Amazon.com

"I have a bad feeling about this," says the young Obi-Wan Kenobi(played by Ewan McGregor) in Star Wars: Episode I, The PhantomMenace as he steps off a spaceship and into the most anticipated cinematic event... well, ever. He might as well be speaking for thelegions of fans of the original episodes in the Star Wars sagawho can't help but secretly ask themselves: Sure, this is StarWars, but is it my Star Wars? The original elevatedmoviegoers' expectations so high that it would have been impossible forany subsequent film to meet them. And as with all the Star Warsmovies, The Phantom Menace features inexplicable plot twists, afistful of loose threads, and some cheek-chewing dialogue. Han Solo'sswagger is sorely missed, as is the pervading menace of heavy-breatherDarth Vader. There is still way too much quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo,and some of what was fresh about Star Wars 22 years earlierfeels formulaic. Yet there's much to admire. The special effects arestupendous; three worlds are populated with a mélange of creatures, flora, and horizons rendered in absolutedetail. The action and battle scenes are breathtaking in theircomplexity. And one particular sequence of the film--theadrenaline-infused pod race through the Tatooine desert--makes the chariot race inBen-Hur look like a Sunday stroll through the park.

Among the host of new characters, there are a few familiar walk-ons. Wewitness the first meeting between R2-D2 and C-3PO, Jabba the Hutt looksyounger and slimmer (but not young and slim), and Yoda is as crabby asever. Natalie Portman's stately Queen Amidala sports hairdos that makePrincess Leia look dowdy and wields a mean laser. We never bond withJedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), and Obi-Wan's day is yet to come. Jar Jar Binks, a crossbetween a Muppet, a frog, and a hippie, provides many of the movie's lighter moments, while Sith Lord DarthMaul is a formidable force. Baby-faced Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) looks too youngand innocent to command the powers of the Force or wield a lightsaber (much less transmute into the future Darth Vader), but hisboyish exuberance wins over skeptics.

Near the end of the movie, Palpatine, the new leader of the Republic,may be speaking for fans eagerly awaiting Episode II when hepats young Anakin on the head and says, "We will watch your career withgreat interest." Indeed! --Tod Nelson ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

5 stars for DVD quality, 3 stars for the movie
I'm reviewing only the DVD, and not the movie itself, which was a bit of a stinker, in my opinion. Well produced, beautifully filmed, but very poorly written.

Anyway - this is an awesome and incredibly well done DVD. Lots and lots of extras. Great commentary by Lucas, the producer, the sound man, etc. Interview with the composer. Lots and lots and LOTS of background materials on the making of the film, and the entire process of putting it together from initial writing to final production, and the making of the DVD itself.

The image of the movie is *very* crisp and clean. The deleted scenes are a nice addition to the movie. I am very impressed (and surprised, to be cynical about it) that Lucas has given us the full-featured DVD the first time out, and not offered us one scaled down DVD version, only to offer us a better version in a year, and then the full-scale one a year after that, like he's constantly done with the VHS versions of his movies. Thank you, Lucas, for taking care of your fans this time, and not trying to pad your pockets a few times before giving the fans what they *really* want.

Quality-wise, this is absolutely one of the most loaded, best-featured DVDs I have in my collection.

(as a p.s. - after hearing Lucas' commentary, and talking about some things coming up in the next movies, I have realized that a few things I criticized about this movie actually make sense oin terms of the upcoming story-line. However, I still think that, overall, the writing for this movie was only a cut above old b-movies)

OK Movie, Great DVD
The Phantom Menace was probably the most heavily anticipated movie in history. It was the prequel to the original Star Wars series and George Lucas was taking the helm as director for the first time since Star Wars in 1977. The film was hyped incessantly and, of course, the final product failed to live up to the expectations. The Phantom Menace is not a bad film. It actually is absolutely amazing to look at and the special effects are incredible. The problem with the film is the plot. It seems disjointed as it bounces around from scene to scene. It seems that Mr. Lucas was to preoccupied with getting the film to look right than the actual story (which is what made the first Star Wars so great). Many people weren't happy with the casting of several roles, especially Ewan MacGregor as Obi Won Kenobi, but he does a decent job in an undeveloped role. Liam Neeson is commanding as Qui Gon Jin and Natalie Portman is quite good as Queen Amadala. The biggest complaint that most people had with the film was with the character of Jar Jar Binks and I won't disagree with most of what's been said about the annoying character. Mr. Lucas has previously shunned the DVD arena (American Graffiti is the only one of his films to appear in the format), but he goes about this release with a vengeance. The extras, including seven deleted scenes, are worth buying this DVD alone. Mr. Lucas spent an additional four million dollars on them and the money is well spent.

prequel?
in this one,there is a council of jedis who rule everything and keep the peace.yoda,ben,some black dude and on like that.a younger ben finds a little kid-who is called anakan and later vadar.that kid wins his freedom with bens help in a very cool pod race.ben recognizes the force in the little one and decides to train him as a jedi.the bad guy is darth maul who has a double bladed light saber-very cool.hes the coolest looking character yet.i think peple came down too hard on jar-jar.hes a dork but there have been a lot worse.the kids will like it.it is the 4th part but the first episode.everybody should go see this one because just anybody will like it.anakans mom was pretty nice if she cleaned herself up.this movie isnt as good as the tv says but they blow everything all out of proportion anyway.this movie is abselutely incredible though.i think the black dude may be in the matrix too.its good too.the special effects are good.after this there is one more.then there is an animated short film.there is also another one on the way next summer.

To Lucas: Eye of the Tiger, Man!!
To quote the famous lines by Apollo Creed from Rocky III, "You lost for all the wrong reasons, you lost your edge. Eye of the tiger, man!"
A good analogy when you think of it...

When Lucas made the first trilogy he was a relativly unknown up-and-comming writer/director full of desire and well, "hunger" to make his mark. That drive lead to the masterpieces of pop culture we know as ANH and ESB. By ROTJ his edge was already waning but thankfully it was the last one... or so we thought.

By the time TPM came out he lost it completely and produced a quite mediocre if at best ordinary film. Living like a king for the past 20+ years made him not "hungry and full of desire" but fat and content. He lost his edge.

Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is so much better than Lucas' last 2 efforts for this same reason. Jackson has the "eye of the tiger"!

Lucas HAS to get his edge back. Most agree AOTC is better than TPM but not by much. Will episode 3 prove that Lucas got it back??

If only reality played out like the fantasy of Rocky III and Lucas brings home a REAL winner....

What drug was George Lucas on?
I love Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I think that George Lucas should have stopped there. The two movies: The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones....SUCK! What was George Lucas thinking? Jar Jar Binks needs to tossed off the face of the earth, and Hayden Christansen (while hot), needs to take some acting lessons. Not enough special effects in the world could make me want to see the third release. Poor acting and writing have made me want to run for cover! Where's the FORCE when you need it? ... Read more

Amazon.com

"I have a bad feeling about this," says the young Obi-Wan Kenobi(played by Ewan McGregor) in Star Wars: Episode I, The PhantomMenace as he steps off a spaceship and into the most anticipated cinematic event... well, ever. He might as well be speaking for thelegions of fans of the original episodes in the Star Wars sagawho can't help but secretly ask themselves: Sure, this is StarWars, but is it my Star Wars? The original elevatedmoviegoers' expectations so high that it would have been impossible forany subsequent film to meet them. And as with all the Star Warsmovies, The Phantom Menace features inexplicable plot twists, afistful of loose threads, and some cheek-chewing dialogue. Han Solo'sswagger is sorely missed, as is the pervading menace of heavy-breathingDarth Vader. There is still way too much quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo,and some of what was fresh about Star Wars 22 years earlierfeels formulaic. Yet there's much to admire. The special effects arestupendous; three worlds are populated with a mélange of creatures, flora, and horizons rendered in absolutedetail. The action and battle scenes are breathtaking in theircomplexity. And one particular sequence of the film--theadrenaline-infused pod race through the Tatooine desert--makes the chariot race inBen-Hur look like a Sunday stroll through the park.

