Description

The next installment in the Harry Potter series finds young wizard Harry Potter (DANIEL RADCLIFFE) and his friends Ron Weasley (RUPERT GRINT) and Hermione Granger (EMMA WATSON) facing new challenges during their second year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry as they try to uncover a dark force that is terrorizing the school. ... Read more

Reviews (649)

Fascinatingly enchanting as it is entertaining
Summer vacation is a dreaded time for Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) as it means having to endure the histronics of his mean aunt and uncle. Returning back to his Hogwarts School of Witchcraft would seem a much wiser option but Dobby the House Elf warns him of "a plot to make most terrible things" is in the brewing. With disregard of the warning, the boy wizard begins his sophomore year at the school of magic - and things happen - when his schoolmates are 'petrified' into statues. In fact this is only the beginning when he later takes on gigantic spiders, screeching mandrakes, Fawkes the phoenix and the fearsome Basilisk.

The second entry adapted from J.K Rowling's legacy has neither the epic sweep of the fourth book (The Goblet of fire) nor the mystery of the third (The Prisoner of Azkaban) but is nonetheless an engaging adventure and a riveting story. What's more with director Chris Colombus at the helm who shows more precision and familiarity after his first attempt, Harry Potter and the Chamber of secrets is a majestic adventure filled with visionary sets and fluid CGI effects that astonishingly enhance the darker fantasy tale and adventure. The soaring adventure thrills with its enshrouding perils, awesome moments of wonder and enlightening morality and friendship.

It thus resembles more of an awkward adolescence stage in this saga for the three main casts. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch as Harry, Hermoine and Ron reprises their role with the loss of their innocence along with veterans Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, the late Richard Harris as the benevolent headmaster Dumbledore, Robbie Coltrane as giant Hagrid and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. The new interlopers are equally scene-grabbing in their own rights: Kenneth Branagh does a rib-tickling interpretation of braggadocio Gilderoy Lockheart as well as Jason Issacs as the wicked Lucius Malfoy.

With a solidly ensembled cast and sumptuous sets, the second installment is fascinatingly entertaining as it is enchanting enough to sustain its 3 long hours without any misgivings.

Just as good if not better!
This DVD gives you a great movie, lots of special features, and great commentary from the stars and people behind the scenes. Just as good a movie as the first Harry Potter installment, this is definitely a great addition to anyone's DVD collection!

Not as goood as the book
This film is not as good as the book, but still a very good film. There are a few scenes from the book that I wish had made the final cut. It does drag a little after the climax, but those scenes are need to tie up loose plot lines as well as items that might have an impact in future editions.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets-Widescreen Edition
This movie was definately a great work of theatre and art alike. The entire movie was captivating, and while the director, Christopher Columbus, could of done better on some parts, this movie does what most do not, and it stayed true to the book. I loved this, and I watched it about 3 times before I was satisfied with it! Go get the movie and see it, and you'll see what I mean!!! The scenes with the Chammber of Secrets were beautifully detailed, giving you a clearer picture than even the book did! So buy this, sit back and be amazed by the production of Harry Potter's second year at Hogwarts school of Withcraft and Wizardry! Enjoy!

Harry Does It Again! Better Than The First!
"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" pulls off something that only "The Empire Strikes Back" has done. It's better than the first film! Not only is the story more interesting(though the first was tops as well), it's packed with even more wonder and imagination than the first as well. The castmembers of the first flick return, as well as Kenneth Branagh in a superb performance as Lockhart, the bumbling, vain writer of "Magical Me."

I'm sure the naysayers had a wonderful time bashing this sequel for its evil undertones. Students get "petrified" and the basilisk takes shots at Harry, but all in all, Harry prevails. He makes the right choices, does the good deeds and fights a good fight. How dare he promote such horrible values!

Please folks, I used up a lot of space harping on how kids need to have fun in my review of the first film. The same applies to this movie as well. Don't worry about your kid becoming a warlock or praying to Satan, just let them have a little fun. If you raise them right, you won't have to worry about any of that anyway.

The "Potter" books encourage kids to read and use their imagination. That's a good thing in my book. The movies encourage kids to use their imaginations as well.

You've just got to love something that promotes so many good things. We need more heroes like Harry. He's a good character to let your kids read about and watch on the big screen. He's caring to others, takes his studies reasonably serious(you might want to promote Hermione's study habits to your kids, though) and he always tries to do the right thing.

Overall this movie is fun and enjoyable for the whole family. Some of the scenes might scare the little ones, but this movie is worth explaining those scenes in order to get the message across.

Watch this one and have a ton of fun. It's great for everybody. Highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (882)

Scott gets the look, as usual
[This review speaks mainly to the film, not the 3-disc special edition release]

Black Hawk Down is a tough movie to qualify. It's visually amazing--this is some of the best combat I've seen in a movie. It's thrilling, it's realistic, it's exciting. I wouldn't exactly call this an anti-war film because it depicts war as the ultimate thrill, a real game of real bullets and blood. Yes, it's hell, but with Ridley Scott directing it looks like a very, very good video game.

I don't know why this movie was made. There is no political leaning, there is very little context. It's a blow by blow account of what happened when over 100 Army Ranger and Delta Force soldiers were stuck in a hostile part of Mogadishu, Somalia in late 1993. The enemy, as to be expected from a Jerry Bruckheimer film, is given no identity. They are throngs of Africans, many of them kids, firing round after round and coming like swarms of bees even as they get cut down by the superior US firepower.

The problem is that the movie goes to very impressive lengths to play out this story. The production is huge--the battle scenes, the city scenes (filmed in some bombed-out-looking part of Morocco apparently), the gunplay, etc. This is an expensive film, and I have to wonder why the money and resources go into something like this if there is nothing to say. Then it becomes pure entertainment, which is all the film turns out to be. That's fine, but again, once in a while it would be nice to inject some intelligence into a project that obviously commanded so many other resources and considerations.

Why was America in Somalia? Granted, that is not the concern of the film, but some kind of context for the war, the rebels, the aims of the mission, the pov of Somalis who were killing to negotiate, as one Somali says in the only behind-the-scenes bit in the film, would have put the film over the edge and actually made the audience ::gasp:: think about why America fights where it does.

There's also the obligatory war film clichés that are just hard to stomach when we know that these are real soldiers being trivialized for the popcorn crowd. Tom Sizemore, as a veteran and tough-as-nails McKnight, goes back into the fray to rescue more men and walks calmly through the street as bullets ricochet around him, like Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Modern movie special effects can simulate rockets blowing people apart, literally, and leg wounds being operated on with someone's bare hands, muscle and sinew and all. It is typical of Hollywood today: they have limitless resources, but those resources (being able to shoot a film as visually and technically impressive as this) serve a story that could use a bit more tweaking and humanization. But the filmmakers are
not interested in that angle.

It would be nice to know why Mogadishu is hell on earth, with hordes of enemies tearing people out of helicopters and raining rockets on American soldiers. Yes, the soldiers were brave, they were highly trained, but the mission was a disaster, and it does the real story a disservice to portray it as just another chapter in American gung ho-ism. Also, the single most memorable bit of that real story was the body of an Army Ranger being dragged through the streets by an angry mob that spit on him, and much worse. That was a disturbing bit of footage for Americans to watch. Would that have been more tasteless than showing an RPG rocket stuck in someone's side? Massive, gaping wounds? Missing legs? Why clean up real events and their aftermath for the sake of a night out at the movies? Maybe they should put their mouths where the money is.

Make no mistake--I couldn't turn this film off. It's exciting; it made me want to play Ghost Recon or one of those games. It also made me want to find out more about this grim chapter in President Clinton's tenure as Commander in Chief, even though it was his predecessor who landed troops there when he was a lame duck. Somalia was an embarrassment, an event that told America we were no longer willing to sacrifice men--18 as compared to over 1,000 Somalis killed in battle--in some foreign wasteland. The film is not enlightening in that regard. It's exciting, it's Jerry Bruckheimer, folks. Watch it and decide for yourself.

It looks like they went to very impressive lengths to put this out on DVD, as expected with a production like this. Definitely worthwhile to pick up, as multiple commentaries, deleted scenes, and other goodies sweeten the deal.

