Amazon.com

For director Robert Redford the trick was directing himself. The Oscar-winning director (Ordinary People, Quiz Show) says that he is one kind of actor (in the moment) and a different kind of director (more controlling). Whatever the problems, Redford has worked it out beautifully in this leisurely paced adaptation of Nicholas Evans's bestseller. When the prized horse of New York magazine editor's (Kristen Scott Thomas) daughter suffers a horrible accident, she tracks down Tom Booker (Redford), a Montana horse healer who is known for working magic. Soon East Coast brashness meets Old West simplicity as the reluctant Annie takes her even more reluctant daughter (Scarlett Johansson) to Marlboro country. Booker's influence goes beyond the horse through healing the heart of daughter and mother. The 2-hour and 44-minute film is a beautiful travelogue of scene and sky (with a giant assist from Oliver Stone's usual cinematographer, Robert Richardson). Never complicated, the movie's rewards may be hidden in its length and Redford's tendency to introduce us to a way of life instead of focusing on a story. The major deviation from the end of Evans's novel is a welcomed change. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (167)

unwind in the Montana mountains
This is a unique movie from the millions of others out there. The plot starts with Grace(Scarlett Johansson) and her best friend meeting to go horse back riding and with Grace's mom Annie (Kristin Scott Thomas) working hard in her magazine office. When the girls are riding a tramatic and tragic accident happens causing the death of Grace's best friend and severe injuries to both Grace and her horse Pilgrim. Grace's right leg is severely hurt so they must amputate it. With her daughter becoming more distant from the family and Pilgrim becoming more afraid of humans, Annie is desperate to find relief or an answer somewhere. She reads an article about a horse whisperer named Tom Booker (Robert Redford) who heals horses. Anxious to give it a try, Annie, Grace, and Pilgrim travel from their home in New York to a cattle ranch in Montana and begin Pilgrim's healing process while Grace's father stays behind. What no one expected was the love situation that would come about when Tom and Annie met. Combined with a teriffic plot and the beautiful Montana scenery, this is definitely a movie not to be missed.

A beautiful, spiritual story of hope and despair...
"The Horse Whisperer" is unlike any other movie that I've seen. The story opens as a young girl, Grace, experiences a terrible accident while riding her horse, Pilgrim, on an icy road. Driven mad by shock and pain, Pilgrim is almost to the point of death. Grace is also in critical condition, for she has badly injured her right leg in the accident, and it must be amputated. Grace's mother Annie (Kristin Scott Thomas) reads about a man named Tom Booker (Robert Redford) who is known as a "horse whisperer," able to communicate and see into the troubled souls of these animals. A few days later, Annie, along with her hesitant daughter and Pilgrim in tow, sets out for Montana. There, at Mr. Booker's ranch, do you witness the amazing changes that occur as Tom begins to heal Pilgrim's spirit (along with Grace's). Soon after, Annie and Tom fall in love. The rest of the story unfolds in a symphonic display of love, hope, and miraculous recoveries. The film's ending is not your typical movie closing, but it is very good nonetheless. The beautiful Montana landscape adds to this special aura, and the characters are brilliant (both human and equine). I highly recommend this excellent movie to absolutely anyone. You'll fall in love with "The Horse Whisperer."

The Horse Whisperer
Okay, okay lets all agree on one thing here: the book is always better. that said, lets move on. "The horse whisperer" was a beautiful movie. It opens up with a young girl, Grace MacLaen. She lives in New York with her parents and her horse Pilgrim. One early morning her and a friend go out for a snow-filled trail ride. But where there is snow, there is ice and Grace's friend, Judith, slips (actually her horse, Gulliver, does)and they come crashing down into a fatal and life changing accident. After grace recovers enough to walk again, her mother realizes that something has changed within the young girl and forces her and pilgrim to take time out and seek help in montana. The "horse whisperer" tom booker (redford) sees that the threesome needs him in the worst way possible. Going against his belife in helping the horses, not the people, he sets out to help them. And so begins his long and demanding "healing" process. Pilgrim reaches a breakthrough and an old frienships is born again with the girl he once loved and trusted. But Grace's mother isnt ready to leave montana quite yet for she has fallen in love with the magical cowboy. All in all it was an excellent movie. but as i have said before the book is always better. watch the movie first and then "feel" (not see) what really happens when you read the book!

Read the book....
First off, I'm an avid reader. I read this book shortly before I heard about the movie coming out and I loved it. I couldn't put it down & cried through the last chapter. Now, to clarify...I'm not one of those weepy women who cries over hallmark comercials & other such drivel. It takes a lot to make me shed a tear. That said, I got so into the book that I couldn't help feel the pain the characters were going through.

When the movie came out, I went to the theatre to watch it...excited about seeing it all come to life before me. I know better than this b/c rarely are movies as good as the books, but still I hoped for the best. It was beautiful. I'll give it that...but it was slow. I felt every mile of the drive from NY to Montana. Besides being bored through most of the movie, I got more & more angry as I realized just how little respect was paid to the book with the screenplay. The characters weren't the ones that I had fallen in love with...or in the same respect hated. They were just kinda emotionless, middle of the road representations of the characters that Nicholas Evans created. Then...somewhere along the line, I'm guessing the screenplay writer decided that the book that they had bought the rights to wasn't good enough so they took the liberty to omit the last 4th of the book & reinvent their own Hollywoodized ending. As a reader and a Nicholas Evans fan, I couldn't help but feel that they butchered his work.

BUT, if you like long, slow, movies and have never read & don't intend to read the book...go right ahead and see this movie. You just might like it. Scarlett Johanssen is good and the scenery is beautiful.

Great Movie!
This is a great movie. It depicts real people in real life situations. Acting of Redford is marvelous!

Cinematography is breathtaking :)

Thumbs Up!! ... Read more

Reviews (137)

Exquisite erotic classic
Jane Campion's "The Piano" does what many truly great films do: It inspires fascinating discussion and provokes mixed reactions. The male friend with whom I saw it back in 1993 and I were so enthralled that we kept our significant others waiting to leave for our respective Christmas vacations because we kept phoning each other to discuss symbolism and interesting themes in the movie. While I continue to absolutely love the film, I also recognize why some viewers have not shared my reaction. Perhaps you have to have at least considered a forbidden love affair or perhaps you have to have found yourself trapped in a relationship where you feel you have lost your voice to appreciate what Campion explores.

The story centers around Ada (Holly Hunter in an Oscar-winning performance) and her daughter, Flora (Anna Paquin--who also won an Oscar for her extraordinary performance). They leave their upper-class home in Scotland after Ada's father (apparently) arranges her marriage. Ada, who has willed herself not to speak since age 6, expresses herself through her beloved piano.

The true story of who fathered Flora is never revealed in the movie, but the context suggests that she is Ada's illegimate child born from an illicit affair. The hinted-at story of Flora's conception provides a key to understanding both why Ada later begins an affair with her New Zealand neighbor Baines (Harvey Keitel) and why she makes a mail-order marriage in the first place. I suspect that Ada's aging father may have wanted to see her settled--preferably far away so that her unconventional behavior would no longer be a source of social embarassment--and given Ada's muteness and out-of-wedlock child, her father probably couldn't find a suitable suitor in mid-Victorian Scotland.

Stewart (Sam Neill) first encounters his future wife on a lonesome gray beach surrounded by her crated belongings. His Maori porters begin carrying many household items up the muddy path to his dreary homestead. But Stewart refuses to bring the piano along, despite Ada's apparent distress and Flora's pleas that her mother MUST have her piano.

Ada's piano, abandoned on the barren New Zealand beach, captures the sense of what 19th century colonial life might have been like for too many women--treasured possessions, the last ties to "civilization" left behind.

Rendered voiceless without her piano, Ada begs Stewart to return for her instrument through notes and more pleas from Flora. Finally she persuades Baines--a colonist whose tattoed face evidences the extent to which he has "gone native" and who is considered less civilized by his neighbors--to guide her back to the beach. Ada comes to life again as she, at last, gets to play. Drawn by her passion for the piano, Baines arranges with Stewart to trade land for the piano. Without consulting his wife, Stewart assures him that Ada will provide lessons too.

