Reviews (219)

Nostalgia for children of the 80's
Let's face it. Most of us who rate this movie highly do so because it invokes all those rosy-hued memories of our childhood decade. One only has to bring it up to another Gen-Y-er, or whistle a few bars of the opening theme song, to see eyes light up with recognition amid wistful sighs for a more innocent time.
It is the characters and rich settings that pull this film off.
Leads Barret Oliver and Noah Hathaway are both on the verge of being too beautiful to be boys. They display a rare depth for young actors, Oliver's over-dramatic portrayal being unbelievable only for those who are never around play-acting children. Hathaway's subtle facial expressions are riveting, and he deserves respect if for no other reason than for nearly carrying the entire movie. The breathtaking Tami Stromach as the Childlike Empress was every young girl's dream character before the era of the Disney Princess, and she played her enigmatic role with suitable poise and mystery. Who of this generation did NOT, sometime in their childhood, convene with schoolyard cronies to "play Neverending Story" and then argue about who would "be" the Empress, Atreyu, or Bastian? Obviously these characters strike a chord with kids.
The story bears a somewhat faint resemblance to the book on which it is based, though the original author was so dissapointed with the result that he did not want his name associated with the film in any way. I have read the book, and found it to be rich in imagination, depth, and dare I say it, moral psychology, much of which contrives to be muddy and confusing to very young readers. The film simplifies it rather starkly, but in a way I think is satisfying. Classic themes of identity, of an underdog's triumph, of imagination empowering reality, are clearly emphasized. Complaints that the movie ends halfway through the book are valid, but the truth is that the book almost becomes two stories, with the second half diverging wildly from the pacing and characterization of the first, and to try and fit it all into a two-hour film would have done neither film nor book proper justice.
Special effects were groundbreaking for the time, some more successful than others. I didn't realize until several years ago that Engywook and Urgle were supposed to be tiny gnome-like creatures! I always assumed, even as a child, that they were exactly what they are - normal sized people shot in skewed perspective with Atreyu. It wasn't until noticing that they used different sized props between them and Atreyu that I realized the perspective was actually deliberately forced! Ah well...it was a long way to Lord of the Rings.
A few complaints: some sets seem cramped. The scene in which the "ambassadors" from all over Fantasia approach the Ivory Tower sets it up as an enormous landmark where masses of representatives from every one of the no-doubt vast peoples are to convene, yet when we are given an internal view of the structure, we see a claustrophobic ballroom in which a handful of creatures loiter, and in spite of their various weird and fantastic appearances, we are given no more than a brief glimpse of a few. Costumes of the leads are simple and convincing, though.
Altogether, an enjoyable movie, and one I will definitely show my own children. There are some dark moments for kids not yet jaded by too much modern special-effects violence, so use caution. And please, please, spare anyone else from the appalling sequels...part II had little merit and was vaguely eerie, and part III was not only frankly awful as a film but downright blasphemous from the literary perspective.

Probably the best fantasy movie of all time!
"The Neverending Story" is a great fantasy movie from the 80s about a boy named Bastian (Barret Oliver) picturing a story unfold as he reads it from a book called "The Neverending Story." In this fantasy-filled story, a great land called Fantasia is being destroyed by a terrible enemy called the Nothing. It's up to a boy named Atreyu (Noah Hathaway) to find The Childlike Empress (Tami Stronach) and help her before Fantasia and all its habitants get wiped away completely. Atreyu is the only one that has a chance of rescuing Fantasia because he's a warrior and he doesn't know it yet, but he will make many new friends along the way, including one very special friend named Falkor that happens to be a dragon that looks kind of like a dog.

I'll leave it up to you to watch "The Neverending Story" and find out what happens, but I don't recommend watching it. I recommend buying it instead. A lot of people probably think that "The Neverending Story" is a movie that is only suit for kids, but they're wrong. I used to watch this movie with my mom all the time when I was a kid, and now I'm 21, and I still enjoy the movie just as much now, if not more than I did when I was a kid.

When you or your kids first watch "The Neverending Story," neither of you will probably remember everything about the movie, but what you will remember are the spectacular special effects and the entertaining characters such as Falkor the dragon, a HUGE rock creature, the mean wolf, a giant turtle that has a face that resembles that of E.T., and many other interesting creatures. But trust me, whoever you are, you will want to watch this movie over and over again for years to come and you will learn new things about it every time you watch it.

"The Neverending Story" not only has its special effects and plot working full force for it, it also has great acting and an unforgettable and catchy soundtrack.

"The Neverending Story" is in my opinion one of the best movies that a kid can watch for many reasons, but it's a great movie for ANYBODY of any age to watch, especially if you're a kid at heart. When I say that a movie is probably the best ever made in its genre, I don't exaggerate any, I compare it to all the others that I've seen of its type. Therefore, you know that I really do like "The Neverending Story" a lot! Purchase "The Neverending Story" for yourself or for someone you care about as soon as you can. You won't regret it!

Triumph of human Imagination
Sir Adam got it almost right! Good review, by the way.

This is an awesome story about the importance of the story. Yes, the moral lesson of "The Neverending Story" is the importance of the story itself (and by extension the importance of human imagination). If one has read some of Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" one understands this completely. It is that Native American idea of "he who does not have the stories has nothing."

The key force of destruction in this tale is "the Nothing" literally non-existence or the lack of imagination. The world in which "The Neverending Story" takes place, Fantasia, is a conglomerate universe composed of the dreams and hopes of all people. Every story ever told and every character who has ever lived exists somewhere in Fantasia. So that somewhere in Fantasia, Paul Atreides wanders a desert landscape while somewhere else in Fantasia Alice falls down the rabbit hole.

Fantasia, this conglomerate world of human dreams, is dying. The reason is that people in the real world no longer dream... of anything. It is a very modern tale about the death of the human capacity to, as John Lennon put it, IMAGINE. Without the capability to imagine anything, people become easily manipulated by forces greater than them... this is where the real villain comes in (more about that after the next paragraph).

The main protagonist, Atreyu, is the alter ego of the real life boy who is reading the story. The real life boy, therefore, is filled with imagination, brimming with it, in fact. He exists in a real world where nobody imagines anything anymore. Therefore, the alter ego (in Fantasia) of the real life boy with imagination is a young champion who is trying to save imagination itself and its conglomerate world, Fantasia.

The real villain of the story is, at least from a Christian context, Lucifer, or the Devil himself. He is the "force behind the Nothing" who is attempting the death of all imagination. This explains the creature known as the Morg. As Sir Adam mentioned in his review, this is the major adversary for Atreyu (and the real life boy who is his generator). The Morg is, in his own words, "a servant of the force behind the Nothing." The Morg is, I believe, a demon, or fallen angel servant who has somehow crossed the border into Fantasia and put on the guise of that mythical creature of destruction, the werewolf. The Wolf image is only a guise used by the demon to try to blend in with his surroundings.

Of course, we know who wins in the end. This is a very complex movie and a VERY relevant one to the times in which we are living. I see people around me who are quite literally mental cripples who are incapable of imagination. Without the stories, we are nothing.