A Special Operation
It's about time! Sony Pictures finally got around to releasing a deluxe edition DVD of director Ridley Scott's magnificent fact-based war thriller "Black Hawk Down". Fortunately, it's well worth the wait; sporting three discs with every concievable extra feature, it could well be the best DVD package I've ever seen.

Possibly the finest of all pure war pictures and unquestionably the best movie ever made about the Special Forces, "Black Hawk Down" recounts the fierce battle that ensued in Somalia on October 3, 1993 during a mission by the Army's Rangers and elite Delta Force operators to capture two lieutenants of a repulsive warlord.

The film presents a raw, vivid dramatization of the fight, with graphic depictions of violent death on both sides. The difference is that Scott, unlike many of his contemporaries, mostly manages to steer clear of sentimentality, preachiness and jingoism (no small feat when you're making a war movie). Understanding the need for occasional breaks in what is essentially a two-hour-long battle scene, Scott also injects a little comic relief in the form of three lost Rangers and some other great little moments (my favorite is the part where Sgt. Eversmann, played with surprising vigor by Josh Hartnett, has to pause in the middle of battle to pull a scalding-hot spent shell casing from inside his uniform; little details like that are cinematic gold).

The first disc has the film along with three outstanding audio commentaries: one from Scott and producer Jerry Bruckheimer; one from screenwriter Ken Nolan and Mark Bowden, author of the original book; and, most interestingly, another by four actual veterans of the battle, who expand on true elements of the story and comment on some of the film's technical innacuracies ("This scene is really cool - too bad it never really happened").

Disc two features a 150-minute "making of" featurette that explores just about every facett of the production, including technical accuracy, CGI effects and footage of the actors at Ranger boot camp.

Disc three has two absorbing documentaries about the battle from the History Channel and PBS's "Frontline". There's also a feature that allows you to watch the fast-roping insertion scene from multiple camera angles and some Q & A sessions with the filmmakers and actors. There's a nice moment in one of these sessions in which Jason Issacs, who plays the aptly named Capt. Steele, comments on how "BHD" actually made him a better person: "After knowing what these soldiers went through, you feel a bit embarrassed complaining about the size of your trailer."

"Black Hawk Down", simply by virtue of its adherence to telling the story as it happened (as much as is possible, at least, within the confines of a 2 1/2 hour movie), is much more military-friendly than many of the artsy war pictures that depict soldiers as victims or, even worse, as psychopaths. It's also a far cry from the simplistic "super soldier" flicks of the 1980s that stressed a comic book mentality over respect for what real American warriors have endured over the centuries. "Black Hawk Down" is a profoundly patriotic movie, but its patriotism is more subtle, mature and real. The only American flags you really see are patches sewn onto the right shoulder of the troops' uniforms. The flag is backwards, so that the stars are closer to the soldier's heart.

A True Horror Film
It just doesn't get any better than this. I've seen this film 4 times & it never ceases to astound me. The acting is exceptional, Ridley Scott is directing here at the peak of his powers & Pietro Scalia should have received an Oscar for the outstanding editing job. The film itself functions more like a rocket ride than just a war film. The word visceral comes to mind. Violent? Frightening? Absolutely! But to demonstrate the true impact of war, for the soldiers & for us, there is no alternative. I noticed a fellow customer said this film is better than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; am I the only one who noticed the huge hole in that film's storyline? Move over THREE KINGS, FULL METAL JACKET, THE THIN RED LINE...BLACK HAWK DOWN may just be the greatest war film ever made. Why? Because a war film isn't just bullets & the terrible death of comrades. Ridley Scott has shown us the true horror. I know it will haunt my dreams......

Great War Movie
I recently bought the DVD for this movie and I have to say that I'm blown away by the movie about the operation to capture Adid in Mogadishu, Somalia in October '93. This movie is very accurate in showing the realities of combat and I think that this is a movie that will really convey to people what it's like to fight and die not only for their country, but for each other.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who wants to know about what it's like in the heat of combat and the courage and fortitude of our soliders.

Best Film of Post-WW2 Combat
Prior to "Black Hawk Down", "Apocalypse Down" was hands down my favorite non-World War II war movie. Time and distance works wonders, and Ridley Scott proves he can film modern combat, like sci-fi ("Alien") with the best of them.

This is a post Private Ryan film, which means that the street combat scenes are jumpy, erratic, and extremely violent. But like Spielberg, Scott does not lose sight of character development, particularly Harnett's character who becomes marooned with his "stick" of Rangers overnight in the centre of Mogadishu surrounded by thousands of screeming, RPG-toting Somalis who can use cell phones to mobilize and direct their forces. The movie builds like "Alien", to the point where it becomes incomprehensible that anyone is going to get out alive. The movie does not take sides when commanders sacrifice four or five soldiers to save one - it just happens.

Some reviewers have referred to the book as a "novel" - it is not. This battle really happened, but once we left Somalia (or were pushed out, depending on your point of view) it got quietly shunted aside as a bad sideshow until Mark Bowden wrote his book of the same title, which is a MUST read for people who loved the movie (it goes into greater detail of the Ranger culture and background politics). Lots of lessons abound for our current escapade into Mesopotamia.

Sizemore, who is also in "Private Ryan", is by leaps and bounds the best hard-nosed NCO anywhere. Ewan McGregor, who has had to suffer through Lucas' recent disasters, gets to demonstrate his versatility. Harnett is terrific.

No review should pass up the incredible sound, which demands a 5.1 system and heavy on the subwoofer. The soundtrack (with the exception of the vaguely Celtic ooh-ahhs at the end) is the best I recall of any war movie. ... Read more

Reviews (762)

Lethal Hatchet Part 4
So sue me, I stole that by-line from Newsweek. But it's the most apt description I've heard. It really is a Mel Gibson revenge flick, with him running around with a couple dozen hatchets and rifles rather than a semi-automatic Glock. Don't get me wrong, I loved this movie, but it wasn't historically accurate, and for anyone who wants a truly good Colonial period drama(I'm one of those), they'll have to keep looking. The Last of the Mohicans didn't do it(yes, I know that that was the French and Indian War), and this one doesn't do it either. It's pure action, pure revenge, pure adrenaline. Same as almost any Mel Gibson picture. The scene where he eliminates a 20 man British contingent is definitely a cool sequence; The follow up to this movie should have Bruce Willis and be called "Die Patriot". Ok, bad joke, but basically, this is an adventure film that is fun to watch, as it is in the vein of all my favorite adventure films, like Die Hards 1-3 and Lethal Weapons 1-4. Cool movie, not exactly Oscar material. Heck, not even Golden Globe material.

The Patriot a perfect Fourth of July rouser
What is it about American wars that brings the best out of otherwise trivial filmmakers? Ten years ago, the glorious Glory came from "thirtysomething" creator Edward Zwick. Now, Godzilla's Roland Emmerich, about the last director from whom we could expect full-bodied characters, brings us The Patriot--in every sense of the word, the most beautiful movie of its year.

Part of the credit should probably go to screenwriter Robert Rodat who, as Saving Private Ryan proved, surely knows which patriotic buttons to push. Whoever should be credited, there's not a false move in this rousing three-hour tribute to American spirit. When they say "They don't make 'em like that anymore," point to this one as an example of how it can still be done.

And who knew Mel Gibson still had any actorism left in him? As Benjamin Martin, a reluctant war veteran who is finally moved to fight in the Revolutionary War when a redcoat kills one of his sons, Gibson sheds his familiar love-me mannerisms like an old winter coat. He never relies on cutesy tics, and not once does he strike a false note. His character elicits laughter, tears, and bloodshed, and for the first time in years, Gibson emotes an honest-to-gosh person on the screen.

The movie's basic point--stated outright by Martin early on in the story--is that the Revolutionary War was won by wily militiamen who served as a direct counterpoint to the straight-on British manner of battle. But that's about the only thing in the movie which is stated so blatantly. The dialogue, rather than being laden with jingoism, is appropriately sparse, letting the movie's considerable action tell the story. And as such, this movie is a perfect argument against gratuitous movie violence (despite its R rating)--it shows the devastating effects of war (Martin loses a great deal of his family, one by one) and yet doesn't linger on its horrific effects.

