Rocky had one fight, and it was one hell a fight- on the street. Plus it showed how quick trusting someone else in the fighting game can destroy you. These movies are all good but if you have to see any of them I rank them 1,3,2,5,4. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Season one of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman captures the popular television series at its most charming and original: a gently feminist, 19th-century Western with mythic overtones, a Gunsmoke-like vision of small-town constancy, and an audacious love story that might best be described as Buckskin Bronte. British actress Jane Seymour scrubbed away her accent to play Michaela Quinn, fifth daughter of a well-to-do Boston physician who encouraged her to get a medical degree despite social obstacles.

The headstrong Quinn moves to rough-and-tumble Colorado Springs to set up a practice, faces stiff resistance from the locals, witnesses the brutality of white America's expansionism, and generally experiences a classic Western transformation from privilege to pioneering. Along the way, Quinn makes a heartfelt connection with the mysterious Sully (Joe Lando), a laconic outsider/cowboy-knight-errant/widower preserving his broken heart. While the series' pilot may be the best thing in this set, there is a lot to enjoy about further episodes (with such guest stars as Johnny Cash and Robert Culp) exploring Quinn's hard-won admiration from town skeptics. Dr. Quinn creator Beth Sullivan admirably balances the many influences and narrative forces at work; some of the best shows are idea-driven, such as "Portraits," which deals with prejudice. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Dr Quinn Medicine Woman
I just love it. I have already received the first season on DVD, and I love watching it. The quality is wonderful. I really hope that they release the other five seasons. I finally have my favorite show on DVD.

Timeless Show
What a terrific show! I was very disappointed when CBS cancelled this series but I am grateful A&E saw the value in putting the shows on DVD. Jane Seymour and Joe Lando are terrific together. The romance is wonderfully entertaining without being smutty. The ensemble cast work so well together. Each character has his/her own quirks that make you love them all. I highly recommend this series. It doesn't lose it's charm the longer it's off the air, but instead, it only gets better. Popping in a Dr. Quinn DVD is a wonderful vacation from all the garbage that is on television these days. Well worth the money! I can't wait to get Season 2. Hurrah!

Wonderful show
I never watched this show when it aired on TV, so I took a chance on this DVD set. Being a fan of Little House on the Prairie, I figured it had to be similar. All I can say is that I adore this show and have already purchased Seasons 2 and 3 and will continue to purchase the sets as they are released. It is a nice show about families, love, and independence. I have been very pleased with this set as well. I've noticed a little bit of choppiness with scene transition, but overall, very good. I highly recommend!

One of the finest shows ever....
Dr. Quinn is one of the finest shows ever produced. For six seasons, this show took us back to the period just after the end of the Civil War when the West was still wild, beautiful and dangerous. Jane Seymour is unforgettable as Dr. Michaela Quinn who leaves Boston high society to begin a medical practice in Colorado Springs. The history of medicine unravels before our eyes, along with the history of the West, the injustices carried out against Native Americans, the birth of the railroad, etc. Dr. Quinn also tells one of the greatest love stories ever written for television. The chemistry between Jane Seymour and Joe Lando was truly amazing.

There was good reason for the uproar unleashed when CBS canceled this show before its time was done. It was a terrible mistake in judgment. It is a decision that continues to haunt the President of CBS, Leslie Moonves, who recently admitted that he still receives (more than 7 years after Dr. Quinn's cancellation) over 100 protest letters and e-mails a month.

If you have never seen this show -- watch it now (commericial-free!!!) and enjoy one hell of a ride.

I forgot how much I loved this show!
I haven`t seen Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman since it was on TV years ago, but I suddenly had a desire to watch it again. I`m so glad I ordered the DVDs! ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Love & Tumult in 1968 Paris
Once past the excessive, graphic nudity, or perhaps because of it, Bertolucci fashions a jarring glimpse of three fascinating young people against the backdrop of the 1968 French General Strike, which nearly toppled the government. For the three principals, hedonism, narcissism, and intoxication seem to dominate against what appear as lightly held political beliefs - socialism, love, compassion, tolerance. For example, siblings Theo and Isabelle sleep together naked, their sculpted bodies entwined. The All-American Matthew (well played by Michael Pitt) comes upon them sleeping nude (and slowly grows to love them), gathering some deeper yet perplexing knowledge. This learning process for Matthew weaves its way throughout the film: a likable youth from San Diego doing his best to slip into the idiosyncratic lives of these very French '60s eccentrics and their almost invisible, '60s uptight parents.

