5 comments about Alice in Wonderland (Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection).

1. This is another Disney classic movie that I reccommend for everyone. This movie is a great one too sit down and let your troubles float away.



2. I was so happy to find this film on DVD! I always loved Alice in Wonderland as a kid, but now it is even better.
   
   The quality of the DVD is amazing (although I would expect nothing less from Disney). The colors are so crisp and bright. The sound seems to even be a better quality, too.
   
   But the story is still the same masterpiece I fell in love with as a child.
   
   And the little extras contained on the second disc are perfect! "Thru the looking glass" has to be one of the most memorable Mickey cartoons. Get your hands on a copy of this one and enjoy it!



3. This is one of the many Disney Classics that won our harts and loyalty to the Disney name. No collection is complete without this movie that is good wholesome fun for the whole family.



4. Alice in Wonderland is renowned for it's odd and satirical nature, while still appealing to kids who are highly entertained by the disappearing Cheshire cat, the wackiness of the Mad Hatter, and the wrath of the Queen of Hearts. The songs are cute and Disney-esque, and Alice's adventures inspire all of the many imaginative people out in the world.



5. Early on in Walt Disney's career, he had wanted to tell the story of Alice in Wonderland. As early as 1923 he had begun a series of short films, which featured a young girl in the role of Alice and integrated her live-action performance with animation. So it's no surprise that he wished to make a full-length film based upon Lewis Carroll's classic stories. What is a surprise is that, in 1951 when the film was finally released, Walt Disney was extremely disappointed. He felt that the film lacked an emotional center and that the characters were weak and unmemorable. Perhaps his discontentment was caused by his high expectations or maybe Walt simply didn't understand that the film was a masterpiece, but whatever the reason for his disliking the film, it has gone on to become a classic (of all of the films made while Walt Disney was alive this, Fantasia, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and 101 Dalmatians are my favorites).
   The story, which combines elements from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Saw There, was unfairly criticized for deviating from Lewis Carroll's original text. But of all the film adaptations inspired by the Alice books, this is one of the most faithful to the spirit and essence of the books despite the many changes to chronology and the deletion of many sequences. Disney's Alice in Wonderland is a delightful, song-filled and beautifully animated adventure into a world of nonsense and absurdity.
   
   The story begins with Alice, who's grown tired of her lessons in history, daydreaming of a world of her own; a world where flowers talk, where animals behave like people and people behave like fools, a world where the laws of physics wouldn't apply. Suddenly her fantasy is intruded upon by a white rabbit, dressed in his finest and carrying an umbrella and pocket watch, who frantically intones, "I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!" Intrigued, for she has never met a talking rabbit before, Alice runs after the White Rabbit and crawls into his rabbit hole. Within the dark confines of the hole, Alice blindly progresses until she finds herself plummeting into a dark abyss. She falls and falls and falls, all the while taking notice of her strange surroundings. When she finally lands she continues her pursuit of the White Rabbit until she comes to a door. The Doorknob insists that Alice is much too big to fit through such a tiny door, so he suggests that she drink from the bottle on the table, which appears out of nowhere, and then will change size. Alice drinks from the bottle and shrinks until she's just the right height to fit through the door when the Doorknob tells her that he is locked and that the key is on the table far above them. This is remedied when a box of cookies magically appear and when Alice takes a bite she grows taller than ever before. Though she can now reach the key, she's no longer able to fit through the door and thus she begins to cry. Soon her tears form an ocean and when Alice drinks from the bottle and shrinks again, she lands in this ocean where she is eventually carried to shore. Now her adventures really begin as she meets one bizarre character after another. First she meets the sea captain, Dodo Bird and then the mischievous brothers Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Soon she catches up to the White Rabbit only to face greater obstacles. She encounters talking flowers who think she's a common weed, an erudite caterpillar that gives her lessons in grammar, and she meets the mysterious Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. She discovers a kingdom of playing cards that are ruled over by the cruel Queen of Hearts, who demands obedience or else threatens beheading. Alice's Wonderland becomes a surreal nightmare and she barely manages to escape the only way she knows how, by waking up.
   
   This DVD contains a glorious restoration of the film as well as numerous bonus features including a Virtual Wonderland Party, two Sing Along Songs, Adventures in Wonderland set-top game, a newly discovered Cheshire Cat song, and the classic Mickey Mouse cartoon, Thru the Mirror. Also included is Walt Disney's first televised program One Hour in Wonderland, two theatrical trailers, two television introductions by Walt Disney, a behind the scenes featurette, an excerpt from the Fred Waring Show, deleted songs and storyboard sequence, and an art gallery.
   With all of these features this DVD deserves a place on your shelf of Disney favorites. However Walt Disney Home Entertainment has discontinued this wonderful 2-disc Masterpiece Edition of Alice in Wonderland so if you are fortunate enough to come across a copy, I would urge you to buy it as this will in all likelihood be the final DVD release of the film. The future versions will be in the Blu-ray format.

5 comments about Batman (1989).

1. I love this movie! jack nicholson is impeccable as the joker. this movie feels like the dark 80's comics. i am so grateful for this masterpiece. thank you tim burton and jack for getting everything on point. this, batman begins, and the darknight are the only worthy batman movies worth watching. sorry joel shumacher, your movies suck! IF YOU LIKE THE JOKER THAN YOU MUST WATCH THIS MOVIE



2. The story of the hero known as Batman is one that many people are familiar with to some degree. As a comic book character created by Bob Kane for DC Comics, Batman has remained one of the most popular heroes throughout the years, and the same can be said, for the most part, for all of his various incarnations in both the comics and other forms of media. In the 1960's the Caped Crusader was adapted into a weekly television series, starring Adam West (Bruce Wayne/Batman) and Burt Ward (Dick Grayson/Robin). The problem with this series, in my opinion, was that it chose to make a comedy out of Batman, everything about this series just screamed camp! I'll admit I have watched some of the episodes, along with the movie that was released around the same time, and for some reason I actually found myself unable to look away. The only conclusion I could come up with was that the series was the equivalent of a train wreck; you know the results are going to be disastrous, yet you can't bring yourself to look away. Sure the series was a hit, but I challenge any fan of the series to go back now, and actually watch it and see if you truly feel that it did any sort of justice to the character of Batman. Anyway, I digress, the series eventually ended; however, that would not be the end of Batman's life on television. He would later appear in animated form on the kid-friendly "Super Friends" show, which was basically the Justice League superhero team without the name. After a few seasons on the air, "Super Friends" ended, and once again Batman was left to only appear in the comics.
   
   Then in 1989, Warner Brothers released what would become the first of four feature films that would comprise the original Batman film franchise. In this incarnation the character appeared to be getting the treatment he rightfully deserved, gone was the camp and stupidity of the 1960's, and in was a darker, brooding, and vengeful billionaire version of Bruce Wayne who prowls the rooftops of Gotham City in the guise of Batman
   
   "Batman" focuses on the Batman's (Michael Keaton) initial appearances in and around Gotham City, stopping crime whenever and wherever he finds it. For many, he is nothing more than a myth supposedly lurking in the shadows, created in an effort to deter the criminal element that plagues the city. However, when a maniacal menace by the name of Joker (Jack Nicholson) begins terrorizing Gotham, Batman is forced to come out from the shadows to confront this madman before his city is plunged into madness.
   
