Reviews (1926)

The force is strong with this one.
Star[]Wars! The series has come back into full swing with 'Attack of the Clones.' Everything that 'Phantom Menace' tried to be and more, we return to the rollicking space adventure that made the first three classics. Don't pay attention to the negitive reviews, aside from a little cheese covered romance the goods are delivered in great fashion. 'Attack..' is packed with extremely well lensed action set pieces that remind the viewer of the summer of 1980. The acting is decent and works for the material provided...I mean, this is Star Wars not Shakespere and lines are delivered with intended monotonality; lightsabers speak louder than words and emotion a Jedi does not crave. I found this film to be better than 'Return of the Jedi' due to its return to the swashbuckling action/adverture of the first two movies sans cute little talking kid friendly creatures that help generate mechandise sales for the toddler marketing target group. The special effects are outstanding of course, and the sound effects were really cool. The story was decent enough to get you to care what happens to the heroes and dislike the villians (finally, villians. That seemed to be missing from episode one save Darth Maul who was way underused). All around an excellent chapter in the saga and a great movie in itself. This film makes you look forward to the next installment and the man himself-Darth Vader. Thanks, George for reigniting the magic that was, and is, Star Wars.

the best of the star wars movies
in this one,yoda fights.this is truly awesome.anakan is growing up.he goes to get his mom from slavery but shes been killed by these nasty little monsters.so he goes genocidal on them all.ben is tring to teach anakan but hes learning way faster than normal and is quite the showoff.the kids will like it.it is the last full length movie of the set.there is an animated short film after this part called clone wars.the last one is due out next summer.just anybody bwill like it.the chick is a young teen ans ends up being anakans girlfriend.i dont know what you heard but this is an all time great.the special effects are cool.this movie is a classic!

Big Trouble In Little Greece: Attack Of The Kung Fu Robots
If I were a movie director and for some reason I decided to undertake the project of making the most grotesque parody and mockery ever made of the original Star Wars trilogy, I would do the following:

First, I would open the movie where the main character of the movie -The Jedi- freefalls some 10,000 stories in a sprawling metropolis, all the while narrowly missing multitudes of careening hovercrafts which literally filled the sky, only to finally land safely inside one of them just in the nick of time, nanoseconds before he was about to slam into the ground.

Secondly, I would include the most bland, personality-less, emotionally-uninspiring actors and actresses I could find. Also, I would incorporate pseudo-Greek cultural and archeological elements throughout the movie (which had no relevancy to the sci-fi theme of the movie) so as to confuse the viewer as to what planet...or planets the movie was taking place in...or what universe and epoch(s) for that matter. I'd include several pseudo-romantic scenes where there wasn't an iota of emotion or chemistry between the two love birds and whose forced, stimulated 'romantic scenes' seemed to serve no purpose, either.

I would then attempt to completely destroy...annhilate the original Star Wars's sacred notion of the force -as being stimulated and channeled by spirituality and mind over matter- and any drama associated with it as well. MY notion would be that the measure of one's force can be determined by analyzing mitochondrial DNA samples to tally the number of antibodies present in the protoplasm.

Next, I would blow away the concept of the original Star Wars's wimpy 2-jedi battle scenes with an epic magnitude-12 mega battle scene which consisted of 10,000 jedis and 100,000 jedi foes engaged in flipping-through the-air somersault kung fu moves that render the likes of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and all '70s special-effects-laden Chinese kung fu flics obsolete. You thought that Luke Skywalker jumping 10 feet out of a carbon freeze container was cool? Could Luke Skywalker stay airborne for 10 seconds all the while throwing barrages of backroundhouse kicks and punches? Screw that punchless Luke Skywalker single-blade lightsaber. Behold, I introduce the double-edged light saber which all jedis are equipped with. FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL. Only an elite and intelligent class of human being can be a jedi? Not anymore. Any living, crawling, oozing intelligence-devoid parasite, wingless bat or orc -of any gender-can be a jedi.

Finally, I would end the movie with Kung Fu/Force-Master Yoda defeating the Master Evil Jedi with triple and quintuple cartwheel backroundhouse kicks and punches, while airborne, and lightning-fast Tae Kwan Do slaps and curled finger combinations that would put Jackie Chan to shame. The very last scene of the movie would end with the Evil Jedi Master becoming so angry, because of his defeat, that his head grew to the size of a large balloon, then exploded with the force of 20 grenades. Maybe I'd include that scene only in the UNCUT version.

The result: The sci-fi sequel to "Big Trouble in Little China" -Big Trouble in Little Greece: Attack Of The Kung Fu Robots...or as some people may prefer to call it -Star Wars II: Attack Of The Clones.

My Take on Mr. Lucas
OK, here's my rant. I'll keep it brief (unlike some other reviewers)

Best Parts:
1. Phantom Menace - Pod Race, Darth Maul
2. Attack of the Clones - Yoda's lightsaber flight

That's it. Everything else in these films is an utter joke. I could go on for many paragraphs, but I'll spare you. You gotta realize that there was a reason George didn't direct Empire or Jedi. He's an awful director. He has no ear for dialogue. The newer digital film process looks really awful. Only good ol' George could manage to waste the talents of Christopher Lee, Sam Jackson, Ewan McGregor, and Natalie Portman. And I think Hayden Christensen is the only other actor who possesses Keanu Reeves' atrocious wooden technique. His Anakin doesn't possess darkness, just stupidity. I hope Lucas gets a tumor in that fat double chin of his. If you don't like it, sue me. He's destroyed the meaning of my childhood favorites, so the hell with him. Do you really think the next film is going to make up for it? Only if it's about four hours long and is directed by someone else.

Star Wars is Star Wars-No matter what anyone thinks
I am writing on behalf of all the Star Wars movies. Sure the prequals aren't life changing but they still make the cut worthy of the title Star Wars.Back in the 70s/early 80s America needed a major facelift. We had nothin to look foward to anymore and just went by living. The movies out back then were dark and dreary. our common mythology had faded into the closet. Then came Star Wars. It was just supposed to be another space family film that would eventually be forgotten about. We were decieved. What George Lucas put on this Earth was meant to be. He dragged us out of the gutter and gave us something to talk about. People had a place to escape to and run away from there troubles. It wasn't like your average cowboy movie where you know the outcome and the setting. It was a strange galaxy with weird looking creatures and strange spaceships. It was all so real and lifelike. It was the total opposite of Star Trek. It was cool. People wanted more. They got two more. Each delivering there own set of memories. The lines became legendary. The sound of a light saber instantly recognizable. Movies nowadays are always borrwing lines and plots of other movies. Star Wars only borrowed one thing. Creativity. The Star Wars story was pulled out of mid-air. It wasn't like George Lucas said he wanted to make a space movie kind of like an old western. He created the idea of A Space Saga Trilogy. He's the one who threw us into this exciting new world called Star Wars. Fans wanted more. They got comics and books. then Star Wars movies were no more. They were still in the movies. Oter movies had borrowed lines and plots for their own. Thats why Star Wars is pop culture ICON. That is what the prequals lack. When someone comes up yo you with a stick in one hand and is waving it around they don't say "Watch out Count Dooku". They say watch out Darth Vader. The prequals are good movies but they aren't life changing like the Classics. If the prequals came first people wouldn't be walking around saying Look A destroyer droid. They don't have the trademark line like they do in the Classics. They didn't create new famous lines, they just took them from the old ones. As a movie I would give Phantom Menace and AOTC a 4 Star award. As a Star Wars film I would give it 2. The negative two is for lack of creativity. The OT is so popular because of what it was nd what it was created as. George did'nt give us that sense of story and herics like he did with the OT. George didn't create the OT because he wanted to tell a story for himself. He made it for us. For Episode one we weren't thrown into this new world with weird craetures and memorable charecters. In a sense of story The prequals fit nicely with the OT. But for a regular movie It gives us nothing to remember and say over and over again and to instantly recognize as Star Wars. I know it is hard to repeat what happened in the 70s/80s but there was nothing George Lucas could do about it. The Prequals are out in a world where evereything has already happened and didn't ignite the flame as the OT did. The Phantom Menace just continued in the name of Star Wars. The OT are just such good movies in themselves and it just doesn't matter which one you see first. They are all memorable. Don't get me wrong, the prequals are good movies and definantly worthy in the name of Star Wars but they are just thrown in with all the other movies which were created around one movie-Star Wars. Other movies wouldn't be the same without there Star Wars moment. That is why when in the movie Just Married Sarah(Brittany Murphy) asks Tom(Ashton Kutcher) if he ever dreamed of anything more glorious in his childhood than his wedding night, he flashes back to when he was playing lightsabers on the playground with other kids to the famous tune that Changed The World. Da da da DAAAA daa-you know the rest!
"Remember, the Force will be with you, Always" ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

