Question: What's the plot of that movie?

As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie, it's okay I guess. Let's start off with the special effects and they are great for the most part. The non humanoid aliens look incredibly fake and the podrace carts look fake as well because they are painted too light and bright. The acting is mostly bad, Liam Neeson, Ray Park, and Ian McDiarmand are good in this film, Ewan McGregor was quite disappointing when you compare this performance in the other two prequels to this, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd are terrible, Lloyd is the impossible not to hate character with his moon face and his overracting, Portman is usually good but failed due to having the weirdest voice I have ever heard in a SW movie. This movie has three good characters (Qui Gonn, The Emperor, and Darth Maul) but has some of the worst like Little Anakin, Sebulba, Jar Jar, Boss Nass, and Queen Amidala's Decoy. The film has many problems but has enough to make up for it. Darth Maul is a flatout badass as he goes on Tatooine in search of the jedi, The action is pretty good, The lightsaber duel at the end is a fantastic scene and that's what gives the movie my rating. Rating: 7.5/10

Answer: As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie

<hl> As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie , it's okay <hl> I guess. Let's start off with the special effects and they are great for the most part. The non humanoid aliens look incredibly fake and the podrace carts look fake as well because they are painted too light and bright. The acting is mostly bad, Liam Neeson, Ray Park, and Ian McDiarmand are good in this film, Ewan McGregor was quite disappointing when you compare this performance in the other two prequels to this, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd are terrible, Lloyd is the impossible not to hate character with his moon face and his overracting, Portman is usually good but failed due to having the weirdest voice I have ever heard in a SW movie. This movie has three good characters (Qui Gonn, The Emperor, and Darth Maul) but has some of the worst like Little Anakin, Sebulba, Jar Jar, Boss Nass, and Queen Amidala's Decoy. The film has many problems but has enough to make up for it. Darth Maul is a flatout badass as he goes on Tatooine in search of the jedi, The action is pretty good, The lightsaber duel at the end is a fantastic scene and that's what gives the movie my rating. Rating: 7.5/10

<hl> As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie <hl>, it's okay I guess. Let's start off with the special effects and they are great for the most part. The non humanoid aliens look incredibly fake and the podrace carts look fake as well because they are painted too light and bright. The acting is mostly bad, Liam Neeson, Ray Park, and Ian McDiarmand are good in this film, Ewan McGregor was quite disappointing when you compare this performance in the other two prequels to this, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd are terrible, Lloyd is the impossible not to hate character with his moon face and his overracting, Portman is usually good but failed due to having the weirdest voice I have ever heard in a SW movie. This movie has three good characters (Qui Gonn, The Emperor, and Darth Maul) but has some of the worst like Little Anakin, Sebulba, Jar Jar, Boss Nass, and Queen Amidala's Decoy. The film has many problems but has enough to make up for it. Darth Maul is a flatout badass as he goes on Tatooine in search of the jedi, The action is pretty good, The lightsaber duel at the end is a fantastic scene and that's what gives the movie my rating. Rating: 7.5/10

<hl> As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie <hl> , it's okay


Question: How do you like the plot?

This film could have been much better. As with any horror film, the big pay-off is the creep-out factor. Just the premise alone here is ample reason for nightmares. The world culture has collapsed and the recently dead are walking around with a taste for human flesh?! That's plenty of nightmare, all by itself. Unfortunately, this time around, newcomer director Zack Snyder chose to give the zombies the ability to run, fight, jump and stalk. What this shows is that the director just doesn't understand. You don't NEED go any farther than promote a feeling of dread and dire hopelessness to make this film work. You don't need (and shouldn't have) running combat scenes as if this were some horrific "re-imagining" of "Die Hard."This film is, of course, a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. The overall plot is vaguely similar, with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors. But there the similarities end. Ana (Sarah Polly) is a nurse who wakes to see her husband being killed, who then promptly gets up and attacks her, too. After the mad dash, she hooks up with Ving Rhames and some others who run into a mostly vacant shopping mall. After it becomes evident that no help is forthcoming, our motley bunch must use their wits (what's left of them) to survive.I must say that I wanted to like this film. I recently saw a piece of the original "Dawn" on TV and even 15 minutes scared the wits right out of me. When I was younger, I'd seen this film many times and it never failed to scare me. What the original had, which this updated version lacks, is the hopelessness. The feeling of overwhelming dread. BECAUSE the older films didn't have special effects to fall back on, they had to have more inter-personal story. I wish this new version would have given us some time to get to know these people, add some back-story.That is not to say that there weren't some chills. There were some scenes where my nerves were tested. But even in those scenes, they were tense mainly because the director constricted the field-of-view or turned down the lights. These are old, tired cinematic tricks. That, and the characters were doing foolish things like wasting ammo target shooting at zombies, for fun. I must say, I fail to understand why our hapless band are smiling and laughing. There is nothing at all funny about this situation:*They are surrounded by a sea of zombies who mean them harm.*NO ONE is coming to save them.*For all they know, this is a world-wide meltdown.*All of their family and friends are likely dead, or worse.*They have a finite food and ammo supply.*They have absolutely no idea where they can go for safety*or how they're going to get there, if they did*they're in a building with hundreds of unguardable doors and windows*They are ALONE, unprepared, under siege, and will likely die---tomorrow, or maybe in the next 10 minutes......and there is something to smile about? I don't think so. I don't see what's so darn funny. What should have been a story to chill the blood instead deteriorated into a cookie-cutter film not much different from your typical "them against us" action-oriented fare.At the end of the original film, it ends on the roof with a helicopter, something like this: "How much fuel do we have?" "I don't know.....Not much." "all right then, let's go." And they fly off into the abyss.I only wish this remake could have given us at least that much feeling. Instead, it was something more akin to teen slasher film, unworthy of its namesake.

