Description

Winner of six Academy Awards(R) (2002) including Best Picture, and starring Academy Award nominee (Best Actress, CHICAGO) and Golden Globe winner (Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy, CHICAGO) Renee Zellweger (BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY), Academy Award winner (Best Supporting Actress, CHICAGO) Catherine Zeta-Jones (TRAFFIC), Academy Award nominee (Best Supporting Actress, CHICAGO) Queen Latifah (BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE), Golden Globe winner (Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy, CHICAGO) Richard Gere (UNFAITHFUL), and Academy Award nominee (Best Supporting Actor, CHICAGO) John C. Reilly (GANGS OF NEW YORK) -- CHICAGO is a dazzling spectacle cheered by audiences and critics alike!At a time when crimes of passion result in celebrity headlines, nightclub sensation Velma Kelly (Zeta-Jones) and spotlight-seeking Roxie Hart (Zellweger) both find themselves sharing space on Chicago's famed Murderess Row!They also share Billy Flynn (Gere), the town's slickest lawyer with a talent for turning notorious defendants into local legends.But in Chicago, there's only room for one legend! Also starring Lucy Liu (CHARLIE'S ANGELS). ... Read more

Reviews (853)

One of the best movies EVER!
As a musical theater purist, I was concerned that a movie musical with 3 of Hollywoods A list stars would be a hinderance rather than a help in the "revival" of the genre. I must say that I was blown away by the sheer genius and excellence of the film.
Catherine Zeta-Jones' Velma was equal to, if not better than Bebe Neuwerth's ( Brodway revival). Her beautiful voice and masterful dance skill is worthy of the great white way. A Tony may have been a more appropriate award as opposed to her much deserved Oscar. Although Rene Zellwegers voice was a little shaky in the begining she brought out a tough side in Roxy that was not there in neither the original nor the revival stage versions. Then my biggest fear, Richard Gere as Billy Flinn, was in a word perfect. You can't ask for a better fit, and what a shocker to see that wonderful tapdance!
With great costumes,Fosse-like choreography, expert lighting and singing (by many broadway veterans in the chours as extras) this dark comedy shines. Also with great cameos and supporting performances by the great Chita Rivera ( original broadway cast),John C. Reily (oscar nominated),Lucy Liu, and Christine Baranski this film shines as one of the greatest ever made, not just as a musical, but as a film. Rob Marshall's directorial debut deserves all of it's accolades...and all that jazz.

Sizzling and sexy musical entertainment.
I have just seen one of the best movie musicals in years. "Chicago," directed by Rob Marshall and starring Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger and Richard Gere, will knock you out of your seats. This stylish adaptation is smart, sassy and gorgeously put together.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is red hot as the murderous Velma Kelly. Velma washes the blood of her victims off her hands, and then sings and dances on stage as if killing people is all in a day's work. Zeta-Jones struts across the screen as if she owns it. She is sultry, sexy and a very talented singer and dancer. Renee Zellweger does fine work as the low class Roxie Hart, a selfish and conniving young woman who longs to be a musical star. Like Velma, Roxie lands in jail after committing murder. Richard Gere effectively plays their shyster lawyer, Billy Flynn, with roguish charm and a twinkle in his eye. Also outstanding are Queen Latifah, as an avaricious warden, and John C. Reilly, as Roxie's hapless husband.

The movie takes place in the 1920's during the Jazz Age. It is the era of Prohibition, fast women, and an "anything goes" attitude. Rob Marshall has an assured touch, and he directs this material with panache. The swinging score by Kander and Ebb goes perfectly with the wonderful costumes, sets and choreography. I have not enjoyed a movie musical this much in years, and I recommend "Chicago" highly.

Manipulating the System
The 2002 Oscar winner for Best Picture,"Chicago" is a musical which has the late Bob Fosse's choreography stamped all over it, although it's really anybody's guess as to whether or not he would have been pleased with this film version of his 1975 stage hit. Happily, the acting was great and the leads did their own singing and dancing.
The story is based on the real-life cases of Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner, renamed respectively as Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly (There was a real Roxie Hart as well, who committed murder in Indiana in the 1910s), who were exhonerated of murder charges by a flashy lawyer in the 1920s.
The story begins on a snowy night at the Onyx Club in the Chicago of Al Capone, where the booze flows heavily despite Prohibition laws, and a brassy Velma (Catherine Zeta-Jones) arrives at work late, stopping to hide the gun she has just used to kill her husband and sister after catching them in bed together. She performs the rousing number, "All That Jazz" shortly thereafter as if nothing has happened.
Watching her is ex-chorine Roxie, played by a slender, shiny-complexioned and pixie-faced Renee Zellweger, whose unquenchable desire for fame has led her to cheat on her mechanic husband with a slickster furniture salesman (Dominic West)who falsely claims he has connections that can revamp Roxie's career.
Soon, Roxie and Fred Casley scurry over to the Hart's apartment to continue their affair. When Roxie asks Fred, as she has before, when he will introduce her to the club manager, and help her return to showbusiness, Fred admits that he lied. The following confrontation becomes violent and Roxie fatally shoots Fred as he tries to leave.
Amos Hart, Roxie's dim-witted but devoted husband(John C. Reilly) tries to cover for her at first as Taye Diggs' Bandleader/Announcer leads us further into the action by introducing Roxie's first number, "That Funny Honey", which changes tones as the investigator mentions the victim's name and Amos becomes aware of his wife's infidelity.
Roxie is arrested and taken to the Cook County Jail, where Chita Rivera, who originated the role of Velma Kelly on Broadway,has a cameo appearance as inmate Nickie.
We are then introduced to Matron Mama Morton(a pretty, regal, and matronly Queen Latifah), and the vaudville numbers continue as she sings the racy and more-than-highly suggestive "When You're Good to Mama".
As she begins her time in prison, we get to know Roxie's inmates during "The Cell Block Tango". Judging from the visuals, where most of the inmates' handkerchiefs came out red as they finished giving details of their crimes and the Hungarian immigrant's was white, we are to believe that Katalin Helinszki (Ekaterina Chtchelkanova), who was accused of the most heinous of the murders, is innocent.
Soon after, Mama Morton pulls a few strings, Defense Attorney Billy Flynn (Richard Gere, whose early training in stage musicals, like that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' serves him well here) arrives to represent Roxie, who also has push-over journalist/sob-sister, Mary Sunshine(Christine Baranski)in her corner.
The song "We Both Reached for the Gun" is based on headlines from the actual case, and has the feel of a hymn sung at a revival meeting. It is reflective of Roxie's false repentance for her misdeeds.
As the publicity surrounding Roxie grows, and the opportunistic Flynn begins to devote more time to her than to his previous client, Velma, another potentially lucrative case appears for Billy when Lucy Liu's pineapple heiress, Kitty Baxter committs a triple homicide(Note that his discussion of this case with dinner guests would not have taken place today), forcing Roxie and Velma to use a few tricks to win back Billy's attention, including a fake pregnancy.
Onstage, as the murder-as-entertainment scenario continues, we are treated to the long-suffering but loyal Amos' "Mr. Cellophane", and his devotion to his unfaithful and ungrateful wife is heart-rending. But at least he gets more attention than the offscreen family of Fred Casley, who might have given the story an interesting perspective if included.
Roxie's falling-out with Billy over his selected courtroom attire for her ends abruptly upon her observation of the tragic results of a poor woman's inability to get proper representation. Noteworthy is the strong anti-immigrant sentiment of the time.
Ultimately, Flynn, Velma, and Roxie, razzle-dazzle 'em in court. Lies win out over truth, and style, in the form of Flynn, Velma and Roxie, wins over substance in the form of Colm Feore's prosecutor, Martin Harrison, Katalin Helinszki, and Amos, and the Hart's neighbor, Mrs. Borusewiz (Jayne Eastwood), who also took the witness stand, as often happens in life.
Although acquitted, things didn't end so happily for the real Beulah Annan, whose life ended in a sanitarium in 1928.Belva Gaertner lived to see her story told onstage the year before.
But the man-manipulating Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly live to dazzle the world again, and our rollicking tale of cynical truth ends on a positive note for our main players.
All one could do in the end is heave a sigh, enjoy the show, and "All That Jazz"!

Too Much Music
I saw nothing on the cover to indicate this was mainly a musical. The minimal story line was squeezed in between 110 minutes of singing and dancing..... I would describe as "interpretive modern jazz". We finally used "fast forward" to speed through this dancing and at the end threw the VHS tape in the rubbish. What a disappointment.