After creating the last great traditionally animated film of the 20th century, The Iron Giant, filmmaker Brad Bird joined top-drawer studio Pixar to create this exciting, completely entertaining computer-animated film. Bird gives us a family of "supers," a brood of five with special powers desperately trying to fit in with the 9-to-5 suburban lifestyle. Of course, in a more innocent world, Bob and Helen Parr were superheroes, Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl. But blasted lawsuits and public disapproval forced them and other supers to go incognito, making it even tougher for their school-age kids, the shy Violet and the aptly named Dash. When a stranger named Mirage (voiced by Elizabeth Pena) secretly recruits Bob for a potential mission, the old glory days spin in his head, even if his body is a bit too plump for his old super suit.

Bird has his cake and eats it, too. He and the Pixar wizards send up superhero and James Bond movies while delivering a thrilling, supercool action movie that rivals Spider-Man 2 for 2004's best onscreen thrills. While it's just as funny as the previous Pixar films, The Incredibles has a far wider-ranging emotional palette (it's Pixar's first PG film). Bird takes several jabs, including some juicy commentary on domestic life ("It's not graduation, he's moving from the fourth to fifth grade!").

The animated Parrs look and act a bit like the actors portraying them, Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter. Samuel L. Jackson and Jason Lee also have a grand old time as, respectively, superhero Frozone and bad guy Syndrome. Nearly stealing the show is Bird himself, voicing the eccentric designer of superhero outfits ("No capes!"), Edna Mode.

Nominated for four Oscars, The Incredibles won for Best Animated Film and, in an unprecedented win for non-live-action films, Sound Editing.

The Presentation
This two-disc set is (shall we say it?), incredible. The digital-to-digital transfer pops off the screen and the 5.1 Dolby sound will knock the socks off most systems. But like any superhero, it has an Achilles heel. This marks the first Pixar release that doesn't include both the widescreen and full-screen versions in the same DVD set, which was a great bargaining chip for those cinephiles who still want a full-frame presentation for other family members. With a 2.39:1 widescreen ratio (that's big black bars, folks, à la Dr. Zhivago), a few more viewers may decide to go with the full-frame presentation. Fortunately, Pixar reformats their full-frame presentation so the action remains in frame.

The Extras
The most-repeated segments will be the two animated shorts. Newly created for this DVD is the hilarious "Jack-Jack Attack," filling the gap in the film during which the Parr baby is left with the talkative babysitter, Kari. "Boundin'," which played in front of the film theatrically, was created by Pixar character designer Bud Luckey. This easygoing take on a dancing sheep gets better with multiple viewings (be sure to watch the featurette on the short).

Brad Bird still sounds like a bit of an outsider in his commentary track, recorded before the movie opened. Pixar captain John Lasseter brought him in to shake things up, to make sure the wildly successful studio would not get complacent. And while Bird is certainly likable, he does not exude Lasseter's teddy-bear persona. As one animator states, "He's like strong coffee; I happen to like strong coffee." Besides a resilient stance to be the best, Bird threw in an amazing number of challenges, most of which go unnoticed unless you delve into the 70 minutes of making-of features plus two commentary tracks (Bird with producer John Walker, the other from a dozen animators). We hear about the numerous sets, why you go to "the Spaniards" if you're dealing with animation physics, costume problems (there's a reason why previous Pixar films dealt with single- or uncostumed characters), and horror stories about all that animated hair. Bird's commentary throws out too many names of the! !animators even after he warns himself not to do so, but it's a lively enough time. The animator commentary is of greatest interest to those interested in the occupation.

There is a 30-minute segment on deleted scenes with temporary vocals and crude drawings, including a new opening (thankfully dropped). The "secret files" contain a "lost" animated short from the superheroes' glory days. This fake cartoon (Frozone and Mr. Incredible are teamed with a pink bunny) wears thin, but play it with the commentary track by the two superheroes and it's another sharp comedy sketch. There are also NSA "files" on the other superheroes alluded to in the film with dossiers and curiously fun sound bits. "Vowellet" is the only footage about the well-known cast (there aren't even any obligatory shots of the cast recording their lines). Author/cast member Sarah Vowell (NPR's This American Life) talks about her first foray into movie voice-overs--daughter Violet--and the unlikelihood of her being a superhero. The feature is unlike anything we've seen on a Disney or Pixar DVD extra, but who else would consider Abe Lincoln an action figure? --Doug Thomas

More Incredibles at Amazon.ca

The Incredibles Toy Store	CD Soundtrack	The Art of The Incredibles Book
Game Boy Advance	On VHS	The Essential Guide Book

The Pixar Feature Films

Toy Story, 1995 A Bug's Life, 1998 Toy Story 2, 1999

Monsters, Inc., 2001 Finding Nemo, 2003 The Incredibles, 2004

More Animation DVDs

Favorite Animated Performances	Previous Animated Oscar Nominees	If You Like The Incredibles...
Our Disney DVD Store	Looney Tunes Golden Collection	Walt Disney Treasures

More Superheroes on DVD

Batman Blade The Hulk

Justice League Robocop Space Ghost

Spider-Man Superman Teen Titans

Wonder Woman X-Men Also see our Comics & Graphic Novels Store

Also from Filmmaker Brad Bird

The Iron Giant (Writer/Director)	"Family Dog" on Amazing Stories (Writer/Director)	Batteries Not Included (Cowriter)
The Simpsons (Director/Consultant)	King of the Hill (Consultant)	The Critic (Consultant)

... Read more

Reviews (281)

The Incredibles
Disney-Pixar's 2004 animated feature about a super hero and his family who come out of hiding to battle a new villain.Mr. Incredible and his wife Elastigirl live quiet normal lives as Bob and Helen Parr in suburbia under government supervision due to previous public lawsuits that put them and other superheroes out of business.All is not well though as their superhero instincts and talents clash with mundane work and little excitement.Elastigirl has managed to adapt, but Mr. Incredible discreetly moonlights with his pal Frozone on "bowling night" saving people from fires and knocking out common criminals.Mixed in this trial are the children Dash and Violet, confused about their inherited superpowers while trying to cope with the difficult social challenges at school.Lastly is Jack-Jack the baby brother who appears to have been spared of any super talents.