Bertolucci abruptly intercuts continuously with memorable past film scenes: for example, Garbo's soulful eyes laughing at Gilbert's insipid love from "Queen Christina." There are many of these lovely, thoughtful old film scenes that weld the humanity of these three characters to that of past lovers and haters. I found myself virtually loathing the insouciance of Theo and Isabelle, their adolescent adoration of things kitsch, such as Delacroix's 'Liberty Leading the People" with Liberty's face that of Marilyn Monroe. All this while exchanging drunk, violent words over politics, cinema and ragout when true fighters faced the formidable barricades in the streets of Paris.

But this is a film, I think, that one must settle into. Much of the first half appears about nothing much, perhaps a light titillating comedy. Slowly, we understand it is not that at all. The nudity, arguments, sex, politics, brilliant film cuts, and memorable period scoring give satisfaction to those of us 'lucky' enough to have lived through that tumultuous time. Perhaps younger, less authoritarian generations will view it with more intuition than we boomers. One of the director's realized intentions was to impart with his typical lyricism an inner realization of why love, even silly vacuous sex, is so much preferable to war (the General Strike and Vietnam, here). The ending is doubly startling. But by then, the parts have become the whole, the trivial vital. The significant beauty of this film lies in the director's wise, consummate vision. Well worth seeing. (For an amazingly contrasting view of the same period, see "Fog of War").

An Incisive Criticism of the '60s and Hypocrisy
The Dreamers is a new, primarily English-language film from the Italian king of cinematic controversy, Bernardo Bertolucci. If you've seen his past works, including 1900 and Last Tango in Paris, they provide a fairly clear idea of what to expect in this NC-17 foray into 1960's youth culture in France. The film is an extended analysis, really, of radicalism and some of the hypocrisies seemingly inherent in it. It forces us to confront the question of what truly is revolutionary, or conservative for that matter. The film answers that question in a way many of us will find unexpected.

Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American student spending time abroad in France. He takes in the student protests with wide eyes, gazing in awe at the pure passion igniting these young people. Though the period is the '60s, Matthew still reflects the tucked-in conservatism of a decade past, wearing a jacket and tie almost as a shield from the craziness surrounding him. He soon meets two French siblings, Isabelle and Theo (Eva Green and Louis Garrel), both of whom are full of the revolutionary spirit. They are new and therefore attractive to Matthew, who shares a mutual love of movies with both. Not long after, he moves into the home of his two new friends, whose parents have gone away on an extended trip.

Now is the time audience members may begin to squirm. In between quoting movies to one another and acting out favorite scenes, Matthew begins to notice an unnaturally clingy relationship exists between Isa and Theo--they sleep and bathe together, and play sexually-laced games that often leave one in some state of undress. But this quasi-incest has a strange effect on Matthew, as slowly, the jacket and tie disappear, he begins to walk around barely dressed, and he starts to take part in the sex games, at first begrudgingly and then yearningly.

But as intoxicated as Matthew becomes with the lifestyle, he also is disturbed when Isa confides in him that she's never been on a date before. Harboring some genuine feelings for the young beauty, Matthew tries to lead her away from a life entirely dependent upon Theo and toward one of independence. In this way, the film draws a very interesting parallel. It really is conservatism--a resistance to change--that is keeping so-called radicals Isa and Theo in their exclusive relationship. The young innocent, Matthew, has become the revolutionary in trying to shatter what has become the comfortable tradition.

The film boasts three good, but not great performances. With stronger leading work, a good film could possibly have reached the next level. Gilbert Adair's screenplay, based on his own novel, is wonderfully subtle in weaving its critique of the radical movement, but is in fact so subtle that in some ways the film feels "small." Nevertheless, the film raises probing questions, particularly in the last scene, as a throng of protesters march down a street, all chanting in unison, not a single one distinguishable from the next. It begs the old question, "If a group of anarchists organize an anarchists' meeting, are they really anarchists anymore?"

Finally, credit must be heaped upon Fox Searchlight for not yielding to any suggestion that Bertolucci's vision be compromised by editing the film to achieve an R rating. Even without such censorship, it is disturbing enough that film footage of bare genitals and some sex is considered more damaging by the MPAA than, for example, the wholesale slaughter of recent horror offerings. In any case, when going to see The Dreamers, leave any prudish tendencies (or family members) at home.

Final Grade: B

Bold, brave and inquisitive
Bertolucci displays with this unnecessarily controversial movie more bravery than many other directors half his age. Anyone who is young should see it to observe the contradictions that youth's idealism brings upon the three protagonists. Anyone who is older should watch it to remember the bravery of times gone by, to remember a time when many of us still believed protests could change the world and to acknowledge the validity of both youth's panache and experience's fountain of knowledge.

