Reviews (14)

Powerful!
I like this movie because of it's powerful, dramatic story. As George Lucas says in the beginning It's designed to show the horrors of war, so don't expect comic relief, because there is none to be found. The reason why is this film appears to be very grim. It's also very serious. I highly recommend this film to future Indiana Jones fans, and for future High School history classes. Part one of this movie is horrific. It's just a warning of what you shouldn't expect. That's all. I also recommend that future High School teachers, and students watch this video as part of their history classes.

Indiana Jones Lost in the Trenches
"Trenches of Hell" is one of the few modern examinations of World War I, and for that alone it's worth the purchase price. It has a fine "slice of life" feel about it, meandering from the horror of gas warfare to camraderie stolen amongst the hodgepodge of allies that made up the allied side in this "war to end all wars."

What it doesn't have is Indiana Jones--or very much of an ending. There is, after all, no reason for Indy to be present in the telling of the tale--we learn nothing about him nor are we even treated to any of his trademarked mannerisms. Yes, we get lost in this world, and the storytelling--until the surprisingly weak ending--is intriguing enough to demand our attention. But the protagonist could've been Anyman for as much as the spirit of Indiana Jones appears here. Flanery is a fine actor, and his performance is clearly one of the hooks that keeps us interested, but he needed a few scenes of genuine character development to tie his Indy in with Ford's. Instead, this is another Young Indy epsiode in which the name "Indiana Jones" has been stolen for the noble purpose of introducing a wider audience to history.

Thus, like some other entrants in this series, "Trenches of Hell" leaves Indy fans disappointed, but better off for the experience.

Please sir, I want some more
If you watch these videos in chronological order (which you should) this provides a fascinating follow up to the cute and funny Spring Break Adventure (even the more serious Mexico half featured jokes like the letter Indy wrote to his dad). The only problem is, that it shouldn't follow directly after like it does. There were two episodes, "Ireland, April 1916" and "London, May 1916" that were not put on video. Instead, we jump from what must be March (in Mexico) to "Somme, Early August 1916" and "Germany, Mid August 1916". One might ask why this was done.

Once you stop wondering how Indy got to be a Corporal and all that, this video is very good. It really is too bad that there are so few WWI movies out there, compared to all the WWII ones to pick from. I've read some reviewers complain about the fact that the series would be better if it took place in WWII, but it wouldn't exactly be YOUNG Indy, then, would it?

Personnaly, I enjoyed the second half more, as it was less grim and more adventurous. Charles de Gaulle is the only one who seems to recognize Indy's American accent for what it is. It's too bad the ending is so abrupt. Indy doesn't even get out of German territory, which leads to yet another big gap between this video and the next one, where Indy is magically in Africa with Remy, whom I swear died in "Trenches of Hell." Yes, indeed, there are two more episodes, "Verdun, September 1916" and "Paris, October 1916" which are not included.

So, the video itself is great, but for a person who likes to know what's going on all the time, this video series leaves me feeling gypped way too often.

Outstanding - Best of the series
These are arguably the greatest episodes in the series. They are emotional, moving, action packed, and realistic. If there's a knock on the series it's that it's often hokey, and Indy runs into too many famous people. But this episode pulled no punches and delivered on all cylinders. It is so excellent, I rate it better than the last two Indiana Jones movies.

I should also point out I agree with reviewer James Irwin in his comparisons. I found SPR a nice story, and I love Tom Hanks, but if you want a much less Hollywood drama, and something to both thrill you, and move you, check this out. I also agree on BWP being the most overhyped film ever....but that's another thread.

If you're at all curious about the series, buy this, you won't be disappointed.

A harrowing tale of the horrors of war
The 8th chapter in the Young Indiana Jones series, this is a dark and harrowing look at the horrors of war. The movie is divided into three parts:

It starts out in France where Indy, Remy, and a whole army of French and Belgian soldiers are all assigned to take a chateau at the top of a hill. German soldiers have the place surrounded, and the soldiers must fight their way through trenches, past Germans, grenades, and gas. The whole gas sequence is flat out scary and harrowing. The mortars firing gas bombs and the sight of German soldiers in gas masks turning the knobs on tanks filled with poion gas is scary, and gets even worse when out of the clouds of gas come Germans wielding flamethrowers. It is an awesome sight, and quite graphic for a made-for-television movie.

Then we move on to a German P.O.W. camp where Indy and a group of French soldiers dig their way out of the camp, in a scene reminiscent of THE GREAT ESCAPE, right down to the partial collapsing of the tunnel. Although I have always questioned the scene where the German Officer comes into the room to inspect everything but does not notice the giant piles of dirt hidden in the showers that are extremely evident to the viewer.

The third and final part is a second P.O.W. camp (which is actually a castle) where Indy is thrown after being caught trying to escape from the first camp. The castle is for all the "bad apples", and he is put there after being mistaken for a French Officer who has made many escape attempts. Here he meets Charles De Gaulle who together plot their escape from the camp. In a very tense scene, they escape the camp and death of incineration in a giant furnace.

Overall it is a great movie, and truly shows the horrors of war associated with "no man's land" and trench warfare. Definitely an episode to see, and one to consider buying. ... Read more

Reviews (98)

Peter Pan
I'm still a fan of the Disney Classics but I have to say that Peter Pan isn't one of my favorites and for the same reason that a lot of people don't like this one and that is the scenes with the Indians (hence 4 stars unstead of 5).

PETER PAN is about the boy who could never grow up and after chasing his shadow in the bedroom of Wendy, John and Michael, he invites the 3 to fly with him to Neverland. It's a wonderful story of adventure, fun and flying. All children will enjoy this one.

Now again, my reason for taking a star off is obviously for the derogatory and stereotypical depiction of Native Americans in this movie. Regardless that this movie was made in 1953 still doens't make it right. As parents, it really should be the responsibilty of the parents to explain and to teach children the right way. I will say that every child should enjoy PETER PAN, but afterwards every parent should take the time to explain to the children that making fun of another culture is wrong.

Either way it goes, if you're looking for other great Disney classics look for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST SPECIAL EDITION, THE FOX AND THE HOUND, ROBIN HOOD, SLEEPING BEAUTY and CINDERELLA. Also check out some of the new Disney's like MONSTERS INC and TOY STORY and TOY STORY 2.

You'll (almost) believe you can fly
Of all Walt Disney's animated films, "Peter Pan" is my personal favorite. This classic tale of the little boy who never grew up has Disney stamped all over it. It also varies refreshingly from the versions that preceded it. In previous plays acted on the stage, Peter Pan was always played by a young woman, but in the Disney version he is all boy. He's brash, mischievous, more than a little cocksure of himself, able to fight and defeat a grown pirate captain, and on top of all this, he can fly. What else is needed for a children's hero? Tinker Bell is one of Disney's best inventions. On the stage she is a blob of light flitting here and there; only in animation could she be realized as a real pixie, vain, conceited, totally devoted to Peter and madly jealous of Wendy. The three children, Wendy, John and Michael, are very well done in the movie, and the opening family scenes are priceless. When Peter and Tinkerbell sneak through the children's window, and zoom back out again with the children in tow, we want to sprinkle on some pixie dust and fly right out there with them. Second star to the right, here we come. The scenes at Neverland are funny and original, and the pirates are a riot. One of Disney's most hilarious, and underrated, characters in all his films, is the crocodile, Hook's nemesis, who can't wait to get another chomp out of him. (Poor Hook is reduced to a bundle of shattered nerves every time he hears that tick-tock, tick-tock coming towards his ship.) The only negative in this film is the scene in the Indian village; the stereotypes that were accepted without question in the 1950s are almost embarrassing now. However, it can't and doesn't detract from the fun. The songs are okay, nut nothing special; it's the action and animation that make this movie. Of all Disney's animated films, "Peter Pan" was the one I used to wish was real when I was a child. Maybe there is a little of Peter Pan in all of us.

