Bad Makeover of a good Documentary
	I bought this DVD to replace a worn Video from the BBC(British Broadcasting Commission). It was a bit of a shock. The original film has been edited and chopped up with bits of rubbish added through. It also now has a poor voice over. The whole feel of the film has been removed. All the PBS...and viewers like your rubbish? Where'd that come from. It was totallly funded via the BBC. The PBS editions mess up may have been funded by someone else. My copy is going Free as I won't be watching it again.

Sincerely, do yourself a favour and source out a BBC edition. I give it (5 Stars)It is an awesome package. Inspiring and well told. Something to watch again and again(Hence I've worn out the video cassette


NOT for laptops, or widescreen tv. trash
	some idiot edited this and put two bars on the top and bottom that are part of the video so in you watch this on a laptop or widescreen tv you will also get two bars on this side.  this means that when you view it, it takes up about 25-35% of the screen with four black bars taking up most of the screen.  i could not even watch 5 minutes of this.  complete trash.


not really investigation
	The original CSI series is FANTASTIC because you figure out the crimes by finding the evidence.  This series uses the CSI name without the investigating that makes the original so good.  It is mainly a mellow-drama surrounding the lives of the characters.  Some people will like the drama the writers have put togethor, but there's no mystery


What the.....
	Honestly, nothing about this show grabs me. I'm surprised this show gets such high Nielsen ratings every week. The writers tend to come up with similar stories all the time. But the biggest flaw is the acting. It is really laughable. Me and my friends watch this sometimes to laugh at how ridiculous everyone seems to be. Horatio Caine talks in a slow drawl all the time, saying the stupidest and most obvious things. Calleigh is always smiling at everyone and everything up to the point it gets irritating. None of the C.S.I team displays any emotion whatsoever, oh...except Horatio when he over does it.

The stories are also terribly boring and utterly predictable. If there's a V.I.P suspect with a "history" with Horatio, yup...you guessed it, he's involved (either directly or indirectly). And also, if the suspect appears in about 10 minutes into the show...yea, it's not him. And Calleigh gets "evidence" such as DNA from saliva etc almost every episode using her sexuality. I mean, once or twice is alright...but I've seen about 8-10 episodes and she does it all the time. Every criminal here is an idiot, they are sure to leave all kinds of huge "clues" leading to them or their alliances. And every crime gets solved all the time. Oh, and is it just me or does the C.S.I team seem to know everything under the sun at their fingertips, no need for books or researching, they already have it that big brain of theirs. Think that's unlikely? Exactly my point.

In short, I wouldn't move appointments or hurry home to watch this show. In fact, even if someone gives me this DVD set as a gift, I would probably keep it aside or maybe present it to someoene else. Watch this show if you're REALLY bored, with nothing else to do and no better use of your time. If you want real Crime Scene Investigation, watch the original C.S.I, Las Vegas. That's the best C.S.I....period


This DVD makes me mad as  *%$#!
	This is his absolute WORST videos, not his BEST.  You are missing tons of classic moments such as:  When Doves Cry, Let's Go Crazy, Mountains, Girls and Boys, Batdance, Partyman, Scandalous, Automatic, Why You Wanna Treat Me So Bad?, Sexuality, I Wish U Heaven, Glam Slam, Anotherloverholenyohead, America, and Thieves In The Temple.  This is a crime.  When is the real DVD coming out


Style WAY, WAY, WAY Over Substance
	I'm a fan of the 1999 "The Mummy" and was understandably looking forward to this sequel. In the summer of 2001 I went to catch it at the theater with two friends and after about ten minutes we were all bored senseless by the incredible bombardment of action and F/X. We just layed back in our seats for the next two hours in utter tedium.

It's a curious thing that too much action (and F/X) in a film can be boring. It may not seem logical but it's true, and "The Mummy Returns" is Exibit A. I recently considered the possibility that my first impression may have been in error so I decided to re-watch it after over five years. Yet, after a mere 10-15 minutes I was again completely detached from the picture, even though there were all kinds of exciting things going on, or, at least, things that SHOULD HAVE been exciting.

"The Mummy Returns" has a lot going for it: A great cast, locations, costumes, cinematography, F/X, etc. In addition it has a great Indiana Jones appeal. Unfortunately it all adds up to a cinematic piece of excrement. What went wrong? Simply put, no substance. "The Mummy Returns" abandons the characters, and the plot is utilized simply as a flimsy clothesline for action and F/X sequences.

FINAL ANALYSIS: "The Mummy Returns" has so many ingredients right, but it somehow utterly fails. It's unadulterated cinematic JUNK. It should be utilized in filmmaking classes as the quintessential example of style over substance -- having all the right elements, including budget, and stupefyingly fumbling the ball.

Needless to say this could have been a great film franchise, but it was not to be. "Returns" put an end to that.


Head In The Clouds Is A Very Appropriate Title For This Movie
	Charlize Theron, her real life boyfriend Stuart Townsend, and Penelope Cruz are all nice to look at, and have at times shown considerable tlane in their work, Theron having won as Osca for her role in Monster.

But Head In The Clouds is one of those beautifully filmed films starring a beautiful cast that trying to stay beautiful in an increasingly ugly world, particularly Europe in the 1930s. From the Spanish Civil War to World War II, the stories of these three people who share a Paris flat together is supposed to be a sweeping tragedy that shows how world events and fate can conspire to thwart true love.

Instead, it shows how silly things can be when you mix hedonism, narcissism, social responsbility, and sheer stupidity. You end up caring less about the characters, andwondering more how much more trouble will they get themselves in. This was a pretty stylish waste of time for everyone involved


Cheesy and laughable
	One of the worst movies i've ever seen, no real plot and acting is as bad as it can get. Not even Samuel Jackson's appearance saves this sorry excuse for a movie. Horrible. Awful


Don't bother with it
	This movie was quite honestly one of the worst movies I have ever seen.  As a huge Colin Firth fan originally from a small town in Vermont, I thought that no matter what I had heard about the film I would enjoy it.  Unfortunately,  I was wrong.

The main problem of the film was characterization.  There were oftentimes no motivations or explanations whatsoever for the character's actions.  One minute, the small town girl played by Heather Graham is working at a nursing home, then she's downing alcohol, then she's jumping around naked for absolutely no apparent reason (in fact, she doesn't even seem drunk), and all this entices the character Colin Firth to jump into bed with her.  I think the Heather Graham character is supposed to be quirky, but because of the script and the way the film is cut, she comes off as schitsophrenic and unlikable.  Then suddenly they are in a serious relationship which Colin dives into wholeheartedly even though he is supposed to be recovering from a breakup with his fiance (and this is no rebound relationship).  Basically, the movie continues along this vein, with Minnie Driver showing up as the dark-haired British ex-fiance who you can't see ever having had a relationship with Colin (both actors are better in the much superior movie Circle of Friends).  In any case, there are many more unexplained actions and wierd breakups/get back togethers before the movie thankfully ends.

Additionally, the setting is completely misused, beginning with the sign that says more than 18,000 people live in Hope.  In New England, that does not classify as a small town.  They could have used the autumn setting and American-ness of the people as restorative to the Colin character.  The suggestion of that is there, but it is never demonstrated - instead, they go to a spot that is supposed to be nice and the Heather Graham character downs a bottle of booze, and Colin Firth's character has no real explanation or feeling in his portraits of the town's people.  Although the hotel owners are fun, if unrealistic, the mayor has been written as if he were a cartoon character.
    Finally, I don't neccessarily blame the actors for this awful movie, with the wierd cutting, it may have seemed like a good idea at the time.  I think Colin Firth does his best at being an ambigious, but still likeable guy.  Heather Graham, aside from not coming off as a small town girl at all, has absolutely nothing to work with, so you can't even blame her for the horrendous character she has.  And everyone else, including Minnie Driver, is a complete caricature, although Minnie Driver incites some of the few amusing moments in the film.
    I feel bad to judge this movie so harshly, but it is unneccessarily bad, and I had been hoping for something at least fun.  These actors all have much better movies out there.


Body by IHOP. Brains by Crayola.
	Here's the "Awful Truth":

That you would be willing to let this man, a raving, terminally obese, incoherent highschool dropout, who is to truth what a lead block smeared with ketchup is to cheesecake---that you would let this man literally plunge his hamburger-grease stained mitts into your skull, forming the mushy stuff of your brain into little foamy pink chunks of liberal pabulum.

And that you would pay him money to render the service!

Yes, you could watch all of the episodes in "The Awful Truth": you would, no doubt, feel smug and superior to all those unenlightened troglodytes who voted for Bush. You might giggle a bit, which is a common side-effect of a political lobotomy.

But at the end of the day, it is far better that you take your lead from antiquity: when Oedipus realized his own version of the "Awful Truth"---that he had whacked Pa, gotten jiggy with Ma, and generally made an a** of himself---he stabbed out his own eyeballs.

Might I recommend the white-hot iron pokers?

JS


Film: 4 stars, DVD: 1
	I preface all of my DVD reviews with the following note: There are more than enough film reviews on Amazon.com and, quite frankly, it's a bit ridiculous. A person can scroll through scores/pages of reviews without reading a single sentence about the quality of the DVD. If you want to review or discuss a film, go to IMDB. If you're reviewing the DVD, speak to the qualities (or lack thereof) of the audio and video; mention your opinions of the plot, acting, etc. but please don't write an essay!

Now, on to my review of The Ghost and the Darkness on DVD.

I remember wanting to see this movie when I was younger (when it was first released), but it wasn't until my sophomore year of college that I bought the DVD in order to write a term paper comparing the film to actual history. In terms of Hollywood, it's fairly accurate. The film itself, as entertainment, is great (it seems some people are analyzing it as if it were a documentary???). I'm a fan of both Douglas and Kilmer; they're fine here, but they've definitely done better work elsewhere. The plot moves along nicely and creates some definite tension and suspense. Additionally, the photography is beautiful and the soundtrack is great, too.

Now the bad news: the DVD sucks. Period. And I'm not even complaining about the lack of extras here. The transfer is absolutely criminal, and those responsible for it should never work on another DVD project ever again. The print is clear and solid, but the aspect ratio is not correct AT ALL. I was mortified when I popped it into my player, only to be rewarded with a distorted image. Absolutely shameful...This film deserves a new anamorphic transfer in its original aspect ratio.