Gibson's magnificent underplaying and Rodat's spare screenplay seem to have invigorated the rest of the cast as well. Everyone from Jason Isaacs (the British colonel with a bug up himself about Martin) to Tom Wilkinson (terrific as British warlord Gen. Cornwallis) to Trevor Morgan (the actory smart-aleck in The Sixth Sense) as one of Martin's sons, seem just as juiced up as Gibson is.

I haven't told a great deal about the plot, have I? (I haven't even touched upon Caleb Deschanel's beautiful cinematography, or John Williams' best movie score since E.T.) And this is as it should be. Please just trust that you should devote nearly three hours to one of the most perfectly realized movie visions you're likely to see for a long, long time.

The Patriot is rated R, mostly for very graphic violence, though in context, a PG-13 would be far more appropriate. Its only dramatic effect is to get kids talking about the story, an opportunity that I'd imagine most history teachers and parents would welcome.

STIRRING AND MOVING
Once again, people crave for authenticity...the way it really happened....and once again, I say, "It's a movie. It's entertaining and moving....I didn't take my history book along to make sure it was totally accurate. I like escapism, and movies that move me." This movie did that. It's beautifully filmed by the respected Caleb Deschanel; the music by John Williams is moving, and the cast on a whole is exceptional. Mel Gibson has been labeled an okay actor, but if you look deep inside his performances, the man does his best in filling whatever shoes his role dictates. As the family-oriented and somewhat stubborn father, he evokes the pain he feels from his actions in an earlier battle with the French; he seems devastated by his youngest daughter's silence to him; and he loves his family. Joely Richardson is effectively cast as Mel's sister in law, who helps take care of his family during this crisis. Heath Ledger is all gungho and spirited as Gabriel, and plays well with the rest of his cast. Tom Wilkinson is superb as Cornwallis, a man steeped in tradition and British fanfare. His scene with Gibson in which the patriot negotiates for the release of his 18 prisoners is exceptional. Jason Isaacs is pure evil in his role as the heartless Haverton (or whatever), and shows that war to him is merely licensed murder. The rest of the supporting cast: Chris Cooper, Rene Auberjonois, Adam Baldwin, Gregory Smith, Mira Boorkem, and Donal Logue, in particular, are great additions.
The movie is a manipulative film, of course...how else would it work, but it's to director Roland Emmerich's credit, that when the credits were over, I felt moved and touched. That's what films are meant to be in my opinion.

Complete and Utter Waste of Time
I am genuinely surprised at this movie's good rating!
1)The historical innaccuracy is horrible
2)It is a movie that glorifies the WRONG things about the American Revolution
3)The love story is nauseating
4)The characters are weak and underdeveloped. Mel Gibson is an ok (Just OK) actor. Most of the others are too, with some really really bad ones thrown in- just for kicks!
5)People say it was entertaining- really? I was writhing through the entire thing. Oh, and the war scenes really aren't that gruesome... maybe its because I saw Kill Bill a month ago?

I wish I didn't waste my time with this movie! Please, please watch something else! There are so many better (historical or otherwise) movies!

An American Patriot
The 2000 summer film, "The Patriot" which I believe was in theatres appropiately on the 4th of July, stars Mel Gibson in the heroic role of Benjamin Martin, a father fighting for his family and his colony from the British enemy forces of General Cornwallis (played by Tom Wilkinson). The movie was directed by Roland Emmerich, the director of Independence Day, which, though science fiction blockbuster epic that it was, still maintained the 4th of July American patriotism theme much like this movie. Being entirely different from his usual blockbusters (Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow most recently) Emmerich immerses us into the historical period of early America in the 1770's, when the budding, newfound country was at war with Great Britain. The American Revolution was the first real war in America. The country was earning its independence and fighting for it in the most literal sense.

Althoug the movie keeps its period piece/costume drama visuals, in the dialogue you can find traces of modernism. For example, in one scene, Mel Gibson sits with his wife and asks "Can I sit here ?" and she replies in comedy tone "Hey it's a free country.. or that is it will be". Much of Mel Gibson's own influence is in this movie. He did not direct this movie although he could have easily done so. The fighting scenes, the battles, the gunfights and the violence is very Mel Gibson in nature (he is after all responsible for such films as Braveheart). The portrayal of the British is of course biased since it's on the American side we're sympathezing with. Cornwallis is a man we love to hate-rude, arrogant and cruel. The other British in the film are also portrayed as very nasty. The message of patriotism, love of family and home is all quite strong here. But it does make a good film if you're into this period, if you want to see Mel Gibson doing a historic piece and as the hero which he always does so well in. Mel Gibson, though much older now, is still a great actor and provides much romantic/sex appeal. On DVD, the movie is loaded with extra features including commentary and "Making Of" segment. ... Read more

Description

The magic, the excitement, the wonder of the true Peter Pan comes to life for the first time in this spellbinding fantasy that critics proclaim "a fun and fantastic tale!" (Daily Herald).Brimming with spectacular special effects and non-stop action, this all-new adventure is sure to be a family favorite for years to come!"One of the finest films of the year!" (Daily Gazette) ... Read more

Reviews (247)

flawless adaptation of this children's classic
I have a child. I have seen EVERY version of Peter Pan made -- many many times. Imagine my *delight* at seeing yet another version (sarcasm here) when the film came out in theaters. I have to admit, however, that I was immediately and continuously impressed by this superb adaptation of J.M. Barrie's classic children's tale, and bought the dvd as soon as it came out.

The cast is absolutely perfect. Jeremy Sumpter in the title role is wonderful, bringing a mischievous energy and boyishness to the part that has been amazingly and consistently missing (having been played by Mary Martin and Robin Williams). I'll also single out Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy and Jason Isaacs as Captain Hook/Mr. Darling for their great performances, but the entire cast is terrific.

The script is spectacular, exploring the subtext of the Pan story in a simple but profound way that puts film critics' shameless psycho-jargon to shame. It is the kernel of truth wrapped round a rousing adventure story -- replete with cruel pirates, brave Indians, sinister mermaids and loyal parents. Captain Hook's cruelty is evident, but takes place mostly off-screen and is never gory. This is a thinking (little) person's Peter Pan, certainly, drawing as it does on previously unexplored themes of the complexity of growing up, the consequences of our choices, and the acceptance of our children as they grow up, but it's also a gorgeous realization of Barrie's (and Wendy's) fantastical imagination.

DVD extras are quite entertaining and include: an alternate ending, deleted scenes, Jason Isaacs' video diary, "The Legacy of Pan" with Sarah Ferguson, and a number of micro-minifeaturettes on flying, sets, etc. Too bad it lacks a commentary track but otherwise lots of fun.

For Pan fans, highest possible recommendation;
for all others, see above.

An endearing tale of everlasting childhood
I just got done watching the movie adaptation for Disney's "Peter Pan" and enjoyed it immensely. I've never been a fan of the animated version but I absolutely loved this recreation of the classic story about the adventures of Peter Pan, a boy who refuses to grow up, the intriguing storyteller and mother to the lost boys, Wendy, his pirate nemesis, Captain Hook, who seeks revenge from losing his right hand, which was fed to a crocodile that has since then continued to follow him with a ticking clock inside, wanting to taste more, and of course the magic that is Neverland. However, this new edition doesn't just focus on the greatness of staying young forever (or until you die) but it also shows the sadness of it too, giving this film more substance and meaning. It's definitely geared toward adult audiences who take pleasure in enchanting fantasies, like me, but it's certainly suitable and fun for the whole family.

Although this is based on the popular animation they are similar in plot yet details are slightly altered, giving this several interesting twists so that your uncertain as to what is going to happen next. The beginning even takes place before Nana (the dog nurse) captured Peter Pan's shadow, which I found to be very clever as I always wondered how that happened... Tinkerbell was dazzling as the jealous faery, the sets, or rather special effects were all magnificent, and the entire cast was superbly chosen. This is, in my opinion, one of the better films to come out of 2003 so come be a kid again and enter a world that shall bring that to the surface... That is until you wish to return home.