The DVD release is shameful
Don't get me wrong. I love this movie more than just about any other movie in existence. The problem is that whenever you get a big-budget, Oscar-winning movie, the initial release on DVD is always going to have at least 2 discs and 2-3 hours of special features. So naturally, I eagerly awaited the release, so I could bask in the sheer excessiveness of the entire product, but instead, I watched as the curtain rose to reveal a DVD that, from my perspective, can only boast of having a 3-minute-long musical number deleted from the theatrical cut of the film. I was crestfallen, and proceeded to wait until they unveiled the real prize, the multi-disc extravaganza that I had expected from the start. But still I wait, so I am forced to say that the DVD is only worth renting, but not worth the $20.00 that the distributors continue to ask for. The movie is incredible from start to finish, but it's just not worth spending $20.00 on this, only to see Miramax release a 4-disc set the moment you take the plastic off the case. I personally will wait until they release it in a DVD set that truly does this masterpiece justice. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like its predecessor Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve is a piffle of a caper, a preposterous plot given juice and vitality by a combination of movie star glamour and the exuberant filmmaking skill of director Steven Soderbergh (Out of Sight, The Limey). The heist hijinks of the first film come to roost for a team of eleven thieves (including the glossy mugs of Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, and Don Cheadle), who find themselves pursued not only by the guy they robbed (silky Andy Garcia), but also by a top-notch detective (plush Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a jealous master thief (well-oiled Vincent Cassel) who wants to prove that team leader Danny Ocean (dapper George Clooney) isn't the best in the field. As if all that star power weren't enough--and the eternally coltish Julia Roberts also returns as Ocean's wife--one movie star cameo raises the movie's combined wattage to absurd proportions. But all these handsome faces are matched by Soderbergh's visual flash, cunning editing, and excellent use of Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome, among other highly decorative locations. The whole affair should collapse under the weight of its own silliness, but somehow it doesn't--the movie's raffish spirit and offhand wit soar along, providing lightweight but undeniable entertainment. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (198)

How Many Stars Does It Take To Make A Movie?
Despite my misgivings over the acting "skills" of George Clooney, there are a few films that he has done that I have really enjoyed. When I saw 2001's remake of Ocean's 11, I quickly added it to that very short list, which also includes Out Of Sight (also directed by Soderbergh) and Three Kings. Since Ocean's 12 marked yet another Clooney/Soderbergh collaboration, I was eager to have a look, despite some negative buzz.

It's been three years since Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his crew -fronted by detail man Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt), up-and-coming pickpocket Linus Caldwell (Matt Damon), explosives expert Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle) and safecracker Frank Catton (Bernie Mac) - pulled off a bold and very lucrative heist, robbing ruthless entrepreneur Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) of every dime stored in his impenetrable Las Vegas vault. After splitting the $160 million take, each ofOcean's crew have tried to go straight, lay low and live a normal life... but that's proven to be a challenge, much to the dismay of Danny's wife Tess (Julia Roberts). When someone breaks Rule Number One and rats them out to Benedict, going straight is no longer an option. He wants his $160 million back - with interest - or else. And, as the gang quickly discovers, Benedict isn't the only powerful person in the world looking for Ocean's Eleven...

Ted Griffin, who wrote the 2001 remake, made sure the heist was the plot while the star power was just icing on the cake under Soderbergh. For the sequel, it's the exact opposite. The plot really doesn't matter. Last time, everyone had their part in the heist, now, even though the gang's all here, some just "show their face" and that's it. Soderbergh would have probably faired better without a script. There are some fun moments, like when Linus and Rusty are having a discussion about Tess, but not enough. It's almost as if someone said let's take a vacation and pretend we're making a film. Now I know you are supposed to just have fun but even the first film had SOME structure. Cameos are fun too--but in an already crowded film not all that special and come across as gimicky.

The only extra on the DVD is the theatrical trailer. This was somewhat of a surprise, given that the disc for the first flick was loaded. I suspect the film's box office had something to do with the lack of bonus material. Having said that though, I still smell a Special Edition at some point down the road.

A disappointing sequel all the way around. For this star studded film of their vacation in Europe--just ** stars.

Please spare us Ocean's Thirteen
Genre: Comedy, Mystery

Genre Grade: A-

Final Grade: B-

This was a good follow-up to the first movie, although it did not even get close to matching the thrill of it. The story was MUCH weaker in this one, most of it contrived so confusingly that when you find out the outcome you are mad at how they took such an easy way out. You either like the tricks they do in this movie or you feel cheated. Or you feel a little of both, as I did.

I can't say much about the plot because there are so many spoilers, but I will say there is a big surprise with one of the characters from the first movie that is quite funny. Some people hated it (one of the "cheap" moments) but I thought it was great. There are many plot holes but director Soderbourgh keeps you so interested in the characters and flashy style of the movie that you might not even notice them. No other director could get away with it, that's for sure.

There is mild controversy over who, exactly, is Ocean's twelfth member. I honestly can't say 100% for sure because there are three people who could be considered as such. But there is one person who seems a little more likely to be that person because of a certain...event?

In conclusion, I hope that if Soderbourgh decides to give us another helping of this franchise that he gets a much more clever story for Ocean's Thirteen...

The real theft;steal your money with a bad sequel!
Hollywood returns to "independent" type cuts, erroneously assuming that it is the latest cash crop craze.So they hire youngsters to waste film and money shooting scenes that distract from quality dialogue, acting, and storyline.This is an excellent example of how NOT to make a movie.Don't waste your time unless you are a film student wishing to learn from others' mistakes.Not worth the price of popcorn!

Don't Waste Your Money
This movie should never have been made. It was dull and unispiring. The acting seemed forced and rather then everyone playing a part, a few characters were seen through out and nothing more. If you truly liked Ocean's 11 then leave it at that. My personal recommendation is that you do not watch this movie and rather just stick with the first film. You will be better off by far.

Save your money
Wow - what a bad movie. The all-star cast needs to exercice better judgment before accepting parts like these. The favorite side characters you'll remember from the first movie and played by solid/enjoyable actors (Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, etc...) are left with meaningless lines and no part to play. Brad Pitt's on camera eating habits in the first movie were something to smile at, in this one, it's simply annoying. Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts - what a stretch for the writers! The camera action is exhausting and attempts to add pace to a movie that does not have any. The plot is so twisted, it's unbelievable and ... without any interest. Soderbegh has done some excellent movies - this is probably his worst. Save your money, don't fall for the marketing hype. If you want Clooney at his clever and charming best, get "Out of Sight". If you want some good Soderbergh (nice camera work, interesting cinematography), get "Traffic". And I can't come up with something decent to suggest for Pitt since "Seven" or "Fight Club". ... Read more

Reviews (51)

A funny, warm comedy all audiences will enjoy!
I recommend you all go see this movie! Tom Hanks plays an immigrant named Viktor Navorski from the Eastern European country of Krekozhia who travels to New York City on a personal mission. Upon arriving to the U.S., Navorski finds out that his country has had a civil war. As a result, he can neither return to his country nor enter the U.S. until the civil war ends and if the U.S. recognizes Krekozhia's new government.
He is left stranded at J.F.K. airport and is then ordered by Homeland Security officials to remain in the airport's international transit lounge until peace returns to his country. During the time he is there, Navorski finds out that the terminal is a world in itself where he experiences things like ambition, generosity, amusement status as well as romance with a beautiful flight attendant he meets played by Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Meanwhile, the Homeland Security supervisor who originally ordered Viktor to remain in the terminal considers him a problem he has a hard time controling in the system he oversees and a glitch he wants to quickly erase.
This film also touches on the bureaucratic non-sense immigrants have to endure when they come here. Aside from its (what I percieve to be) indirect political statement, overall, The Terminal is a funny and warm comedy audiences of all kinds can enjoy.

"Do you have an appointment?"
If you're looking for a sweet, poignant comedy, The Terminal is the movie for you. Tom Hanks stars as Victor, fresh off the plane from a small Eastern European country whose government was overthrown while he was inflight. Until the U.S. recognizes the new regime, his passport is invalid and he cannot leave the airport, according to the security chief (Stanley Tucci). Victor proceeds to make himself at home in the terminal, befriending some airport workers and even starting a romance with a lovely but flawed flight attendant (Catherine Zeta-Jones).

