5 comments about The Complete Matrix Trilogy (The Matrix/ The Matrix Reloaded/ The Matrix Revolutions) [HD DVD].

1. Movies like these are the reason I have HD DVD. There's something about action/special effects movies that makes them so much more enjoyable in high-def. These types of movies are usually more colorful and the soundtracks with surround sound usually don't disappoint.
   
   These movies are absolutely stunning in HD!



2. For all the hype, expectation, and letdown they are three very fun science-fiction kung-fu movies that don't dissapoint now that we have had the time to stand back and digest them for what they are.



3. The HD-DVD format may be headed for obscurity, but as long as my player lasts I will be enjoying these high definition renditions of the Matrix, Reloaded, and Revolutions. For the few who opted for HD-DVD playback, the video quality of these titles is every bit as sharp as my PS3 Blu-ray movies.



4. it is a great trilogy that cannot lack in your collection of HD movies in home.



5. I first saw these movies years ago when they first came out and at that time I didn't think much of them.
   My son is a fan, so I bought the HD DVD box set for him as a gift and I have to say, this time around I was mightily impressed. The special effects and the True HD soundtrack are brilliant, and I enjoyed the story this time around.
   If you have a HD DVD player, these are well worth the investment, superb audio and visual with non stop action, a great combination.

5 comments about Serenity (Collector's Edition).

1. This review is gonna get lost in the shuffle. Oh, well.
   
   This movie lived up to the hype. I got to see one of the early cuts in the theater before it was released. It had no music or credits. One of the special features on the DVD is Joss Weedon's preamble before those screenings. It's ridiculously funny. But then it's Joss; he's ridiculously funny.
   
   If you're a Firefly fan, you should love this. Even with what he does to the characters, the writing was superb and made the movie that much more dramatic.
   
   I've also got to say that if you're not a fan, you can still enjoy the movie and never see the series. I have friends who were introduced to Firefly through Serenity and have since bought their own copies. Everyone who has borrowed it from me has gotten their own.
   
   Weedon's ability to mix humor into very serious material is remarkable. He'll make you laugh, cry and clench your fist in almost the same breath. It's a gift.
   
   The only real complaint I have about the film is that the FX in the chase scene with the hover craft and the Reaver ship, didn't look real. It was surprising for otherwise fantastic FX sequences.
   
   This is rambling, I know. Suffice it to say that you'll thoroughly enjoy this as a Sci-Fi movie. It's got all the classic parts. It rivals even Star Wars (OT) in my heart.



2. I love Firefly to death and Serenity collector's edition is just a beautiful edition to my dvd collection. More features then the first dvd (I own that one as well), a well made and easy on the eyes dvd case and the extended scenes a bit is just fantastic. A must own for any hardcore Firefly nut.



3. This was a farewell from Joss Whedon to the fans of Firefly. It was not received well at the theaters because it was for such a nitch market but the film itself was excellent, with a wonderfully paced story, great and furious action, and evenly paced character development. This film had all the elements. Keeping well in step with the series, Serenity just showed us why Firefly needed to be picked up by another network. Unfortunately it wasn't but this film was a great send off - Thanks Joss



4. This movie is simply amazing. Based off of the not so well known cult hit "Firefly", this movie continues the story that that prematurely canceled series was never able to. To those of us who loved the series this movie is a treasure. Joss is a masterful storyteller who has created such depth and realism for all of the beloved characters that it really pulls you in, and the special features and commentaries give it excellent replay value. I would suggest this movie to anyone looking for a solid, fun movie.



5. I learned about the show Firefly on an online forum for Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles and then watch the TV series on Hulu. I loved the show so decided to get the movie. WOW, this is just like the TV show but 100 times better. Best Scifi movie of the new century.

5 comments about Mother of Tears.

1. "Mother of Tears" does not have the arresting genius of "Suspiria" or "Inferno"--Argento has become far too gore obsessed for that--but, for all that, it has some echoes of those two masterpieces that make it worth watching. You'll have to get through babies thrown off bridges by mothers under the spell of the "true" Mother of Tears (who lacks any mystery at all); and assorted scenes of fetid corpses passionately making out.
   
   But any movie where Udo Kier plays a priest has to be seen to believed, and boy, this movie has to be seen to be believed. Argento has the audacity of the Marquis de Sade/Edgar Allan Poe hyped up on occultism and imaginative amphetamines.
   
   The plot, what there is of it, goes roughly like this: when the opening of a long-buried urn containing several ancient artifacts occurs, an apocalyptic plague is unleashed on Rome (of all places!) and everything gets buck wild. Sarah (Asia Argento) is an art student, of course, and happens to receive the accursed urn. In a simultaneously amusing and horrifying scene, a fellow student who sees the urn is butchered by two mysterious gloved hands and a monkey--a real monkey--who jumps on her head and just won't let go.
   
   There are some visually brilliant moments here, recalling the hypnotic magic of the first two (the Vatican's courtyard turns into "Dawn of the Dead" when Sarah's real mother, her "spirit guide" through this distasteful ordeal appears) and her trips through apocryphal alchemical libraries are haunting as always.
   
   My big issue with this is how half a**ed Argento portrayed the Mother of Tears. She's just this lady with wild hair, naked, who stands in hell screaming with corpses surrounding her. Part of what made the first two films so hypnotic was the concealment of the head honchos' true identity. The ending was a total disappointment, with Sarah spearing the Mother and everything becoming right again. Then, after crawling out of a sewer, she laughs, just as Jessica Harper did in the first film after destroying Mater Suspiriorum. But the sense of pressure and terror isn't there. Argento lives in that idiosyncratic world of the true artist, and he never realized that this series is what more or less makes and breaks a certain percentage of his fan base. Still, he gives us ashes of the supernatural terror he delivered in the first two, and for that we must thank him...kinda.



2. "Mother of Tears" was, without a doubt, one of the most uninspired films I've ever watched. The movie consisted of very little substance and absolutely no style. In fact, the movie never seemed like an actual movie to me. Instead, it just seemed like several independently shot scenes shoestringed together by what was supposed to be a storyline. The trouble is NOTHING seemed to connect.
   