Among the host of new characters, there are a few familiar walk-ons. Wewitness the first meeting between R2-D2 and C-3PO, Jabba the Hutt looksyounger and slimmer (but not young and slim), and Yoda is as crabby asever. Natalie Portman's stately Queen Amidala sports hairdos that makePrincess Leia look dowdy and wields a mean laser. We never bond withJedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson), and Obi-Wan's day is yet to come. Jar Jar Binks, a crossbetween a Muppet, a frog, and a hippie, provides many of the movie's lighter moments, while Sith Lord DarthMaul is a formidable force. Baby-faced Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) looks too youngand innocent to command the powers of the Force or wield a lightsaber (much less transmute into the future Darth Vader), but hisboyish exuberance wins over skeptics.

Near the end of the movie, Palpatine, the new leader of the Republic,may be speaking for fans eagerly awaiting Episode II when hepats young Anakin on the head and says, "We will watch your career withgreat interest." Indeed! --Tod Nelson ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

5 stars for DVD quality, 3 stars for the movie
I'm reviewing only the DVD, and not the movie itself, which was a bit of a stinker, in my opinion. Well produced, beautifully filmed, but very poorly written.

Anyway - this is an awesome and incredibly well done DVD. Lots and lots of extras. Great commentary by Lucas, the producer, the sound man, etc. Interview with the composer. Lots and lots and LOTS of background materials on the making of the film, and the entire process of putting it together from initial writing to final production, and the making of the DVD itself.

The image of the movie is *very* crisp and clean. The deleted scenes are a nice addition to the movie. I am very impressed (and surprised, to be cynical about it) that Lucas has given us the full-featured DVD the first time out, and not offered us one scaled down DVD version, only to offer us a better version in a year, and then the full-scale one a year after that, like he's constantly done with the VHS versions of his movies. Thank you, Lucas, for taking care of your fans this time, and not trying to pad your pockets a few times before giving the fans what they *really* want.

Quality-wise, this is absolutely one of the most loaded, best-featured DVDs I have in my collection.

(as a p.s. - after hearing Lucas' commentary, and talking about some things coming up in the next movies, I have realized that a few things I criticized about this movie actually make sense oin terms of the upcoming story-line. However, I still think that, overall, the writing for this movie was only a cut above old b-movies)

OK Movie, Great DVD
The Phantom Menace was probably the most heavily anticipated movie in history. It was the prequel to the original Star Wars series and George Lucas was taking the helm as director for the first time since Star Wars in 1977. The film was hyped incessantly and, of course, the final product failed to live up to the expectations. The Phantom Menace is not a bad film. It actually is absolutely amazing to look at and the special effects are incredible. The problem with the film is the plot. It seems disjointed as it bounces around from scene to scene. It seems that Mr. Lucas was to preoccupied with getting the film to look right than the actual story (which is what made the first Star Wars so great). Many people weren't happy with the casting of several roles, especially Ewan MacGregor as Obi Won Kenobi, but he does a decent job in an undeveloped role. Liam Neeson is commanding as Qui Gon Jin and Natalie Portman is quite good as Queen Amadala. The biggest complaint that most people had with the film was with the character of Jar Jar Binks and I won't disagree with most of what's been said about the annoying character. Mr. Lucas has previously shunned the DVD arena (American Graffiti is the only one of his films to appear in the format), but he goes about this release with a vengeance. The extras, including seven deleted scenes, are worth buying this DVD alone. Mr. Lucas spent an additional four million dollars on them and the money is well spent.

prequel?
in this one,there is a council of jedis who rule everything and keep the peace.yoda,ben,some black dude and on like that.a younger ben finds a little kid-who is called anakan and later vadar.that kid wins his freedom with bens help in a very cool pod race.ben recognizes the force in the little one and decides to train him as a jedi.the bad guy is darth maul who has a double bladed light saber-very cool.hes the coolest looking character yet.i think peple came down too hard on jar-jar.hes a dork but there have been a lot worse.the kids will like it.it is the 4th part but the first episode.everybody should go see this one because just anybody will like it.anakans mom was pretty nice if she cleaned herself up.this movie isnt as good as the tv says but they blow everything all out of proportion anyway.this movie is abselutely incredible though.i think the black dude may be in the matrix too.its good too.the special effects are good.after this there is one more.then there is an animated short film.there is also another one on the way next summer.

To Lucas: Eye of the Tiger, Man!!
To quote the famous lines by Apollo Creed from Rocky III, "You lost for all the wrong reasons, you lost your edge. Eye of the tiger, man!"
A good analogy when you think of it...

When Lucas made the first trilogy he was a relativly unknown up-and-comming writer/director full of desire and well, "hunger" to make his mark. That drive lead to the masterpieces of pop culture we know as ANH and ESB. By ROTJ his edge was already waning but thankfully it was the last one... or so we thought.

By the time TPM came out he lost it completely and produced a quite mediocre if at best ordinary film. Living like a king for the past 20+ years made him not "hungry and full of desire" but fat and content. He lost his edge.

Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is so much better than Lucas' last 2 efforts for this same reason. Jackson has the "eye of the tiger"!

Lucas HAS to get his edge back. Most agree AOTC is better than TPM but not by much. Will episode 3 prove that Lucas got it back??

If only reality played out like the fantasy of Rocky III and Lucas brings home a REAL winner....

What drug was George Lucas on?
I love Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I think that George Lucas should have stopped there. The two movies: The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones....SUCK! What was George Lucas thinking? Jar Jar Binks needs to tossed off the face of the earth, and Hayden Christansen (while hot), needs to take some acting lessons. Not enough special effects in the world could make me want to see the third release. Poor acting and writing have made me want to run for cover! Where's the FORCE when you need it? ... Read more

Reviews (495)

A cinematic masterpiece!
Meet Oskar Schindler. A German living in occupied Poland during World War II. A member in good standing of the Nazi party. A womanizer, a war profiteer...and ultimately a man of conscience. A man who became one of the great unsung heroes and humanitarians of the war.

"Schindler's List" chronicles Oskar Schindler's spiritual odyssey from war profiteer to humanitarian and hero. Winner of seven Academy Awards® in 1993, including Best Picture, this harrowing and heart-rending film is Steven Spielberg's masterpiece, and perhaps one of the finest and most important movies ever made. It depicts Schindler's ultimately successful attempt to rescue 1,100 Jews from Hitler's "Final Solution" by getting them to safety outside Poland.

Dynamic performances abound in this beautiful movie, Especially noteworthy are Liam Neeson as the suave Schindler, Ralph Fiennes as the monstrously depraved Nazi colonel, Amon Goeth, and Ben Kingsley as the dignified, principled Jewish prisoner Itzhak Stern.

"Schindler's List" is definitely not light entertainment! This beautiful movie allows viewers to feel like they're actually a part of one of the darkest, most horrific periods in history. (I'm sure this is the reason the film was shot in black-and-white, with only minor "colorized" bits included.) The story of the Holocaust needs to be told over and over again, in hopes that future generations can understand the horrors perpetrated on an entire race of people and prevent future occurrences. "Schindler's List" is perhaps one of the best and most effective vehicles for telling that story I've ever experienced.

Whoever Saves One Life Saves the World Entire!
That's the tagline of Steven Spielberg's 1993 holocaust epic, SCHINDLER'S LIST (a film that has inspired me with my own film, TRIANGLE). What is this film? A documentary? A memorial service? A biopic? The answer is all of the above. It is a realistic look at a man who began as a womanizing criminal and ended as a sympathetic savior to thousands of Jewish people.

Based on Thomas Keneally's bestselling novel, it is passionate look at the Jewish struggle during the ghetto liquidation by the Nazis and in the concentration camps.

Filmed entirely on location in Poland and in black-and-white, with some color aspects, SCHINDLER'S LIST brings to life one of the saddest chapters in history. Starring Liam Neeson as industrialist Oskar Schindler; Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth; Ben Kingsley as Schindler's accountant Itzhak Stern; and Caroline Goodall as Schindler's wife, Emilie.

This is a film too sad to imagine, but also very important to watch and shameful to miss. Neeson does an extraordinary job in showing us the man who saved so many lives. A man whom most would call a pirate, he has shown us a brighter light. But, honestly, the one who impressed me (and shocked me the most) was Ralph Fiennes as a Nazi superior. Fiennes was known for playing romantic heroes on the London stage before playing such a dastardly role. (In the end, you can't help but cheer when he is eventually hanged.) And to Ben Kingsley (Oscar-winner for GANDHI), always the dependable one! His Stern provided me enough time to breathe a sign of relief and smile at his nervously mousy character. From his being trapped inside the train to his trying to reason with Schindler about the one-arm man's dependability working in the factory (a rare comedic moment in the film).

