Bad Santa (2003) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)If you are a fan of Bad Santa, DO NOT BUY THIS DVD. I bought it expecting extended and restored scenes, instead I got a totally different ending and hilarious scenes cut out.
This version ends with the little boy outside trying to clean up the blood on his front steps rather than giving the bully a swift kick in the nards.
One of the scenes cut out is the scene in the gym where Willie and Marcus are trying to teach the little boy how to defend himself. That was one of the funniest scenes in the movie.
The packaging is deceptive. If they had said, "new ending" on the notes, I would have left it alone. It didn't and I wasted my money. I thought I would come on here and post a warning.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Bad Santa (2003)

Hollywood favorites Billy Bob Thornton (THE ALAMO), Bernie Mac (MR. 3000), and John Ritter (TV's 8 SIMPLE RULES FOR DATING MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER) star in the year's most-talked-about comedy hit, BAD SANTA. You'd better watch out -- Santa Claus Willie T. Stokes (Thornton) is coming to town and he doesn't care if you've been naughty or nice. Willie's favorite holiday tradition is to fill his sacks with loot lifted from shopping malls across the country. But this year his plot gets derailed by a wise-cracking store detective (Mac), a sexy bartender (Lauren Graham -- TV's GILMORE GIRLS), and a kid who's convinced Willie is the real Santa Claus.

Get 23% OFF

Click here for more information about Bad Santa (2003)

Boiler Room (2000) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I am a Stockbroker with 15 years of experience. I began my career working for a firm that was like the firm portrayed in the film in many respects. In fact, I have heard this film was based on a firm that ended up merging with the one I worked for.
The film provides a very accurate portrayal of a Small Cap firm from the late 80s to early 90s. For example, the recruitment process was perfect. You didn't need a resume, you didn't need an education and they didn't want people who already had licenses. They wanted raw recruits that didn't know anything and they made money on the testing process.
After you passed the test, you received no training, you got a list (any way you could) and cold called until you opened an account on what they told you to buy. If you didn't open accounts within a month you were out. In the film, they cut off Riblisi's tie as a right of passage. In my firm, the first time you did $1000 in commissions in a single day they cut off your tie.
Other things are realisitic as well; the fact that the firm has positions in the stocks that they sell and there is extra commission at certain moments, the Brokers all know every word of the movie- Wall Street, that they have big houses or apartments with no furniture, they drink and get into scrapes as a group, that all happened at my firm.
There are many more examples of parallels between the firm in the movie and the experiences of the main characters and my own real life experiences. This movie may seem outrageous or over the top to some, but, it is as accurate as a movie about this subject could be.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Boiler Room (2000)

BOILER ROOM - DVD Movie

Get 65% OFF

Click here for more information about Boiler Room (2000)

Uncle Buck (1989) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Director/writer John Hughes is one of those Hollywood success stories who has left in his wake a heap of popular and often entertaining films, leaving an indelible stamp on motion picture history. He may not have won a ton of awards, but the regular folks (as opposed to film snobs) love his work and have made him a very wealthy man. A list of his better known films would have to start with "Home Alone" and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," and would continue with "The Breakfast Club," "Pretty in Pink," "Planes, Trains, & Automobiles," and "Sixteen Candles," as well as many others.
This particular John Hughes film stars John Candy as Uncle Buck, the kind of character Candy specialized in. He's a middle-aged kid who can't seem to find a good reason to accept any responsibility in life. As he says in one scene, "People used to say to me, 'Buck, you've got it made. You've got no kids, no wife, no office, no desk, no boss, nothing to tie you down. You've really got it made.' Well, they don't say that to me any more."
Among Hughes's "coming of age" pictures, this one is unique. The coming of age is usually a teen or preteen. Here's it's Uncle Buck who is coming of age. His brother and sister-in-law have to leave town for a few days to tend his brother's ailing father-in-law, and they are absolutely devoid of babysitters...except for Uncle Buck, the embarrassing relation they have chosen to avoid until now. Their three kids include 15-year-old Tia (Jean Louisa Kelly, now seen on TV's "Yes, Dear," in her film debut), 8-year-old Miles (Macaulay Culkin, his first major film role and the one that inspired Hughes to give him his next major role in a little something called "Home Alone"), and 6-year-old Gaby Hoffman (shortly before she played the child lead in "Sleepless in Seattle").
You can practically write the film yourself from there, to a point. Buck has to be responsible for the kids, falls in love with them, is a far better (and much, much funnier) surrogate dad than anyone could have guessed, and by film's end things have all changed for the better. Sure, it's a little too much of a happy Hollywood ending to be true (OK, way much too much), but one doesn't expect Shakespeare here, just good, solid, entertaining comedy with a heart. That's typical John Hughes, and since he gives us so many good laughs we forgive him if it doesn't always completely ring true. "Uncle Buck" may be underrated among Hughes's films, but it's well worth remembering.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Uncle Buck (1989)