The Best Movie I've Ever Seen
I loved this movie! I watched it 9 times in five days. I cannot get enough of Jeremy Sumpter. The effects are amazing. I think you would have to be crazy to dislike this movie. It is by far better than Hook. I hated that movie. I was watching it and fell asleep. But P.J. Hogan's version of this classic story kept me wide awake.

An Excellent Adaptation!
I loved this movie! It really stayed with the storyline in J.M. Barrie's novel, but with a few wonderful extras. It was like the play comes to the bigscreen. I loved how the mermaids were portrayed, very creative. Jeremy Sumpter does excellent in his portrayal of Peter Pan, and his costume was very realistic. The soundtrack added to the magic and playfulness of the film. To see Peter and the Darling children fly the way they did was awesome and breathtaking. I can't stop watching this movie. I always felt that the story of Peter Pan was a love story between Peter and Wendy, and this movie reveals that with gentleness and wimsy. A wonderful movie all the way around.

Best movie I've seen in a REALLY long time!
Peter Pan is a really awesome movie! I'm right at that age where I think about guys a lot, so one big factor is that Jeremy Sumpter is really cute! But, I also really love the movie overall. It looks so real that sometimes I go off into huge dreams about visiting Neverland! The movie shows everything just as vivid and bright as I imagined!!! Great work, guys! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

the old italian way love honor and respect
i have seen last don thought it was a great movie love all italian mafia movies simple reason cause i am italian and very proud of it the last don 2 looks like a great movie cant wait to see it gotta go now o one more word VIVA ILATALIA so grab the film and watch it chio

amazing, brilliant, fantastic, enigmatic, addictive
I watched the movie more times than I have actually spoken words. It's the movie of the decade. An absolute blockbuster. Watch it, it's like non-other.Jason Gedrick is Al Pacino in the last don. He is a outstanding italian mafia, a perfect 10.

Its great from start to finish!
It will keep you on the edge of your seat! It is the best part two mini series I've seen yet!

SECOND BEST TO THE GODFATHER TRILOGY
I REALLY ENJOYED THE MINI SERIES ON TV. A MUST SEE. MAKES AN EXCELLENT MOVIE FOR COLLECTORS. ONE COMMENT THOUGH. THE MINI SERIES "THE LAST DON" COMES IN THREE TAPES. WHY PART 2 IS ONLY IN ONE TAPE?.

What A Great Sequal
This was an extrodinary movie that just keeps you wanting more. Just as good as the first movie, maybe even better. How could anything that comes from Mario Puzo be considered any less! ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The latest testosterone-saturated blow-'em-up from producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay (The Rock, Bad Boys) continues Hollywood's millennium-fueled fascination with the destruction of our planet. There's no arguing that the successful duo understands what mainstream American audiences want in their blockbuster movies--loads of loud, eye-popping special effects, rapid- fire pacing, and patriotic flag waving. Bay's protagonists--the eight crude, lewd, oversexed (but lovable, of course) oil drillers summoned to save the world from a Texas-sized meteor hurling toward the earth--are not flawless heroes, but common men with whom all can relate. In this huge Western-in-space soap opera, they're American cowboys turned astronauts. Sci-fi buffs will appreciate Bay's fetishizing of technology, even though it's apparent he doesn't understand it as anything more than flashing lights and shiny gadgets. Smartly, the duo also tries to lure the art-house crowd, raiding the local indie acting stable and populating the film with guys like Steve Buscemi, Billy Bob Thornton, Owen Wilson, and Michael Duncan, all adding needed touches of humor and charisma. When Bay applies his sledgehammer aesthetics to the action portions of the film, it's mindless fun; it's only when Armageddon tackles humanity that it becomes truly offensive. Not since Mississippi Burning have racial and cultural stereotypes been substituted for characters so blatantly--African Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Scottish, Samoans, Muslims, French ... if it's not white and American, Bay simplifies it. Or, make that white male America; the film features only three notable females--four if you count the meteor, who's constantly referred to as a "bitch that needs drillin'," but she's a hell of a lot more developed and unpredictable than the other women characters combined. Sure, Bay's film creates some tension and contains some visceral moments, but if he can't create any redeemable characters outside of those in space, what's the point of saving the planet? --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (1140)

"Armageddon" is GREAT entertainment!
I recently saw "Armageddon" for the first time on DVD and thought it was a fantastic example of movie entertainment. It's an excellently-produced science fiction/action/adventure movie. The special effects are top-notch and truly breathtaking. Script and character development are above average for this type of film--but of course, this is NOT "Othello"! The storyline is extremely interesting and the movie's pacing is packed with edge-of-your-seat suspense, with just enough deadpan comedic relief. I found no fault with the actor's performances--Bruce Willis does his usually-good "John Wayne" and considering this is sci-fi, the others gave FAR less wooden performances than, say, would be seen on ANY episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation." The movie could've done without the dumb Aerosmith tunes in the soundtrack, but that's a minor criticism.

Since I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I was dismayed to see a lot of negative comments by Amazon.com reviewers who appear (in my opinion) to be "cinema snobs." And after "reading between the lines" of these reviews, I see a pattern of thought--which I thoroughly disagree with.

The underlying "theme" of "Armageddon" is simply that for the most part, Americans--in addition to American values and technology--save the world. The attributes that Americans (although certainly not exclusively) are known for--courage, heroism, patriotism, both stubborn individuality AND one-for-all/all-for-one team determination--are very much a part of this story.

I wonder if many of the negative reviewers were put off by the "Rah-Rah USA!" tone of the film. There is a certain type of liberal/artsy, anti-American, anti-NASA, anti-patriot attitude that would loathe a movie like "Armageddon"--and such a mindset would probably color such a reviewer's comments. That's unfortunate, because although "Armageddon" is very much an "American" story, it also exhilaratingly examines some of the very BEST elements of the all-inclusive human spirit.

A Bruckheimer/Bay space dud
We all love sci-fi disaster movies. It's a guilty pleasure. I can tolerate disaster movies as long as there was effort involved to make it as entertaining as possible. This movie was watchable, but it was not an entertaining experience. "Armaggedon" is a movie that is bombastic, nonsensical, cliched, ridiculing, and is an insult to a moviegoer's intelligence. The Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay team is the worst Hollywood duo next to Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich. Sure, "mindless fun" can have its moments, but "Armageddon" pushes this way too much.

The summary in a heartbeat: An asteroid "the size of Texas" is on its way towards Earth, and the US government hires oil drillers to drill into the asteroid's center to nuke it internally. The writers seemed to reach for some undesired effect here. So what if the asteroid is the size of Texas? You don't need an asteroid that size to wipe out Earth. A city-sized asteroid is all it would take. Were the filmmakers paranoid that the movie will lose flavor if the asteroid were only the size of Seattle? And despite it's size, an asteroid does not have the same gravitional pull that the Earth or even the Moon does, yet the astronauts walk on the asteroid as if they're strolling through the city park.

"Armageddon" plays like a montage on steroids. It just does not know how to enjoy the scenery. Camera angles shift and change so fast like an MTV-style music video, as if the filmmakers wanted to prevent you from taking a better look. It felt like the film was going to short-circuit on me. This is not stylish filmmaking, it's just a gimmick to toy with the audience. The disaster scenes are among the worst ever filmed. Closed-up shots so that the audience can't comprehend the mayhem is an insulting film gesture. On top of that, I thought I was going to get an epileptic seizure. Bruckheimer and Bay need a slap in the face.

The script is one that is completely dry of original ideas. The usual world in peril and average Americans have to save it. The usual sentimental farewell of the sacrificial hero. The usual love complications. The usual fumbling of high authorities. There's a scene in the movie where the nuke is turned on and the crew must disable it. What do you need for suspense? Duh, a timer! In reality, what purpose would timers have? If the nuke was successfully planted inside the asteroid, who would stay and watch the time run out? And of course for this scene to end with a bang, there must be an edge-of-your-seat moment where the so-called "bomb expert" has to decide whether to cut the red or blue wire. This movie ridicules everybody, and it's not done in good taste. It ridicules NASA. It ridicules the President. It ridicules Russians. It ridicules average citizens. Everybody is a half-witted pawn for the plot's progression. The movie lovingly sets up human beings for doom as if they're too stupid to know what's coming. There are a number of scenes were the filmmakers decided "Hey, let's insert a disaster here!"