Best fantasy of the 80s
I grew up on this movie, but I hadn't seen it in years until I bought this DVD. I view it with and adult's perception now, so it's not as good for me as it was when I was a kid. However, because I can see that kids would love it, I think it still holds up well. Heck, I still like it.

I wish this DVD had more special features, but alas it does not. What really bothered me was that it didn't have a subtitle for when Bastian shouts out a name for the Child-like Empress. I was so looking forward to finally finding out what the heck he shouts out for her name, and I get nothing. But I researched it on the net, and apparently it's "Moon Child." It does sound like that's what he's shouting. But I'm baffled that that was his mother's name (unless he changed his mind further into the film and decided to give the Empress a random name rather than his mother's).

So overall, the movie's good and the DVD is so-so. Great picture and sound quality, but no special features and no subtitle for when he shouts out the Empress' new name. But it's the only one in the series worth buying I think. Well, maybe the second one was ok.

Speaking as an adult
Having only seen this movie for the first time two years ago, I beg to differ with those who claim that it's allure is lost to those not having been exposed to it at an early age. What makes this movie significantly superior to many other such children's films is heartful, caring use of non computer generated special effects. The challenge comes with letting yourself go on the wings or backs of the several beautifully crafted creatures we share this adventure with. It's shabby chic artisty is everywhere to be found including that great Moroder new wavey score. The best film fantasy film since the 80's? Quite possibly. ... Read more

Reviews (2449)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews (50)

3 stars for format...
4 stars for the movie, 3 for the DVD.

Love the movie. Remember it from my youth. Highly recommended for young aspiring kings and princes. It's a laughter-filled romp, and Disney at his best for great storytelling, and great character development.

However, this DVD gets only three stars from me because it is in Full Screen format, when the original was widescreen. As usual in these cases, in the tiny print at the bottom of the box, the dreaded words for any 16:9 TV owner:

"This presentation has been modified from the original. It has been formatted to fit your TV screen".

You'd think by now, the studios would get a clue, ESPECIALLY Disney, and release either the original with letterbox, or put both on the disc like so many do... Does anyone here like "Pan and Scan"?

My complaint ends there. It is otherwise a wonderful film to share with your kids... I enjoyed watching it again after so many years, this time with my four-year-old son. We laughed and marvelled together over the antics and magic of the Wizard Merlin, and the adventures of young "Wart". He was ready to see it again as soon as it ended.

Another must-have Disney classic!
I remember the first time I saw this movie. I've always loved Arthurian legends, and in its usual style, Disney puts aside many historical facts in favor of a more entertaining movie, fun for the whole family. Sword in the Stone ranks up in the top 3 of my favorite Disney movies of all time. The characters are well done, Merlin is hilarious, and the artwork and colors are beautiful, making this movie great scenery for the younger kids, and great, enriching fun for the older ones.

A Classic Disney Film that is sometimes overlooked.
This may not be as iconic as some of the other films that the Walt Disney company has made, but it is definately a classic. This gives us a more lighter whimsical look on Camelot. The voice talents are great. The animation is in the classic 60s style that Disney was into at the time. The whole movie is fun. See it, it is not a masterpiece landmark of an animated film but very very good indeed.

My #2 Favorite Disney Movie!
This is my #2 favorite Disney Movie.Sleeping Beauty is My #1 favorite,but just because it is my second favorite does not mean it is not a good movie,because this movie is absolutely great Especially Merlin.He steal's the show with his hilarious Magic spells and his extream intelligence.Merlin's wise talking pet owl Archimedes (who is voiced by the same person as rabbit on winnie the pooh) also is very funny who helps Wart (Future king Arthur) during movie,especially when Merlin turns him into a fish .This is a very good movie your whole family will enjoy.

Disney's 18th Animated Masterpiece!
This 60's Disney film was the last one that Walt Disney cooperated in all the way throughout it's making and theatrical release, he died in the middle of the making of The Jungle Book. The film is really great, and highly entertaining, although not a film I would personally watch over and over. This is the story of Merlin, a kind but a bit grumpy enchanter, on a quest to teach young Arthur that intelligence and strategy are more powerful than brutal strenght, and to teach him about science and math and how to read and write so that someday he'll become the greatest king in England.

The DVD is pretty decent, although the bonus features don't really relate to the film, I have to say that they are just enough to make this DVD acceptable. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

There is greatness in film that can be discussed, dissected, and talked about late into the night. Then there is genius that is right in front of our faces--we smile at the spell it puts us into and are refreshed, and nary a word needs to be spoken. This kind of entertainment is what they used to call "movie magic," and there is loads of it in this irresistible computer animation feature. Just a picture of these bright toys on the cover of Toy Story looks intriguing, reawakening the kid in us. Filmmaker John Lasseter's shorts (namely Knickknack and Tin Toy, which can be found on the Pixar video Tiny Toy Stories) illustrate not only a technical brilliance but also a great sense of humor--one in which the pun is always intended. Lasseter thinks of himself as a storyteller first and an animator second, much like another film innovator, Walt Disney.

Lasseter's story is universal and magical: what do toys do when they're not played with? Cowboy Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Andy's favorite bedroom toy, tries to calm the other toys (some original, some classic) during a wrenching time of year--the birthday party, when newer toys may replace them. Sure enough, Space Ranger Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) is the new toy that takes over the throne. Buzz has a crucial flaw, though--he believes he's the real Buzz Lightyear, not a toy. Bright and cheerful, Toy Story is much more than a 90-minute commercial for the inevitable bonanza of Woody and Buzz toys. Lasseter further scores with perfect voice casting, including Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head and Wallace Shawn as a meek dinosaur. The director-animator won a special Oscar for "the development and inspired application of techniques that have made possible the first feature-length computer-animated film." In other words, the movie is great. --Doug Thomas

... Read more

Reviews (81)

Toy Story
1995's "Toy Story" was the first feature length film generated entirely by computers, and Pixar's first dive into theatrical films. The movie opens as young Andy turns 7. The undisputed leader of Andy's toys, a 50's cowboy doll named Woody (Tom Hanks), finds himself challenged by the new toy on the block, "space ranger" Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). When Woody's plan to get rid of Buzz backfires, the two find themselves lost in the suburbs. Woody and Buzz relize they have to work together to get back to Andy's, and they eventually become the best of friends. The humor and animation is terrific, and a great start for Pixar. This lead to several other successes, such as A Bug's Life and Finding Nemo.

Now on to "the vaults". Disney is trying to squeeze every last penny out of the cash cow, and have the two Toy Story films under lock and key, no doubt so they can sell millions of "Special Editions" in five years. Once again, Disney appalls me with their unmatched corperate greed. In conclusion, Toy Story is an excellent film and a true must-see.