Answer: The overall plot is vaguely similar

This film could have been much better. As with any horror film, the big pay-off is the creep-out factor. Just the premise alone here is ample reason for nightmares. The world culture has collapsed and the recently dead are walking around with a taste for human flesh?! That's plenty of nightmare, all by itself. Unfortunately, this time around, newcomer director Zack Snyder chose to give the zombies the ability to run, fight, jump and stalk. What this shows is that the director just doesn't understand. You don't NEED go any farther than promote a feeling of dread and dire hopelessness to make this film work. You don't need (and shouldn't have) running combat scenes as if this were some horrific "re-imagining" of "Die Hard. "This film is, of course, a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. <hl> The overall plot is vaguely similar , with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors. <hl> But there the similarities end. Ana (Sarah Polly) is a nurse who wakes to see her husband being killed, who then promptly gets up and attacks her, too. After the mad dash, she hooks up with Ving Rhames and some others who run into a mostly vacant shopping mall. After it becomes evident that no help is forthcoming, our motley bunch must use their wits (what's left of them) to survive. I must say that I wanted to like this film. I recently saw a piece of the original "Dawn" on TV and even 15 minutes scared the wits right out of me. When I was younger, I'd seen this film many times and it never failed to scare me. What the original had, which this updated version lacks, is the hopelessness. The feeling of overwhelming dread. BECAUSE the older films didn't have special effects to fall back on, they had to have more inter-personal story. I wish this new version would have given us some time to get to know these people, add some back-story. That is not to say that there weren't some chills. There were some scenes where my nerves were tested. But even in those scenes, they were tense mainly because the director constricted the field-of-view or turned down the lights. These are old, tired cinematic tricks. That, and the characters were doing foolish things like wasting ammo target shooting at zombies, for fun. I must say, I fail to understand why our hapless band are smiling and laughing. There is nothing at all funny about this situation:*They are surrounded by a sea of zombies who mean them harm.*NO ONE is coming to save them.*For all they know, this is a world-wide meltdown.*All of their family and friends are likely dead, or worse.*They have a finite food and ammo supply.*They have absolutely no idea where they can go for safety*or how they're going to get there, if they did*they're in a building with hundreds of unguardable doors and windows*They are ALONE, unprepared, under siege, and will likely die---tomorrow, or maybe in the next 10 minutes......and there is something to smile about? I don't think so. I don't see what's so darn funny. What should have been a story to chill the blood instead deteriorated into a cookie-cutter film not much different from your typical "them against us" action-oriented fare. At the end of the original film, it ends on the roof with a helicopter, something like this: "How much fuel do we have?" "I don't know.....Not much." "all right then, let's go." And they fly off into the abyss. I only wish this remake could have given us at least that much feeling. Instead, it was something more akin to teen slasher film, unworthy of its namesake.