What's with this love story phenomenon in disaster movies? This one serves no purpose for the plot. Liv Tyler is cast only for her to show off skin and serve as the angsty daughter of Bruce Willis (Harry). Ben Affleck (AJ) is Liv Tyler's love interest, and this little fiasco serves as the personal center for the three main characters. What for? At the end of the movie, Harry says to AJ, "I've always thought of you as a son." Right. At the beginning of the movie, he was chasing him around the oil rig with a shotgun.

The movie is littered with other kinds of nonsense. The nuke is about blow in less than a minute, but Harry takes his time to talk about his determination. The asteroid is about to hit the zero barrier mark, but Harry takes his time to say a final goodbye to his daughter. The world is about to end, for crying out loud. Giving lengthy banal eulogies seems more important to the director.

"Armageddon" is an ugly, frantic, burdening experience and is a movie that makes you wonder if the filmmakers even went through any edits in the screenplay. Another asteroid movie "Deep Impact", while not great, still wipes the floor with this one. Hopefully this movie will serve as an example of what NOT to do with making disaster films.

Exceptionally well-crafted story line
For me, this is an incredibly difficult movie to review and critique. I feel that the movie did a phenomenal job of developing the story; however, the acting in the movie left something to be desired.

In case someone has not seen the movie, I do not want to give much of the story away. An asteroid, classified as a global killer (a global killer meaning that if it impacts earth, there will be total destruction of life), is on a collision course with earth. NASA comes up with the idea of landing on the asteroid, drilling a hole, and dropping a nuclear weapon in the hole and blowing up the asteroid with the intent of splitting it in two and altering its path so it misses earth.

While it is a simple story, the movie does an exceptional job developing the plot into a 2-hour movie. The movie incorporates a "gloom and doom" plot with a second story of love, romance, and hope. The first plot is about an oil driller and his band of misfits attempting to work with a group of highly educated astronauts and military pilots to drill a hole on the asteroid (and of course the work together as well as Worcestershire sauce and ice cream). The second story line involves one of the oil drillers falling in love with the owners daughter. The relationship reminds me of a terrible "teen-age" relationship with the seemingly perfect love that young people share coupled with a resentful father who seems to not want to lose his daughter.

It is difficult to explain how well the two story lines integrate without ruining the movie for someone who has not seen it. While the plot is superb, the acting in the move is just so-so. I thought the acting of the three headline actors (Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, and Liv Tyler) was weak at best; they had their great moments, but mostly their acting seemed almost emotionless. I did think a couple of the lesser known actors (mainly Michael Clarke Duncan as "Bear" and Peter Stormare as the Russian astronaut) were incredible in this movie.

Personally, due to the overwhelming depressing plot about the end of the earth, I don't think this is a movie I would cuddle with on the couch with a new date. However, I nonetheless think the plot is excellent and I do highly recommend seeing this movie. I give the movie 5 stars for how the movie integrates the two story lines together and develops them into a great plot, not the acting in the movie.

I love this movie!!!
Okay, there's a reason that we go to the movies...to escape everyday life and just enjoy some good old fun for a couple of hours and this movie does it. I don't know, maybe I'm just a Bruce Willis fan, but this movie did entertain me and it's on cable right now and I'm watching it, which is what compelled me to write and defend this fun movie because everyone else is trashing it!

Dull
I enjoy most Jerry Bruckheimer movies. There almost always just plain fun, like "Beverly Hills Cop" or "The Rock." I somehow missed "Armageddon" in the theaters, so I rented it as soon as I could.
Despite all the popularity it got, I wasn't dazzled by it like so many others. The story is about a gigantic asteroid racing towards earth. If it hit, every human on the planet would die. So the U.S. government, led by a NASA administrator (Billy Bob Thornton) hire an oil-drilling team to take a space shuttle out into space, land on the asteroid, and blow it up with a nuclear bomb. Easy, right? The team is led by a guy named Harry (Bruce Willis), and includes such actors as Ben Affleck, Owen Wilson, Steve Buscemi, Will Patton, and Michael Clarke Duncan. Then we get assaulted with Bruckheimer/Bay's trademark action sequences: loud and mesmerizing.
Except that in "Armageddon," I didn't buy any of the action. The special effects, which were awesome in some parts, were horrible looking in others. Willis' and Affleck's performances were awful; most of them were. I realize that a mindless blockbuster like this one doesn't matter if the acting is bad, but it was so bad here that I just couldn't take it. Actually, the best performances came from Owen Wilson (who died in the middle) and Peter Stormare as a Russian cosmonaut. I also thought that when Willis sacrificed himself, all those shots of his daughter (Liv Tyler) were unnessecary. Too much gloss for me.
No, this movie isn't very good. "The Rock" was just so much better. Heck, I even enjoyed "Pearl Harbor" more. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

In the closing paragraph of his 1996 review of Dragonheart, noted critic Roger Ebert summed up this adventurous fantasy quite nicely: "While no reasonable person over the age of 12 would presumably be able to take it seriously, there is nevertheless a lighthearted joy to it, a cheerfulness, an insouciance, that recalls the days when movies were content to be fun." That's precisely the quality that makes Dragonheart so appealing, despite the fact that it didn't exactly take flight and breathe fire at the box office. The movie takes itself seriously without sacrificing the wit and cleverness that make it so entertaining. It's about the last of the great dragon slayers, Bowen (Dennis Quaid), who teams up with the last of the great dragons, Draco (and voiced by Sean Connery), after they realize that killing each other would put them both out of business!So they devise a bogus dragon-slaying act that's a huge hit as they tour from village to village. Later, they must rouse the peasantry against the loutish Prince Einon (David Thewlis), whose life was once saved by Draco, but who now violates the "Old Code" of honor with a ruthless reign of terror. As Ebert rightly noted, Dragonheart is no masterpiece, and its story (which was originally conceived as a darker, more serious drama) isn't likely to capture everyone's heart (dragon or otherwise). But it's full of exciting action, witty dialogue, and gallant heroism, and in the presentation of a realistic talking dragon it's a milestone in computer-generated special effects, far surpassing the breakthroughs of Jurassic Park three years earlier. --Jeff Shannon. ... Read more

Reviews (102)

Leaping Lizards
Director Rob Cohen (XXX & The Fast and the Furious) brings mythical creatures to life in the grand fantasy adventure "Dragonheart". In a medieval land, Bowen (Dennis Quaid), a fallen knight of the old code of honor, forms an unlikely alliance with a noble fire-breathing beast (voiced by Sean Connery). These two sworn enemies aid a peasant rebellion against a spoiled tyrant. "Dragonheart" is a truly entertaining epic fantasy for the whole family. Its enchanting story is quite engaging and its characters are certainly memorable. The film contains some great action, amazing special effects and delightful humor. Dennis Quaid delivers a surprising performance. Draco is a terrific visual creation and Sean Connery is perfectly cast as the voice of the dragon. The cast also includes David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwaite, Dina Meyer and Julie Christie.

As one of Universal's earliest DVD releases, "Dragonheart" Collector Edition is a highly recommended purchase. The 1996 fantasy adventure is presented in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen format. The DVD contains a spectacular picture quality with striking detail and bright colors. Its 5.1 Dolby Digital sound is great with fine clarity and good bass. Unlike the DTS version, this DVD features numerous supplements including an audio commentary by director Rob Cohen, the excellent "The Making of Dragonheart" documentary, theatrical trailers, outtakes, picture galleries and production notes. Overall, "Dragonheart" (Dolby Digital version) has a superb DVD presentation and scores a definite "A-".

One of the best fantasy films of recent years!
In 1996, a fantasy film by the name of "Dragonheart" hit theaters and didn't really garner much at the box-office. Quite a shame, because this movie is quite a good one. "Dragonheart" took place during medieval times in England with a story about a bloodthirsty king's son's (David Thewlis) pact with a dragon to live with the half of the dragon's heart. The dragon, Draco (Sean Connery's voice), later befriends Bowen (Dennis Quaid), Einon's mentor, after they realize Einon has the same treachorous blood of his father's.