This is a triumph in every way possible! To watch a man, whom we never even heard of, save thousands of lives is heart-breakingly wonderful. Good job, Steven!

Winner of 7 Academy Awards including: Best Picture - Steven Spielberg, Branko Lustig & Gerald R. Molen; Best Director - Steven Spielberg; Best Adapted Screenplay - Steven Zaillian; Best Cinematography - Janusz Kaminski; Best Art Direction/Set Decoration - Allan Starski, Ewa Braun; Best Score - John Williams; and Best Film Eediting - Michael Kahn.

Approximately: 3 HOURS and 17 MINUTES

**Schindler's List **
This film from Steven Spielberg was shot in black and white and is very effective as a film to portray what happened to the Jews in Germany/Poland etc.. from the ghettos to the concentration camps. The film is very realistic in its portrayal and the environment of that time in history of the 1930's and 1940's. This is a film that you may only want to watch once. It is an excellent film. The acting is very good, the reality of the killings is very graphic. The cinematography is excellent. The only reason I think that is a film to viewed once or twice in one's life is due to the depressing nature of the film. I think it is a film that younger generations (teenagers and some people in their 20's) should see because many are coming out of school without even knowing who Adolf Hitler was and what he had done. I think it's important that they see what occurred so a repeat of history does not happen. This is an important film, but not necessarily one you want to view over and over again.

Some other reviewers on this forum start bringing up that "other genocides occurred in history" and how come only this one is made into a film. I'm afraid folks that Spielberg didn't make an all encompassing film to include all of the past atrocities that happened in the past 1000 years. He focused just on the Holocast. Also it is just pure ignorance to deny that 5-6 million Jewish civilians were killed/murdered. Even if it was 10,000 Jews, it does not make it any better. It doesn't really matter if they were Jews or any other religion. The fact is that 6 million PEOPLE who were civilians were murdered. They were Germans, Polish, French and many other nationalities. It just happened they were of the Jewish faith that was targeted by the Nazis(Jews were used as a scapegoat to blame all of Germany's economic ills as a country on. The Nazis also killed and murdered gypsies too. The people (men, women and children) killed were white people (Jewish is not a race. It is a religion).
Actual documentation of what the Nazi's did is on film shot by British news cameras as the American and British soldiers entered these concentration camps throughout 1945. Disease was rampant in these camps due to all the mass graves and thousands of bodies that were left to rot (by the Germans) as the British bulldozers needed to bury these corpses. My father and grandfather were in the 2nd World War as part of the American and British invasion of Germany and witnessed it first hand. That's enough proof as far as I am concerned. Yes. Not all Germans were bad people, but there were enough of them to throw the world into a World War in 1939 and to allow this to go on just a few miles from their towns and villages.

This is a good film. Good coverage of a very bad time in world history.

Not the best Special Edition one can expect, but still...
Although this 5 time Academy Award winning film certainly gets a beautiful presentation on disc, I both do and do not understand the complaining of the DVD presentation of Schindler's List. But first, let me discuss the benefits of the disc first.

The picture here is impressive, although there are noticeable flaws. The 1.85:1 anamorphic picture showcases excellent detail and rich black levels; at times the picture looked so good I thought that the movie was remastered by Lowery Digital Services. But then minor flaws show up, such as excessive grain and minor print flaws (such as in the sequence where Schindler Jews are calling out their names, I spotted a vertical line). Flaws aside, the picture is still beautiful and Janusz Kaminski's photography is put to good use here.

The audio is presented in Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Surround. All Dolby and DTS tracks give a sense of place to the film, and while the tracks aren't bass-heavy, they fit the movie's tone perfectly. It demonstrates excellent stereo separation and bass response, all the while not calling attention to itself. The two-sided disc cuts down on cost, and the menus allow one to access each part of the DVD with considerable ease. (The movie is also given French and Spanish spoken languages and subtitles, while the extras have optional subtitles in English, French, and Spanish.)

Now, the disadvantages. I know people were expecting an extras-packed version of this movie, but we only have two real extras included; the "Voices From the List" Featurette and "Behind the Shoah Visual Foundation" Featurette. Both are good extras detailing the various stories recounted by actual Schindler Jews, and while these are substantial enough, I had the feeling more could've been added. If Spielberg were to do commentaries, I would appreciate one done for this film, and the addition of the theatrical trailer would help too. Inclusion of those two extras would've added much more to the DVD.

Still, quibble about the extras aside, the disc release of this film gives newcomers a chance to be introduced to one of Spielberg's greatest cinematic achievements ever made, with great picture and sound. It may not always be easy viewing, but the impact it leaves is indelible and unforgettable. For fans of Spielberg's work and this movie, this disc is a must-have, despite the slim extras. (If you're intent on having more, the gift set is a viable option. Along with the DVD, it also includes a booklet, the movie's soundtrack CD, certificate of authenticity, a photo still book and a Plexiglas keep case.)

History repeating it's self?
Why don't we hear about other genocides, like the ones in Russia and Turkey that inspired the German one? The movie was so distorted and stereotypical it's ridicules. The nazi's weren't all-bad and the Jews weren't all good. Jews aren't as innocent as they are portrayed. This could be due to Hollywood being monopolized by them. See how much trouble Mel Gibson had when he tried make a movie that portrayed Jews as less than perfect. If they had really went through all that trauma, why would they go to Palestine and commit the same atrocities only decades before to the Arabs? Schindler's List is just one of the yearly Jewish propaganda films that are thrown at us, like the pianist for ex. And worst of all, every year schools have to show this movie to young children. And Disney show's this movie every yr on the wonderful world of Disney. Why is this gruesome movie targeted at kids I have no idea. "so we won't forget the past my A**" ... Read more

Description

Get ready for fun! (Leah Rozen, People) with the "feel good movie of the year!" (Clay Smith, Access Hollywood)Love Actually is the ultimate romantic comedy from the makers of Bridget Jones's Diary and Notting Hill.Funny, irresistible and heartwarming, an all-star cast (Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth and Emma Thompson, to name a few!) will take you on a breathtaking tour of love's delightful twists and turns.Fall under the spell Love Actually and share the laughs and charm again and again. ... Read more

Reviews (397)

Romantic fluff, but a little romance never hurt anyone
I was only mildly interested in seeing this movie, but I really enjoyed it. Yes, there was an amazing amount of different threads to follow as this film told the story of nine or ten different people and their partners over a five week period leading up to Christmas. Nevertheless, the witty script and the first rate acting made the whole process relatively painless.

There was charm in abundance from Hugh Grant, playing Hugh Grant as usual, but he does it so well that you can't help but warm to him. Martine McCutcheon as his love interest was surprising unannoying, and not in the least bit chubby!

Plenty of laughs from Bill Nighy and Gregor Fisher as a faded rock star and his long-suffering manager. Colin Firth in pursuit of his Portuguese maid also provided a few laughs courtesy of the language barrier, and the nerdish caterer with his dreams of being a sex god based soley on the strength of the lure of his British accent would have on American women kept the humour flowing.

Acting kudos go to Alan Rickman, Liam Neeson and most notably Emma Thompson. Ms Thompson once again plays the kind of gung-ho, upper middle class woman who has contributed to my usual dislike of her chosen roles, but she outdid herself in this slight role. I was moved to tears by her brilliant acting performance in the scene where she retreats to her bedroom to adjust to the knowledge that her husband is having an affair with his secretary.

Eye candy was provided for both sexes in the shape Keira Knightley and Andrew Lincoln. I enjoyed their storyline, despite it's flaws, but that may be because I'm just a sucker for physical beauty. Laura Linney and her erstwhile Latino lover were also very attractive, but slightly less sympathetic. And what can I say about the wonderful performances given by young Thomas Sangster and Liam Neeson as his grieving stepfather? Excellent, believable acting rescuing a storyline that verged on unashamed bathos.

Overall, I would recommend this film and commend Richard Curtis for an enjoyable, feel-good movie that left me smiling with tears in my eyes.

Lovely actually
Love Actually is a wonderful movie in all respects. Its cast, script, and direction are all absolutely top-notch. Set at Christmastime, the story encompasses numerous plots, all of which are equally interesting and effective in leaving one on the edge of one's seat, waiting to see what's going to happen with each group of characters next.