Poor adaptation of Barrie's play misses the point.
"The Disney version" of "Peter Pan" clearly demonstrates what is so wrong with "The Disney version" of too many classic stories. It turns Barrie's play into a simple adventure tale, in which the dramatic and (dare I say it?) psycho-sexual elements at the center of Barrie's fantasy are discarded wholesale.

There are defensible reasons for this, I suppose. Drama requires talking, but characters who stand around gabbing bring an animated film to a dead stop. I also suspect that Disney simply didn't understand the story in the first place. It wasn't until the Ashman/Menken era that Disney films finally developed any dramatic focus.

It's unfortunate, because "Peter Pan" starts off well enough. The late Sammy Fain's "Second Star from the Right," played over the title cards, has one of the most-ravishing melodies in the history of American popular music. (Look for the albums "Bibbidi Bobbidi Bach" and "Heigh-Ho! Mozart" for superb "classical" arrangements of Disney tunes.) The "You Can Fly" sequence is inspired (and can you name any other pop song with an accelerando passage?). But everything quickly bogs down thereafter, with Captain Hook's machinations providing the only fun.

There just aren't enough good things in the Disney "Peter Pan" to make up for its failure to treat the source material in an honest and serious fashion.

A great cartoon classic, one of Disney's best
This wonderful Disney production offers flights of fancy that appeal directly to children's fertile imaginations. The ability to fly, to be a devil-may-care youngster and never grow up, to engage in derring-do with pirates, never having to bother with school, and exploring fantasy worlds of islands, mermaids, Indians and mysterious caves is a powerful magnetic pull for young dreamers. The lush color lensing of this animated adventure is superb, and the characters and catchy tunes add to the pleasure of watching this film, for young and old alike.

Peter Pan, the title character, is a spry, charming lad who loves his carefree existence. He is, however, upstaged by his companion, the delightfully naughty Tinker Bell, a temperamental pixie who literally sees red when Wendy accompanies Peter Pan to Never Land. Captain Hook and his shadow, the crocodile, the sniveling Smee, the beautiful mermaids, and the stoic Tiger Lily are the characters who stand out in this movie. Wendy and her brothers, John and Michael are okay and basically come along for the ride. The sprightly song "You Can Fly!-You Can Fly!-You Can Fly!" is just one of the memorable tunes for which Peter Pan is fondly remembered.

A quick, enjoyable Disney viewing.
This movie animates one of the most imaginative plays ever written, albeit with a little 'Disneyfication.' It's by far my favorite; there is an enjoyably long spectrum of characters. Every time I watch this movie, it takes me back to those times I wish I was in Never-Never-Land.

P.S. The claim that this movie is an allegory to the JFK years is easily refutable, since this movie was made in 1953, while the play is over a century old. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Indy plays Ned Nickerson
I would have given this 5 stars, because I really did enjoy it very much. But I can't quite get over the fact that for much of the first half Indy whines and follows his girlfriend around reluctantly, as she initiates all the adventure. I can understand that, at 16, Indy isn't going to be exactly the same as when he's older, but really, when he was played by River Phoenix, during the "Last Crusade" prologue that took place in 1912 (four years before this one) he had much more initiative.

That said, I think Sean Patrick Flanery saves it by being so cute and appealing as Nancy's sidekick, especially toward the end as the Indy in him finally wakes up. I can date it to the moment he takes his fedora out of the closet, and then all of a sudden he's the hero again. One of my favorite parts was when he punched in the glass case after Nancy failed to get it open by picking the lock. But even before then, it's fun to watch, reagardless of the liberties it takes with Indy's character. Nancy is a worthy "Indy girl", being as plucky as Marion Ravenwood (though more innocent).

The second half, the Mexico/Pancho Villa adventure, is a little too contrived for my tastes...I mean, even for "Young Indy", where you have to take all the historical figures popping up with a grain of salt, this doesn't quite make sense. Why is Indy risking his life to retrieve a bunch of dresses? Just buy the lady some new ones, for Pete's sake. It does bring up another thing that irks me; the fact that none of the Correy Carrier (young young Indy) episodes are on video. I watched the whole series when it was on TV, but I can barely remember them. Here we have Indy writing letters to T.E. Lawerence, whom he met in an earlier episode, and he encounters Demetrius, the bad guy from that episode. All this harkening back seems rather cruel when it's not on video, especially when they tout these as "The Complete Adventure of Indiana Jones."

Lloyd Owen, as Henry Jones Sr., does a very good job of sounding just like Sean Connery. I enjoyed the few scenes with him in, since "Last Crusade" is my favorite "old" Indy, due to the repartee between Ford and Connery. Here you get a glimpse of the things they were talking about. Remy never ceases to annoy me, however. But it's worth tolerating Coutteure to watch Flanery. He may not try to evoke Ford as much as River Phoenix did, but he's a great Indy throughout the series.

One of the Best
While Mystery of the Blues is the Best Young Indy video, this is probably second. The Nancy Drew mystery of the first half is really fun, really young, and really Indy. It was great to see Indy with his dad, and to see the suburbia of the time period. I really enjoyed the first half. Great chemistry between Indy and his girl, and his clumsiness came out, along with other hints to the Harrison Ford Indy. The second half was good too, though more serious and educational.

Good movie!
This film is exciting! Indy and his girlfriend, Nancy Stratenmeyer whose father wrote the Nancy Drew mysteries, solve a mystery in the first half involving a traitorous employee and theft of important submarine plans. Lucasfilm hints that Nancy's father based the fictional Nancy Drew on his daughter. I also liked that Indy helps Mr. Stratenmeyer with his stories. The Pancho Villa part is thrilling and fast-paced, Indy's impulsiveness and gallantry getting him more than he bargains for. Eventually, he catches up with his old enemy Demetrius (from "My First Adventure," not currently available on video) and retrieves the fabled Jackal headpiece, originally stolen from the tomb of an Ancient Egyptian architect. All in all, this is a great film of excitement and intrigue, worthy of the name Indiana Jones.

young indy
This was a good video, and I've waited seven years for the series to be released. I was disappointed to find out that Old Indy is not even featured. Perhaps the worst thing they done was to put two episodes together with new footage. This didn't even look right because all of the actors are noticeably older, and Sean Patrick Flanery's hair is obviously longer in the back. They should have thought about these things beforehand, and perhaps filmed them this way in the first place, not try and finish them now as Star Wars Special Edition so tragically looked.