   After the popularity of the 60's TV series, Tim Burton's dark vision of Batman was exactly what was needed to turn the Dark Knight back into the vengeful hero he was meant to be. Burton was wise enough to create a version of Batman that was dramatically strong, yet remained true enough to the hero's legendary origins, while still adding a few tweaks for artistic license, that he was able to present a movie that would please the fanboys (and girls), and also gain great critical acclaim and commercial success. The approach of the story was different from most superhero movies of today, because here Bruce Wayne has already become Batman, and we are given his origin through a series of flashbacks. Taking the place of the traditional hero origin was the origin of the film's villain, the Joker. Generally in superhero films both origins tend to be presented simultaneously, or at least in quick succession of each other; however, the change to that method worked out well, and I believe the film's success when it was released, and its continued popularity today, is partially due to that somewhat unconventional approach to the storytelling. The overall story in "Batman" was very well-paced, and generally balanced in regards to the main characters. I did feel that at times perhaps Joker was getting way too much focus, and that Batman/Bruce Wayne was getting pushed aside a bit (this was possibly due to Jack Nicholson's much broader appeal and star power over that of Michael Keaton). Vicki Vale was fleshed out a little in the story, although she never manages to become much more than the token girlfriend for Bruce Wayne in this movie, not that this is all that surprising. The action worked well within the film, never feeling forced into the proceedings to provide the obligatory fight sequences for a comic book or action movie. Basically, all of the story elements within "Batman" worked perfectly with each other to create a very entertaining movie, and beloved comic book adaptation, and at the time, it could have been viewed as a "How To" guide for making a successful superhero movie.
   
   The cast was led by Michael Keaton, who was a source of much contention amongst fans at the time of his casting; because at that time all he had really been known for were comedic roles, and his most recent had been the title role in Tim Burton's "Beetlejuice". However, once trailers for the movie started appearing on TV and in movie theaters, and then the eventual release of the movie, the fans soon began supporting Michael's portrayal, and to this day he still remains the fan favorite for many Bat-fans. Michael brought a very serious minded approach to the character of Bruce Wayne, playing him as being somewhat uncomfortable in his billionaire role, and much more at ease in the part of Batman. He also was the first to give the two characters very distinct voices to differentiate from one another, a choice that has stuck with the character throughout all of his movie incarnations since then (well, except for "Batman & Robin", George Clooney never left `George Clooney' mode). Jack Nicholson ("The Bucket List") was the perfect choice for Joker, and at the time was the iconic version of the character that all other versions would be judged by; however, the late Heath Ledger has dethroned Nicholson with his recent portrayal of a much more menacing version of Joker in Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight". Jack brought a dark sense of humor and violent disposition to the character, aspects of the Joker that hadn't been seen before except in the comic books, mixed with a little bit of wackiness, although not so much that it became cartoonish or distracting from the movie or his performance. Rounding out the main cast was Kim Basinger ("Cellular") as Vicki Vale, her character as I stated earlier, was essentially nothing more than eye candy and a love interest for Bruce Wayne. There were a few moments where Kim was surprisingly given some important scenes in the script, therefore adding some depth to her character and her relationship with Bruce, but otherwise she was nothing more than the damsel-in-distress for the hero to save.
   
   In the end, "Batman" was, and still is, an excellent superhero film adaptation, and at the time was responsible for resurrecting the seemingly dead comic book genre after the one-two punch of "Superman 3" and "Superman 4: The Quest for Peace" had killed it off. Boasting a very solid story that was approached seriously by all the cast and crew working on the film, Tim Burton's "Batman" was the perfect weapon for successfully destroying the public's misconception of Batman as being nothing more than a silly superhero for children that was the focal point of an extremely campy TV show.
   
   "Batman" is rated PG-13 for violence and language.



3. + AS A BATMAN STORY
   It's simply the worst I've experienced. I've read bad Batman comics, I've seen bad Batman television episodes, but this goes above and beyond that. We have nothing to establish Bruce Wayne as a character, nothing to flesh him out beyond "rich guy, wears Batsuit." While this is essentially a Batman/Joker story operating around the theme "the enemies that made each other," even that works as nothing but a cheap twist. Neither of the characters are fleshed out, making them shells of the iconic characters we've read and watched. While I like when film makers take liberties from the source material, giving the Joker the role that they give him in this movie (in relation to Bruce's past) is ridiculous and, again, is simply a cheap twist that has absolutely no emotional resonance. The actor's performances are passable--though there is nothing close to a spark, or really anything convincingly romantic, between Michael Keaton and Kim Basinger--and even Jack Nicholson doesn't wow in this film. Plus, since when does Batman kill people? Is he the Punisher now? They might as well have gave him a different costume, a different name, and called the film something else, because this bears no resemblance to the real Batman.
   
   + AS A TIM BURTON FILM
   Not only does this movie not live up to the "Batman" name, it also doesn't live up to the rest of Tim Burton's directorial accomplishments. You'd expect this kind of movie from a run-of-the-mill hack director, but from the man who brought us Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and so many other good films? Not so much. Even Burton himself said "there's parts I liked, but it was a little boring at times." When I purchased this, I thought I'd be in for a treat. How can you go wrong with Burton and Batman? Turns out, you can go very, very wrong.
   
   + AS A MOVIE
   The back of the DVD really convinced me to buy this from the used pile. "The best movie of the decade," it boasted. Back then, it was the selling point. Now, I'm shaking my head and chuckling at the audacity and falseness of it. This is simply a bad movie.
   
   1/10



4. I love this movie! Michael Keaton is the best Batman before Batman Begins. But the Joker a.k.a Jack Nicholson steals the show. Hes much better than Ceaser Romeros Joker. The fight scenes are some of the best. My personal favorite is and is proably everyones is Joker vs Batman. The movie could have more fight scenes and the fact that Joker killed Bruces parents in the movie didnt bode will with me because his parents were killed by some nameless crook. But it still is a great movie and I give it 4 out of 5 stars. tommorow Ill be reviewing Batman Returns. And to tell you Im using my moms msn name so call me The Cable Guy.



5. This review focuses on Burton's Batman (Batman89, Batman Returns), Nolan's Batman (Batman Begins, the Dark Knight), and 1992 original Batman: The Animated Series. I'm excluding Schumacher's Batman (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin), the 1960's Batman series, and "The Batman", simply because I believe they are the weakest representations.
   
   To be perfectly honest, I love Burton, Nolan, and BTAS equally. All three interpretations are so different, that they cannot be compared. And it is really annoying that I find people on YouTube trying to see which one is better (most opinions are biased). So here it goes with MY opinions:
   
   BATMAN: Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, and Christian Bale have given us excellent performances. Conroy (from BTAS) has the perfect voice for Batman, though the physical depiction seems a bit too much. Bale really acts well as Bruce Wayne, but his voice for Batman is too deep and goofy. To me, Keaton is the ultimate "Bruce". He has the awkwardness and the eccentricity of the character, and plus his hoarse voice for the Bat is far superior to Bale's. It's too bad that he doesn't get that much screen time in both of Burton's films.
   