VIDEO: C-
AUDIO: A
FILM:  B


Heavy-handed, Predictable, and Not Funny
	I did not much enjoy this film, and I didn't find it very clever or funny.

It's true, as other amazon reviewers have noted, that Citizen Ruth stereotypes both sides of the abortion issue. Does that make it an intelligent and even-handed comic treatment of a complex topic? No, indeed.

Along the way, it also stereotypes poor people, middle class people, teenagers, drug addicts, Christians, and Vietnam veterans. That doesn't make it funny, though, because the satire is so heavy-handed and predictable. Simply tackling an important social topic, like abortion, isn't going to give a film the heft to generate either drama or humor. In my opinion, the film's pretentious take on a big issue just makes it creepy. There were too many close-ups of earnest, wide-pored, and angry faces. And Burt Reynolds as the national leader of the anti-abortion crowd was just peculiar. What was he doing in this film? And what are we supposed to make of his relationship with the young Eric?

Laura Dern is a talented actress, and she does a creditable job with this part -- which because it straddles genres was a challenging one. But her talent couldn't redeem this film for me


Empty shell
	I have never been a Demi Moore fan, but this movie is even worse than I imagined it would be. My kids picked it up in the videotheque. I decided to give it a fair chance and watched it together with them. Demi's acting is rather passionless, poor and disconnected. She looks old too ! She doesn't succeed at all in portraying a woman who is ravaged by the loss of her only child and by her own stupid fault and selfishness too. After just eight months after the tragedy she wanders off to some remote spot in Scotland to write a new novel. Yeah, sure. That's what I would do after losing my only child. I probably would be in utter shock for another 200 years or so. After five minutes you don't care at all what happens to her and what fate befalls her. You can see the few twists and turns in the plot coming miles before they happen. And all the illogical things start to get annoying very quickly. A guy who is alone on an island for years who doesn't know how to cook a fish and succeeds in burning it. And who puts the spare key to his home out in the open on the sill above the door in a place that is battered by gales almost weekly. A mobile phone that functions in the middle of nowhere. I expected a film with supernatural elements, but boy did I get fooled. Some of the photography and scenery was acceptable, but the CGI generated images of the lighthouse were done rather poorly. Alas, not a film that I can recommend to anyone.


TREMENDOUS DISAPPOINTMENT!
	I've owned the LaserDisc version of "New Order Story" for 5 years and watch parts of it at least once a week, so I thought having the DVD version would be an upgrade.  Not at all, it's a cheap transfer from LaserDisc.  The DVD containing "A Collection" has defects in it.  I mainly bought it so I could have the full version of the promo for "The Perfect Kiss", -which in "story" is almost ruined by Bono's horrible voice- but it turns out it has a huge skip in the DVD version.  I didn't even care to test the rest of the disc and just returned it.


If you are looking for a real documentary, this is not it
	The editor decided that I don't want to see how the plane crashes into WTC, or how people jump from windows, so, he cut pretty much all of that and who knows what else. Instead, there is a plenty of news people's talking into camera about where they were at the time and what they were thinking (and why do I care?), plus a bunch of stuff about anthrax to pad the little footage that was left.


EDITED
	This DVD is edited from the original version.  This movie is HOT, the cut DVD is NOT


Depressing
	Seeing what's become of the rock and roll legends I remember from when we were much younger, I found very depressing. I'd rather remember them the way they were 40 yrs ago. Even Jerry Lee looked like he was ready for the nursing home


The Aristocrats - Dog Poop
	Absolute Dog Poop - with corn. So there is this joke that all the comedians know about, and there are a million ways to tell it, and they get really raunchy. There, that's the movie. I saved you two hours. Oh but there's a kicker, the joke isn't funny and everyone knows it. Yet, of course, some of the comedians tell it like it's the funniest thing in the world - Sarah Silverman, Gilbert Godfried, Bob Sagat, and South Park are definite highlights. And I love Sarah Silverman. However, the awful cinematography, horrific editing, and terrible production value of this film make impossible for me to fathom why people didn't burn down the theaters when they realized this film wasn't getting any better. I would have at least demanded a refund, and $100/hr billed in 15 minute increments. I think Sarah Silverman saved the day again


excuses, excuses
	so I'm supposed to believe that the horrible dialogue, bad acting, and ridiculous plotting is on purpose just because Mamet is a respected guy? how about we call a dog a dog and just move on


1 STAR FOR UNIVERSAL'S PISS POOR TRANSFER TO DVD
	This show is my all time favorite, however Universal has gone and dicked it up by leaving out various sound effects and a teaser, and a wrong Season Premier Intro!

DVD is meant to bring out the best in media, not the worst, how could they lose sound effects? Unbelievable! Just doesn't seem possible... SEASON 4 is no better...

UNIVERSAL PLEASE READ THIS AND RE-RELEASE SEASON 3 AND 4 ALREADY, THE FANS ARE EXTREMELY PISSED OFF!


Horrid!
	This documentary is poorly produced, has terrible sound quality and stereotypical "life affirming" stories.  There was nothing in here to support Wal-Mart, their business practices or their philosophy


A Disappointment
	First of all, I am a Joy Division and New Order fan; therefore, I tried to like this.  Really, I did.

Sadly, this film stinks.  The focus is not on the bands themselves, but on the obnoxious character known as Tony Wilson.  What a monster!  Either it was the actor's depiction or he does truly have a horrid personality in real life.

Maybe I'm not British, but I did not find 24 Hour Party People to be very funny.  Only a few scenes made me grin.  The randomness added very little to the overall quality of the film.

In addition, the camera work was very jerky.  Looked like it was done by a novice (and yes, I'm one myself, having made two movies)

The only redeeming aspect has to be the scenes with Joy Division.  Too bad the members of this band are minor characters.  I can only hope that the biopic of Ian Curtis currently in production will be much, much better


Poor quality transfer
	I'm very surprised that this product has as high a rating as it does, I suppose most are simply glad the show is available on DVD.  However, the transfer to DVD is absolutely horrible.  On an opening night shot on disc 1, there is so much junk on the film that one would think one was seeing lightning bugs -- inside the house!  The colors on these prints aren't even as good as what is shown on TVLand.  This show might be 30 years old, but they cannot be using the best prints available.  There is another irritating tip-off of the cheapness of this package -- the music on the closing credits is wrong -- or is this my imagination?

   For those who are defending this package, the upcoming Daniel Boone DVD set is a good item to compare it with.  That show aired in 1966 and the remastered print is fantastic.  Studios and re-issue companies can do a good job when they choose to.  It's a real shame that, in this age of big-screen TVs, this program will look so shoddy.  It's apparent that with such a popular show, they could have recouped the investment


A Travesty
	First let me say that I thought Angela's Ashes was an absolutely terrific book and Frank McCourt fully deserved his Pulitzer Prize. This movie was a horrendous let down. No one involved with the film seemed to have a clue about how to depict real deprivation and poverty. Everything was a Hollywood version of suffering and misery, from Emily Watson's pretty red coat standing in for the real Angela's gray rag to the beautifully lit Irish streets and of course John "let me tell you how you're supposed to feel right now" Williams' cloying, inappropriate music.

The acting from the children was great. They were absolutely the best part of the film. Of course, given the constraints of film and the average audience tolerance for unpleasantness such as oozing eyes, pimples and bad teeth all the kids were pleasing to look at, clear skinned and attractive. At least they could act!

Emily Watson was given little to do. Robert Carlyle was good although Alan Parker seemed determined to sanitize the ambiguities of McCourt's father by only showing little episodes of drunkeness and thoughtlessness.

Parker tends to be an extremely literal, by-the-numbers director with little understanding of subtlety (look what he did in the Pink Floyd's "The Wall"). This time he  was clearly given a mandate by the Hollywood bigwig producers not to make the film too "depressing" or "grim" so that audiences would accept it. The film ends up being a choppy, gentrified, soulless version of one of the best modern books ever written.  Really a shame and a waste of resources.


In Cold Blood
	This is a made for TV movie and not the original film. Do not waste your money on this re-make. Buy the original that was released in 1967 and starred Robert Blake


Boring
	Highly acclaimed. That, I knew. I watched the first 30 minutes, which is 1/4 of the movie, before I decided to hang it up. New lady moves into a conservative French town and opens a chocolate shop. This upsets the local church, even before she begins unleashing secret desires and so forth with her sinful chocolate. Okay. Can you really carry 2 hours with this single plot? Nope. This one's boring.


One of the worst movies ever made
	I saw this movie yesterday thinking it'd be exciting. I sure am glad that I survived after watching this terrible excuse for a movie. There's no story line, the acting is pathetic, whoever gave Vin Diesel the idea that he can act. Like an earlier reviewer observes it's about who's dumber the guys who made this movie or the ones who gave it a good review


Hate it!
	To violent for anyone! This movie is horrible. The cast is good, but the plot stinks! Its just this family who have super powers. Then this kid wanted to be Mr. Incredibles side kick. (in a way)Mr. Incredible says no so then he hates him. Then the kid turns evil and kills people, and wants every body to like him. Thats origanal. There are barely any jokes you laugh once every 20 minutes, and there is way to much violence. Killing, guns, punching, bombs, and they say stupid words sometimes. I do not like the person who directed this film because he should not like violence. So I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Especially the 2 disc special edition!