Just when Mr. Incredible feels he has hit rock-bottom, he's hired by an apparent secret government organization to defeat a renegade robot at their base on a remote island.Mr. Incredible is successful and looks forward to more exciting assignments.It isn't long, however, before he finds out he's been duped into serving as a test bed for robots at the hands of Syndrome, an evil genius posing as a new superhero through clever gadgets.When Elastigirl learns of her husband's whereabouts, she heads out via jet to find out what's going on.Dash and Violet secretly follow their mom, and through a series of events, all find themselves battling Syndrome and his army of bad guys and robots.

This is a gem of an animated feature.While Pixar has ratcheted another progressive advance in animation, the characters and the story are terrific and not overshadowed by the techno-visual display.Dash and Violet are a joy to watch as they learn how to use their superpowers in the fight against evil, especially Dash's chase sequence when he's pursued bybad guys flying saucer hovercraft.Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl sorting out their family problems in the midst of this excitement are humorous and all the actors who voice the characters could not have done better.And not to be forgotten, Jack-Jack reveals his special powers near the conclusion of this feature.

Obviously the ending of this movie leaves options open for a sequel, and while this looks like a promising proposition, Pixar will have to work hard to compliment this feature successfully.

More For Adults?
This is a great movie for families, very funny and enjoyable to watch. Many of the themes will go over the head of younger children, more so than in most animated movies.But it's more fun for adults than most, and kids will still really enjoy it.I was pleasntly surprised by this movie, and would highly recommend it.

Not as good as Finding Nemo
Genre: Computer-Animated, Comedy

Genre Grade: A

Final Grade: A-

This was a great addition to Pixar's wonderful collection of films. While I believe Finding Nemo and even Toy Story were better than this movie, it still had some hilarious moments and great characters, namely Holly Hunter. I will say, however, that this is the most stunning computer animated movie I've ever seen. It's INCREDIBLE! Hahaha, sorry. I would have liked to have seen Samuel Jackson in more of the movie, and I think they could have made their characters a bit more quirky, honestly. Why was Finding Nemo so good? Because of a little fish named Dori. One character can make a movie (Toy Story hada number of them that made it), and I guess to me, this movie was just lacking in any incredible characters. Still great though!

Could not stop watching it over and over again
I have always been impressed with Steve Jobs and Pixar's work but this is the first time I was just blown away by what I took in with the multi viewing of The Incredibles. I didn't see this picture in the movies when it was released. I rented with a mail order online store. This movie was awe inspiring from begining to end. From its throw back look and feel to its technologically fantastic special effects. It brought me back to a time when having a super hero on your wall in your room meant something. I was never a big fan of comic book hero's but I would have loved to see The Incredibles in comic book form back in my younger days. As a african american male I was deeply touched by the movie having an african american super hero. One that didn't die in the begining of the film but really had an impact to the whole story line. I also enjoyed the fact that it depicted flawed super hero's that were not perfect and made mistakes. They seemed so real to life and genuine in all the things that happened to them. I only own one other Pixar movie Finding Nemo but this one hands down is my ultimate favorite yet. I do hope Pixar continues in this series for I am looking forward to the Incredibles 2.

Not just a "kid movie"
Some people love animation and some people could do without it. I'm addressing this review to the second group of people whom I urge to watch this for a number of reasons.

First, the characters. I guarantee that most people will forget this is animated for large stretches because of how interesting the characters are AND how well they are developed. Two methods are used to accomplish this brilliantly. One is the great interplay and dialogue which is typically confrontational between close friends and family members as well as between the heroes and villians. Another is the "historical backdrop" provided at the beginning of the movie where the heroes are shown "back in the day" before the primary plot conflict begins. This, I believe, is key to the success of every great story from "Lord of the Rings" to "Star Wars (IV,V,VI)" to "Harry Potter".

Secondly, the plot is superior among animated movies. I admit I liked "Toy Story I & II" as well as great Japanese stuff like "Spirited Away", but although they are spectactularly animated they're still kid movies. This flick has a great complex superhero plot which has several great surprises and twists and isn't revealed to the audience all at once. The suspense continues until the very end which ends on an uplifting family note and ties off all the subplots for each character beautifully.

Lastly, the comedic aspect is superb. From the strained family relationships stemming from the inability to use their super-powers to the "ever had one of those days?" theme this movie will draw in even those most critical of this budding genre of computer-aided animation by, once again, the film's ability to suspend the audience's realization that these aren't "real people". The overcoming of personal obstacles which characterizes the best of superhero movies is front and center in this movie, but unlike Batman and Spiderman, the family aspect gives the movie a kind of "everyman" applicability that the average film-goer will appreciate. ... Read more

Amazon.com

You wouldn't know it by watching the Batman movies they collaborated on, but this smart adaptation of John Grisham's novel proves that director Joel Schumacher and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have some talent when the right project comes along. Schumacher had previously directed Grisham's The Client, and brought equal craft and intelligence to this story about a young Southern attorney (Matthew McConaughey, in his breakthrough role) who defends a black father (Samuel L. Jackson) after he kills two men who raped his young daughter. Sandra Bullock plays the passionate law student who serves as McConaughey's legal aide and voice of conscience in the racially charged drama. Added to the star power of the lead roles is a fine supporting cast, including Kevin Spacey, Ashley Judd, and Oliver Platt. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (92)

Racism, violence, white trash, murder ("Jerry! Jerry!")
"A Time to Kill" has good intentions. It stars:

Matthew McConaughey as lawyer Jake Brigance

Samuel L. Jackson as Carl Lee Hailey, a father who kills to avenge the rape of his little girl

Kevin Spacey as the snide, sinister District Attorney

Sandra Bullock as Brigance's law clerk, Ellen "Rork in Boston, but Row Ark in Mississippi"

Ashley Judd as Jake Brigance's wife

Oliver Platt is Jake's buddy Harry Rex

Keifer Sutherland as a vengeful redneck

and Donald Sutherland as eccentric, civil-rights-activist/disbarred lawyer/drunk/mentor Lucien Wilbanks

With an all star cast like that, you can't go wrong, and the film, at least plot-wise, doesn't. Carl Lee Hailey's 10-year-old daughter is raped and left for dead by two white trash redneck dopeheads. Enraged, Hailey takes justice into his own hands and fatally shoots the two rapists as they leave the courthouse. Everyone in the small Mississippi town hears the news within minutes and takes sides, and Hailey hires a young ham-and-egger, Brigance, to defend him. As Brigance tries to avoid a conviction from the all-white jury, the brother of one of the rapists (played by Keifer Sutherland) gets together a couple of good ole boys to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. Violence erupts, protesters march and chant, death threats and burning crosses abound, everyone is covered at all times with a sheen of oily sweat, and there's even an explosion.

"A Time to Kill" is like the "Jerry Springer Show," but intelligent.

The dialogue, however, could use work. It seems as if a good writer and a mediocre writer banged out the script, then cut it up and shuffled it together, intermingling the really well-written scenes with some really choppy dialogue.

The same goes for the acting. Jackson, Spacey, and McConaughey are excellent and convincing in their roles. Platt is charming as Jake's best friend and a sleazy divorce lawyer.