During first of these lessons, Ada strikes her own bargain with Baines, whom she still considers a boor: She will trade sexual favors to earn back her piano, one key at a time. Ultimately, her reluctant bargain grows into full-blown love and passion. The dark, brooding tone of "The Piano," however, suggests that something in this situation will go tragically, and probably violently, wrong.

Campion has filled her movie with haunting piano music (actually played by Hunter) and intriguing imagery. The metaphor of piano as voice and losing and regaining one's voice, Flora's role in changing her mother's fate, the question of whether Ada's bargain reflects a woman taking control of her life or just being victimized in a different way, and many other complexities make this a movie worth watching again and again and again.

Words cannot convey...
Words cannot convey...and this is one of the things this incredible movie teaches us. The Piano is one of my favorite movies of all time. The scenery is breathtaking. Holly Hunter is brilliant as Ada, the mute (by choice) "victim" of an arranged marriage. Her facial expressions and physical movements express more than words could ever say. In fact, I found that once I become aware of watching her gestures, I began watching the expressions of other characters in the movie also. Harvey Kietel is cast in a very different role for him and the result is impressive and shows a much larger range of his acting ability. The music in the film is beautiful and is Ada's true "voice".

This movie must not be watched in the ordinary way one would watch any other movie. If you're just going to watch it in a literal way, this isn't the movie for you. The Piano is a wonderous combination of music, scenery and symbolism. It's like a dream sequence. The movie feels almost enchanted. The filming of 2 major scenes of violence is exquisite. I didn't notice the violence itself so much as I felt the pain of the characters.

I highly recommend this film...no matter how many times I watch it, it never fails to move me.

A moody drama that was very bittersweet.
This is the first film I have seen with Holly Hunter and Harvey Keitel. They both gave good performances, and the movie itself was strange but likeable. Anna Pacquin and Sam Neil also gave great performances. The movie did have a lot of nudity that was really un-neccesary. The cinematography was good and the setting was a cool, dark, but beautiful place. The film was very different and really surprised me, like most films do. I recommend this for romantic buffs, and people who love to watch great performances.

A Different Look At Romance
All the things that characterize a Hollywood romance are turned upside down and changed about in this film. The usual fare is the interactions between two urbanites with huge polished smiles stuck to their faces. They enter a relationship which is loud, giddy, and giggly.
In The Piano, the woman doesn't speak at all and both men are stoic sorts who have lived in a hard land. A lot happens under the surface where we can only guess at it. In mainstream films, the emphasis for the man is rushing in and grabbing the woman of his dreams with all possible speed.
But here, just once, the quiet, patient, and tender man emerges with the lady. And what's more, when we first see him, we fail to see through his hard exterior. Even the viewer comes to know this man's virtue only over time.
I found this to be an incredibly beautiful story and as if that alone wasn't good enough, I also greatly enjoyed the cinematography and the music. This is one of those films that I find guilty of being incredibly good on all counts.

And a final note about male nudity: Yes it is in this film. Both male and female are seen completely nude. And there's nothing wrong with the male part. We men have beautiful bodies too. Art of the past has had no compunctions about showing nude males and correctly so. I'm not sure I can understand this modern prudery.

BREATHTAKING!
I haven't seen this movie for a long time, but saw it again the other day. I forgot how powerful it was and how breathtaking all the actors are as well as the scenery. Strong performances and beautiful music (I bought the soundtrack long ago and had to dust it off after seeing this movie again!). As for some of the negative comments of seeing Harvey Keitel naked (full frontal, too), and found him disgusting looking, well, folks, that's how most people look in real life! ... Read more

Reviews (655)

A heart pumping rollercoaster ride of a movie.
The 3rd installment of the JP franchise is without a doubt that darkest, fastest-moving, heart-pounding, and exciting movie in the film series. Sure the 1st JP is a pure classic and The Lost World tries to recapture the awe of the orginal and The Lost World *tries* to do the same thing but doesn't pull it off very well. Jurassic Park 3 tells you right from the start with a claw ripping through the JP logo that this time the dinosaurs aren't playing around. Sam Neil returns and gives a excellent performance as usual. The supporting cast does well also with William H. Macy and Tea Lenio giving strong performances. The real winners here though are the dinosaurs. As soon as humans once again arrive and disrupt their natural habitat they are just fed up it seems and don't play any games. In the first two films the dinosaurs seem a bit hesitant to eat some good ol' human flesh but, not in this film though. The new bad boy Spinosaurus quickly claims himself as the king of the jungle by taking out one of the legendary actors of the series. (You will seat what I mean) The raptors return badder and smarter. The most immpresive new Dino by far in the flying Pterandons. The special effects are as usual .. amazing. This a perfect addition to any Jurassic Park fan's DVD library.

JPIII
This movie is just pure fun. Thats all it is! The series is going to be if not already classic. See these films! Theyre a blast!

Newer Dinos Means A Fresh Film
Being a lifelong Dinosaur fan, I had to check out JP///. The trailers were making the movie seem really big and fresh with bringing Spinosaurus in to replace Tyrannosaurus as the starring role as super-predator in the JP series. The film moves at a pretty fast rate which can be good and bad. The Dinosaurs in the film are more believable now that the CGI programmers had the ability to make the Dinos' skin wobble when they moved and to have other parts of their body be in sync with the rest of their body.
The characters really don't have much development in the film which is okay considering you came to see Dinosaurs. But there is just enough character development for the moviegoer to understand each character.
My only gripes are with the film that it just seemed like the Dino action seemed to go downhill as the movie progressed. It starts off very well with the Spinosaurus attacking the plane and then eventually battling Tyrannosaurus (which I was hoping wouldn't show up until the final minutes of the film, giving it a climatic ending). After that, the Dinos seemed kinda sparse and the action shorter and shorter. The raptors also kinda got old. Like with T-rex, the filmmakers should have replaced the raptors with other Dinos. Maybe Baryonyxs? Also some science is forgotten in this film. But they had Jack Horner as their Dino supervisor, so it was a given some wrenches would be thrown in the mix. Also, the film seemed really short. With some newer dinos added to the screen that have never been seen before, I was hoping that they would have some pretty nifty Dinosaur battle sequences and Dinosaur-human encounters.
All in all, while JP/// was, somewhat, of a letdown for me, it still provided the goods for the most part.

Redeeming Qualities
Yes, this movie does have some plot holes, and it is not as good as the first movie in the series, but this movie is definitely better than "The Lost World." Somewhat formulaic at this point, but still a decent movie with a simpler and more plausible plot line than the previous movie.

A couple's son is parasailing off the back of a boat off Isla Sorna when something unseen happens to the people driving the boat. The boy's parents, Paul Kirby (William H. Macy) and Amanda Kirby (Téa Leoni), enlist Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to help get the boy back. However, they have to trick Dr. Malcolm into returning to the island, because he, rightfully, thinks being on that island is a very bad idea.

As it turns out, landing a plane on the island was a very bad idea, and now the erstwhile rescuers are running for their lives. Along the way they find Erik Kirby (Trevor Morgan), and the only remaining task is to escape from the island.

Several new dinosaurs are introduced in this movie, including really cool pteranodons and a spinosaurus. The pteranodons act like giant birds, and are appropriately scary. The spinosaurus shows that the tyrannosaurus was not the king of the world. The encounters with the dinosaurs recall the thrills of the first movie in this series and are interesting and enjoyable.

There are a few plot holes in this movie, but fewer than in the previous movie. By keeping the plot simple and having fewer characters with a simpler motivation the movie avoids the incongruities of the previous movie. This movie was more creative and intriguing and favored adrenaline over depth, as in the first movie. The shorter length of the movie also minimizes opportunities to overly analyze the plot, keeping the focus on the action. A sequel not quite as good as the original, but superior to its predecessor.

Better than the 2nd, not as good as the first
Good movie. It was an improvment over the 2nd. It has a lot more dinosaurs, which makes it entertaining. If you like the first two, i recommend you to see this one.

MPAA: PG-13
Running Time: 93 minutes
Year released: 2001 ... Read more

Reviews (333)

65 Million Years is Well Worth the Wait!
Intense, supersonic-paced science fiction adventure finds paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and company invited to a remote tropical island theme park inhabited by genetically engineered dinosaurs! The awe and wonder is abruptly replaced by terror and a fight for survival after the park's security system is sabotaged, granting the resurrected behemoths free run of the island!