What the hell were they Thinking?
	Well what can I say about this movie? Well one thing is: It wasn't what I'd expected. Those who'd seen the movie before told me it was bore and had absolutely nothing to it but I still wanted to see it. I was wrong and they were right.
The movie is about a Zebra named Marty who wants to go to `the wild', bring in a lion called Alex who is self obsessed, a hippo named Gloria who is overprotective and a Giraffe named Melman who need psychiatric care.
Marty escapes the zoo to go on an overnight holiday while his friends overreact and try to `help' him, but four get pinned in Manhattan as ferocious beasts and are shipped back to Africa. Along the way boat is hijacked by the penguins (who are the cutest characters besides the two chimps) and get stranded in Madagascar, meeting a dumb bunch of lemurs. That's basically the whole movie in a nutshell. The group fight, Alex returns to his lion instincts and they get back on the boat. End of story.
The entire look of the 3D Animation was terrible as well. They should have continued with Shrek 3 instead of making this movie. It's pointless to watch.
The most interesting thing in the entire DVD was the `Penguins Christmas Caper', which wasn't the short movie itself, but the man who played Patrick from Spongebob Squarepants is the polar bear.
For those of you planning to buy this DVD, stay away. It's a huge rip off. It's just something to keep you waiting for Shrek 3


not worth buying
	Being a huge fan of Sandra Bullock, I bought this movie thinking it would be fun and cute like her other work. Nope, this movie is garbage. First thing I noticed was that the sound quality is extremely poor which goes along hand in hand with the poor camera angles and shoots. The acting is very bad and the story line is simply ridiculous. Over all, it's not a movie worth buying.


Very unhappy
	I have still not received this product and am being bounced from staff to staff by DHL Global Mail.
This is a ridiculous and unacceptable situation.
I will never use Amazon again, I feel cheated


Not For Pre-Teens
	It is unfair to judge a children's film by the same non-technical standards you would judge a film made for a more mature audience. That said, I had a difficult time figuring out the intended target audience for Disney"s "A Far Off Place", an odd mix of "Alaska", "Walkabout", and "Blue Lagoon". Since each of these films had a different target audience (children for "Alaska", adults for "Walkabout", and teens for "Blue Lagoon"), "A Far Off Place" suffers from a poorly matched and confused mix of story elements, the attempt to appeal to multiple target audiences ultimately makes it unappealing to all audiences.

Despite some positive comments on this database, "A Far Off Place" did not impress audiences at the time of its 1993 release and has generated little interest since. Based on stories by South African writer Laurens van der Post, "A Far Off Place" is the story of three teenagers: Nonnie (Reece Witherspoon as a girl raised on South African game preserve), Harry (Ethan Randall as a visiting American boy) and Sorel Bok (as their young Bushman guide Xhabbo) who attempt to evade a gang of ivory poachers by fleeing into the Kalahari Desert. Ethan Randall is actually Ethan Embry from "Can't Hardy Wait".

Although recommended for ages eight and up, most younger viewers will be deeply disturbed by the early scenes, where the family's idyllic life is ended by a night attack on their home by the poachers. The house is burned and the parents are murdered. And more mature viewers will be deeply disturbed by the next scene where Nonnie turns into Rambo and kills most of gang in a sequence credible only to a horrified eight-year old.

At this point it begins to look like "Walkabout", a story of an Australian girl, her little brother, and a young Aborigine on his ritual journey to manhood. In a significant deviation from the book Xhabbo's wife does not accompany the group into the desert.

"Walkabout's" more adult theme of interracial sexual awakening is replaced by a "Blue Lagoon" romance between the two white teenagers, a reflection of the film's narrower values and more modest ambitions.

The scenes shot in the desert are almost the equal of "Alaska" for scenic beauty but "Alaska"s" more realistic survival challenges are superior to the blend of survival skills and mystic powers that Xhabbo demonstrates to his two companions during their journey. There is an element of "The Gods Must Be Crazy" in this clash of cultures but the film does not go very far (bad pun intended) with the concept.

Both "Alaska" and "A Far Off Place" insert the element of poacher violence into the journey, to the detriment of the basic story. 'Walkabout" did not need this and found sufficient story material in the enormity of the survival experience.

Bok is excellent as the young Bushman and Randall/Embry's performance is solid if unexceptional. Those interested in Witherspoon's early work would be better served checking out her great debut performance in "The Man In the Moon" and avoiding this career misstep. Those looking for a children/family story should stick with "Alaska".

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child


Postmodern American Teenyboppers meet Shaka Zulu
	Well, this was about as formulaically politically correct as a movie can get, unfortunately: the female teenage protagonist (played by Witherspoon, whose acting powers have increased dramatically since her stilted acting here) acts masculine and heroic, the male teenage protagonist acts craven and flippant. At one ridiculous point, the girl runs around acting like a commando, a veritable one-gal army, blowing up the bad guys, while the boy hides in a cave sniveling. Later, when the boy tries to assert himself by offering to carry the gal's backpack as they cross a desert, the gal snaps at him, Bella Abzug-style, and walks quickly ahead, leaving him in the dust. Clearly a modern radical feminist thing going on here, and what is most unfortunate is that this movie was made for a young audience and therefore is in keeping with the modern radical feminist propaganda which is brainwashing young women into unnaturally behaving like men. Of course, in the real world, the result for such manly girls, once they become women, is that men do not choose them and they remain alone, and therefore become bitter--ironically and inevitably blaming men, of course. In this movie, the wimpy teenage guy falls for the brassy, masculine gal--but that's why they call them movies. When are these post-modern writers, artists, and other culture-shapers with an agenda going to realize that when they tout modern radical feminism, they are touting something unnatural--men simply do not prefer masculine females. Men want someone to COMPLEMENT them, not COMPETE with them. Men crave FEMININITY in females, not FEMINISM. Wow, is there ever a difference in those two forms of comportment! This poor teenage guy depicted in this movie, at least his character does progress a little bit: by the end of the movie, instead of craven and flippant, he graduates to something akin to a metrosexual-type with a wild-boy haircut, if that is even a step upward. But the plucky gal--she's still the one in charge in this fictitious world of upside-down gender relations.
Uh, another problem with this movie--and there are many--is when the kids are going through the Kalahari Desert, something which should be, and for a time is here depicted as, a foreboding and life-threatening task. Yet we see Witherspoon in this desert frolicking with a dog; and we see the boy's flippancy and joviality emerge in a totally out-of-place manner, considering the dire situation they are in. The sense of urgency which had been built up is totally excreted away by these light-hearted, inane scenes.
Look, I dig Disney kid movies--more realistic ones. You know, old style Disney movies. You take "Old Yeller" for example. Now there was a quality kid movie, and quite true to life.
This movie was not. It had a plastic, spoiled-American-materialistic-teenybopper feel throughout. Disney has gone down the tubes. In any number of ways, they've been subverted by radical Marxist agendas (Note: One more of these was the fact that an African Bushman was allowed to evince a pagan ritual from his PC pagan religion--something called "tapping," while the Caucasians were of course not shown evincing any sign of their un-PC Judeo-Christian religion--this is bias, folks, leftwing, PC bias, same as the aforementioned feminist bilge). I am learning to run, not walk, away from Disney stuff, and this movie was further cause for me to do so.


An Anachronism
	Having watched great movies in the Bible series such as Joseph, David, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Samson and Delilah and other good ones pertaining to scriptures, I was looking forward to another fantastic and educative film. What a let down by this anachronism. How low can one go! This is a disappointing and misleading movie that perverts the word of God.

If you do not believe in God, have never read the Bible, particularly Genesis but have heard of Noah from hearsay, perhaps this movie might be of some entertaining value, a mediocre one at that.

If you are looking for a movie with an accurate account of Noah's ArK, don't aggravate yourself. Avoid this movie like a plague.


Dreck 2
	"The Ring Two" is a horror film that gets so bogged down in the minutiae of its storytelling that it simply forgets to be scary.  Naomi Watts and David Dreckman return as the mother and son who have recently fled to a remote section of Oregon in an attempt to escape the murderous clutches of Samara, the ghost of a young girl whom they encountered in the previous film.  However, like any specter worth her salt, Samara has managed to track the pair down and quickly begins her scheme of possessing the boy as a way of returning to the land of the living.

This is an extraordinarily under-whelming thriller that is little more than a series of extremely mild shocks (if you even want to call them that) interrupted by long stretches of hopelessly dull exposition.  The story itself makes very little sense, and the climax is so blas� and half-hearted that I couldn't be sure the movie had actually ended until the credits started rolling by.  "The Ring Two" has a few impressive special effects up its sleeve, but not nearly enough to relieve the tedium that afflicts so much of the movie.

In a mere two installments, this series seems already to have run its course.  If this "Ring" comes a-callin`, don`t answer


A Who-dunnit Detective Film
	If you like Murder-Mysteries; you might like this. Attractive leads perform an average script.

Technically, good costumes, good lighting, attractive sets. The story holds your attention. The detective is interesting, and his sleuthing has some interest. If you like a light Whodunnit; you may like this. As good as anything on TV today. I rated this 2-stars, compared to "Road to Avonlea, Third season" mystery episode with Christopher Reeve, which I rate 4-stars. Not as clever as the TV show "Columbo"; but the period setting may make up for this.

This did not have what I was looking for, some adventure, more believability, more charm, and more cleverness.

The sets are attractively "staged"; rather than sets that take you there. Has pleasant characters; but not deep. Some good humor personality with the servants. The appeal is for one who likes a light, Whodunnit detective film, in a period setting; without my great expectations. I remember "Young Sherlock Holmes" as better; though I saw it a long time ago.


Not for kid
	I bought 2 Barbie DVD and this is one of them. It's dark and scary at the beginning and the story line is not that great compare with the other one I have (Mermaidia). It doesn't attract my daughter like Mermaidia and she doesn't like it that much. Don't buy this. Get the Mermaidia one


Snotty Barbie
	My daughters are not Barbie doll fans...but they do like the movies. So do I.

All but this one. The Pegasus were beautiful...but it stopped there.

We thought Barbie was too snotty and disrepectful in her manner of speaking. Bring back the nice Barbie!

Her 'boyfriend' was just as snotty.

We didn't like the evil Wenlock...and the way he preys on teenage daughters forcing them into marriage.

In one scene Wenlock throws a tray of food into one of his wives face. That was shocking and sad.

