5 comments about Thumbelina.

1. I ordered it for my granddaughters and they loved the movie. I received it promptly and in great condition.



2. This story never gets old. I bought it for my grandaughter and hopes that she will enjoy it as much as I did.



3. I have a three year old granddaughter that fell in love with this sweet movie that I had ordered for her when she visited for a week this summer. She would not watch anything else. It is a wonderful movie with great music. It is well done as an animated movie and I highly recommend it for little girls that love princesses.



4. An early Disney classic that most kids, mainly between 2-5 yo, would definitely enjoy. We liked it mainly because it lacks the strong, suspenseful evil/kind of scary characters present in later Disney movies (e.g. Little mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the beast). Hence, it is more appropriate for younger kids like our 3 year old girl, similar to the fox and the hound. I guess We'll be saving the later Disney princess movies until she is at least four.



5. This is my 4-year-old princess-loving daughter's absolute favorite movie. She wants to watch it over and over again. Unlike most of the Disney movies, nothing in this movie scared her. My 2-year-old daughter also enjoys this movie very much!

5 comments about The Swan Princess II - Escape From Castle Mountain.

1. The movie itself is rather bizarre, including songs my friends and I have dubbed "Tchaikovsky Meets the Spice Girls" and "The Scary Rock-n-Roll Song," but the fast-paced animated video would be entertaining for younger children (4-10?). The true charm of the movie lies in the voice of Prince Derek--Tony Award nominee Douglas Sills! As Derek, he is, of course, wonderful, and it's a true delight to hear him in the "No Fear Rap"! The adorable frog Jean-Bob also affords much amusement to any age audience, though the turtle got on my nerves a bit with his monotonous droning. Princess Odette is the typical heroine of children's cartoon fairy-tales: brave, devoted, and beautiful (though technically she shouldn't be able to live with a waist that tiny). The bad guy and his henchman are amusing and lovable (to the degree bad guys are), while poor Derek is stuck with a shrill-voiced mother who entertains because of her petty concerns. Prince Derek is the true selfless and courageous hero, risking his life to save first his mother and then his princess bride, facing every danger with nerves of steel, a noble heart, ever-changing eye color, and a voice to top all. The Swan Princess II is worth popping into the VCR for the kids any day and will afford amusement to anyone passing the TV. Get it now!

   (3 1/2 stars for the film, countless more for Derek/Douglas Sills, plus points for the amusing conversations that ensue from watching this film with your friends)




2. I loved this movie! I haven't seen the prequel, but this was a very interesting movie and it kept me watching. The prince's mother is funny and it's a neat movie.



3. All I can say is this is a pointless sequel! Most Sequels are crap manufactured on the market to make an extra buck!I'm sure most people loved it! Come on People Odette and Derek get married live happily ever after the End!



4. In the second of the three part series of "THE SWAN PRINCESS" "THE ESCAPE OF CASTLE MOUNTAIN" is a good movie, (in my opinion). Most sequals are a disapointment, but not this one, (and they keep the main cast from the 1st movie--which is a BIG PLUS). The singing is great and so are the songs, and the plot and acting is good as well. I think Queen Uberta is funny, (Do not mess with the Queen). Well, if you never seen this movie, I think you should, you will not be disapointed.



5. I have to say, the last time that I watched the Swan Princess I was about seven, and I loved it - I liked Odette, though I hated her name, I liked Derek, though again, I thought his parents were probably having issues when they named THAT kid, and i even liked the story - and I was a PICKY kid. Not knowing the Swan Lake was a story in it's own right, with the same characters adn damn near the same plot, I couldn't even deplore the lack of originality displayed.
   But this! Oh no!
   Heaven forbid Disney come up with a sequel that is, oh, you know, GOOD. And trust me, I've watched them all. (hey, I do have a little cousin...) Mulan II - heaven help me. Aladdin II - heaven help you. Swan Princess II - heaven help the person who wrote it. Cos God knows, no one else should. I mean, quite frankly, the story line is so bad, they might as well leave the writing to Tchaikovsky. And he's dead.
   
   
   Or whoever it was who wrote 'Swan Lake'.
   Which is very good.
   Hey, i'll give THAT a good review...

5 comments about Stephen King's The Stand.

1. the case is broken (very broken)... and I know it didn't happen in the mail... if you don't care to check and you don't care about the product your shipping out... then how would you expect the customer to think you care about them?



2. This book needed the 6 hours of movie. It was very long and complicated of a story. To do anything less than a mini-series would have been rediculous. This is so well casted and written, I have watched it many times! Gary Sinise is perfect!



3. I eagerly anticipated seeing this movie, but missed out when it appeared on TV. After finally getting to see it, I was in awe. Gary Sinise did a grand job as Stu Redman. The other actors followed close behind. Though long, the movie kept me interested. I have watched it several times.



4. Of course there had to be modifications to the lengthy story when it was adapted for the screen, and mostly they work for the movie - I wouldn't have combined the characters of Rita and Nadine, but that didn't mess up the flow of the story. The casting, however ranged from brilliant (Gary Sinise as Stu Redman, Miguel Ferrer as Lloyd Henreid, Rob Lowe as Nick Andros, and Bill Fagerbakke as Tom Cullen) to disastrous (Molly Ringwald as Frannie? Are you kidding me? How she ever became a professional actor is beyond me and she was not at all equipped to play the role of Frannie Goldsmith. She was stilted and unnatural - and Laura San Giacomo as Nadine - not only is she not beautiful, she played the character as if she was insane, not conflicted and ultimately repentant, which is what I got from the novel) I completely disagree with the reviewers that thought the movie was amateurish - it was well done, and the story was complete. I don't like horror movies in general because they are too graphic for me, but this movie, although I wouldn't let my 7 year-old watch it, gets the point across about the horrible effects of the disease and the violence of the Dark Man and his followers without being too gory. I would recommend this movie.