Three and a half stars (couldn't figure out how to do 1/2*)!
The first half is cute and very fun to watch (with a feeling very similar to that of one of the other films by this director: The Rocketeer). I enjoyed the young comedic romance and Hardy Boys/Nancy Drewish mystery. The second half is good, but stretches credibility a tad having Young Indy getting involved with Pancho Villa. There is a good confrontation with an old foe and old score. Staggering production values for a small screen effort (rivals much of the big screen). ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

As the triumphant start of a trilogy, The Lord of the Rings: TheFellowship of the Ring leaves you begging for more. By necessity, PeterJackson's ambitious epic compresses J.R.R. Tolkien's classicThe Lord of the Rings,but this robust adaptation maintains reverent allegiance to Tolkien's creation,instantly qualifying as one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. At 178minutes, it's long enough to establish the myriad inhabitants of Middle-earth,the legendary Rings of Power, and the fellowship of hobbits, elves, dwarves, andhumans--led by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the brave hobbit Frodo(Elijah Wood)--who must battle terrifying forces of evil on their perilousjourney to destroy the One Ring in the land of Mordor. Superbly paced, the filmis both epic and intimate, offering astonishing special effects and productiondesign while emphasizing the emotional intensity of Frodo's adventure. Ending ona perfect note of heroic loyalty and rich anticipation, this wondrous fantasycontinues in The Two Towers (2002). --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (3438)

An astonishing masterpiece.
Considered both as fantasy adventure and as an adaptation of a beloved literary classic, Peter Jackson's film of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" sets new standards for cinematic excellence. Everything about this film feels exactly right, from the casting to the screenplay to the special effects. The last are amazing, putting to shame anything George Lucas has come up with, and yet they always serve to advance the story; unlike Lucas, there's never any hint that Jackson is merely playing with his toys. Jackson shows great respect for Tolkien's text, but not slavish devotion. Certain characters--such as the lovable Tom Bombadil and Frodo's poisonous Aunt Lobelia--are missing, and Tolkien would be chagrined to find that the little poems and songs he loved to write are nowhere quoted. But if Jackson gives short shrift to Tolkien's whimsy, he more than makes up for that by giving us Tolkien's intensity, pathos and moral vision absolutely undiluted. Above all, Jackson never forgets that Tolkien's chief emphasis was always on the characters he created. Jackson casts wonderful actors to play those characters and--again unlike Lucas--he actually allows them to give performances. How wonderful to find the great Sir Ian McKellen, a uniquely commanding and charismatic actor, as Gandalf, or the charming and touching Elijah Wood as Frodo. You can go straight down the list--Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Sean Astin as Sam, Ian Holm as Bilbo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel--and find nothing but perfection. This is one of the very few big-budget blockbusters that unqualifiedly deserves its success, and all we can do now is look forward with excitement to the release of "The Two Towers" in 2002 and "The Return of the King" in 2003. Like the books they came from, these three fillms will be cherished by future generations.

The Wonders of Middle-Earth
The fate of Middle-earth lies in the hands of Elijah Wood in the grand fantasy epic "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". When the forces of evil storm the mystical realm of Middle-earth to reclaim the Ring of the Dark Lord, Sauron, the brave Frodo (Elijah Wood) and the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring that could doom the land. With the help of a fellowship of good friends and powerful allies, Frodo faces incredible dangers and the fierce minions of the Dark Lord. "The Fellowship of the Ring" is an astonishing epic tale of good versus evil. Director Peter Jackson delivers the wonders and emotional intensity of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic with such stunning amazement. The movie includes exceptional performances by Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett and Ian McKellen as the wizard Gandalf. It also contains amazing special effects, beautiful backgrounds and a superb music score.

"The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring" is certainly one of the best DVDs of the year. The splendid fantasy adventure is presented in standard full screen format. The DVD has marvelously flawless picture quality and a great 5.1-EX Dolby Digital sound. If special features are a must then this DVD is a welcome addition to any collection. Its supplemental material includes numerous behind-the-scenes featurettes, trailers including a preview of the upcoming "The Two Towers", a music video, DVD-ROM extras and impressive interactive menus. Overall, "The Fellowship of the Ring" scores an "A".

Awe-struck
I'm still reeling from this film! The performances, costuming, props and special effects, direction, and cinematography are astounding. There were times whilst viewing this film when I was on the edge of my seat or grabbing my seat to hold on; times when my heart was pounding; times when I was moved to shed a tear by either sadness or greatness. The movie captures every part of human emotions, wraps them all up, and unleashes them at the viewer at an almost rapid pace; which can, at times, be a bit too much. The Fellowship Of The Ring is a very strong, very powerful, visually stunning, and entirely emotive film. And I give top marks to WETA for the highly notable achievement of creating a thoroughly credible height ratio effect for the Hobbits and Dwarves in regards to the taller races of Middle-earth. Brilliant!

However, as much as I was stunned by this film, the screenplay and adaptions were absolute rubbish! In my opinion, Mrs. Jackson and anyone who worked with her should be fed to the Balrog, along with Peter Jackson himself for allowing it. Their were changes in characters and character, aspirations, and events. Tolkien's dialogue was rarely followed. Some reviewers say this doesn't deter from the story. It does deter from the story! That's exactly what it does. How difficult is it to follow a story and dialogue that has already been written? Editing is one thing and is understandable when approaching a big screen adaptation with time constraints, but arrant changes to a story are not. This I find unforgivable. In addition, no Fatty Bolger playing up appearances in Frodo's new house in Buckland; no Willow The Wisp; no Tom Bombadil; no Barrow-wights; no Rhadaghast The Brown, and very little attention payed to the Hobbits' stealth from and cat and mouse games with the Black Riders in The Shire. In addition, very little of Tolkien's dialogue was covered. The Fellowship Of The Ring is mainly dialogue, and takes place mainly in The Shire. What happened to Peter Jackson's boasting about how closely he was going to follow Tolkien's story? With all its faults, Ralph Bakshi's film follows Tolkien's story and dialogue more closely than Jackson's version does! Jackson is either pandering to his own ego (or his wife's), or just trying to make the film(s) appeal to more people than just Tolkien fans; and the only reason for the latter would be money.

Aside from the above criticism, I was very annoyed by WETA's cheesy computer-generated Cave Troll and Balrog. This garbage belongs in a video game, not an important epic film. What ever happened to employing the talents of real artists like Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson's Creature Shop? Is it just me, or are today's film makers relying too heavily on computer-generated effects, and using the words "can't be done" or "not within the budget" as a scape-goat to seeking alternative ways of creating effects, like the filmmakers of old had to do?

However all scrutinising aside, The Fellowship Of The Ring is an overwhelming cinematic experience, and one which should not be missed by anyone; with the exception of pre-teens, to whom this film will only terrorise. This is a tremendous Christmas present, and I thank Peter Jackson and everyone involved in its creation for it. It's difficult to believe that there are two more films of this calibre to follow. I look forward to their release, as well as a few more viewings of The Fellowship Of The Ring.

In closing I'd just like to say that Tolkien fans have still not been given a definitive screen version of The Lord Of The Rings. In fact, the only way I believe it would be possible to remain faithful to Tolkien's story and (even edited) dialogue, would be to make a complete mini-series for non-commercial television; basically, a visual accompaniment to the long BBC Radio production. Perhaps one day someone with enough integrity and who cares enough will.