   VILLAINS: Mr. Freeze, Riddler, Clayface, Mad Hatter, Scarface, Killer Croc, Bane, Baby Doll, Penguin, Clock King, Harley Quinn, Professor Milo, Poison Ivy, and Rupert Thorne appear only on BTAS, and they are marvelous in their own right.
   
   The Scarecrow was better portrayed in BTAS (voice by Henry Polic II) than he was in Begins. Cillian Murphy looked too young as Doctor Crane, and the actual villain was much underused in the film. Two-Face had the scariest appearance in TDK; Aaron Eckhardt was flawless. However, Two-Face in BTAS (Richard Moll) had a much better origin. Years of suppressing anger can do that, you know. Ra's al Ghul is much more interesting in BTAS (David Warner); Liam Neeson's performance in BB was just above average as he wasn't very believable to me. The Penguin, one of my favorite Batman villains, has been blessed with both BReturns and BTAS. Danny Devito and Paul Williams have done superb jobs with this antagonist. Same goes with Catwoman: Michelle Pfeiffer had the better dialogue and better catsuit, while Adrienne Barbeau was a better Selina Kyle, and her chemistry with Batman is deeper.
   
   Finally, for the Joker we have Jack Nicholson (B89), Mark Hamill (BTAS), and Heath Ledger (TDK). All three of them are perfect. Nicholson has the best dialogue, Hamill has the best laugh and look, and Ledger has the best sadism. Three different worlds, three different performances. People on YouTube should understand that.
   
   SUPPORTING CHARACTERS: I couldn't see Michael Caine as Alfred, so it's thumbs down from me. Efrem Zimbalist Jr. and Michael Gough are the ideal Alfred's. Aaron Eckhardt is truly a one-of-a-kind Harvey Dent. I Believe in Harvey Dent! Billy Dee Williams was great in B89, also, and he had the tough and virtuous personality, as did Richard Moll in BTAS. Gary Oldman and Bob Hastings are the definitive Commissioner Gordon's; Pat Hingle is the weakest, but certainly not at all terrible. He's just a bit too short. Morgan Freeman is the one and only Lucius Fox; Brock Peters of BTAS had the better persona, but Freeman had the better chemistry with Batman.
   
   GOTHAM CITY: Burton captured the dark and gothic feel of the hellish city perfectly. It looks as if "Hell came sprouting out of the concrete and kept right on growing. You gotta give credit to Anton Furst, the film's art director, for creating this atmospheric universe. Gotham in BTAS also has its advantages. The towering skyline, the dangerous alleys, and the red sky make it all more mesmerizing. Nolan's Gotham looks hellish, too, but it looks too much like Chicago (filming location for both BB and TDK). But other than that, it succeeds in creating a Faustian nightmare.
   
   EVERYTHING ELSE: The gadgets in BTAS were the most realistic, while the Batmobile for B89 was better-looking. Keaton's Batsuit is classic, while Conroy's cape and cowl is ultimately frightening. The heroines (Basinger, Holmes, and Gyllenhaal) are lovely additions, although I wish Basinger would stop screaming throughout B89. And let's not forget the music: let's give it up for Danny Elfman, Shirley Walker, James Newton Howard, and Hans Zimmer. These are the composers who gave us those catchy Batman themes. We will never forget them or their work.
   
   CONCLUSION: Burton's universe, Nolan's universe, and Timm's universe are near ideal. I love them equally, really. I can't wait for the next film.

5 comments about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (Aniv Clam).

1. Great to purchase this nostalgic film on DVD. Excellent reproduction of an all-time great family film.



2. Who cannot add classics to their movie collections? We grew up watching this movie every year. The Child Catcher is pretty scary, almost as scary as the Witch on the Wizard of Oz! And yes, I have that movie too!



3. This is a great movie classic. Ignore the stupid one star reviews based on format. If you like full screen then buy full screen. If you like widescreen they buy widescreen. Why are they buying something that they know will disappoint them and then give a one star review. This only hurts the movie that they claim they all love!!



4. Unlike many one starred reviews, it was not the picture quality that I hated. IT WAS THE MOVIE ITSELF! Points being.
   1. The romance between Truly and Caractus *whatever his name is* has no chemistry to it, it feels forced, and no offense but he *Carac- Dick Van Dyke* had about as much sex appeal as that "Ernest goes to where ever guy*
   2. Plot holes: We never know quite why the Baroness hates children or why her husband is always trying to kill her
   3. The Grandfather disappears from the time he's kidnapped till the time he's rescued. How did he escape, what was he doing in that room with all those old men for all that time?
   4. The child catcher: Creepy [...] pedophile looking guy that if I was a kid watching this movie I would probably get nightmares. A Notable scene is where he leers down into the basement grateing "Lolliiipops.....Caandyyy". If those kids were stupid enough to believe this creep than maybe they deserved to be kidnapped.
   ****This Cars' a lemon avoid this movie, Watch Mary Poppins instead or Pete's Dragon.



5. This was my youngest son's favorite movie for the Thanksgiving holiday and he still loves it as an adult. We all love Dick Van Dyke and he was superb in this one and especially when he and Sally Ann Howe do the puppet/doll song... It's wonderful and fun for any time you want to smile.

5 comments about The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King.

1. Ambitious in vision, epic in scope, and beautiful in execution, Peter Jackson's "Return of the King" is a fitting end to his adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy that is a magnum opus if there ever was one. Everything that you loved about the first two movies are here--if you didn't love or see the first two, don't bother with this, because it's literally the direct continuation--though things in this one take all of that to the next level. While the first two movies were entertaining and told great stories, they were largely build-up for the various climaxes that redefine the term "catharsis" of this movie.
   
   Jackson does a stellar job in adapting these acclaimed books into what may be the best fantasy trilogy of all time, ending it as nicely as he begun it. The level of quality remains consistent throughout, and the level of attention given to each battle, each character moment, each bit of score (which, alone, was tragically beautiful), and each special effect is commendable. Not only did Jackson do a great job of translating the book to work as a film, he also showed a large amount of bravery while doing so. Many lovers of the book might have been disappointed with how Jackson tampered with the structure of the book (leaving out how Saruman took out The Shire in the book version, as well as restructuring Frodo, Sam, and Gollum's journey, moving the Shelob build-up and conflict to this movie instead of keeping it as a part of The Two Towers, but for me that just showed that he was willing to change a coupe of things to make this the best movie as it could possibly be--and his efforts paid off in large, large ways.
   
   Though I'm giving this movie a 10/10 because it is indeed a classic and deserves full marks, it's not perfect. No movie is. I thought that the ending employed too many fade-to-whites and fade outs, which tricked the audience many times over, making them think it was about to end. If Jackson had just used cuts instead of fades, it would have been fine, but when he faded for the third time and the movie still didn't end, I find that most people who haven't seen it before actually laugh--and that certainly isn't what the end of the movie should do. The battle scenes are a bit drawn out, especially the scenes before Aragorn and the army of the dead arrive. Jackson could have achieved a more powerful effect if he trimmed two or three minutes off of the war scenes.
   