However, Judd is useless and even childish in her role as a trophy wife, and Bullock, as Jake's law clerk, sounds as if she's a shy girl in a high-school play who hasn't quite memorized her lines yet. (This really irked me because in the book version, her character was headstrong, outspoken, and very smart.)

I encourage anyone to rent the movie for themselves. It's definitely worth seeing, even if the writing and acting is a little off in places. The story redeems the bad acting.

I Love This Movie!
This movie is one of my favorites and I highly recommend that everyone see it because it is thought provoking and it forces you to put yourself in the character's shoes and think about what you would do. The movie begins with the brutal rape of a little black Mississippi girl by two white men. The girl's father Carl Lee, played by Samuel L. Jackson, then shoots and kills the guys- in the courthouse, mind you. Matthew McConaughey plays Carl Lee's attorney, Jake Brigance. The plot line continues with bouts including the KKK and the NAACP. Something notable that I really like is the exposing of the NAACP's arrogance and crookedness that happens all too often in real life. All of the actors do a great job in this film. Kevin Spacey is the prosecutor and Sandra Bullock plays Brigance's legal aid, whom he almost ends up having an affair when his wife (Ashley Judd) leaves town for her and their daughter's safety. If nothing else, you've got to see this movie for the fact that Matt McConaughey is the leading man. He is so hot! Even though I disagree with the verdict, A Time To Kill is a must see if you haven't viewed it yet. Bravo!

Grisham At His Best
A Time to Kill is my favorite Grisham book, and the movie follows suit. The book, which was the first one published but did not become popular until The Firm becase a success, seems to be the most "grounded" with a "real" feel to it unlike some of the other ones which tend to stretch credibility a bit more (but are fun to read anyway.)

Closing Arguments
A Time To Kill, is one of only two of John Grisham's legal thrillers that I have read, cover to cover. The other is The Chamber. I have to say, that while the book of ATTK is a bit better, then the film version, there's no denying the movie has a lot going for it...making for a very good film.

In a small southern town, black man Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson) awaits trial for murdering the two rednecks who viciously raped his 10-year-old daughter. Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) is a young, idealistic white lawyer, who decides to take on the father's defense. The incendiary case becomes a firestorm of racism and controversy, ripping the town apart. This, as Jake goes up against the community's most successful D.A. (Kevin Spacey), while reluctanly accepting help with the case from a law student (Sandra Bullock).

It's amazing how good this film is, especially when one considers what director Joel Schumacher and its adapter
Akiva Goldsman, would team up to do on Batman And Robin. At it's center, McConaughey gives his best perfomance to date. He captures the the escence of his novel counterpart to a tee. Jackson is also quite convincing as a man on trial. The rest of the all star cast is very good here--although Bullock shares nice moments with McConaughey--she seems out of step and is suprisingly the film's weakest link. Some have said the movie is over crowded with too many subplots, while that is true to a certain extent I guess, Goldsman's script and Schumacher somehow balance it all. The film takes a few liberties, but, basically stays true to the source material.

Like most John Grisham books turned movies, the DVD lacks anything substantial, in the way of bonus material. Production notes and the film's theatrical trailer is all you get...Special Edition anyone?

A Time To Kill offers fine performances and rock solid drama. The film is a winner and one of the best Grisham adaptations out there

Intense Grisham Drama
Set in the deep south, where prejudice dies hard and bigotry still runs rampant, this intense crime drama finds the bright (although penniless) young lawyer Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) fighting to keep a black man from the gas chamber, and struggling to protect the lives of his friends and family. When Carl Lee Haley's (Samuel L. Jackson) nine-year-old daughter is brutally raped and beaten by some local good-old-boys, he fears the court will not serve justice and takes matters in his own hands, gunning down and killing the two boys on the courthouse steps. Carl Lee calls for Jake to take up his defense, although he has never handled a murder case.
The tension rises and intensity level of the plot increases as the local KKK is united, big wigs come in from the NAACP, Klu Klux Klan, and high dollar prosecutors. When the KKK sets a burning cross in their yard, Jake's wife and daughter flee town, only to have their beautifully restored Victorian home burned to the ground days later by the protestors. In the courtroom, Jake finds himself pitted against his worse legal-world enemy (Kevin Spacey) and the courtroom antics are nothing short of breathtaking. Donald Sutherland, Sandra Bullock and Oliver Platt make up Jake's patchwork defense team and provide fantastic character studies.
This film earns the top rating for the reasons: 1)by staying true to Grisham's first legal novel of the same name; and 2) because of the deep understanding these characters give us to the world of the prejudice south, the love of a father, and the desperate yearning for justice. Ultimately, Jake must put himself in the place of each of the jurors to fight for Carl Lee's freedom. He must learn that he is not black, will never be black, but the issues are not always colored. ... Read more

Reviews (15)

utc
This version of Uncle Tom's Cabin was unique and articulate although it had its misrepresentations and differences from the novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe. It overall was a good movie in my opinion including some famous actors and not straying to far from the novel made this version entertaining. One specific detail which vexes me was the fact that when Eliza was crossing the river there was no ice according to the novel there was ice and I feel it added plenty of suspenseful goodness. Uncle tom was and still is my favorite character how this film depicted his life and death was a sure tear jerker. I am also glad that they kept the last words with Mr. Shelby's son who loved tom. In closing I would like to say that I actually enjoyed this version and rate it higher than others.

disapointment
When you make a movie based on a novel, especially when the novel is good, the movie usually falls tragically short of capturing the book's emotion and suspense. Such is the case with the movie version of Uncle Tom's Cabin . The book itself by Harriet Beecher Stowe was very heartfelt and I, for one, loved it, but the movie could not capture the emotions that the book brings to light.
The movie opens in Kentucky, where The Shelby's live. Mr. Shelby has to sell two of his slaves, Tom and young Harry, to pay off a debt to a slave trader, Mr. Haley. Harry's mother, Eliza, decides to run away to save her child(Harry) and hopefully reunite with her husband who fled to Canada. Tom will not go with her for fear that the rest of his family will be sold. Eliza successfully escapes across the river and is taken in by some Quakers near the Canadian border. Tom on the other hand, is left to take his chances with Mr. Haley and the promises of his master to bring him back as soon as possible.
Through all this the movie does not establish the characters very well, and does not make you feel any sympathy for any of them. This is because many important scenes of the book were changed or left out. For example, one of the most famous scenes in the story is the scene where Eliza escapes across a river of ice, and in the movie, Eliza escapes across the river in a raft because it is warm. This escape does not capture the same drama as it did in the book, and was a big disappointment to me personally. Even tiny things have been changed which make no sense to me. For example, the Shelby's son is named Christopher in the movie, but in the book his name is George and this seems like a completely pointless change . I also did not agree with the casting choices in the movie. Augustine is an older man in the movie and if you look in the book, St. Clare was continually referred to as Tom's YOUNG master. In retrospect, there is not many good things I can say about this movie. The only characters I thought were fairly true to the writing of the book were Simon Legree, Marie, and maybe Tom. Other than that I think the movie was a complete failure in bringing this classic book to life, and I recommend that you read the book instead.