5. alright the acting is subpar, (it was a made for tv mini series), The Stand still remains one of my most favorite Stephen King movie adaptions ever. It kept to the basic outline of the book, but it's impossible to take everything from King's epic novel.

5 comments about Mothra (1961).

1. Okay it wasnt awful.The story begin some show guys capture 2 small girls and have them sing some strange song on a stage and a giant egg hatchs and a caterpillar type thing comes out and is swimming towards Tokyo.



2. Well basiclly this is Mothra the giant moth`s first appearence. Anyway, the story is that a giant catterpiller named Mothr rampages Tokyo to find two tiny twin fairies. When going on foot geets too hard, she turn into a giant moth and takes to the air. Why is there a giant plant in the movie? Who knows, who cares. Anyway I definetely recomend MOTHRA to Toho monster fans. I also recomend anyone who reads my review not to watch REBIRTH OF MOTHRA 2, which invlolves a hairy thing that poops out rings when he gets scared, acid spitting starfish, a silly Fairy Mothra and the goofy looking Garu-Garu 2.



3. Why isn't this on DVD yet???
   
   This is in the same league as Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Attack of the Mushroom People, and H-Man. Classic Japanese science fiction. If you're into these kinds of flicks at all, I don't need to sell you on this...you already know.



4. The orginal Mothra is a great movie. It is a film that is different from most monster movies like Godzilla (1954) and Rodan (1956). The reason that it is different is because the title monster, is not out to destroy Tokyo for revenge. The only reason the creature destroys is because its small foot-tall maidens.
   
   The film has great acting by some of the most recognizeable actors of Toho. The special effects for the film are, likewise, good as it was back in the 1960's. Mothra, both in her larva and imago form, is very well executed and well designed. From its patterns on its wings to her rampage in New Kirk City, the giant moth gives us a great show.
   
   This movie is a must have for fans of Godzilla or Mothra. No G-Fan should be without this classic monster movie. So here is my addvice: buy the movie and enjoy! It's a shame that it is yet to be released onto DVD. But we may finally get it on DVD very soon.



5. Pros of Mothra/Mosura:
   
   *Different storyline from Rodan
   *Same effects from TOHO
   *A new monster
   
   Cons:
   
   *Geared for kids not adults
   *Not as dark
   *Mothra not as menacing as Godzilla
   
   Another monster movie by Toho directed by Ishiro Honda. I've always found Mothra to be probably the weakest monster of the TOHO franchise. It's not menacing, it's powers are somewhat limited and it's slow.
   
   Watching this I could tell it was geared more for a kids audience (the usual complaint given to some Godzilla movies). The storyline is altered to make Mothra the "good monster" which I think took away something from the message. Also I found it hilarious that despite the destruction Mothra unleashes everyone waves to the monster at the end!!!
   
   Godzilla, Rodan, never got any such praise so why Mothra? Anyhow, Mothra's rage is brought his two protectors who are kidnapped as a sideshow act for some corrupt Japanese man named Nelson.
   
   It is cool though to see Mothra's transformation from a giant caterpillar to his true form of a Moth. The natives who worship Mothra remind me of the natives who worshiped King Kong.
   
   In the dubbed versions the girls are called "Ailenas" and they of course have the interesting power of communicating to Mothra. Of course like Rodan and to keep the series alive there is more than one Mothra.
   
   For me while it does have the same TOHO formula as the other monster it doesn't quite leave the lasting impression as Godzilla or The War of the Gargantuas which is that intensity for the monster to kill. Likewise, as stated Mothra just doesn't come out as menacing as Godzilla, Rodan, King Ghidora etc. However,for the TOHO collector Mothra/Mosura is a must have. Word is there will be a two disc coming soon so it will be great for people who love these TOHO to see these movies on DVD.

5 comments about Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).

1. This is a nice attempt at remaking the original cult classic. It's got a terrific cast and a larger budget, and thankfully doesn't go too far over the top.
   There is more blood and better effects in this '78 remake. This version is also in color, which most people probably prefer. The suspense develops at a moderate pace, and there are some genuine scares. These clones look pretty grotesque as they are developing.
   This story also seems to be a jab at modern society. It hints at humanity's lack of emotion. How we are all mass-produced carboncopy brainwashed automatons with not an ounce of individuality. Maybe we are sleepwalking through the steps of our pitiful existence. Creepy.
   
   However, there are a few things that detract from this one as well. Early on a newspaper article reports a mass number of these mysterious webs forming around town. Hmmmm, does anybody think to investigate this?
   Also, in this movie the cloned humans have an overwhelming scream. Now this might seem to add to the fear factor, but it also enables the unaffected humans to recognize the imposters. There is no such way to differentiate from the aliens in the original.
   And my biggest complaint with this remake is there is one particular moment that almost ruined this entire thing for me. It shows a dog with a human head?! WHAAAAAAAT???!?!?! A man got cloned with his best friend, such a horrible genetic and directorial mistake. (Like a friend of mine would say, that's MONDAY THRU FRIDAY WEAK!)
   