   All it all, it's as perfect a fantasy film as there is out there, and highly deserves all the acclaim it's gotten. "The Return of the King" is a fitting end to one of the best stories ever told, and--despite it's length--it has high rewatchability.
   
   10/10 Classic.



2. I LOVE THE MOVIE OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING. CHECK OUT THE TOTAL INFO...
   
   DISC 1:
   4 AUDIO COMMENTARIES
   - Director/Writer/Producer Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh (Writer/Producer), Philippa Boyens (Writer)
   - The Design Team
   - The Production/Post-Production Team
   - The Cast
   
   SELECT A SCENE:
   * New Scene! - ** Extended Scene
   
   AUDIO SOUND:
   - Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound
   - DTS ES 6.1 Surround Sound
   - Stereo Surround Sound
   
   LANGUAGE:
   - English
   
   SUBTITLES & CLOSED CAPTION:
   - English
   - Spanish
   
   WIDESCREEN 2:35:1
   - Movie Running Time (2Hrs, 7Mins)
   
   THE STORY CONTINUES ON DISC TWO...
   
   DISC 2:
   4 AUDIO COMMENTARIES
   - Director/Writer/Producer Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh (Writer/Producer), Philippa Boyens (Writer)
   - The Design Team
   - The Production/Post-Production Team
   - The Cast
   
   SELECT A SCENE:
   * New Scene! - ** Extended Scene
   
   AUDIO SOUND:
   - Dolby Digital EX 5.1 Surround Sound
   - DTS ES 6.1 Surround Sound
   - Stereo Surround Sound
   
   LANGUAGE:
   - English
   
   SUBTITLES & CLOSED CAPTION:
   - English
   - Spanish
   
   WIDESCREEN 2:35:1
   - Movie Running Time (1Hrs 54Mins)
   - End Credits (21 Mins)
   
   TOTAL RUNNING TIME (4Hrs 22Mins)
   
   THE END...
   
   DISC 3:
   The Appendices Part 5 - The War of the Ring
   TRT = Total Running Time
   
   Introduction by Peter Jackson = (TRT - 1:33)
   
   PLAY ALL - DOCUMENTARIES (UNINTERRUPTED 3 HRS. & 24 MINS. EXPERIENCE)
   - J.R.R. Tolkien - The Legacy of Middle-earth = (TRT - 29:29)
   - From Book to Script: Forging The Final Chapter = (TRT - 25:02)
   - Designing and Building Middle-earth = (TRT - 39:57)
   - Big-atures: = (TRT - 19:59)
   - WETA Digital = (TRT - 47:23)
   - Costume Design = (TRT - 12:03)
   - Home of the Horse Lords = (TRT - 30:16)
   
   CHAPTERS:
   * J.R.R. TOLKIEN: THE LEGACY OF MIDDLE-EARTH
   * FROM BOOK TO SCRIPT
   * DESIGNING AND BUILDING MIDDLE-EARTH
   * HOME OF THE HORSE LORDS
   * MIDDLE-EARTH ATLAS
   * NEW ZEALAND AS MIDDLE-EARTH
   
   ADDITIONAL FEATURES:
   - Abandoned Concept: Aragorn Battle Sauron = (TRT - 5:18)
   - Middle-earth Atlas
   - New Zealand: Locations of Middle-earth = (TRT - 16:07)
   
   GALLERIES:
   * Audio Commentary: Image with (Blue Stamp) Symbol
   * Slideshow Features: By Activating Feature Image with Audio Commentary
   - The Peoples of Middle-earth = (1443)
   - The Realms of Middle-earth = (679)
   
   SUBTITLES & CLOSED CAPTION:
   - English
   - Spanish
   
   DISC 4:
   The Appendices Part 6 - The Passing of the Age
   TRT = Total Running Time
   
   Introduction by Billy Boyd "Pippin" - Dominic Monaghan "Merry" - Elijah Wood "Frodo" = (TRT - 1:40)
   
   PLAY ALL: DOCUMENTARIES (UNINTERRUPTED 3½ HRS. EXPERIENCE)
   - Cameras in Middle-earth = (TRT - 1:13:08)
   - WETA Digital = (TRT - 42:01)
   - Editorial: Completing the Trilogy = (TRT - 22:14)
   - Music for Middle-earth = (TRT - 22:02)
   - The Soundscapes of Middle-earth = (TRT - 22:09)
   - The End of All Things = (TRT - 21:29)
   - The Passing of an age = (TRT - 25:11)
   
   CHAPTERS:
   * FILMING "THE RETURN OF THE KING"
   * VISUAL EFFECTS
   * POST-PRODUCTION: JOURNEY'S END
   * THE PASSING OF AN AGE
   * CAMERON DUNCAN: THE INSPIRATION FOR "INTO THE WEST"
   
   INDEX:
   ADDITIONAL FEATURES:
   - Production Photo Gallery = (69) * Slideshow Auto Image
   - Visual Effects Demonstration: "The Mumakil Battle"
   - Cameron Duncan: The Inspiration for Into the West = (TRT - 32:21)
   - DFK6498 = (TRT - 4:38)
   - Strike Zone = (TRT - 11:16)
   
   THE END...
   
   COMING SOON!
   
   Director Guillermo del Toro
   The Hobbit (2011) (announced)
   The Hobbit (2012) (announced)
   Local Shire Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, relative of Frodo Baggins, is living a quiet, peaceful life until Gandalf the Grey walks into his home with a band of wandering dwarfs and drags poor Bilbo into a quest that entails defeating a dragon, a three way battle of men, dwarfs and monsters and, most importantly of all, lead Bilbo into contact with a peculiar ring that has had and will have a great impact on the future of their world. - More info at IMDb.com
   
   HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!



3. As the third and final installment in Peter Jackson's directorial magnum opus, The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is a must-have title--if you already own the other two. Like its predecessors, it is a very long film that could easily be shortened by 45 minutes to an hour without losing anything from the plot. Yes, it's a visually stunning interpretation of a classic piece of 20th century literature, and it deserved the 11 Oscars it won, including best picture, but at almost THREE AND A HALF HOURS it's just too darned long. I mean, just how many monster battles does one need to sit through to get the point? If you're totally into that kind of thing, then this is your all-you-can-eat buffet. For me, the best thing about having it on DVD is the pause button, because you can periodically get up to relieve yourself, of fix a snack, or even have a life while watching it. Taking the thing in at a single sitting isn't just a pastime, it's a commitment.
   
   Of course, we haven't even mentioned the second disc containing several hours of bonus features yet. They're great, by the way, and there's a lot of them. One thing that can definitely be said for this package is that if you like the content, you more than get your money's worth.
   
   Amazingly, there is actually an extended version of this film available that has a running time of more than four hours!!! Now that's the epitome overkill, both literally and figuratively.



4. Item shipped in a timely manner and packaged well against damage. Love the LOTR series and this is a welcome addition to my collection.



5. I sat trying to think of a cool, witty, or flashy title for this review, but I couldn`t think of one good enough for the movie. All of them fell short of it`s wonder. The plot, actors, and screenwriting of This movie left me gasping. So even if you have to settle for a lame review title afterwards, please see this movie.