This movie is simply a joy. Hanks' innocent-but-wise character is so likable that you are cheering for him all the way as he becomes involved in the lives of his quirky airport friends (lead by the scene-stealing Kumar Pallana), gets a good-paying airport job, and shows what a decent and caring man he is. Tucci is perfect as the humorless security man who watches as Victor's stay in the terminal stretches to nine months. Zeta-Jones is interesting as a troubled woman who collects men, and her character adds some reality and even saddness to the otherwise fantasy-world of Victor's airport.

The Terminal is a feel-good comedy with an excellent script and an amazing set that will make you think it was really filmed in an airport. Fans of Tom Hanks will add Victor to his long list of loveable characters. Highly recommended.

Great movie... just too long!
Wow. This is an amazing movie. One of Tom Hank's best, and one of Catherine Zeta-Jones's worst. She is the only disappointment in this movie. She is normally I very good actress but in this movie she is just... I don't know...her and Tom Hanks don't really click. Her portrayal of a somewhat ditzy, emotionally distraught flight attendant is wimpy and a little boring. The three people who befriend Tom Hanks in this movie, the janitor and the other two people... who he plays poker with... have great supporting roles and their careers should sky-rocket now. So...if it is such a great movie why do I only give a a four star rating? BECAUSE IT IS SOOOOOOOO LONG! It is about two hours and eight minutes long which doesn't seem terribly long (especially after seeing Return of the King twice in one day), but it is almost like there could be twelve endings...and it seems like its almost over then BAM! a pan to another scene. That is the only reason it gets four stars. But go see it anyways. Its one of those movies that, even though you might now watch it all the time... it is one that you will love watching a couple times a semester ( I'm a Jr.High student and movies are like... one of my favorite things in the world). Anyway great flick, go see it, and when it comes out buy it.

Terminal, indeed.
For all Steven Spielberg's directorial gifts, brevity is not one of them. The worst film he has made since "1941" 25 years ago, "The Terminal" is aptly named - a 90-minute concept stretched a full hour beyond its expiration date, with only a accent-bearing, shambling Tom Hanks to accompany us.

Spielberg's film fails on more than one level, but mostly because he saddles the central plot - a man forced to live in the international terminal of New York's JFK Airport - with a collection of either forgotten or underdeveloped side stories that pay lip service to diversity - a Latino, a black guy, a black girl, an Indian janior, a beautiful stewardess - without making much of use of them until the last half-hour, when these cardboard cutouts suddenly claim a stake in the game.

You think "Return of the King" had too many endings? Just wait. And wait.

Hanks is Viktor Navorski, a native of the fictional Krakovia, where rebels have overthrown the government. Viktor is in New York on a trip whose motiviation remains unspecified until very late in the film. With his country in the throes of a coup, his passport and visa are no longer valid. Homeland Security agent Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci) tells Viktor bluntly with a bag of chips smashed by an apple: Viktor can't go home, and he can't go to New York. He's shown the terminal, and the doors to New York through which he cannot pass.

What follows is a mix of Frank Capra fable and a human jungle version of Hanks' "Cast Away." Viktor builds a makeshift bed out of torn seats at an abandoned gate; he finds quarters to buy Burger King cheeseburgers (at a cheaper cost than you'd ever find in an airport); he makes friends with a baggage handler (Chi McBride), the janitor (Kumar Pallanatucci) and a food service worker (Diego Luna) smitten with an INS agent (Zoe Saldana); and he flirts with the Midwestern stewardness (a perky Catherine Zeta-Jones), a psuedo-intellectual who is the mistress of a wealthy, married man.

Viktor also turns down Dixon's offers to help him into New York, where he can become, Dixon thinks, "someone else's problem." Viktor won't leave on his own. He refuses asylum. Dixon won't detain Viktor until he's broken some law, although, I would think, taking payments under the table to do construction work in the airport is reasonably illegal.

The movie's turning point occurs when a Russian man threatens to kill himself unless he's allowed to deliver Canadian medicine to his dying father; Dixon calls in Viktor to translate, and Viktor's solution, clever as it may be, is so prepostorous that it takes "The Terminal" off whatever rail its was still hugging and straight into foolishness: A marriage proposal, an elaborate, mosaic fountain built out of ceramic scraps, a cruel blackmail by Dixon and, yes, a jumbo jet brought to a halt by a wet mop.

Despite his two Oscars, Hanks is more gifted than critics give him credit for, and his subtle comic work as Viktor works much better than his recent turn in "The Ladykillers." Tucci, until his character is forced to become vengeful, embodies a decent-yet-prideful Dixon. If there is a couple in this film, it's these two. Hanks and Zeta-Jones have zero chemistry - their kiss is in long shot, with the camera pulling away - and the downbeat end note on their relationship provides the lone beacon of reality in "The Terminal." The set design by Alex McDowell is quite flawless - this might as well be a working airport - and yet Spielberg never does much with it. He so immerses himself in these subplots that the airport becomes a stale gimmick.

But, more frustrating, is a screenplay, by Jeff Nathanson and Sacha Gervasi, that actually conspires to keep Viktor - and us - waiting longer than he needs to be. "Everybody has a story," Dixon says at one point, and if Viktor were allowed to explain his reason for being in New York to anyone but a stewardess who doesn't even know Viktor lives in the airport, it's quite likely that something could have been "arranged."

Would "The Terminal" have the been the same movie? No. It would have been a better one.

It's okay...but it's not great
Like virtually all other moviegoers, I was very excited about a new movie starring Tom Hanks and directed by Steven Spielberg. I never would have guessed that something would go seriously awry with this film. I certainly never would have guessed what that something would be either.

Well, let me go over the good things first. The storyline is fascinating. The idea of a foreigner indefinitely trapped in an airport terminal because of a violent military coup in his own country and the current U.S. immigration laws here -- a story with such a premise is guarranteed to contain a good deal of drama and comedy. The acting was superb. Yes, it's true that Tom Hanks's accent was awkward and felt out of place at first, but after awhile it starts to grow on you if you're patient. And Stanley Tucci (A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, ROAD TO PERDITION) is one of the very best supporting actors in movies today. All of the character development is top-notch.

So with all these great things to say, what could possibly be wrong with this movie? Well, for one there was the incredibly cheesy (and almost unnecessary) subplot involving Catherine Zeta-Jones's interaction with Tom Hanks. As a mere character in the film, she was fine. But when they started to talk to each other, it made me wish the screenplay writer had been fired early on. (My complaint revolves mainly around the "I'm like Napoleon" conversation. It was very lame, and very contrived.) Another complaint I have was John Williams's score. It could have been so much better if he had just picked it up a little. Criticizing the greatest composer of the last 100 years is not something I do lightly. Unlike most other filmscore composers, after you watch a film whose music was composed by John Williams, you'll usually be humming the main theme for the rest of the day. But I don't even remember what the main theme was for THE TERMINAL.

However, none of those gripes constitute my primary problem with THE TERMINAL. My biggest problem with this movie is that it wasn't great. It was simply okay, or adequate. Do all movies have to be great? Only if they're made by great filmmakers. Steven Spielberg is easily the greatest filmmaker of the last 25 years. Therefore, I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I hold his films to a higher standard (the standard which he himself has set) than the rest. I expect greatness from Spielberg. This wasn't great. It was just okay.

Therefore, 2.5 stars (but I'll round up to 3). ... Read more

Reviews (362)

Rousing swashbuckling tale
This is not your Father's Zorro, and Antonio Banderas does a fine job as the masked avenger (and according to the Amazon.com trivia section, the first Hispanic to play this role). Banderas plays the second generation people's hero in Southern California, just prior to Spain's ceding of the land to Mexico.

Anthony Hopkins is a great second (who is actually the first) Zorro, a/k/a Don Diego de la Vega, a Mexican land baron and freedom fighter. After escaping decades later from prison, Hopkins escapes from prison to seek revenge on the no-good governor (well played by a smarmy Stuart Wilson) the man who killed his wife and stole his daughter.

Bandaras, a low-life bandito becomes urbane and a proficient warrior at the teaching of Hopkins, and then becomes transformed by a positively bewitching Catherine Zeta-Jones. Their interplay gives the film its romantic, and often sensual edge.

Lots of swordplay and general excitement, as we recall from Douglas Fairbanks and Disney's Guy Williams. The movie moves quickly (but bogs down for awhile 2/3 of the way through. Happily, it picks up the pace through the end.