Our copy of this dvd went into the trash


sorry I got it
	could have been a truly interesting film, just plain simpleminded and annoying


Scewed and Slanted
	They spend the first half of this movie saying how great the Ultimate Warrior was.  The journey is awesome!  Then all of the sudden, the paid WWE guys just began to bad-mouth the Warrior. Maybe he did have questionable judgment - but why are they trying to make us feel bad about someone we loved?  They take some very low blows. They say that the Warrior was a bad wrestler. Actually he seemed just fine to me when I was young, and I really can't distinguish one's ability from the other. They just all gang up on him and make outragious allegations. Vince says quickly that the reason why the Ultimate disappeared for 3 years was because he failed a drug test. As soon as he says this, they fade to black then come back with a new issue. What drug use? Which drugs? Presumably they're talking about steroids. But what about that high and mighty Hulk Hogan with his admitted drug use. Let's not talk about that - let's just keep ganging up on the Warrior. They completely ridicule him changing his name to the Warrior. And they also just try to badmouth him so much. Who cares that none of the wrestlers liked him? I don't! He excited the heck out of me way more than any of the dorks who say bad things about him -including Hulk. And oh yeah - they don't even let the Warrior defend himself.  Why did I have to find out from IMDB.com that he was asked to appear but declined? Why don't they address this?  This "docu" is more slanted than "Fahrenheitt 911" Every wrestling and Ultimate Warrior fan will start out loving this docu then hating it. It just leaves you with a bitter taste in your mouth, tired of all of the whining and bitter trash talking.


mhhh....
	If you love hip hop then don't buy this video. It's a mix of movements that are NOT hip hop


Michael Moore : Propaganda Stooge of the UAW
	Michael Moore filmed this propaganda,partially financed by the United Auto Workers, to distract attention from the real reason GM was forced to shutter plants - the Japanese auto invasion, made possible by  GM's unhealthy cost structure. The  company was burdened with exorbitant UAW wages, something union friendly Michael Moore does his best to conceal. So Roger Smith becomes
the reason for the plant closings. Years of losses at GM have shown Moore's twisted arguments to be exactly what they were then - phoney  UAW sponsored lies to  shift attention away from the
primary role played by the UAW in the death spiral of the automakers. Moore and others pretend GM management had dropped the ball, but GM lost tens of thousands of engineers and salaried staff, let go long before any unionized line workers felt any pain. ALL of GM's problems are the result of the lack of profits resulting from the UAW albatross - slow redesign cycles, lack of money for research, you name it.  Moore will never mention how the UAW has screwed the consumers for the past 70 years and
how now that consumers have a choice, they find the better value in Asian autos. Nobody wants to pay a UAW worker to bolt on a fender while making more than their family doctor. The UAW has fixed labor prices for long enough. Enough is enough and Moore
is shown to be the stooge of the unions with this preposterous piece of slanted fiction he laughingly calls a "documentary."


Neat little collection
	This is a pretty good collection for the Mickey beginner. I wouldn't purchase it however if you already have the Walt Disney Treasures "Mickey Mouse in Living Color" series because all the shorts are on those DVDs as well


A trip through hell
	Those who describe this story as "cute" and Joon as "quirky" aren't paying attention. For me, this movie was a trip through hell with a final destination of insanity. The writers slickly throw just enough whitewash on top to let most people ignore the darkness. Yes, Depp is great, given what he has to work with, but overall I am very sorry that I was subjected to this horribly stupid, insensitive movie


it had potential
	With great music and a setting that reminds you of "Vampire Hunter D" it sucks you into watching the series.  The plot turns out to be terrible and the idea of where the wolves came from and where they are going is underdeveloped and disappointing.  The animation is good, which is a must have for me, but it wasn't enough to redeem the series


CHEAP BAD PREQUEL
	I only give it 2 stars for the shower scene with the Twins. Really bad acting and plot that makes little sense. Trying to be like the original movie but falls way short. Its just bad acting with stupid and mean characters. Not worth it except for the brief shower scene.


AMW
	I normally praise Disney's animated movies, but I've got to draw the line somewhere. I can't believe the average review for this movie was 41/2 stars. I found the characters in this movie annoying, even more annoying than that suv commercial where that guy walks out of his house and parachutes off the cliff. I urge you to buy Treasure Planet, any Disney Pixar film,Tarzan before this one


Cheesy, Sensational and Plodding
	I was really looking forward to movie.  My goal was to expand my understanding of this historical period.  Many of the scenes looked like they used old sets from the 50's Westerns and the lighting technique was disappointing, these alone did not turn me off from watching.  My real gripe about the movie was the dialogue and the acting.  Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, a stage coach is robbed, my attention was drawn to the portrayals by the actors.  They were not believable and the dialogue just sounded like something that came out of book for young readers.  Later, when alerted that the posse is nearly upon them, the other rider responds with such uncharacterist language for a male ruffian that I laughed.  As the movie plodded forward, scene after scene left me wondering, how quickly was this thrown together and how come they didn't rehearse more.  I felt my patience to endure several more hours an unfair punishment.  I generally try to watch a movie entirely but frankly, I think it was an embarrassment and waste of time.  Maybe it got better (that is why I gave it two stars) but I find that doubtful.  I am wondering if both Tom Berrenger and the other author missed to many classes of Script Writing 101.


WORST FILM EVER
	I have seen many pathetic films in my life. This topped them. Did I rate one star? Sorry- I meant negative 11 stars. It was the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. It was a total waste of three hours when I could have been sleeping. There was no point. The script and storyline were pathetic. The gore was overdone- too much blood, killing, and the like. It was totally historically inaccurate, and the Civil War scenes were so grossly unrealistic that it was laughable. All Civil War veterans are rolling over in their graves. Any scene that was supposed to be touching was pathetic. One of the abolsute bombs was when Clint Eastwood fires off a canon twice with his cigar- yet he does not even load it- either time. And somehow, without even aiming the canon, he knocks his 'friend' off his horse.

The movie is a failure. F-A-I-L-U-R-E. Crappy. Junky. Just plain DUMB. STUPID. PATHETIC.

I am not going to waste any more words on it. Just....whatever you do....save your money. Don't buy it. It's not worth 50 cents


"Family Values" dreck
	Cinema-wise, you know you're witnessing the beginning of the end when the best Hollywood can come up with is a SEQUEL to a REMAKE (it`s not often that two crimes of unoriginality are committed in a single film).  But that is exactly what "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" turns out to be - and the result, quality-wise, is pretty much what one would expect.

This is one of those alleged family comedies in which the adults (the male adults at any rate) are infinitely more immature in their attitude and behavior than the children they are raising.  Steve Martin returns as the prolific father of twelve who is beginning to sense that his children, as they are growing older, no longer want to spend quality time together as a family.  To rectify the situation, he takes them all on a vacation to a favorite lake resort - a move that threatens to turn into a full-scale disaster when the Bakers find themselves embroiled in a fierce competition with a neighboring family of snooty overachievers led by Eugene Levy, a patriarch who runs his brood with so much spit-and-polish regimentation that he makes Captain Von Trapp look like a touchy-feely pushover in comparison.

One might be tempted to call this a distended version of a "Brady Bunch" episode and leave it at that, but even that show, for all its lack of sophistication, didn't portray the father as a total and irredeemable doofus with serious developmental issues and the emotional maturity of a bratty six-year-old.    Besides the daddy-is-a-dope stereotype, all "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" has to offer is lame slapstick, a silly pre-pubescent "Romeo and Juliet" subplot, and push-button scenes of emotional uplift in which a crescendo of swelling violins serves as the cue for the tears to start flowing.  The drearily unoriginal screenplay comes replete with the requisite dog-humping incidents and poop jokes, and not one but TWO scenes of an elderly handicapped gentleman rolling off into the lake in a wheelchair.

Any more of these films and Planned Parenthood won't have to mount a fundraising drive for years to come


Making a Poor Film Useful in the Classroom
	After reading the novel by Jane Yolen with my 7th grade classes, I was eager to view the film version.  I had heard conflicting views of the film- it's great, it's horrible, etc.  After viewing it for myself, I must agree with those who gave it negative reviews.  However, despite its lack-luster performance, the film did serve a purpose in the classroom.

True, the film leaves something to be desired. They change multiple plot points with no explanation other than to just change them.  Editing was not a driving force because they could have easily made small changes to keep the film focused for a teenage audience while maintaining the strength behind the story.  Rivka becomes her cousin and other characters are neglected completely.  Major events in the rising action are left out, thus leaving the movie drab and disappointing.  Overall, very few of my students liked the film adaptation of Jane Yolen's novel, which they found so riveting.
On a brighter side, because of so many differences, viewing the film after reading the novel provided an excellent opportunity for students to practice comparison/contrast writing through T-Charts and Venn diagrams.  It also allowed them to perform some higher level thinking and questioning skills.
After reading the novel and viewing the film, most of my students agreed that the book was much better- something a reading teacher loves to hear!


A goody-goody propaganda video
	This is a "goody-goody" Ronald Reagan propaganda style film. By that I mean that it tries to portray the US as the good guys being hit by the bad ones. It doesn't say what dirty role the US CIA had in birthing the whole horrible genie of fundamentalis Islam, how it set up, equipped and nurtured not only Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda, but a whole bunch of other loathsome Islamic terror outfits now stalking the globe - like the Islamic Brotherhood and the Taliban for instance: all just to defeat the USSR, and gain access to hydrocarbon rich regions, to fuel the greedy American consumerist lifestyle which US citizens take so much for granted. I am not a "conspiracy theorist"; these people are usually an absurd breed, going off at the other extreme tangent. I live in Peshawar, the hotbed of CIA mischief in the 1980s and 90s (and even now), and the area where I live - the University Town - housed all the actors on this stage: the US officials and spies, their clubs, the Afghan "Mujahideen" leaders' houses, etc. etc... I grew up seeing all this going on literally next door, and so would like to apprise my American friends of the unpleasant truth. The National Geographic and the Reader's Digest magazines are two long established icons of US media culture that have served as the unofficial (and therefore hard to suspect) mouthpieces of some of the most outrageous US propaganda drives... Never trust their political commentaries, although their articles about polar bears and planets can be very nice..


Crap
	I was disapointd in this show.  It was mad and release by Warners (MARVEL's biggest rival and DC's parent company), This new take on the X-Men had them behave like horny teenage doofuses,and don't get me started on the crappy writing.   Just like X2 was not the X-Men, this show was also the same.  It was in Name Only, and speaking as the only loyal Marvel fan here, That says i all


Scary, if you think movies like Hostel are scary
	This movie is just not scary.  I'm a HUGE horror movie fan and this movie has no tension in it, no edge of your seat fear.  I liked the sequel "Devil's Rejects", but that isn't much of a "horror" movie either (unless you think "From Dusk Til Dawn" is scary).  "1,000 Corpses" is about as scary as "Hostel".  It should never be mentioned in the same breath as "Texas Chainsaw", because other than trying to look like a gritty 70's horror flick, it has nothing in common with "Chainsaw".