Director Spielberg is at his creative best in this tour de force of suspense, acutely blending action, thrills, awe and humor. Equal to the challenge is composer John Williams with an appropriately rousing and kinetic score that sounds something like Stravinsky on melodic steroids!

Expert direction, superb performances (Richard Attenborough is particularly effective as the eccentric billionaire entrepreneur, John Hammond) and breathtaking, unprecedented visual effects (the ILM computer generated dinosaurs are completely convincing!) more than compensate for less than dimensional characters and rudimentary plot. Along with the action and fun, "Jurassic Park" also raises some serious questions about the ethics of advanced science and cloning.

Perhaps Steven Spielberg's best adventure film, "Jurassic Park" truly is a cinematic masterpiece and one of my five favorite films of all time!

Unbelievable
Jurassic Park has got to be one of the greatest movies of all time. The directing, animatronics, acting, graphics, and casting were perfect in this movie. The beginning was perfect, no sitting around waiting for action. It opens with a worker being attacked by a velociraptor and Muldoon(Bob Peck) trying to help him.

You meat a character named Nedry(Wayne Knight) who is working for a company that will pay him 1.5 million dollars if he steals the dinosaur embryos.

Then some other stuff happens, yaddah yaddah, anyway, Grant(Sam Neill), Ellie(Laura Dern), Gennaro(Martin Ferraro), Malcolm(Jeff Goldblum), and Hammond(Richard Attenborough), reach the island. The island is owned by Hammond the billionaire. It is a theme park with real dinosaurs. The main four go on a tour with Hammond's grandkids.

Needless to say, the tour goes bad. Nedry steals the embryos, pulls the power and runs off. The five remaining characters are stranded out by the tyrannosaur paddock. Ellie has already gone back to the visitor's center where she, Hammond, Muldoon, and Mr. Arnold(Samuel L. Jackson) try to figure out what Nedry has done.

The tyrannosaurus escapes, eats Gennaro and nearly kills everyone else. Moments later Ellie and Muldoon come to try and find everybody, but they have left. They find Malcolm lying in a pile of hay, and the two cars destroyed.

Now Grant, and the two grandchildren, Lex and Tim, must find their way back to the visitor's center while Ellie, Malcolm, Muldoon, Hammond, and Mr. Arnold try to get the power back.

This was THE movie of my generation
As a college student now, I was 9 years old when Jurassic Park hit theaters and it couldn't have come at a better time. Watching it again, Jurassic Park holds up as great entertainment, even if the characters and storylines seem a bit flimsy at times. It's probably more worthy of 4 stars than 5, but hey, this is the movie of MY generation and I'm not going to apologize for its rating. Jurassic Park continually reminds its viewers that Steven Spielberg is the greatest entertainer since Walt Disney. Constantly filling the screen with visual treats, keeping the plot moving at a brisk pace (once the obligatory exposition is filled in), and allowing us to enjoy ourselves without stooping too low, nobody does blockbusters like this man. Since he was to direct Schindler's List that same year, this was more or less his kiss-off to the popcorn genre he helped invent (consisting of classics like Jaws, Raiders, and E.T.--some with more dramatic substance than others, but all damn entertaining). Like I said, I was nine when this movie premiered and I still remember watching in the dark theater as the whole show unfolded--perhaps taking it for granted that movies should be so thrilling and fun, and that every filmmaker was capable of such wonders. Wrong on both accounts, but it did spur me on to shoot my first movie on video camera that summer (admittedly, it was highly derivative). Now I'm a film student...thanks Steve
5/6

"This is a UNIX system. I know this"... And black leather?
Jurassic Park is good entertainment, but take most of the "science" it presents with a grain of salt.

All the characters seem to think the idea of cloning dinosaurs is a good idea except chaos theorist Goldblum who wonders if we should do what we apparently can do.

Innovative in its presentation of realistic looking dinosaurs, Jurassic Park is the name of a new dinosaur-based theme park that is sabotaged while a few scientists and kids are on a pre-opening tour. It becomes an adventure to see who will escape alive.

The movie is best when there are dinosaurs on screen.

Mostly good acting by Laura Dern and Sam Neill as dino experts, Jeff Goldblum as the chaos theory mathematician, and Richard Attenborough as the park designer. The kids, played competently by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello had some of the best lines.

An entertaining adventure, but no big concept. Not quite the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Jaws.

The only nit-picks include wondering why Jeff Goldblum wears black leather to the tropics, and why a pre-teen girl can save the day on a complex computer (again - see S1m0ne) with her knowledge of UNIX.

DVD has wide-screen movie, a behind the scenes documentary, and a few other minimal goodies.

More Than Just A Movie...
Jurassic Park was more than just a movie. More than an event. It was a full blown phenomenon! Steven Spielberg is the unrivalled king of such films. Every few years he puts out another spectacular that sweeps the world and sets a new standard (like Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, E.T., Raiders Of The Lost Ark, etc.). This time out, we've got resurrected dinosaurs running amok! The basic plot has stranded people on dino-island trying to keep from becoming dino-chow. You've got your scientists (Sam Neil, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum), your crazy zillionaire (Richard Attenborough), a greedy, lecherous computer geek (Wayne Knight), a sleazy lawyer, and two cute kids to round out the cast. You even get Samuel L. Jackson as a chain-smoking computer tech guy! Throw in an approaching hurricane, and you've got the perfect monster movie! It's usually not the "deep" storyline (except in the cases of Spielberg epics like Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, The Color Purple, etc.) that causes the phenomenon. It's his way of thrilling us and breaking new cinematic ground that we love. I knew when I first saw JP that I was in for a blast. At the same time, I also knew that I wasn't going to see Hamlet or Macbeth! Jurassic Park blew my mind with it's realistic T-rex, Raptors, Triceratops, and the rest. We saw dinosaurs that were not rubber, clay, or robots (well, at least not robots that looked like robots)! We got CGI that put flesh on 65 million year old bones! The team that made this movie are legendary, and have pushed special effects to stratospheric heights. JP is a true milestone that stands the test of time. Belongs in every DVD collection... ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Shot on location in numerous countries, this ambitious Wim Wendersfantasy takes Sam Neill, Solveig Dommartin, William Hurt, and a ragtag group in pursuit around the world and back again. Though set in 1999 under the shadow of impending disaster as a wobbly nuclear satellite threatens to Chernobyl the planet, the leisurely gait of their worldwide escapades has a distinctly '40s-era decadence. The ultimate object of their quest is a machine that records visual information from one person and reconstructs it in the brains of others--granting the miraculous power of sight to the blind for one thing, but even more mystically, enabling a person's dreams to be recorded. When the film seeks resolutions on the most intimate questions of the human soul which dovetail with the possibility of a destroyed world, the film is hampered by the VHS running time, which subtracts several hours from the laser disc version. But numerous joys, not least among them Jeanne Moreau and Max von Sydow as Hurt's parents, inhabit this thought-provoking film. --Alan E. Rapp ... Read more

Reviews (70)

Where is the DVD?
I have found this movie more difficult to describe than any other I have seen. This isn't because of plot complexity or character development. It's because with Until the End of the World, you are getting what essentially becomes three films. This movie's massive story arc (and mind you, I have only seen the VHS version which is something like two hours shorter than the laser disc) can be broken down into three seperate stories. They are not even acts when you dislocate them from the larger "end of the world" plot. I've never seen such a sprawling narrative work so well in a film. The characters are unpolished and even the good guys are shady. This film violates every modern Hollywood sceenplay rule and does it perfectly. One of the reasons I bought a DVD player was in the hopes that this movie would be released in that format at some point. I've only ever seen the VHS version of this film and have seen that more times than I can count. DVD! DVD! Where's my DVD?

music rights must be the problem...
That has to be the reason this wonderful wonderful film has not been released on DVD. The soundtrack is mesmerizing, haunting, and still one of my favorite albums of all time. But it must be almost impossible to get the rights to use all that music...U2, Talking Heads, Depeche Mode, Elvis Costello etc.