Nice scenery. When we see the sign of the return of Zorro, via a blazing Z cut into a hillside , it is positively thrilling. A stirring script which fits the film well. More than enough humor (such as the scene in the confessional, or one of several chased of Zorro by the troops) for the purpose of lessening the tension which is well added by a malevolent Matt Letscher.

As one says, it is a grand throwback. As another said: That's entertainment!

...They make the sign of the Z...
This film is the most recent Zorro film. It stars the young Hispanic Antonio Banderas and the intelligent actor Anthony Hopkins. THis may be the first time that a true Hispanic has played Zorro in an American film.
In 1820, Spain has lost California to Mexico. But Rafael Montero (Stuart Wilson) the Spanish govenor, is determined to kill his nemisis Zorro. The fox again foils Montero's plans with the help of two young orphans, one of whom he gives a medallion. Somehow, Montero learns that Diego de la Vega (Anthony Hopkins) is Zorro. Diego's wife is murdered by Montero's men, his hacienda burned, Montero robs him of his child, and Diego is sent to prison. Defeated but determined never to surrender, the enraged fox promises the govenor that he will never be rid of him.
Twenty years later, Santa Anna has become worse than Montero, and people vanish without a trace. The orphan who helped Zorro, Alejandro Mureita (Banderas) and his brother are caught by Montero's man Capitan Love (Matthew Letcher) who beheads Alejandro's brother. Meanwhile, Deigo escapes and sees that Montero has raised his stolen child Elena (Catherine Zeta Jones). Diego sees Alejandro. The two men form an alliance. Diego trains Alejandro in the art of the sword, the whip, riding a horse, and athletic ability. Alejandro tries an exlpoit as Zorro but is rejected by Diego. In the end, however, the new fox earns his mask. Diego now seeks revenge on his nemisis, Montero, while the new Zorro tries to free the people.
This film extends Zorro's legacy. However, in the future I am sure we will see more films with Zorro being Diego. One line with this film seems to hold more emotion than the rest.
DIEGO: "Rafael! You'll never be rid of me! Never!"

New Zorro, New Age
I have never been a huge fan of Antonio or Jones until I saw this film. With its breathtaking scenery, action and atmosphere it makes you love zorro again! A new zorro for a new age! Very well done film with superb acting. The dvd is full on with excellent picture quality and sound.

Zorro No Longer a Hero
Zorro, the hero of Pulps, movies, books, comics and television, has a new movie out. Antonio Banderas, on Larry King Live, mentioned that he hoped this movie would help to keep alive the spirit of the only Spanish super-hero (he in not the only one nor was he at the time of the interview). Well, I think it will do much to keep the name alive but not the spirit.

Anthony Hopkins is Zorro, the Fox. After years of struggle, Spain is pulling out of California and leaving it to the Mexicans. But Zorro slips up and the evil Governor tracks him down, kills his wife, steals his daughter and throws him in prison. Twenty years later Don Diego (Zorro) hears that the Governor is back. Minutes later he has escaped from prison (what was he waiting for?) and is destined to run into Antonio Banderas. After their meeting, Don Diego trains Antonio to be the new Zorro. The rest of the movie involves the plan to create the Independent Republic of California by buying it from Santa Ana with gold dug out of its soil and stamped to look Spanish. Mexico is willing to make the sale because of their war with the United States (it is now 1841).

If you are looking for a fun swashbuckling adventure, then this is definitely the movie to see. If, however, you want to see Zorro, you might find yourself a little disappointed. Gone is Zorro, the defender of the common people and the innocent. In his place is, not one, but two, Zorro's who are bent on personal vendetta's and enlightened self-interest. It is actually Don Diego's daughter who helps some enslaved Mexicans near the end of the movie.

The transition from one Zorro to another takes the Fox out of the wealthy and privileged and makes him a commoner. The new Zorro is also a thief (in a wonderfully fun scene the young Zorro steals his horse, a very serious crime at the time). Having Zorro break so common a law seemed wrong to me. To have Zorro flaunt the breaking of laws meant to worsen the lives of the commoners is another thing entirely. But in this movie Zorro does not taunt authority. He plots against it, to be sure, but for his own reasons and not for the good of the people.

As this movie has two Zorros, there are now also two villains to be defeated (one each). The elder Zorro still has his old nemesis to contend with while the younger Zorro has made a personal enemy of Captain Love, a young Cavalry officer who seems to be in the wrong country. Both villains are vile and easy to hate. This make the personal vendettas a little more palatable as well as making the ending a lot more fun.

The other main problem with this film is that Zorro loses. Zorro never loses. but in this film Zorro loses big time. He loses his wife, his home, his daughter, his name and twenty years of his life. Granted, he briefly regains his daughter but gone is the hero who can laugh in the face of danger and triumph brilliantly.

The last thing I wanted to mention is that, probably due to the controversy over the new Jeffrey Irons film, Zorro is no longer married to his wife Lolita. Her name has been changed (how dare they) to the more common Esperanza. I can understand the concern of some but Don Diego won the heart of Lolita before the Roaring Twenties. As in the Nabakov novel, Lolita is a valid name before it was turned into an adjective. Next thing you know people are going to try and get Disney to change the name of Bambi because they think it is a girl's name (Bambi was the prince of the forest).

So, if you want to see The Mask of Zorro because, to you, it means an exciting swashbuckling movie, you will really enjoy this one. But if you want to see the movie to watch the continuing adventures of a hero that has entertained all generations since his debut almost eighty years ago, part of you will be disappointed in what has happened to the character.

ZORRO MEETS ZETA JONES
THE MASK OF ZORRO is a rousiing, energetic, exciting romantic swashbuckler movie, reminiscent of all those great Fairbanks and Flynn movies.
Antonio Banderas is a perfect Zorro, starting off rude and crude, ending up flamboyant and gallant. His injection of humor and the way he rolls his eyes is a definite good addition to his role.
The ever amazing Anthony Hopkins shines in his role as the first Zorro, whose life is ruined when his wife is killed and his daughter taken away from him by his cruel enemy. It's rare to see an action hero over the 50 year mark!
Catherine Zeta-Jones is breathtakingly beautiful and is wonderful in her role as Hopkins daughter, feisty, yet adolescent in her yearnings for the masked man.
Stuart Wilson is vile and irreprehensible as Don Metero, the head villain, and he plays it to the hilt.
Matt Leschler as the Captain is even worse, his dashing good looks hiding a psychotic imbalance.
The whole movie is superb; James Horner's overlooked Oscar score is beautiful, including the closing credits duet by Tina Arena and Marc Antony of "I Want to Spend My Lifetime Loving You."
This is a fun, enjoyable and uplifting kind of movie. ENJOY! ... Read more

Reviews (13)

Good enough - could have been better
I can see by observing other reviews that this is a difficult film to review. Some want to look at historical accuracy (or lack of) others the performances, but I enjoyed this film as a "movie."

If this had been released in the 1940's and starring Tyrone Power (perhaps Orson Welles as Torquemada) this would be a minor classic today. Instead due to the time it was released (the 1990's) it gets a lot of flack - some deserved, some not.

As a swashbuckling film itself this is an enjoyable romp. The characters and peformances are for the most part engaging. One actor who gets critisized in this film is the late Marlon Brando. I guess I forgive him any faults in this, as I know the history of what went on during the filming. Brando was an actor who enjoyed creating a character - even in the later years, he shined when he was allowed to do this (think Godfather - where he was allowed to stuff he cheeks and mumble). While this film was in production, Brando wanted to sink his teeth into the roll of torquemada (indluding as I recall, having long fingernails, stringy hair and bad teeth) the producers would not allow him to "create" his own character and because he was contractually obligated to do the film, he showed up, stood where the director told him and read his lines as "Marlon Brando" would talk and not as a character. With this in mind one might be able to watch this performance in a different light and perhaps enjoy it more, thinking what this fine actor might have done with it.

Not mentioned a lot is what I do believe is the weakest performance in the film...that of Tom Selleck - totally out of place here and difficult to listen to - when he speaks the film really slows. In concert with this, is the lovely Rachel Ward who looks sickenly skinny - her performance is great but I wonder while watching this if she is sick.

Having expressed these thoughts, with a little "letting go" one can really enjoy this film.