5 comments about Star Wars - Episode II, Attack of the Clones.

1. The Clone Wars rewrite.
   
   I originally did a very snarky original review.
   I have decided to redo this one.
   Hopefully this will clarify things.
   
   When The Clone Wars came out I wasn't exactly looking forward to it.
   Why?
   Darth Maul is the main reason.
   I know, I know, everyone says......get over it.
   Nope, not going to happen.
   When The Phantom Menace came out, Maul was HEAVILY publicized.
   You couldn't go anywhere without seeing his red and black mug everywhere.
   The books, the magazine covers, etc..........
   All of my excitement over the new trilogy was, like many other people centered on Maul.
   I was looking forward to the best super villain since Vader being in all three movies.
   Needless to say he gets killed at the end of Menace and I felt like a rug had been cruelly yanked right out from under me.
   How could Lucas hype one character so much then give him practically no lines, no screen time and then kill him at the end?
   Another tragic waste of what could have been and should have been a central character.
   
   So with a chip on my shoulder I went in the theater completely expecting to hate this movie.
   I did.
   I had heard early rumors about Hayden's acting and all I could do was wince during some of his emotional scenes.
   The scene where his mom dies, the scenes with Padme.
   I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on Hayden or Portman.
   Their ok actors, I blame Lucas for writing dialog that was so juvenile I'm surprised either actor was able to say their "love scene" lines without laughing.
   And the way Padme turns to him during the love scene with the music swelling, then she turns away having second thoughts about a potential relationship with Anakin, and the music stops..........embarrassing and corny.
   
   I realize it's Lucas' franchise and he can do whatever he want's with it.
   However, just because you can, doesn't mean you should!
   I remember reading an old interview with Harrison Ford when they were filming the original trilogy.
   Lucas was writing the same corny love lines for him and Carrie Fischer and both Ford and Fischer changed the lines.
   Lucas called them on it, and Ford replied, "You can write this garbage all you want, but I'm not going to say it".
   Oh, if only Christenson and Portman would have shown us the same courage, we could have had some genuinely interesting moments between them.
   Instead, we are left with Anakin the mannequin and Padme with her, "I'd rather be anywhere but here" look on her face.
   
   Now we can move on to Darth Tyrannus.
   Would that be Tyrannus as in T-Rex???
   Give me a break.
   Don't get me wrong, I love Christopher Lee as much as everyone else.
   His acting skills are legendary and he brings excellence to any movie he is a part of.
   That said his character was not necessary for the new trilogy. It just felt like Lucas had to throw a new apprentice at us and Count Dooku was something he just thought up at the last minute.
   
   Another complaint I have to raise is the "comic" relief from C3PO.
   UUGH!!!
   Not funny, not genuine, just forced one liners that positively GRATE!!!!
   
   And my final big gripe is the final saber battle.
   The two handed attack from Anakin was awesome but WAY too short.
   Then we get to see Yoda do his thing.
   Sorry but I wasn't impressed.
   His fight was way too short and not very realistic.
   Its great Lucas has all this computer power but during the Yoda, Dooku fight it felt like Lucas was just abusing that power.
   He did seem to get it right during the Emperor / Yoda fight on Revenge of the Sith.
   But this fight in particular left a very bad taste in my mouth.
   
   So, what did I like about the movie?
   The special FX are amazing but for a Star Wars movie, that's just expected.
   And the FX are really the only thing Clone has going for it.
   The story itself is boring and drags.
   The dialog in places is so bad it borders on offensive.
   All in all, it may be a tad darker than Menace but it lacked the one thing I really wanted. Maul.
   Get over it???
   Maybe by the time Lucas gets around to doing a new trilogy I'll be able to forgive and forget.
   
   
   
   Lastly, being a Wars fanatic since I was little I naturally bought this when it came out.
   Yes I gave it one star and still bought it.
   Why?
   Out of loyalty to the franchise?
   I don't know exactly but after multiple viewings my opinion hasn't changed.
   It's a beautiful movie to look at but not very much fun to listen to.
   Great FX with dreadful forced comedy from C3PO, horrid dialog in places, corny acting here and there, and a final fight that was anything but memorable.
   I have given all the other Wars movies very high scores but I can't in good conscience recommend this movie except to the die hards that have already seen it.



2. Firstly, a word to the admirably persistent complainers--you've been at it for how many years now? All you do is whine and moan; whine and moan; whine and moan. If you must keep whining and moaning, the least you can do is whine and moan some alternatives; sincere, honest,and RATIONAL suggestions about what you would have done with these films, and what you think George Lucas should have done, to make them better. One of my cardinal rules is: don't complain that something's broken if you don't have any idea how to fix it yourself; it really impacts the validity of your review, and its usefulness, if you complain that something is wrong, but do not explain how you feel it should have been done. It removes a level of depth and believability from your words when all you are apparently doing is complaining and ranting that the picture went horribly wrong (and ruined your childhood memories, depending on who you are), and not showing any signs of having an intelligent and logical perspective on how the films should have been done.
   
   While I am at it, here are a few other points to consider:
   A) If the Pod Race from Ep. 1 was purely designed to sell a video game, then so was the scene in 'New Hope' where Luke, in his X-wing during his first desperate battle as part of the Rebel Alliance, charges down an exterior trench on the Death Star to find the area that, if fired on, will result in the destruction of the Empire's lethal space station. So is the speeder bike sequence from 'Jedi.' Remember the image of Luke streaking down that perfectly straight, claustrophobically narrow trench, with the graphic showing him what he was aiming for on his "targeting computer". The stuff modern video games are made of, no? Video games may not have been that advanced in '77, but believe me, today that's exactly what people would take it as.
   
   B) If Anakin whined a lot in Ep. II, so did Luke in 'New Hope' (i.e. "I was going to...pick up those power converters" (whatever the EXACT line was...), or the whole bit with 3PO about speeding up time to get him off of Tatoine and on his way to the academy.)
   
   C) If a movie (or even multiple movies) can bring your treasured childhood memories--the mementos of times past stored up in your head--to nothingness, what mental state are you in, anyhow? To dislike a movie is one thing; to claim it ruined things in your head and your life is entirely another. If you are really that direly affected by a film you didn't like, I'd be interested to hear a detailed synopsis of the mental process and emotional process that brought you to this conclusion. Persuade me that it is actually possible to feel this way about a piece of entertainment.
   
   ***
   Alright, to actually talk about this film--contrary to the beliefs of some, it is important in several ways to the saga as a whole. What can be more important in the Star Wars legend than seeing Anakin and Padme become romantically entwined and, eventually, marry secretly? What can be more vital to the creation of the Empire shown in Eps. 4-6 than the beginning of the Clone Wars, mentioned so cryptically in 'New Hope', and Palpatine getting "emergency powers" beyond the reach of the chancellorship under normal circumstances? To be honest-- little that I can think of. It might seem to be about politcal conniving and petty string-pulling at this stage, but logically speaking, this is how one achieves grand ends. You start low down; you work your way up; you gradually push all these buttons and pull all those strings, and through a slow process that's probably as painful to you as it is to some of the viewers of these films, you get where you always wanted to be in the first place. To put it plainly, it would be illogical for Sideous to just swoop down and beseige Coruscant. Do you think the whole Galactic Republic wouldn't put up a humungous fight? Of course they would; ergo, Sideous has to slowly work his way to total power, step by step, and do it in such a stealthy and orchestrated manner that no one will realize what has happened until it is too late.
   