The silent movie was much better
The book by H.B.S. was not intended to be about heroism or love but about the inhumanity of slavery. The author breathed life into the characters primarily to evoke sympathy for them from the reader or hatred for them in the case of Simon Legree. I saw this black and white silent movie for the first time at the age of 13. Up until that time I had only occasional contact with black people and did not understand why they were so radical about the topic of slavery. My only understanding of slavery was the Shirley Temple version and I thought black people were being overly sensitive about it. Seeing Uncle Tom's Cabin was like an awakening that changed my understand of the whole relationship between black people and slavery. The silent movie was much better at bringing across the true purpose of the novel without the hollywood slant of modern versions.

WOW!
The movie entitled Uncle Tom's Cabin was an excellent film. I am really glad that I got a chance to view it. I could watch this over and over again. I praise Tom for his courage and for him standing up for what was right although he was beaten for it plenty of times. From this particular movie I saw that not all white people were bad, and I also saw how slaves were treated back in the times of slavery. They were just sold like they were a piece of dirt and just like they weren't even human beings. I think that this is a good film to watch for anyone is learning about slavery to see what it was all about.
The movie ,Uncle Tom's Cabin, was about a man named Tom who was a devote Christian. He was free but he wasn't free. I say this because although he wasn't free physically he was free mentally. He knew he that nobody could buy his soul. Through the whole movie he stood up for what was right and spoke his mind. Although aware of the consequences he still pressed on. People like him is what makes our history. People who stood up, and didn't accept less. People who knew that nobody was better then them and that they deserved to be treated equally. He helped those who were in the time of need. The great thing about everything that happened in the movie and everything that Tom accomplished is that it wasn't fiction it was fact. It really happened.
This movie was good! I liked how Tom stood up for himself and everyone else although he got beat for it. He always did the right thing no matter what.
In conclusion I would like to say that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a great film to watch. I would rate this a 10 on a scale from 1 to 10. I would definitely love to see this movie again.

Uncle Tom'S Cabin
Uncle Tom's Cabin contracts the many different attitudes that southerners as well as northerners shared towards slavery. It shows the evils of slavery and the cruelty and inhumanity of the peculiar institution, in particular how masters treat their slaves and how families are torn apart because of slavery. This movie is great it really shows what happen to African Americans back in the old days how a man like Uncle Tom had so much courage that he got killed because he didn't want the two slaves to get caught by their master when they ran away. This movie really made me think why, how this could have happen in America people where getting sold like they where cars from owner to owner it made me change because it makes me think that I have it good. That I can go out and eat and they cannot tell me white's only. This movie really change my life around. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This animated time-travel adventure features a stellar cast and is a delight for kids and adults alike. When Matt, a black teenager, has to go on a class field trip to the museum of Martin Luther King Jr., he thinks that he'd rather play baseball. But the trip turns into an exciting adventure when he and his best friend, Randy, who's white, are sent back in time to meet Dr. King.

The story is also remarkably moving, as Matt and Randy learn what Dr. King did for humanity, and come to see him as a real person, not a historical figure. Matt and Randy experience segregation firsthand when they aren't allowed to eat on a train together. Together, they witness the bus boycott, the Birmingham riots, and the "I Have a Dream" speech. They discuss the theme of "non-violent resistance" with their new friend Martin and the work of Ghandi in India. As King tells Matt, "We must meet hate with love. It will take time, but somebody's got to start." Authentic historical footage blended with animation make this an excellent choice for teaching kids about the legacy of Dr. King. --Elisabeth Keating ... Read more

Reviews (26)

"Pick of the Month" of Good Housekeeping Mag., Feb. 1999
Good Housekeeping Magazine has selected this video as their "Pick of the Month". I have not seen it, but would love to take a look at it as something to possibly share with my six-year-old and her first grade class. GH writes: "Coinciding with Black History month is the debut of this appealing, made-for-video movie, a child's-eye look at the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. "OF,M" combines animation and documentary footage of the civil rights leader to tell the story of two boys who magically travel back in time and meet King at various points in his life. The production features the voices of such stars as Angela Bassett, Danny Glover, Whoopi Goldberg, James Earl Jones, Susan Sarandon, Oprah Winfrey, and LeVar Burton as King." This sounds like a potential winner to me!

Good Movie, but too Intense for young children
My 6 year old daughter came home very upset after viewing the movie at school. The movie is very intense and portrays ALL White people as bad! The real life footage is too deep for young children to assimilate. If you let your kids watch the Simpsons, then they will enjoy the Cartoon Characters. As an adult, I did enjoy the movie, though I would never have let my child watch it without being present to explain everything. She said MLK touched her heart, but she now has nightmares because she is so upset about him being killed, and ALL white people being so very mean. I think this movie would be more appropriate for 6th graders and up.

A gem!
This is an excellent educational video. I agree with other reviewers that it is not appropriate for young viewers. However, as a fifth grade teacher, my students were fully capable of handling the presentation and the discussions that we had before and after.

This video truly encourages children to think about the choices they make. Not only does it make Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. someone a child can relate to, but it explores the idea that one person can make a difference. It urges children to stand up for the right thing even when it is difficult.

yuck
I've been forced to watch this film every year for the past five years at school. This movie is probably the stupidest thing to ever grace the Earth. If you are going to teach kids about the civil rights movement than do it right, show them a documentary or a realistic film. This movie is a real joke and the characters suck.

Informative and Interesting for my 4 yr old
I watched this on DVD with my 4 yr old son. He was VERY interested and really liked the movie. He understood immediately that the show was NOT saying that all White people are bad, that in fact skin color is a very silly thing to judge people by.

It was refreshing to see a show on the Civil Rights movement that did not show The Selfless and Heroic White Man coming in to save and protect the apathetic and helpless minorities, but instead portrayed the courage and determination of the people who had engaged in the struggle for freedom for years... centuries.

It gave was a good portrayal of the attitudes and realities that made the Civil Rights struggle so difficult, desperate, and dangerous. ... Read more

Reviews (257)

Volume 2 Delivers The Goods (4 Stars)
Kill Bill Vol. 1 might have been action driven and fast paced, but Vol. 2 was not. The slower pace made room for better focus on dialogue though. There are still great fight scenes, but not as many as there were in the first movie. Tarantino hit his stride with this movie. Die hard fans should go out and see it. The movie is two and a half hours long, but it's totally worth sitting through. There are great new characters (most notably Pei Mei) and it does a great job of filling in the holes that were left in Vol. 1(like Uma's screen name). Memorable scenes would be Uma Thurman being buried alive and her fight with Elle Driver in the trailer home. Easily one of the best fight scenes ever. Then there's Bill, played by David Carradine. He was probably the most engaging character in the whole movie. While I was disappointed in the way he died, it totally made sense. Overall, Kill Bill Vol. 2 definitely meets all expectations with its great dialogue and awesome fight scenes. Be warned though, the fight scenes aren't as fast and furious as the first movie. Nor are there as many. But that's not bad because it plays to Tarantino's strength: dialogue. If you liked Vol. 1 or if you're into karate flicks, you'll love Vol. 2. But if you didn't like Vol. 1, you'll like Vol. 2 even less.

Better than Vol. 1
If cinema is ever in need of edgy freshness, then Charlie Kaufman is the man to turn to. But when that need arises and has to be fused with humorously offbeat style then Quentin Tarantino is the Kaufman of directors. Or is Kaufman really the Tarantino of aspiring writers? It doesn't matter. In any case, what truly matters is that Tarantino continues to inject that richly abnormal talent of his into his latest piece "Kill Bill: Volume 2."