   This was director Dario Argento's third installment to his story of the "Three Witches." The first movie (and by far the best) in the trilogy was "Susperia." The second was "Inferno," and this little stinker was the third.
   
   Asia Argento who (besides being daddy-director's little girl) cannot act her way out of a wet paper sack, plays Sarah, who works at a local Rome museum. She and a friend accidentally open a cursed urn and all hell is loosed on Rome. Yawn. You then have scene after scene of people killing, maiming, and playing out all sorts of violence against one another--this is city-wide, mind you, but there are never any police--and Sarah manages to stay as wooden as George Washington's false teeth. Characters are introduced long enough to be skewered, sliced, and diced, and that's about it. And when the Mother of Tears--who is supposed to be the most wicked of the three witches--is introduced; well, I won't spoil anything for anybody.
   
   The unrated version last 102 minutes and contains some graphic violence and brief nudity. If Argento waited 27 years to finish his trilogy, he should have waited another 27 before he released this mess. P. U.



3. An old casket is dug up carrying a body with another smaller casket inside. Fearing the worst, a Father ships the casket to Rome to a colleague to be evaluated. Sarah Mandy(Asia Argento) together with a co-worker open the casket and remove the artifacts. They unknowingly unleash an evil that will soon plunge the city into violent chaos.
   
   Die hard Argento fans will no doubt see "brilliance". Those like me, who still aren't fully Argentoized and will quickly call a spade a spade. Will see just another horror movie that uses over the top death scenes and nudity. To cover up poor acting(Asia Argento especially), unconvincing characters, lack of character development, poorly used plot devices, a shaky second half, an "is that all ending", and maybe more if I really think about it.
   
   The usual in your face style Argento has been known to deliver is toned down alot. The amazing camera angles and the use of lights are practically non existent. I will admit that the music was good to me and fit the moments pretty well. The gore is definitely a gorehounds wet dream. But I do believe there was more to it though. The death scenes are brutal and I think there is some type of ritual stealthly hidden in the pain and suffering. Hence, The Mother of Tears. Whose not going to cry in agony during that? So, I'll give the film a little more credit with its proper use of one character. Or maybe that's just me thinking too deep into it.
   
   Overall, The Mother of Tears is a mixed bag for me. It almost feels as if, Argento was aiming to please a new audience. And pretty much forgot his original fanbase. I have to assume this because he took another direction and forsaked the captivating style he has been so well known for. In some ways, I don't blame him for changing with the times. The negative takes on Suspiria is proof that some people just don't have a detailed eye or taste for that type of horror. So the well crafted style would have more than likely either flew over their heads or they just wouldn't care. I am happy to know that the Mother's Trilogy has finally been concluded. I waited long enough for the third mother and finally got it. I recommend this, if you loved or liked Suspiria and Inferno. Then see it just to finish it.
   
   The DVD extras are decent but the standout is Dario Argento's interview. It's just under ten minutes and there is a bit of interesting information. It's worth seeing.



4. In the interest of full disclosure, I must state that I am an Argento fan, and not likely to be entirely objective when reviewing his films. I don't hold him to the same set of standards as other directors. It's a given his stories will have plot holes, and not all the actors will be Oscar-caliber. But the fact is, his genius often shines in so many other areas that the flaws are entirely forgivable. That said, Mother of Tears is Argento's best work since Tenebre.
   
   It's pointless to spend too much time comparing this newest installment to either Suspiria or Inferno. There is more than twenty years between Inferno and Mother of Tears, and like most other artists of note, Argento has evolved his style. However, with the continually prowling camera, the mixture of the supernatural with detective work, and violence that is as creative as it is macabre, Mother of Tears strongly identifies with the films from Argento's classic period. On the other hand, it contains more violence and gore than all of his other films combined, which may put some viewers off.
   
   I really wanted to give this movie five stars. But there are two detracting elements. First, not only is the actress who plays the eponymous Mother of Tears terribly miscast, but the character itself is weakly drawn and unconvincing. Thankfully, her cheesy scenes don't dominate the movie. Second, the ending itself, which involves a final confrontation with the Third Mother, is slightly ludicrous. Not to spoil the plot, but the supposedly all-powerful witch is fairly easily disposed of.
   
   Whatever flaws this movie may have, it's a worthy addition to the Dario Argento catalog, and stands heads above any other horror movie that's been released in the past couple of years. The story is inventive and suspensful, the action fast and furious, and there are genuine shocks along the way. Whether or not you are familiar with Argento's other work, this is a great movie for horror fans who want more than standard fare.



5. I have always been a HUGE Dario Argento fan. The only movie he ever made that I didn't like (until now) was his Phantom of the Opera debacle (not Opera, but Phantom of the Opera--it's terrible). In my opinion, Deep Red, Suspiria and Tenebre are three of the greatest horror films ever made. Inferno, part two in the Three Mothers trilogy, is also very good. I even loved his recent films The Card Player, Do You Like Hitchcock and Sleepless.
   
   So what happened here? Mother of Tears starts off creepy enough. And then the train derails. Completely. What began as a somewhat satisfying sequel turns into one of the cheesiest horror films I've seen in a long time. First, the music sucks, big time. Viewers will quickly tire of hearing Claudio Simonetti saying "Moooottthhhherrrr" over and over and over again, set to the endlessly cheesy score. The acting is also atrocious, all around. Asia, who is normally not bad, phones in an abysmal performance. She is also starting to look a lot like a junkie; and the older she gets the more she looks like her father--not a good thing. Dario also continues his very disturbing habit of filming his own daughter nude.
   
   What begins as an eerie sequence of mounting events in which random crimes wreak havoc on Rome while our hapless protagonists are pursued by creepy-looking punk witches devolves into a really bad film in which a cartoon "good witch" (Asia's mother and Dario's ex wife) appears to dispense magic advice and naked women eat kids under the orders of their leader, the Third Mother. Dario's casting decision regarding the Third Mother was a death blow to his film. First, the woman can't act, plain and simple. Second, she looks like a reject from an Andy Sidaris film. About the only thing we learn about her throughout the entire film is that she has really bad implants. The movie gets so damn corny I started to think I was watching The Howling II and not a sequel to Suspiria.
   