Not all said up front
There are alot of things that are underneath the serface of this film. You might have to watch the film more than once to get it all. Things that have to obtained from the time and the charecters themselves.(I will not ruin them for you finding them is half the fun) The film is not one that you watch when you are bored with your buddys it is a film that takes all your attention to actually get it.The film ends with no changes in the people only an experience that changed their lives but could not change who they were nomatter how much they tried. I hate movies that charecters change because of an experience this movie seems real in that aspect because the people dont change. It is a little overthe top in certain aspects but it makes you think and is an enjoyable experience.

dreamy
Beautiful, disturbing, erotic, political, comic, thrilling, and thoroughly immersing. One of the most satisfying cinematic experiences I've had in a long time. Not to be missed! Much thanks to Bertolucci, who continues to make exquisite and exciting films! ... Read more

Description

Is Duvinder guilty? Or is he innocent? Share the tension and the excitement as the jury decides.

John Maher (Billy Scott) lay dead in the grass, the victim of 28 well-placed stab wounds. A stolen sword coated in blood lands near the 15-year-old schoolboy's body. It's clearly a case of unrestrained vengeance. John's Sikh schoolmate, Duvinder Singh (Sonnell Dadral), hated him. Hated him enough to commit murder. A horrendous, premeditated murder in cold blood. Or so we're told.

We're also told this gentle, intelligent boy is incapable of killing. He's innocent. Chilling suspense fills "The Jury" as the highly publicized trial pits Sikh and Anglo communities against each other. Logic against intuition. Pride against shame. The jurors must decide what side they're on - both inside the courtroom, and outside.

Award-winning actor Sir Derek Jacobi (Gosford Park; Gladiator; I, Claudius) stars as George Cording QC (queen's council). As Duvinder's lawyer, he must convince the jury of the young boy's innocence in the face of compelling evidence that suggests otherwise. Cording knows his only hope is to confront the evidence head on and expose a scathing case of prejudice. His powers of persuasion have never been sharper.

Gerald Lewis QC (esteemed actor Sir Antony Sher, Shakespeare in Love, Alive & Kicking, Superman II) can be arrogant-he's entitled. After all, his witness saw blood on the accused's shirt. His witness saw an agitated Duvinder running away. His witness found the body. An impassioned relating of the events will certainly bring the guilty verdict Lewis demands. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

A Brilliant Masterpiece
I thoroughly enjoyed this work because it is focuses not just on the trial but on the personel lives of the jury members. I was glued to the screen the entire time that this show was on and I bought the DVD as soon as I could. If you haven't seen this fascinating work, you have been missing out. Don't hesitate to pick up this video and watch it. You won't be disapointed!

STELLAR JOB OF IT
I must admit it (sadly) - I am not exactly the biggest fan of OPB, and never before had I watched their weekly showings of Exxon Mobil (that how you spell it?) Masterpiece Theatre. A TV Guide description of The Jury got my curiosity...and I watched it.
For joy! I was BLOWN away. This magnanimous, superb, top-notch mini-series will forever be rendered as stellar. The actors and actresses are wonderful, fully playing the part they were meant to. The jury is composed of separate individuals, all with their own casualties (perhaps not so much different from our own world!). I was waiting expectantly for the next week's episode, and fully satisfied. The case is plausible (not some silly idiotic case that the viewer can instantly solve) and has interesting refutes. I was captivated. Anyone who has an ounce of intellect, a joy for drama, and a passion for the courtroom will be drawn in just as I have.
You will be apalled at the injustice and discrimination that is displayed in the film. You will quite possibly yell at the tv, while at the same time you're waiting for the next episode. I suppose that many who wath this will turn their backs on it, but I for one, loved it.
Enjoy!

The British do it again! A great mini-series!
What a powerful piece of drama! Incredible, powerhouse acting and brilliant writing--loaded with subtext. It's impossible to speak too highly of this 6-episode dramatic mini-series.