As for the film itself, I am in love with it. Sweeping, cinematic, epic, unconventional, dead romantic, chilling. It's a long long film, but I wish it were longer. Even Solveig's stiff acting style grew on me by the middle of the movie, and by the end of it I *was* Clare. This is the LAST VHS TAPE I am still holding onto, since all my other favorites have come out on DVD...and its starting to look a little worn :( PLEEEEASE RELEASE THIS TITLE ON DVD!!!!!!!

This Just In...
It now appears that there's a DVD version of Until the End of the World! Here's the scoop from a fellow named Brent Alverti, dated March 6, 2004:

"The cut features two sets of Italian subtitles (not sure currently what the difference is). There are no English subs (burned-in or not) for the few non-English scenes in the movie. The extras consist of:

* 10 minute monologue (in English) by Wim Wenders as he is driven around in Australia
* 40-minute interview (in English) on the making of the Director's Cut
* 30-minute montage of cut scenes and out-takes
* photo gallery

This is a PAL format DVD, so you will need a multi-format player to view it in non-Europe locales. It likely runs slightly shorter than the film version due to typical PAL transfer speed-up (motion picture film, shot at 24fps, is played back at 25fps to match PAL video standard). Also, no commentary track in included, although initial details suggested there would be one.

I have no definitive word on when the US version might be released. There is a rumor that Anchor Bay is transitioning ownership, and that may impact the US release date which was rumored for mid-2004."

The Travesty Is...
...Wim has yet to release a DVD version of this Wenderfully-sensitive sci-fi film. He's been threatening to press it to disk for years. Still, we are left with just the VHS version. It's a pity that the filmmaker is taking so long on his much-anticipated "director's cut." Wim, drown yourself in coffee and get on the stick, we're waiting!

finally available on dvd
Go to Wim Wenders' official website, there is a link there to an Italian site that sells the full movie as a 4 dvd set. I only mention this because I checked all of the Amazon stores [US/UK/CA/France/Germany/Japan] and I couldn't find it at any of them. Also, Wender's is apparently endorsing it by hyperlinking the Italian website that is selling it. I received mine in about ten days from ordering and it is the real deal; 1 of each of the three chapters to the 4 hr. 40 minute opus is on each of the first three disks and the fourth is all bonus features. I was able to watch it without Italian subtitles, although I have found no English subs for the few parts of the movie that are not in English. The picture is fantastic and it is all-around a deal at any price. Thank you Wim for finally releasing this! ... Read more

Reviews (157)

Fantastic adaption of Clancy's novel
A first-rate thriller that provides the goods again and again. Excellent cast, good direction (the almost always reliable McTiernan--see "Last Action Hero" for the only real blemish on his record), plenty of suspense and thrills. There are a few differences between the novel and the film, but only purists will quibble about that. And yes, Scotsman Connery plays a Lithuanian, but he does it well, and as always, brings a touch of class to the role. I despise Alec Baldwin, but he's perfect as Ryan--the right age and look combined with the proper mix of guile, humility, and cockiness. The film also boasts an excellent supporting cast, with kudos to Sam Neill, Richard Jordan, and Courtney Vance for their performances. Scott Glenn and James Earl Jones are also solid in their roles. The occasional "technobabble" and military talk may confuse those unfamiliar with such terms, but it doesn't detract from the plot or action--in other words, you can still understand and follow the film even if you don't understand the terminology. The DVD features no extras of note, unfortunately, but the transfer quality--while a bit off-color at times--is still far better than VHS, and those of you with home theaters BEWARE--the sound quality (5.1 Surround) is frighteningly good at times (is that torpedo in your living room, or on the screen?!?). A so-so disc, but an incredible, intelligent thriller that's worth buying in any format.

Decent film; terrible DVD
"The Hunt for Red October" is a smart, tightly directed adaptation of Tom Clancy's novel of the same name. It's probably one of the more entertaining submarine movies (if you'll buy into the genre). There are some wonderful performances (especially by Joss Ackland, Courtney B. Vance, and the late Richard Jordan) as well as some inspired casting (most notably Tim "Dr. Frank-N-Furter" Curry as Dr. Petrov). While this film is certainly no "Das Boot," it is highly entertaining for all of its 134 minutes.
However, as an avid collector of DVDs and laser discs, this is perhaps the worst video transfer I have ever seen. In fact, I've seen Chinese bootleg copies of other films that have been superior in terms of video quality. For example: In the opening sequence there is a great deal of dust and dirt on the screen - like you're in a third-rate theater watching the film after it has been showing for about a month and a half. Another example: There is an important interior scene on the USS Dallas that features a wonderfully acted and written interplay between Seaman Jones (Vance) and Seaman Beaumont (Ned Vaughn). However, each shot of Jones is inexplicably awash with so much video noise that it completely distracts from the performances.
Why Paramount would neglect such a film is beyond me. The other huge disapointment on this disc is the complete lack of any extras. This disc is a complete bust. Frankly, I hope that another edition is released out of respect to this worthy film.

The best of the Jack Ryan film series.
Based on Tom Clancy's 1984 novel of the same title, "The Hunt for Red October" is the first Jack Ryan adventure on film. Although I like Harrison Ford better in the role of Jack Ryan than either Alec Baldwin or Ben Affleck, "Red October" is the best of the Ryan films partly because of the script, but largely because of the ensemble cast including Scott Glenn, Sam Neill, Tim Curry, James Earl Jones and, of course, Sean Connery as Captain Marko Ramius, the Lithuanian-born commanding officer on the Soviet nuclear submarine Red October who seeks to defect to the United States. Tension builds as Ramius and the Red October move closer to U.S. waters with the Soviet Navy in pursuit and U.S. forces unsure of Ramius' true intentions. "The Hunt for Red October" is a taut thriller, an excellent movie based on a modern masterpiece of a novel, and I fully recommend it.

One of the best movies you will ever see
Tom Clancy is a master writer. His books are amazing thrillers and the moives haven't been that bad either. This is the best of all the Tom Clancy books that have been made into moives and is one of the best book adaptations ever.

Captian Ramius(Connery) is the best the Soviet fleet has to offer. He's trained most of it and he's now in charge of a new Soviet sub. This sub has a new drive system that runs silent meaning it can't be detected by other subs sonars. After Ramius writes a letter to the Soviet Naval command the search is on. They alert the Americans saying Ramius and his crew has gone mad.

The Hunt for The Red October is on. The U.S. can't play around on this idea because the October could park in any U.S. bay and launch hundreds of Nuclear missiles. Jack Ryan(Baldwin) is a CIA Operative that gets selected to help with this mission. He's met Ramius before and doesn't believe that the man wants to harm the U.S. He believes that Ramius wants to defect along with his officers to the U.S., but he's not sure how Ramius is planning to do it. He now has only a couple of hours to prove the intentions of Ramius and save the ship before the U.S. or Soviet fleets find it and sink her.

All the actors are fantastic in the movie. Alec Baldwin is Jack Ryan is flawless. He played the role to perfection and it's the best movie he's ever made. Sean Connery is the man. Instead of killing Soviets he plays one to perfection in this moive. I love his accent and I though he did a great job of faking it. I loved Sam Neil in the moive. His character Vasily has always been one of my favorites because of his loyalty to Ramius. One of Neils best performances. Tim Curry is good as the weasal Soviet doctor. He plays a weasal better than anybody else. James Earl Jones is himself in this movie and like Connery is just the man. I also like Courtney Vance as 2nd Petty Officer Jones. He gives one of the most memorable performances of the movie. This is an all star cast and everybody is fantastic.

John Mctiernan is one of the best directors in Hollywood. He was one of the biggest when this moive was done with hit titles under his belt like Die Hard and Predator. He can make a good action thriller and this is one of the best ones ever made.

The cinematography is great in the film. You feel like your on real naval ships. The uniforms are authenic on both fleets. The sound is fantastic. This is such a well made movie and the is the movie that all submarine movies should stive to look like.

This is such a good movie. It's made to perfection with a great cast, well made, awesome score, and is just flawless. If you want to sit down and watch a good action thriller than this is it. You will struggle to find a better made movie than this.