One of the most wonderful aspects of the film, in my opinion, is how we eventually discover that every single one of the vignettes is interwoven. For example: one story is about Karen (Emma Thompson) and her husband (Alan Rickman). The latter, although certainly not without affection for his wife, has begun to dabble in infidelity - thanks to his attractive secretary. Working with Rickman's character is Sarah (Laura Linney) who has been desperately in love with her co-worker Karl (unfortunately, I can't recall the actor's name, but he does a nice job) for years. And then of coure there's David, the prime minister (Hugh Grant) - who just happens to be Karen's brother.

Wonderful performances are also given by Liam Neeson (as a recent widower), 13-year-old Thomas Sangster (as Neeson's young son), Rowan Atkinson (who does a hilarious job as Rufus the Jewelry Salesman), and in one of the best vignettes, my personal favorite, Colin Firth.

This is an extremely funny and extremely touching movie. As usual, I hesitate to give away too much more about it. Nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, should deter you from seeing it.

One of the Best Current British Comedies I've Seen in Ages.
I saw this in the theater when it first came out and, despite the fact that a couple behind me kept talking through it, I fell in love and decided to own it as soon as it was released on video. Now I have it on DVD, and want to spread the word. Love Actually is a great English romantic comedy full of several different stories going on at the same time, and each engages you in its plot quickly.

1. We have a young couple who are just married, and the groom's best friend is in love with the bride. Keira Knightley plays the role of Juliet with such sweetness and innocence, that even her dialogue free acting is powerfully convincing. Watch the scene where she views Mark's video of her wedding day and realizes he's in love with her.

2. Liam Neeson is Daniel, a newly widowed father who has to bridge the communication gap between himself and his son Sam. Sam's crush on an American girl provides this link, and the story is touching to watch as it unfolds throughout the film. Thomas Sangster is a promising child actor in his role as Sam, so keep your eyes on him. He is sure to be cast in more movies down the line.

3. Emma Thompson is always exceptional in every movie she's in. This is no exception as she plays Karen, a devoted and loving housewife who must come to terms with the fact that her husband Harry (Alan Rickman) is cheating on her with the office tramp.

4. Laura Linney plays Sarah, an American office worker who is in love with another American at work, but her sick brother makes the relationship difficult to see to its fruition.

5. Hugh Grant is David, the newly appointed Prime Minister of Britain, and he falls for his staff caterer Natalie, played by Martine McCutcheon. This story line is not without charming, laugh-out-loud moments, but it's also a bit corny and Benny Hill-ish at times.

6. One of my absolute favorite stories is the one involving Colin Firth's character Jamie, a writer who leaves England for the European countryside to write after discovering his brother is cheating with his wife, and he falls in love with his Portugese housekeeper Aurelia (Lucia Moniz). Neither of them can speak the other's language, but they manage to communicate in their own way, and the plot is very sweet.

7. Chris Marshall is very funny as Colin, the ugly, rude guy who strikes out romantically with English women, so he thinks he'll have better luck in America because of his "cute" accent. He goes to Milwaukee and discovers supermodel-type girls hanging out in a bar that fall for him instantly which really makes me laugh. I live an hour away from Milwaukee, and we are NOT plentiful with thin beautiful girls hanging out in bars. This was one joke that wasn't lost on me for a moment, and I couldn't help laughing quite loudly.

8. My favorite storyline is Billy Nighy as Billy Mack, a washed up 50-something rock star who makes a comeback on the charts with a shameless revamp of the old Troggs song, "Love is All Around" for Christmas. He is absolutely hysterical with his outrageous behavior as he publicly bashes the song and pulls all kinds of defiant public stunts. Of note is his relationship with his longtime manager Joe (Gregor Fisher) who, despite all the headaches his charge gives him, is still admirably loyal and proud of him.

One small storyline I detest is the porn actors we see a few times, conversing as they shoot dirty scenes on a movie set, and I also don't like the anti-American plot of the evil lecherous US president played by Billy Bob Thornton. These are two points for my not giving this film 5 stars.

Other than my minor grievances, I couldn't recommend Love Actually more highly. This movie is rated, R so please don't expose children to it just because one of the stories involves a little boy. This is great adult entertainment, and some of the DVD extras are a bit blue as well. Moving, funny, and full of clever dialogue (A favorite line: "Ten minutes with Elton John, and you're as gay as a maple!"), Richard Curtis has directed one of his best comedy projects yet. With the exception of small children, there's something here for everyone. You shouldn't just come away liking this one; it should be Love Actually.

Quite simply the worst movie I have ever seen...
Really! This has to be one of the worst movies ever produced and speaking as a Brit, I am ashamed. The plot or lack of any plot(s) is absurd. The jokes aren't funny, the premise is farcical and it is about as entertaining as being stung by a wasp.
Really, avoid this movie at all costs - it is that bad.

Not for the kids!
My inlaws came over to visit me from England, and raved on about this movie. They were keen to take us to the movies with our 2 children, 8 and 10 yrs to see it again with them. In the end we chose something more fun for the kids, as children don't want to go to the movies to watch a love story.
Anyway, not long after it came out at Blockbusters, and we hired it out of curiosity.
After the first 5 minutes we and sent the kids off too bed, as it wasn't really the swearing /cursing but the just that it seemed a little too explicit for my kids to watch.)
I would say that some scenes are just too crass, and they could had done without them.
In the second half of the movie, I noticed that the swearing and the sexual content tended to calm down...unless I was just getting used to it by then. The story was very funny at times, but alittle confusing having so many couples to follow...hard to get into their characters, or you forget at times that someone was in the movie, until they showed up on screen 20 minutes later, and would have to remember what their life was all about.
I'm not a prude in the slightest, and love comedies like Euro Trash, Coupling (the BBC Series) and American Pie etc...but the beginning half of this movie really did make my husband and I cring at times.
I'm surprised that my inlaws, who are in their late 50's really wanted to show this to my children...especially as they are very conservative.
Anyway it does get better, if you can stick with it after the first 30 minutes.
Hugh Grant's story line was also bit too cheesy. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Great music!
What a cast of actors--Justine Bateman, Liam Neeson and Julia Roberts. The music is perfect and the story is pure fun. This movie was an unexpected pleasure and well worth watching more than once!

Justine Bateman saves this movie...
Let's face it, "Satisfaction" is a pretty crummy script. Silly and predictable. And the acting by Julia Roberts is awful. Liam is no great shakes either. What makes this movie so sweet and memorable is lead actress Justine Bateman. The beautiful star was nearing the end of her run on NBC's "Family Ties" and knew it, and this was a bold and extremely daring feature film debut for her. She could always act, there was never any doubt about that. But who knew that Justine could also sing? And she sings well, why in the world she didn't follow up the superb soundtrack with a series of her own albums is beyond me. Maybe she just wasn't interested, or more likely, confident enough following the stinging reviews some critics unfairly slung at her. So this is a good purchase if you are a Justine Bateman fan. If she wasn't in this film it would receive one star. But her talents, charisma, beauty and sex appeal more than carry the day. She hopefully will return to acting one day; she is sorely missed.

Rocking fun film
I believe this is one of Julia Robert's first films, it was before Mystic Pizza etc.... I am a Eddie Cochran fan, when the band performed C'mon Everybody I really enjoyed it. When the band opened at the club and they messed up the intro, then they performed the song. I think this was one of Liams first films. Justine acted and sang great. Enjoy the film.

If you're in a band, you WILL like this movie!!
Satisfaction... is it goofy? Yes. Dated? Definitely 80's. Light/Fluffy? Yes. Bad acting? I bet Julia Roberts would pay to have her scenes erased forever. All of these questions miss the point however!! The appropriate question about this movie should be, "Is it FUN?", and the answer is "Oh yeah!".

Like day time talk shows, comic books, and that old Poison album hiding in the back of your closet, this movie is a guilty pleasure to be enjoyed, but never admitted to! If you are in, or just really like rock bands, this movie is even better (almost inspirational). It's a fun romp with a young (mosly girl) band who land the ultimate gig at a summer beach resort. Music, mayhem, and rock band movie cliches ensue. The humor is funny.... the "drama" is even funnier (the lead guitarist breaks her drug addiction in one day, because the band tells her to!)! Be sure to look for Debbie Harry (Blondie), who turns in the movie's best acting performance in a five minute cameo. The soundtrack is strangely good (retro 80's), and the "band" in the movie actually performs on it! See the movie, and you will have no doubt that Justine Bateman sang her own vocals... which may or may not be a good thing!

If you've ever strummed an electric guitar, or dreamed of rocking out and hitting the road with your friends, you must see this movie!! Tell 'em Tower sent ya!