   The real killer here is that there is not a single, solitary scene in the whole film that is in any way "Argentoesque." Argento is known for his "cinematographical flourishes." Such ingenious use of the camera is what earned him the reputation of being "The Italian Hitchcock." Here, unfortunately, there is nothing whatsoever to back up this reputation. Opera had the notorious "bullet through the peep hole" sequence. The Card Player had "the man in the ashtray" scene. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage had the man trapped between glass doors. Sleepless had brilliant shots of the inner workings of a lock and of an answering machine, as well as the awesome shot panning along the carpet. Tenebre had the famous scene where the camera travels all the way around the apartment complex before entering a window and capturing a murder. Deep Red had, well, every single solitary scene in Deep Red is an exercise in ingenious cinematography. Here, nothing. Suspiria and Inferno are both famous for their use of rich color. Why did Argento make the terrible choice of filming part three using natural light? He used natural light in The Card Player, and, nobody really liked it. In the end, this film is a real stinker. Its ending is rushed and quite laughable. I was saddened when I heard what the critics had to say about this film. It's even sadder that they were right. This one's a real turd.
   
   After some of Argento's recent efforts, many have begun to say that he's lost it. I disagreed entirely, until I saw Pelts. This piece of crap, however, convinces me. Argento has fallen into the same trap that many other horror directors today fall into. He used to know that mood and atmosphere are what is scary, that to scare an audience one needs to sustain a mounting sense of tension and dread, of creepiness and terror. This is done through pacing, flow and build up. Gore is not scary. It can add to a horror film, but it is not by itself in any way scary. To a seasoned viewer in fact, excessive gore and nothing else is actually quite silly. Less is more. Making people jump is also not scary. Today, horror films have been abandoned in favor of "startle films." I thought Argento was too smart to fall into this trap. I guess not.

5 comments about Saw IV (Unrated Widescreen Edition).

1. Forgive my silly title, but that's what I (and apparently others) experienced after leaving the theatre. Not to say Saw 4 did not suceed as an enjoyable movie (certainly at this point at #4 in a horror series). But the problem is there is so much messing around with the timeline and flashback scenes than ever before that it becomes difficult to keep up, at least for me. I guess that's why I came out more impressed upon initial viewing than the second time around, cause I thought "Confusing, but wow that's good, right? It makes one think?" I realize that doesn't always work well. But anyways, after the second viewing of Saw 4 I realized that although the movie is constructed in a similar manner as previous films with the flashbacks and its unpredictable ending, it became a little too much this time, and its like they completely made up a wacko ending. Of course you can't see it coming, but it could have been anyone (well, you'll see what I mean I don't want to give it away).
   
   You might wonder how the film could star Tobin Bell since he is dead, but that is where flashbacks come into play, and possibly one of the better enjoyments of Saw 4 is seeing the very origins of Jigsaw, all the way back to his wife. We even get to see his very first victim and trap, and yes it's bloody enough. Speaking of traps, as one would expect, they are present throughout Saw 4 and still bloody, graphic, and horrifying. I didn't feel they were as disturbing as Saw 3, and overall some of the traps are unique and interesting as others are almost boring, but I won't give away any details. Rigg (Lyric Bent, returning from Saw 2 & 3) is the one we spend most of the time seeing tested in Saw 4, although the games seem to be growing in numbers for eveyone, such as detective Mathews (yes he has still survived, and still played by Donnie Wahlberg) and FBI agents, just to name a few, and there's all those lesser roles who get the pleasure of sitting in those actual torture devices.
   
   Saw 4 only works because it's keeping a series going and telling quite a story while always creating more (yes Saw V is due out in theatres this year, and they are planning on Saw VI next year). As a horror film, Saw 4 lost some of it umph because of the story telling, and getting to know some of the charcaters a bit more (such as Tobin Bell and his ex-wife) but that still makes it a good watch for fans. The moral of "cherish your life" is still present, however the obsession (in Rigg's case) of trying to save everyone (only they can save themselves) is brought to attention. Well, I never though there was anything wrong with trying to help save people, but apparently Jigsaw believe's otherwise and shows us (and Riggs) why.
   
   Acting - 3
   Characters - 3.5
   Gore/Horror - 4.5
   Story - 4
   Overall - 3.5



2. I'm a big fan of the SAW movies, and consider the whole SAW "experience" to be one of Hollywood's best horror efforts.
   
   SAW IV's main objectives are twofold: (1)to tie up all the loose ends of the past 3 movies and give some background into Jigsaw's madness and (2) to set the stage for SAW V, and the continuation of more terror from another evil genius who is about to take Jigsaw's place. Without a doubt, the surprise ending of SAW IV will segue perfectly into the beginning of SAW V.
   
   Out of all four SAW movies, this one is the most gruesome, the most visually astounding one yet. I found I had to look away at the grizzly scenes, and I totally COULD NOT stomach the autopsy scene (pun not intended), not one bit. Ditto for the scene in the hotel room. Yukkk!
   
   Yet, despite the torture, pain and blood, I rate SAW IV very highly for its unique narrative and editing; for the low-keyed, yet intense acting; and for raising the bar for the horror movie genre. To all concerned with this franchise, a job well done!



3. I wondered how the franchise was going to continue with the death of Jigsaw in Saw III. This movie was by far the worst of the franchise. The first 15 minutes were grusome and gave me the feeling this movie was going to be on par with the first three movies that I loved. I was wrong
   the movie got confusing fast and just seemed to drag to a finish. This movie would surpass most current horror movies and compared to other films of this type I would give it a 5 star, however compared to the other 3 Saw movies this one by far inferior. Hopefully Saw 5 will get the series back on track.



4. The SAW films are all sequential, so 'SAW IV' picks up where 'SAW III' ended. The movie starts with the grisly autopsy of John (Tobin Bell). A tape is found in his stomach, one he made before he died. Though dead, John does not intend to give up his games. The next scene is a tasty trap where two men awaken, one with his eyes sewn shut and the other with his mouth sewn shut. The two are chained together and must get their key off the other man. As usual, its nice to have a trap right off the bat, don't forget about this one.
   