WHAT IS THIS?
I am used to see films where Spain, specially through the zenit of its empire was criticized. We are bad, bad and bad. Ok, many of them are right. But we have to be also stupid?.
The performances are terrible. I am not going to talk about Marlon Brando because many people have done it already. But from an historic point of view this is a crime. Who wrote this?
Columbus was not an idealistic. Like any man of his time (Renaissance) fame and fortune were the great objects for a man's life. He wanted to be famous. For him this enterprise was bussiness. That is why he went to Portugal, because Portuguese were at the time the most advanced in nautical enterprises. But once rejected he went to Castilla. This was an enterprise made by Castilla not Spain. Aragon was more interested in the Mediterranea, that is why Fernado showed no interest.

And of course, The Inquisition.
Yes, probably Torquemada had the torture multimedia room, right by his office.Please. What do you think a Gran Inquisidor was?. The man did not need to be before the poor prisioners while they were being torturated. He was more busy with politics and advising Isabel.

No this is not a good film, it is a nightmare. And from the didactic point of view is a great mistake. Better read a book. from Prof. Antonio Dominguez or the History of Spian edited by Alfaguara. But do not spoil young brains with this

Marlon Brando?
with a very brief appearance by Brando in the beginning and early performances by Catherine Zeta Jones and Benicio Del Toro i wasnt quite sure what to expect but was hoping for the best.i for one was having a hard time following this movie Benicio Del Toro managed to hold my attention in his brief although powerful appearances.the characters were supposed to be Spanish,Portuguese and the indiginous peoples of the carribean is what i was thinking going into this but to my dismay(with the exception of Del Toro) there were an array of television stars from the mid ninteen eighties.this was more of a fantasy pirate movie than a historical one.

One of the funniest movies ever.
I had to write a review of this horrible movie as a recomendation to people who are in the mood for an unintetionally funny movie... There are a lot of really hilarious scenes. Such as the scene where the crew are just about to kill Columbus when someone cries "LAND HO" and the crew bursts into song. This scene happens twice!
And I must mention there is a bodatious babe who plays an indian who runs around topless for about half of the movie, this alone is worth the watch. Don't buy this movie but it is a funny rent.

Too Bad the Earth Wasn't Flat After All....
because then, if Columbus had indeed fallen over the edge, we could all have been spared this miserable movie.
Poor me, I knew things were going to be bad before the opening credits had ended, because only then did I learn that Tom Selleck was going to be in it. And guess as whom? Ferdinand of Aragon! This odd casting brought to mind episodes of Fantasy Island. But there was a Big Name included too; Marlon Brando as Torquemada, Spanish Inquisitor and Advisor to Ferdinand and Isabella. More prostitution of his talent for Brando.
I guess it takes some talent to make one of the most important events in history seem so boring and hackneyed. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like its predecessor Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve is a piffle of a caper, a preposterous plot given juice and vitality by a combination of movie star glamour and the exuberant filmmaking skill of director Steven Soderbergh (Out of Sight, The Limey). The heist hijinks of the first film come to roost for a team of eleven thieves (including the glossy mugs of Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, and Don Cheadle), who find themselves pursued not only by the guy they robbed (silky Andy Garcia), but also by a top-notch detective (plush Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a jealous master thief (well-oiled Vincent Cassel) who wants to prove that team leader Danny Ocean (dapper George Clooney) isn't the best in the field. As if all that star power weren't enough--and the eternally coltish Julia Roberts also returns as Ocean's wife--one movie star cameo raises the movie's combined wattage to absurd proportions. But all these handsome faces are matched by Soderbergh's visual flash, cunning editing, and excellent use of Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome, among other highly decorative locations. The whole affair should collapse under the weight of its own silliness, but somehow it doesn't--the movie's raffish spirit and offhand wit soar along, providing lightweight but undeniable entertainment. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (198)

How Many Stars Does It Take To Make A Movie?
Despite my misgivings over the acting "skills" of George Clooney, there are a few films that he has done that I have really enjoyed. When I saw 2001's remake of Ocean's 11, I quickly added it to that very short list, which also includes Out Of Sight (also directed by Soderbergh) and Three Kings. Since Ocean's 12 marked yet another Clooney/Soderbergh collaboration, I was eager to have a look, despite some negative buzz.

It's been three years since Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his crew -fronted by detail man Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt), up-and-coming pickpocket Linus Caldwell (Matt Damon), explosives expert Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle) and safecracker Frank Catton (Bernie Mac) - pulled off a bold and very lucrative heist, robbing ruthless entrepreneur Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) of every dime stored in his impenetrable Las Vegas vault. After splitting the $160 million take, each ofOcean's crew have tried to go straight, lay low and live a normal life... but that's proven to be a challenge, much to the dismay of Danny's wife Tess (Julia Roberts). When someone breaks Rule Number One and rats them out to Benedict, going straight is no longer an option. He wants his $160 million back - with interest - or else. And, as the gang quickly discovers, Benedict isn't the only powerful person in the world looking for Ocean's Eleven...

Ted Griffin, who wrote the 2001 remake, made sure the heist was the plot while the star power was just icing on the cake under Soderbergh. For the sequel, it's the exact opposite. The plot really doesn't matter. Last time, everyone had their part in the heist, now, even though the gang's all here, some just "show their face" and that's it. Soderbergh would have probably faired better without a script. There are some fun moments, like when Linus and Rusty are having a discussion about Tess, but not enough. It's almost as if someone said let's take a vacation and pretend we're making a film. Now I know you are supposed to just have fun but even the first film had SOME structure. Cameos are fun too--but in an already crowded film not all that special and come across as gimicky.

The only extra on the DVD is the theatrical trailer. This was somewhat of a surprise, given that the disc for the first flick was loaded. I suspect the film's box office had something to do with the lack of bonus material. Having said that though, I still smell a Special Edition at some point down the road.

A disappointing sequel all the way around. For this star studded film of their vacation in Europe--just ** stars.

Please spare us Ocean's Thirteen
Genre: Comedy, Mystery

Genre Grade: A-

Final Grade: B-

This was a good follow-up to the first movie, although it did not even get close to matching the thrill of it. The story was MUCH weaker in this one, most of it contrived so confusingly that when you find out the outcome you are mad at how they took such an easy way out. You either like the tricks they do in this movie or you feel cheated. Or you feel a little of both, as I did.

I can't say much about the plot because there are so many spoilers, but I will say there is a big surprise with one of the characters from the first movie that is quite funny. Some people hated it (one of the "cheap" moments) but I thought it was great. There are many plot holes but director Soderbourgh keeps you so interested in the characters and flashy style of the movie that you might not even notice them. No other director could get away with it, that's for sure.

There is mild controversy over who, exactly, is Ocean's twelfth member. I honestly can't say 100% for sure because there are three people who could be considered as such. But there is one person who seems a little more likely to be that person because of a certain...event?

In conclusion, I hope that if Soderbourgh decides to give us another helping of this franchise that he gets a much more clever story for Ocean's Thirteen...

The real theft;steal your money with a bad sequel!
Hollywood returns to "independent" type cuts, erroneously assuming that it is the latest cash crop craze.So they hire youngsters to waste film and money shooting scenes that distract from quality dialogue, acting, and storyline.This is an excellent example of how NOT to make a movie.Don't waste your time unless you are a film student wishing to learn from others' mistakes.Not worth the price of popcorn!

Don't Waste Your Money
This movie should never have been made. It was dull and unispiring. The acting seemed forced and rather then everyone playing a part, a few characters were seen through out and nothing more. If you truly liked Ocean's 11 then leave it at that. My personal recommendation is that you do not watch this movie and rather just stick with the first film. You will be better off by far.

Save your money
Wow - what a bad movie. The all-star cast needs to exercice better judgment before accepting parts like these. The favorite side characters you'll remember from the first movie and played by solid/enjoyable actors (Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, etc...) are left with meaningless lines and no part to play. Brad Pitt's on camera eating habits in the first movie were something to smile at, in this one, it's simply annoying. Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts - what a stretch for the writers! The camera action is exhausting and attempts to add pace to a movie that does not have any. The plot is so twisted, it's unbelievable and ... without any interest. Soderbegh has done some excellent movies - this is probably his worst. Save your money, don't fall for the marketing hype. If you want Clooney at his clever and charming best, get "Out of Sight". If you want some good Soderbergh (nice camera work, interesting cinematography), get "Traffic". And I can't come up with something decent to suggest for Pitt since "Seven" or "Fight Club". ... Read more

Amazon.com

Russian history occurs on a sweeping scale, but that takes a biggerbudget than A&E can muster. So instead the cable network keeps its treatmentof Russian empress Catherine II indoors as much as possible. That allows thecamera to linger over the impossibly lovely face of Catherine Zeta-Jones, andthe plot to focus on the political machinations of 18th-century Russia. Catherine goes from a bookish teen bride (her husband is the crazy andpossibly impotent nephew of Russia's Empress Elizabeth) to the legendaryempress who successfully concluded the Seven Years' War with Prussia,conquered Turkey, and put down a rebellion led by a Cossack pretending to beher long-dead husband.