Best of the Series
Though I have to admit that I prefered Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan, I'll have to give THFRO the nod for the best in the series. The show's brilliant. Brilliant script that is well executed by wonderful acting. Sean Connery's the man. Can't imagine anyone else playing Ramius. Baldwin did a wonderful job playing Ryan. His best role till date. Would have been greeat to have seen him develop the character in the sequels. And furthermore, James Earl Jones aka the voice of Darth Vader makes his presence in all 3 movies felt though his air time's brief. His presence was greatly missed in The Sum of All Fears.

If the studios are planning another Jack Ryan movie..... please get rid of Affleckand bring back Baldwin. ... Read more

Reviews (269)

Pap, but has at least minimum chortle factor.
I think they were trying to go for a cross between Excalibur and Legend, but it ended up like the Weather (ITV) and Changing Rooms, with excessive access to Miranda Richardson's mouth. The best bit in the entire film is when Rutger Hauer as Vautigan is about to attack Uther Pendragon's army, and says "Charge" like the end was inevitable (his career that is). Brilliant Rutger! I laughed my head off. I was looking for anything by Monty Python when I got this, and I must say, I wasn't entirely disappointed.
Maybe they were aiming this film at a younger audience, but wanted it to appeal to older viewers too, it just comes across as schizophrenic. The script is rubbish, nine year old children could write with more feeling, I think the 'legend advisor' may have had a hand in the writing as it sounds like a researcher's list of facts than realistic dialogue. But I did laugh, so it gets 2 stars. (Assuming that 1 star equals zero, as you're not allowed to rate that low).

Jeez
This is a Fantasy story people, not a historical account! As a fantasy story it is chock full of fantasy elements, and as a story, the writer took liberties with the historical events. I think it is a good fantasy story and is worth watching/ reading

"Another wasted effort" doesn't know their Merlin mythos!
A review complains about the extra characters in Merlin and complains that they do not exist in Arthurian Mythos well frankly there are dozens and dozens of Arthurian myths, legends and even myself who has been reading Arhtur myths for over 20 years has not read them all so I doubt they can have as well.
And interestingly enough they are actualy completely wrong about one of those characters. Nimue was most certainly a major portion of Merlin's life she is the woman who trapped Merlin in a spell of sleep and prevented him from helping Arthur before he dies. She was Merlin's lover in some tales and his nemesis too in others so obviously that other reviewer really doesn't know their Arthur mythos.
And here is the thing, folks should not compare this to the film Excalibur...Excalibur was about ARTHUR this film is called MERLIN people!!!
This is a wonderful film using element of Merlin's legends and making up a few new ones. This is a piece of fiction just like every thing else written about the wizard so how can it possibly be wrong when there is no Merlin nor is there one true text about his life. TH White wrote about Merlin differently than the old myths and legends as did John Steinbeck and Sir Thomas Mallory are their books then not worth reading? OF course not.
THERE IS NO ONE TRUE ARTHURIAN TEXT! It is myth and legend and the story can be told anyway a film maker or writter wishes. That is what creativity is all about not to copy someone elses story but to create your own vision.
This is a fabulous film well acted, directed and told and I've enjoyed it for years. Sam Neil is definitly an interesting version of Merlin..while I have a stronger liking for Nicol Williamson's Excalibur Merlin I still very much enjoy this one. And using Queen Mab from celtic myths and legends which some of the older Arthur tales sources are from was very creative.

Good entertainment
All of you need to read the book The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Characters in this movie are named in this book that may not be familiar to those who think in strict male dominated "Arthurian legend" terms.

Another wasted attempt....
on what could've been something great. I don't mind it when liberties are taken(and there are aplenty here), just as long as they are used to tie up loose ends and/or give the director's theories on why certain things happened. Merlin does neither. I don't understand why they added the characters of Mab, Frick, Nimue, and the talking horse. They have nothing to do with Arthurian myth at all, and take up at least half of the film's time. Instead of being a decent 2 hour TV movie, it became a campy 2-day mini-series with goofy characters. And, the reason for adding in all of those uncessary characters? Just because. this film is so off that the British and American chapters of the Arthurian Archeological Society (organization for lovers of all things Arthurian) refused to endorse the film, and even gave it unfavorable reviews! Until they learn the true meaning of the word "research", Hallmark should stay out of the business of producing historical & literary epics ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Brilliant Career - Judy Davis
This is one of the first films I ever saw Judy Davis. I loved this film and went out to buy the book. I don't understand why it is not on DVD. Gillian Armstrong has long been a favorite director, with this and Oscar and Lucinda being my favorite. I wouldn't mind seeing Starstruck coming to DVD either.

Everything about this film was well done.

Bring this FANTASTIC movie to DVD, pllllllease!
Why hasn't this wonderful movie come out in DVD!!!??? It is a quiet tour de force of good acting, beautiful art direction and cinematography, a wonderful story about a writer coming out of girlish egotism to join a larger world and form a vision, and an intriguing picture of Victorian Australia among the immigrant society. Judy Davis is sparkle and tang playing the volatile Sybilla, very molten as she fires, cools and then erupts like any young adult. Sam Neill, aside from being very effective eyedrops that reminds you of Gary Cooper or Alan Bates, swaggers and holds fast as her suitor, being a willing foil to unpredictability. There are accomplished supporting performances that paint her story with pathos, a lot of humor with the steady understanding of the importance of family love. In the spirit of a time when passions were to be restrained and redirected into more interesting pursuits, My Brilliant Career stays in character in this modern visual medium by presenting passion in the guise of mischievous boat rides and a pillow fight for the ages. You'll feel the panic of dust blowing mercilessly through the windows, parental anxiety, teenage anxiety, affection in the muddiest and wealthier places, and the frustration of love. It is edifying enough to glimpse into that time as a history or anthropology lesson, or you can just sit back and let it entertain.

I first saw this movie on double bill following Night of the Shooting Stars (by the Taviani brothers) at a movie theater in Washington, D.C. It was like eating really good lasagna with a really good apple pie. You have to really focus on each film and not think about them together. A better partner to My Brilliant Career would be Pricilla, Queen of the Desert, Man from Snowy River, or Lantana. You could also have a Judy Davis film festival by watching it with Husbands and Wives, Impromptu, or that film she did about Judy Garland. For a Sam Neill film fest, watch the Reilly Ace of Spies series, The Piano, Plenty, or Cry in the Dark. Or, you can watch it by itself, like a piece of really good apple pie.

A Quiet, Stunning Classic
This my favorite film of all time. I've seen it countless times and hope to see it many times more, and share it with my daughter in a few years.

Judy Davis is electrifying as a young woman trying to find her place in the world. Sam Neill is sweet and understated as her would-be lover. Gillian Armstrong's direction is flawless. And the Australian scenery is a character in its own right.

I keep hoping this beautiful film will be re-released on the big screen, or at least on DVD. Don't miss it.

An All-Time Favorite of Mine
I have watched this movie numerous times over the years since its release in 1979 and it never disappoints me. The story rings as true for me today (as a 40-something) as it did as a 20-something....great movies are like that, you know?

Wonderful....Just wonderful....
This movie is truly a joy to watch. It is about a young woman in turn-of-the-century Australia (which is very accurately portrayed in the film) who dreams from a young age of being a great artist, whether it be in music, literature, or acting. She is a loud, unruly girl born into poverty but given a chance to live with her rich grandmother, which is the beginning of everything. Two main suitors clamor for her hand in marriage, one of which she detests and one of which she loves - but she is faced with the decision of marriage to a man she actually likes, or to pursue her dream of artistic independence. Judy Davis gives an Oscar-worthy performance as Sybill, and Sam Neill is at his youngest. This a wonderful, endearing movie that you shouldn't be disappointed with. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

one of a kind
I found the movie both enlighting and puzzling. First of all we will never truely know what kind of love Sally and thomas really shared. Things that are written could have been fiction yet some may be true but we will never know the truth. I like the way the movie portrays thomas jefferson as a true mans, man and also showed the love that he had for his children.