It has a few moments, but they are ruined by cartoon-like scenarios.  Still Zombie has potential, his follow up "Reject's" was a definite improvement.

I didn't hate it, it's just not a scary horror movie.  Nothing new, no tension, but entertaining in some scenes, so I'm giving it 2 stars


Can This Be any More of a Texas Chainsaw Copy? (Inferior)
	In essence, this is a Texas Chainsaw remake, but here's the difference, and why it's far inferior. I don't care one iota for the "victims." I can barely tell the females apart. The guys are so obnoxious, I look forward to them dying. Unlike Texas Chainsaw (parts one and two, horror masterpieces!), this movie shows the "psycho family" (hmmm... kind of like Texas Chainsaw?) far too much. A little goes a long way, too much? OVERKILL! Many plot holes, and take away the music, there was some really bad acting. It gets two stars for the cool middle inserts in funky film style, and also the one great sequence where the cops are killed. But in general, Rob Zombie should not get writing credit for this. It's Texas Chainsaw Massacre, only nowhere near as good


Torture to watch
	I hate to trash on an American Classic... but this was truly horrible.  I thought my son would like this due to the flying car.  It took hours of TORTURE to get to that scene.  Horrible, horrible film.  Mindless, drawn-out banter, and weak story line.  Our copy eventually broke (stepped on?) --- we felt SOOO lucky to have it gone.  "One Star" seems like a generous rating


Did we see the same movie??
	Okay, the script is not the most imaginative I've ever seen, but I like the actors (especially Ben's best man) so I was friendly with this movie for the most part.  I didn't even mind the obvious holes in the plot, such as...why do these characters not have credit cards or cell phones? Or at least, why don't they use them?  Oh no, much more plausible that Ben will have to strip dance in a gay bar for $150 to buy a car to drive to NC.  I didn't even mind the fact that the whole "We're married and my husband's a doctor." charade was so predictable. Oh Gee, he's pretending to be a doctor and he's on a tour bus with a bunch of elderly people. D'ya think someone might have a heart attack and "Dr. Holmes" might have to step up?  And uh, they're pretending to be married and Oh! surprise there's the best man and maid of honor! D'ya think they're gonna get busted?

What killed it for me was that ridiculous ending.  It was obviously supposed to be a surprise (and it was) but there seemed to be no other reason for it than to pull a fast one on the audience.  I felt cheated. I spent the entire movie getting emotionally involved with the relationship between Sarah and Ben, and I really cared about how they would handle things with the fiance and Sarah's little boy and all that.  I cheerfully became disengaged from the relationship between Ben and Bridget, I totally believed neither one of them was ready to get married or right for each other.  The film spent an inordinate amount of time showing me they're not right for each other and that this wedding was not meant to happen.  RIGHT UP TO THE LAST MOMENT, we think he's breaking it off with Bridget. Instead, what the heck let's just go ahead and get married after all.

Huh?  He left Sarah sitting out there waiting for him in a HURRICANE!!! after making her promise that she would still be there when he got back.  This man obviously doesn't have a clue what he wants in life, and I'm expected to believe they lived happily ever after?

Not only that, but what does it teach us about taking this commitment seriously?  It teaches us that if our instinct is telling us "don't do it!" and our genitals are yearning for someone else and even Mother Nature seems to be working hard to prevent this marriage, aw heck go on ahead and do it anyway.  It's just marriage. It's romantic! You could get lucky and live happily ever after!

It's been my experience, when things aren't feeling just right as you approach that wedding, turn and run. The last thing you should do is close your eyes, grab your balls and take the leap


Poor man's truth serum: caffeine and sugar.
	There is a pattern in Hollywood when it comes to drama/revenge films such as Eye for an Eye.  It is an extremely simple pattern that is regenerated time and time again because audiences like to not be surprised.  They are prepared for the bad guy to die at the end, whilst the victim or top-billed actor/actress comes out as the hero at the end.  It is meant to give us a sense of security and comfort, but for this critic it is getting old.  Eye for an Eye is a perfect example of film that falls deep within that tired genre of film.  From the opening credits of this film, you could count the steps that each actor was going to make all the way to the very end.  The pauses could be guessed, the lines could have been written the night before, and the acting was nothing short of mediocrity at its best.  It was guaranteed that the actors would be overly dramatic, the violins would always shrill around Kiefer, and there would be horrendously underdeveloped plotlines that would lead nowhere.  This is your typical revenge film with no excitement, no frills, nothing that would make it stand out from the rest.  The late director John Schlesinger played it safe with one of his final films, which will promise to bore and completely not satisfy you to the bitter end.

Where did Eye for an Eye go wrong?  I don't think I need to count all the ways for you, but some of the bigger issues that I had with this feature was the complete unknown of the characters.  I have major issues with stories that escape realism to allow the main character to seem more dramatic.  What was Sally Field's job?  I know that is a small detail, but it better highlights my complaint that our central family (the McCanns) were not as developed as I would have liked to have seen.  I had no clue her daughter had a stutter until two seconds before her death, yet it seemed to be a bigger key element as the film progressed.  Ed Harris literally walked through his character, proving that Field's husband could have been played by a plastic bag and still seen the same level of emotion.  The only character worth watching, and was developed briefly, was Kiefer.  He was 100% evil in this film and it kept this film geek worth watching until the very end.  Yet, we didn't even know that much about him either (which upset me).  Schlesinger obviously knew the story that he was about to tell with Eye for an Eye very well, the actors I believe even knew the story and they probably didn't even need to read the script, and the story played it safe from the beginning, but it wasn't what I wanted to see.  I expected film like this to come out during the 80s, not in 1996.  It was pathetic to see name actors like Ed Harris, Sally Field, Phillip Baker Hall, Keith David, and Kiefer Sutherland walk through this film like it was a fly in the pan.  Nothing stood out in this film, nothing made me want to rewatch the brutality of it, and nothing made me feel excited about these actors.  This was a literal "nothing" film.  It lent nothing to the cinematic world except (and I stress this a bit) another peg in a very tired genre known as the "Revenge Thriller".

After watching this film I said to my wife that I thought Sally Field was completely overdramatic throughout the course of it, overplaying the small parts and completely exploding the bigger elements, which made me think of a High School drama production.  It was amateur at best, but she said that is why directors use Sally, because she is known for being overly dramatic.  This is a pure example of a good thing gone badly.  Sally saw success with it once, but as she continues it only creates bad cinema.  There were times during Sally's bigger speeches that I found myself laughing.  I couldn't help myself, but her focus on certain words and clich� reaction to others just seemed cardboard instead of lifelike.  The same could be said for Ed Harris who obviously has discovered that he doesn't have to play the outlaying father any further in films.  He was completely wasted in this film.  Was there any emotion with him?  I didn't see any.  Then there was the pitiful contribution by Hall and David that begin with intrigue, but were dropped faster than a big ole sack of potatoes.  Also, did Mantegna take a class on how to be a one-dimensional clich�?  Urg, his portrayal of the police office was a disgrace to those that genuinely play one-dimensional police officers.  Again, the only actor worth watching was Kiefer because he not only spoke with evil, but demonstrated that he was capable of anything vile.  It was his sole performance that made this film decent to watch to the end.

If I have to talk about the story I think I am just going to go mad myself.  Field over dramatized the entire film, thus creating uncertainty amongst the viewer.  Did Kiefer get a bad image because he was bad or because Field wanted to see him as evil?  That could have been a great avenue for this film to travel, but alas, ole safe Schlesinger didn't take us down that darker path.  I needed more to develop what Hall and David were doing at the support groups, but it seemed like that story was dropped rather quickly as the ending needed to be wrapped up gently in a comfort blanket for viewers.  This was yet another dark avenue that was not explored.  I felt as if I saw these dark avenues with the director and the cast, yet we chose to stay on the lighted path.  That, coupled with the poor acting, just created a film that didn't catch my attention and fully contributed nothing to the cinematic world.

Overall, in case it wasn't obvious, this wasn't a good movie at all.  In fact, I could go through the rest of my life without thinking of this movie again.  I thought only horror movies had the stated Scream rules and somehow could stick to the same tired pattern over and over again, but with Eye for an Eye it became obvious that it the "Revenge Thrill" fell into that same pattern.  The only trouble is that horror films actually have fun with that repetitive structure, this film did not.  Sally Field was horrible and should really consider a strong independent film to bring her back to the spotlight, while everyone else was forgettable.  The only fun part was watching Jack Bauer play the epitome of evil.  Watch this film for Kiefer, but nothing else.  Skip it!

Grade: * out of ****


Only for Kiefer
	This is a surprisingly poor movie. Although it has some well-known actors, and a notable director, the material was just presented badly and predictably - like a lousy late night TV-movie with profanity inserted to liven it up.

The movie makes a simplified joke of the legal system and its sterotypical failings (though legitimate in many cases). It also glosses over the grieving process of the family, ignores the normal safety warnings to the remaining child, overdoes Kiefer Sutherland's character flaws (which are considerable nevertheless), and generally oversimplifies everything into a neat package to which you already know the ending because of the spoiler title.

In one particularly-bad scene, after taking martial arts classes and other measures to prepare herself mentally and physically, Sally's character simply stares open-mouthed and dumbfounded at Keifer's character when they meet on the street and he talks to her.

I don't know what I missed that the 4- and 5-star reviewers like so much. I only see wide-spread mediocrity.

I would only recommend this for fans of Keifer. "Ssssssorry", Sally, not your best role or movie. Ditto Ed Harris, whose other movies I generally like.