This story focuses on seven of the jurors chosen to serve on an especially grisly murder trial (a Sikh teenager is accused of slaying a classmate with a ceremonial sword). These jurors are a mix of people, some are eager to serve (a woman in an emotionally stifling marriage; a single mom who is estranged from her mother, but who must ask her mother to care for her daughter while she serves on the jury; a lonely older woman with inoperable cancer; a married man whose powerful sense of civic duty is more than matched by a nagging sense of underachievement); some are reluctant (a seminary student who is unsure whether he wants to continue on his path to the priesthood; a recovering alcoholic just out of rehab; a married man who lost all his family's savings due to a bad business venture he was talked). The story, like the trial it revolves around, is a study of mixed motives, changes of heart, and living with fear. In the process of revealing each characters personal daily struggles we discover just how much of the human experience is comprised of learning to endure and deal with violence. In this drama we see the defendant and witnesses badgered by clever lawyers, friends manipulated by friends, and boundary-violating in-laws prying confidential information out of their son-in-law who is serving as a juror. Even the alcoholic's AA sponsor has a touch of the autocrat about him. And the young woman who has fled to jury duty as a way of creating an adventure for herself ends up using her womanly charms to manipulate a man into falling in love with her (even though she is fully aware that she is not free or capable of taking on a romantic relationship with him). I defy anyone to watch this compelling drama without questioning their own propensity to abuse power. We are all capable of being bullies. It's just a matter of circumstances and opportunity. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Excellent Film
I understand people have different opinions on movies, but to say this movie is 'dull' is beyond belief! I can only asume the people saying this are religious and find the movie offensive...or hate the French (American's mostly), hate reading subtitles cause they cannot read very well, or just don't understand the film and prefer Die Hard 3! All fair enough. But if you love a good erotic, mysterious, dark adventure you can't go past this movie. I adored it. Finally something intelligent. Now if you are going to anaylse it ie: how did an Indian learn kung fu etc, you need to take a breath and get a life. 'Oh, but it's a silly fable' etc. Well let me remind you, man-kind read a wee book written a long time ago that said a 'man' walked on water and we all fell for that like a tonne of bricks! Isn't THAT 'far fetched' and silly? Yet I'm refering to the bible!!

Getting back to the main topic, Brotherhood of the Wolf is an intelligent fantasy film with everything you need to love this film. The layers of the movie make it a highly enjoyable watch, and of course Mark Dacascos is brilliant yet again. * Did you know that Vincent Cassel, who plays the sly brother, is married to the beautiful Monica Belluci and they are expecting their first child! Just thought you should know that. Monica plays the mysterious sexy [woman]whore.

Nice Try, But....
Sherlock Holmes type mystery set in France during the late 18th century: a French Version of Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskerville" so to speak. Imaginative but far fetched plot that ends up being rather disappointing in the end.

The acting holds water and the characters are given depth. The main character's Indian sidekick seems a little too P.C. for my taste: a common habit in propaganda these days that achieves nothing and limits the artistic quality of a movie. The fight sequences also take away from the mood of the story with the computerized "Matrix" style flying roundhouse kicks, etc.

Although the monster of the story builds suspense and mystery which keeps the audience intrigued, the ending is almost anticlimactic by virtue of being too surreal and unbelievable: the monster should have remained a supernatural beast. The idea of the Church being against the crown during that period is equally laughable: making it seem as if the writer of the film hasn't done his history as to pre-revolutionary France.

Entertaining to watch once or every once in a while but I wouldn't buy it. For that style of movie, I would recommend watching Tim Burtons's version of "Sleepy Hollow" instead.

Bloody and boring-save your time and $$
Kind of the DaVinci Code meets James Fenimore Cooper meets the Hound of the Baskervilles. Set in early 18th century France, the only things it has going for it other than a physically attractive cast in cool costumes is great scenery and beautiful architecture. Starts out with all these frightened, dirty, ugly peasants and that's about where it ends also. In between we have an Anerican Indian who is a better martial artist than Jackie Chan (I know they came over on the land bridge and all that but its a few centuries too soon if you know what I mean), the Catholic church and the royalty as villians and more bright red blood than a Mel Gibson flick. So after watching it for way too long my question is this-Why would a virile adult male pick some milk toast virgin to moon over instead of choosing a hot blooded Italian beauty with the bedrooom skills of a courtesean, the posioning skills of Lucretia Borgia and who is a better fighter than he too boot? Oh well, I only watched it to see Jeremie Renier (La Promesse) as an adult and I am happy to report he has matured very prettily.

Not your standard fare
This is an exceptional movie. I've read some of the other reviews and I don't get it. They must have seen a different movie than I did. If you are expecting a hollywood thriller you will be disappointed. The movie has more than one plot twist. The characters are engaging. There are subplots or themes that underlay the main story which makes for much richer story telling. This is one smart and beautifully filmed movie. The scenery and colors jump out at you. It is in French unless you play the dubbed version and that will throw some people off. Excellant movie and a credit to the genre. We need more of these. If only hollywood would take notes.