   Anyway, this is still a pretty good remake, worth checking out. Most likely better than the new release.



2. I haven't seen Philip Kaufman's (The Right Stuff) supremely chilling 1978 movie in thirty years, so the 2007 DVD is a great excuse to revisit one of the most atmospheric and thematically intriguing sci-fi thrillers I have ever seen. Ostensibly a remake of the low-budget 1956 classic, this version foregoes the former's allegorical references to the then-prevalent Red Scare in favor of a post-Watergate mindset of escalating urban paranoia set most appropriately in the Mecca of acceptable non-conformity, San Francisco. Kaufman and cinematographer Michael Chapman (Raging Bull) effectively evoke an off-kilter world overtaken by an encroaching sense of disquiet with a heavy use of crooked camera angles and elongated shadows that make the film downright noirish. Moreover, thanks to W.D. Richter's sharp screenplay, the film has a hip, almost blackly comic tone that makes a nice contrast to the scarifying situation being depicted. Overall, I find this film more entertaining than the original.
   
   The macabre plot begins with health inspector Matthew Bennell and his colleague Elizabeth Driscoll, who encounter a strange, unidentifiable flower they see growing everywhere. At the same time, people all over the city, including Elizabeth's boyfriend and the local dry cleaner, are acting peculiarly distant and devoid of emotion. It eventually dawns on Matthew and Elizabeth that aliens in the form of plant pods are slowly replacing the local populace with robotic duplicates. Accompanied by their mud-bath-owning friends Jack and Nancy Bellicec, they are determined to find a way to escape the city before they fall asleep and become transformed into pod-derived automatons. What makes this version particularly compelling is the palpable idea that you can live in a city amid thousands of indifferent strangers and see how easily an increasing army of pod people can infiltrate it without much resistance. Even though the method of dehumanization is far-fetched, the theme resonates because the macro-level trend is happening in a more figurative sense even more now than in 1978.
   
   You wouldn't expect the acting to be noteworthy in what may seem like a genre thriller, but the offbeat cast is razor-sharp. As Matthew, Donald Sutherland effectively plays an uncharacteristically sympathetic part, and his eccentric screen persona works particularly well in this context. Coming off of Terence Malick's acclaimed Days of Heaven, Brooke Adams, with her distinctively throaty voice, gives a smart, watchful performance as Elizabeth, the character who first notices that something is amiss. It seems a shame her subsequent career never fulfilled its initial promise. The interplay between Sutherland and Adams has a quirky-funny chemistry that brings an unexpected comic element to the film. Jeff Goldblum (The Fly) and Veronica Cartwright (Alien) are no strangers to this genre, and they play Jack and Nancy with customary skill. Even Leonard Nimoy lends credibility as the know-it-all psychiatrist David Kibner, who tries to convince everyone that the strange goings-on reflect a mass psychological delusion. We know that's not true, and the scenes of the pod transformations, especially the key one in Bennell's garden, have that uniquely phantasmagoric effect that manages to be gross, scary and oddly amusing at the same time. Ironically, the film sags somewhat during the overextended chase scenes, and the piercing screams of the pods seem like a conventional touch for such a unique work. However, the final few minutes are well worth the wait. I live a few minutes away from the locale of that final shot, and I can't tell you how many times my friends and I have replicated that scene.
   
   The two-disc 2007 DVD is a welcome package of an underappreciated film. The first disc provides the movie with an optional commentary track from Kaufman, a holdover from the original 1998 DVD. Kaufman is relatively low-key in his recollections, but he provides insight into the film's underlying themes, the creativity he had to encourage to produce the low-budget special effects, the challenge of using San Francisco locations, and the inclusion of cameos from Kevin McCarthy and Don Siegel, the star and director of the 1956 original. The second disc contains four featurettes, as well as the original theatrical trailer. The first is a cheeky retrospective look at the production, the sixteen-minute "Re-Visitors from Outer Space, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pod", which describes Kaufman's rationale and approach in updating the 1956 original. Kaufman, Sutherland and Cartwright, among others, are interviewed. The second short is not as interesting, "Practical Magic: The Special Effects Pod", only five minutes long, which gives a cursory look at how some of the special effects were created before the convenience of CGI. Sound designer Ben Burtt is the subject of the third short, "The Man Behind the Scream: The Sound Effects Pod", as he explains how he created the gaseous pod-birthing noises and the unique scream of the pod people when they identify unaltered humans. Chapman discloses the influence of film noir in his camerawork in the five-minute "The Invasion Will Be Televised: The Cinematography Pod".



3. SPOILERS BLEOW
   
   A classic in every sense of the world. Acting is superb, direction also, all that accomplished with a modest budget and without mind-blogging visual effects.
   
   The enphais is in the characters. The sense of doom and unescapable death for the main characters is suffocating and the final scene, although experienced viewers can see the outcome, is shocking.
   
   A real science-fiction gem.



4. Philip Kaufmann's 1978 sci-fi/horror masterpiece "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" creates a sense of paranoia as effectively as ingesting a bad dose of LSD while being pursued by the local police, the Army, and Homeland Security.
   
   Donald Sutherland plays Matthew Bennell, a local health inspector with a happy life in San Francisco who first appears admonishing a restaurant owner for trying to disguise rat feces in his customer's spaghetti as chocolate. "It isn't chocolate", Sutherland says as the camera closes on his huge nose: "It's a rat turd!" This otherwise humorous introduction is a fitting introduction for the film's content and underlying message: that somewhere, even in the calmest and most placid of situations, there is something very wrong.
   