Snooze Alert
	Subtitled guy's mom is sick. The guy is also depressed. Meets a ex-hustler on beach. They kiss, fight, make-up, over and over.(most of the movie) They break up. Boy meets hustler's ex and they play with dog on beach. The End


Like to waste your time? Then you'll love this one.
	I saw this one in the theater after a friend of a friend convinced me to see it with him (he was seeing it for a second time.) After the first ten minutes, I wanted to leave. If you like formulaic and predictable movies that attempt to convince dumb American youth from small, hick towns that they actually have a future beyond their local Wal-Mart or becoming mince-meat in Iraq, then this movie is for you!  However, if you like movies that actually challenge you to think, don't waste your time with this one


AWFUL
	This terrible movie has singing!  Bad singing, and lots of it!  Overacted, trite, and BORING!  All those good reviews, I thought it would be campy and cool, but it's NOT!


Nick Cage in a bad role
	Nicky Cage was not very good in this cinematic decomplishment, as he turns  in a horrible acting job in this dull and boring movi


If you need music scrubbed clean for kids...
	Then why not take some responsibility as a parent and encourage the kids to sing something else?  The songs are fairly cloying adaptations of the originals, which arguably weren't that bad ("What a girl wants" and "Get this party started" were fairly tame to begin with).  Just encourage the little ones to listen to classical music if you fear the outside world will corrupt their minds


Disturbing
	This is an intriguing movie that compels the viewer to search for the film's deeping meaning.  I am sure that I missed much of that meaning.  However, one aspect of it is painful clear.  The crux of this movie centers on the premise that seemingly innocent women can be sexually exploited and over time they were come to accept and thrive on that exploitation.  I found that premise disturbing and unrealistic.  Also, it left me with the fear that women hating men could use that premise to justify their abuse of the opposite sex.  If so, this movie could contribute, in a small way, to the perpetuation of the subjugation of women or at least the fantasy thereof.

Watch this movie if you must, but be critical of its assumptions about male/female relationships.


Confusing, too many characters, difficult to follow story line
	Simply put: the movie is boring.  Clich� upon clich� is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the "natural" response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk "friend" and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.

All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie.

Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.


A Tale Told By A Teenager, Signifying...?
	The premise - that one could change specific events in ones' past through psychic concentration - could have been the foundation for a fascinating thriller.  I don't condemn the film's corollary either: that each change produces new, unforseeable tragedies.  It's the way the story is told - its ham-fisted dialogue and plot, its forced obscenity at every turn - that reveals its teen sensibilities.
     It is therefore fitting that the director's preferred ending is included here.  It is the perfect catharsis for teens who "...wish I was never born!


Compared to the real story?
	You only need to read the book by Whitley Strieber to know how truly disappointing this movie is.


poor transfer,paging criterion
	Since we know there is another version of "Burn" out there,i would suggest you wait for it and check rotten tomatoes.com and get an idea of its quality.You can not judge the quality of this film by the pan and scan,poorly coordinated color transfer that sony has issued.Brando told larry king it was his favorite film;not if he saw this package


Modern sensibilities set in 1600s Venice
	Read the Amazon editorial review, they are tiptoeing around saying this movie doesn't really work.

Modern language, ideas, and sensibilities make the whole thing feel like a contrived stage play.  And it seems to be mostly on stage sets ... there isn't much of Venice in here, so don't rent it for that reason.  (Notice I said rent ...)

The script is weak.  The setup for the lead character's transition to life as a courtesan is abbreviated and unconvincing.  There are too many horrible moments for this to be romantic.  The story has so much more potential.

The only reason to see this movie is to check out Catherine McCormack.  Rufus Sewell is always good as well.

Otherwise the casting is absurd.  Fred Ward and Oliver Platt stand out as being miscast.  Jacqueline Bisset fails to persuade here


gobbledygook   self-righteousness   pretentious twaddle make for a terrible movie
	there is a certain new-fangled school of screenwriting that thinks that if you put a bunch of characters on screen and have them make no sense of one another but sound as if theyre being profound, then they ARE. the prime example of this in recent years is the abominable "crash", but at least that was (somewhat) assuaged by strong performances. this -- arguably the worst "mainstream" motion picture of 2005 -- is redeemed by nothing. an excruciatingly long 2 hours, and as much as i (usually) enjoy george clooney, i might never forgive him for this drek


Not good...
	Just rented this dvd and was quite surprised.  Normally, I'm a big George Clooney and Matt Damon fan.  However, in this film, their talents were underutilized and did not make up for the poor script, editing, and direction which made this film quite dull to watch.

While the idea behind the movie is good, it could have been more entertaing, dramatic, or suspensful.  As another reviewer remarked, I was quite tempted to shut it off after 45 minutes and watch something else.  But, I did suffer through to the end, where the film just sort of ends and leaves viewers hanging..


A well acted snooze fest with juvenile politics
	This is billed as a thriller but there are hardly any thrills.  It would have benefitted from some judicious cutting to make it a little leaner.  The shaky camera work detracts from some decent scenery.

The politics of the film contain no subtlety or shades of gray; I can almost see a couple of college sophomores hitting the bong and sitting down to hash out the script:

Bong-hitting liberal student who has no clue about the real world #1:  ...and then she discovers the evil corporation has been testing...
BHLSWHNCATRW #2: (Interrupts)  "Evil Corporation"?  Why are you being redundant?

The only plus for my wife and I was the acting, which was great.  Fiennes was especially good, underplaying his character in the early parts of the film, resulting in a character with depth and nuance.  I only wish the rest of the film was worthy of the performances contained within it


Only if your a Prince Fan
	In the early 1990's this movie was definitely made for that era. Just look at the clothing and hair. High top fades etc. Graffiti Bridge was definitely unique. It should have been released on cable t.v. instead of the theater. It was more of a musical then a actual movie. Prince somehow has his own ways of doing things in his own world. And he may not care about record sales or what people think of what he puts out, but it makes even the most loyal fans question what he is doing. The talent he has is amazing but he's become just a mediocur artist. This lack luster film may be remembered a hundred years from now. But as of now it's just what you call a get up and walk out film. I'm a prince fanatic, a die hard fan, but man the potential this guy has to be a mega star of our time he fails to meet. You haft to make people believe in you and really reach them and relate. If only Prince could relate to what people are feeling now and what they want. Prince somehow fell behind because the youth of this generation moved on while he stayed stagnet. I think he shut the world out and it just went on turning. Record sales may not matter to him, but fans you must keep loyal. Graffiti bridge is a film in my collection and I just look at it as my collection but nothing more. It's a film that makes you think. It's spiritual and there are some warm moments. Now Purple Rain is something not to be missed. I recommend that one. Enjoy


disaster says it all
	I recently purchased this DVD and was beyond disappointed with it.  I actually ended up fast forwarding just to get through it.  I expected a true documentary with maybe a few interviews with people who were there, with the firemen, or anyone at all but the video is mostly silent.  I can hear the fire fighters radios but most of it is so staticky it's hard to make out.  The film has a few comments by the person taping it but that's it.  The film also pretty much stays focused on just a couple of areas of rubble.  I found nothing at all in this film that brought any emotion to me other than boredom.  I own several other documentaries that I watch over and over as I don't want to forget the feelings I felt on 911 but this film is lacking greatly in bringing any kind of human element to this horror that was inflicted on our country.  This DVD was a HUGE waste of both my time and money.


Dreadful and  Insulting
	Like other reviewers, I found MeetThe Parents mildly amusing and this sequel was in the 3 for $25 bin at Hollywood so I figured "Why not?"
Well here's why not. It presents the main character's parents as crude, clueless buffoons, and having no social judgement whatsoever, but it seems the writers want the audience to think of them as cool and hip. And for some odd reason they live in a house that resembles the castle on Fantasy Island. I'm surprised they didn't include a sex with a midget scene. Nobody would want their daughter to marry into this family let alone a right wing former CIA agent, who was set up as an object of ridicule. Oh, and they had to be Jewish too. Streisand and Hoffman should be ashamed of themselves portraying their own people in such an unflattering way. {"Our people don't shoot ducks, dear")
Do former CIA agents make enough money to live in mansions and buy a custom built RV that would cost at least $250 k? The toilet humor and profanity wouldn't have made it into "Dumb and Dumber"
Nothing reedeming or funny here. Fuhgeddaboutit


Rear-View Mirror Propaganda Piece
	I'll cut to the meta-chase since plot and story have already been well outlined in previous reviews...

The basic message of this film seems to be that state controlled "education" is worthy of resurrection and total dictatorship is the way to achieve it. Though the latter point is probably true, the former is questionable indeed. Why try and save an obviously moribund and mindless system of government indoctrination from its own demise? Don't blame the kids, you have only to look at the state of the world to see the utter failure that so-called educated people have already created everywhere, with world fascism now its ultimate fruitage, and the kids at some level know it...Clearly we urgently need a new vision of education altogether, but this film only asks us to glorify what has already died...


Dust Off Your Bong For This One!
	Sit down under a tree, give it a big hug, fire up you bong and go to sleep. That's what I was waiting for Freeman to do all movie. It's a shame that special effects that were so ground breaking were waisted on this Sci-fi Hippie flick. I'm surprised that Freeman's suit wasn't tie-dyed. Keep your money say no to drugs!


it's okay
	i bought this thinking that this would be fun and a decent workout, i tried it a few times but just couldnt get in to it. it go's a bit fast but i know i could get used to it, but they have very big steps and they lung into it and i think it would be better if they work up to it i kept finding myself rewinding it to do the step corretly i dont realy strive for perfection i just want to do it some what right. there are better ones out there than this, but i think i am going to try it again cuz it wasnt so bad that i am going to quit it


NOT For Young Children
	I saw this movie for the first time, and I found out that it is very VERY violent. And I laughed at some good parts, but the scene where Amy hits the wildlife keeper on the head with a frying pan for trying to cut the baby geese's wing IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO SEE.
I think that this movie should be taken off the market, but this type of film has no place in the lives of young children.


One sided expert's review
	The DVD is really a deception. All the experts invited are the ones that support Gnostic theory. I was hoping that I can see a balanced view related to this subject. Instead, I only see the point of view of the pro Dan Brown's experts. I think we should invite the famous evangelists, theologists, and scholars from the protestant, cathodic and liberal to discuss the issue. The DVD does not even discuss why the Gnostic theory was rejected in the first century.


Pedigree vs. Filigree.  Filigree wins.
	Period dramas are, by definition, delicate commodities: they're balanced on that, ahem, "razor's edge" between high brow and just plain fussiness.