The hidden meaning of The Brotherhood of the Wolf.
There are two movies going on in this film. One plot is the one you actually see. The other is the theme of hidden messages that most people will not get. If you get them then you will enjoy the movie much more. This is a Templar movie where the Beast being pursued symbolizes the Demonic world that takes over the world by using the face of religion--Roman Catholic Church. There is a secret brotherhood trying to thwart those who speak against the church have become self-serving.To punish the heretics a member uses a trained Lion costumed in armor to kill those who will not submit to his Holy Roman beliefs. The King hires Mon. Chevalier; the main protagonist -- a Naturalist, Illustrator, Warrior, and the Christ figure/hero. His best friend or blood-brother; an Iroquois named Mani--symbolizes man in general and his spiritual connection to nature or earth itself. The female protagonist characters that the Naturalist; Monsieur Chevalier falls for represent the pagan/ritual whore, and the pure virginal royal line ripe for childbearing and legacy building. The wolves represent the lambs. They are victimized by being blamed by the secret brotherhood for all the killing going on. So, they are hunted down and killed. There is a saying, beware of wolves dressed in sheeps clothing. In this film the wolves are dressed as sheep. And, evil men are blaming them for the problems their fanatic beliefs have given rise too. ... Read more

Description

An epic in the spirit of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, this widely acclaimed motion picture is a meticulous recreation of the turbulent era of Jesus and the events that changed the course of history! Narrated by Golden Globe nominee Christopher Plummer (Best Supporting Actor, AMERICAN TRAGEDY, 2000), it’s the bold and powerful story of Jesus as told by his disciple John. The best-loved but least understood of the gospels, John presents a uniquely human portrait of courage and passion encompassing Jesus' entire three-year ministry, the final years of his life. Intimate and reflective, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN offers an unparalleled opportunity to experience the incomparable life and times of Jesus Christ. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Very Graceful Storytelling.
I have watched both the 3 hour version and the 2 hour version and have found both to be very accurate in their presentation of the Gospel of John.I think the film will along with the free 'Jesus' film being distributed by Billy Graham are good tools in presenting the message of the Gospel.My middle son who has dyslexia and finds it hard to read his bible without help especially likes it.

Since it is an almost direct word for word presentation of the Gospel of John it does suffer somewhat in entertainment value but the original source was written to inform not entertain.

It is definitely a more graceful telling of the Gospel than 'The Passion of the Christ', and is probably a better medium for reaching unbelievers.

The only quibble I have with the presentation is that Mary Magdelene seems to appear everywhere.She is in the upper room, she is at Gethsemane, places where it is not mentioned she actually was.It is as if she is the 13th disciple.It is almost as if they are trying to play to the Davinchi Code mania.

Visual John...
So much positive feedback has been given about this film that to say anything remotely negative about it seems like the highest form of blasphemy. But what the film's supporters fail to grasp is that we curmudgeons are not attacking the content nor the message, but instead, its delivery.John's gospel is as intricate as it is explosive in its spiritual implications and this film conveys neither its richness nor its power.'The Gospel of John' falls far short in its attempt to recreate this supremely complex evangel.Phillip Saville simply wasn't equal to his task.

I approached this film with trepidation and great expectation. At last, John's power put onto film.Needless to say, I was greatly disappointed with what opened before my eyes.So much so that my interest waned and I pressed 'stop' at John 18.Therefore, my review isn't completely fair, but in its defense, I doubt Saville's depiction of the Passion and Resurrection would have proved any more powerful than the first half of the film.

Other reviewers have done a much better job of illuminating this film's many faults, so I wouldn't like to repeat them.Instead, I would like to examine 'why' this daring project doesn't succeed.The main problem is its over-riding tone.From the opening scene of the evening sun floating down over the water and Christopher Plummer enlightening us with the 'Word became flesh,' I felt I was back again in Sunday school. The film wants to instruct rather than show and thus fails at both.Its greatest drawback dogs it the whole way through: a lifeless literalism.OK, be true to the text. Include every and, but and thus, but at least make it come alive!Visceral energy and power are absent from this film.Although John is the 'most spiritual' of the Gospels, that doesn't mean it is in any way two-dimensional.Rather, there is layer upon layer...but we only get the bare surface withSaville's 'The Gospel of John.'

The source of such flaccidity is the amateurism that pervades in scene after scene. With their undisguised Brit accents and wooden presentation, the Baptist and followers ruin things from the start. They are hardly believable and the film cheats with the 'inserted' baptismal scene, another homage to the certain 'interpretation' that the film seeks (under-the-cuff) to present.And ironically, such creative allowance is none too 'literal' as John is oddly silent about Jesus's baptism.

With the Baptist's cry of 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,' Henry Ian Cusick's Yeshua comes before us.As one reviewer stated correctly, Cusick does the best he can and helps to save the film from complete mediocrity.According to John's Gospel, Jesus is God incarnate who visits us sinful humans to fulfil His redemptive mission.To play God incarnate?Is that possible?Cusick should have declined and Saville should have been thinking. Unable to give us neither the Son of Man nor the Son of God, Cusick falls into a bland no-man's-land.He gives neither passion, nor power--human or divine--and instead shouts and smiles his way through the Gospel. He states his part, but has he come to terms with it?I doubt it.Instead, what Cusick does manage to capture sometimes is the impenetrable authority of the Rabbi from Nazareth.The scenes when Jesus returns to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles provide a glimmer of what this film could have been.Jesus's stern corrections of the Pharisees contain a fragment of the righteous anger that is found in the text.(And yes, anger is there!)These spiritual sparring matches hold the viewer until a grinning Cusick lets out a mundane, 'You belong to your father the devil!'