A Great Movie
This movie dares to suggest that Thomas Jefferson might have loved his slave Sally Hemings. No one will ever know for sure if he loved her but if they had a relationship it would have lasted close to forty years. Can a man have a relationship with a woman for forty years and feel nothing for her, even if she was his slave and a black woman? Some people would suggest that but not this movie. Jefferson himself was a contradiction. He said slavery was wrong, yet he owned slaves. This movie focuses on the kind of relationship they may have had and the people they were. Sally is portrayed as a strong and educated woman. We know she went to France and she could have been educated while she was there. She is also the half sister of Jefferson's dead wife and she could have quite possibly looked like her. If Sally did look like Jefferson's dead wife, whom he loved dearly, could he have been attracted to her. Sally is shown as a woman that Jefferson could have loved. Jefferson is shown as a man wrestling inside with his public life and his private life. The relationship they have is tested many times but remains strong even after his death. It may be hard for some to believe that these two people loved each other but this movie suggests that they just didn't love each other but that they were devoted to each other. I like how it focuses on Sally's life because she is the one people know little about. It goes into detail about the kind of life she might have lived with her children and the joy and sadness she might have felt, living during this time. This movie offers a refreshing description of Sally Hemings and her life. If you are interested in history, Sally Hemings or Thomas Jefferson I recommend that you watch this movie. It might change everything you know about these two people. This is a great movie and I highly recommend it to everyone.

Historical and Fictional
This was a very good movie as long as you forget who the main characters are supposed to be. Jefferson was not really as weak as he was portrayed nor could Ms. Hemings be as forthright. The love affair portrayed could not have happened. Jefferson was still a racist and could only allow himself so much sentiment where a woman of color was involved...and love was too much. I thought, however, that it did a very good job in outlining the hypocrisy of the south and miscengenation laws--laws that Jefferson himself wrote and apparently broke. I also thought it did a great job of outlining what the Hemings family was known for and came to be known for: artistry, intelligence, courage, and their aid in the underground railroad. (no Sally was never captured and beaten as far as we know). Being a mini-series, it unfortunately could not go into detail about the lives of Eston and Madison Hemings, the children we actually know the most about, nor about the matriarch of the family, Betty Hemings. For more historical fiction on this family, try Barbara Chase-Riboud's "Sally Hemings" and "The President's Daughter" or Fawn Brodie's biography of Thomas Jefferson. The screenplay was written with much of Ms. Riboud's psychology in mind...and her Sally Hemings was more believable for the times.

Tale that tells everything but the truth. So What ?
Sure I like historical movies. But I really dislike haveing to re-learn all my history each time a new one comes out.

Ahh but what can you expect ? All the information in the world abot Sally Hemmings as a person could probably fit on a 3x5 index card. Sally Hemmings the DNA profile is a good bit longer than anything else we know about her.

That said -- I liked the Sally they invented for this movie. I wanted her to be smart and well educated and full of poise and grace. Why not assume the best ? And so the movie-makers have done just what we all have wanted. They have turned what was scandelous history into starcrossed lovers.

Sally is reputed to have been quite light skinned. This was a growing problem in the south after the importation of salvery ceased in the early 1800's. While in our day and age we think it foolish to judge a man by the color of his skin - it is shown to be even more foolish in this film. Many of Jefferson's children by Hemmings are portrayed by actors that we would call "White". How nicely this points up the fallacy of judging a many by his skin color.

Go ahead watch it. Just because you want to. Just don't use it for a history report at school.

Melodramatic Soap Opera
This movie is 10% history and 90% Hollywood. There are numerous historical inaccuracies and implausible speculations. The movie is basically a soap opera. It is significantly inferior to Jefferson in Paris, itself a mediocre movie, because there is little effort to make the movie accurate or plausible.

Very little is known about Sally Hemings or her relationship with Jefferson. The movie takes the position that they truly loved each other. This is at least plausible, given that Jefferson may have had six children by her, she was his dead wife's half-sister, and they apparently had a monogamous relationship that lasted around 40 years.

The movie portrays Sally as a woman with modern sensibilities--smart, independent, strong, outspoken. It is very likely that the real Sally was none of these--what are the chances that a black slave woman in the 18th century would be? And if she were anything like this, Jefferson would not have had a relationship with her--he liked his women to be docile and submissive. The real Sally was no doubt his ideal woman.

One of the many melodramatic events that stems entirely from the writer's imagination is that Sally helped slaves flee to the North and that she was captured by Southern slaveholders, who took her captive and whipped her. There is no evidence that anything like this happened, and it is unlikely in the extreme.

The movie was made obviously to capitalize on the recent DNA evidence that Hemings and Jefferson had a sexual relationship. As a Hollywood melodrama, it is mildly entertaining. But it is insulting to anyone with any interest in truth. ... Read more

Reviews (109)

An Incrediably Touching Tale
Unbelievable. I saw the previews and thought "it's just another Chris Columbus movie". I didn't plan on seeing it. Then, a few days after it was released, I was talked into it by a friend and though "well, it won't be TOO bad. Robin Williams is always funny". By the end of this movie I was sobbing uncontrollably, uncaring of the packed theater aroud me, unaware of anything else. And I'm a 18 year-old male who claims FIGHT CLUB is his favorite movie! Overall, 3 scenes stand out in my mind as making me sob like I did; The death of Sam Neil's character, the death of 'Little Miss', and finally the scene with Williams and his wife on their death bed (which was the one during which I was sobbing uncontrollably). This film was so incrediably moving that I still, even months and months after it's release, am in awe of it. I really connected with William's charater, I felt his burning desire to become human, to fit in, to experience life and even death. The acting was flawless in every aspect, the music stirring and lyrical, the special effects, that while in service to the story, were still breathtaking, the scope of the story being told suprising. And all of it done without horrid language or violence. See this movie. Ths is a mature Chris Columbus film, not the kiddie flick depicted in the trailers. See it and see what it's like to truely be human.

Smart, funny, touching sci-fi film.
Director Chris Columbus(Mrs Doubtfire) did fine job making this soon to be classic film about a robot who learning slowly to be a human. Robin Williams(What Dreams May Come) gives one of his best performance as Andrew, He played the android who lived among the family Martin. His master Richard Martin(Played by Sam Neill) teach him about being human and also Andrew self-thought himself also by reading books and working on his original work of art, by using the old technique. (...)

The film is based on a short story by sci-fi writer Issac Asimov. Screenplay by Nicolas Kazan(Fallen) and Great make-up effects by Greg Cannon(Bram Stoker`s Dracula). Nice CGI effects by Dream Quest Images(The Abyss, Total Recall). Actress Embeth Davidtz is best know from her first film called:Army of Darkness, where she played Sheila and she landed on a supporting role in Schindler`s List. Great score by James Horner(Aliens, Titanic, The Perfect Storm). Fine performances from Williams(The Best of Times), Neill(In the Mouth of Madness), Davidtz(Army of Darkness) and Platt(Lake Placid). Grade:A.

inadequate treatment of a potentially interesting theme
I saw this movie when it first came onto the big screen. I was interested as the theme of the original short story is worth exploring.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed in Christopher Columbus' direction, and the screenplay was simply not adequate. The story descends into mawkish Hollywood sentimentality and glosses over the hard issues, where it had the opportunity to say something valuable about us and our world.

It was very interesting for me to think back to this movie after I had seen Spielberg's "A.I Artificial Intelligence". Both movies are about a very similar theme, but Spielberg turns the treatment in Bicentennial Man on its head.

In Bicentennial Man Andrew argues that he has become human through gradually acquiring a human body although his brain is still computerised. There is however no effort to look at what makes us human beyond our physical attributes. At least I didn't feel that there was. All of his legal battles are based on the idea that he should be accepted as a human because he is PHYSICALLY human.

By contrast, Spielberg does not evade the hardest question of all, which is, "What exactly is it that makes us human" but turns to a time honoured way of throwing meaning onto it; the fairy tale. David remains fully mechanical. However, the fairy tale of Pinnochio which is so beautifully used as a connecting theme is all about what makes us human. Through David's search, we are made to acutely realise that it is our capacity to dream, love, and believe in something bigger than ourselves that makes us human, whether we are mechanical or organic; our spirit is the essence of our humanity, not our body.