   Beyond issues of storyline, I'd argue that this one isn't quite as strong as 'Phantom Menace'. As usual the story is strong and in-line with series continuity; Obi-Wan's detective subplot is particularly well done. On this note Ewan McGregor is excellent as Obi-Wan, a noble and skilled Jedi Knight who trains his protege, angst-filled 19-year-old Anakin Skywalker. McGregor exudes his character's wry sense of humor at some points, but at others seems genuinely like a no-nonsense Jedi, and someone to be wary of when he gets down to "business." But the character of Kenobi is that of more-or-less a supporting character in this story. The detective plot intriguing, exciting and ties into the eventual dominance of The Empire, but Anakin and Senator Amidala are the collective centerpiece of this story.
   
   Hayden Christensen, in his first expedition as the Chosen One, has taken more than a fair beating from both professional critics and overzealous fans. My own feeling is that, while he only improves in Ep. 3, he actually does quite well here. He is outstanding particularly in his thunderous outbursts: the former is when he confronts Padme with his pent up love for her, and the second is when, following the death of his mother (portrayed excellently by a very convincing Pernilla August), he confesses to slaughtering the Tuskan Raiders responsible for her end. These are powerful and well-acted scenes that breed a foreboding, not only about the paths on which destiny will take these characters, but also about Anakin's inevitable turn to the Dark Side. Natalie Portman plays the other half of this set of star-crossed lovers, and she continues to be the strong female persona she was in the previous film, but at the same time lets her hair down, so to speak, and is even developed a bit further. Personally I have always felt that Portman was something of a weak link in the prequel cast, at least from Ep. II onward-- not exactly bad, just not as involved in the material at times as other cast members appear to be. She is as good as ever here, and there are as ever some great moments in her reactions to Anakin's fits of rage and desperation.
   
   The remainder of the cast--including Ian McDiarmid, Frank Oz, Samuel L. Jackson, who gives his Mace Windu character a new battle-ready slant at the film's climax, Christopher Lee, and Temura Morrison--are reliable as they ever were, while a colorful array of background characters adds to the wonder and entertainment value of Lucas' universe.
   
   While the screenplay is, as with most things, not nearly as terrible as some of have suggested--even in the romance area, which really improves after a couple viewings and a little thought--two elements of the film captured my interest and attention in particular. Firstly, Jango Fett (aforementioned Morrison)is a brilliant bad guy. I can't say Boba Fett ever interested me that much compared to other Star Wars characters, but Jango--and his silver suit--are every bit as neat and engaging as was Darth Maul in the previous films; in my opinion, silver suits Jango better than blue and grey ever did Boba! The other interesting element of the film is the clarification of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru's connection to all this. Jack Thompson was, frankly, riviting as Clieg Lars, the missing link in the family tree and the man Anakin's mother married. It is fascinating to think of different generations of Lars running this homestead down through the years. I generally find geneologies and family histories fascinating and this saga as a whole is filled with that sort of thing; the Lars family is particularly good example of this facet of the series.
   
   As usual with any Star Wars film, all this intrigue, mystery, romance, character drama, and thrilling adventure eventually melds into a rollercoaster of action, excitment, suspense, and special effects. If you thought Lucas and ILM couldn't top Darth Maul, boy were you wrong. There is an imaginative speeder chase as Anakin and Obi-Wan go after a bounty hunert in a rampage through the late night activity of Coruscant, a fist fight (another big first for Star Wars) between Obi-Wan and Jango, and, most incredibly, a massive Jedi attack on Geonosis, as Obi, Amidala, and Anakin are about to be devowered alive by exotic creatures in an exection aren during what has to be one of Lucas' most orignal and imaginative action sequence. Of course there is the lightsaber duel with Dooku, but it almost takes a back seat to the other action scenes. It's great to see Yoda fight (both Yoda and ultra-cool Mace really get a new shake after the restraint and meditation of the council room scene), but the most one gets out of the scene is that Dooku has escaped and the Clone War (the first battle of which acts as the film's finale) is underway as the hunt to capture Dooku (in fact Darth Tyrannus, in league with Sideous, unbeknownst to the heroes) and prevent him from succeeding with his Seperatist movement is on. And that is imporant; and Christopher Lee, make no mistake about it, is excellent in his villain role, but like most improves in the next film.
   
   
   At the end of the day, Ep. II, while not quite as enjoyable as its chronological predecessor in some ways, is a fun and, at times, dramatic and elaborate film. It was bound to be shot down half way by one-sided and embittered old-school fans and critics, but it ultimately achieves its objectives, these being: bring Anakin and Padme together, further Sideous' grip on the Republic, show the creation of the storm troopers, and... come off as a fun and engaging space fantasy/action film! Personally, I think it succeeds with flying colors in all of these areas.



3. After the overwhelmingly disappointing presentation that was "The Phantom Menace", we Star Wars fans were sure that our benefactor, the wise and creative George Lucas, had simply been dealing with a very large and lengthy brain fart that had caused some of his more questionable choices regarding what was to be the prequel to end all prequels; we were also sure that by ascending the director's chair again, he would be righting the wrongs of the first (or fourth) film and making us feel proud to be sci-fi junkies again.
   However, to put it plainly, "Attack of the Clones" rights a few of it predecessor's wrongs only to replace them with faults just as great as those of the past. While the sequel is a maginally better attempt (I'd give it a 3.5 if I could), that's all that it remains: an attempt at replicating the original trilogy's greatness.
   
   Taking place a decade after "Phantom Menace", the plot finds ex-queen and current Naboo senator Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman) the target of an assassination attempt led by a separatist movement stirring in the Galactic Senate. Sent to protect her from further attacks are Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his maturing apprentice Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), who has not relented his attraction towards the beautiful politician since the last movie. Upon the finding of a clue regarding Amidala's would-be assassin, the two Jedi part ways, with Kenobi tracking a bounty hunter and Skywalker escorting the senator into hiding on her homeworld of Naboo...where, against the vows of a Jedi, the two of them come to realize that their attraction is more than one-sided.
   
   It's rare that I can place the majority of blame for a bad movie on a single individual, but in the case of "Attack of the Clones", a large part of what made the movie as big of a disappointment as it is was Hayden Christensen being cast as the adult Anakin Skywalker. I have no doubt that even decades from now, fans will still be debating about what state of mind George Lucas was in when he selected the then-21-year-old ex-star of TV's "Higher Ground" for what should have been one of the most defining roles in cinema history: the part of the troubled Skywalker calls for the juggling of several emotions, but even the most basic of core expressions seem lost to Christensen, who mumbles his lines like a supporting member of a school play, and sells the most humanistic of exertions as though he has something else on his mind. In truth, behind the scenes, Christensen was surprised to find out that he wouldn't yet be playing the role of Darth Vader until the third movie, and his obvious disappointment shines through in every scene, as though he's punishing Lucas for not letting him wear the enigmatic cape and helmet by performing in inexcusable monotone.
   Luckily, Ewan McGregor has begun to grow into his role as the-man-who-would-be-Ben, and having Christopher Lee ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) in the cast as the villainous Count Dooku adds a sense of legitimancy to the otherwise flawed ensemble (which includes Natalie Portman resuming her poor job as Padme); he nicely fills the shoes that had been left by other acclaimed veterans performers like Alec Guiness (the elderly Obi-Wan) and Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn).
   