Outside of Cusick's performance, nothing can hold its own.Only the integrity of the text remains, but the lack of power in its presentation seems almost blasphemous.The miracles are all there:Cana, feeding the 5,000, walking on the water and Lazarus, but all shown so shoddily that they lose their 'unbelievability.' Isn't that the point of a miracle????How can you believe that the water indeed became wine when it is served up in plastic cups????How can we believe when Cusick walks across the waves with the left over background from the Ten Commandments??? And the Samaritan woman?Her forced facial contortions invoke more laughter and revulsionthan sincere consideration of Jesus's words.

If this film had been truthfully marketed for what it is--an evangelical tool--then, I wouldn't have felt so cheated.I would have known what to expect.And had it been done more professionally--with true craftsmanship and respect, dare I say, awe, for its source material, then its message would have hit harder.Gibson's 'Passion,' with all its faults, succeeds in forcing the viewer to react, to confront, to decide.'The Gospel of John' provokes more blasphemous laughter than meaningful tears or serious self-inspection. For those who want the real kingdom, power and glory, then READ The Gospel of John rather than watch it.

Inspirational and illuminating
This movie is cast and acted and directed with great sensitivity and veracity. It brings the familiar words of The Gospel of John to life in an entirely convincing way. It is both inspirational and educational. Every member of the cast is believable in his or her role. This is the best Biblical movie I have ever seen, not detracting from its source but illuminating it. Outstanding!!!

Excellent
If you've seen The Gospel of Matthew (TGM), know that this movie is as excellent as TGM is horrible; thus it's excellent indeed. I watched it soon after seeing The Passion of the Christ, and it's even superior to that. The Gospel of John excels on every level, particularly with the performances of those who play Jesus and John the Baptist. It's not simply great "entertainment" as the AP says in its review. The Gospel of John DVD has transformative power. I recommend that you read John's gospel first, then watch the film; you'll see how exact this word-for-word rendition is. I can't recommend it more highly.

Powerful & riveting film!
What a wonderful movie made about Jesus. This is an extremely powerful and riveting film. It is a word-for-word adaptation of the 21 chapters of the Gospel According to John. Christopher Plummer narrates parts of the film. Henry Ian Cusick is the most realistic Jesus I have seen portrayed on film. My other favorite Jesus performance is by Robert Powell in "Jesus of Nazareth" - a mini-series that first appeared on TV in 1977 and is 382 minutes long. That is also an excellent movie and worth buying on DVD.

The directing, acting and musical score are done extremely well. This is an inspirational movie with a positive message and I highly recommend it to everyone.

I recently bought the 2-disc DVD set of "The Gospel of John". My only complaint about this new 2-disc DVD set is that they got rid of the 3-disc DVD set and replaced it with the 2-disc set. So far, the only difference between the two sets that I can see are that this new 2-disc set dropped the DTS audio track but kept the Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Also, this new 2-disc set includes a new 2-hour version of the film plus the original 3-hour theatrical version. I have no idea why someone would want to only watch a cut up version of a "word-for-word" movie version of "The Gospel of John".I'm assuming that because they included this chopped up version of the film, they dropped the DTS audio track to make room for this other version of the film. I tried to buy the 3-disc set version of this film but I waited too long. I cannot find it (brand new) even on the film's website. But I'm still glad I bought this 2-disc set - It's a lot less expensive than the 3-disc set was. I haven't finished watching everything on it yet so I hope it has all the extras that the original 3-disc set had. It seems to have most of the extras except the DTS soundtrack.

This movie is HIGHLY recommended for anybody and everybody but especially those who prefer to SEE and HEAR the Gospel of John in a "visual" way in addition to reading and studying the Bible. It's a treasure to keep forever. I think the Gospel of Mark is coming soon to theaters made by the same people that did this movie.I hope they do as good of a job with that movie as they did with this one.My rating: A+ ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ranking No. 21 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest American films, this 1940 classic is a bit dated in its noble sentimentality, but it remains a luminous example of Hollywood classicism from the peerless director of mythic Americana, John Ford. Adapted by Nunnally Johnson from John Steinbeck's classic novel, the film tells a simple story about Oklahoma farmers leaving the depression-era dustbowl for the promised land of California, but it's the story's emotional resonance and theme of human perseverance that makes the movie so richly and timelessly rewarding. It's all about the humble Joad family's cross-country trek to escape the economic devastation of their ruined farmland, beginning when Tom Joad (Henry Fonda) returns from a four-year prison term to discover that his family home is empty. He's reunited with his family just as they're setting out for the westbound journey, and thus begins an odyssey of saddening losses and strengthening hopes. As Ma Joad, Oscar-winner Jane Darwell is the embodiment of one of America's greatest social tragedies and the "Okie" spirit of pressing forward against all odds (as she says, "because we're the people"). A documentary-styled production for which Ford and cinematographer Gregg Toland demanded painstaking authenticity, The Grapes of Wrath is much more than a classy, old-fashioned history lesson. With dialogue and scenes that rank among the most moving and memorable ever filmed, it's a classic among classics--simply put, one of the finest films ever made. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (45)