The Secret Lives of Toys Revealed
"Toy Story" is a modern fairy tale created with appropriately modern computer animation. Its snappy dialougue will appeal to adult viewers, the spectacle of fantastic toys coming to life will appeal to children, and adults may wax nostalgic about the toys they enjoyed as children, several of which are featured in this movie.
The story revolves around a cowboy doll named Woody, and his imminent replacement as the favorite toy of his owner, Andy, by Andy's new Buzz Lightyear doll, a multigadgeted gift that Andy receives for his birthday.
Tom Hanks'personality shines through in the persona of Woody, and Tim Allen's voice lends the right amount of charisma to Buzz.
In the process of forming an eventual friendship, the characters go through a lot of antagonism and a lot of other real human emotions. As they prepare for life in a new home, they are imperiled by the sadistic kid next door named Sid, into whose clutches they fall by accident.
It's entertaining to watch the toys interact with each other.
Buzz gradually learns that he is simply a child's plaything and not the noble space crusader he fancied himself to be in the beginning, and Woody learns to share his special place in Andy's heart. A great supporting cast including Annie Potts as Woody's sweetheart, Bo Peep, Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head, Jim Varney as Slinky, Wallace Shawn as Rex, John Ratzenburger as Ham, and Laurie Metcalfe as Andy's mother help fuel this tale.
Seeing this innovative film made me want to buy dolls of Woody and Buzz as collector's items. But I am content with just a copy of this movie. The second installment of the "Toy Story" saga is an enhancement of the first one, and just like the first, nothing short of delightful.

Original and fun for the whole family!
This movie took me by storm when I saw it back in the summer of 1995 at the theatres and let me tell you, this movie is still one of the best computer animated movies of all time. In fact this movie shattered new grounds back in 1995 by not using drawing cel animation and instead this movie is the first of an unbroken chain of computer generated animated movies that has continued to date with "Finding Nemo".

The plot is absolutely joyful and stunningly original. The story revolves around the quiet family home of a quiet town where a boy owns numerous toys with his toddler sister. The toys however, are almost like beings of their own and are 'living' as well but stop 'moving' when the boy comes back into his room. However, a cowboy named Tim is the most popular 'toy' in the boys bedroom and is kept by the pillow almost every night until on his birthday, he gets a fancy astronaut toy named Buzz Lightyear who has many 'gizmos' and in time takes over the toy cowboys place as the most popular toy and Tim gets enormously jealous of this. However, after a botched attempt to remove Buzz, the cowboy himself along with Buzz end up in the hands of a punk teenager who takes joy in blowing up toys with firecrackers and or other means like burning, breaking, or smashing them and/or even taking them apart and re-assembling their parts to create 'mutant' toys and now the clock is ticking for Tim and Buzz to escape from the boys house before they end up being blown to molecules.

This movie is absolutely fun and original even by 1995 standards. The computer generated special effects are innovative and unbelievable especially considereing the fact that this movie came out nearly a whole decade ago. The whole tone of the movie is just fun and charming and is for the entire family. Not only that but this was what put the then newcomers Pixas right into the front seat of movie animation and would be the start of an unbroken streak of excellent movies from this dynamite team.

Computer animation wow. 16th april 2004.
The toys are great, the graphics and scenery is too. The collectables are boys mostly but the film is ace for anyone. The 3D toys look real, the colors are excellent[like finding nemo]. The talking toys are all friends, and they live with their owner andy.

Hit Me With Another One!
Give me another Toy Story and while your at it lets go for a 5th. Wow lets see...Tom Hanks and Tim Alan...Pixar and Disney...Go get it or miss out! ... Read more

Reviews (62)

Great kid's flick
This was a great movie for small children. It is also enjoyable for adults also. I found it to be very cute and entertaining! It is about Elmo, and how he gets in a fight with his friend over sharing his blanket. Well, alot of things go wrong and Elmo's blanket ends up at Grouch's trashcan. The Grouch throws the blanket down the garbage can and Elmo dives in after it, only to realize that it has been spirited to a place called Grouchland. What he dosen't know is that Grouchland is being ruled over by a guy named Huxley who has a problem with sharing things, and he has been stealing from the townsfolk, always telling them, "If I touch it...it's MINE!" Elmo has to figure out how to get his blanket back, with the help of many colorful characters. The whole movie is great for small children. It teaches them the value of friendship and sharing, which is something they need to know about at a young age. The movie also allows the children to participate in certain scenes (ex. singing along, helping Elmo to blow raspberries, helping Elmo find his way through a dark cave). Overall, this is a great movie for children, and I really did enjoy it, which is why I have to recommend it!

Wrong Message Gets Across
Is Elmo irritating? Heck yes. I wish he could use the pronoun "I." BUT he's a cuddly cute friend to a lot of toddlers out there, mine included. We don't watch Sesame Street at home, but my son must get enough Elmo from the daycare, because he knew who this movie was about when we borrowed it from the library.

The message viewers are supposed to get is about sharing - after not wanting to share his beloved blanket with his friend Zoe, Elmo loses said blanket down Oscar's trashcan and subsequently into Grouchland, where it is claimed by the colorful villian Huxley, who never shares anything.

So our little ones should be learning how to share...unfortunately, one of the more memorable songs is sung by Mandy Patinkin (Huxley) called "MINE." My little boy had never grabbed anything and yelled "Mine!" until he watched this video. He understood about Elmo's blanket, because he has one of his own that's special, but it seems he got the wrong message!

The film itself is a bit of a mixed bag of images; Vanessa Williams is stunning as the Queen of Trash, but her appearance is like a short cameo. There's a giant chicken that seems loosely related to Huxley. A conveniently placed talking vegetable. This is not the caliber of education and entertainment I've come to expect from the Children's Television Workshop, or from Henson Productions. I wouldn't recommend the video for children under 3, even if they're Elmo fans (my son was 26 months when we had the "MINE!" problem.)

Hooray for Ernie and Bert, though, our time-tested film narrators!

Excellent Movie!
My 20 month-old daughter LOVES this movie!! I can't imagine thinking it's too scary as one of the reviews I read says, ... what's scary? It's adorable! Even the villan is likable! I would highly recommend this movie to all!

Too Scary!! (even for brave kids)
This video was purchased for my 2 1/2 year old son for Christmas by his Grandma. She even bought a VHS version for her house so he could watch it at either place. The sole reason she selected this video was because of the title character. Yes, my son is a full fledged member of the ELMO fan club, like many children his age are. We soon found out that Grandma wasted her money...BIG TIME. The movie is a bit strange to say the least, and a little on the psychadelic side. The most disturbing part is when the "evil" character arrives in Grouchland via helicopter. This is when my son BEGS me to turn it off and says "It scares me, mommy." (while covering his ears) It didn't take us long to figure out that this was not the video for him!! It was heartbreaking when I saw the fear in his little face. With the typical daredevil little boy personality, we were surprised at his reaction and both Grandma and I wished we had previewed the video before we let him watch it!

A Must-Have for Elmo Fans
My 22-month-old son normally has the attention span of a gnat, but he will gladly sit through this entire movie again and again. He loves the songs, the colors, the action, and of course, he loves Elmo. If you have a toddler or preschooler who has an affinity for the little furry red guy, this movie is a must-have! ... Read more

Description

Set in the 22nd century,"Matrix"tells of a computer hacker (Reeves) who joins a group of underground insurgents fighting the vast and powerful computers who now rule the earth.The computers are powered by human beings... ... Read more

Reviews (2882)

What is the Matrix?
The Matrix will go down in film history books as "The film that changed cinema forever". True, films have done that before: (Jaws, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Pulp Fiction et al) but the Matrix is different in that not only did it change audience's expectations of action cinema but also impacted on countless movies to date.