Four years after being betrayed by her former boss Bill (David Carradine) and shot in the head at her wedding, The Bride (Uma Thurman) wakes up from her coma and thirsts for revenge. After dispatching Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren (Lucy Liu) in "Volume 1," this previously retired assassin is back in "Volume 2" to finish off the rest of Bill's Deadly Viper Assassination Squad and ultimately, kill Bill.

"Volume 2" is definitely the heart of the two movies. Saturated with intense fighting scenes "Volume 1" ended with a bitter sweetness as The Bride seemed completely undeveloped as a character. But "Volume 2" complements the first movie nicely as the action takes the passenger seat and Tarantino concentrates on storytelling, fleshing out The Bride's character. There's actually emotional depth involved now, revealing The Bride's relationship with Bill as well as her motives for leaving an assassin's life.

Thurman is wonderful as The Bride, playing along with Tarantino's take on Hollywood cheesiness to executing some intense dialogue scenes that transition between emotions within seconds. Tarantino is obviously extracting all the skills he can from Thurman, and the end result is worth every squeeze: she pulls off acrobatic feats and heavy dialogue in the same two hours with seamless changeovers.

Carradine also does such a marvelous job of portraying Bill to the point that it becomes frightening. Carradine's subtleties are what form this character and by the end of it all it becomes clear just how insane of a character Bill is: he philosophizes about death while making sandwiches and questions past relationships with a menacing sword in hand. The low and relaxed tone that he carries through the movie makes it feel like Carradine isn't even playing anyone, he's just slipping this character on like an old, comfortable shirt.

But it's not just the characters that make Kill Bill so special. The first installment is wonderful in paying tribute to Japanese anime, folksy spaghetti westerns and an overall homage to "old school" Asian kung fu flicks. Tarantino again draws various sources from 70's pop culture to showcase the quirks of "Volume 2." Whereas the first movie displays Tarantino's knowledge of Asian cinema with wire-wearing kung fu, with unrealistic squirting samurai-movie colored blood included, "Volume 2" solidifies that homage to the full extent.

Perhaps the single greatest movie moment of 2004 is in "The Cruel Tutelage of Pai Mei," the film's chapter in which the origin of The Bride's abilities is discovered. Tarantino brings out all the stops on this one. From the stereotyped supercilious personality to the superficial white facial hair, the character of kung fu master Pai Mei (Gordon Liu) is the absolute embodiment of a 70's Chinese kung fu flick. After this scene, it's obvious that Tarantino is on the edge of oddball insanity, right there with brilliance on the other side.

Like the chapter of Pai Mei, the rest of Tarantino's film combines everything campy and corny with his bizarre sense of direction. And everything rationally ridiculous here somehow ends up as abnormally gorgeous.

Superb second chapter
A radiant bride-to-be (and mother-to-be) who calls herself Arlene takes a few minutes out of her wedding rehearsal to talk to her former boss (and ex-lover) about the peaceful new life she's planned. She tells him she'll be working in a record store where she'll get to "listen to music all day, talk about music all day. It's really cool. It's going to be a great environment for my little girl to grow up in."

"As opposed to jetting around the world, killing human beings, collecting vast sums of money?" her one-time employer asks.

Yes, Arlene is actually The Bride (Uma Thurman), a.k.a. Black Mamba, one of the Deadly Vipers Assassination Squad (D.I.V.A.S., for short). And, yes, the man with whom she's sharing her future plans is Bill, the enigmatic, shadowy D.I.V.A.S. commander who never showed his face in "Kill Bill, Vol. 1."

Bill, played to diabolical perfection by David Carradine, is visible throughout "Kill Bill, Vol. 2," and that's only one of the many changes between the first and last installments of writer-director Quentin Tarantino's epic saga of revenge and retribution. "Vol. 1," which took place largely in Japan, was a magnificently gory, almost operatic homage to the Hong Kong and Japanese cinema of the 1960s and 1970s; "Vol. 2," set primarily in Texas and Mexico, is considerably more controlled -- although no less stylish -- and moodier, paying tribute to the unconventional Westerns of director Sergio Leone and, in its black-and-white flashback sequences, recalling such late-1940s/early-1950s thrillers as "Gun Crazy" and "The Big Heat."

No one ever accused Tarantino of being shy when it comes to laying out his catalog of influences.

Cinematographer Robert Richardson's all-seeing camera swoops, slithers and moves stealthily around each scene, just like our unstoppable heroine, then throws in some extreme close-ups that feel like a fist between the eyes. Editor Sally Menke and production designers David Wasco and Cao Jui Ping do wonderful work as they recreate everything from "In Cold Blood" to the washed-out-looking, jumpy Chinese chop-socky films of the 1970s.

But far from being merely imitative, "Vol. 2" features a few breakthroughs for its creator as well. A prolonged sequence involving a character who is pummeled, drugged and buried alive is one of the most gripping episodes of Tarantino's career, and The Bride's apprenticeship to merciless martial arts master Pai Mei (Gordon Liu), a deceptively wispy-looking type with a strong chauvinistic streak, is outrageously hilarious. "Your so-called kung fu is really quite pathetic," Pai Mei taunts as The Bride tries -- and fails -- to impress him with her moves. "Like all Yankee women, all you can do is order in restaurants and spend a man's money!"

The finale of "Vol. 1" was a blood-drenched, wickedly hilarious free-for-all, with The Bride dispatching scores of would-be hitmen in a showdown in a Tokyo nightclub, but the last half-hour of "Vol. 2" is a shocker of an entirely different kind, as Tarantino aims for the heart instead of the funnybone. He tried something somewhat similar in the bittersweet wrap-up of "Jackie Brown," with mixed results. He's much more successful this time out, partly because he's created a steadier build-up to the crucial emotional crescendo (set to a marvelously trippy remix of The Zombies' "She's Not There") and partly because the tension Carradine and Thurman generate in the pivotal scene, as bloodlust collides with memories of happier days, is utterly riveting.

Tarantino's cast fills out a classic rogues' gallery, dominated by Carradine's Bill, a psychotic who conceals his sadism beneath a calm, paternalistic exterior. Daryl Hannah's one-eyed Elle Driver and Michael Madsen's Budd, both of whom were briefly seen in "Vol. 1," get ample opportunity to prove their worth as antagonists of The Bride. The face-off with Elle, in particular, is so delightfully demented only Tarantino could have conjured it up.

Was the director wise in turning "Bill" into a double-bill? Absolutely. For one thing, he must have realized he had made an extravaganza that would have been too intense and certainly too emotionally exhausting for most audiences to process in a single four-hour sitting. Also, he obviously knew he had a second half that would be well worth the six-month wait.

"Gargantuan -- always liked that word; so rarely have a chance to use it in a sentence," the icy-hearted Elle murmurs at one point. Try this on for size: The frenzied, funny and unabashedly ultraviolent "Kill Bill" saga represents a gargantuan achievement in action cinema.

Can a movie possibly get any better than this?
First I'd like to say that Quentin Tarantino is the best film maker that ever lived period. I would say that KILL BILL VOL. 2 is the greatest film since Casablanca. This is by far my favorite of Quentin Tarantino's films. This is a must own Dvd. Buy this awesome mind-blowing classic movie today.