Turning back to Bicentennial Man, the previous point begs the same question about Andrew; he may be physically human but in what sense does he have human feelings, and would this be possible in a robot? Surely, although not easily answered, this issue is worthy of exploration. In Bicentennial Man, this question is never even looked at, it is simply assumed that Andrew acts like a person emotionally, which I find strange to say the least. A more realistic situation would be that proposed in A.I, where robots have to be specially created and programmed to have human responses.

Having said that Bicentennial Man is a poor effort at treating a theme that was done much better in A.I this is not to say I extend the criticism to Williams' performance; he does what he can with the terrible script and is sensitive as well as as amusing throughout.

If only it wasn't spoiled by Hollywood producers!
Let's just get one thing straight here; this movie is one of the most touching films that I've seen in quite a while.

I read the wonderful Asimov "short" story before I saw the movie, so I had fairly high expectations of this film. Until, that is, I actually read the little blurb at the back of the video:
"no run-of-the-mill robot!" ?
"a crowd-pleasing comedy hit" ???

Something was wrong here. Surely Hollywood would recognize the extraordinary potential of the story and try to bill it as something more than yet another "light comedy"?! Right? But then, who was I kidding? The back cover makes it look like yet ANOTHER cliche American family film. Exactly the kind of film I'd avoid watching (Nice, huh? The people who'd normally come to see films like this are scared off by the "yet another family comedy" advertising!)

That's what Hollywood advertised it as, and I have the feeling that the backers of this film were not very pleased with the director's attempts to make this film into something serious. So they fought back! An extremely annoying dancing "female" robot with a "personality", dumb jokes about sex; all these are attempts to mould this film into the specified Hollywood formula.

Thankfully, they do not fully succeed in ruining this film, but they DO keep it from becoming a true classic. Despite these really stupid Hollywood throw-ins, the film still remains primarily an intelligent film, similar in tone to Asimov's stories. It deviates significantly from the story, but surprisingly most of the deviations are not bad, and are well thought-out. There is more humour, too, than in Asimov's stories. Most of it is intelligent, and was actually quite funny to me.

The exception, of course, is the scene where Andrew starts following a sexy female robot. Which idiot cooked up this dumb idea?! First of all, he's a ROBOT; he is attracted to people/robots because of their personality, never because of their physical form! Secondly, that female robot defies practically everything that Asimov ever wrote about robots, up to and including the Three Laws of Robotics (she actually defies her owner in one scene, violating the Second Law)!

Besides that, the deviations from the story mainly function to make this a film for the heart more than for the head. A typical Hollywood gimmick, but it really works here, especially in the heartwrenching final scene.

Even so, I would have liked to see more on the resistance that Andrew encountered when dealing with ordinary human society; a lot of his interactions with the outside world from the story were removed or conveniently skimmed over in the movie, including most of the legal battles and the issue of him still having to obey the Three Laws of Robotics (which are hardly even mentioned in the movie after the first 30 minutes or so, unlike in the book where they were almost a central issue).

Overall, this is a better-than average Hollywood film that has been noticeably ruined by "input" from Hollywood producers (this is my guess here). Ideally, this movie should have been given a lot more priority than it was; this IS after all based on one of the best stories of one of the 20th century's most famous science fiction writers! As it is now, it's a shame to see that this movie wasn't brought up to its full potential. 7/10.

I'd like to see a director's cut someday...!

Warm and Fuzzy Robots
Fans of Isaac Asimov are undoubtedly drawn to Bicentennial Man, as very few of the Grand Master's movies were ever made into films. This is definitely a good one. Asimov was not a shoot-em-up kind of storyteller. His characters talk to each other and resolve their disputes in discussion. Commander Data from Star Trek The Next Generation owes a lot to Asimov's creations, and especially to this story, where a robot strives to become like a human being. If the story's premise strikes you as silly, it was just as silly when the story was about a wooden doll or a dead man brought to life in a laboratory.

Robin Williams does a commendable job in this film. Those expecting the off-the-wall smart remarks and antics that are his trademark might be disappointed. Williams played this one straight and low-key.

The look to this film is remarkable, too. The characters and the world it portrays are distinctly modern, affluent, upper-class. You won't find much grease or grime here, save in the roboticist's laboratory. The buildings get bigger and glossier; the vehicles lose their wheels and start levitating; the costumes get a bit more sleek; but there is nothing here that is too far out. It is a far cry from Blade Runner or Johnny Mnemonic, and is very "clean." I couldn't even tell you if Disney made this, but it has the Disney feel to it; or perhaps the Disney theme park feel to it.

Bicentennial Man is most definitely science fiction, but it is also very different from any SF that I have seen on the screen before. Rent it, buy it, keep it for your kids. It's a keeper. ... Read more

Reviews (333)

65 Million Years is Well Worth the Wait!
Intense, supersonic-paced science fiction adventure finds paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and company invited to a remote tropical island theme park inhabited by genetically engineered dinosaurs! The awe and wonder is abruptly replaced by terror and a fight for survival after the park's security system is sabotaged, granting the resurrected behemoths free run of the island!

Director Spielberg is at his creative best in this tour de force of suspense, acutely blending action, thrills, awe and humor. Equal to the challenge is composer John Williams with an appropriately rousing and kinetic score that sounds something like Stravinsky on melodic steroids!

Expert direction, superb performances (Richard Attenborough is particularly effective as the eccentric billionaire entrepreneur, John Hammond) and breathtaking, unprecedented visual effects (the ILM computer generated dinosaurs are completely convincing!) more than compensate for less than dimensional characters and rudimentary plot. Along with the action and fun, "Jurassic Park" also raises some serious questions about the ethics of advanced science and cloning.

Perhaps Steven Spielberg's best adventure film, "Jurassic Park" truly is a cinematic masterpiece and one of my five favorite films of all time!

Unbelievable
Jurassic Park has got to be one of the greatest movies of all time. The directing, animatronics, acting, graphics, and casting were perfect in this movie. The beginning was perfect, no sitting around waiting for action. It opens with a worker being attacked by a velociraptor and Muldoon(Bob Peck) trying to help him.

You meat a character named Nedry(Wayne Knight) who is working for a company that will pay him 1.5 million dollars if he steals the dinosaur embryos.

Then some other stuff happens, yaddah yaddah, anyway, Grant(Sam Neill), Ellie(Laura Dern), Gennaro(Martin Ferraro), Malcolm(Jeff Goldblum), and Hammond(Richard Attenborough), reach the island. The island is owned by Hammond the billionaire. It is a theme park with real dinosaurs. The main four go on a tour with Hammond's grandkids.

Needless to say, the tour goes bad. Nedry steals the embryos, pulls the power and runs off. The five remaining characters are stranded out by the tyrannosaur paddock. Ellie has already gone back to the visitor's center where she, Hammond, Muldoon, and Mr. Arnold(Samuel L. Jackson) try to figure out what Nedry has done.

The tyrannosaurus escapes, eats Gennaro and nearly kills everyone else. Moments later Ellie and Muldoon come to try and find everybody, but they have left. They find Malcolm lying in a pile of hay, and the two cars destroyed.

Now Grant, and the two grandchildren, Lex and Tim, must find their way back to the visitor's center while Ellie, Malcolm, Muldoon, Hammond, and Mr. Arnold try to get the power back.

This was THE movie of my generation
As a college student now, I was 9 years old when Jurassic Park hit theaters and it couldn't have come at a better time. Watching it again, Jurassic Park holds up as great entertainment, even if the characters and storylines seem a bit flimsy at times. It's probably more worthy of 4 stars than 5, but hey, this is the movie of MY generation and I'm not going to apologize for its rating. Jurassic Park continually reminds its viewers that Steven Spielberg is the greatest entertainer since Walt Disney. Constantly filling the screen with visual treats, keeping the plot moving at a brisk pace (once the obligatory exposition is filled in), and allowing us to enjoy ourselves without stooping too low, nobody does blockbusters like this man. Since he was to direct Schindler's List that same year, this was more or less his kiss-off to the popcorn genre he helped invent (consisting of classics like Jaws, Raiders, and E.T.--some with more dramatic substance than others, but all damn entertaining). Like I said, I was nine when this movie premiered and I still remember watching in the dark theater as the whole show unfolded--perhaps taking it for granted that movies should be so thrilling and fun, and that every filmmaker was capable of such wonders. Wrong on both accounts, but it did spur me on to shoot my first movie on video camera that summer (admittedly, it was highly derivative). Now I'm a film student...thanks Steve
5/6

"This is a UNIX system. I know this"... And black leather?
Jurassic Park is good entertainment, but take most of the "science" it presents with a grain of salt.