I think "Howard's End" is a case of a robust novel buried in tea time and English lace.  Milliners, set designers and Helena Bonham Carter's hair stylist had their job cut out for them on this one


not as avertised..editted movie
	the movie is good except this version has been editted and cut out sceens, very disapointtin


BAD!
	this is NOT a good movie!  Bad acting, story, and picture!  I was hoping this would be the first anime of the 8man After dvd I had but Alass it was not.  Pass on this one unless U HAVE 2 have it


Dark drama that does not end well
	The biggest draw for me in anime is an engaging plotline that really makes you think in new directions.  Witch Hunter Robin was recommended to me by a fellow lover of the more serious type of anime.  I didn't like it; I found the plotline to be predictable and forced with a 'so-that's-it?' ending I hated.

The animation is top quality with lots of dark tones and the music is appropriately spooky.  Good visuals don't make up for bad story though.  This serious drama geared is towards adults, and not children.  If you like dramatic build-up that delivers, humor, or romantic comedy give this a pass


this DVD stinks....extremely poor resolution ...remaster soon?
	Hi folks,

Don't  get your pants in a bunch at the low review...its NOT for the movie..its for the appallingly bad DVD.  Grainy and soft...I can't believe they couldn't produce a finer representation of a multi award winning and in general beloved piece of work by all concerned.  This isn't even VHS quality...but then ARTISAN isn't known for  quality...
its cheap enough to get anyway and throw away when  a REAL quality version  is released.


DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE if you like Anne of Green Gables
	I made the mistake of watching it after seeing how many stars (4) it received from other viewers. The plot was butchered, the characters twisted, the story ruined, a pure agony.

Marilla is fat and ugly. Wasn't it supposed to be Rachel Lynde's character? Matthew is sly and conniving and very outspoken. What happened to endearing shy Matthew? Rachel Lynde had been merged with Mrs. Barry, Dianna's mother, and hence Mrs. Rachel Barry (Oh brother). Dianna is a petit blond and not a dimpled raven black haired damsel, who gets married behind the scenes without her bosom friend who was sent to Queens at 18 as a punishment. Anne and Gilbert are secret lovers brutally separated by Marilla who is crossed with Gilbert's father for stealing Matthew's sweetheart many years ago. Get the picture?

This movie has no merits as related to the book. It might have some as a stand-alone creation but I haven't found any. I wasted nearly an hour and a half of my life and was bitterly disappointed, irritated and nauseated. The creators of this movie were definitely not kindred spirits! Do yourself a favor, if you really like the Anne books don't watch this movie.

Oh, and I do wish Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings) will fall in love with the books and make proper and ACCURATE movies out of them. Do you hear me Peter?


Never achieving its goal
	I'll be right up front and admit that I do not own this DVD. I hesitated writing a review for it because of that fact. But then I realized that if you're reviewing a DVD, 90% of the review must be based on the movie itself, and having saw the movie when it was released, and having seen it again on the various cable channels, I felt I could write a respectable reveiw.

Frankly, the movie barely approaches a "B-Movie" status. It's only claim to fame is that it was the first major Hollywood motion picture that did not portray homosexuals in a bad light.

The plot is rather unbelievable, naming the fact that all three main characters are leaders in their field.... successful author, high-ranking network producer, top-rate doctor. Nobody has a profession, or is in a position, with which the audience can relate. The dialog is forced and, at times, rather cliche. Acting is acceptable, though supporting cast members are rather amateurish. Direction is functional, at best.

One glaring problem is the tendency for the movie to suddenly switch from drama to documentary. After or before key scenes, the camera cuts to a monologue from one of the main characters. The effect is startling, doesn't advance the story, and only serves to distract the viewers and lessen the already-weak emotional impact of the film.

To its credit, the actors did whole-heartedly portray gay characters and gay love scenes. At the time, gay characters were never portrayed in a positive light from the media, and it was a great risk to do so here. There were no previous movie experiences of this topic that the director and actors were able to draw on, and they did the best they could.

It was a very ambitious project and was supposed to be ground-breaking and revolutionary, but the weaknesses in the film never raised it high enough to truly make much of a difference in society. This is absolutely proven by the fact that Brokeback Mountain, released about two decades later, had to work very hard to break the same stereotypes that Making Love previously attempted to break. The difference is that Brokeback Mountain was a true work of art impeccable in its execution and actually broke ground and stereotypes, and Making Love all but disappeared in the annals of time.

If you're a collector of good film, this really wouldn't be part of your collection. To add into a collection of films showing early portrayals of homosexuals and homosexual relationships, it would be very appropriate. Sadly, it really is good for only that one reason, as part of a collection of gay films throughout the years


Overrated, juvenile writing
	This series might be considered a classic if watched by a 12-year-old, but adults will see though the indistinct plot and characters. Most of the plot's famous "unpleasantness" is just tacked on to the main story, and is of no significance.

Apart from putting several of the characters though lots of physical abuses, nothing much gets accomplished thought the series. The main female character clocks about 100 words of dialog across the entire series, so don't bother waiting for any meaningful information from her. The male lead has the typical task of pointing out all the flaws in the alternate world he's been transported to, inbetween having the stuffing beaten out of him.

The most arbitrary abuses are handed out to a young woman, who's included in the story for no reason except to be abused- you can almost hear the writers saying, "I got it! Let's rape a little girl, that'll make it REAL! Yeah, Yeah, I like it!" Having served her purpose, the character then vanishes until being plopped back in near the end of the series, so a little more misery can be dumped on her.

All the characters suffer from lack of depth and motivation. The releative standout would be the villian, who suffers from bipolarism, and alternates between terror, anger, delight, and misery, somtimes all within the same scene. Too bad that was about all he did in the show.

Well, that's about enough. If you have an appetite for "Kid saves alternate universe" themed anime, then you may like this. But I found it lifeless and massively overrated


Gay Men With Mullets and Celtic Accents
	Alexander is portrayed as a neurotic and tortured individual who is shoved into power and conquest by his mother and turned into a monster by lust for authority. The character in this movie appears to have very little in common with the ambitious and thoughtful young man described by Aristotle. Watching this movie you get the feeling that Alexander and his men were a gang of sexually confused young boys who conquered the ancient world pretty much by accident.

There is far too much emphasis here on the non-essential, and every conflict in this story is a contrived account of Alexander's strained relationships with his mother, father, friends and his own identity. If you're looking for a narrative on the epic story of the most important figure of ancient Greece, look elsewhere. This is the story of insignificant things in the life of a man who happened to be significant.


A re-spelling of 'sucks'!
	How do you spell 'sucks'? Easy - A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R!

I loved Stone's JFK, but this... Words fail me, but I'll try to find a few. Okay, the pros? Angelina Jolie. I've never been a big fan of hers, but, boy, was she the hottest woman alive in this movie! More pros? Hmmm. Certainly not the action sequences which were muddled and hard to follow. Certainly not the weird Irish accents the lead characters adopted. Certainly not the story.

This is just one of those films you believe can be so bad and that something cool is gonna happen the instant you hit the off button, so it stays your finger. My advice? HIT THAT BUTTON!

And I won't even mention the blonde wig!


Alexander (2-Disc Widescreen Special Edition)
	Great movie. The problem is in the medium of delivery.  There are 2 dvds in the package. Each dvd contains approximately 1/2 of the movie.  The audience/customer would be better served if the entire movie was on one dvd.

In addition, the 2nd dvd is defective.   The scene where Alexander's father is assasinated consists of some normal footage, many lengthy 'still' pictures, no picture at all for a period of time, and a short period that looked like satelite feed was breaking -- all on a dvd that's supposed to be flawless


the name says it all
	this movie is one of the 3 ~worst~ movies I've ever seen.
these 98 minutes seemed more like 6 hours.

and for chrissake - he's NOT an american


Mediocre sequel to a excellent original
	This tepid,disappointing sequel is far better than Beyond the Re-Animator but dosen't equal a good sequel to the excellent original. Dr.Herbert West and his friend Dan re-animate dead bodies and when Dan's girlfriend is dying she is re-animated just like Bride of Frankenstein. The gore effects are good including the crawling eyeball but the movie becomes tedious and more predictable as it goes along. The new director Brian Yuzna does a good job taking over Stuart Gordon but this movie fails to entertain and make watchable that this looks like a Sci/Fi channel movie that would debut on TV and the movie is just disappointing compared to the first with a new cast(Except Jeffrey Combs and Bruce Abbott),lower production values and lower budget,and tepid to atrocious acting. If you seen the first your not missing much but for some reason you can recommend this instead of Beyond the Re-Animator.


I Don't Get It
	There is one thing I finally grasped upon watching 'The 40 Year Old Virgin', however.  I came to the realization that Hollywood has to remake movies now over and over and over again because the films that try to be unique ('The 40 Year Old Virgin') are so awful that studio heads need to go elsewhere for their ideas.

Of course, they're laughing all the way to the bank because the brain dead inside and outside of the continental United States will be for, and laugh at, anything.

This film is popular because Steve Carrell makes the same faces and has the same delivery that he did/does on 'The Office', and people just love those mannerisms (Ricky Gervals is better in the same role, by the way...but that's neither here nor there).   It certainly couldn't be because it's funny.

The general concept of a 40 year old virgin has promise.  That concept added with the most boiled down Middle School potty jokes is not.

That concept added to a girl who wants to take him home but is too drunk to drive, yet she does it anyway and runs into dozens of objects is not.

That concept added with a cross eyed Asian woman waxing his hairy chest while they show extreme close up's of Carrells large nose as he screams vulgarities into the lens is not.

That concept added with 60 year old Middle Eastern Salesmen using every sexual metaphor out loud is not.

You get the drift.  Maybe the boat left and I wasn't on the boat.  Maybe I'm not 12 years old anymore and am amused by jokes you used to hear outside at recess playing tether ball and eating Chocodiles.

If you like juvenile humor, watch something like 'Better Off Dead' or 'Caddyshack'.  Watch a movie that doesn't have to try so hard to write something vulgar to get a laugh.