   Lt. Rigg (Lyriq Bent from 'SAW III') is attacked, and finds himself in one of John's games. He's told that Eric Matthews (surprisingly talented Donny Wahlberg) is still alive after missing for six months, and that Rigg can save him if he follows the rules of the game. Rigg must follow the clues, many of which the lives of innocent and guilty people are at stake, to his final destination.
   
   Added to this SAW installment is John's ex-wife Jill Tuck, called into the police station for interrogation on what she knows of John and his background. 'SAW IV' doesn't quite live up to the first three movies. The traps are rather lame in comparison to the previous films, and although bloody they just don't have that feel of genius behind them. John was better as an enigma, with a goal of teaching others to appreciate their lives by putting them into death situations. (taken from John's cancer and the car crash that almost killed him) 'SAW IV' changes the view of John's motives by providing (IMHO) too much predictable background that takes away from John being a simple genius serial killer. (You'll have to watch the movie to see the motive changes) To me, the series lost too much of its complexity along with the mystery that kept the intensity level high.
   
   In spite of all this, I still recommend you watch SAW IV, though you must watch the first three in order if you haven't already. There's adequate blood and gore, some tricky questions of humanity, a decent Jigsaw scenario, and building intensity toward the end. Rent first unless you're a diehard fan (like me), who purchased before watching the movie. Enjoy!



5. Saw IV (Darren Lynn Bousman, 2007)
   
   Why oh why do I keep watching the Saw movies? It shouldn't surprise me that, yes, the fourth is markedly worse than the third, and yet it does. Essentially, Darren Lynn Bousman, who's helmed the last three installments while James Wan has been off directing movies that were actually half-decent, seems to have envisioned 2, 3, and 4 as a trilogy. This, of course, explains why so many loose ends were left at the ends of 2 and 3 (though some of them have still floated off into the mist). On the other hand, if you don't have 2 and 3 very fresh in your minds when you see this, you're going to be lost from the get-go, and it's only going to get worse as you go along. So if you must force yourself to watch this movie, I strongly suggest watching 2 and 3 just before you do to refresh your memory. (And you might want to watch the original as well, just to remind yourself that there was, at one point, something worthwhile gong on here.)
   
   This episode focuses on Rigg (Lyriq Bent), one of the cops from 2 and 3. This time, it's his game-- he has ninety minutes to get to the end of a maze where he will be able to save two of his co-workers, assuming he makes the right decisions along the way. But given that 3 ended with the deaths of both Jigsaw and Amanda, who's running the game now?
   
   Yeah, like all the other Saw movies, the plot's pretty skinny here. But unlike the original, and to a lesser extent the second, there's not even a pretense at characterization-- even for the characters we already know. (This is especially grating given that we get a number of flashbacks to John's pre-Jigsaw life.) This movie puts me in mind of the first victim in Saw 2-- they figured out it was a different killer because there was no point to the killing. It's a sad state of affairs when you can use a plot point in a previous movie to define what's wrong with a later movie in the same franchise.
   
   Despite my disappointment, I'll probably end up going to see Saw V later this month. Why? Because Bousman is finally jettisoned (though David Hackl, a Bousman protegee, is probably not going to be much of an improvement, a boy can always hope). * ½

5 comments about Interview with the Vampire.

1. "Interview With A Vampire" makes "Bram Stoker's Dracula" look like a joke. This is how a vampire movie should be done. This film puts you into the mystical world of vampires, you feel like your living in it. The acting is fantastic all across the board. The sets and the costumes are beautiful as well. Even "Queen of the Damned" couldn't repeat the same type of magic of "Interview With A Vampire". This is a special film and has stood the test of time.



2. I just watched this film for the umpteenth time on DVD and haven't tired of it one bit. Never one to be easily impressed by a film or won over by gore or special effects, my love of this particular film is rather deep. To start with Neil Jordan is a marvellous director, who has brought us such classics as The Company of Wolves, The Crying Game and The Butcher Boy. This man is a genius of vision and brings out the most honest performances from his cast. I don't think that we will ever see a better performance from any of the actors. It was, unfortunately, Kirsten Dunst's zenith of credibility at such a young age, nothing that she has done since has come close to her brilliantly painful, evocative performance here as the tortured Claudia. Nor is it likely that Brad Pitt's morose Louis will be outdone with any of his other roles (nay, I think Louis even outdoes Pitt's portrayal of Jeffrey Goines in 12 Monkeys). And Tom Cruise has never been so powerful in a role. All three bring wonderfully nuanced subtlties to their roles as the vampire trio and it is enormously compelling and emotionally touching to watch them on their journey. Every detail of this film, from Philippe Rousselot's award-winning cinematography to the wonderfully detailed art direction and Stan WInston's always reliable makeup and effects, are exceptionally created and add to the brooding mood of this film. Without Elliot Goldenthal's sombre, beautiful score which was shamelessly beaten at the oscar's by Hans Zimmer's score from THe Lion King, the film would been very different. The moving string and choral melodies and horns provide such a marvellous atmosphere. The story itself is so heart-breaking and involving. If you let yourself into the world of the vampire (which is rather accessible through the afforementioned cinematic techniques) Interview with the Vampire proves to be a beguiling and unique experience. It is a soaring emotional journey, a quest to not only find the meaning of immortal life, but the very reason for existence. I am greatly moved and satisfied by Interview with the Vampire each time I watch it. It is a great shame that the sequels (which were obviously originally planned to follow on closely from this film - or so the ending suggests) were not handled by the same crew. Queen of the Dammed (actually the third book in the Vampire CHronicles - they skipped The Vampire Lestat) is rather pitiful and lacks the depth and intelligence of Interview with the Vampire. Hopefully if others are to be made, Neil Jordan, or someone at his level, will take the helm. If not, at least we are left with this beautiful film, for there is no other vampire film quite like it.



3. I think I've tried 2 or 3 times to watch this movie, but failed. This time I lasted about 20 minutes before I gave up, fast-forwarded, skipped chunks, and left before the end. It is quite incredibly boring. There's an interesting atmosphere to start with. Gradually you realise that it's all going nowhere, very slowly. Yawn, snooze. I've read all the one-star reviews and they all, except the one who's being funny and has reversed his star grading, hit the nail square on the head. I haven't read the book, or books, and I never will, now I've been exposed to this. I'm not a marathon film-watcher. Christopher Lee for ever! Cushing is ace!