Justine as Jenny Lee--my hero
This movie is epic!
How can a girl watch this & NOT want to join a band. This is an inspiring classic, a must-see! ... Read more

Reviews (38)

Oh Nelly!
Nell is an earnest and slightly soporific drama about a doctor's inadvertant discovery of a wild child in the remote hills of North Carolina. Jerry Lovell (Liam Neeson), a rural MD is dispatched to confirm the death of a hermit-like mountain lady and is quick to discover a cantankerous, violent, and unintelligible young woman, obviously the old woman's unacknowledged daughter,hiding in the cabin rafters. Lovell is immediately captivated by Nell (Jodie Foster) and is soon joined by career-climbing psychologist Paula Olsen (Natasha Richardson) in attempting to decode the mysterious woman's gibberish-filled rages. Before you can say "Wapner at 5:30," this hillbilly rain woman's past becomes brutally clear: her mother, a victim of rape in her youth, had given birth to the child but kept her a secret from the the world for thirty years; Nell has been taught that men and daylight are harmful, and her language is the product of imitation after her mother's stroke.

The sentiment here is laid on thick. Nell is harrassed by those stereotypical movie rejects, scientists and red necks. The scientists want her brought in for study; the red necks want to play a little doctor (Can you say Deliverance?) There are a number of nice scenes portraying the bonding between the three leads, and the direction by the talented Michael Apted is sensitive and well-intentioned, but Nell suffers by asking us to shed too many unearned tears. In this regard, most damaging is the lack of key exposition. We never really get to know Nell. Her mystery, while at first quite interesting, loses its novelty by the time they take the wide-eyed country girl to the big bad city.

The biggest roadblock has to be Jodie Foster. Her pagan-like emoting as she dances naked through the woods is two stations short of hamville. It's like she wants us to believe so desperately in Nell's tragic story that she has to use a few neon signs to show us the way. Thanks, but I think we can handle it ourselves. Neeson is more effective, and he and real-life wife Richardson do a nice job of counterbalancing Foster's excess in the role of Nell's surrogate ma and pa.

Painfully cliche; unintentionally hilarious
Nell is a clunky drama about two psychologists (Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson) who study and befriend a young woman Nell (Jodie Foster) at her lakeside log cabin. A product of potentially disturbing family circumstance that this film promptly glosses over, Nell speaks her own language and was raised basically without civilization. Of course, Nell proves to everyone in a bombastic climactic courtroom scene that she is in fact more civilized than so-called modern society. She frankly states in 'nellish' that modern men and women don't look each other in the eye, avoid genuine communication, and possibly every other unoriginal complaint about contemporary society. Yet, it all seems a bit absurd since Nell is clearly an ideal product of such a society- she's compliant, fun-loving, clean with Aryan good-looks, and can even play matchmaker! When she hooks up her doctors, the movie officially becomes about Neeson and Richardson gettin-it-awwwn and loses any facade of insight into the human condition. Whatever it had was facile to say the least though as it ignores the scary, violent, sexual, and basically id-centric depths of human nature. Time and time again, Nell comes across like a domesticated pet- one that desperately needs to be put down.

This is a great movie for women, men and parents!
This is a wonderful, wonderful movie. And it is a great test of a relationship. Women, if your boyfriend or fiance is unwilling to watch this movie, or is not moved by it, dump him immediately and save yourself years and years of pain. If you are already married, get marriage counseling.

Guys, this is a great movie. Even if you prefer action movies to chick flicks, the woman you are with will be totally moved by the movie and that you watched it with her.

Parents, this is also a great movie for teenagers. Nell, played by Jodie Foster, has had no contact with anyone other than her now dead mother, so she has no sense of shame about her body. She is as free as a three year old in taking off her clothes to go swimming at night. Therefore, while there is nudity, there is no sexuality. And the nudity is not exploitive. (This is like the nudity you used to find on the pages of old National Geographics on articles about Africa.) On the balance, the sensitivity outweighs concerns about nudity, this may even be a way to spark conversation with your kids about puberty, etc.

intellectual viewers please
If you are one who only likes movies that are geared to viewers with a 13 minute attention span or if you don't like to think at all, please don't watch this movie.
But if not....this movie is a great! I love movies that show people who haven't experienced normal life because it allows us to take a deeper look at things and appreciate things that we overlook. Like standing in the breeze, or the colors of fruits.
Jodie Foster played this part perfectly.

Different And Great
Jodie Foster, Liam Neeson, and Natasha Richardson star in the drama "Nell". The screenplay was wonderfully written. They take the audience into another world, which may seem unusual to many. Exploring a language and a lifestyle lived by only one person, everything stays heartfelt. That touch is never lost for a single second. Such feelings intensify as the courts try to take this life away from Nell. Everything said and done keeps the audience watching closely. Jodie Foster, who also produced, was rightfully nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress for her role as Nell. Every drop of energy poured onto the character. This gives the movie the added emotion. Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson wonderfully play their roles as doctors protecting Nell from the hospital and the press. Their roles intensify greatly as Nell begins changing their lives forever. The great creativity of "Nell" makes this experience unforgettable. This is great viewing for all audiences. ... Read more

Description

This motion picture event from acclaimed director Martin Scorsese earned 10 Academy Award(R) nominations including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor, along with 5 Golden Globe Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Song! Leonardo DiCaprio (TITANIC), Cameron Diaz (CHARLIE'S ANGELS), and Daniel Day-Lewis (THE BOXER) star in this epic tale of vengeance and survival! As waves of immigrants swell the population of New York, lawlessness and corruption thrive in lower Manhattan's Five Points section. After years of incarceration, young Irish immigrant Amsterdam Vallon (DiCaprio) returns seeking revenge against the rival gang leader (Day-Lewis) who killed his father. But Amsterdam's personal vendetta becomes part of the gang warfare that erupts as he and his fellow Irishmen fight to carve a place for themselves in their newly adopted homeland! ... Read more

Reviews (497)

Martin Scorsese's epic spectacle has its flaws
Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York, based on Herbert Asbury's 1928 history catalog, is a rendition of New York's political and racial madness that lasted from the mid-19th century to the Civil War. His film is both a brutal epic and a breathtaking spectacle. The accomplishments displayed in the film's authentic design (the production was designed by Dante Ferretti), masterful art direction and set decoration, costume design (by Sandy Powell), and cinematography (by Michael Ballhaus) are quite meritorious and mesmerizing (in fact, the elaborate sets were constructed at Cinecitta in Rome). Furthermore, the performances delivered by the stellar cast are powerful and colorful. However, Gangs of New York has its flaws.

The movie's opening scene takes place in a nightmarish catacomb set beneath tenements. In the catacomb reside the violent "Dead Rabbits," a gang of Irish compatriots led by the fervent Irish-American Priest Vallon (played by Liam Neeson). The gang emerges from the catacombs onto snow-covered Five Points on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Here they face off with the "Nativists," a group of American-born rivals of the "Dead Rabbits," in a historical bloody gang battle of knives, swords, bayonets, cleavers, cudgels, axes, and shillelaghs.

During the vicious fight, the leader of the "Nativists," William "The Butcher" Cutting (played by Daniel Day-Lewis and known in Asbury's book as Bill Poole), slays Priest Vallon in the view of Vallon's young son, Amsterdam Vallon. Amsterdam escapes into an orphanage, portentously named Hellgate House of Reform. 16 years later, in 1863, Amsterdam (now played by Leonardo DiCaprio) leaves the orphanage in his 20s, returns to Five Points, and is intent on avenging his father by slaying the still-ruling Bill the Butcher. Amsterdam does not reveal his true identity to Bill and becomes a part of Bill's team. However, Bill begins to treat Amsterdam as a father would treat a son, and Amsterdam doesn't quite know what to think of Bill when the antagonist of Amsterdam, Bill the Butcher, gives accolades to Priest Vallon as being an admirable opponent.

Jay Cocks (who introduced Martin Scorsese to Robert De Niro and was also un-credited for his rewriting of the Titanic screenplay) wrote the story of Gangs of New York and co-wrote the screenplay with Steven Zaillian (whose great works as a writer include Schindler's List, Searching for Bobby Fischer, and Awakenings) and Kenneth Lonergan (whose equally commendable writing credits include You Can Count on Me and Analyze This). Because the talent of the screenwriters of this film is so very exceptional, it is no surprise that Gangs of New York is, for the most part, quite well-written. The dialogue of the characters is written both eloquently and realistically.