If I could give this more than five stars, I would!!!
"We can make them longer, stronger, better!" When Peter Jackson said this about the extended DVD versions of the films, I'm sure hordes of movie fans disagreed. They were WRONG!! The Lord of the Rings trilogy is quite possibly the best thing that's ever happened to the movie industry, and these extended version DVDs are the best things to ever happen to DVD players. This first installment was great in the theater, but the extended version is better. Several things are explained in greater detail, and you can't tell where new material has been inserted. It's flawless, from the acting to the music to the scenery. I can't say enough good things about this movie. Oh yeah, the extras are nice too.

Will be remembered as one of the best films of all time....
Without repeating the reviews of the rest listed here....I can say that the extended editions add more texture to the story and the documentary DVD's give you more background and understanding of the story.

It made me want to read the books to see what the films couldn't touch upon ...the poetry and descriptions of middle earth are very much on target. I really hope that Jackson gets the chance to do the Hobbit. It would be a crime if it wasn't adapted by him in the very near future. All I have to say to the film makers is ..Lets see the Hobbit before the actors become unavailable to produce the film! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The greatest trilogy in film history comes to a grand conclusion with the extended edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.Not only is the third and final installment of Peter Jackson's adaptation of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien the longest of the three, but a full 50 minutes of new material pushes the running time to a whopping 4 hours and 10 minutes.

One of the scenes cut from the theatrical release but included here, the resolution of the Saruman storyline, generated a lot of publicity when the movie opened, as actor Christopher Lee complained in the press about losing his only appearance.It's an excellent scene, one Jackson calls "pure Tolkien," and provides better context for Pippin to find the wizard's palantir in the water, but it's not critical to the film.In fact, "valuable but not critical" might sum up the ROTK extended edition.It's evident that Jackson made the right cuts for the theatrical run, but the extra material provides depth and ties up a number of loose ends, and for those sorry to see the trilogy end (and who isn't?) it's a welcome chance to spend another hour in Middle-earth. Some choice moments are Gandalf's (Ian McKellen) confrontation with the Witch King (we find out what happened to the wizard's staff), the chilling Mouth of Sauron at the gates of Mordor, and Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) being mistaken for Orc soldiers.We get to see more of Éowyn (Miranda Otto), both with Aragorn and on the battlefield, even fighting the hideously deformed Orc lieutenant, Gothmog. We also see her in one of the most anticipated new scenes, the Houses of Healing after the battle of the Pelennor Fields.It doesn't present Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) as a savior as the book did, but it shows the initial meeting between Éowyn and Faramir (David Wenham), a relationship that received only a meaningful glance in the theatrical cut.

And for those who complained, no, there are no new endings, not even the scouring of the Shire, which many fans were hoping to see.Nor is there a scene of Denethor (John Noble) with the palantir, which would have better explained both his foresight and his madness.As Jackson notes, when cuts are made, the secondary characters are the first to go, so there is a new scene of Aragorn finding the palantir in Denethor's robes.Another big difference is Aragorn's confrontation with the King of the Dead.In the theatrical version, we didn't know whether the King had accepted Aragorn's offer when the pirate ships pulled into the harbor; here Jackson assumes that viewers have already experienced that tension, and instead has the army of the dead join the battle in an earlier scene (an extended cameo for Jackson). One can debate which is more effective, but that's why the film is available in both versions.If you feel like watching the relatively shorter version you saw in the theaters, you can.If you want to completely immerse yourself in Peter Jackson's marvelous and massive achievement, only the extended edition will do. --David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Latest Details On ROTK: Extended Edition
Not sure why there's such a vacuum of information available here on ROTK- the platinum extended edition release.

Its no secret that Peter Jackson has finished the version - and that it contains a whopping 65 minutes of additional footage that was cut from the theatrical version, putting the final movie at four hours and ten minutes. Awesome!

Apparently there was some rumor that New Line Cinema was going to cheap out on the special effects for the extended release version - and go with a cut-rate American outfit instead of the New Zealand firm they've worked with on the prior two films - but this was just that - a rumor, as far as I've been able to obtain.

New Scenes from the book to appear in the extended release version include the following: Confrontation with Saruman at Isengaard in which the Palantir is acquired (tossed out tower by Wormtongue), Parley with the Mouth of Sauron outside the Black Gates, Merry pledging his swoord and allegiance to Theoden, Sam and Frodo, disguised in Orc garb, marching with (and then escaping from) Orc Troop in Mordor, Eowyn and Faramir meet in the Houses of Healing in Gondor, and finally, a scene in which Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron in the Palantir.

All in all, good stuff. The only liberty it sounds Jackson has taken with the material is that Saruman is killed in the confrontation at Isengaard - falls to his death from the tower - rather than simply cast from the order, stripped of his power and humiliated by Gandolph, as the book. We can certainly live with that, can't we?

The KING of the Entire Trilogy
I loved "The Return of the King" in the theater. I thought it felt much different than the previous films, with more humor, more story, and definitely more battle sequences. Some people might wonder why I gave the film 4 stars. Well, it's because I didn't enjoy the ending. After the Mount Doom sequence, I think the film gets pretty boring. But, it is a great movie.

In this Extended Edition, we will see the death of Saruman, which was covered up in the theatrical release with a few cheesy lines from Gandalf and Treebeard. We will also see a pledge scene from Merry to King Theoden. There are many other extended sequences, including a song from Arwen (which makes the White Tree of Gondor grow), a new Palantir sequence where Aragorn reveals himself to Sauron, and a Houses of Healing scene revealing the romantic backstory between Faramir and Eowyn.

Another scene that will be added is the confrontation at the Black Gate between the Mouth of Sauron (played by Bruce Spence) and our heroes. Also, an awesome battle sequence between Gandalf and the Witch King will be added and the death of Gamling on Pelennor Fields will be able to be viewed, along with a scene where Frodo and Sam (disguised as orcs) escape a column of orcs marching to Cirith Ungol on their final leg of the journey to Mordor (this is the stupid "Where There's a Whip" scene in the Rankin/Bass "Return of the King").

As for the special features, Peter Jackson will proabably include his usual documentaries, the commentaries by all of the cast members, a few pre-viz and photo galleries, along with a special easter egg of an MTV "Lord of the Ring" spoof (as he has done before with "The Council of Elrond" parody with Jack Black and the MTV Awards Gollum acceptance speech).

All in all, this Extended Edition of "The Return of the King" will be a great way to end the Special Edition series. I look forward to watching it.

An amazing cinematic accomplishment
I think these films have done an EXCELLENT job of capturing the essence of Tolkien's writings. Once I read the Silmarillion I was completely drawn in. Vividly imaginitive and truly epic story-telling. The films stay true to these themes even with the changes done in the story! I really don't mind them. The Extended DVDs are a must for any fan of Tolkien! I'm anxious to get the third one! For me the Return of the King is THE best film ever made.