Ford and Fonda do justice to Steinbeck
Take John Steinbeck's Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Novel. Turn it into a movie and let John Ford direct it, and get Henry Fonda to star. In 1940 you could hardly find a more certain recipe for a cinema classic.

As good as the film is, it really should be a companion-piece to Steinbeck's original masterpiece, and if you haven't read it I recommend setting aside enough time to read one of the greatest pieces of American literature ever written.

That being said, the medium of the cinema allows for a visual impact that can't be matched with the written word.

The Grapes of Wrath follows the Joad family during the great depression. That period of economic hardship hit the farmers in Oklahoma a little harder than the rest of the world, at the time of the dust bowl the "Okies" were at the end of their ropes, financially speaking.

Thousands of Okies packed up the house after being foreclosed and moved out to California - many winding up around Bakersfield, at the California end of old US Route 66. (Merle Haggard's family did so and the "Okie from Muscogee" wrote about it in songs like "California Cottonfields".)

Anyway, this is the historical context of the movie. The theme of the movie, and of Steinbeck's book, is the ability of the human spirit to remain intact in these worst of times. The Joads suffer terrible humiliations, one after another, most of them because of their desperate financial status. But as the story proceeds we see that they are fundamentally decent, hard-working people, and every time life knocks them down they get back up, brush the dirt off themselves, and keep moving forward. As a national characteristic, this was an important trait because this was the generation that produced the hard-working, high-minded individuals who did important things like win World War II, followed by America's greatest financial flourishing and the Baby Boom. Tom Brokaw called them "America's Greatest Generation".

The cast is picture-perfect, with Henry Fonda as the spirited Tom Joad and John Carradine as the former preacher with a new social consciousness. Jane Darwell won a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress Award as Ma Joad, and the remainder of the cast is in every way equal to the story and the film.

An American Classic
This is a great movie based on a great novel, and I am surprised by how honestly the film captures the raw humanity of the book. Steinbeck weaved social commentary into the story, and the movie makes many points about the human condition and spirit without being heavy-handed. The story of the Joads and their fight for survival rings very true, thanks to the realistic performances and the atmosphere created by director John Ford. Henry Fonda gives one of the best performances I have ever seen him give, and his "I'll be there" speech is one of the great movie moments. Jane Darwell is also very impressive, and her direct, down-to-earth style of acting makes the quiet strength and the suffering of Ma Joad seem very real. The Grapes of Wrath is an American classic, both as a novel and as a film.

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark."
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loos'd the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on." - Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In 1936, John Steinbeck wrote a series of articles about the migrant workers driven to California from the Midwestern states after losing their homes in the throes of the depression: inclement weather, failed crops, land mortgaged to the hilt and finally taken over by banks and large corporations when credit lines ran dry. Lured by promises of work aplenty, the Midwesterners packed their belongings and trekked westward to the Golden State, only to find themselves facing hunger, inhumane conditions, contempt and exploitation instead. "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies," Steinbeck described the result in one of his 1936 articles, collectively published as "The Harvest Gypsies;" and in another piece ("Starvation Under the Orange Trees," 1938) he asked: "Must the hunger become anger and the anger fury before anything will be done?"

By the time he wrote the latter article, Steinbeck had already published one novel addressing the agricultural laborers' struggle against corporate power ("In Dubious Battle," 1936). Shortly thereafter he began to work on "The Grapes of Wrath," which was published roughly a year later. Although the book would win the Pulitzer Prize (1940) and become a cornerstone foundation of Steinbeck's Literature Nobel Prize (1962), it was sharply criticized upon its release - nowhere more so than in the Midwest - and still counts among the 35 books most frequently banned from American school curricula: A raw, brutally direct, yet incredibly poetic masterpiece of fiction, it continues to touch nerves deeply rooted in modern society's fabric; including and particularly in California, where yesterday's Okies are today's undocumented Mexicans - Chicano labor leader Cesar Chavez especially pointed out how well he could empathize with the Joad family, because he and his fellow workers were now living the same life they once had.