All the characters seem to think the idea of cloning dinosaurs is a good idea except chaos theorist Goldblum who wonders if we should do what we apparently can do.

Innovative in its presentation of realistic looking dinosaurs, Jurassic Park is the name of a new dinosaur-based theme park that is sabotaged while a few scientists and kids are on a pre-opening tour. It becomes an adventure to see who will escape alive.

The movie is best when there are dinosaurs on screen.

Mostly good acting by Laura Dern and Sam Neill as dino experts, Jeff Goldblum as the chaos theory mathematician, and Richard Attenborough as the park designer. The kids, played competently by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello had some of the best lines.

An entertaining adventure, but no big concept. Not quite the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Jaws.

The only nit-picks include wondering why Jeff Goldblum wears black leather to the tropics, and why a pre-teen girl can save the day on a complex computer (again - see S1m0ne) with her knowledge of UNIX.

DVD has wide-screen movie, a behind the scenes documentary, and a few other minimal goodies.

More Than Just A Movie...
Jurassic Park was more than just a movie. More than an event. It was a full blown phenomenon! Steven Spielberg is the unrivalled king of such films. Every few years he puts out another spectacular that sweeps the world and sets a new standard (like Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, E.T., Raiders Of The Lost Ark, etc.). This time out, we've got resurrected dinosaurs running amok! The basic plot has stranded people on dino-island trying to keep from becoming dino-chow. You've got your scientists (Sam Neil, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum), your crazy zillionaire (Richard Attenborough), a greedy, lecherous computer geek (Wayne Knight), a sleazy lawyer, and two cute kids to round out the cast. You even get Samuel L. Jackson as a chain-smoking computer tech guy! Throw in an approaching hurricane, and you've got the perfect monster movie! It's usually not the "deep" storyline (except in the cases of Spielberg epics like Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, The Color Purple, etc.) that causes the phenomenon. It's his way of thrilling us and breaking new cinematic ground that we love. I knew when I first saw JP that I was in for a blast. At the same time, I also knew that I wasn't going to see Hamlet or Macbeth! Jurassic Park blew my mind with it's realistic T-rex, Raptors, Triceratops, and the rest. We saw dinosaurs that were not rubber, clay, or robots (well, at least not robots that looked like robots)! We got CGI that put flesh on 65 million year old bones! The team that made this movie are legendary, and have pushed special effects to stratospheric heights. JP is a true milestone that stands the test of time. Belongs in every DVD collection... ... Read more

Reviews (333)

65 Million Years is Well Worth the Wait!
Intense, supersonic-paced science fiction adventure finds paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and company invited to a remote tropical island theme park inhabited by genetically engineered dinosaurs! The awe and wonder is abruptly replaced by terror and a fight for survival after the park's security system is sabotaged, granting the resurrected behemoths free run of the island!

Director Spielberg is at his creative best in this tour de force of suspense, acutely blending action, thrills, awe and humor. Equal to the challenge is composer John Williams with an appropriately rousing and kinetic score that sounds something like Stravinsky on melodic steroids!

Expert direction, superb performances (Richard Attenborough is particularly effective as the eccentric billionaire entrepreneur, John Hammond) and breathtaking, unprecedented visual effects (the ILM computer generated dinosaurs are completely convincing!) more than compensate for less than dimensional characters and rudimentary plot. Along with the action and fun, "Jurassic Park" also raises some serious questions about the ethics of advanced science and cloning.

Perhaps Steven Spielberg's best adventure film, "Jurassic Park" truly is a cinematic masterpiece and one of my five favorite films of all time!

Unbelievable
Jurassic Park has got to be one of the greatest movies of all time. The directing, animatronics, acting, graphics, and casting were perfect in this movie. The beginning was perfect, no sitting around waiting for action. It opens with a worker being attacked by a velociraptor and Muldoon(Bob Peck) trying to help him.

You meat a character named Nedry(Wayne Knight) who is working for a company that will pay him 1.5 million dollars if he steals the dinosaur embryos.

Then some other stuff happens, yaddah yaddah, anyway, Grant(Sam Neill), Ellie(Laura Dern), Gennaro(Martin Ferraro), Malcolm(Jeff Goldblum), and Hammond(Richard Attenborough), reach the island. The island is owned by Hammond the billionaire. It is a theme park with real dinosaurs. The main four go on a tour with Hammond's grandkids.

Needless to say, the tour goes bad. Nedry steals the embryos, pulls the power and runs off. The five remaining characters are stranded out by the tyrannosaur paddock. Ellie has already gone back to the visitor's center where she, Hammond, Muldoon, and Mr. Arnold(Samuel L. Jackson) try to figure out what Nedry has done.

The tyrannosaurus escapes, eats Gennaro and nearly kills everyone else. Moments later Ellie and Muldoon come to try and find everybody, but they have left. They find Malcolm lying in a pile of hay, and the two cars destroyed.

Now Grant, and the two grandchildren, Lex and Tim, must find their way back to the visitor's center while Ellie, Malcolm, Muldoon, Hammond, and Mr. Arnold try to get the power back.

This was THE movie of my generation
As a college student now, I was 9 years old when Jurassic Park hit theaters and it couldn't have come at a better time. Watching it again, Jurassic Park holds up as great entertainment, even if the characters and storylines seem a bit flimsy at times. It's probably more worthy of 4 stars than 5, but hey, this is the movie of MY generation and I'm not going to apologize for its rating. Jurassic Park continually reminds its viewers that Steven Spielberg is the greatest entertainer since Walt Disney. Constantly filling the screen with visual treats, keeping the plot moving at a brisk pace (once the obligatory exposition is filled in), and allowing us to enjoy ourselves without stooping too low, nobody does blockbusters like this man. Since he was to direct Schindler's List that same year, this was more or less his kiss-off to the popcorn genre he helped invent (consisting of classics like Jaws, Raiders, and E.T.--some with more dramatic substance than others, but all damn entertaining). Like I said, I was nine when this movie premiered and I still remember watching in the dark theater as the whole show unfolded--perhaps taking it for granted that movies should be so thrilling and fun, and that every filmmaker was capable of such wonders. Wrong on both accounts, but it did spur me on to shoot my first movie on video camera that summer (admittedly, it was highly derivative). Now I'm a film student...thanks Steve
5/6

"This is a UNIX system. I know this"... And black leather?
Jurassic Park is good entertainment, but take most of the "science" it presents with a grain of salt.

All the characters seem to think the idea of cloning dinosaurs is a good idea except chaos theorist Goldblum who wonders if we should do what we apparently can do.

Innovative in its presentation of realistic looking dinosaurs, Jurassic Park is the name of a new dinosaur-based theme park that is sabotaged while a few scientists and kids are on a pre-opening tour. It becomes an adventure to see who will escape alive.

The movie is best when there are dinosaurs on screen.

Mostly good acting by Laura Dern and Sam Neill as dino experts, Jeff Goldblum as the chaos theory mathematician, and Richard Attenborough as the park designer. The kids, played competently by Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello had some of the best lines.

An entertaining adventure, but no big concept. Not quite the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Jaws.

The only nit-picks include wondering why Jeff Goldblum wears black leather to the tropics, and why a pre-teen girl can save the day on a complex computer (again - see S1m0ne) with her knowledge of UNIX.

DVD has wide-screen movie, a behind the scenes documentary, and a few other minimal goodies.

More Than Just A Movie...
Jurassic Park was more than just a movie. More than an event. It was a full blown phenomenon! Steven Spielberg is the unrivalled king of such films. Every few years he puts out another spectacular that sweeps the world and sets a new standard (like Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, E.T., Raiders Of The Lost Ark, etc.). This time out, we've got resurrected dinosaurs running amok! The basic plot has stranded people on dino-island trying to keep from becoming dino-chow. You've got your scientists (Sam N