   Brooke Adams, a fellow scientist who works at Bennell's lab, begins to notice that her boyfriend is behaving very strangely. Once an average guy who enjoyed baseball and worked hard, he becomes numb and emotionless in his actions. Wondering if this is some kind of problem in her relationship, she makes the mistake of consulting Dr. David Hicks, the classic late 70's Freudian, self assured, Transcendental Meditation goofball. Kaufmann is obviously having fun ridiculing the post-1960's cultural debris: even the veiny, disgusting pink flowers that are slowly growing in the gardens of every SF resident suggests a rejection of the naivete of "Flower Power". Well here it is, Kaufman seems to be saying, and it can be used any way the establishment wants.
   
   The Pod People, according to the logical Dr. Hicks, come from a dying planet and want to survive; they wait for human beings to fall asleep, and then create an exact double which eradicates memory and personality entirely. There are such repulsive, I-want-to-throw-up moments in this movie that I'm surprised it was rated PG-13. When Sutherland's Bennell is forced axe and torch his Pod duplicate, the special effects are so realistic as to make one churn. The streets of the city become gigantic Pod Production areas: people mechanically carrying what look like gigantic watermelons. The atmosphere of panic and terror (there is no real chance of Bennell, Adam's character, Jeff Goldblum's pretentious but noble poet actually escaping) grows to such a pitch that within half an hour it's pretty obvious what is going to happen. Perhaps the most chilling scene is when Bennell calls 911 to inform them of what is happening. The response on the other line is: "Stay right there, Mr. Bennell." They know exactly who he is and exactly where he is.
   
   The ending of this movie is perfect, though I won't reveal it. This is chock full of surprises, gross-outs, and in it's own way serves as a sort of warning sign for what happens when we stop paying attention to controlling factors around us. A must see.



5. Usually remakes of films that were successful the first time don't succeed but sometimes they do like in this sci-fi/horror film by Philip Kaufman. Aided by a great cast headed by Donald Sutherland in a rare good guy role, Brooke Adams, Jeff Goldblum, Veronica Cartwright and Leonard Nimoy as ever Spock like as the New Age shrink--we get off beat thriller with overtones of dark humor. The humorous puns at the age of conscicousness fall right in the line with the impending horror of the situation that the main characters fall into. This is what marks this remake or revisonist film of the original a little different. Also of course with a higher budget, we get some pretty good gross out effects particularly when Sutherland and Adams run over one of the pods. Jazz composer/musician Denny Zeitlin's score also accentuates the drama and tension of this piece. As far as the other remakes or revisions of this classic tale by Jack Finney, forget it!! The latest one with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig was a dud and the Abel Ferrara version with the lovely Gabrielle Anwar was passable and short--that's the only praise I can give. If you liked the original '56 version with Kevin McCarthy (who does a cameo here along with the original director, Don Siegel)--then do check it out. I only gave this 4 stars because the original is still the best!!

5 comments about 12 Monkeys.

1. I loved this movie when it first came out; I watched it again a few months ago.
   I love the whole end of the world spin, but the animal rights garbage I can do without.
   Brad Pitt is brilliant in this movie, too bad he's gotten so boring in recent years.
   I dunno, it's just not a movie that really keeps my interest anymore.
   The story is ok, the ending is great.
   I would have given 12 Monkeys five stars when it first came out, I'm giving it three now.
   There are better movies on this subject nowadays, I Am Legend being a five star example.
   I recommend a rental.



2. Sci-fi thriller. Bruce Willis does a great job. The end will blow you away.



3. I initially didn't want to watch this film, I'd heard things from other people, who'd found it quite difficult to follow, and yes, that did put me off. But after some persuasion (and the fact I always make my Dad watch my movies, and I rarely watch his), I decided to give it a go.
   
   I did find that I really got into watching Twelve Monkeys, including working out stuff that my Dad hadn't worked out when he first saw it. (The first shot of the young boys eyes was so obviously Cole's character younger - but I worked it out cos it's a hideous cliché, that's always used.) I also noticed that the passage from The Book Of The Revelation is quoted twice, referring to seven golden vials filled with God's wrath. Kathryn says it in her lecture, and then the homeless guy also repeats it.
   
   The story starts off in the future - the viewer is never given a set year, although it's mentioned that 1% of the population survived by the year 2035. So possibly, the viewers are left to make up their own minds that it could possibly be sometime after this. An unknown, lethal virus has wiped out five billion people in 1996. The survivors now live underground, and a convict called James Cole (Bruce Willis) reluctantly volunteers to be sent back tin time to 1996 to gather information about the source of the epidemic so scientists can study it. Mistakenly, Cole is sent back to 1990, where he is promptly locked up in a mental institution, and he meets Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) and Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who is also in the mental institution. He needs to find a group of people, calling themselves The Twelve Monkeys, who could possibly be releasing the virus in different cities. He also recurring dreams, which feature intermittantly throughout the movie, showing the viewer a bit more each time. What's really happening?
   
   I found it incredibly difficult to watch Brad Pitt in this movie. His acting is incredible, but I just couldn't handle watching him. Apparently, to get him to act the way he did, he inititally sent him to a speech coach, and then took away his cigarettes. Very strange. And what was with the eyes? I didn't really notice them (I was focusing on something else), until it was pointed out, and then they gave me shivers up my spine. Yes, his acting is brilliant, the way he managed to do, but I really struggled with watching him, and a couple of times, had to look away from the screen.
   