Sincerely,

Bill Cosb


Please enter a title for your review
	One of the most overrated comedy shows ever. Basically the calibre of a high school talent show. In a way it reminds me of Tom Goes To The Mayor, seemingly fitting into a comedy niche I don't understand which is more about being weird than being clever, but it seems like it's even more about being dull than being weird. I've heard improv described as being not about trying to think of something funny to say but just saying whatever comes into your head. I think these guys took that a bit too much to heart. Maybe the fans see some subtle naunces I'm missing, but to me it seems like I could have written most of this material with little effort.


Great on the movie part.  Terrible on the "scholarly" remarks parts.
	This movie would get 5 stars if it were not carressing with one hand - portraying
the Gospel of John beautifully through the movie - and slapping Yahushua/Jesus
and serious scholars in the face with the other hand.  The so-called "scholarly"
comments, for example about how the Gospel was written 200 years after the events, are by and large
intellectually dishonest and quite simply
inaccurate.  Even the lowliest of Bible scholars, if honest, will realize this.
It is very sad to see people making a buck off the Bible, while trying to tear
it down at the same time.  The worst examples of Scripture put downs are in the 3rd
DVD.  I gave the movie to a relative without that add on


STRAIGHT GARBAGE..
	..I recently purchased the first "House" movie, i remember watching it as a kid, it was apparently alot scarier during my adolesence, anyways the second one came with it for free, and i must say it was garbage, i did not have the patience to sit thru this crap, i now use this dvd disc as a cup coaster.Peace


fun, but absolutely pointless...
	I was a fan of House(the first of the series) and so purchased the combo DVD set of House and House 2.  I watched both movies with a friend recently and we decided that while House is pretty good, House 2 is definitely the kind of movie you waste an hour and a half on.  It is really quite dumb, but some of the creatures(i.e. "catter-dog" as I like to call him) are kind of fun to see.  I would suggest skipping the second House unless you just want to watch a movie to see how dumb a sequel can really be;-


By and large, a waste of time.
	The beginning is very well done, then the only interesting parts are the cat-and-mouse between Jude Law and Ed Harris.  The rest of the film is bad, I'd say. Luckily, I recorded it from TV. It is now erased. (By the way, one of the Amazon reviewers who also disliked the film wrote that Bob Hoskins is American. He's from England.


Don't waste your time
	This was the most obnoxious time waster I have ever witnessed.  I kept waiting for the Monty Python Troup to show up.  The acting was horrid.  What was with the rocks and urinating on the door??  I found myself rooting for Grendel. Of the 33 people in the theater, 10 got up and left half way through.  This was a story of great heros, not neurotic children.  Too bad Gerard Butler's career has come to this. I hope the Beowulf saga ends here and no attempt is made to do a sequel as discussed in the director interview.  I would have been ashamed to put my name on this piece of work


How do you make incest *dull*?
	For a topic this edgy, this is an incredibly dull film. The actors are good enough, mind you. But they can only do so much, because the real problem with this film is the script. For the first twenty minutes or so of screen time, the viewer is led through a series of confusing and rather disconnected scenes involving the perpetually discontented Natalie and the nice young man who turns out to be her younger brother. (You *might* not pick up on that fact at first, since there are minimal references to it in the first third of the film--certainly the two *look* nothing alike.) Finally the main part of the plot begins, with Natalie just as discontented, despite being married to a wealthy and quirky-but-ultimately-nice guy (Alan Rickman, for whose sake I watched this film at all--not worth it), and with her brother seemingly happy with his life, but somehow still willing to be drawn into a sexual relationship with his sister. From that point, things spiral--no, that's too dynamic a word to describe it--*mosey* out of control, with the fickle sister trying to break off the affair, the poor brother (the only particularly sympathetic character in the film) becoming obsessed with the relationship, and the worried hubby's suspicions growing (although not in the right direction). There's so much here that *could* have been fascinating and compelling, but isn't, on any level. The plot just wanders aimlessly through an only semi-believable situation, scattering out the occasional pebble of human misery with its slogging feet. This video seems to have disappeared from most rental shops--mercifully for the public--but I certainly wouldn't recommend resorting to buying it.


Really pretty dull for such a button-pushing topic
	I wasn't impressed by this film.   First of all, I could never "buy" that Saskia Reeves and Clive Owen were a brother and sister.  Nothing in their mannerisms or physical appearances would lead you to believe that they are related.  Nor does the backstory provided by the film give any credibility to their supposed brother-sister relationship.  They might as well have been unrelated lovers having a difficult relationship due to their massive immaturity and character problems, because that's how the relationship came across.

Personally, outside of the button-pushing topic of incest, I found this movie dull and sometimes tawdry.  Clive Owen looked and acted like a low-grade truculent Lawrence Harvey, and Saskia Reeves was simply annoying (like her character, a weak, hopeless drifter from job to job and man to man.) The only actors who showed any real feeling were Alan Rickman as the husband, and Karl Johnson as Clive Owen's AIDS-stricken boss.  Karl Johnson has the best scene in the film:  he goes to a meeting with sores around his mouth and in a wheelchair, obviously suffering from AIDS, and this very fact intimidates the guy he's gone to meet.  The man keeps trying to subtly jerk his uneaten lunch away from any contact with the Karl Johnson character, and in the end Karl Johnson seizes the guy's sandwich and bites it, then offers the other guy a bite, pushing the sandwich into his face, basically...it's a scene that crackles with his anger   pain at being trapped by this illness, which is going to kill him, while this corrupt and self-important man is able to function normally.

But aside from that wake-up call, the film dragged, and by the time Clive Owen's character was shouting in the climatic scene his realization that he's been used by his "sister" to inflate her sense of self-importance, I was long gone, with my head nodding.

Much ado about nothing, frankly.  One star for the soundtrack; one star for the performances of Alan Rickman (what little he has to work with, he shines) and Karl Johnson.  Die-hard Clive Owen fans such as myself; eeeh, pass on this.


Poor Movie
	This DVD is quite expensive but yields little to justify the cost.  The film lacks any real drama and becomes terribly boring after the first ten or so minutes.  The acting is hopeless...really, really bad!  Although there are many "soldiers" involved in the battle scenes, it's all pretty unconvincing, considering the carnage of the real conflict.  In all honesty, as much as I enjoy movies of the Civil War, I'd like to return this for a refund.  Alas, that's a prospect that has,indeed, gone with the wind.  Thumbs down to this one


Are there lower ratings?
	Stick with Ted Turners "Gettysburg", what can I honestly say about this work of fluff.  Nothing


Ok film.. Less than OK DVD..
	First off, I am a HUGE Pixar fan. In November in '95 I took my company to see Toy Story and within 6 months of that showing I got rid of most of the employees that didn't like the film. I've seen every Pixar film at least 5o times. Nuff said.

Anyway, I liked the film Cars.. but not as much as other Pixar flicks.. Its still good..

However, the DVD is underwhelming: a) no commentary b) horrible deleted scenes c) not much in extras. The Route 66 mini-documentary is ok though..

This DVD is about as bad as the first release of A Bug's Life.. another skimpy release on DVD..

Finally, they didn't include a tribute to Joe Ranft.. That's a huge crime in itself.


I know where U can get Originals
	These dvd's are a joke. If you want the ORIGINAL full length movies on dvd go on ebay. You will find versions copied from LASERDISC. They are in widescreen, digital quality, original audio and full length. They are superior to the old VHS Copies and much better then these new Dvd's.

Viva la revolution.........


Okay for 30 years ago, maybe
	This movie is laughable today. It's very dated, and it shows. It's not worth your time. The acting is so-so, but felt forced (like William Shatner style). The storyline is okay. By today's standards, it appears like a low budget flick


strarring 3 of my least favorite actors in a nothing-new-here flop
	Well, my title says it all. There is nothing special or amazing about this movie. I don't like the three main actors, and the ending was just laughable. Sorry, but it was a stupid movie


The Big Sleep
	Here we have what has to be one of the most mind bogglingly boring movies ever made! I couldn't believe what I was watching! Moreover,I am aghast that this film garnered some acclaim and that some reviewers on these pages even saw fit to award this dreck with an unbelievable four and five star rating. What is going on? Is it me or them that has totally lost the plot of what movies are supposed to be all about? Am I naive to think that movies should first and foremost entertain? Where oh where was the entertainment in this lame effort of a film with its unsteady shaky comera work,hamfisted confusing screenplay lacking energy and inventiveness and the cloying performance of modern cinema's most tedious and overrated
sleep inducing actor Ralph Fiennes?
How I long for the good old days when we had great movies with great actors from great writers and great directors and which achieved what they set out to do - entertain.Sadly with the emergence of such a travesty as "The Constant Gardener" it appears that we unfortunate "real" film lovers are in for a dismal viewing future.


Rehash of the 1st
	This movie is a rehash of the first, but it is a crappy, unconvincing, emotionally uninspiring movie.

Let me guess what part 3 will be about: A guy who looks at video or pictures goes back in time, does not alter that timeline the way he wants (i.e. always worst case scenario) and ends up killing himself in the end for the sake of everyone else


Relieved I'm Not The Only One Who Feels This Way
	After seeing the real show in L.A., my girlfriend and I were really looking forward to the DVD.  And after last night's viewing, I went to bed kinda creeped out and actually felt a little guilty that I didn't like the whole thing that much.  I'm relieved to see that other fans just couldn't handle all the audience shots either.  This DVD tries so hard to define Paul's place in our lives and his impact on the world through his music that it ends up blowing it for those of us who already know, feel, and live it.  They tried to document his music and its impact instead of just filming it.  If you're from Mars and this is your first day on Earth, you might appreciate the way the DVD attempts to explain the relevance of Paul's work.  If you've been on this planet for awhile, chances are you're already up to speed and just want to see the band and hear the music


read the book
	This really isnt a bad movie if you havent read the book, if you have read the book then think of this as another story based on the same subject. i understand that a book to movie will leave certain things out, and i accept that, but to completely change the ending is not excusable. What was wrong with the way the book ended? Like i said if you havent read the book you will like this movie although they do solve these very complex puzzles after a glance at them(even though they hide a very very valuable secret that will change the world). If you havent read the book or seen the movie do yourself a favor and pick up a copy, its a better story and its cheaper if bought in the paperback, if you dont have time to read it then get it on audio disk or tape