The acting is quite good in the film, especially Quaid and Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert (he's a poet and a monk, and he gets the best lines). Julie Christie plays Einon's mother and she does a decent job. The only one I can detract is Dina Meyer's and considering her character's father is murdered by the evil king, I expected a more angst-filled performance. Unfortunately, she plays the role rather blandly and it's quite a shame; she was excellent in "Starship Troopers" (one year later) and very good in her small role in "Star Trek Nemesis." Oh well, onto the other good stuff...

The dragon effects were VERY WELL DONE and detailed, and it's not surprising that one of the head dragon creators (Phil Tippett) from 1981's "Dragonslayer" is involved. Sean Connery gives the character much personality and I'd place him #2 in the best lines category for this film (as I mentioned above, Gilbert has most of the best). The music was composed by Randy Edelman, a prolific composer of notable films including "Kindergarten Cop," "The Last of the Mohicans," and the brilliant "Gettysburg," among many other films. The music is superb.

On a closing note, I'd say for recent years, this is an awesome film. It may not be academy award winning material, but it's visual grandness for the medieval period and it's overall great sense of fun, it's a winner. It almost feels like those old Indiana Jones/Romancing the Stone/Back to the Future/etc. films in which a movie is content on being fun, whether or not a lot of brainpower is involved. A good film, excellently directed by Rob Cohen ("Fast and the Furious").

This movie will bring the heart out in you!
I don't know about you guys,but I difinitly belive! The story of a valent Knight serching for the last of the dragons,who he belives bewitched his student. Dennis Quaid never ceases to amase me! And Sean Connory will make anyone belive. But, put those two together and you got a great movie. David Thewis even adds to the excitment. I would not trade this one for anything. I guess it's safe to say that I enjoyed this one immensly!!!

LOVED IT!!!!!
(I'm really 17 but I'm not a customer, my parents are. BTW.)
This is a brilliant movie, the story and the acting was beautiful and stunning!
I'd recommend this to everyone because I feel that it's that good!
However, if you'd like to read how it was supposed to be, I'd highly recommend that you read the novel of the same title based on the original screenplay. It takes the story to a whole new level, bringing more to the story and a slightly darker tone to it as well!
I hope you find this helpful.
P.S.
You must read the book!!!!!

The Best Dragon Movie EVER!!!
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! It is one of the best ever!!! It shows dragons the way I think dragons should be shown: as good guys, with feelings and a personality, not the way some movies show dragons as mindless, heartless murdering beasts.

Summary: A knight of the Old Code named Bowen has sworn himself to hunting down and killing every dragon in the world. The reason: his apprentice, Prince Enion, was badly wounded when the villagers revolted against his father, the King. The Queen took the prince to a dragon that lived nearby and the dragon saved him by giving the boy half of his heart. Soon after, the ex-prince became the King and began to forget everything Bowen taught him. Bowen, thinking it was the dragon's heart that corrupted Enion, vows to kill all dragons.

12 years later: Bowen comes across a dragon who claims to be the last dragon. After a endless fight, the knight and dragon form a truce. After their schemeing makes them a lot of $, Bowen and the dragon, who Bowen named Draco, meet a villager named Kara, who wants to lead a revolt against Enion. With the help of Bowen and Draco, she is able to get villagers to join their cause.

As the fight begins, Draco is captured. Now Bowen must find a way to rescue his dragon friend and somehow kill Enion. But... what will the knight of the Old Code do when he finds out that there is a terrible and deadly connection between Draco and Enion? What will Bowen do when he finds out that the only way to end Enion's terrible ways once and for all is to...

I love how the director added in the parts of light humor along with action and slight plot twists which all add up to a slightly surprise ending. The end (which I wont give away) is so sad that I always get teary eyed no matter how many times I watch it. Bring lots of tissues to this movie. If you like dragons, then you will LOVE this movie!!! I can promise you!!! ... Read more

Reviews (214)

A great shame.
John Woo films have always had a tendency to rely more on explosive action sequences than masterful acting to pull the crowds. Face Off was loud but intriguing. M.I. 2 was loud but fairly stylishly done. Unfortunately, Windtalkers is really just loud.

The central plot is actually very good. Two U.S. marines must escort a pair of Navajo Indians who are trained to use a secret code to make transmissions to allies without Japanese troops earwigging. A factual plot too-this really happened. So all the potential was there, but the main problem from my point of view is that this movie was simply overdone.

Although the action sequences themselves are well done, nearly all of them are accompanied by dramatic war music which spoils the reality of them. There are also, if you can believe it, too many of them. Great war films like Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers(watch that!) offered respite between the bangs for some thought provoking dialogue. Not so here.

The acting is far too over the top. Nicolas Cage is unusually poor, while Christian Slater barely breaks a sweat. I found that I did not care what happened to the characters-NOT a good sign.

This movie is a prime example of the fact that explosions cannot make a movie on their own. John Woo has made a good effort, but sadly this movie just did not hold my interest. If you REALLY like war films, you may like this movie, but otherwise, it's not really worth the postage and packaging!

ASIN: B00008PBZW

emotional, but lacking
i admit, it made me cry - but what ever happened to the lady nurse who helped Joe Enders pass his hearing test in order to be able to go back to war, and was writing him all the time? the characters are static, though the Navajos are slightly more dynamic; there was little background info. too much bombs and shooting throughout, and i especially did not like the melodramatic part when Enders killed Whitehorse along with the Japs and then told Yahzee,"I killed him. I threw a bomb and blew him up," acting so sarcastic, wanting to provoke and die. finally, the code language should have been featured more.

ful of stereotypes!
It is a well done typicall Hollywood movie but I have seen all this so many times. Everything is so predictable. The movie with such great actors as Nicolas Cage and Christian Slater doesn't have any material for them to work with. I was shocked that such inventive director as John Woo could make such lame movie. Not recommended.

I Wonder What the Wind Would Say
First of all I will say that the importance of the concept for this film is necessary and much overlooked. The involvement of American Indians in war is sadly left out of too many history books.

I was hoping this film would be better than it turned out to be. The historical facts should be recoginized along side all of the other celebrations of war heroes. Sadly this film was a complete bomb. The direction was predictable and the action scenes could have been shot by a five year old boy playing "war hero" in the backyard, alot of noise and piles of dust and actors pretending to be dead. All this with the constant drone of a musical score best left for a karoke bar to hum along to.

And what happened to Nicolas Cage? He used to be a great actor with individual style and presentation. It seems that he just keeps slipping away. I just was not convinced of his "hero" ability in this film....and his death scene is almost the most horrendous I have ever witnessed, not for the gore or emotional impact, but because it was simply awful acting!

Windtalkers
This DVD is not widescreen . And I need all my DVDs widescreen because I have a windscreen TV. Went to Hasting all of Windtalkers DVD are both widescreen and Fullscreen.
And I went back to my order from you and it show it was widescreen that was order.
What happen? ... Read more

Reviews (82)

Mature Love for a Anxious Audience
In these times of youth galore and Generation X, it is indeed rare to come around and find a love story which can be labeled *mature* and have that not be an overstatement of fact. This film, while not blowing away the box office upon it's U.S. release, certainly encompasses three sensational performances, a director who truly keeps to the spirit of the written word, cinematography that plays integral part of the story itself and a score that haunts with subtle yet vibrant beauty.

While no one can deny that Julianne Moore is the centerpiece of the tale as Sarah, Ralph Fiennes and Stephen Rea are also to be lauded for their interpretations of Bendrix and Henry respectively. Fiennes, in a role of quiet intensity and soft-pitched rage takes us into the psyche of Bendrix and gives us perhaps the best visual image as to what life must have been been for Graham Greene himself during the affair that marked his life. Rea as the cuckhold Henry is, as has been written a dullard through and through, but what makes his interpretation noble is the fact that he is well aware of it at every instant. It's obvious that his marriage to Sarah was at all moments a marriage of convenience that hoped for something better, but that never truly reached the pinnacle of love.

The tale begins with Bendrix's "diary of hate" and never loses that. Yes, he hates and never stops hating but as a constant, love is tempered and fed by the fuel of such fires. Ultimately, it is fate that becomes the undoing and the true end of the affair.