   The 'romance' between James & Kathryn didn't ring true for me. It happens all of a sudden - considering she hated him to begin with - and just seems totally unbelievable.
   
   The different things that are explored in the movie, really got my brain buzzing, and I found it difficult to switch off after watching it - but I was still thinking about Brad's character too. Time travel is heavily the focus of the movie, and it's paradoxes - James kept seeing things in the future and the past, and I couldn't work out whether he was projecting these images or what. It also touches upon the subject of mental illness, reality, animal rights, and the technological advances which could bring about the end of the world.
   
   There's always different things to watch out for during the movie, and I never found myself bored at any point, despite the running time of two hours. I did end up working out the ending, but thankfully not too soon. Cos that just would have been disappointing!
   
   I really did enjoy watching this film, although needed something a bit light hearted to watch after it. The standout thing for me was Brad Pitt. I definitely came away from the film, thinking about his performance. And for the girls, we get to see Bruce Willis naked! From behind! A highlight of the movie.



4. From his days with Monty Python to his visionary epic Brazil, Terry Gilliam has never been an ordinary filmmaker. His unique sense of style and his trademark absurdist humor can be found in all of his films. In 1995, he cemented his reputation as one of the most unconventional directors in America with his brilliant science fiction film, 12 Monkeys. 12 Monkeys is an apocalyptic, romantic, time travel adventure inspired by the French film, La Jetée, which was written by Chris Marker. However, Gilliam's film is entirely his own, a stunning masterpiece of contemporary cinema, and one of the most cleverly bizarre films ever made. The screenplay was written by David and Janet Peoples, who inject the story with an intimate humanistic quality, juxtaposing romance with an eerie atmosphere of impending disaster.
   
   In the year 2035, James Cole (Bruce Willis) is a prisoner in a subterranean stronghold where the last survivors of a cataclysmic virus are held up. Their world is monitored by a panel of scientists who use the prisoners for mysterious experiments. Cole is selected to go up onto the Earth's desolate surface and collect life forms for the scientists to study. Upon his return to the underground prison, Cole is told that he's a candidate for an experiment, which if it were successful he would be given a full pardon. He is sent back in time to discover the source of the virus, but he arrives in the wrong year. After getting into a fight with police officers, Cole is sent to a rundown insane asylum where he befriends a psychiatrist named Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe). He also meets a host of mentally dysfunctional patients, including a paranoid schizophrenic named Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) who spends most of his time watching cartoons, harassing other patients, and ranting about government conspiracies. Jeffrey helps Cole in an escape attempt, which ends with Cole being caught by the mental hospital's guards and being put into an isolation room, heavily restrained. He mysteriously disappears from the hospital and arrives back in the future. There, the scientists tell him that despite his failure he has been exceptionally useful. They ask him if he would be willing to go back and further investigate the 12 Monkeys... and Jeffrey Goines who may be involved with their formation. However Cole is sent, not only to the wrong time but the wrong place. He lands in Southern France, in the middle of WWI. He's shot in the leg before he vanishes into time.
   Meanwhile, Kathryn Railly has been giving lectures on abnormal psychology and the theoretical "Cassandra complex", which states that some people suffer a mental disorder that makes them believe that they are clairvoyant, and knowledgeable of future catastrophes. After one of her lectures, she's ambushed by a strange man who wants her to drive him to Philadelphia. It's Cole and he's traced the origin of the virus to Jeffrey Goines and his billionaire virologist father. Kathryn convinces Cole that he's delusional, but then Cole's story is proven to be true when she discovers that the bullet she removed from his leg dates back to the first quarter of the 20th century. Now she must uncover the truth and help Cole to stop the spread of the virus, but nothing is what it appears to be.
   
   The entire cast is superb. Bruce Willis delivers one of his most nuanced performances as Cole, creating a strong yet vulnerable man who must overcome his own fears of madness in order to save humanity. Madeleine Stowe gives a fascinating performance of a sane woman, who must call into question all of her long held beliefs, and face the insanity of the world around her. But the most memorable character is Jeffrey Goines, who is brought to by Brad Pitt in one of his most remarkable performances ever. He succeeds in making Goines sympathetic, funny, and completely manic. Not only does show off his underutilized versatility as an actor, Brad Pitt also gives us, the audience, access to the off kilter world in which the entire film unfolds. As for Gilliam's direction, 12 Monkeys proves that he's capable of making films that are not only humorous, but stark and profound as well. Ironically, the film's greatest flaw is also its greatest strength. As an audience, we are never explicitly told how the story ends. Sure, there are implications within the film, but there are so many different interpretations that one single idea feels constricting and limiting. Terry Gilliam's brilliance is that he doesn't dictate his story to the viewers; rather he allows them to discover its subtleties and secrets on their own, and then draw their own conclusions. It makes the film even more interesting to watch with a group of friends and everyone's perception of the ending is contrary. It's this idea of open interpretation that makes 12 Monkeys so timeless.
   
   Also recommended:
   Monty Python's Flying Circus: Terry Gilliam's Personal Best
   Monty Python and the Holy Grail
   Jabberwocky
   Time Bandits
   Brazil
   The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
   The Fisher King
   Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas



5. Great sci-fi movie to watch. Bruce Willis does a great job playing the part, along with Brad Pitt also. Need to see movie.

5 comments about Tuck Everlasting (2002).