Best of the BEST!
The entire LOTR Trilogy is out of this world!! Return of the King is definitely the BEST of the BEST!!!!!!!!!! I have read the books hundreds of times and I waited for the movies with great anticipation! Peter Jackson and everyone involved with LOTR did extremely well. Return of the King proves, without a doubt, that the best can only keep getting better!

awesome feat of wonder
These films are incredible. I feared the worst (I couldn't imagine how anyone could make these books into film without totally screwing it up, but Peter Jackson and his team did it and did it superbly). I've read the books about 5 or 6 times + the appendices (one has to read the appendices to appreciate the films) + the Silmarillion. Yes Jackson did indeed deviate from the film at different points, but frankly, to do a film that perfectly follows such a long and detailed story would have made for some incredibly long boring film stretches. In other words, what works in a novel doesn't always translate well in film (i.e. Stephen King's "The Stand" Great book, lousy movie). Different form of story telling. Jackson and crew did a tremendous job in staying true to the basic story and if certain characters are missing (like Tom Bombadill)it's because they weren't central to the tale. I noticed the changes, but I wasn't offended by them. I am amazed. Have purchased both extended versions of FOTR and TT. I wait with anticipation for ROTK extended edition (when will it be out? Tell them to hurry). ... Read more

Reviews (87)

Good Entertainment if not Historically Correct
I enjoyed this movie. If you read all the newspapers seems like all the critics want to do, is criticize Disney for claiming it is based on a true story. Well if I remember correctly, if a movie is all true, it is probably a documentary. Hollywood always takes libertys with the truth in the sake of good entertainment. There is even one website devoted totally to trashing anything about Mr. Hopkins. Regardless I liked it!
Viggo Mortensen plays Frank T. Hopkins, mostly just a lover of horses, but happens to have gotten a nice mustang named Hidalgo, a horse known for his fortitude. After an incident at Wounded Knee, and a stint in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Mr Hopkins is propositioned by a few gentleman about competing in an endurance race of 3000 miles across the Middle Eastern deserts. His mates in the Wild West show chip in the entry fee, and off he goes. Encounters with many cultures and sandstorms , thirst, thievery, kidnapping, murder etc; follow. Viggo's performance is good, although much different than Lord of the Rings. Check out the performance by Omar Shariff, playing the Sheik of Sheiks. A good escapist movie in the realm of Indiana Jones et. all.

Good, old fashioned adventure in a faraway place
Last year, we had MASTER AND COMMANDER: FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, old-time adventure epics produced just for pure fun (and box office receipts, of course) and lacking any overt social or political correctness agendas. Now, we have HIDALGO.

Frank Hopkins (Viggo Mortensen) is one of the acts in Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show on the basis of his reputation as the world's greatest cross-country horse racer. But Frank, the son of a U.S. Army scout and an Indian woman, is drinking himself out of a job, tortured by self-guilt over a tangential and relatively innocent association with the Army's massacre of Native Americans at Wounded Knee. Hopkins is challenged by an Arab sheik to participate in a grueling, 1000-year old horse race across the deserts of the Middle East. To redeem his self-esteem, Frank signs-on with his horse, Hidalgo, a mixed-breed Spanish mustang. Arriving in Arabia, Hopkins is despised by the locals for his infidel status, while Hidalgo's small size and lineage are held in contempt relative to the purebreds he's running against.

Omar Sharif appears as Sheik Riyadh, the Sheik of Sheiks whose own stallion is the favored entry in the race. (I guess Omar has been wandering the desert these past 42 years since appearing in a similar role in the sandblown epic LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. He looks weathered.) Zuleika Robinson plays the sheik's daughter, Jazira, unnecessary to the plot except that she provides Frank with a Damsel in Distress to rescue, but little else.

HIDALGO is perhaps 15-20 minutes over-extended. The Jazira In Peril bit could've been left in the digital-editing trashcan quite handily without sacrificing too much of a story that's otherwise everything anybody could want in escapist entertainment for the whole family.

The real darling of the film is, of course, Hidalgo, who pluckily braves a host of perils to win the prize purse: sandstorm, concealed pit with sharpened stakes, attack leopards, sniper, horde of locusts, broiling sun, blistering heat, and human treachery. (Hmm. Sounds like my hometown on a daily basis.) By the movie's conclusion, you just want to take Hidalgo home with you and to hell with zoning ordinances.

Not that impressed
My biggest mistake was probably going into the theater with high expectations, and by the end of the movie, i was thoroughly disappointed. I expected more action, and a more interesting storyline. Sure, there were some really cool scenes, but most of those can be seen in the theatrical trailer, so there were no surprises there. I found the dialog to be boring, especially with Viggo Mortensen's monotone voice. Also, since I have never really been a horse lover, i haven't really been interested in horse-racing, which the whole story revolves around. Some people will really like this movie, but as for me, i would much prefer to see Viggo in LOTR.

Great western with a twist
I loved this movie so much. This movie reminded me of all those westerns my dad would watch when I was younger. Finally an adventure movie WITHOUT the language, lame acting, poor story line, & over done special effects. It reminds me of "Quigley Down Under" only better. This movie has breathtaking shots throughout and a solid lead character. And did I mention Viggo is hecka fine in it! Don't pass up this one. Get it! Do it! Do it!

Hottie
Viggo Mortensen is a hottie!!!!!!!!!!!!! And so is Hidalgo!(but mostly Viggo!) The tower boy is kinda cute too! ... Read more

Amazon.com

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a seamless continuation of Peter Jackson's epic fantasy based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. After the breaking of the Fellowship, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) journey to Mordor to destroy the One Ring of Power with the creature Gollum as their guide. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) join in the defense of the people of Rohan, who are the first target in the eradication of the race of Men by the renegade wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee) and the dark lord Sauron. Fantastic creatures, astounding visual effects, and a climactic battle at the fortress of Helm's Deep make The Two Towers a worthy successor to The Fellowship of the Ring, grander in scale but retaining the story's emotional intimacy. These two films are perhaps the greatest fantasy films ever made, but they're merely a prelude to the cataclysmic events of The Return of the King. --David Horiuchi ... Read more

Reviews (1869)

Stupendous!
"They don't make movies like that any more." This is reference to Cecil B. DeMille's spectacular remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. I mention one of the few universally acclaimed film epics of all time because with THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS,
Director Peter Jackson has staked unchallengable claim to motion picture immortality. Visually the movie is staggering in technological excellence. It seamlessly combinines sweeping photographic grandeur with superlative integration of CGI and modelwork(Claymation & Superdynamation)that humbles even the work
of IL&M, and would have made Ray HarryHausen proud.

Thematically, the story is truly grand and has raised film making--again--to the level of Mythological. Those familiar with Tolkien's literary epic--with rare exception--have been astounded by this director's monumental artistry in cinematically incarnating one of the greatest "stories" ever written.The cast(humans;creatures; monsters;)is brilliantly essayed.(Sean Astin deserves particular recognition as Frodo's "guardian" friend, SAMWISE). The complex plotting is clearly delineated;and ACTION(quest development;battles; epic romance interludes)ranges from apocalyptic to majestic. THE LORD of THE RINGS-THE TWO TOWERS magnificently continues what was begun in THE FELLOWSHIP of THE RING. Peter Jackson has created a unique work of film making that is both artistically wonderous and breath taking entertainment.It is a stupendous achievement.(10 Stars)

Incredibly, once again, Peter Jackson does the impossible
From gliding through the Misty Mountains and reliving Gandalf's battle with the Balrog to the Battle of Helm's Deep, the climactic scene of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, I think that, even though Frodo Baggin's (Elijah Wood) quest is still unfulfilled, a group of hard-working New Zealanders have once again created an epic adventure confection of a movie, full of fantasy, courage, imagination and flair. J.R.R. Tolkien would not have been disappointed.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, since is a continuing of a story, doesn't stop to introduce us to the quest or the characters from the first part, The Fellowship of the Ring. Beginning right where the first left off, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) must continue their quest to Mount Doom and destroy the evil One Ring. Hunting them done is the rascal Gollum (Andy Serkis) but promises to lead them in to Mordor secretely. In Fangorn Forest, captured hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) escape from the Orcs and are rescued by Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies), an ancient ent.

Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) enter the country of Rohan. After the miraculous return of Gandalf (Ian McKellan), the four see King Theoden (Bernard Hill). But the king isn't doing too well. He's doing practically everything his servant Grima Wormtongue (Brad Dourif) is telling him. Wormtongue is in league with Saruman (Christopher Lee) and therefore is kicked out of Rohan. Aragorn, Gandalf and Theoden must discuss Rohan's plans to counter Saruman and Sauron.

Saruman is preparing for war, as we've also seen in The Fellowship of the Ring. He has been crossing orcs with goblins, breeding the dreadful Uruk-Hai to launch against Men of Gondor and Rohan. Gondor has it's own problems holding off Sauron's evil army. It all comes down to Saruman against the country of Rohan: A war of 10,000 Uruk-Hai against hundreds of Rohan people. Can Men claim a victory against Barad-dur and Orthanc, the union of the Two Towers?

The Two Towers, for me at least, had a quicker pace and sharper sense of movement than the more-episodic Fellowship of the Ring. Peter Jackson easily presents a film that will keep your attention for the full three hours. In many ways, The Two Towers is a much livlier film than it's predecessor. It takes a deeper look into it's character's own problems, dreams and future, covering many subjects: The war for Rohan, the war for Gondor, the war for the ents, and possibly the most important, the fate of the One Ring.

If The Fellowship of the Ring was a beautiful-looking movie, The Two Towers easily surpasses it visually. With the use of a program called MASSIVE, Peter Jackson and company takes flawless computer animation and simplistically adds it to real-life to create a stunning world. The Battle of Helm's Deep is one of the most memorable scenes of all time, while it uses a fantastic blend of live-action and computer animation. I say it's already got the Best Visual Effects Oscar in the bag. Not just because of the CGI, but with the camera trickery to make the hobbits small and the great backdrops.

I am appalled by the number of reviewers saying that this isn't faithful to Tolkien's book. Everyone should know that books and film are two different media, and should be treated as such. Many things in Tolkien's story would've gone horribly wrong on screen. As Peter Jackson said, if you were to film LOTR page by page, faithful to everything, what you would get is a mess. Many don't realize that what works in a book will NOT work on film. Be happy that you actually have a LOTR movie. Many filmmakers would not have been up to transferring Tolkien's story to the big screen. Jackson did make a few unnessesary changes, but he's a brave filmmaker to actually take on LOTR and still make something this good. Quit whining.

It might need a bit more humanity, but I'd say the chemistry between characters is much more alive and vivid in The Two Towers than with The Fellowship of the Ring. The relationship shared by Gollum and Frodo, or more importantly, Gollum and Sam, works wonderfully. Aragorn trying to convince King Theoden to go to war and the characterization involving Gimli was exceptionally. The Return of the King will see a lot more of this.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers continues Tolkien's trilogy with very few missteps. It is on every count as good as the first, and in many ways, even better. It could possibly be the most sinister film ever, a banquet of monsters and beasts. It's doing so much better at the box-office than the first, and it easily surpasses it in spectacle. It's still unclear how it will do at the Oscars. Being a sequel, it might not get nominated for Best Picture. However, I'd say it has already sweeped the technical awards. It certainly deserves it.

This is the best of the three!!
Usually, the second movie in a trilogy is the weakest. It doesn't have the freshness of the first movie or the finality of the final movie. The Two Towers, however, is the exception to the rule. For lack of a better phrase, it rocks!!! The extra material included in this extended version DVD really fleshes out the movie. After you watch it you'll wonder why Peter Jackson left it out; it makes the movie complete. The fight scenes at Helm's Deep are great, and you forget that a lot of what you're seeing is computer generated. Several new characters are introduced, but you feel like you've known them all along. The best part of the movie is the addition of a Boromir/Faramir scene. Of course, I could be biased. I love Boromir (Sean Bean). This movie is a cinematic masterpiece. It's great!!!

Excellent
Not just pasting in deleted scenes, this version was assenmbled from scratch with additional material that add to the depth of this movie. THIS is the version to buy for watching at home.

You haven't seen LOTR until you've seen this!
OMG! I love this movie so much, I never put it back in the case...it's always in the dvd player. If you at all liked the original theatrical version, you HAVE to get the extended version. The addded footage completes the story and fills in character developement. And you HAVE to listen to the cast commentary. Dom and Billy are hilarious. And the bonus disks are well worth the money. Forget that...added Viggo footage makes it WELL worth it. Plus, the box is beautiful. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

The music's good. Videos...so so.
I'm one of them new U2 converts, and my first CD by them was the hits collection, so I was pretty happy when I got this music video collections.

GOOD
-The music's all top notch stuff.
-The Unforgettable Fire and New Year's Day...beautiful videos both.
-Sweetest Thing is funny, but also quite poignant if you know the story behind the song.
-It is kinda funny watching Bono dance in I Will Follow like U2 was a new wave/synthpop act (they even looked the part, the buttoned to the neck white suits...)
-Where the Streets Have No Name, what a heck of a video
-One Tree Hill
-Amazing version of Bad, from Rattle and Hum

THE BAD
-Unfortunately, the amazing version of Bad features Bono taking off his shirt...uh, I don't think I wanted to see that.
-'New wave' U2 in I Will Follow
-'Hair' U2 in With or Without You (Bono in sleeveless leather top with long ponytail, ugh)
-I kinda cringe with the whole 'Bono marching to the drums' and the 'white flag' in Sunday Bloody Sunday
-They made a video for 'Gloria' didn't they...I love that song, I want that video.

Good video compilation, but...
...not a complete one. Again, like the album of the same name, it's missing songs, it's not in chronological order, and - unlike THE BEST OF 1990-2000, it's not on DVD yet!!!!! Here's what could have been the tracklisting for the original VHS release and what should be for the DVD (and as a bonus, the UNDER A BLOOD RED SKY/LIVE AT RED ROCKS concert video should be included):

1. I Will Follow
2. Gloria
3. New Year's Day
4. Pride...In The Name Of Love (two versions)
5. The Unforgettable Fire
6. Bad (two "live" versions)
7. A Sort Of Homecoming
8. Where The Streets Have No Name
9. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
10. With Or Without You
11. Bullet The Blue Sky (LIVE)
12. One Tree Hill
13. The Sweetest Thing
14. Desire
15. When Love Comes To Town
16. Angel Of Harlem
17. All I Want Is You
UNDER A BLOOD RED SKY/LIVE AT RED ROCKS (bonus material)---------
1. Surrender
2. Seconds
3. Sunday Bloody Sunday
4. The Electric Co.
5. October
6. New Year's Day
7. I Threw A Brick Through A Window
8. A Day Without Me
9. Gloria
10. Party Girl
11. 11 O' Clock Tick Tock
12. I Will Follow
13. '40'

(by the way, the video for "Sunday Bloody Sunday" on 1980-1990 was taken from the LIVE AT RED ROCKS concert so that's why I didn't list it with the other promo videos)

DVD Must be released
This is another example of a music video that should be on DVD,
Please release it!