The film itself is the epitome of cool that stands out from the slew of unimaginative science fiction that Hollywood reels out, and with Keanu Reeves and Carrie Anne Moss making an unlikely duo in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by artificially intelligent machines, the film finds itself worlds away from admittedly second-rate sci fi cinema.

You could argue, as some critics did, that the film's plot is simply an excuse to hang cool effects on, but the premise slowly shapes into such an intricate plot, where machines have taken over the world (a popular idea for sci fi films, with this having similarities to Terminator 2) and then the small amount of snotty critics are silenced. What the Wachowski brothers have done is so imaginative that no film has ever come close to its intricacies and futuristic ideas. Add hints and nudges from Vertigo, classic Western films and Kung-fu karate films into the story and the amazing journey is made even more fascinating and involving.

The visuals incorporated throughout the story are absolutely amazing; with the "flow-mo" being the coolest visual effect those effects boffins have done since that water tentacle flowed through air in The Abyss. Imitated to death, the scene where Keanu's character Neo dodges bullets is nonetheless the pinnacle of uber-coolness. With thought provoking, mind-bending lines like: "It's the smell, if there is such a thing"; the film's script is peppered with fascinating lines concerning the very nature of "what is real?" Hence the clever advertising campaign for the movie's release: "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself".

The Matrix has indeed changed cinema. Regardless, it's a great film, loaded to the retinas with out- of- this-world effects, great villians (Agent Smith!), great action set-pieces and awesome stunts from martial arts expert Wu Ping. And with the DVD (awesome stuff, everyone has to own this disc) and upcoming sequel in progress- The Matrix Reloaded, the Matrix is a film that not only has affected filmgoers everywhere, but has also leaked into the fan boy culture of the movie world. To quote Neo: "Whoa".

A dynamic and intelligent triumph
A stunning blend of action and science fiction, "The Matrix" tells the tale of a computer programmer who stumbles into an alternate world that forever changes his perception of reality. There's a reason why "The Matrix" won a pile of awards (and made a pile of money at the box office). A masterpiece of technical wizardry and storytelling skill, this is one of those memorable films that succeeds on every one of its many ambitious levels.

Fans and critics have raved about the film's mind-blowing special effects and fight scenes, but they are only part of the film's excellence. The superb performances of the actors are equally important. Particularly noteworthy is Laurence Fishburne's as Morpheus--his is a performance of controlled but passionate intensity. And Carrie-Anne Moss' performance as Trinity brings to the film a tenderness and humanity which greatly complement the high-tech milieu.

"The Matrix" is a wonderfully literate film whose dialogue includes references from Greek mythology, the Bible, Christian theology, and English literature. And one of the central themes of the film--the defiant resistance to an enslaving force--is one that can be found in many of the world's great works of literature. Watch "The Matrix," and then read the 1845 classic "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave"--you'll appreciate the film even more.

very good
very good action, acting, plot, and dvd. much better than the dissapointing reloaded. haven't seen revolutions.

"Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?"
After hearing so many good things about this film, I was actually underwhelmed the first time I saw it. I already new the basic premise so it wasn't a surprise to me. It wasn't until the SECOND time I saw it that it really hit me. Very well written, with some philosophical underpinnings hidden throughout, the Matrix is a smart sci-fi action film -- but not TOO smart: that would have to wait until The Matrix Reloaded (which is so dense it's hard to understand what's going on with just one viewing).

mind-blowing special effects
LOVE ALL 3 MOVIES SO DAMM MUCH. ALL HATES GO AWAY AND YOU'RE SO STUPID AND UGLY CAN'T WATCH THESE MOVIES. BYE BYEEEE!!!!! ... Read more

Reviews (143)

THE BEST MARS MOVIE
A lot of people are confusing this very satisfying sci-fi action adventure with the laughably pretentious, boring, goofy, message-laden atrocity MISSION TO MARS! The two mars-themed films couldn't be further apart.

It's the middle of the 21st century and a dying earth reaches out to colonize Mars as a last hope. Val Kilmer, Carrie-Anne Moss (The Matrix), Benjamin Bratt, Tom Sizemore and Terrence Stamp represent all humankind in the first landing on the mysterious red planet. Also on board is the extraordinary, multifunctional robo-assistant AMEE.

But, wouldn't you know it, a malfunction has forced her into a relentless killing-machine mode hell-bent on destroying the crew. And that's not all the crew must deal with; barren Mars has breathable oxygen and -- other inhabitants. Like the poster says: "They didn't find life on mars. It found them."

This somewhat by-the-numbers adventure is saved because it's looks great (the sets, locations and props are always credible) and the action never lets up. The striking Martian landscape is rendered vast and real and, yes, red. Recommended. (Color, Widescreen, Dolby Surround, 107 Minutes, Rated PG-13)

A golden opportunity wasted.
I'm a huge science fiction fan. Always have been. And I've always loved stories set on Mars, for some reason.

So why can't Hollywood make a decent movie about Mars?

The latest flaccid attempt, "Red Planet", is a joyless ride through outer space that brings out every cliche in the book and pastes them together with little coherence or seeming forethought. Characters get into fights for no reason; the plot is told through flashbacks and voiceovers (the lazy man's way to make a film--why bother having people act when you can simply TELL the audience what's going on?); and the most basic laws of science are simply ignored.

Here's a note to the director and screenwriters: flashbacks are not necessary to tell a good story. If you'd simply shown the scenes in order, you'd have made the characters ten times more interesting.

The story, such as it is, goes like this: In the year 2057, humanity has at last overtaxed the natural resources on Earth. Desperate for a solution, we seed Mars with genetically taiored algae to generate oxygen so we can colonize the planet. Suddenly, our remote monitoring of Mars goes quiet, so a manned mission has to be assembled to check it out.

Commanded by Navy Commander Kate Bowman (Carrie-Anne Moss), things go wrong for the crew of Mars-1 almost as soon as they enter Mars orbit. A freakish solar flare fries the ship's electronics, forcing an emergency evacuation to the surface of Mars. This sequence is terrific and exciting, especially the crash landing, which had members of the audience gasping for breath. Things get worse for Our Heroes, though; the ship's self-directed robot navigator, AMEE, has gone into lethal "military mode" and begins stalking the stranded astronauts, picking them off one by one.

Unfortunately, this movie goes straight downhill from there. Despite the presence of stars like Val Kilmer (as self-described "space janitor" Robby Gallagher and Terence Stamp as scientist-cum-philospher Dr. Chantilas, "Red Planet" goes nowhere fast. When one of the astronauts is critically injured during the landing and insists on being left behind, do any of the others try to talk him out of it? Do they even stand around and say goodbye to him? With the exception of Val Kilmer's Gallagher, the answer is nope--they just take off. Yeah, right--you just spent the last six months with this guy and you're just going to bail on him. Some friends.

By the time the final credits rolled, I found myself just not caring about the stupid, cliched plot or the stock characters or the numbskull "science" that a fifth-grader could refute. As an example, the film's explanation for what happened to the algae is in direct contradiction with even basic biochemistry.