1. Tuck Everlasting is a book that students read in middle school. I hadn't ever heard of it, but we rented the movie and I really liked it. The thought of someone never growing old and never dying was fasinating, and yet sad at the same time. Good acting and a thought provoking story.



2. This DVD is a little disappointing if you are looking for it to follow the story line of the book. The book is about a 10 year old girl. The movie increases her age to 15 in order to appeal to a wider audience. In doing so, I believe they lost some of the real meaning behind the book.



3. The movie was even better than the book for a few reasons. First of all, I had the chance to SEE what I had been reading for the last month: the spring, Winnie looking at it thinking whether she would like to drink from it or not, Jesse falling in love with her, pure sadness in Tuck's home, Miles telling his own tragedy and more. Then, I could picture myself on Winnie's shoes, which I could not by only reading the book: What it would be like to be the same person for 10 years, with the same old routine, and all of a sudden change and grew up in less than one week? Would I keep the Tuck's family secret, or not? Finally, I love the plot and the fact that we can see this girl becoming a woman and how she goes through it, asking herself the biggest question of all times: Would I like to live forever?
   Moreover, the end is one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie with Jesse coming back to the woods, I could feel his relief because she had the life he could never have.
   The thing that attracted me the most was the voice-over with the soft music, I could actually feel a every sad or happy moment with only one phrase: "You don't have to live forever, you just need to live" and she did.
   On balance, this is what I call "Real Fantasy". A fantasy that looks real because we can actually ask ourselves if we would do the same as the main character. Any of the main themes of the plot can happen to us: growing up, making important decisions, changing our mind, finding new friends with secrets and falling in love with an unreachable and everlasting dream.



4. Tuck Everlasting (Jay Russell, 2002)
   
   Another watered-down Disney novel adaptation that had already been done better before (Frederick King Keller helmed the book's first movie adaptation back in 1981). Despite having a who's-who-in-Hollywood cast, Lieber and Hart's braindead screenplay renders this, at best, an ineffective shadow of Natalie Babbitt's classic young adult novel. (Perhaps this isn't surprising; Lieber was responsible for the screenplays for Jay Lowi's execrable Tangled, while one of Hart's recent screen credits was for Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.)
   
   In case you somehow never got round to reading the book, a quick synopsis: the Tucks-- father Angus (William Hurt), mother Mae (Sissy Spacek), and sons Jesse and Miles (Jonathan Jackson and Scott Bairstow, respectively)-- live in a wood owned by the Foster clan, whose daughter Winnie (Alexis Bledel) is chafing under the ministrations of her oversheltering mother (Amy Irving). After Winnie sneaks off for some alone time, she stumbles upon Jesse at a spring, and, of course, romance must bloom. Complicating things in the Man in the Yellow Suit (Ben Kingsley), who has been searching for the Tucks for quite a while. Because, you see, the Tucks are immortal, thanks to that very spring. Winnie must choose between drinking from the spring, becoming immortal herself, and staying with Jesse, or separating from him and leading a normal life.
   
   Disney being Disney, the romance between Winnie and Jesse and the action scenes featuring the Man in the Yellow Suit (I wish he'd finally get a name somewhere, to make reviews easier to write) are brought to the forefront, and the more cerebral portions of the novel-- whose central thesis is, of course, whether someone would want to live forever-- is shoved into a dark corner and brought out only when the screenwriters wanted to give a nod to the original novel. The result is one of the more boring action movies, or one of the least romantic romances, depending on how you want to look at it, I've run across this year. Do yourself a favor and rent the first version instead; or, better yet, just read the novel again. **



5. As a substitute teacher in a middle school English class, I was left this movie to show the class. I knew nothing about it, but I got caught up in its innocent (but never simple-minded) charms. I had to stay late after school to see how it ended! I did not know that Disney had returned so strongly to G and PG rated movie-making. Yes, it is a bit sentimental, but life needs a bit of that, and it offers plenty of food for thought for grown-ups too. A genuine surprise -- and pleasure.

5 comments about Wizard of Oz.

1. This product has an amazing amount of supplementary material. More than I ever realized existed about this subject!



2. I certainly have enjoyed "THE WIZARD OF OZ" through-out all these years. One thing remains a mystery to me. The original Laserdisc versions had an "extras" feature about the movie. The MGM re-release showed coming attaction trailers that introduced the Movie's arrival again. Even in the Turner Intertainment ( 1989 dvd version) the following trailer indicated:
   
   IF YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE... YOU'LL GET A LIFT ALL OVER AGAIN
   ALL THE MAGIC. THE SPECTACLE AND BEAUTY... Better than ever in WIDESCREEN ! This is not in reference to the Version that was shown
   in Theatres around 1998 either !
   
   Where is the Widescreen Version made mention of in this trailer ?



3. "There's no place like home." Dorothy and her friends seek the answer to their desires in a land of dreams and nightmares. Brilliant use of color and sepia. Classic songs, incredible performances and special effects that still hold up today. One of my ten best.



4. I was sent the French DVD of The Wizard of Oz. I sent it back to sender and asked for the English version. I hope I receive it.
   
   Cindy Selby



5. DVD arrived in a timely fashion; however, it is not compatable with any of the 5 DVD players in our home????

5 comments about Incredible Shrinking Woman.

1. 
   Not one of Lilly's greatest, of course, but anything with Lilly Tomlin in it is bound to be entertaining. The theme revolving around shrinking people (i.e.: The Incredible Shrinking Man, I shrunk My Kids, etc., etc.), is wearing a little thin by now, so everything depends upon the cast--in this case, Lily Tomlin, and she does hold it all together with little help.