   If we can forget the fact that the romance angle of the plot resembles "Dawson's Creek" to an embarassing extent, we can look at "Attack" for what it's best left considered as: a powerhouse of CGI magic and action galore. While "Phantom Menace" was no slouch when it came to delivering the thrills, its sequel dutifully puts it (and just about everything else) to shame by showcasing what are, without a doubt, some of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring visuals ever: the Obi-Wan/Jango Fett battle, the chase in the asteroid field (this one in particular is amazing), the droid/Clone battle, the climatic lightsaber duel, and roughly a dozen other scenes will remind anybody who's forgotten of what George Lucas and his team can do with special effects and that they really know how to shoot a fight scene, be it in space on the ground.
   In addition, the environment has been refined to give it a more tangible feel: not unlike Mos Eisley in the original film, the characters actually traverse deeply into the locales they visit (Kamino, Geonosis, etc.). This is a great step upwards, when remembering the indifferent atmosphere surrounding the locations of the previous film: absolutely no expense has been spared to detail these vistas to an amazing degree, and I'm sure that a viewer could occupy himself throughout the movie by just paying attention to the backgrounds, the sound effects, and the texture of Lama Su's face.
   
   Alas, we Star Wars fans would have to wait until Episode III until we would receive general satisfaction in the prequel trilogy, and for this, Episode II is a disappointment - not as a sci-fi or action movie, but as a part of the Star Wars legacy. No doubt fans will already own it, but anybody who hasn't seen it yet shouldn't be afraid of giving it a rent on a Saturday night.



4. I've Waited long Enough, heard enough Criticism taken enough Star Wars and George Lucas Bashing. It is August of 2008 as I write this. Star Wars Is and always has been a Cultural Phenomenon. Why has the Original Trilogy Flourished, while the Prequels have been treated less then kind to. First off Episodes I-III are The story of Anakin Skywalker. Not the back story of the Exploits of Darth Vader. We have to know the Man before we Know the Monster. Episode II is how Anakin and Padme fall in Love and the fall af the Republic into Civil War. I Thought it was a Terrific Movie. Hayden C. Can act, He is a Good (Young-Future) Vader. Natalie Portman is Perfect as the Mother of Luke and Leia. And Ewan Mcgregor is Without a doubt the perfect young Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yoda in action. Jango Fett, Young Boba Fett. The Origin of the Clones. THE JEDI IN ACTION!!!!!
   as Star Wars fans We have been waiting A LONG TIME for this. It is happening in this movie. PLus we are Treated to the Start of the Clone Wars. The Battles are Unbelievable. What More do people want. So what, we have a Love story going on. Anakin and Padme are Supposed to Fall in Love!!!! They Sire Luke and Leia Don't Forget.
   In My Opinion the reason the Prequels weren't as big as the Originals, I hear a Million and one reasons. The reason is clear. The Originals came out They Blew everyone away. No one EVER saw anything like that before. Since then there have been so many movies to come out with so many advances and action, effects, and blockbusters like never before. So when the 3 Prequels came, people were expecting the Second Coming. Obviously NOTHING can live up to that kind of Hype. So 3 Great movies each one better than the last get Destroyed by all the "so-Called" Fans and Critics. That is why they didn't get their Proper Status.



5. I ordered episodes 1 thru 3 for my son. They all arrived before the promised arrival date and with no damages.

5 comments about Hocus Pocus.

1. Great and easy transaction--fast shipping and product arrived in great condition. I would definitely recommend this seller!



2. Great cast. Bette Midler sure makes a good witch. Good story line and direction. Great music and CGI. Two thumbs up. I almost would like a 5 star



3. This is a movie that I watch in September (sometimes more often throughout the year) to get me in the "fall" mode. The music, acting and overall feel of Hocus Pocus is fun, spooky and very entertaining. The cast is awesome! The music is stellar and it's been one of our favorites for years.



4. This movie was so bad having now seen it I wouldn't take it if they were giving it away for free. I guess it would make a child friendly Hallooween movie. It wont scare them but it will bore them.



5. This is a really nice kids movie, and I loved it as a kid. You won't regret giving it a spin. However, as a purchase be forewarned - if you have a widescreen TV this will not conform to the shape, as it is NOT ANAMORPHIC. It will show up as a box inside a box. So if you plan on only viewing on a widescreen TV, I can't recommend it. You can zoom, but the picure quality suffers. Hopefully Disney will put out a special edition around Halloween someday.

5 comments about Rescuers Down Under.

1. I received my DVD in a timely manner and was package so it would not get damage, i would differently order again from the sender



2. the picture and the sound was soooooooooooo good and clear also the price was good



3. This was a superb entry in the Disney canon. The best sequel to a animated feature as well. Faithful and underrated. This is great people, Walt Disney would have been proud.



4. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by children of any age from 2 to 102. It is even better than the original Rescuers.



5. A lot of reviews for "The Rescuers Down Under" seem to be focusing on the fact that it's a sequel; as a result, their reviews tend to be biased: either they are in favor of Disney sequels, or they detest the very idea of Disney sequels.
   
   Please disregard these reviews.
   
   Contrary to other reviewers' suggestions, "The Rescuers Down Under" was by no means intended for a straight-to-video release. In fact, the production value in this film is just as high if not even higher in some aspects than the Disney box office giants that followed it, such as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," etc. The film uses CGI subtly and is chock full of fantastic imagery--not even just of the Australian Outback--a wide variety of sound effects, and boasts Bruce Broughton's incredible score--which I would consider to be among the best Disney feature scores of all time.
   
   "The Rescuers Down Under" was the first Disney film in what might be referred to as the "Disney Renaissance" (1988-1999). Its uniform finish and faded shading on characters is the result of a new digital painting technique called the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS); this computerized production system was utilized for the last scene of "The Little Mermaid" (the previous Disney film) but was only first used 100% for the production of "The Rescuers Down Under."
   
   The fact that the film wastes no time with musical numbers--a stereotypical Disney and animation element, as the only previous Disney Classic film to lack musical numbers was "The Black Cauldron"--is a plus; the story drives itself and there is a definite synergy between the fantastic voice acting, the high-quality animation, and the breathtaking Australian scenery. Moreover, "The Rescuers Down Under" defies most stereotypical Disney standards, giving it a very mature and refined feel; there are ZERO cringe moments in the film, and none of the humor is overly childish.
   
   If you have a child who is interested in flying (i.e.- riding in airplanes) and/or exploring the world (namely the Outback, which is one of the most fascinating locations on the planet and is well represented here), "The Rescuers Down Under" could easily become his/her favorite film. Throughout the film there is a sense of adventure and much of the "camera work" has utilized digital effects to create a fantastic sense of flying; the "animated cinematography" of the film is flawless, and the overall appearance is consistently pristine.
   