The ultimately auspicious aspect to Gangs of New York is the brilliant characters and their colorful and eccentric personalities. Cameron Diaz plays a likable, wily pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane, who is in love with both Amsterdam and Bill the Butcher. Brendan Gleeson plays the role of Monk, who is a fighter turned barber turned sheriff and who galvanizes the film with his authoritarian personality. John C. Reilly is in the role of the tyrannical police officer Happy Jack. Jim Broadbent delivers an appropriately subdued portrayal of the historical William "Boss" Tweed, the ruler of the notorious Tammany Hall and the seller and buyer of votes.

Daniel Day-Lewis eclipses everyone in his intense, ferocious, and frankly astonishing portrait of the bloodthirsty, albeit intelligent, Bill the Butcher. Day-Lewis provides the character with mannerisms that are elaborate, threatening, eccentric, and at times laced with humor. Bill the Butcher could have been a (slightly) hackneyed villain, but the talents of Day-Lewis make his character so wonderfully complex and over-the-top that Bill the Butcher is sure to become one of the great characters of modern cinema.

Despite the many strong aspects of Gangs of New York, the film has its imperfections. The opening battle scene plays more like a music video than the grandiose spectacle it was meant to be. In addition, along with the movie's sheer over-length, its major weakness is its meandering story (particularly towards the end of the movie).

It is not DiCaprio's performance that is flawed, it is his character. The protagonist Amsterdam Vallon lacks the ferocity and emotion that the characters which surround him possess, therefore, making his character more reserved and restrained in temperament and not a character that possesses more wild characteristics.

Martin Scorsese is ultimately one of the greatest story-tellers of cinema. His ambition is displayed via all of his films, and Gangs of New York is no exception. Gangs of New York is not a film by Scorsese that can be called "great," but it is nonetheless an accomplishment and a spectacle made on a grand scale and deserving of accolades.

A Spectacular Film!
Martin Scorsese has directed a moving and impressive film. He has captured the "feel" and "look" of New York City in the 1840s and 1860s, with incredible sets, a terrific script, and wonderful performances (particularly by Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher). The focus of the story is on the relationship between Bill (the nativist leader with a "patriotic" glass eye that he taps with a knife, and a butcher of animals and men) and Amsterdam (the young Irish-American, played by Leonardo DiCaprio). Bill kills the youngster's father, a priest (played all too briefly by Liam Neeson), then later makes Amsterdam his right-hand man (giving him pointers on maiming and killing), and finally becomes his enemy. Day-Lewis is magnificent in this role, which he plays with gusto, humor, and a wonderful accent. DiCaprio is less dynamic, but nevertheless effective as the son bent on revenge.

In the background, for most of the film, is the Civil War and its effects on the people of the city, especially the young Irish immigrants who must serve in the Union army.

I was forewarned about the violence in Gangs of New York. I am pleased to report that it was not excessively graphic. These were, after all, violent times, and draft riots and gang wars could not be shown as tea parties.

This was one of the best films that I saw in 2002, along with The Pianist, Frida, Adaptation, and Insomnia. Go and see it!

Watchable nonsense
Martin Scorcese's epic tale of gang warfare in New York at the time of the Civil War is an overblown, exaggerated account that is very watchable but ultimately fails as a cohesive story. I don't doubt that much of what happens in this film is inspired by fact, but I don't think that the actual participants looked quite as much like the cast of "The Road Warrior" as do the characters in this film. Take, for example, the main villain, William Cutting AKA Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis). One of his eyes is a steel ball with an American eagle on it; he cut out the original to present as a gift to the man who gave him a magnificent beating. There's also a woman who has filed her teeth into fangs. And a guy whose club is notched to commemorate his victims. Star Leonardo DiCaprio's father (Liam Neeson) wore a priest's collar even as he marched into battle.

I have come to expect gritty realism from Scorcese, but in this film he goes way over the top. The enormous (and surprisingly well-lit) catacombs and cavernous interiors with ratty characters hanging from bamboo scaffolding seem like left-over shots from "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome". It often seems like a film made by a much less skillful director who is willing to sacrifice the reality of his scenario for a cool effect, a bit of dramatic posing, or some easy violence.

TECHNICALLY PERFECT, HOWEVER, THE PLOT HAS HIGHS AND LOWS.
"Gangs Of New York" was a film with huge expectations when the movie hit the screen in december of 2002. The fans of the great director Martin Scorsese were eager to see his latest film in years. Well, finally "Gangs Of New York" was in theaters and the movie got a lot of mixed reviews, and I think it's obvious why that happened. You make a movie with a long running time (almost 3 hours), with a plot based in a controversial book, you throw graphic violence and racism, and obviously you will offend a lot of people.

Those are the controversial elements in "Gangs Of New York", however the movie has a lot of things to talk about. This film has depth in almost every single technical aspect: the sets are beautiful and above all, they are very real. The costumes and makeup are very specific and believable. The music score was made by the always efficient Howard Shore. Most of the performances are excellent, specially Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill "The Butcher", he created one of the scariest villains in recent years, also he got a lot of acting awards for this role. Liam Neeson is outstanding in a brief, but essential role, he plays Priest Vallon. John C. Reilly as Happy Jack and Jim Broadbent as William "Boss" Tweed are also highlights in the cast.

Of course, there was a lot of controversy with the selection of Leonardo DiCaprio in the leading role, some might find him too weak and some might find him outstanding, I think that he did a good job in this movie, but this is not one of his best performances. The acting talent of Cameron Diaz had little use in this movie. The direction of Martin Scorsese was very good, because he had a lot of elements and he made a complex movie, not a lot of directors can make a convincing work with such a complicated material.

Now, the plot does have highs and lows. The opening scene is one of the most impressive battles in recent years, overall all the battles in the film are excellent. But I think that the movie could have been edited more efficiently, there are a lot of scenes that doesn't add continuity to the plot. The movie lengths almost 3 hours, I think that 130 minutes could have been more effective, but at the end of the day there are more good things in "Gangs Of New York" than flaws.

The DVD features are very interesting (if you liked the movie, of course), the audio commentary by Martin Scorsese is the highlight of the DVD features. The documentaries are very detailed and informative, they offer a lot of different perspectives. The Five Points study guide and the multi-angle sets are just amazing, almost make you feel like you are in there, so if you liked "Gangs Of New York" you are going to love the bonus disc.

"Gangs Of New York" may offend a lot of people because the movie tells a story about violence and obviously says that USA history is plagued with violence and racism since the beginning, but the movie also says that a lot of brave people fought to create the USA. So yes, the movie may be controversial but "Gangs Of New York" has too many good things, so rent it first, if you like the movie, this DVD is a must-own. Specially recommendable to fans of Martin Scorsese.

Overlong, overblown and over here!
Gangs of New York would have made a great 90 minute movie, but runs almost an hour and a half longer. An impressive fight scene near the start and a satisfactory one at the end cannot really compensate for the tedious dialogue and unconvincing meandering subplots.

Daniel Day-Lewis certainly steals what there is of the show with a compelling (if somewhat campy - check out that boo-hiss moustache!) depiction of Bill Cutter - the brutal bigoted leader of the "Native American" gang.

Leonardo Di Caprio though, horribly miscast as the orphaned "Amsterdam", leader of the "Dead Rabbits" generates about as much menace as Bambi, as he seeks revenge for the killing in a gang fight of his "da".

The love interest, provided by Cameron Diaz, as a rather stereotypical tart-with-a-heart (groan), simply doesn't convince or engage the viewer, who will probably be incongruously rooting for Day-Lewis by the end.

Despite the aforementioned fights, and a couple of other semi-memorable scenes (DDL's knife-throwing was quite entertaining!) I cannot recall another movie where so little of interest occurs in almost 3 hours.

Very disappointing, but could still be salvaged with some intelligent cutting.

At least the DVD makes it easy for you to skip the tedious scenes, but I doubt if GONY will be worth repeat viewings.

Shame. An opportunity lost. ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

5 stars for DVD quality, 3 stars for the movie
I'm reviewing only the DVD, and not the movie itself, which was a bit of a stinker, in my opinion. Well produced, beautifully filmed, but very poorly written.