Didn't the filmmakers care? 'Cause it sure looks like they didn't even try. As Andy Griffith used to say, "I'm mighty disappointed."

-terry-

MAROONED AND MAUDLIN
RED PLANET has some visually stunning effects, and that's about it. The plot is so contrived and incoherent, one wonders what the movie is all about. The bookend narration by Carrie Ann Moss sounds like something a high schooler would write in a creative writing class, and the performances are all average. Not one performance stands out, and that's a shame with such a great cast, although I've failed to see how Val Kilmer has even sustained a career. Benjamin Bratt is annoying; Terence Stamp is like Peter Cushing on Valium, and the usually impressive Simon Baker (TV's Guardian) is saddled with a thankless role as a "traitor" without any underlying premise.
RED PLANET is ultimately a yawner. It seems like it takes forever to get to the movie's point, and the Martian bugs are neat, but what in the heck are they doing?
Visual eye candy but a lightweight concoction otherwise.

Yawn...how many more times can they make the same movie?
If you've seen any of the following films, then don't waste your time with "Red Planet":

1. Armageddon
2. The Core
3. Apollo 13
4. Independence Day
5. Any "beat the clock & save the planet/city" sci-fi flick made since 1990 that I didn't bother watching.

Out of all of these, "Apollo 13" is the best, simply because it's a true story that was made with emotional honesty and a compelling narrative.

Here's everything you need to know about "Red Planet":

-the best actor (Terrence Stamp) the dies first
-Val Kilmer and Carrie-Ann Moss are in it
-plot of "Apollo 13" + wonky environmental pop-science + visuals from "2001" + Mars + a funky robot who goes all "HAL" = "Red Planet"

Plot synopsis: In an attempt to terraform Mars because Earth is so polluted, the "international community" has been seeding Mars with large algae mats to make its atmosphere more human-friendly. Something goes wrong, and a team is dispatched to Mars to investigate. As they enter Mars' orbit, the ship is exposed to a large solar flare, which fries much of its circuitry. Most of the crew go to the Mars surface, with the pilot staying on-board to try to save the ship. The crew jettisons the landing gear and lands, fatally injuring the surgeon/philosopher. The survivors march to a nearby base previously set up by un-manned missions. The base is kaput. One survivor kills another without the others knowing it. They discover that they can breathe the air. The pilot tells them that if they can get to an old unmanned rover several hours away, they can make it back to the ship. Along the way, one survivor goes nuts and is killed by a damaged robot navigator (jettisoned with the landing gear) and some bugs. The biogeneticist figures out why the air is breathable and kills himself before the bugs can eat him. Meanwhile, the pilot has repaired the ship. The lone survivor gets to the rover, fights the robot, steals its battery, and makes it back to the ship. End of story.

There. In 15 sentences (including "end of story"), I have told you THE WHOLE STUPID MOVIE. That's it. There's nothing else to know about this movie.

The premise of the conflict is wholly absurd and serves as the engine of a barely-mediocre flick. In order to make near-future sci-fi compelling. the science must be relatively sound. So here are the two big science stinkers (leaving aside the whole atmosphere issue) that make this movie wholly implausible:

1. There are things called circuit breakers and other safety devices to prevent power surges from frying stuff. All satellites and space equipment using solar panels have these devices and have survived many many solar flares. Why would they build a ship without these precautions?

2. None of the Mars survivors consumed water once they reached the surface. With demanding physical activity and little-to-no atmospheric moisture, they would have died of dehydration sometime during the second march, if not on the first day.

Don't waste your time with this movie. Rent something good. Heck, if you just have to see bad sci-fi, watch "Jason X" - the visuals are just as good, and you'll be much more entertained.

This movie gets 2 stars for graphical competence and having Terence Stamp utter a few lines.

Can I have my money back?

Good flick, just needs some characters
I am a SF junkie and will watch just about anything - even if I don't like it. Red Planet - With Carrie Moss, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore and Terrance Stamp - isn't in that category but it teeters at times.

The special effects are not bad.

The science IS bad, and inconsistant, but since this is a movie and not a documentary, so I suppose that's allowable.

I would have loved to see more Terrance Stamp.

The relationships between the crew are not well explained and take unexpected turns here and there. The flashback- oh yeah - this happened - scene to explain the Kilmer-Moss relationship irritated me. Why on earth (or Mars) not show it as it happened - then we might all understand the situation. At times, I was wondering "Why are they acting like this?"

Not bad - SF fans will still like it - keep expectations low.

Mike ... Read more

Description

In this enchanting film adaptation of J.K. Rowling's delightful bestseller, Harry Potter learns on his 11th birthday that he is the orphaned son of two powerful wizards and posseses magical powers of his own. At Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Harry embarks on the adventure of a lifetime. He learns the high-flying sport Quidditch and plays a thrilling game with living chess pieces on his way to face a Dark Wizard bent on destroying him. For the most extraordinary adventure, see you on Platform 9 3/4! ... Read more

Reviews (1789)

Video Excellentus!
In 2001, two fall blockbusters involving witchcraft and wizards reached the theatres. Unfortunately, I don't have a wand with which to say "Review autoscriptus!" or some snowy owls on one-day delivery standby so I have to do this with my fingers (sigh) and create words of wonder on the movie I liked better.

While I haven't read J.K. Rowling's books, it must have been chock full of detail I don't know of the movie:book accuracy ratio, but for director Chris Columbus to fit it in two and-a-half hours, it must have been a book spectacularis.

Witches and wizards were persecuted throughout the ages, regarded as threats more than freaks as Harry's aunt did her sister, and more often than not, burned at the stake. With Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the song remains the same, only this time, his uncle, aunt, and obnoxious cousin treat him contemptuously, as if he's an unwanted burden. Who knows how his life would have been without the flurry of invitations to Hogwarts School courtesy of one-day owl delivery? Fortunately, giant Rubeas Hagrid comes crashing to the rescue. The real adventure begins from there.

Daniel Radcliffe gives a performance competentus and credibilis as the totally likeable title character. Of the troika of main characters, he's the most human. However, Emma Watson as the resourceful and well-read Hermione Granger steals the show wands aloft. Despite being snooty and knowing who she is, she proves herself to be a cut above others in classes (see her frantically waving on Professor Snape to call on her, and her proficient wand handling). She does have feelings, though, as she angrily stomps past through Weasley, who fed up with her conceit, was verbally cutting her down a peg to Harry, finishing with "No wonder she doesn't have any friends." If Hermione's character leads more children to flip pages instead of flipping bad guys on their PS2's or X-Box's, so much the better. Rupert Grint, as Ron Weasley, makes a good foil for both his counterparts, being a fellow explorer and Christmas holiday companion with Harry or someone for Hermione to impart knowledge.

The other performer to whom this show belongs to is veteran actor Robbie Coltrane as the friendly giant gameskeeper Rubeas Hagrid. After Krull, Nuns On The Run, two James Bond movies, and From Hell among others, he has finally become a recognizable face on American shores. American audiences should have warmed up to this talented performer earlier, and that's something I should've said.