4. great product and in a timely manner., it actually got here 2 days earlier than estimated time.



5. This movie is a timeless classic vampire movie. The imagery throughout time is very well portayed. A must see for scenery and wardrobe alone! Kirsten Dunst is outstanding.

5 comments about The Hills Have Eyes 2 (Unrated Edition).

1. I disagree with those who view this as a simple slashfest, detached from the political points about the military and the "American Family" that the first remake constructed so well.
   
   For me, there is a clear parallel between the National Guard unit fighting a deadly, mysterious enemy in a desert environment, and the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the training exercise in the beginning of the movie, in which the raw recruits trust an Afghan woman who is in actuality a suicide bomber, is reprised near the end, when the survivors are asked to trust a mysterious hilldweller who is attempting to lead them to safety.
   
   I am not saying the hillpeople-as-terrorists theme works, just that it appears to have been something in the mind of the filmmakers. They do wind up simply going for the gore and thrills, which to me were fairly well-rendered in the abandoned caves below.
   
   Not worthy as a successor to the excellent 2006 remake, but not as bad as some of the reviewers seem to find it. As they set up yet another sequel at the end, I wonder what's left to do with those crazy cannibals up in Sector 16.



2. Once again we are suckered into watching something that bears no resemblance to what was supposed to be in the movie. Torture, its not in there. Rape, not today dude it aint here. Killing, I must have fell asleep when it was taking place. Ive seen more torture, rape and killing in Walt Disneys The Jungle Book. Can someone please give us a real movie that has in it whats supposed to be in it.



3. As a horror movie enthusiast, I can appreciate the value and entertainment of campy horror and even get a few giggles out of a really awful horror film. However, after viewing this one, I wish to say to any Hills Have Eyes fans and like-minded horror fans out there that this movie is a complete waste of your time.
   
   The essential plot is a poorly hacked-together story of a bunch of rookie army kids are sent out in the desert and attacked by a band of mutants, supposedly the survivors of the mutant clan from the first movie. Through a series of silly mix-ups and extremely poor decision making on the part of our "heros" (shooting wildly and wasting ammo, splitting up in hostile territory, and other such blunders that no decently trained soldier would do), they manage to get picked off easily by the supernatural-seeming mutants.
   
   I really liked the first movie because although it did stretch the boundaries of what's plausible, there was a decent film there. The mutations the mutants sported were "based" off of actual medical science, for example, and in this movie we have a mutant with camouflage skin and a long tongue. And another with an extraordinary sense of smell, like a dog. It really just gets ridiculous.
   
   Of course, the first movie was also actually /frightening/ and had a point. This one is essentially just a showcase for the rape scene that horrified people in the first one, made even more blatant in this time around. That scene may have been disturbing in #1, but it was not the point of the movie as it is in the sequel.
   
   This movie is essentially a complete waste of your time. You can spend a more fulfilling two hours staring at a wall for what I'm concerned. At least this activity won't annoy, insult and bore you nearly as much.



4. This sorry excuse of a movie honestly deserves 0 stars. When it comes to horror movies I am a huge fan and I certainly don't mind sitting back and watching a film that has little story and lots of gore and suspense. A group of attractive people who are killed off one by one. We've all seen it before and it can be fun escape viewing.
   
   But this movie doesn't even deliver this. They seem to be attempting a plot with the scientists at the very beginning and then the military involvement but the scenes at the beginning that are obviously meant for shock provide nothing as does everything that follows.
   
   I honestly recommend this movie to no one. It is pretty sad when a movie with such low expectations can still fail to deliver.



5. I only watched this because my husband liked the 1st one and wanted to see the 2nd. I didn't like the 1st one at all. As this isn't as bad as the 1st one I didnt really care for this one either. Still has the raping of women in it to get more of theyre twisted ppl. Watch the 1st one if you havent already and you'll get a feel of what the 2nd ones all about. Rent first!!!

5 comments about Back to the Future - The Complete Trilogy (Widescreen Edition).

1. I'm not gonna fill my review by babbling about the films, everyone in the world knows that this franchise is a classic. having said that, the 1st is definitely the best but the other 2 is great as well. and the best to have all 3 films is to get this collection. the audio and video are great, and loads of cool extras for fans like myself. i'm from jakarta, and i was very pleased that the dvd came in about 20 days.... do yourself a favor and buy this collection. movielovers should have this. i love this collection :)



2. I think we all know by now the true fans have the DVD versions of something (really big fans with money have Blu-Ray or whatever). This is a great collection of what I think is one of the best trilogies ever made. It's fun, actiony, with plenty of humor and random and contradictory sci-fi. What more could you want? The three movies are there, plus the usual fun assortment of bonus features. Great collection.



3. I remember going to the theater to see all 3 of these when I was a kid. We recently took our kids to Universal Studios Orlando where we met the Doc Brown character and my kids didn't know who he was! I couldn't believe it! So as soon as we came home I ordered the trilogy which we then watched over the next 3 weeks for family movie night. Now these movies hold a special place in my kids hearts too. Thank you for that.



4. This is as typical of a teen eighties movie as you can get, in fact the eighties might have been the decade that those teen movies were invented, if not then this is when they definitely got popular. The formula is generally the same, there is a self assured kinda rebellious young man who sometimes gets in trouble, has a nice girlfriend, and gets into all kinds of trouble. He listens to cool music, says "ayyyyyyy" a lot, and most of the time has some sort of mullet. Some of the teen movies are good, some of them awful, but this one is a cut above the rest, Back to the Future is one of the best movies of the 1980's, and 80's superstud Michael J. Fox leads off this excellent movie. He plays Marty McFly, a high school kid who hangs out with the crazy scientist Dr. Brown, a wacky spaced out inventor played to perfection by Christopher Lloyd. The performances of Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd and their chemistry really are what make this movie they are perfect for their parts and really make this the movie that it is.
   