This movie should not be see by the stupid ones
YES YES MAN I THOUGT THAT THERE WAS NOT TOO MUCH STORY BEHIND THE 1ST VOL IT WAS GREAT BUT SOMETHING WAS MISSING IT WAS THE AWESOME STORY OF THE 2ND. IS LIKE WATCHING A SPAGHETI WESTERN BY SERGIO LEONE BUT BEING DRUNK.BUT STILL I DONT KNOW HOW SOME PEOPLE TALK SO MUCH CRAP ABOUT THE 2ND VOL.IS PROBABLY THAT THEY MISSED THE POINT THAT IS VERY SAD MAN.THAT'S WHY THIS MOVIE IS NOT SUITED FOR THE DUMBASSES.WHEN YOU SEE THIS VOL YOU WILL DEICIDE IF YOU ARE A TRUE TARANTINO FAN!!!! ... 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 (31)

An objective view.
First, the movies themselves: Episode I retained the old school mystic feel of the originals, and takes the viewer back to when it all began. It suffers however, from idiotic droids and Jar Jar Binks (who posseses the most annoying voice since C3PO). It's a four star movie at least.
Episode II tells its story well, but the story is unfortunately unconvincing. Anakin is nothing but an obnoxious teenager for some reason...is the viewer expected to believe that the distinguished order of the Jedi would not educate one of its own disciples on the rudiments of life? Then there's the romance between Senator Amidala and Anakin; even given the circumstances, it's hardly believable due to Anakin's generally creepy nature. Great special effects though, a decent villian, and we finally get to see Yoda do some fighting which was simply awesome. Even though it's got some great points, it's at best a three star movie. It does require, however, a substantial amount of 'suspension of disbelief' to view and enjoy.
Now a word about formats: Put simply, if it's not widescreen, it's not worth the money.

both lack the spirit the originals had
Phantom Penice and Attack of the Boners lack the spirit and greatness that the original Star Wars had. George Lucas has gone completly overboard with the special FX. I think they say that 96% of the movie's have a SFX shot in them somewhere. And watching the behind the scenes as actors are doing nothing but jumping around infront of green screens is a complete and utter bore.

The original Star Wars movies had somthing special about them, but it wasnt just the SFX. I think George has lost it by thinking the FX will carry these movies. In the original it had a new excitment about what was happening? and what was a Jedi? and it was filled with action and adventure... then Umpire Strikes back continued that, with alot of newer great action seaqunces, but also adding that Vader is Lukes father, and in Return of the Jedi, Luke and Leia are brother and sister... and many more things added to the charactors and plot of the films.... which is where these 2 new ones fail. Going monsterous over board with computers and FX and not concintrating hard enough on plot ideas, and originality has brought these 2 to screw up the Star Wars saga. The FX can be ok in some parts of the films, but there is just too much of it, enough to make me sick. Film makers these days should be concintrating on making the best film they can, not worrying about how to do somthing on a computer, putting it on screen, and then at the end of the day just before knock off time, think about a plot to go around the FX for a minute, and go with whatever is off the top of your head?

George needs to rethink his statagy and worry about the FX of these things after making a great movie, not just slapping a few actors together and then seeing what great things the computer can do these days. It seems that Lucas knew he had a billion devoted fans who think apon him as a god, and knew that if he put 2 stick figures on the screen, blasted the intro, and showed an Ewok shave his underarms for over 2 hours, he'd make million sof it. What is sorely missed in these movies is the beleivable models used in the originals. This whole CGI thing has gone WAY overboard, and made things look too unrealistic.... to the person who said they wouldnt be suprised to see Shrek and Donkey waving in the background... good call... I agree with you 100%!

The CGI is too much in these films and rueins them

Re: Another dazzling space adventure from George Lucas
I hadnt seen a Star Wars movie in the theatres in almost 20 years before I saw this one....and Ill tell you....I forgot how GOOD it sounded!!! The light sabers sounded incredible to say nothing of the full battle sequences. Ok I had to get that out hehe...on with the review.

Now...call me a purist....call me old fashioned etc....Im still trying to get used to all the computer special effects in Star Wars. Im used to puppets....now we get computerized monsters. Ill have to grow to like them hehe. The movie is very very good....loads more action than in Episode 1.....Its fascinating to me to see these guys Annakin Skywalker and Obi Won Kenobi 'back in the day' when there was a Republic and loads of Jedi Knights.

The storyline is as engaging as ever....in this case Annakin is real stuck on Padame....Count Dooku is building a massive droid army under the noses of the Republic....and the Jedi knights and the Clone Army have to go stop them. Really intense action sequences.....the light saber duels are as great as ever....the full battle sequences are awesome!!! They really put in the time on this one.

So if youre a Star Wars fan....go and get it. Its terrific!!!

STAR WARS FILMS ARE NO LONGER RELIVENT FILMMAKING
GEORGE LUCAS IS A LAZY UNINSPIRED DIRECTOR JUST LOOKING TO MILK THIS PATHETIC FRANCHISE FOR ALL IT IS WORTH. STUPID CHARACTERS, STUPID PLOT, AND TAKES OVER 10 YEARS TO COMPLETE THE LAST THREE FILMS??? AND THE BEST CHARACTER HE COULD COME UP WITH IS JAR JAR BINKS??!! WHAT A JOKE. If you want a great adventure Trilogy filmed with top notch actors, supurb plots, production and FX it is by far and away THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY. This even makes the first three Star Wars films look like a joke. And all of this yes all of this was done in less than 4 years!!! Lord of the Rings has made George Lucas look and his films irrelevent. its like who cares any more???? There is nothing out there and probibly nothing will ever come close to capturing the epic sacle, the superb story telling and complete magic of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. You just will not beable to top LOTR in any way. George Lucas sit down before you boar us all to death and take a lesson from a real director--all hail PETER JACKSON. The new standard had been set--can any thing come close-only when Peter Jackson films The Hobbit. End of story.

I feel sick!
These movies suffer from: bad acting, bad dialogue, over the top CGI fxs, lack of emotions, and too much overall politics. I love the original trilogy but these prequels are the worst ever. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The curiosity of Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown is RobertForster's worldly wise bail bondsman Max Cherry, the most alive character in this adaptation of Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch. The AcademyAwards saw it the same way, giving Forster the film's only nomination. The film is more "rum" than "punch" and will certainly disappoint those who are looking for Tarantino's trademark style. This movie is a slow, decaffeinated story of six characters glued to a half million dollars brought illegally into the country. The money belongs to Ordell(Samuel L. Jackson), a gunrunner just bright enough to control his universe and do his own dirty work. His just-paroled friend--a loose term with Ordell--Louis (Robert De Niro) is just taking up space and could be interested in the money. However, his loyalties are in question between his old partner and Ordell's doped-up girl (Bridget Fonda). Certainly Fed Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) wants to arrest Ordell with the illegal money. The key is the title character, a late-40s-ish flight attendant (Pam Grier) who can pull her own weight and soon has both sides believing she's working for them. The end result is rarely in doubt, and what is left is two hours of Tarantino's expert dialogue as he moves his characters around town.