As for other veteran actors, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, and Zoe Wanamaker do wonders as the professors of Hogwarts, but Alan Rickman turns in a solid performance as the sinister Professor Snape, who doesn't seem to like Harry all that much.

People, (or should that be muggles?) this is one movie specialus. The special effects, while spectacular, do not detract from the character development or dialogue, like certain films I'm not going to name. They merely support the magic whether it's the entrance to the square or the action scenes, such as the Quidditch match.

Well, review terminatus, and see you at the theatres for the Chamber of Secrets

I didn't want it to end!
Though by no means the only example of the subject, Joanne Rowling's imaginative book about an eleven year old boy discovering his new-found talent for magic, reintroduced the age-old genre of the fairy story to modern children. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" benefits enormously from modern CGI effects to bring to life a film which will entertain everyone. The basic story concerns an orphaned boy living with his appalling cousins who are determined that he should not find out that he was actually born a wizard. Through outside help from the magical community, he finds himself enrolled at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and the fun starts.

Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman help to back up the principal child stars and give this film some real presence. Daniel Radcliffe is rather flat as Harry Potter and Emma Watson, as the precocious Hermione Granger, is excessively theatrical and both are shaded by Rupert Grint who is excellent in the role of their cynical friend, Ron Weazley. No doubt all the child actors will improve with time, given that they stay with the series. At the moment they are still finding their feet.

There are plenty of special effects to amaze and amuse and I can't imagine how such a film could have been made without them. The cinematography by John Seale, ACS, is excellent and the whole film has a very pleasing look. The two-disc DVD set has many extras, some of which seem to require an intimate knowledge of magic to access.

On the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I wait with baited breath for the sequels. It is not a five star film; I did not expect it to be, but it certainly rates considerable merit. I have yet to figure out why WB chose to release it as anything other than "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", since that is both the title of the original book and the title of the film in any other market than the US. Apart from a few little blemishes, an excellent movie. Kids will give it five stars; parents will enjoy it, too. Thoroughly recommended.

"A rather BIG surprise"
When Harry Potter came to the big screen, I did NOT go to see it. I was of firm standing that it was kidd stuff. Then, a few weeks ago, the people on abc2 news had it on as a "movie event". I figured since it was free, why not watch it? Needless to say, I was realllyyy surprised. I sat, spellbound through ALL commercial breaks, so I would'ent miss any of the story. I've never read a single book in the series, so I can say with out them, this movie still can stand on it's own. P.S. John Williams' score is amazeing!!!! P.S.S. Still, I will say that "The Lord of the Rings" are much better movies, and if you LIKE Harry Potter, You'll LOVE them.

The Best Movie of 2001
Harry Potter is a great movie that the whole family can sit down and enjoy. And the Harry Potter series has a big future. This is the first one in the series that introduced the school of withcraft and wizardry that Harry Potter would be going to. It's called Hogwartz. It introduces many characters such as Harry himself, Ron Weasley who becomes Harry's friend, Hermione Granger who also becomes Harry's friend, Draco Malfoy who is Harry's enemy, Albus Dumbledore who is the headmaster of Hogwartz and many more. Get your kids, get this movie and watch it. Trust me your going to love it. It's great fun really. Then when your done this one go to the store and get Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and then see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in theatres.
10/10
Rated PG for Some Scary Moments and Mild Language.

helloo! its the best!
harry potter is the BEST series in the world and kj rowling is sooo talented!!! there's a reason why harry potter's so popular! get THEM ALL ... Read more

Reviews (499)

Move over Buffy
Wesley Snipes is every vampire's worst nightmare in the fantastic comic book actioner "Blade". Legendary "Day-Walker" Blade (Wesley Snipes) uses his lethal skills in his quest to exterminate the vampire underworld from the face of the earth. When the rogue vampire Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) plots a vampire uprising against all humans, humanity's only hope for survival lies in the tortured vampire hunter Blade. Based on the Marvel Comics hero, "Blade" is an exciting, action-packed comic book film that contains extreme action and rich characters. The storyline moves quite fast and the action sequences are fierce and quite dazzling. Wesley Snipes and Stephen Dorff deliver some wildly effective performances. The cast also includes N'Bushe Wright, Donal Logue, Udo Keir, Traci Lords and Kris Kristofferson.

New Line gives "Blade" an outstanding "Platinum Edition" presentation. The film is presented in its original 2.35:1 widescreen format. The DVD has a fine video transfer with rich colors and excellent sharpness. The 5.1 Dolby Digital sound is truly clear with amazing surround effects. Its supplemental features include a detailed audio commentary by cast and crew, deleted scenes, behind-the-scene featurettes, production designs and DVD-ROM extras. With such winning presentation and great supplements, "Blade" earns a solid "B+".

Blade kicks butt
Finally a mainstream vampire flick that is cool and delivers the action. Right away it is established that this is going to be different from every other vamp. movie you've seen before. I don't mind big budget Hollywood productions as long as they are somewhat creative with the storyline, don't bore me with endless dialog/build up and provide lots of action and fun. Blade was a real surprise, as I wasn't expecting much but it really blew me away with spectacular visuals, chase scenes that get your heart racing, a badass hero (Snipes' character Blade), stunning action and an overall ultra sleek feel with tight pacing and a real lack of dullness (how refreshing). The gory death scenes are a nice treat as well, this is the advantage with cg effects: you can do pretty much anything if you can imagine it. Villains are sliced to pieces and spray geysers of blood similar to Shogun Assassin (another cool movie people should check out).

Wesley Snipes is not one of my favorite actors but he did a great job playing the role of a dark and mysterious warrior, he is almost bounty hunter like. Blade is a major vampire hunter, and has a really deadly arsenal of weapons, mainly consisting of a big sword that he uses to slash vamps. Blade prowls the city streets and underworld at night seeking the growing number of vampires that are planning to rule the earth. His strength and skills are heightened because of his genetics- he is part vampire. This idea works well for me, you have to be able to explain how he is able to be so successful as a hunter, how he can identify the vamps and over power them.
Blade's strength is also his weakness though, he must take a syrum that controls his thirst for blood. This is gonna tie into the story for a nice little twist toward the end. Anyone who liked Interview With the Vampire will enjoy it.

Along with a new found female companion, Blade is lured into the final confrontation that will determine the fate of the world. Nothing new here, but the big showdown is well done and holds your attention till' the cliffhanger climax. When these vampires die they puff up and explode,
spraying blood and guts into the air. This alone is worth seeing the film.

I've seen a few vampire movies, and I would have to say that Blade easily beats "John Carpenter's Vampires" and "Fright Night" which are two of the most popular ones, but it's not a fair fight since Blade is more action than horror.

Blade is a movie that oozes coolness, I would describe it as a mix of the Batman films, The Matrix, Highlander, Fist of the North Star, and From Dusk Till Dawn. I highly recommend it.

Marvel was still in bankruptcy proceedings..
In 1998, when Amen Ra (Wesley's production company) and New Line agreed to do this first Marvel Movie, they had limited budget, resources, and time to do it. So the whole thing was shot in Europe and from start to finish, it'a a very cheap looking movie. Lots of fake CGi effects, guns going off everywhere, and somewhere there is supposed to be a plot here (but there isn't). I don't think it even had a script. They only made two sequals to this movie because each film cost only $1.98 to produce. Marvel and New Line do not mix.