The movie stumbles a bit when it ventures outdoors--it's hard to imagineRussia really conquered the Ottoman Turks with a 12-man army--but sizzlesinside. Zeta-Jones conveys both passion and hard-edged ambition as hercharacter transforms herself from manipulated to manipulator. Many of those manipulations occur in the bedroom, and the movie takessome liberties in portraying her union with military leader Grigory Potemkin(Paul McGann); here he's practically a saint, although history remembers hima bit less nobly.

The supporting cast includes Jeanne Moreau in a masterful portrayal ofEmpress Elizabeth, along with Ian Richardson, Mel Ferrer, and Omar Sharif.Although there's plenty of scenery for them to chew, they hold back, allowingZeta-Jones her 100 minutes of greatness. --Kimberly Heinrichs ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Don't expect the splendour of "Peter the Great"
Do you ever remember seeing a 6 part series about Peter the Great about 10 years ago - you know, the one with an aged Laurence Olivier playing the King of England? Well I thoughtthat was great. I think this is trying to be the same but failing miserably! I feel that this film was once a mini series that has been whittled down to be made into a film - er sorry "movie" for the non-Brits reading this review. It shows. The beginning is not so good. There is a tarty performance by Zeta Jones who just wants "the love of a real man". Oh please! I'm going to throw up! But to give the movie its due, it does pick up and get more interesting as political inytrigue ensues. Ian Richardson is playing his usual role as a shady poilitician, Omar Sherrif is there as an ageing sex symbol, Brian Blessed is playing a fat bloke with a beard - nothing original there either but what the hell Henry out of nieghbours is in it for I don't know. He is the worst actor in this movie! Zeta Jones is definitely very sexy, though. But that has nothing to do withthe merits of the movie. Conclusion. I wouldn't bother!

It...doesn't make her seem that great...
Catherine the Great was known as Catherine the Great for a reason. She helped raise the standards of living in Russia, attempted to modernize it, and it was during her reign that the long dream of Russia was realized: they ruled all sides of the Caspian Sea.

They tell you this in the movie...but only in the last five seconds of the film. Most of the movie is spent concerning Catherine the Great's supposedly promiscuous sex life (although many historians think that is just anti-Catherine - and antique - propoganda). Oh sure they give you five seconds of a peasant rebellion, five seconds of some guys that strangle jailors, and five seconds of a Turkish battle...but the rest is pretty much Catherine Zeta-Jones stripping down in corsets.

I mean don't get me wrong, she's cute and all...but I saw the film to see her attempt acting, not cleavage. I would have liked to have known what made Catherine so "the Great."

This accompanied with "The Scarlet Pimpernel" really made me lower my standards for A&E's productions. I really expected better.

A movie you don't forget
Catherine the Great was a movie that I saw when I was very very young ( and I mean with that, that I was too young to watch the movie), but somehow it stock, there was somthing about this movie, that made me remember it.....
I don't remember it being bad. I liked it then.

Great acting...but lacking in the edit department.
The costumes and acting was great...however Catherine's character was made out to be a very sensual character. This isn't a movie for kids under 13 years old, so be forewarned.

Where are we?
I was lost througout the entire movie, and it felt completely imcomplete. Not knowing much about her, I thought this video might help me learn more on Catherine the Great, but it left me dazed and confused. I recently watched the Hallmark channel's "Young Catherine" and was amazed. Look for this miniseries and compare. "Young Catherine" was definately much better than A&E's version, and I learned so much more, and understood what really happened clearly. ... Read more

Reviews (324)

This HAUNTING is a flop
Being a fan of horror movies and having never seen the original 1963 film, I found myself eager to catch this remake, which looked interesting from the theatrical trailer. However, I could have never been more mistaken. THE HAUNTING, with its expensive special effects and large budget, looks more like a 'tamed' episode from TV's Goosebumps than an actual feature film. What's worse is that this incredibly dull chiller lacks what many of these types of films require to work...chills! Infact, the only scary thing about this flick is how DreamWorks managed to green-light this expensive dud into production. The paper-thin plot finds a psychological researcher tricking a group of people to staying a night at a haunted mansion in hopes of studying them and their reactions. While the cast seems promising, they are surprisingly wasted...Neeson especially, with Catherine Zeta Jones offering a pretty face to look at, but nothing more. And surprisingly, I never thought that director Jan DeBont could top the horrendous Speed 2: Cruise Control, but once again I was wrong. All in all, THE HAUNTING was one of 1999's biggest Hollywood disappointments and, in my opinion, I would seriously consider that you walk passed this one at the video store. DROUGH!

Not frightening, not anything
There are 2 good things in this movie-

(1) Bruce Dern, who plays the groundskeeper and who, in about 3 lines and 20 seconds, out-acts everyone else in the film, even though they get hours. Bruce Dern should have been the star of this film. He's got more talent in his left nostril than the rest of the cast have in their whole bodies. He's of the old school like Donald Sutherland, and he is squandered in this film. The director is like a prospector who puts the mud in his pocket and leaves the gold behind.

(2) The mansion itself, which is extraordinarily beautiful, but probably only a bunch of sets. Still, it's lovely.

Nothing else in this movie is remotely interesting or frightening. The screenplay reads as if it were written by a junior high student.

Artistic Masterpiece
Whether this movie was true enough to the book or not, I don't know. What I do know is that it's awesome and very well-made. The actors did a great job, the special effects were wonderful, and the creepy-yet gothicly beautiful house-simply couldn't have been better. I'm not sorry I watched it. It's worth every minute and every penny.

IF IT AIN'T BROKEN, DON'T FIX IT
"The Haunting" with Julie Harris was so good--even better for its black and white medium, which enhances the sense of the macabre and general off-kilterness of the set. Why don't they remake "The Wizard Of Oz?" Now, there's a picture that could be made MUCH pertier with modern cinematography. The cheap set and old theatre-style acting throw a damper on what's still is a great universal story.

Beware of Evil Capitalists (and ghost movies about them)
Some day Lili Taylor will land that role in a film which will show the world what a high-calibre actress she really is. THE HAUNTING is not that film. What a thankless part for Ms. Lili. What a thankless film. The scariest thing about this movie must have been the bill for the c.g.i. effects that the studio received. I mean, the movie had a moment or two of tension, but on the whole, I was bored.

There was nothing new here: the fury of an evil, dead capitalist and the pain inflicted on his mostly children workers--and his family--just can't seem to get out of the house. So! The evil men do does live on! How original! I'm reaching for sarcasm which is never pretty, so I will end here. This movie was the pits. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Sean Connery plays a master thief thought to be long retired, while Catherine Zeta-Jones is his foil, a hotshot insurance investigator assigned to his case. They both have a little something to hold over each other's heads, until it turns out that Zeta-Jones is a professional art thief herself and is playing on both sides of the fence. At first they eye each other with mutual distrust until they team up for a job, which goes off without a hitch. Inevitably their prickly relationship begins to thaw somewhat, and the two become attracted to each other as they plan out the massive Y2K bank scam that is the movie's climax (complete with sequel-ready ending). Entrapment plays somewhat like a '70s caper movie revamped for the gadget-happy high-tech '90s. The plot takes a few too many labored twists and turns, and the chemistry between the two leads is nearly nonexistent, though both carry on gamely in their parts. On the other hand, there is some genuine suspense in many scenes as they go about their business, dripping with whiz-bang burglary devices. Zeta-Jones, of course, is drop-dead gorgeous, and Connery is as reliable as always in his role. The fairly flat editing and direction tends to drag the film down somewhat, but fans of caper movies, high-tech thrillers, and the two leads should find plenty to like in this film. --Jerry Renshaw ... Read more

Reviews (168)

Entrapped by itself.
When this movie was originally released in theatres, I was warned not to see it on the big screen. I was told it was a bad movie, not worthy of watching. I didn't understand why so many people told me that; I mean the film has Sean Connery, contains a seemingly interesting plot, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. There was also a lot of discussion over the fact that Sean Connery was old enough to be Catherine Zeta-Jones' grandfather, yet he was playing her love interest. Luckily, I didn't see the movie in theatres and I am grateful for that.