   In conclusion, allow me to reiterate: what makes "The Rescuers Down Under" so phenomenal is the plain and simple fact that it defies expectations, namely what one would expect from Disney and particularly from a Disney sequel. This film is not even comparable to "The Rescuers" because they are completely different in style.
   
   "The Rescuers Down Under" followed on the heels of some above-standard programming from Disney, including "Ducktales" and the unique theatrical release "Oliver & Company," and it was followed closely by "Talespin," "Darkwing Duck," and "Goof Troop," all Saturday morning cartoon shows that were by no means dumbed down to pander to little children--who are by no means as lacking in intellect as previous and subsequent children's entertainment seem to anticipate.
   
   BOTTOM LINE: "The Rescuers Down Under" is a sharp-looking and sharp-feeling film that is suitable for ALL ages, young and old. I consider myself to have especially refined taste when it comes to animated features, and I say this one ranks among THE BEST.
   
   Most critics agree; the only reason "The Rescuers Down Under" flopped at the box office was because of competition ("Home Alone," apparently) and some aversion to sequels on the part of moviegoers...which incidentally prompted Disney to avoid theatrical release of sequels for over a decade after that. "The Rescuers Down Under" did have a successful video release, which would have led to a third film in 1996, had Eva Gabor not died before it could be made.

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 My Neighbor Totoro.

1. There's lots of reviews about what a great family movie Totoro is. I'm in the middle of a divorce right now and watch it with my 3 year old almost every night. The fact that the two girls are living with just their dad and the mom lives some place else is a great opportunity for us to talk about things and help him understand that what's going on in his life isn't unique.



2. Don't tell anyone, but there is animist Japanese religion all over this perfect animated movie. Does that make it animated animism or animist animation? I don't know and does it matter - NO! This movie is sweet and beautiful with a marvelous soundtrack. It is gentle without putting you to sleep. How come the only good Disney movies come from other studios these days? Because there were never any good Disney movies. (Oops, tipped my cards). Bottom line: buy this for your kids and it won't be long before Porco Rosso makes a crash landing at your sty.



3. Almost everyone I knew into animation told me I'd love this movie after I got into Studio Gibli's work a few years back. I guess after seeing Princess Mononoke, Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away anything would have a hard time stacking up. It's a good movie, but I don't think they used the magical elements and creatures enough.



4. I just loved this movie - and I'm an adult. It really is a very cute touching film, even if it is a bit slow. I personally found it to be very entertaining, and I'd recommend it as a family film.
   
   Miyazaki has done a great job of making the sisters seem believable as real children and also likeable - they're not too sweet/cute, but not too bratty. I also loved how elements of reality and fantasy were nicely interwoven - such that the appearance of the Totoro(s) felt believable, yet still cute(and who doesn't want to give the big Totoro a good squeeze?). The film also suceeds in presenting everything from the perspective of the children. Why don't we know exactly what's wrong with their mom? Because they don't exactly know. The information given is what the children perceive, thus we see the world through their eyes.
   I also ejoyed thier portrayal of the father. He seems to be a very patient, loving father who actually spends some time with his children despite having to work alot. It's very refreshing to see a film portrayal of the loving sensitive father (we could use more of that). For this reason I think the film has a very positive portrayal of family, thus making it a good family film (there's also a nice lack of violence and swearing, for those with small children). My only complaint is that there should have been more bonus features, like a making-of and maybe some interviews with people who actually made the film. However, this is a fault of the dvd release, not the film itself.
   
   Overall, this is an excellent whimsical fantasy tale as well as a good coming of age tale. I highly recommend it both for children and adults.
   
   P.S. I can't stop humming that catchy ending song. "Totoro, Totoro..."



5. New DVD by Disney has new voices and wording for the characters. We were used to the older voices and the colloquial wording. Sad to see the change.

5 comments about Back to the Future.

1. Okay so maybe it's not a classic...but I think that it should be. This is a very well written script that stands the test of time. Watching this film on cable yesterday, the movie doesn't once fall into the campy column. I can't say the same for the rest of the series. To tell you the truth I think that they should have stopped at the one movie. But still, this movie has everything, laughs, lite-suspense, and just an all around good, clean family fun.



2. BACK TO THE FUTURE
   
   
   this experience is as good a movie now, as it was in 1985.
   
   back to the future is a rewarding family experience that combines learning about technology and science "no this sucker is electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts for the time distortion field", family values "marty you have got to save your father now, or else he will be ERASED! , erased from existence....." and a fun time into one great experience.
   
   If you go to film school, teach those academic idiots a lesson about real filmmaking and talk about back to the future... Filmmaking is NOT an academic exercise, its an experience... yo have to live it, and walk the walk to be a part of it...
   
   
   michael, los angeles, california
   
   
   If a film is not there to have a good time, what the hell is it for?????
   



3. Exciting action/scifi movie with all the standard attributes:
   car chasings, gun fire, fist fights....
   The movie authors ridiculize the great scientist Einstien, by naming the a dog after him,
   and having a main charcter whose hairstyle is like Einstein's.
   The plot is about timetravel back and forth to the past (1955) and present (1985).
   
   A high school scateboarding student and his older friend, the "Doc"
   have adventures while travelling to the past and present.
   Of course, in real life this is not possible.
   As long as you don't object to the impossible time travel,
   the rest of the movie is entertaining and energizing.
   
   The music is dynamic... A hard rock song ("The power of love") is the main theme.
   And there is nice jazzy muzic, when they reach 1955.
   The time travel is accomplished by using a remote-controlled car.
   There are some hidden commercials of Pepsi and Calvin Klein.
   All in all, it's a very well done movie!
   Over the course of our lives, we see things change, just as it is portrayed in the movie,
   so the movie makes sense to me.
   Actually, I have done some time travelling myself as well. I left my country and came back
   10 years later. Boy, how different it looked! So I can almost identify with the movie's plot.
   That's why I give it a full 5 stars rating and two thumbs up!



4. I've watched this movie at least 20 times by now and never seem to get tired of it. Michael Fox reacts perfectly to the travel back in time scenario. Watch him squirm when he realizes the 1950s girl making eyes at him is his mom-to-be in 1985.
   Christopher Lloyd is a comic genius whose body language and facial expressions will have you in stitches. As a nutty professor type trying to invent a time travel machine (and succeeding), he is also perfect for this film.
   The headlong pacing, plus the humorous and inventive situations make this a fun movie for the whole family.



5. Have you ever wanted to travel through time? To see the future? To witness historic events? Marty McFy(Michael J. Fox) finds hinself facing this when his friend "Doc" Emmett L. Brown(Christopher Lloyd) builds a time machine. Marty is accidentally sent back to 1955 (from 1985) ( he's only 17, so he hasn't been born yet) and disrupts his parents'(Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover) first meeting. On top of that, he might be stuck in 1955 because there isn't much plutonium around yet, and that's what makes the car a time machine.
   
   
   
   The actors do a great job of combining reality and science fiction to make my favorite movie.
   
   
   
   Do not show to young children who do not know cussing is wrong, as charactars swear freely.