Anyway - this is an awesome and incredibly well done DVD. Lots and lots of extras. Great commentary by Lucas, the producer, the sound man, etc. Interview with the composer. Lots and lots and LOTS of background materials on the making of the film, and the entire process of putting it together from initial writing to final production, and the making of the DVD itself.

The image of the movie is *very* crisp and clean. The deleted scenes are a nice addition to the movie. I am very impressed (and surprised, to be cynical about it) that Lucas has given us the full-featured DVD the first time out, and not offered us one scaled down DVD version, only to offer us a better version in a year, and then the full-scale one a year after that, like he's constantly done with the VHS versions of his movies. Thank you, Lucas, for taking care of your fans this time, and not trying to pad your pockets a few times before giving the fans what they *really* want.

Quality-wise, this is absolutely one of the most loaded, best-featured DVDs I have in my collection.

(as a p.s. - after hearing Lucas' commentary, and talking about some things coming up in the next movies, I have realized that a few things I criticized about this movie actually make sense oin terms of the upcoming story-line. However, I still think that, overall, the writing for this movie was only a cut above old b-movies)

OK Movie, Great DVD
The Phantom Menace was probably the most heavily anticipated movie in history. It was the prequel to the original Star Wars series and George Lucas was taking the helm as director for the first time since Star Wars in 1977. The film was hyped incessantly and, of course, the final product failed to live up to the expectations. The Phantom Menace is not a bad film. It actually is absolutely amazing to look at and the special effects are incredible. The problem with the film is the plot. It seems disjointed as it bounces around from scene to scene. It seems that Mr. Lucas was to preoccupied with getting the film to look right than the actual story (which is what made the first Star Wars so great). Many people weren't happy with the casting of several roles, especially Ewan MacGregor as Obi Won Kenobi, but he does a decent job in an undeveloped role. Liam Neeson is commanding as Qui Gon Jin and Natalie Portman is quite good as Queen Amadala. The biggest complaint that most people had with the film was with the character of Jar Jar Binks and I won't disagree with most of what's been said about the annoying character. Mr. Lucas has previously shunned the DVD arena (American Graffiti is the only one of his films to appear in the format), but he goes about this release with a vengeance. The extras, including seven deleted scenes, are worth buying this DVD alone. Mr. Lucas spent an additional four million dollars on them and the money is well spent.

prequel?
in this one,there is a council of jedis who rule everything and keep the peace.yoda,ben,some black dude and on like that.a younger ben finds a little kid-who is called anakan and later vadar.that kid wins his freedom with bens help in a very cool pod race.ben recognizes the force in the little one and decides to train him as a jedi.the bad guy is darth maul who has a double bladed light saber-very cool.hes the coolest looking character yet.i think peple came down too hard on jar-jar.hes a dork but there have been a lot worse.the kids will like it.it is the 4th part but the first episode.everybody should go see this one because just anybody will like it.anakans mom was pretty nice if she cleaned herself up.this movie isnt as good as the tv says but they blow everything all out of proportion anyway.this movie is abselutely incredible though.i think the black dude may be in the matrix too.its good too.the special effects are good.after this there is one more.then there is an animated short film.there is also another one on the way next summer.

To Lucas: Eye of the Tiger, Man!!
To quote the famous lines by Apollo Creed from Rocky III, "You lost for all the wrong reasons, you lost your edge. Eye of the tiger, man!"
A good analogy when you think of it...

When Lucas made the first trilogy he was a relativly unknown up-and-comming writer/director full of desire and well, "hunger" to make his mark. That drive lead to the masterpieces of pop culture we know as ANH and ESB. By ROTJ his edge was already waning but thankfully it was the last one... or so we thought.

By the time TPM came out he lost it completely and produced a quite mediocre if at best ordinary film. Living like a king for the past 20+ years made him not "hungry and full of desire" but fat and content. He lost his edge.

Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is so much better than Lucas' last 2 efforts for this same reason. Jackson has the "eye of the tiger"!

Lucas HAS to get his edge back. Most agree AOTC is better than TPM but not by much. Will episode 3 prove that Lucas got it back??

If only reality played out like the fantasy of Rocky III and Lucas brings home a REAL winner....

What drug was George Lucas on?
I love Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I think that George Lucas should have stopped there. The two movies: The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones....SUCK! What was George Lucas thinking? Jar Jar Binks needs to tossed off the face of the earth, and Hayden Christansen (while hot), needs to take some acting lessons. Not enough special effects in the world could make me want to see the third release. Poor acting and writing have made me want to run for cover! Where's the FORCE when you need it? ... Read more

Reviews (15)

Great insider info
The only thing that bothers me is that they have Ewan McGregor, Sir Alec Guiness, and Liam Neeson's pictures on the back, and they are nowhere on this video. However, there are interviews with people whom you don't usually hear from like Jeremy Bulloch, Bib Fortuna, Kenny Baker and Peter Mayhew. While watching the show I realised that the background was blurred to hide the Star Wars posters behind them. All in all, I thought it was very insightful, and not neccessarily flattering of George Lucas at times. It's nice to see the other side of the coin, but George is still a genious.

Excellent
I'm not sure if those who reviewed this are true Star Wars fans. I learned a lot from this video. I saw the men under the masks of Boba Fett & Chewbacca. Anthony Daniels doesn't normally sound like C3-P0 and has to change his voice to do it. You see Lucas' house in Modesto where he grew up. There is a lot of detail I did not know about. There is so much more than what I have mentioned. It is a fascinating video. I highly recommend it.

STAR WARS:SECRETS OF A GALAXY FAR,FAR AWAY...
I really liked this video. I liked the part when Mark Hamill does an impression of Harrison Ford while talking about shooting the last scene in Star Wars. Jeremy Bulloch talkes about shooting a scene in The Empire Strikes Back when he said the wrong line:"Put Captain Cargo in the Solo hold!" instead of "Put Captain Solo in the Cargo Hold!" Mark Hamill mentions that Lucas once asked him to play an Obi-Wan type character in an Episode VII passing on the excalibur down to the next generation and that he said that it would come out arouind 2011. David Prowse mentions that he may don the Darth Vader costume again in Episode III. Nevetheless this is a fascinating video that also tells what went on during the making of Star Wars.

Bantha Poodoo!
The problem with this video is that it's just loose interviews strung together without any thought behind it. The info is nothing new, and they don't show any cool behind the scenes stuff. Hard to believe, but they actually found a way to make Star Wars boring.

Save your money or buy a book
It was cool seeing how Chewbacca looks like but thats about it.It really stinks. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Roland Joffé (The Killing Fields) directs this fuzzy effort at a David Lean-like epic without David Lean's sense of emotional proportion. Lean's most important screenwriting collaborator, Robert Bolt, in fact wrote The Mission, which concerns a Jesuit missionary (Jeremy Irons) who establishes a church in the hostile jungles of Brazil and then finds his work threatened by greed and political forces among his superiors. Robert De Niro is briefly effective as a callous soldier who kills his own brother and then turns to Irons's character to oversee his penance and conversion to the clergy. The narrative and dramatic forces at work in this movie should be more stirring and powerful than they are--the problem being that Joffé is too removed from them to allow us in. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (158)

Theodicy or Corrupt Politics
The Mission

The Mission directed by Roland Joffe is the story of the struggle between theocracy and theodicy. Ironically the church has the mission to bring theodicy to the world and it does this through the message of God's Love and Forgiveness. It tries to accomplish this through the sending out of missionaries, in this case the Jesuit priests, to tell the story and bring others to the knowledge of God's Love and Forgiveness. Tragically politics and greed for power in the hierarchy of the church (in this case the Roman Catholic Church) brings about a situation where the people of God are killed supposedly in the name of God. This story opens and ends with Cardinal Altamirano (Ray McAnally) dictating a letter to the Pope informing him of the events that had transpired after giving church missions in South America over to the Spaniards and Portuguese. The nature of the setting is beautiful. Views of the waterfalls are breath-taking and spectacular.

The message of theodicy is played out in the story involving two main characters Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) and Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro). Father Gabriel brings theocracy to the Natives of South America. At the beginning of our story Rodrigo is a slave trader who undergoes a traumatic conversion experience and serves those whom he had sold into slavery before. His story of transformation is one of heartache, murder, repentance and extreme penance which he imposes upon himself. It is the forgiveness and acceptance of those who he former hunted that sets him feel to serve both God and the Natives. Another film that shows a similar vein of acceptance after tragedy is the classic movie Hawaii (1966) based on James Michener. Rev. Hale accepts the Native Hawaiians as he begins to mellow in the aftermath of his losses. In Rodrigo's case is his acceptance by the tribe that helps them to fight against the imposed theocracy of the Cardinal later on.