ENTRAPMENT starts off on the right foot. The film's early scenes are interesting and demand attention. However, about thirty minutes later, the movie takes an unexpected twist into territory it should not have entered: romantic entaglement with bad dialogue and no chemistry. Even though Sean Connery is pushing 75, he's still considered by many to be one of the sexiest men alive. Catherine Zeta-Jones is a beautiful young woman and attracts the eye of many men. Nevertheless, just because two people are physically attractive does not mean that there will be any chemistry between them. In this film the chemistry between Connery and Zeta-Jones is like the chemistry between the same sides of a magnet: instead of uniting, the two objects pull away from each other. Of course, it doesn't help that the movie is full of bad dialogue and many of the emotional scenes of Zeta-Jones are totally forced with no reality or logic to them at all. The screenwriters should have kept to the basics instead of relying on dazzling special effects to save the film.

There are a few good action scenes, especially at the beginning. However, towards the end even those are so blown out of proportion that you begin wondering when the masked superhero will arrive that can match Connery's superhuman skills and foil his evil plans. Overall, ENTRAPMENT is a movie that had a lot of potential, but ending up getting entrapped by itself.

Sean and Catherine Magically Transcend and Transform!!
I apologize, this is probably nothing more than a "3-star" (or even two!) movie in the traditional sense. However, Catherine Zeta-Jones has emerged as the brunette version of positively and literally the most beautiful and majestic woman to ever grace the legendary Hollywood screen: Princess Grace Kelly. The presence and charisma of Sean Connery, of course, has always transformed mediocre films into true spectacles. Now, delicately introduce the tender and multi-talented Zeta-Jones, and you enjoy a relationship that combines the eloquence of James Stewart and Donna Reed ("It's A Wonderful Life") with the mesmorizing qualities of Elvis Presley and Ann Margaret ("Viva Las Vegas"). At this point, if you can possibly manage to persuade your brain to overlook some far fetched and perhaps ill conceived plot twists, you're probably ready for the home stretch: A razzle dazzle conclusion with gut wrenching suspense and cool special effects. There is something sleek and silky smooth about this DVD production and its main characters that defies description. If you seem to like what you're hearing (and seeing) so far, trust me: This special DVD version is worth its weight in gold. But for heavens sake, what's up with "Suave Sean" slurring his "s" words and butchering the "r" sounds?? A few quick speech therapy sessions to address this mild regression, and I'd be tempted to give the sequel "five stars" (but only if Connery keeps his partner in crime who is also a highly romantic companion)!

Entrapment a DVD review
Catherine Zeta Jones and Sean Connery star as two ingenious jewel, painting, and money burglars who plan a huge heist at the turn of the millenium during New Years Eve in 1999.

Zeta is actually an insurance detective, Virginia Baker trying to find, the person responsible for a couple of burglary crimes in the area.

She suspects Mack (Sean Connery aka Robert MacDougal) is the person behind it, but rather than try to bring him in, she decides to get the man's confidence, and convinces him to try to pull of a big heist thus implicating Mac some more and
getting the evidence she needs to put him behind bars for a long time.

Mack is not an idiot, and he distrusts her from their very first meeting.
By the end of the film, one of the film will have pulled a great heist while the other
will either be in jail for a long time or worse. Their 2 contrasting styles in the movie, and their styles in pulling of different heists in the movie is really fun to watch.

The acting and special effects and stunts are also great including the culminating
climatic scene near the end where Mac and Virginia plot their big escape after
a heist.

There are some problems with the film however. Virginia is young and naive and
she takes the lies and garbage that Mac says at face value. Mac is not even a good
liar yet Virginia's character is dumb enough to believe this old thief'ss lies.

Now on to the dvd itself:

The DVD is very well done and contains a great
number of features:

* Deleted scenes

The deleted scenes in the movie are actually quite good, in fact, I think they were alot better than a couple of the scenes in the finished draft of the movie.

One great deleted scene is the car chase that Mack and Virginia get into while trying to dodge a couple of hitman that are tracking them down.

The scene has a great climax at the end that has you guessing what's going to happen next.

The scene is actually in the film, but what you get in the finished movie is actually
less than half of the original scene!!

Needless to say, I think this scene was great and should have been put in the original film.

Other features in the DVD include:
* Special feature on the making of the film

*Special commentary on the film itself

The commentary is teriffic, the director Jon Amiel, provides a lot of great insights and fact into the characters and Catherine Zeta herself, that fans may not
know.

*Alternate ending to the film!!!

The alternate ending in the film is actually very similiar to the original ending
with minor differences.

*Special trailers of the film
* Production Notes and much more!!!

Entrapment from head to toe is one of the best heist/thriller movies in quite a long time.

It gets predictable in a couple of areas, but the film is entertaining from beginning to
end.

Rent the DVD and enjoy it, along with the film itself.

HONOR AMONG THIEVES?
Let's get the sexist comment out of the way: Catherine Zeta-Jones is simply one of the most beautiful women to ever grace a movie screen!
Now, with that out of the way, ENTRAPMENT is an enjoyable heist movie, and we're never sure who's zoomin who!!! Sean Connery is elegant, if a bit lethargic, in his role, but always an actor who is fun to share a couple of hours with. Zeta-Jones does a good job in her role, but her acting chops have certainly matured since this film.
Ving Rhames and Will Patton are adequate, but other actors could have done just as well.
There are some really breathtaking scenes, especially with Jones in the initial heist and the jawdropping escape from the bank. It's not the best movie either one has made, but in spite of Jon Amiel's routine direction, I enjoyed it.

Give Me a Break...Sean connery's HOT
First off, I'm tired of people harping on the age difference bewteen CZJ and Sean. Some of the classic Hollywood pairings have been older men with younger women: Bogie/Bacall, Clark Gable/Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant/Audrey Hepburn, even Julia Roberts/Richard Gere. So...move on. What matters is if the pair work well together, and Catherine and Sean are great together. By the way they never actually hook up, but if they had, it would have been very intense. The chemistry between the 2 was very evident to me throughout the entire movie, I was egging on a romance. But Sean's character is above the physical involvement level with partners, so Catherine is held at bay. The movie reminded me of a classic thriller, a movie loaded with action...but thank God, not an "action movie". Enough of a hint at romance to keep us gals interested...but certainly not a romance. And on top of everything it was smart and well done. It took me on lots of twists and turns, and I loved them all. I'd gladly watch Catherine Zeta-Jones & Sean Connery (now 3 years older) re-pair in a sequel. By the way...I'm 19, and I'd take 53 year old Richard Gere any day over some of the young guys I see posing and looking pretty in movies today. As long as we see more Sigorney Weaver in Tadpole type roles for women (older woman dates younger man) keep 'em coming. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Love & Tragedy & All That Jazz. . .
This early vehicle for a young Catherine Zeta-Jones does justice to the complex Hardy novel despite the constraints of the television movie format. 'La Zeta' is perfectly cast as Eustacia Vye, a mysterious beauty with 'black hair and pagan eyes' who captivates the young men of the vicinity while the older country people regard her with suspicion as a witch who is not to be trusted. Eustacia has a reputation as a loose woman in the neighborhood--she dallies with another woman's fiance out of sheer boredom, even though she is tired of him. When dashing Clym Yeobright returns home after many years abroad in Paris, Eustacia sets her cap for him, with tragic results.

Fans who have followed Zeta-Jones' high-profile career in movies such as 'Entrapment', 'Traffic' & 'Chicago' will be interested to see her here, long before Michael Douglas and Oscar came calling, in her debut role outside of her native UK. She displays all the beauty and cool self-possession of the star she would later become. She's had her teeth capped since, and been otherwise glammed up, Hollywood-style, but all the fundamentals are there. The setting is breathtaking (shot on location in Northern England), and the simple yet vivid costumes Eustacia wears add to her characterization. Eustacia/Catherine is dressed simply but vividly in tones of scarlet, yellow and turquoise blue, setting her in sharp relief to the browns and grays of the landscape, and the dull clothes worn by the other characters.

The entire cast does a superb job, but this is really Zeta-Jones' show. Whether you're a Zeta fan, or a student of Thomas Hardy, this production should be on your shelf.