?????
Why isn't this available on DVD? When it is issued on DVD, they should include the unreleased Red Hill Mining Town video by Neil Jordan. Hopefully their merchandising team has thought ahead with Best of 1990-2000 and will automatically issue it on DVD as well as VHS.

Where are Gloria and Celebration?
Of course, whenever you are a "snob" who has liked something longer than most people you know, you tend to like the stuff that they all missed more than the stuff that made them jump on the bandwagon. I did not like Joshua Tree for several years because it made U2 a household name instead of a cult band. Yeah, only a couple of years later, after I hadn't listened to it a a while, I had to say, "This was the album of the '80's - well done."

But this isn't about that, it's about the vid collection. My point is that this is a collection for all of those who jumped on the bandwagon on or after Joshua Tree. For the "thousands" of us who rushed out to buy War in 1983 this collection is missing some relics. Most significantly, Gloria, the first song I heard by them on a Joliet, IL punk/new wave station, and Celebration - an early "single-only" (like Party Girl and 11 O'Clock) and never has appeared on an authorized album. It was probably the next best video to New Year's Day.

Nonetheless, any collection of U2 video's automatically gets at least 4 stars by default. Worth the money, of course, just disappointing by the lack of the relics. Maybe they will cash in by releasing a DVD with Celebration included! ... Read more

Reviews (655)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (5)

This tape is a collector's item.
This tape is more of a "must have" for Jerry Seinfeld fans or diehard SNL fans. For others, you may want to think twice before spending good money on this one. That is only because of the length, a mere 32 minutes (and that includes the video company's opening credits). The comedic skits and comedy bits are very good. I believe this originally aired in 1992, a couple of years BEFORE the TV show "Seinfeld" hit its prime. Jerry's fans will like this tape a lot. Especially the "Superman" sketch and the "game show" sketch (where the contestants answer questions, using Jerry's trademark delivery style). Again, if you're a fan of anything "Seinfeld," grab it while you can. It already seems like a collector's item to me. If you're an SNL fan, be aware that the only skits on this tape (except for the opening bit, before the monologue) are the ones in which Jerry appear. The episode's other skits are not included. For fans of both Seinfeld and SNL, definitely purchase it.

Highly enjoyable. Jerry at his Jerry-best.
This is a very enjoyable video if you are a Jerry Seinfeld fan. It starts with a sketch (4.10 minutes) with Phil Hartman playing Clinton and Dana Carvey playing Brown. They are talking about a political debate they are about to have.

Then comes Jerry Seinfeld's monologue (6.1 minutes), which consists of some material any fan will be familiar with because it is also covered in his book SEINLANGUAGE and in his stand up act I'M TELLING YOU FOR THE LAST TIME (available on VHS and DVD). My favorite part of this bit is when he talks about the water at the edge of the runway at La Guardia Airport. I know exactly what he is talking about; it is kind of freaky to be in a plane going down a runway that ends at a body of water. Jerry suggests that they put piranha in the water to make the experience even more pleasant.

"Stand Up and Win" (8.26 minutes) is the first sketch we see Jerry in. In this sketch, Jerry is the talk show host of a game that tests contestants' knowledge of commedian catch phrases. Jerry gives a question, and the guys have to answer with a "Jerry" response. Also in this sketch are: Dana Carvey, Rob Schneider, and Adam Sandler.

"Make You Think" (6.28 minutes) has Jerry as an exasperated high school teacher. His students are incredibly dense as he tries to teach them about World War II. I really enjoyed this sketch because one of my favorite SNL alumni is in it, Ellen Cleghorn. And Jerry makes a very good teacher, if only his students weren't so dumb (one student being Chris Rock, and another being an even-skinnier-than-usual David Spade).

Probably the best part of the video is "Superman" (4.32 minutes). In this sketch Jerry plays the man he will always be famous for wanting to be: The Man of Steel. Jerry as Superman is being interviewed on the radio by a radio personality played by Phil Hartman.

"Goodnight" (1.31 minutes) is just the standard "Thank you for watching, Goodnight" thing that all SNL hosts do after the show with the cast standing behind them. Apparenlty Annie Lennox was the musical guest that night, because she is in the crowd.

I'm not exactly sure what the original air date was, but it was obviously in the very early 90s - probably 1992 or 1993. And my only complaint is that I believe that they failed to include all sketches that made it into the original airing. .

Other than that, what Jerry fan could ask for more? The Patron Saint of Mr. Average playing Superman. This is why we love him.

A real classic - collector's item
If you can still get your hands on this one, do it. This features Jerry at his younger comedian days along with the talented crews at Saturday Night Live. See how his nothingness evolved into His Royal Nothingness.

Disappointing for a Seinfeld fan.
Except for the monologue, it had some pretty weak material, I thought

This is great, Seinfeld on SNL.
This video is awsome. Jerry does his act, and hosts the show. If you like SNL and Jerry this is the video to buy. In one part of the show Jerry is a teacher of a slow-witted class. Where he tries to teach history. After he gets a couple of stupid anweres he gives up on the class. Chris Farley also stars in this episode. The video is also very inexpensive. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

mel mel mel
I personally thought that this movie was hillarious. The first time i saw it i couldn't stop laughing. Yes, it's true that it's not the best Brooks film but i thought it was a great change from watching most of his recent movies. The little things in the movie crack me up, like when the Col. keeps falling off the desk. That's just classic Brooks. Brooks is one of my favorite actor/directors and i think that it might not match up to Space Balls, Young Frankenstein, and others, but, i still think it's a great movie and very entertaining.

A nice little movie
When I see the name Mel Brooks on a film title, I think bawdy gags, double-entendres and a bathroom-humor punchline. (But that's me!) This movie was a pleasant change from the usual Brooks offerings with crisp dramatic direction, a good dramatic cast (Ann Bancroft was perfect as the wife with a wandering eye) and a bitter sweet plot. Watching Mel Brooks interact with some accomplished actors, you realize the depth of his talent - he holds his own very well and has a strong screen presence. Although this is a remake of a wonderful 1930's Jack Benny film, Brooks does a great job updating the script for today's audiences. It's not Young Frankenstein or even High Anxiety but it is a nice little movie that any Brooks fan will thoroughly enjoy. As an aside, I think Mel must lay awake at night thinking of ways to poke fun at Nazis in general and Hitler in particular (think Producers, Blazing Saddles...). He does it so well, I hope he never stops.

Cure for the blues
I love this movie--I watch it whenever I feel down . It's my favorite Mel Brooks film--relatively clean and much much funnier than Space Balls or History of the World. "Sweet Georgia Brown" in Polish is great, as well as "Excuse me.Pardon me......" Young Frankenstein and The Producers are great, but for a cure for the blues, you can't beat To Be or Not to Be!

just a fun movie
Can anyone tell me if/when we will see this on DVD? Very cleverly written with excellent performances from ever single person in the film. Charles Durning was nominated for an Academy Award for his role. Durning is great in everything he does but I believe he is at his best in this.

To Be or Not to Be
Mel Brooks is off again, this time taking us to Poland as it is invaded by the Nazis. Even the title makes fun of an earlier spy movie produced during world war two.