   The plot is very nice too. We see Marty McFly's neighborhood before anything was there, and it was just open land. We see the small town he lives in when it was much smaller in size, and there wasn't so much expansion. We see a lot of cool stuff in this movie. This is a movie that holds your interest through the entire thing. I have to admit I am a science fiction fan, and I have always been fascinated wit the concept of time travel, and while this movie is a complete fantasy (they travel back in time in a Delorean) It is also interesting to see the makeup jobs in this movie, we see characters 30 years in the past, and we see 40 year old people playing people who are twenty years old and vice versa. The highlight of the movie remains Christopher Lloyd, who plays what might be his best part ever, he is just too funny for words, and is so over-the-top he gives this movie the perfect tone, and compliments everyone around him with his great performance.
   
   The story progresses nicely, the last half hour is priceless, as we see Michael J. Fox play Johnny Be Good to a crowd who has never heard rock and roll as we know it. Then he goes back to the future and he almost misses it. The movie has the Quantum Leap aspect of it as we see what opens when you alter the past which affects the present in ways we never would have thought of. This movie is both a nice timepiece for the fifties and the eighties, showing at least the way that people in both time would like to have thought they were, in an idealistic world, so the movie is interesting like that, and has a nice touch of comedy, and science fiction here. The two genre's mesh well here, and sometimes Science Fiction and comedy don't always go well together. (see Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) It is also kind of funny to see the time period conflict with each other, we see things that are done in the eighties, and not in the fifties and vice versa. While there are no belly laughs in the movie there are enough jokes and enough interesting moments that will definitely make you think, this is not a socially conscious movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it is something that is very interesting. This movie is probably the centerpiece of Michael J. Fox's film career, he rarely had a films this successful other than the two sequels, and this was a monster hit for the day. While it is one of the best eighties movies it is also one of the best about time travel, corny it might be but Back to the Future remains one of the best of it's kind, it's kinda hard to classify, but of whatever genre it is, it is one of the best.



5. I have alway liked these movies and was pleased with buying all 3 at the same time.

5 comments about Ladyhawke.

1. For anyone who's looking for a film that you can watch with your family, and friends for some slight humor, an easy to follow story line, a villan versus the good guy, LadyHawke is the way to go. With some of today's top people in the leading roles you quickly get into the story. It's sad though that so many people are saying that music and the directing is so bad because it itsn't. So please remember as you sit down with your popcorn that this spectacular film is an older film. So get ready to enjoy something that I hope will get to be a family favorite.



2. In every way but one this movie is superlative. There are the stunning visuals of the setting. Three medieval castles were used to create the town of Aquila where the evil Bishop rules. I used to wonder how the filmmakers got that magical lighting, but the special feature on the DVD advised that the filming was done in Italy...of course.
   
   In this beautiful landscape, a pair of lovers struggle against the curse of the evil Bishop who lusted after the woman, aided by a petty thief and a drunken priest. The action, the drama, the way the story unfolds grips the viewer as much on the tenth viewing as on the first. Michelle Pfeiffer is beautiful, angelic and fierce as the lady; Rutgar Hauer is dashing, noble and savage as the knight.
   
   Only Matthew Broderick could be cute enough in the role of Phillippe the Mouse, a pickpocket who escapes from the dungeons of Aquila. His constant chatter forms an irritating, mundane counterpoint to the magical reality in which the story plays out. I take a star off for this part of the script--the screenplay uses Mouse as a way to "tell but not show" parts of the story.
   
   The costumes and props are not designed to accurately portray any part of the Dark Ages but in every detail they contribute to this medieval story brought to life for the modern era. One of the most enduring visuals of this film is the knight on his beautiful black stallion Goliath. This horse, jet black with powerful floating gaits, was a real Friesian stallion named Othello. I was disappointed that the special features of the DVD did not make any mention of him. As an enthusiast for the sport of dressage, I confess that one reason I bought this DVD is to be able to see this gorgeous horse perform.



3. This is an all time favorite of mine. Not many people know about it, but those of my friends who have seen it...like it alot.



4. 
   Ladyhawke is even better revisited.
   
   I first saw this film in the theatres and on VHS over 20 years ago. It has aged well, and like fine wine, improved. Who couldn't fall in love with Michelle Pfeiffer in this movie. Rutger Hauer, Matthew Broderick, and the cast created a mood film, that says 'Try and stop watching me'. Add to the mix the Andrew Powell (Allan Parsons) soundtrack, and you have a winner.
   
   Fairy tale romance? It's here.
   
   Swordplay...it's here!
   
   Classic film, pick Ladyhawke. Schuler/Donner should be knighted for this film.



5. You know that it is a beautifully written movie if it will make a guy tear up, and the main theme song alone does that to me. The story is very personal, meaning that if you have ever been in love, you can relate to any character on the movie. The score for the film is a little dated, but it doesn't stop it from being fantastic. Like I said, it makes me tear up every time I hear the theme. The movie itself is wonderful to look at. The scenery is amazing. Overall, an amazing film.

5 comments about Child's Play (Chucky's 20th Birthday Edition).

1. In the annals of horror cinema and television, there aren't many creatures that are scarier than a doll or puppet with a mind of its own. The evil ventriloquist's dummy in DEAD OF NIGHT (1945), the malevolent Talky Tina in the classic TWILIGHT ZONE episode "Living Doll" (1963), the demonic Zuni fetish doll in the classic made-for-TV movie TRILOGY OF TERROR (1975), and the vengeful creations of toymaker Toulon in PUPPET MASTER (1989)--all of them have frightened and delighted horror fans through the years. But probably the most notorious of all terrible toys in modern horror is Charles Lee Ray. What? You say you haven't heard of Charles Lee Ray? Sure you have! Only you probably know him better has Chucky, the malicious Good Guys doll in the 1988 horror classic CHILD'S PLAY.
   
   The popularity of the wisecracking, diabolical doll Chucky--possessed by the soul of serial killer Charles Lee Ray thanks to a voodoo spell--has precipitated a number of sequels, but in spite of bigger budgets and advancements in special FX, none have surpassed the fun and fright of the original film. The acting from stars Catherine Hicks, Chris Sarandon, and Oscar-nominated (for 1975's ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST) actor Brad Dourif is top-notch, and even the performance from young actor Alex Vincent, who plays the "owner" of the Chucky doll, is quite affecting. The script is also tight and clever, offering a story with a believable plot that is several notches above the average slasher fare of the decade in which the film was original released.
   