   It is a pleasant way to spend an evening, with a few laughs for everyone. Lily plays at least three parts. It is hard to imagine a world without people of genius like Lily, who can make even the mundane seem funny. She is one of the great comediennes. I place her in the same rank as the late Gilda Radner. I can offer no higher praise than that! She is reason enough for watching any film, for me.

   Joseph (Joe) Pierre
   
   author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
   and other books




2. I first saw this movie when I was 8 years old. I LOVED it then and still love it today as an adult. I am saddened that it has yet to be released on DVD. I still consider Lily Tomlin to be a comedic genius. I simply fall in love with every character she plays. This is a wonderful movie for both kids and adults alike. They don't make them the same anymore. I highly recommend this movie for anyone who is in the mood for good, wholesome entertainment. C'mon people! The movie is about a woman who accidently spills experimental perfume on herself and starts to shrink. So it seems as though everyone is trying to save her except a few bad apples who are trying to exploit her. She buddies up with a gorilla, and well, I can't give the ending away! There is a really cute song on the movie called "Galaxy Glue." Please release this on DVD soon!!!!!!



3. It would be amazing in reality if products can really do to a person what they did to Pat Kramer (aka Lily Tomlin) in this spoof of the feminine side to The Incredible Shrinking Man. Pat Kramer who is a well-known and well-loved citizen in a town where she always shops, where her neighbors love her and know everything about her, and her husband (Charles Grodin) who is into advertising and coming up with names for products, which Pat just happens to try at home, do something to her matabolism. The special effects that show her shrinking are quite awesome and amazing. The dolls and toys scene is hillarious! And the ape Sidney at an institute where Pat gets kidnapped because they want to do experiments on her blood as to why she's shrinking. What amazes me is when Pat was on the podium on her last shrinking phase telling everyone she's about to go, she swims in a pool of fabric softener and comes back???? As funny as it seems they leave you hanging at the end cause when her husband tries to put her wedding ring back on, it won't go and she GROWS and her shoes explode. One thing I will say is at the end the little jingle that they use for the glue product GALAXY GLUE it is an annoying and catchy won't get out of your head tune sung by an unknown named LINDA NOVEMBER but as I said if you have nothing else better to do, this movie is one to watch in the humorous stage. The ape to me seems to steal the show when he helps Pat escape from the institute. I hope that they RErelease this movie on DVD cause it is a cult classic if there ever was one. It stars Ned Beatty (Superman, Superman II, Deliverance, The Toy), Charles Grodin (Seems Like Old Times, Mupper Caper, The Woman In Red, Midnight Run, Beethoven), Lily Tomlin (playing three parts herself, her neighbor Judith, and the one she played on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In the snorty annoying operator which you'll only see once so don't miss it!) and a cameo appearance by Mike Douglass who had a talk show back in the mid 80's. Let's hope that this will come out on DVD....anyone else think so?



4. I really wish they would put this on DVD. I have a very old copy that my aunt taped from Showtime back when cable was very primative. The beginning is cut off (it starts as they are driving down the road from the grocery store with everyone saying "Hi Pat."). Anyway...if there is a studio producer reading this...PUT THIS MOVIE ON DVD!!!!



5. This brings back memories of all the great 80's flicks on HBO. It may not be Oscar Award caliber, but it's a great movie for the family to enjoy.
   I wish it would be released on DVD though. My sister & I still quote lines from this movie...remember "Run Sidney! Run!"
   And we all remember Concepcion dancing around in the kitchen & cramming egg shells down the disposal on top of Pat who's fallen down the drain!
   
   Classic! Can't wait until the powers that be release this one on DVD!!

5 comments about Return to Oz (1985).

1. As a fan of Baum's original works, this has always been my most favorite film version of his world.
   
   And as a child of the 1980s, this film has always had nostalgic appeal. Yes, the film scared me as a child. But that very darkness, mixed with the light fairy tale images, the violence and the childish sense of logic and imagination, is also much closer to Baum's wonderful Oz.
   
   The film comes from the Golden Age of Fantasy Films, the 1980s. The time when they knew how to make clever, visually-imaginative, and often dark fantasy films for children. Return to Oz is absolutely beautiful and perfect. The special effects and production design is better than most films today that are overly CGIed without the same heart and spirit as the Jim Henson company instilled in every film.
   
   I know that the 1939 musical is considered an unparalleled classic, but it has a very plastic and staged feel. It lacks the spirit of Baum's works. Although Return to Oz is often criticsized (and, I believe it bombed at the box office at the time), it has a special place in the hearts of children who grew up with it, as well as fans of the original works.
   
   First of all, the film much more accurately portrays Oz and is much more loyal to the books. Dorothy (perfectly portrayed) is the right age, for starters. Not only do many things more closely resemble the illustrations of the books (especially the characters and the Emerald City), but the world looks much more real and occupied than the 1938 version. The mood of the film is also much closer to Baum's works, mixing silly childish logic and imagination (building the Gump) with darkness and danger of a child in a strange world (the fear of turning into an ornament or to stone or having your head cut off). The film is just as magical and mystical as Baum's books.
   
   Second, I love seeing Oz as "fallen". The Yellow Brick Road reclaimed by nature. The Emerald City crumbling and the people all turned to stone. The Gnome King's palace where people are turned into ornaments. The theme, ironically, of the story is trying to return home doesn't always meet your high expectations and desires. Fits for a film constantly compared to the 1938 musical. Even in a fairyworld, things change and fall away.
   