Tarantino changed the race of Jackie and Ordell, a move that means little except that it allows Tarantino to heap on black culture and language, something he has a gift and passion for. He said this film is for an older audience although the language and drug use may put them off. The film is not a salute to Grier's blaxploitation films beyond the musical score. Unexpectedly the most fascinating scenes are between Grier and Forster: two neo-stars glowing in the limelight of their first major Hollywood film after decades of work. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (167)

Dynamite Cast + Good Fun = Excellent Film
First off: "Jackie Brown" is not a disappointment. After the surprise success of Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, everyone was looking for him to fail on his next attempt. Sorry, friends, but this just isn't the case. In many ways, "Jackie Brown" is a more enjoyable ride. After repeated viewings of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs," one can easily pinpoint the weaknesses in Tarantino's style. He uses similar references to '70s action and blaxploitation films, he uses relic music hits from the same era, and he even uses similar character names (Marvin with no ear, meet Marvin with no head). The violence is always there, and the incessant use of profanity is always there. But "Jackie Brown" is different from these previous efforts. There's no appearances by either Harvey Keitel or Tim Roth; instead, the film is headlined by the queen of the '70s blaxploitation flicks, the eternally sexy Pam Grier. The supporting cast includes Robert Forster, a staple of cheesy B-movies, Samuel L. Jackson in a return to the world of Tarantino, and the very interesting threesome of Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda, and the ever-versatile De Niro to round out the cast. So what, besides the cast, makes the film such a knockout? While the profanity level has been toned down, Tarantino's script loses no edge and maintains a constant freshness and sense of humor. Grier has never been much of an actress, but she's always had a certain charm, and she uses this charm effectively in "Jackie Brown." Forster gives his most memorable performance here, playing the role of Max Cherry with complete control and positive cool. Fonda is great as Melanie, and Keaton has a blast playing ATF agent Ray Nicolet, but De Niro steals the show as Louis Gara. De Niro has one of his better supporting roles here, and he makes the most of it. Louis is something of a dimwit, but only De Niro could inject the character with as much humor as he has here. The film, at 154m, is probably too long and overindulgent, but Tarantino presents us with an interesting plot, and some equally interesting subplots to boot. The most effective of these is the relationship that builds between Grier and Forster; there is an attraction there, but the insecurities of each character prevents this from ever reaching a climax. The film is colorful, has solid (but not brilliant) direction, and, aside from some serious lapses in logic, the script flows seamlessly. And guess what? There's no guest appearance by the man himself, who must have realized after "From Dusk Till Dawn" that, while he may be a writer and a director, and actor he is not. "Jackie Brown" reveals the limitations of Quentin Tarantino, but the film is still a riot, and one of the most entertaining of 1997. That's more than I can say for James Cameron's "Titanic," which fails on all levels for me, despite what the critics say. "Jackie Brown" delivers a knockout punch. It's great to see that some Elmore Leonard novels are finally getting the big-screen treatments that they deserve.

Fond-a Weapons
Jackie Brown: rated R, 2 hours and 40 minutes

Jackie Brown is an incredibly well played movie about guns, drugs, and money. Half a million in cash is up for grabs, and the only way to obtain it is by figuring out who is playing whom.
When Jackie (a stunning Pam Grier) is caught at an airport carrying a veritably large sum of money and a bag of crack, the outline of the story is formed. Jackie is held in custody facing possible time in prison, when the deceptive Ordell, played by black talking Samuel L. Jackson steps into the picture. Ordell hires an honest bailbondsman, Max Cherry, to release Ms. Brown. While Ordell takes care of business, we see behind-the-scenes conversations between the spaced out Robert De Niro, as Lewis, and the dim-witted Bridget Fonda, as Melanie, two of Ordell's main connections. Jackie becomes caught between two sides, both with equal objectives. Ray (Michael Keaton), the cop that apprehended Jackie earlier is after small time arms dealer, Ordell, and Ordell is pulling Jackie into his scheme of acquiring the cash. Meanwhile, Lewis and Melanie have their own plans of taking the money. Jackie can't afford to get into any more legal trouble, and if she doesn't cooperate with the man she owes her freedom to, she will be killed, which sets the stage for the perfect swindle.
Quentin Tarantino, creator of Jackie Brown, is master of 'film noir', and adds an interesting perspective to one scene in particular. Jackie is forced by the feds to frame Ordell, and according to Ordell, she is supposed to double-cross them. Caught in the middle, Jackie must fake an exchange of marked bills, in order to seem loyal to both. The switch is shown through three different viewpoints, adding greatly to the effect. The first time, Jackie is shown leaving the bag of money in a dressing room. Next, Lewis and Melanie are shown actually making the exchange, with the real bag of money left behind in the dressing room, and a suspicious Max Cherry watching. Lastly, Max Cherry watches as Lewis and Melanie swap bags, and the actual bag of cash left for him to pick up. By doing this, the big picture is seen through bits and pieces. Tarantino deserves much credit for its ingenious execution, and Jackie Brown in its entirety is recognized as a success, with phenomenal acting by the whole cast, primarily Pam Grier.

Great! Awesome! Fantastic!
Nobody and I mean nobody makes movies like Quentin Tarantino. JACKIE BROWN is one of the greatest movies of all time. Personally, This is my favorite of Quentin Tarantino's films. So get your copy of JACKIE BROWN today!

Not bad, De Niro is fun
Jackie Brown is certainly not Tarantino's best but it is amusing. As in pretty much every movie Samuel L Jackson plays a pretty important part as a gunrunner. He lives in a LA house with the very hot Bridget Fonda. A friend who just came out of jail lives with him and helps him. This is absolutely the funniest character in the movie, played by De Niro. He is a little dumb, lazy and slow but funnily played.

Key to the movie is Pam Grier as Jackie Brown, the smartest person in the movie because she can play both sides, the feds and the criminals and ends up with a lot of dough.

Not a super movie and with 150 minutes definitely too long, but still fun.

Not quite PULP FICTION, but certainly worthy Tarantino
I love Quentin Tarantino. You watch him speak about his art in interviews, and while I realize what I'm responding to might simply be a cleverly-wrought public persona, his energy and enthusiasm for his craft is just so infectious that one cannot help but be energized too. That energy certainly carries over into his movies, and while he may not be the most thrillingly visual director, his undeniable gift for dialogue more than compensates in his films.

PULP FICTION, as of now, is my favorite movie; the dialogue sparkles with wit, and I could hear those lines over and over again without ever getting tired of them. JACKIE BROWN, his follow-up to PF, is just as good as PF, if not quite its superior. Many complained upon its release that this movie was too sluggish and slow-moving (the above Editorial Review calls it "decaffeinated"). Sure, the plot of this movie certainly could become a taut, exciting thriller under another director's hands. But clearly writer-director Tarantino isn't aiming merely for action-movie thrills. He is also focused on his characters, particularly with the two older characters, Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) and Max Cherry (Robert Forster), two characters who have an unspoken attraction to each other that brings an intriguing undertone to a majority of the crime story. If Tarantino takes his time developing his characters and laying out the plot...well, the characters' dialogue is consistently full of life; the characters are interesting (and the performances terrific across the board, particuarly Forster's); and the convoluted plot, when it kicks into high gear, is a source of fascination as well. Watching it, I hardly ever felt that it was too slow for its own good: I was too fascinated by what I was seeing and hearing to notice any possible deficiencies in pacing. (Another Elmore Leonard adaptation, Steven Soderbergh's OUT OF SIGHT, took a similarly leisurely approach to its crime plot, and it worked just as well in that film, too.)

In short, JACKIE BROWN is an underrated Tarantino masterpiece. It may not be quite the film PULP FICTION is (since it had a more palpably energetic feel to it, despite both films' running 154 minutes), but it is certainly a worthy follow-up. ... 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 Fo