From The Comics to The Screen -- Vampires Beware!
This is a pretty good film but is not as good as the Buffy television series.

The world is secretly under the control of vampires (much like in the Vampirella stories). Blade was born of a woman who was dying from vampire bite. Thus he has many of the vampire advantages without the limitations. He has teamed up with Kris Kristofferson who was also a vampire hunter and has weapon making skills. Together they are waging a war against the vampires.

The vampires are led by a council of vampire family heads. There are two types of vampires: those born as vampires and those turned from humans by a bite. The leader of the made vampires is tired of ruling from behind the scenes and is pushing for vampires to take overt control. The ancient leaders are very wary of such actions. But the made vampire has a plan for vampiric triumph.

Some ancient vampire texts hold amazing secrets but the secret of translation has been lost long ago. Computers have made it possible to learn these secrets a la Jennie Calendar. The text reveals the existence of an ancient vampire device that can bring about the Blood God. It is to this end that the head of the made vampires is striving. With the sacrifice of the heads of the ancient vampire houses, he can become indestructible. His plans are carried out and Blade must find a way to defeat him.

While this movie has the trappings of vampires and vampire slayers, it is really an action flick with the emphasis on Blade's fighting style. There really are some very good moves here. The rest of the film is pretty good but not excellent.

I am usually pretty indifferent to most of Snipe's movies but he seems to be well-cast in this role. There are many good reasons to see this film but it is on the violent and gory side so be warned.

Nice!
This is the greatest comic adaptation ever made. It has action, great actors, sript, and well made plot. A must see for all action fans and comic book fans! ... Read more

Reviews (1112)

Not very original
I seriously think that if this movie did not star the voices of Eddie Murphy, John Lithgow, Mike Myers, and Cameron Diaz, it would have only about a quarter of the popularity and hype it does have. This is because, while Shrek is very funny and enjoyable, the storyline is weak. In fact, it's extremely predictable. Before half the movie was over I had it figured out that Princess Fiona turns into an ogre after sunset, and I'm sure that everyone, before even seeing the film, knew she and Shrek would end up together. OK, here's the story: Shrek, shunned for his ugliness, lives on his lonely swamp, and is befriended by a very funny but also very annoying talking donkey. Lord Farquaad banishes all fairy tale characters from his kingdom and onto Shrek's swamp. Shrek goes to him to straighten it out, and is sent on a quest to rescue Princess Fiona, whom Farquaad needs to marry to be titled King. Of course, on the way back to the castle, Fiona and Shrek fall in love, and the rest is like, "Well, duh!" We learn that when Fiona was young, a witch cast a spell on her to turn into an ogre every night. We never find out why, which I consider one of the major flaws with this plot. I mean, come on, witches don't just go turning people into nocturnal ogres for no apparent reason! Also, she says to Donkey that she can't stay with Shrek because princesses are supposed to be beautiful. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Shrek is ALWAYS ugly. He can't be picky. He would still probably love her even if he knew her secret. I guess what the princess said is plausible, when you consider that she wants to marry Farquaad because he's her true love and that would break the spell, but I really don't know. She's never even seen this guy, shouldn't she be able to tell he's not gonna be her true love? Anyway, as far as humor, voice talent, and music go, Shrek is a great movie. But those wanting a really original plot that makes sense from almost any viewpoint may be disappointed. It's not especially creative. The DVD extras, I should add, are good, particularly the technical goofs. In the great Shrek VS Monsters, Inc war, I would definitely say that while I enjoyed both movies, Monsters is better.

An Excellent Animated Treat
Adults will enjoy this movie with it's vast array of stars. With humorous performances by Mike Myers as the voice of Shrek, Eddie Murphy as The Donkey, Cameron Diaz as Princess Fiona, John Lithgow as Lord Farquad and the supporting cast of "Fairy Tale Things" this movie was truly a funny movie. It begins with the introduction of Shrek, an enormous green ogre who lives alone in a swamp. Then through a twist of fate, Eddie Murphy as the hilarious talking donkey enters Shrek's life as his un-invited companion. Shrek then finds his swamp bombarded with "Fairy Tale Things", including a decapitated Gingerbread Man as well as the Three Blind Mice and Three Little Pigs and hundreds of other creatures who were forced onto Shrek's property by the evil Lord Farquad. Shrek then begins a journey to see Lord Farquad to remove the creatures from his property, who sends him on a journey to rescue the beautiful Princess Fiona from the fiery dragon to be his bride so that he may become King. The action is non-stop as are the laughs in this movie. The ending has the usual twist with hilarious outakes and a kareoke scene by all the characters at the end. Overall, this film is a must-see for children and adults alike.

im makin' waffels
why the hell does everyone say that??
good movie dont see shrek 2 looks dumb

shrek is cool
shrek is a funny movie. the funniest thing in this movie is shrek's friend {or not} that he meets in his swamp{were shrek lives}. once i saw this movie i was hoping there would be a shrek 2 and now there is. in shrek farquad the very evil and short king sends shrek on a quest to find princess fiona a princess trapped in a castle with a fire breathing dragon gaurding her. shrek saves her and has to go bak i would tell more of this movie but i would give away the fun of it

Really apart of what you've seen
This is a must-see. And it's not a easy way to define this film. This is for everyone, no matter of your sex, your age, your attitude to fairy tales, to cartoons or to music. "Shrek" has it to surprise and to enjoy each and everyone of your family or even none of your relatives.

It is easy to see with every kind of company. It's sweet, it's bitter. It's plenty of laugh and plenty of love. Music is really a big part of the film and every tune is perfect. I don't know of anybody who dislike this film. Extremely enjoyable. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

Superman 4! Wish there were more!
Okay, so this movie is not considered the best out of all the Superman movies, but it still packs enough action and excitement to keep Superman fans entertained. Christopher Reeve once again delivers a knock-out performace as the Man of Steel in this final outing. He even helped write the provocative theme of nuclear disarmament that could have made this the best out of the series, had it not been for the 30 minutes that were cut out. Despite this, it is a compelling plot that is further enhanced by the return of Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder and the rest of the classic cast from the original Superman movie! They have such wonderful chemistry that it's easy to look past any holes in the plot. This movie has been cleaned up for the DVD and VHS release and I can definitely tell a difference from my original video that I bought a few years back. The great performaces from the returning cast and the cool fight scene on the moon definetly make this better than a lot of other comic book movies!