Dilution of the Miraculous
Graham Greene's The End of the Affair has been for many years one of my very favorite books, so I was excited when I heard that it had been made into a movie. Hollywood, however, in recent years despises anti-heroes and could not bring itself to make a villain out of Morris, played by Ralph Fiennes, as had Greene. It also diminished the impact of the miraculous that the book brought to the reader, that obvious sense of God's presence and love that Morris so firmly rejected even when it saved his life.

This is not to say that this isn't a watchable film: it is only in the last minutes that the film destroys the beauty of Greene's original vision. Fiennes, Moore, and Stephen Lea play their parts very capably: Lea, in particular, acts very capably as the dull, but kind Henry Miles.

But as I noted before, the film removes Greene's ironic ending by making Morris too good. In the novel, Morris (who is also the narrator) is the Seducer who can see only evil in the world. Sarah Miles, on the other hand, often sees selflessness when Morris believes himself to be selfish. When his own life is saved by apparent divine intervention, Morris will not see the miracle nor does he appreciate the sacrifice that Sarah has made on his behalf. Following Sarah's death, Morris is faced with what is for him a very frustrating manifestation of God's presence in the reappearance of the once sinful Sarah as a saint who cures the sick! He continues to reject God, however. In the end, frustrated and alone, he admits that God exists and declares his hatred. "Leave me alone forever." The reader is left with the clear feeling that the joke is on Morris.

The movie softens the case against Morris. It has him bringing glasses of warm milk to the bedside of the cuckolded husband. He prays that Henry and Sarah be taken care of by God "but leave me alone forever". One gets the feeling that the producers/directors/actors had some of the following motives in mind:

* To not make Ralph Fiennes into a villain

* To avoid making a film which would be critical of people who fell in love with married people

* To avoid making a film which in any way might make Catholic teachings palatable. (For the record, I am agnostic.)

* To have a happier Hollywood ending than the book had had.

I ended my viewing of the film feeling that I had just seen a remake of The English Patient with a kinder husband and a slightly less sluttish wife. If I could change the last ten minutes of the film and return to it the sense of Greene's irony, I could give it a full five stars. I had to ask "How truly did this represent Greene?" And the answer was "Not very well." Perhaps those who have not read and loved Greene will feel better about this film. It is, without that comparison, an ably acted and filmed love story, if conventional in its treatment of adulterous lovers.

To quote Greene speaking through Morris: "That's not what I wrote!"

A gentle movie!
This movie was a touching love story. Even though most love stories are lame this one was a strong-flavored movie. I think it is one of the best movies I have ever seen.

Rather a surprise
As per the original, or Jordan's attempt to recreate such, the film is unusually subtle, thoughtful, and, yes, mature. One feels that Jordan himself may be a nice person, as the plot is washed in that which was meant to lend interest to many an older, B&W, British drama: character. Whether or not Sarah (or Bendrick, for that matter) could be seen as good despite her/his adulterous frailty isn't the point - it's a red herring, swallowed neatly and idiotically by this film's 1st Amazonian reviewer. In my opinion, this film is about two things: (1)character, and (2) faith, and its surfacing in the least likely of places. As such it's a nice trip back to a time when, at least via art, themes of maturity, character, and the existance of God were more frequently and successfully shopped around to film producers. I might have given this a "4" had Jordan found a way to better express Moore's mounting attraction for something other than her lover, as well as the events leading up to Bendrick's hatred and distrust of same. Still, a film that leaves so much, as well as the latter, to the imagination, is refreshing, as is its crediting viewers with imagination and intelligence.

The Beginning of Disappointment
As a big fan of Ralph, I was looking forward to The End of the Affair. Maybe my expectations were too high, but this movie is dreadful. Ralph is a brilliant actor, but not even his flawless acting can't compensate for the nonsensical plot and the horrific casting of Julianne Moore. What happened to Moore? It is NOT hard to learn a British accent. From the sounds of it, Moore didn't even try. She sounds so American she fails to convince anyone she has an ounce of English in her. And if that weren't bad enough, the plot is as unconvincing as Moore's accent. She's an adulteress, but miraculously heals a young boy's facial disfigurement and brings Ralph back from the dead. Even the priest admires her--adultery and all! Her husband does not know the meaning of jealously and lets Ralph live in the house even though he knows of the affair. Still amidst the unbelievable, the plot is so predicatable. She coughs a few times here and there. So we know (before anyone in the movie figures it out) that she's dying. We also know why she "ends" the affair long before its "revealed" to Ralph. And by the way, what was with all the nudity? Totally unnecessary and vulgar. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Lawrence Fishburne and Sam Neill head up a strong cast as the reluctant leaders of a rescue mission sent to find out just what in the hell (literally) happened to the crew of a long-vanished experimental spacecraft in this dark and thundering descent of a horror film. Although this extremely stylish haunted spaceship movie may be guilty of ripping off half a dozen better films (including Don't Look Now, Hellraiser, and especially Andrei Tarkovsky's great Solaris), it's difficult to deny the gothic razorblade effectiveness of the end result. Not a "fun" film by any stretch of the imagination, but a thrillingly ruthless shocker that may leave more susceptible viewers in need of a long shower and a high-voltage night-light. For the full effect, watch it with all the lights off and the volume cranked up to 11. --Andrew Wright ... Read more

Reviews (315)

An flawed, trashy but a worth seeing Sci-Fi Thriller.
Years earlier, a man (Sam Neill), who created a State-Of-The-Art Interstellar Pioneering Research Vessel named Event Horizon. The Ship has disappear for Seven Years vanished without a Trace. Now the year is 2047, the Ship has been found. A Fearless Captain (Laurence Fishburne) and his elite crew (Kathleen Quinlan, Joely Richardson, Richard T. Jones, Jack Noseworthy, Jason Isaacs & Sean Pertwee) go on a Rescue Mission is launched to Neptune go get the ship back with them but as they go along with the Event Horizon has been Connected to the Black Hole and they are not ready to ensnare them in a New Dimension of Unimaginable Fear.

Directed by Paul Anderson (Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Soldier) made a unusual Horror Thriller set in Space. The film is not entierly successful (it was a huge Box Office disappointment) but it does pays tribute to another films like The Black Hole, The Shining and another Horror/Supernatural/Sci-Fi Thrillers. The film has some Intense Horror Scenes (Which Paul Anderson has forced to cut out 20 Minutes to make this film an R-Rating). DVD has an terrific non-anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Excellent Production Desings, Visual Effetcs & Make-Up Effects makes this a Must See. Neill is Terrific is this and so is the Cast. Panavision. Grade:A-.

Almost Painful to Watch
During a glut of movie watching, I happened to watch Event Horizon. I cannot recommend this movie even to those who like cheesy ghost stories.

The Event Horizon, mankind's first attempt at a faster than light ship has suddenly appeared in orbit around Neptune. A rescue crew and the ship's designer head out to investigate. While attempting to dock with the massive ship, the rescue vessel is damaged and needs to be repaired. Lack of air forces the crew onto the derelict.

As the crew investigates the mystery of the returned ship, individual members begin to be haunted by their deepest fears. Somewhere along the line the ship's creator becomes possesses and tries to prevent the others from leaving.

This movie was intended as a subtle ghost story. The beginning is pretty good but soon it becomes apparent that the movie makers are just not used to subtle. Visually the movie loses the story line as special effects become more pronounced than required. I guess that midway through the film they tried to recreate the film Alien and failed.

Despite all of the bad points, there is actually some good acting to be found on screen. Unlike most science fiction and horror films the rescue crew behave cautiously and intelligently. Unfortunately they were up against something much too powerful.

What we they up against? Well, when the ship went on its maiden voyage and punched a gateway through space, it traveled briefly in something that is outside space and time. A region of perfect chaos that most would call Hell. During that brief encounter the ship became alive and the gateway was not completely shut.

So, if someone happens to be showing a video of this film (free of charge) then you might want to take a look. After all, the premise and the acting were good, it was just off the mark. Way off.