UNCLE BUCK - DVD Movie

Get 20% OFF

Click here for more information about Uncle Buck (1989)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Widescreen Edition) (2001) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)A cinematic version of Tolkien's THE LORD OF THE RINGS ranks up with the hope that Lucas will indeed make another Star Wars Trilogy, and, I think I can safely say, this is one of the most anticipated films in the movie industry's long and checkered history. You would think it's movie paradise, considering Lucas has been in the midst of another Star Wars trilogy and LORD OF THE RINGS has finally got a cinema deal (live action!), but PHANTOM MENACE proved something of a disappointment (Mesa Jar Jar Binks!), and I think quite a few people will enter into the theatre with a certain amount of trepidation.
There's a reason for that. Three animated Tolkien films have been released with very problematic results. The 1978 Bakshi release is just embarrassing; the film is both incoherent and confusing.
Rankin & Bass's two movies are fine for little kids; those two films are Tolkien for Saturday Morning cartoons. They proved my introduction to Tolkien and for that I am thankful, but the movies still fail to capture the grandeur of Tolkien's imagination.
There are two things to consider here about a work of literature. Although all good literature has a polarization effect on its readers, this work has a gigantic legion of followers which are extremely dedicated to Tolkien's vision (I count myself a member of this camp). The other camp cannot figure out what the big fuss is about and why they should care about the novel.
Now, there's a reason why all this is relevant to the film: had Peter Jackson gone to far either way the film would have fallen apart. Appeal to much to the fan-base and you loose the general movie-goer. Appeal to much to the movie-goer, and you'll lose the fan-base.
So when the fan base learned of Peter Jackson's decision to film all three films at once, an unprecedented move in movie history, most of us really wanted it to be good but were just simply afraid. We've already been burnt. Would it be so bad that it would alienate both fan base and those who are just looking for a good movie?
Not only does Peter Jackson's film work, it's glorious, beautiful, has all the myth and grandeur of the book. Jackson, a Tolkien fanatic, could have gotten so involved with bringing out the extremely detailed world Tolkien gave us that the pacing would suffer or we'd lose patience with all these obscure details which would alienate the regular movie goer. Not only does he not alienate the general movie goer, but he entices the fan base so much they can't help but fall in love with his vision of Tolkien's world.
The only real flaw is how rushed first section of the movie is. Although I can understand cutting the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the way they handled getting the hobbits out of the Shire was unacceptable. There is not that sense of camaraderie between the Hobbits that there is in the book, there is no "conspiracy," and Merry and Pippin just join without any questioning from Sam and Frodo. While Jackson does a good job at building the Hobbits' characters and establishing their personalities, I couldn't come up with a good reason why Frodo and Sam would just let Merry and Pippin join them.
The Prancing Pony is worst. There is no questioning from the Hobbits about Aragorn proving himself, there is no scene about him asking them to trust him, and the whole sequence feels much too rushed. Sam only questions Aragorn while they're actually out of the inn and traveling.
Thankfully, however, that is the only real flaw. The rest of the things the script changed (tightening Elrond's council, the expansion of Arwen, cutting Sam from the Galadriel mirror sequence, tempting Aragorn with the ring, etc) I can see why they did it for dramatic tension. I also liked the way they handled Elrond's council, because that could have ruined the movie like it did with Bakshi's. They had established and covered much of the material in that chapter elsewhere by means of voice-over prologue and actually showing the viewer what is happening (especially with the Isengard sequences), and as a result lessened the screentime of that scene and helping with the dramatics of it.
As for the controversial expansion of Arwen, I tend to agree with the film makers in their decision to enlarge her role. By making her part of the Ford sequence it introduces the character and establishes her in the viewer's mind, and the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn is more fully explored. As for their romantic interlude in Rivendell, not only do I agree with that but think it should have been done in the book. Tolkien did not know who Strider was when he was first writing FELLOWSHIP, and did not go back and change the scenes to further explain the romance between Arwen and Aragorn, and by not including a scene in Rivendell to establish their love for one another lessens by far the impact of their union in Part III, and (for once) this romantic scene is actually an improvement on the book. As for her role in the Flight at the Ford, for the movie they made the right choice though the book is still preferable.
In achieving the balance between fan base and the more causal fan, this film is a spectacular success. Making a movie out of a book the size of Fellowship, the fact is you will have to condense, tighten, rearrange, and make changes for dramatic tensions. The mediums are different, and you cannot have a direct translation from a book to a film. Despite of what they cut, the movie still clocks in at three hours, which is very generous. The real problem with this film, as others noted, is it's going to be a full two years before we finally get to watch THE RETURN OF THE KING.
In the end, we get a movie that stays true to the SPIRIT of the book. This is what we Tolkien fans have long been waiting for. Thank you so much Peter Jackson and your cast and crew.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Widescreen Edition) (2001)

Based on J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is an epic adventure of good against evil, the power of friendship and individual courage. The saga centers around an unassuming Hobbit named Frodo Baggins who inherits a Ring that would give a dark and powerful lord the power to enslave the world. With a loyal fellowship of elves, dwarves, men and a wizard, Frodo embarks on a heroic quest to destroy the One Ring and pave the way for the emergence of mankind.DVD Features:3D Animated MenusDVD ROM Features:Exclusive online contentDocumentaries:3 in-depth programs that reveal the secrets behind the production of this epic adventure, including: -"Welcome to Middle-earth" in-store special as shown by Houghton Mifflin -"The Quest for the Ring" as debuted on the FBC Network -"A Passage to Middle-earth" as premiered on the SCI-FI ChannelFeaturette:15 featurettes originally created for lordoftherings.net, which explore the locales and cultures of Middle-earth and include interviews with cast members Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Liv Tyler and others. Exclusive 10-minute behind-the-scenes preview of the next The Lord of the Rings theatrical release, The Two Towers.Music Video:Enya "May It Be" music videoOther:An inside look at the Special Extended DVD Edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Preview of Electronic Arts' video game, The Two Towers Double Amaray PackagingTV SpotTheatrical Trailer:Original theatrical trailers

Get 20% OFF

Click here for more information about The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Widescreen Edition) (2001)