Having fought hard with his publisher to maintain the novel's uncompromising approach throughout, Steinbeck was weary to give the film rights to 20th Century Fox, headed by powerful mogul and, more importantly, known conservative Daryl F. Zanuck. Yet, Zanuck and director John Ford largely stayed true to the novel: There is that sense of desperation in farmer Muley's (John Qualen's) expression as he tells Tom and ex-preacher Casy (Henry Fonda and John Carradine) how the "cats" came and bulldozed down everybody's homes, on behalf of a corporate entity too intangible to truly hold accountable. There is Grandpa Joad (Charley Grapewin), literally clinging to his earth and dying of a stroke (or, more likely, a broken heart) when he is made to leave against his will. There is everybody's brief joy upon first seeing Bakersfield's rich plantations - everybody's except Ma Joad's (Jane Darwell's), that is, who alone knows that Grandma (Zeffie Tilbury) died in her arms before they even started to cross the Californian desert the previous night. There is the privately-run labor camps' utter desolation, complete with violent guards, exploitative wages, lack of food and unsanitary conditions; contrasted with the relative security and more humane conditions of the camps run by the State. And there is Tom's crucial development from a man acting alone to one seeing the benefit of joining efforts in a group, following Casy's example, and his parting promise to Ma that she'll find him everywhere she looks - wherever there is injustice, struggle, and people's joint success. In an overall outstanding cast, which also includes Dorris Bowdon (Rose of Sharon), Eddie Quillan (Rose's boyfriend Connie), Frank Darien (Uncle John) and a brief appearance by Ward Bond as a friendly policeman, Henry Fonda truly shines as Tom; despite his smashing good looks fully metamorphosized into Steinbeck's quick-tempered, lanky, reluctant hero.

Yet, in all its starkness the movie has a more optimistic slant than the novel; due to a structural change which has the Joads moving from bad to acceptable living conditions (instead of vice versa), the toning down of Steinbeck's political references - most importantly, the elimination of a monologue using a land owner's description of "reds" as anybody "that wants thirty cents and hour when we're payin' twenty-five" to show that under the prevalent conditions that definition applies to virtually *every* migrant laborer - and a greater emphasis on Ma Joad's pragmatic, forward-looking way of dealing with their fate; culminating in her closing "we's the people" speech (whose direction, interestingly, Ford, who would have preferred to end the movie with the image of Tom walking up a hill alone in the distance, left to Zanuck himself). Jane Darwell won a much-deserved Academy-Award for her portrayal as Ma; besides John Ford's Best Director award the movie's only winner on Oscar night - none of its other five nominations scored, unfortunately including those in the Best Picture and Best Leading Actor categories, which went to Hitchcock's "Rebecca" and James Stewart ("The Philadelphia Story") instead. Still, despite its critical success - also expressed in a "Best Picture" National Board of Review award - and its marginally optimistic outlook, the movie engendered almost as much controversy as did Steinbeck's book. After the witch hunt setting in not even a decade later, today it stands as one of the last, greatest examples of a movie pulling no punches in the portrayal of society's ailments; a type of film regrettably rare in recent years.

"Ev'rybody might be just one big soul - well it looks that-a way to me. ... Wherever men are fightin' for their rights, that's where I'm gonna be, ma. That's where I'm gonna be." - Woody Guthrie, "The Ballad of Tom Joad."

"The highway is alive tonight, but nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes. I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light, with the ghost of old Tom Joad." - Bruce Springsteen, "The Ghost of Tom Joad."

The Grapes--and Apples and Oranges--of Wrath
It's striking how many reviewers here base their comments on a simplisitic comparison between the film version of "The Grapes of Wrath" and the Steinbeck novel on which it was based. For many such a comparison seems to function simply as an excuse to proclaim the inherent superiority of the Steinbeck original--and, by extension, the superiority of their own literary taste values-- when all it really does is highlight the patent silliness of trying to pit different artforms into some sort of evaluative competition. Literature and cinema are two vastly different modes of representation each with their own strengths and limitations, so the framing question shouldn't be which version of "The Grapes of Wrath" is "better"--as if there were a universal yardstick with which to measure such things--but rather how do they perform in terms of their respective mediums? On that count, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate with both the Steinbeck and Ford versions of "The Grapes of Wrath" to have two masterworks that operate consummately at the peak of their respective artforms. What each does well, it does brilliantly. As a verbal medium that unfolds slowly, literature is good at offering rich, layered descriptions of person and place and mapping complicated narrative links and Steinbeck makes the most of this in his novel. Cinema, by contrast, is an expressive medium that works best through registers of vi