Attempt at Thomas Hardy almost reaches it.
Anyone who has read the novel will see that this movie is far truer to the storyline than average. Where the movie "almost" reaches success is in its portrayal of the characters. The egocentric nature of Eustachia is portrayed well until the death scene, when, from that point, she comes off as too much of the unforgiven, tragic, heroine. Wildeve's passion never quite attains to the pinnacle reached in the Hardy novel, Venn's homespun nobility isn't as evident, nor does Clym's "martyr complex" ever really emerge. The flick has much to recommend it however, especially in the first 2/3 of it. The setting is magnificent and appropriately stark, the subordinate characters (Grandfer Cantle, Susan Nunsuch, Mrs. Yeobright, etc.) are accurately displayed. This is one film in which I would recommend for the viewer to see the movie first before reading the novel. This would eliminate some of the sense of loss in the character displays and help one appreciate the "love-never-dies, beyond-the grave" finale.

Great
Ok i dont get the 007 thing but whatever. this movie was awesome!!! it was so sad!!!!! Catherine alone on that bridge will break your heart! i really felt bad 4 her throughout this movie, just because they "THOUGHT" she was a witch didnt mean they need to go and stab her in church! how mean! lol sry i love catherine zeta jones! lol well the movie was great, it was sad, and in the first minute a lil confusing but then you catch on after like 2 seconds.

Clive Owen could become the next "James Bond 007".
I saw this Hallmark television movie when it originally aired. I lost interest in the story because a character was said to be a witch. I just wasn't in the right frame of mind to watch this film. But Hallmark is a name the presents the best, quality films. Now, there is a reason to give this film a second look. Clive Owen who plays "Damon Wildeve" just might have a chance to be selected as the next James Bond 007 when Pierce Brosnan passes it on. Clive Owen might have to wait until the year 2008. The other reason is the female lead is Catherine Zeta-Jones is now a celebrity (she was unknown at the time) and became an Academy Award winner for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 2003. Joan Plowright as "Mrs. Yeobright" is also in this film. I like the opening line in the film: "Deliver my heart from this fearful, lonely place. Send me a great love from somewhere or else I shall die, truly I shall die".

great for catherine fans
i only liked this movie because of zeta-she is great in it and young-24 yrs old ... Read more

Reviews (51)

Well-cast crud
"Sinbad-Legend of the Seven Seas" is a well cast and performed forgettable fantasy. While Brad Pitt, Michelle Pfieffer, Dennis Haysbert, and Catherine Zeta-Jones loan excellent talent to the movie, there's little for them to work with. Ultimately, it's a waste of talent of actors who seem natural for the roles.

Brad Pitt shines behind the microphone as Sinbad, the charming rogue, and Michelle Pfieffer also glows black as the evil Eris, goddess of discord. (Her hair is practically a character itself.)

But, the story is formulaic and predictable, and seems to be driven on just enough for the next high speed chase. And the animation seems to poorly mesh, and often seems to be stuck 10 years behind the current technology. (And is it my imagination, or does every single Dreamworks character seem the same?)

All in all, it's not bad, but there's a lot better out there.

Absolutely Fantastic!
I had the good fortune to be invited to a premiere of this movie in New York, and it was FABULOUS! The audience was packed with people of all ages, and everyone had a great time. And how could they not? The movie has something for everyone! Fun, adventure, phenomenal graphic artistry, romance, humor, and a bouyant spirit! The characters are also brilliantly brought to life by the actors. I never would have thought of Brad Pitt as Sinbad, but he gives such a goregeous rough-voiced humor to this pirate that you can't help but love him. Catherine Zeta-Jones is perfect as the fiercely passionate Marina, Joseph Fiennes gives a heroic nobility to Prince Proteus, and Michelle Pheiffer is deliciously wicked as the goddess of chaos, Eris. The crew is also fantastically lovable and deserves high praise. Go see this film! You won't be disappointed! I can't wait to see it again!

Marvelous effects can't salvage a waterlogged script!
An exciting battle at sea with a monstrous "crab-octopus", an awesome excursion through siren-infested waters, and a rollicking (if overlong) encounter with a snow eagle are three of the major scenes involving the melding of traditional animation with CGI effects. These are marvelously executed and show the technicians' craft to the best of their abilities.

That said, the script isn't very thrilling, concerning a voyage to retrieve a valued book and restore Sinbad's credibility, as well as save his friend from execution.

Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Michelle Pfieffer do as best to be expected with the lines that they must deliver. And poor Dennis Haysbert gets to voice the stereotypical "bulging muscled black" crewman.

When I saw that character, I could only think of how often he appears in film from Michael Clarke Duncan in "Armageddon" to the "doctor" in Disney's animated "Atlantis, the Lost Continent" to Isaac Singleton in last year's hit "Pirates of the Caribbean".

Maybe this is more than a younger audience can detect, but, to an experienced filmgoer like myself, it's getting rather old.

Outta Sight!
This is not only one of the best recent animated films I've seen, but is actually an epic piece of cinema. The visuals are stunning, spectacular, highly imaginative, whatever adjectives one can drum up!

It's the singlemost imaginative creative endeavor onscreen that I've seen in the past five years. If you're a fan of THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN or TIME BANDITS, you're going to love this movie. It's in the same spirit, but also employs all the state of the art CGI effects and pixel animation innovations that have brought new standards to the industry.

The story is actually involving, and the voice overs are masterfully done. The animation is full '60s Trip level. Do yourself and your family a favor and make this one a part of your permanent collection! This is truly artful animation of the highest order.

BEK

A Good Animated Feature!
"Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas" is an animated feature that was made by the studio that made "Shrek," and more recently "Shrek 2." This is hand drawn animation while the two Shrek movies are made by computers. Sometimes the hand drawn animation can be better, because there is more talent. They have to make so many smaller drawings. "Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas" does have a small share of computer animation, but it is mostly hand drawn. It has the voice talents of Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Michelle Pheiffer, and I feel that they all did their part for these characters. Only they were able to brings these characters from the paper to the big screen. The stories of all the different gods and goddess always interest me, and that's why I liked a recent historical epic "Troy." "Troy" is from Greece, and it's about the Trojan War. "Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas" is a little different, but it involves the same kinds of people, and the same time period.

The story involves Sinbad, who is a sailer and a thief who is going on a quest to find the Book of Peace. The book protects twelve cities and the people that live in them. He gets the book, and sails his ship with the book, but the Prince of Syracuse, Proteus, and Sinbad's old friend wants the book back. But, they are not the only two people who want the book. Eris, the Goddess of Chaos wants the book so she could make the world a much more horrible place. She makes a deal with Sinbad to get her the book or he'll die. He agrees and goes to get the book, bit Eris takes it and his shape and everybody thinks that he stole the book. Sinbad is sentenced to death, but Proteus decides to take his place. Sinbad is giving ten days by the council to get the book back or his old friend is going to die. Sinbad doesn't want to do it, and he decides to go where he wants to go because he is guessing that the king is not going to kill his only son. Proteus' fiancee doesn't like what Sinbad is planning on doing and she decides to go with him to get the Book of Peace back.

"Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas" is a fun little animation romp. I thought that it was better than "Shrek" and probably equal to "Shrek 2," but not as good as "Finding Nemo" or "The Triplets of Belleville." But the thing is, these are all different movies with different stories. This is an action and adventure animation, and I feel that it'll appeal to all audiences. It has a really good story as well, and those who are fans of myths and things related will like this. The animation is stunning, and art fans should give this a look. It also has great acting, even though it is animated. Without acting, the voice talents cannot bring emotions to these people. I thought that Brad Pitt did good as the voice of Sinbad. I don't really like him, and I felt that he ruined "Troy" and "Oceans 11." I couldn't really think of anybody else to provide the voice of Sinbad, because I could see alot of Pitt in this character. The stunning Catherine Zeta Jones provided the voice of Marina, and she was good for that character. Phiffer plays Eris, and she was the one who wasn't that great. Her voice didn't really match the character, and I didn't see the evilness based on her voice. A person that I could see voicing the character is Charlize Theron. She could make he voice sound evil as she proved in "Monster."

"Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas" is not a perfect film, but it is a good one. It is perfect for fans of animation and people who enjoy watching action and adventure stories. It is a fun movie, and it has some moments that are funny, some moments that are touching, and some moments that could have people gripping onto the edge of their seats. I missed the movie in the theatres, but if I saw it there, I would have felt that it was well worth it.

ENJOY!

Rated PG for adventure action, some mild sensuality and brief language. ...