The cast is brilliant, spearheaded by Mel Brooks himself. Its pretty much a roll call of 1970's comedy and is just brusting with Brooks's usual silliness(silliness is used in a good contex here)

My impression-Great movie, but at times doesn't measure up to some of Brook's other films. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

This 1967 film took home lots of Oscars for its fascinating drama about a Philadelphia detective (Sidney Poitier) who assists a redneck Southern sheriff (Rod Steiger) in solving a murder. A study in racism that ebbs a bit through the collective and shared need between a black man and a white man who don't want to be working together, the film continues to strike a chord today. Steiger is a mass of snarling danger, Poitier a bundle of nerves covered in class. Norman Jewison (Moonstruck) directs with a keen feeling for the cultural and social atmosphere of the setting. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Explosive Mystery-Drama
In The Heat Of The Night is an explosively powerful murder mystery that at the time of its release in 1967 was quite controversial. It deals with a black detective, Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) going to a small southern town to investigate a murder. At first he meets the usually hatred and racism from the local cops led by the gruff and racist sheriff, Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger) He is arrested and accused of the murder, but when discovered innocent, he goes on to solve the mystery and gain the respect of the sheriff. Both Mr. Poitier and Mr. Steiger are brilliant in the film. Although they do sometimes plays things over the top, the acting fits the mood. The actors make a fine team and they push one another to excellence. The supporting cast is quite strong with Lee Grant, Warren Oates and William Schallert and Norman Jewison guides the movie with his deft hand. Haskell Wexler's cinematography is sharp and Quincy Jones' soundtrack is right on. The film went on to win the Best Picture Oscar and Mr. Steiger took home the Best Actor prize.

Cinema's all-time best detective thriller.
Between the dark film noir of "The Maltese Falcon" and the creepy gorefests inspired by "The Silence of the Lambs," the detective film wasn't exactly a vital film genre. But at least one entry into the genre made a major impact during those years, and that was 1967's "In the Heat of the Night." Since it was released, much has been made of the movie's status as a powerful story of race relations during the time of segregation, but the fact is, these elements are somewhat secondary to its brilliant character studies and expertly-handled mystery investigation. This is THE detective film, and quite possibly THE police film as well.

The film begins with Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger) -- sheriff of the small town of Sparta, Mississippi -- investigating the scene where a powerful businessman has been murdered. Gillespie's deputies arrest a traveller named Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) for the murder simply on the grounds that he is black, but he turns out to be a homicide detective from Philadelphia who was just passing through. After being cleared, Tibbs is anxious to leave Sparta, but Gillespie -- in need of such an expert -- convinces him to stay and help solve the case. And from there, we have our movie.

Besides the story, the main thing "In the Heat of the Night" has going for it are the performances of its lead actors. It would have been incredibly easy to portray Tibbs as a noble black crusader, forced by his innate nobility to offer his help in the face of hatred (Poitier had played this type of good-natured gentleman in many of his other films). It would have been even easier for Gillespie to come off as a mindless racist redneck. Neither description comes anywhere close to describing the characters in this film. Virgil Tibbs is arrogant and aloof when we first meet him. He's no hero; he's a real human being who reacts to the way the Sparta police have treated him in the understandable manner of trying to get out of town as quickly as possible. He doesn't want to help them, and even when he's forced to, he lets his prejudices against Southern whites cloud his investigation (Tibbs spends the majority of the film believing one of the victim's business rivals -- a detestable racist -- to be the murderer, only to be proven wrong).

If Poitier's portrayal of Tibbs as a realistic human being rather than a flawless screen hero is admirable, then Rod Steiger's handling of the Sheriff Gillespie character is downright masterful. Bill Gillespie does not like or trust African-Americans, and he makes no secret of this. And yet the filmmakers didn't fall into a cliche trap and take care to show that even though Gillespie is a bigot, he's also a good cop. Unlike certain similar characters (and even some of his deputies in this film), Gillespie doesn't allow his prejudices to stand in the way of his investigation (a character flaw that, oddly enough, Tibbs gives in to while Gillespie does not). This is no "Bull Connor" character; this is a man who knows his job, and does it well. Tibbs and Gillespie begin the movie as two prejudiced men who begrudgingly admit to needing each other's help due to the circumstances (Gillespie's lack of a homicide expert; Tibbs' being forced to remain in an unfamiliar and hostile environment), and end it with a powerful respect for one another.

"In the Heat of the Night" won Best Picture at the 1968 Academy Awards (the first detective film to do so), and Steiger took home the Best Actor award for his career-best portrayal of Gillespie. (Because this, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," and "To Sir, With Love" were all released in the same year, Poitier was unable to consolidate enough votes for any one film and thus failed to be nominated; Norman Jewison lost Best Director to "The Graduate"'s Mike Nichols.) That perfectly sums up this film's legacy: a brilliant film with two powerful lead performances, and an all-time classic of the detective genre.

Just About as Good as a Movie Gets
In 1967 Poitier made this movie and Look Who's Coming to Dinner. Both were extremely well received and this won academy awards for best picture and best actor. Poitier's career slid downhill from here almost immediately. That his status as The Greatest Black Actor Ever hasn't diminished nearly 40 years later is a testament to his excellence and influence in the late 50's and the 60's up until '67. The movie is nearly perfect. Rod Steiger gives the performance of his career. Poitier is excellent, of course. The story is good but the movie is really about the racial tensions and two men forced to work together despite their desire not to be in the same room together. Also at hand is a backward and archaic South being slowly dragged kicking and screaming into postwar 20th century.

TENSIONS FLAIR IN THE HEAT OF THIS NIGHT!
"In The Heat of the Night" is the racially charged melodrama that made Sidney Poitier a star. Poitier is Det. Virgil Tibbs, an out of state detective assigned to investigate a racially motivated crime in the deep South. Tibbs' initial congenial good nature immediate brand him a push over by both his fellow officers and the populous. But Tibbs is a man of conviction. He immediately runs into interference from Police Chief Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger), a bigoted and pompous law man who begins to change his ways when it turns out that Virgil's hunch on the case might just turn out to be true. Both the central performances of Poitier and Steiger, and the unlikely bond and ultimate friendship that ensue, are electrifying reasons to revisit this powerful drama of the 1960s. Lee Grant, Beah Richards and Warren Oates costar. In the late 80s "In The Heat of the Night" became a prime time television series starring Caroll O'Connor. But by then much of the tempestuous and confrontational aspects of its subplot had been removed.

MGM/UA gives us a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD. Colors are severely dated with a lot of fading present throughout the print. Age related artifacts are everywhere and sometimes distract. Black levels are often weak. Pixelization is primarily responsible for an unstable image. The audio is mono and badly dated as well, strident and poorly balanced. There are no extras.

STEIGER AND POITIER AT THEIR HEIGHTS OF POWER
In 1967, Sidney Poitier again stirred the red-necks with "In the Heat of the Night", where he plays Virgil Tibbs, a competent Philadelphia cop stuck overnight in a Mississippi town. It must be 110 degrees at night. The white boys sweat like stuck pigs while Virgil is as cool as a cucumber in a Savoy Row suit. The sheriff, Rod Steiger, is discomfited by circumstances in which Tibbs is "lent" to him to solve a murder that happens to occur when he is there. In working together, layer after layer of characterization is stripped away in marvelo