   Although the film has been out on DVD for a number of years, the MGM/Fox release of the "20th-Birthday" edition of CHILD'S PLAY is still a pretty big deal. The new DVD marks the first time the film has been released in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (which alone makes it worth the purchase), and the disc also offers several cool extras: two feature commentaries, one that includes stars Catherine Hicks and Alex Vincent and one that includes the "father" of Chucky, screenwriter Don Mancini; scene-specific commentary with Chucky himself (actually, actor Brad Dourif in character); and four informative featurettes. The digital transfer of the film on this new disc is very nice, with only a few very minor filmic artifacts, and the main soundtrack is offered in crisp, clear 5.1 Dolby Surround. Chucky has never looked or sounded better as he performs his brutal acts of cinematic murder, and at an average price of US$10.99, it would be a genuine crime for horror fans to pass up this chance to celebrate Chucky's 20th birthday!



2. finally!!!! I was waiting forever to buy a widescreen version i have been holding out ever since the release of fullscreen. Movie companies should read amazon reviews so they can hear the demands of their customers. Anyway thank's for finally doing it justice



3. Child's Play exploits a nightmare that many of us have had: toys coming to life. The basic fear of supernatural evils commanding something as docile as a doll to commit murder may sound hokey, but director Tom Holland has crafted something genuinely creepy with Chucky, a now iconic 80's horror villain. Dated, but with above-average acting, superb animatronics, beautifully eerie cinematography that catches the wicked doll lifelessly resting in the backgrounds, and splendidly timed suspense, Child's Play is one of the most memorable horror films of them all.
   
   Six-year-old Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) just wants a Good Guys doll for his birthday. So when his mother Karen (Catherine Hicks) is able to obtain one last-minute from a street peddler, Andy is ecstatic. But his new stuffed companion, named Chucky, isn't just a toy. Serial killer Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) has mastered unspeakable voodoo, which enabled him to transfer his soul into the doll just before being dispatched by Officer Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon). When Andy's babysitter winds up dead, the clues point to the young child, but Karen knows her son is innocent. Chucky initially only reveals his true self to Andy, but as the bodies keep piling up, Mike and Karen begin to believe the boy's claims about the talking doll.
   
   Although horror films have long since surpassed Child's Play's gore and shock value, the suspense and anticipation that build up as the film progresses is done surprisingly well. Everyone thinks Andy is crazy, and Chucky doesn't reveal his abilities to the audience until a particularly terrifying moment when Karen discovers that Chucky has been operating without batteries. As Chucky's face twists into an unnatural grimace, our fears are confirmed. Perhaps what makes the possessed doll even more frightening is the excellent blend of animatronics and live action. Although the majority of the doll movements are governed by tiny robots, occasionally a little person will be inside of a Chucky costume, surrounded by oversized sets. Imagine the shock of seeing ultra-realistic movement coming from what was previously defined as a stiff-jointed puppet.
   
   Like all great movie villains, when you think they're finally dead, they're not. Comparable to The Terminator, Chucky is determined and nearly unstoppable. The "tough" cop Mike is constantly down for the count and it's up to a young boy and a frenzied woman to calculate the evil toy's demise. Some may be skeptical of a tiny doll's ability to wield death, but he uses strategy to compensate for his diminutive stature. Consider too, that no one suspects the inanimate object. A simply perfect character design for Chucky makes him fiendishly creepy, and as the film progresses, his features change drastically to accommodate scarier mouth movements, and murderous, sunken eyes. Chucky clearly captured the attention of millions, as four sequels were produced, all progressively and unfortunately more ridiculous.
   
   - Mike Massie



4. Can it really be? Can one of the smallest icons of horror actually be turning 20 this year? Apparently so and MGM is ready to celebrate by releasing CHUCKY'S 20TH BIRTHDAY EDITION-CHILD'S PLAY.
   
   For those who haven't seen the original film (or the four sequels), the story revolves around the Lakeshore Strangler in Chicago, Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif). As the film opens, Charles is on the run followed by dedicated cop Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon). Abandoned by his cohort Eddie, Charles runs into a toy store only to be shot by Norris. Grabbing the nearest thing to a human as possible, Charles uses a voodoo incantation to transfer his soul into a Good Guy doll.
   
   The scene changes to young Andy Barclay's (Alex Vincent) house. It's Andy's birthday and he's made mom Karen (Catherine Hicks) with the hope of opening his presents early. While he gets Good Guy toys, he doesn't get the all wonderful Good Guy doll, something his mother can't afford. But, as luck would have it, at work that day her friend Maggie (Dinah Manoff) finds a peddler selling one for just $30. Andy's day is made! Or so he thinks.
   
   Things begin to happen, starting with the mysterious death of Maggie. Andy tells his mother that Chucky, the name of his particular talking Good Guy doll, is alive and talking to him. But no one believes Andy. And when they finally do, it's too late.
   
   Seems like a fairly simple story, right? Well, in fact, it is. But sometimes the most simple of stories lend themselves to the most frightening of images. What person hasn't been freaked out as a child by some doll that they or a friend owned? And what scarier image can there be than that of what has always been considered an image of childhood, a toy, coming to life to go on a murderous rampage, knife in hand?
   
   The movie offers these back and forth images, the innocent child and doll, with the possessed object wielding a knife or baseball bat in an attempt to kill. Not only that, but Chucky discovers that he will be imprisoned in this form forever if he doesn't transfer his soul into the first person who saw him, young Andy.
   
   When the film was released it was a hit. Abandoned were the horror heroes of the past, the vampire, the werewolf, the Frankenstein monster, replaced with new images like Jason, Freddy, Leatherface and, of course, Chucky. This film has the distinction of being different from the sequels in that Chucky has a more innocent look about him, a deceptive air that later changed to a snarling little puppet look. The image of Chucky is indeed one that can induce scares and nightmares for young and old alike.
   