   This DVD is in widescreen, which is the only way to ever see any movie. There are some cool special features, including a recent interview with the star, Balk. But, best of all, is the film itself, and being able to revisit a childhood favorite for all of us that grew up in the 80s.



2. Return to Oz is a film I watched when I was a child and even this fantasy gave me the willies, but I couldn't help but enjoy this bizarre child-like adventure. So much darker than the Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland, Return to Oz stars Fairuza Balk who in some ways is more connivincing as Dorothy Gale. The good and evil characters are pretty scary, so probably this film should not be viewed by children under the age of 8. There is this one scene that still sticks out for me, where all the mannequin heads come to life, creepy as can be!!! Gotta give this '80s classic a viewing, it will trip you out, enjoy!



3. I watched this movie as a kids and taped it off television when it was playing on the network, now that I have a clean copy where my brother hasn't taped over chunks of the film, I watch it more then ever. I am suprised how many of my friends have actually heard and/or seen the film too!



4. Return to Oz is pretty good, but it can NEVER beat the original! Dorothy recieves a key from the scarecrow and tries to get back to Oz. No one believes her, so Auntie Em takes her to an asylum to help her. During a lightning storm, 'someone' helps Dorothy escape, and she gets transported back to Oz. With the help of totally new friends, Dorothy flies to the Nome King's mountain to figure out what happened to the Scarecrow. Soon, the Nome King challenges Dorothy and her new friends to a little game; Scarecrow has been turned into an ornament, and if they pick the right one, the Scarecrow will come back, but if they guess wrong, they will turn into ornaments as well. The problems I have with this movie is The Emerald City isn't the same, the yellow-brick road is silly. If you love the original classic, you might like RETURN TO OZ!!!
   
   
   p.s. When I was about 5 or 6, my cousin, aunt, and I would act out a scene from this movie. It's when Dorothy takes the powder of life from Momby!



5. This movie is the real deal! Check out "Ozma of Oz" and "The Land of Oz," which take place after the events in the "Wizard of Oz" to see how L. Frank Baum envisioned Oz and then compare them to this movie. Walter Murch, not only got the look and feel of Oz right, but he also got the personalities of these new characters correct. Watch this movie to learn what Oz was really like. Jack Pumpkinhead deserves our love as much as the Scarecrow! Bettina the chicken is more Dorothy's pet than Toto. Enjoy the diversity of L. Frank Baum's imagination! You won't be disappointed. This is a GREAT film!!!
   
   I, too, had been brainwashed by the MGM-version of OZ, so much so that I wouldn't even read the OZ book series. It was in my 20's, while recovering from surgery that I started to read the L. Frank Baum books. I found them to be much richer, interesting, darker and with deeper personal relationships than the MGM Wizard OZ-lite version. I was hooked.
   
   When this movie came out, I was enthralled and amazed. There were other people who loved the original stories as much as me! Fairuza Balk is an age-appropriate Dorothy; Dorothy did have a pet chicken named Bettina that is featured in many of the "Oz" books who talked and eventually decided to remain in Oz; the importance of Jack Pumpkinhead cannot be overstated for the rest of the "Oz" books and is an interesting statement on certain stereotypes (which I won't mention because it would be a spoiler); the storyline of how Oz had changed while Dorothy was gone can be seen as commentary of how Kansas had changed after the twister and on how much Dorothy had changed as a result of her visiting Oz; etc. While many people have commented on how scary the movie is, there are also girl-positive, funny and very magical parts to this movie. While it is not appropriate for the very young (and neither is the "Wizard of Oz" for that matter), it is perfect for ages around ten and older. They read, see and hear of more frightening events daily. My suggestion to you is: Go ahead! Give it a try! :) I don't think you'll be sorry!
   
   FOOTNOTE: Prior to Return to Oz's opening, Disney released a "Making Of" documentary that showed how they filmed the claymation of the Gnome King (this was a very novel technique then), how the witch transferred the different heads, how the heads had different expressions while in the closet, the workings of Tic-Toc (who I fell in love with), the animation of the Gump (another lovable creature), how the costumes of the Wheelies were made and the how the actors moved in the costumes and more details. The documentary also presented some amazing-but-true urban myths about the two Oz movies, such as: Fairuza Balk, Walter Murch and Ray Bolger believed that the land of Oz truly existed. Another story was that the coat worn by Frank Morgan, when he played the traveling salesman in "The Wizard of Oz," was bought as a thrift store so that it had that look of wear and dirt. In order to fit Frank Morgan, a seamstress inverted a sleeve and found the name "L. Frank Baum" embroidered inside! This had the effect of totally freaking out the set of the MGM studio, while others felt like they now had L. Frank's blessing. I remember that Frank Morgan himself relayed this story in the documentary. Ray Bolger was very old and possibly, one of the last main characters to be alive at the time of this documentary. He was propped up by pillows and it looked like it took some effort for him to talk. However, he told the story of how, when he auditioned, he pleaded to be considered for the role of the Scarecrow. When asked why, Ray answered something like, to have more time with Do-ro-thy, of course. (You remember the way he said the name "Dorothy," right?) There were other very cool remembrances that I'm sure I've forgotten. But this documentary really helped bridge the MGM-Oz with the Disney-Oz. If anyone knows where to get this documentary, please, please contact me.