Required: Lights on, people with you, and a blunt weapon
This movie is absolutely terrifying. When I say terrifying, I don't mean moronic slasher-movie suspense scary, I mean that when I saw this in the movie theater, I cried because I was so frightened. (I was 11, but I'm pretty sure that if I could watch more than five minutes at a time, I would cry now too.) Just thinking about the movie gives me the creeps; it's just one suspicious noise after another, and only the most hardcore horror movie afficionado wouldn't be freaked.

A logical part of my mind knows that we are scared of what our own minds imagine as threats (after all, having a literal ton of blood dumped on Kathleen Quinlan is more ridiculous than scary), and that we are simply fooled by the gory imagery into thinking of every possible terror that could be lurking in the shadows. I warn all viewers, thinking about this movie logically is not an option; it plays to our most basic fears of the unknown and, of course, Hell in Space (a popular theme with the horror genre, including such "classics" as Alien and Jason X).

Knowing that it is not physically possible for such a universe-piercing machine to exist (even such a handsomely designed machine) doesn't lessen the terror, because every instant is fraught with tension, so there's no time to think about anything. Even the relatively calm beginning is nerve-wracking, because we've all seen horror movies, so we know what to expect, and we react preemptively.

In truth, it's not a very good movie (for a normal movie, I would barely give it two stars).

It has a killer cast: Sam Neill (Jurassic Park), Lawrence Fishburne (Othello), Jason Isaacs (The Patriot), to name a few; but the plot is convoluted, complicated, and utterly unbelievable.

I can't believe this movie gave me nightmares for three days, and I can't believe that I would give it a four-star rating, but someone who buys Event Horizon isn't buying it for noteworthy dialogue or originality; they are buying it for the terror factor, and in that case, I must concede that it is the scariest movie I've ever seen (and while my imagination makes me easily drawn in by these movies, Event Horizon goes above and beyond everything else).

In conclusion, Event Horizon is to be missed by anyone other than die-hard horror fans and masochists. But to them, I say, enjoy and may you never be caught in such a situation as the characters.

You have to watch the movie THIS way!
It is possible to fairly give this movie five stars if 1) your primary criterion is the "fright factor," and 2) you watch the movie a certain way. I picked this movie out at the video store on a whim one night when my wife was out of town and I was home by myself. It was well after dark when I started watching it and if memory serves it may have been a stormy night. Half way into the movie I was checking behind the couch for the boogeyman (like I hadn't done since I was a kid) and whipping my head around at the tiniest creak and pop in the house timbers. By the time the end credits started to roll I had slid off the couch onto the floor and was peeking over a pillow I had hugged to my face. I was 100% freaked out by this movie! (The next day when my wife got home I made her watch it with me.) To this day it remains the standard against which I measure every other scary movie I watch and none has yet come close. So if you really want to take a ride on the ol' terror train, watch "Event Horizon" late at night by yourself sometime. If you're an adrenalin junky who has never seen this flick, I promise you'll be gratified!

Save your money
Note that this review is only of the movie, sorry that I don't have info on the DVD features.

Plot: a top secret mission to recover a ship that has been lost for seven years. The twist: the ship to be recovered was an experiment that consisted of trying to make a worm-hole in space-time (basically squish space together to get through it faster), and the experiment had already gone through the experiment once with its previous crew, which are now all dead. This was a great start to a science-fiction movie, but then the actors opened their mouths and there is all this talk about "the ship is alive" because something in another dimension came back with it from its previous trip with the now dead crew... I wasted my time watching this movie, you don't need to as well!

Basically this movie runs from science-fiction to science-junk. Most of the characters become annoying because there was no depth to the script. I can't even recall the number of times that an actor/actress woke up from one of the scary parts in the movie (yes, this was used repeatedly). LAME!!! The scare-and-wake-up method should be used at most once in a movie, not repeatedly! Because the writers used that method so many times, it certainly tells me that they didn't have the creativity and mindset to make a good plot and script for the movie (which they didn't). The writer's were using that as filler for time to extend the length of the movie because they had nothing better to write.

Paying to see this movie is basically giving money to Hollywood for wasting your life...don't watch it. If you must watch it, borrow it from a friend. ... Read more

Reviews (80)

Jackie Chan-Lite, but Charming
Jackie Chan plays Jimmy Tong, a New York cabbie turned chauffeur for secret agent Clark Devlin. When forces unknown incapacitate Devlin, his mission passes to the unwitting Tong, along with Devlin's tuxedo, a high-tech piece of equipment that turns Tong into a super-spy. Tong finds himself teamed up with water scientist and neophyte field agent Del Blaine (Jennifer Love Hewitt) as the two try to uncover a secret plot to ... well, if I said it here, it wouldn't be secret, would it?

Is it okay to say that I liked this movie a lot, even though it wasn't particularly good? Certainly fans looking for a Jackie Chan all-out action fest along the lines of a Project A or Police Story will be disappointed. Jackie gets the chance to show his stuff, but there are only a few fights, and no catch-your-breath spectacular stunts. This film is more along the lines of Gorgeous or Miracles--although with even less action, I suppose--with comedy and character coming to the forefront. Fortunately, unlike many American action heroes, Chan has the charm and personality to keep the viewer engaged even when he isn't fighting. He convincingly conveys the confusion and befuddlement of an everyman caught up in situations bigger than himself. Ironically, for a movie without a huge amount of action, I was particularly struck by his talent during the action scenes. His body was doing all the incredible things we're used to seeing Jackie Chan do, but his expressions and body language came across perfectly as a man who has lost control of his body.

This is the first time I've seen Jennifer Love Hewitt playing an adult, and while she seemed young, she didn't seem high-school young. She did come across as the sort of character she played: a young scientist, probably just out of school, trying to prove herself in a new situation. She managed to keep her character's snappy, bitchy lines funny, rather than coming across too much like a stereotypical hard-edged tough grrl. In short, she felt human. (It is a shame that she didn't get more action sequences herself.) Her character didn't receive too much depth or development, but that's a criticism I have for this movie across the board. However, for the most part the actors (Hewitt, Chan, Jason Isaacs as Devlin, and Peter Stormare as an evil scientist) make their characters engaging and likeable despite their two-dimensionality.

These sorts of films aren't particularly well-served by overly-complicated plots, and fortunately, this one was fairly straightforward. For the most part, the comic moments came out of the story, although one sequence--Jimmy is forced to fill in for Godfather of Soul James Brown--feels shoehorned in. Unfortunately, while the secret plot is appropriately over-the-top for a film about a super-powered tuxedo, it's played a little too straight. Ritchie Coster, as the villainous mastermind Dietrich Banning, is too dull and straight, and it's almost like he's in a different movie. Director Kevin Donovan might have been better off bringing a more surreal touch to the whole thing, like the Spy Kids movies, where the weirder or wackier elements feel more comfortable because they fit into the overall tone of the film. On the other hand, Peter Stormare, as Banning's scientist sidekick, does keep things from becoming too straight.

This is probably the weakest of Chan's American films. It isn't as mainstream as the Rush Hour movies, and it just plain isn't as good as Shanghai Noon. But I thought it was fun, and I wouldn't mind seeing these characters again, albeit in a better-written, better-directed movie.

Jackie Can't Fight
If you don't go to see a Jackie Chan movie for his fighting style, or the comedic entertainment he brings using his fighting skill, then this is the movie for you.

Forget the plot, and forget whatever the story is supposed to be - comedy, action, whatever. I think most people want to see Jackie Chan use his fighting skills in a movie, not "rely" on a Tuxedo to do it for him.

Now, Jennifer Love Hewitt lends nothing to the story. Her character is beyond trite and common, but we are all used to the female's role being lame. This premise is too pathetic to give any enjoyment. I think the major flaw of this movie is that we know Jackie Chan doesn't need the Tuxedo. We don't see him as a bumbling fool who cannot pull off a roundhouse kick without falling on his behind. I know this is the major flaw because The Medallion was slight on plot, but still entertaining because watching Jackie Chan is fun.

outstanding
this movie i would say was outstanding. and the way jackie chan acted from this movie was astonishing.

phat
this movie was madd phat. with a very excellent cast and a plentiful amount of action.

hot one
this movie i would say is really hot. and this movie is highly reccomended for jackie chan fans. ... Read more

Reviews (95)