   This new 20th BITHDAY EDITION comes packed with extras. The original making of featurette, a commentary tracks with Hicks, Vincent and effects master Kevin Yagher (who eventually married Hicks after meeting on this film), another commentary track by producer David Kirschner and screenwriter Don Mancini, as well as scene specific commentary by Chucky. You also get a slew of new featurettes made for this edition including The Birth of Chucky, Creating the Horror, and Unleashed.
   
   As I watched this film again for the first time in years, I was amazed at how effective it actually was. The suspense was well put together, the fears of the doll made real and the legend of Chucky was brought to life before my eyes. I'd forgotten how truly creepy some of the scenes were and even though I knew it was a combination of well engineered puppets in some scenes and little people in costume on oversized sets in others, you still felt that this doll was alive.
   
   I know of people today who still cringe when they see a Chucky doll. It's nice to know that after 20 years, an image like this can still induce a little well placed Hollywood fear. If you've never seen the film, it's worth watching. And if you have, it's worth going back to see where it all began.



5. As a child, it was Chucky that got me interested in the horror genre, and I'd like to thank him on his 20th birthday bash! THANK YOU CHUCKY! It was awesome to see Charles Lee Ray transfer his evil soul into a harmless children's toy. If you don't know the story, I'll spin it for you; Charles Lee Ray is close to death because of Detective Mike Norris, but he finds a Good Guy doll, and says a chant and his soul goes into the doll. The nexy day, it's Andy Barclay's birthday and he desperately wants a Good Guy doll. His smokin' hot mom, Karen gets him one, and it happens to be possessed by Chucky. Detectives show up when Andy's aunt falls out of the window. Andy tries to tell his mom and Norris that Chucky did it, but no one believes him. After Chucky kills his old partner and Andy is placed in an asylum, Karen tries to get Chucky to talk, he finally comes to life, and Karen nearly survives. She needs Norris to believe, but he doesn't until Chucky tries to kill him in the car. Karen and Norris later find out that Chucky needs to transfer his soul into Andy if he wants to be human again. Karen and Norris must stop Chucky and kill him before he tries to become human again. If you love horror, and dolls, you'll love CHILD'S PLAY!!!

1 comments about Hellboy II: The Golden Army (Widescreen).

1. Guillermo Del Toro has become the new master of dark fantasy -- first with the quirky clockpunk "Hellboy," then with the Oscar-winning "Pan's Labyrinth." Not to mention forthcoming travels to Middle-Earth.
   
   So you know he has the skills to pit Mike Mignola's scarlet anti-hero against an army of fairies and elves, and not make it silly. Instead, it's a spectacular dark fantasy full of humor, action, quirky appeal, romance, and some truly astounding special effects. But what really shoves this movie over the top is Del Toro's brilliant direction, and the stunning performance by Ron Perlman.
   
   Decades ago, Professor Broom (William Hurt) told a small Hellboy a yuletide bedtime story about the Elf King Balor and his unstoppable Golden Army, and how the crown that controls the Army was split into thirds and divided among fairies and humans.
   
   Well, you can't really expect that kind of power to never be revived.
   
   Cut to current day. Hellboy (Perlman), Liz (Selma Blair) and Abe (Doug Jones) investigate a strange supernatural attack on an auction house, where the archeological curiosity known as the Crown of Bethmoora was being sold -- only to be attacked by savage tooth fairies. Turns out the crown was stolen by Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), a resentful young elf who is determined to take the world back from humanity -- using, of course, the Golden Army.
   
   And while Hellboy chafes against strict new commander Johann Krauss (a suit filled with ectoplasm), Abe encounters Nuada's sister, Princess Nuala -- who also happens to have the last third of the crown. But Nuada will not allow anyone to oppose him as he searches for the Golden Army's location, and Hellboy and his friends must venture into a strange, ancient kingdom to stop him from destroying all of humanity.
   
   The worst you can say about "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" is that it sticks to the formula of the demonic outsider with a dark destiny, and his continuing romantic woes. There's some retreading as Hellboy realizes anew that he'll never fit into the world of humans, because he's big and red and has horns and a tail. Okay, we got it. Next big psychological issue!
   
   Fortunately those flaws are relatively minor ones. Del Toro is still able to spin a dark, twisted story with some truly bizarre creatures (the utterly alien, eye-winged Angel of Death), clockpunk robots, trippy underground goblin markets and a new BPRD agent who is basically ectoplasm in a suit. And for the action scenes, Del Toro does not pull punches when it comes to the smashing action scenes -- giant thrashing vines and a one-on-one duel with Nuada are among the highlights.
   
   With all this going on, it would be easy to neglect the characters. But Del Toro packs the script with solid snappy dialogue and some poignantly romantic moments -- including some pretty startling actions from dear ol' Abe. And he also adds little moments to this epic story that remind us that these are supposed to be people -- such as Hellboy's bickering with Krauss, or Abe and Hellboy getting drunk and having a little Manilow singalong together. It's just so cute.
   
   But what really sets this movie apart is the "children of the Earth." No flitting Victorian sprites -- these are creatures that are weird, grotesque, dangerous and immensely powerful, from nasty little tooth fairies up to vast rock monsters and plant gods. There's an alien, bizarre aesthetic to these creatures that feels wholly real, as if Neil Gaiman casually dropped a few sketches onto the drawing board.
   
   But as amazing as the visuals are, Del Toro never neglects the characters. Perlman is perfect for the role of "big Red" -- he's gruff, sarcastic, moody, but also endearing and self-deprecatingly likable. There are more hints of his potentially dark future, and he faces some delicately-handed temptations. But Big Red's good heart is still very much in the forefront, no matter how much human beings fear him.
   
   Blair gives a more lively performance here as a spunkier Liz, who also has some surprising developments in store. Jones is pitch-perfect as the fish-man, who experiences the first pangs of young love for Nuala, while Goss gives a chilling, whispery performance as a rebel prince who is willing to do whatever it takes -- even kill family -- if it helps him restore the fey kingdom. Pretty good villain, since he clearly isn't trying to be bad.
   
   "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" is a wild, darkly ornate ride through the world of half-forgotten gods and fey. While it has a few flaws, those are far outweighed by the brilliant of Del Toro's vision.