Better Than 3, But Still....
Superman IV, released 4 years after the debacle that was Superman III, is not a great movie. This once grand, classy series was brought to a grinding halt with Part 3. Part 4 doesn't do much to try to salvage it. It is, however, better than 3. This time out, Superman plans on ridding the world of nuclear weapons. At the same time, evil villain Lex Luthor has escaped prison, with help from his newphew Lenny, and has created a superhero of his own named Nuclear Man. Nuclear Man's job is, of course, destroy Superman. Christopher Reeve, once again, is the anchor of this film. It's sad that he isn't given better material. However, he did help out with this one's story. It was definitley better than Part 3's lame plot. Gene Hackman as Lex is marvelous as always. All our other favorites also return. Margot Kidder was given a much better part than 3. Her Lois Lane is back in the action. There's even a nice flying sequence between her and Superman that is reminiscent of the one they took in the 1978 original. Clocking in at only 90 minutes, it doesn't have that long blockbuster epic feel to it that the others had. It's too short. Many of the flying scenes looked downright cheesy. Did director Sidney J. Furie know what he was doing?!. I don't think so. Poor Jon Cryer. He brings nothing to the role of Lenny, Lexs' dimbulb nephew. All in all, this was a pretty disappointing effort. Better than 3, but still mediocre at best. The Quest For Peace?. How about The Quest For A Good Script?.

The Quest For More
After running the series into the ground, with the almost cartoonish Superman III, it looked as if Superman were finally defeated by his greatest enemy...poor box office reciepts. But then, a few years later, star Christopher Reeve came up with an idea for one last adventure. Just like the last two sequels though, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, didn't turn out as good as it could have.

After a poor test screening, it was decided that more than 35 minutes of footage would be edited out, leaving us with a very poorly edited film---filled with obvious plot holes that left some viewers scratching their heads. Another problem was the fact that the effects budget was slashed and boy does it show. The Salkinds refused to sell the equipment that made Reeve "fly" so well in the past, to the new producers, which also hurt the look of the film...At least original cast members Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman were both recruited to return to active duty.

Made at a time when President Reagan challenged Gorbachev to tear down that wall, the film takes a look at how our hero might deal with a still raging cold war. Superman (Reeve) is asked by a young boy to, "rid the world of all nuclear weapons" Troubled that Earth may suffer the same fate as Krypton's, he agrees, and for a time our world is safe. Lex Luthor (Hackman) has other plans. He decides to create a Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow) to defeat Superman once and for all, while rearming the world for his own financial gain.

It's a shame that the film has so many problems. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the uncut version of the film anyway, and then let the chips fall where they may. Directed by Sidney J. Furie, Superman IV gets higher marks than third movie, because of Reeve and the return of Hackman. Both actors elevate the film in ways that Richard Pryor could not in Superman III.

The theatrical trailer is the DVD's only extra. With the relaunch of the franchise taking forever, let's see both Richard Donner's version of Superman II, and Superman IV uncut.

More watchable than part 3 but still bad
Compared to Superman 1 and 2, part 4 is lame and disapointing. It's still better than part 3 though. Part 3 had Superman against these rich snobs and the only good part was Superman vs bad Superman. Part 4 at least tried to make a villain worthy of going against Superman. He's still very weak compared to the 3 villains from Part 2 that had Superman's powers. In this Lex Luther basically says "I have an idea lets make someone who has Superman's powers". So they create this super blonde who is powered by the sun and who looks like he just came from a model shoot.

The special effects are B-Movie like and don't help the movie much either. Plus on top of it the movie is directed like a day time soap opera and seems like one too. It even has a date scene where Superman has to try and have a date with Lois Lane and Lacy Warfield (Mariel Hemingway) at the same time. That's lame and doesn't give Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder a chance to form any of the great chemestry that they had in the first 2. Just like in part 3 Lois is used as just a side character basically. All the actors still try hard, especially Gene Hackman. They just didn't have a good script to work with. It's too bad that Christopher Reeve can't do another with a bettter story and direction to make up for this one.

POOR END TO WHAT STARTED A GREAT SERIES.
By far out of story, Superman 4 The Quest for Peace was the weakest of the four films. The main problem with Superman 4 was the dramatic cutting made on the movie. The original running time was 134 mins, but it was knocked down to a disappointing 90 mins cause the 134 min version didn't do to well in a screening. It possible that a screening never took place and the story was never actually finished so they made did with what they had.

Cause of its terrible cuts, the story appears to jump and some voice overs can be seen in the film. I beleive that if Superman 4 remained at its 134 min version, Superman 4 would have been a far greater success. According to film resources the extra footage no longer exists. But there was budget restrictions on Superman 4 which is why it was totally filmed at Pinewood Studios.

Superman 4 The Quest for Peace actually feels more like a TV movie than an epic blockbuster.

A poor end to what started out as a great series of films. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Unique, but good
This movie is very unique, which is good. It gets boring watching the same Godzilla from Japan. Godzilla is much more flexible in this film. Don't listen to anybody who says this movie is a waste of time, because they're crazy.

Ehh....
While this is a moderately good monster movie, this is a horrible Godzilla movie. It's virtually identical to "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms". And another thing that bugs me about this movie is the total lack of research. In the film, the AH-64 Apache helicopter is shown as a one-man chopper with guns on either side of the cockpit. The real AH-64 is a two-man chopper with one machine gun mounted UNDER the cockpit. Also, the creature's claws are all wrong. Lizard claws are flat on the bottom, whereas the creature's are rounded, like birds. And whoever came up with that "within a year, these 200 babies could become 40,000" line should watch the movie again. The first one wasn't able to lay eggs until it was at least thiry years old. Thirty years seems like planty of time to hunt down and destroy those hatchlings. ... Read more

Reviews (283)

Real animation.
As a sequel to the Alien trilogy, the general consensus is that 'Alien Resurrection' scraps the bottom of the barrel. It goes for melodramatic impact with predictable deaths and corny action movie one-liners. A massive setback for a highly acclaimed sequence of films but not a bad adaption of a comic book series. Indeed the premise behind 'Resurrection' seems to have been lifted mostly from the Dark Horse comic's 'Alien' stories. The characters are richly 2-dimensional. Bad acting? When you're playing a comic-book character, there's no need to wander through the depths of human emotion, just play it as it is on the page. Jean-Pierre Jeunet's style in his French language films do portray a highly animated sense of reality and much of the set designs and action sequences in 'Alien Resurrection' do seem to have been directly influenced by the comic stories. The previous films worked hard on displaying an imaginable sci-fi future, where human emotion and interaction still managed to take precedence over technology. In 'Resurrection' we are blasted with endless amounts of explosions and gore, the only tinge of humanity coming from an androyid (ironically played by the rather 'wooden' Winona Ryder).

I would love to see Jeunet tackle the sci-fi genre again, maybe a film where he could harness some of his own vision in the story, as well as in the direction. Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' was a wonderful example of how a highly imaginative director could create his own pseudo-sci-fi world without the cuddly trappings of George Lucas. If you're a sci-fi comic book fan then, 'Alien Resurrection' is definitely one to see.

A Joke!
This almost doesn't even qualify as an Alien movie and feels more like some spin-off of the franchise and really ruins the power of the 1992 third Alien movie. Why would anyone want to clone Ripley and an alien anyway? The acting, even by Weaver is weak and this movie's plot is laughable! What a sad ending to a great movie series. It should've ended with Alien 3!!!!! End of story!

This final installment is on shaky ground.
1997's fourth installment in the "Aliens" movie franchise is my least favorite of the bunch for many reasons even though it also has it's own merits. In all honesty, while there's plenty of things to enjoy, this movie is missing something that made the first two movies so incredible and even the third one which has it's own flaws