At issue here, in spite of the beautifully portrayal of conversion to Christianity of the Native people of South America, is the imposed will of governing forces of politics around greed ownership of land. Yet this was done under the auspices of the Church as God's Will, which is called theocracy. The people of the land had no say, they were the conquered, to be exploited and were considered as chattel, for them there was not theodicy. Their willingness to share and work for the common good of all, even though a principle of Christianity was considered a threat to the economy of others with political clout. Because they would not give up that which they had worked for, they were condemned to death. When Cardinal Atlamirno orders them to leave the Mission; they wanted to know why? His answer was that they had to submit to the will of God. Their answer was had God changed his mind? They were doing what they had been taught was God's will for them. Theodicy was not served as there was no justification in this case.

The Mission portrays the mission of Christ
The Mission is a powerful movie with a powerful message about sin, redemption, and love. It probes deep into the evils of the Catholic Church in Spain and Portugal in teh mid 18th century. Robert De Niro brilliantly portrays Rodrigo Mendoza, a dynamic character who transforms his life to a murderer who trades slaves to a Jesuit priest who fights for those seemingly 'enslaved' natives - the Guaranese. Jeremy Irons ixquisitley plays the role of a truly Christ-like figure. Father Gabriel is the epitomy of compassion, lvove, and understanding. With an incredibly written screenplay by Robert Bolt (who also wrote A Man For All Seasons), the Mission is an incredible film which explores the depths and beauty of morality and life ont he path to Jesus Christ.

the beauty and the horror of the catholic church
i think tom keogh's a bit 'off' kilter and it echoes the reviews that came out when the film was released.
the charge of emotional vacancy has since been rendered somewhat mute by the films growing status.
now admittedly, the overriding emotional sense that most people seem to experience when seeing this is one of anger, rather than one of tragedy and ,yes, that is partly due to our never really getting to know the indians who are, predictably, massacred.
we are emotionally more jolted upon seeing the murder of the priests who we have gotten to know.
that aside, i think joffes direction works because what he is attempting to show, and succesfully does so, is both the beauty and the horror of catholicism.
there is a touching beauty upon seeing deniros character finally reaching his muddy penneance,and in the scene where he cooks a steaming stew for his fellow priests.
perhaps one of the most beautiful, simplistically effective moments is when deniro narrates first corinthians 'love is not puffed up'.
yes, the conclusion is all too predictable. not just because we know the history, but because as much as we all can see the beauty in the church, everyone is also well aware of its ugliness.
i am suprised that the catholic church showed its support of this non flattering film, which shows, perhaps, a certain amount of theoretical penance on its part.
one of the last scenes which shows two naked indian children aloft in a boat after the massacre is an example of a picture telling a thousand words.
in one sense mr keogh is correct in recognizing an inherent coldness in the film but i think that is a realization of the harrowing cold heartedness that catholic church has shown in its history, which paradoxically is unified with its undeniable beauty.

This Sucks!!!!!! Very Very Sucky and Boring
I just watched this movie in Morality class and it is a really boring movie that just drags on and on. How does end by every one including De Nero and Irons (major characters) along with everyone else. There is only one movie that pulled off having all the characters die in it and that was Glory. I don't under any circumstances think anyone should see this movie unless you have a boring life or just sad than see it otherwise see Glory a much much better movie except different plots.

Emotionally Wrenching, Enchanting Film
Not for the squeamish, "The Mission" explores the duality of Europe's presence in South America -- the salvation brought by the Jesuits and the condemnation brought by "civilization."

Roland Joffe, the director, pulls few punches. The film opens with the dictation of a letter to the Pope by a prominent religious figure, Altamirano, who has just undergone the events that will transpire in the film, and we learn that these events are not pleasant: "the local savages are now free to be enslaved by his Holiness . . ."

These events "were brought about" by the horrifying martyrdom of a Jesuit priest, who had journeyed to the "uncivilized" lands of the Indians above the falls (and what falls!). The local Indians, apparently rejecting his Christian teachings, crucify him and toss him into a river . . . a river that soon flows to the falls, and the descending cross is one of the most haunting images you will ever see on film.

In response, another Jesuit priest, Gabriel (Jeremy Irons) heads above the falls, and uses his music (score by Ennio Morricone of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" fame) to win the trust of the locals. Soon he is preaching the Word of God among them.

Unfortunately, the slaver/mercenary Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro) is hunting the Indians for slavers. He ominously warns Gabriel about the futility of building a mission among the Indians, and he seizes several.

On his return to "civilization" below the falls (the dusty town stands in marked contrast to the lush greenery above the falls), Rodrigo learns that his beloved Carlotta does not love Rodrigo, but has fallen for Rodrigo's younger brother, Felipe (Aiden Quinn). Rodrigo, far from a reasonable sort, kills his brother shortly thereafter in a trumped-up quarrel. Distraught, Rodrigo eventually agrees to do his penance above the falls with Gabriel and his fellow Jesuits (including a young Liam Neeson).

Following a tortuous climb above the falls with his lodestone of arms and armor, Rodrigo finds salvation and seeks to become a Jesuit. The mission above the falls takes shape, and all seems to be right with the world.

Of course, this is not to be. The slavers need their slaves, and they exert enormous pressure against the church -- the Catholic Church is not as strong as it once was, and the militant Jesuits are becoming a nuisance by sapping the supply of slaves (apparently it is too inconvenient to enslave Christians, so the slavers argue that the Indians are monkeys without souls -- nice).

Altamirano agrees to visit both the local mission (a gorgeous, mammoth structure complete with farm and Indian priests) as well as the more primitive mission above the falls . . . which is even more impressive despite (and perhaps because of) it's remoteness.

But, politics being politics, the missions are doomed and the Indians will be enslaved. Rodrigo and the younger priests decide to fight, leading to one of the more disturbing battles you will see on-screen. It's not "Saving Private Ryan" in its horrors, but it is emotionally wrenching to see the Jesuits and the Indians fight such in such a foregone conclusion.

Even more gut-wrenching is Gabriel, who chooses a non-violent response. In a pitch-perfect performance, Irons emobodies the Jesuit commitment to the simple words of Christ . . . not that it does him or the Indians much good in this world.

A haunting spectacle and far from a feel-good movie, "The Mission" deserves full marks for its depiction of a common conflict (Europe versus the New World) in a different setting. A top-notch cast and a wonderfully shot film make this one for the video library. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This lush retelling of the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table is a dark and engrossing tale. Director John Boorman (Deliverance) masterfully handles the tale of the mythical sword Excalibur, and its passing from the wizard Merlin to the future king of England. Arthur pulls the famed sword from a stone and is destined to be crowned king. As the king embarks on a passionate love affair with Guenevere, an illegitimate son, and Merlin's designs on power, threaten Arthur's reign. The film is visually stunning and unflinching in its scenes of combat and black magic. Featuring an impressive supporting cast, including early work from the likes of Liam Neeson and Gabriel Byrne, Excalibur is an adaptation of the legend both faithful and bold. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (242)

An amazing movie
Ok, its not a perfect movie, but for this movie, which covers the mythology of Arthur, Camelot and Excalibur(very very difficult to do) it succeeds remarkably well. There are scenes that are nearly perfect throughout the film. When the Knights of the Round Table first form, when Arthur and Lancelot joust, the sins of adultery scene, the 'unholy child' scene, the search for the Grail, when Perceval strips his armor and is born anew(remarkable), when Arthur and Guenevere meet one last time with some beautifully poetic dialogue, the scene where Arhur sees Merlin in his dreams while at Stonehenge at dusk, and of course the final battle. Wow, there are just so many great scenes. Probably my favorite is when Perceval casts Excalibur back into the lake and the Lady of the Lake reaches out to take it back. Then, we see another amazing scene as Arthur is seen being taken away in a boat to Avalon. I could go on and on about this film. See it in DVD, though, the widescreen vision. A beautiful, remarkable film that few directors would even begin to attempt today. I think a younger Speilberg would be daring enough to attempt it, but I doubt he would succeed nearly as well. Zemeckis gave it a try with Sean Connery and Richard Gere. It was called First Knight. Watch that movie and then watch Excalibur and it is almost laughable how much better the latter one is... Buy this movie now, sit back and enjoy.