This film could have been much better. As with any horror film, the big pay-off is the creep-out factor. Just the premise alone here is ample reason for nightmares. The world culture has collapsed and the recently dead are walking around with a taste for human flesh?! That's plenty of nightmare, all by itself. Unfortunately, this time around, newcomer director Zack Snyder chose to give the zombies the ability to run, fight, jump and stalk. What this shows is that the director just doesn't understand. You don't NEED go any farther than promote a feeling of dread and dire hopelessness to make this film work. You don't need (and shouldn't have) running combat scenes as if this were some horrific "re-imagining" of "Die Hard."This film is, of course, a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. <hl> The overall plot is vaguely similar <hl>, with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors. But there the similarities end. Ana (Sarah Polly) is a nurse who wakes to see her husband being killed, who then promptly gets up and attacks her, too. After the mad dash, she hooks up with Ving Rhames and some others who run into a mostly vacant shopping mall. After it becomes evident that no help is forthcoming, our motley bunch must use their wits (what's left of them) to survive.I must say that I wanted to like this film. I recently saw a piece of the original "Dawn" on TV and even 15 minutes scared the wits right out of me. When I was younger, I'd seen this film many times and it never failed to scare me. What the original had, which this updated version lacks, is the hopelessness. The feeling of overwhelming dread. BECAUSE the older films didn't have special effects to fall back on, they had to have more inter-personal story. I wish this new version would have given us some time to get to know these people, add some back-story.That is not to say that there weren't some chills. There were some scenes where my nerves were tested. But even in those scenes, they were tense mainly because the director constricted the field-of-view or turned down the lights. These are old, tired cinematic tricks. That, and the characters were doing foolish things like wasting ammo target shooting at zombies, for fun. I must say, I fail to understand why our hapless band are smiling and laughing. There is nothing at all funny about this situation:*They are surrounded by a sea of zombies who mean them harm.*NO ONE is coming to save them.*For all they know, this is a world-wide meltdown.*All of their family and friends are likely dead, or worse.*They have a finite food and ammo supply.*They have absolutely no idea where they can go for safety*or how they're going to get there, if they did*they're in a building with hundreds of unguardable doors and windows*They are ALONE, unprepared, under siege, and will likely die---tomorrow, or maybe in the next 10 minutes......and there is something to smile about? I don't think so. I don't see what's so darn funny. What should have been a story to chill the blood instead deteriorated into a cookie-cutter film not much different from your typical "them against us" action-oriented fare.At the end of the original film, it ends on the roof with a helicopter, something like this: "How much fuel do we have?" "I don't know.....Not much." "all right then, let's go." And they fly off into the abyss.I only wish this remake could have given us at least that much feeling. Instead, it was something more akin to teen slasher film, unworthy of its namesake.

<hl> The overall plot is vaguely similar <hl> , with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors.


Question: Is it a good movie?

This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch! Below, more of my impressions, with some limited SPOILERS.A new star is discovered near our solar system, on a collision course, approaching fast - VERY FAST! Some amongst scientific community believe it can pass near Earth, close enough to burn all life on our planet - and those are the optimists... Then, a planet orbiting this new star is discovered... I will say no more about the story.This film is based on a popular SF novel written in 1933 and therefore is definitely NOT linked to any kind of Cold War scares, unlike what some critics wrote back in the 50s. Far from being a parabol of nuclear war, both the book and the film are in fact SF variations on the theme of Deluge and Noah's Ark...This review will be short, because I really don't want to give away too much - so let me just say, that this film indeed is aged and yes, the plot has many holes, but it still remains a nice watch and of course a pretty powerful story, with the ending being particularly good.Actors are mostly forgotten today, even if both Richard Derr and Barbara Rush had a long and rather succesfull career, mostly on TV - she also played the main female character in another SF classic from 50s, "It came from Outer Space" (1953). Veteran specialists of second roles, Larry Keating and John Hoyt are in fact even more important in this film than actors who are in principle cast in leading roles.A sequel was planned, to be based on the second part of the book, "After Worlds Collide", but ultimately the project was abandoned. A remake of this film was considered also already for some time, but for the moment it seems also that all those plans were shelved. And it may be for the better, because this film, with all its weaknesses, still packs some punch and is still a darn good watch. Enjoy!

Answer: darn good watch

<hl> This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch ! <hl> Below, more of my impressions, with some limited SPOILERS.A new star is discovered near our solar system, on a collision course, approaching fast - VERY FAST! Some amongst scientific community believe it can pass near Earth, close enough to burn all life on our planet - and those are the optimists... Then, a planet orbiting this new star is discovered... I will say no more about the story. This film is based on a popular SF novel written in 1933 and therefore is definitely NOT linked to any kind of Cold War scares, unlike what some critics wrote back in the 50s. Far from being a parabol of nuclear war, both the book and the film are in fact SF variations on the theme of Deluge and Noah's Ark...This review will be short, because I really don't want to give away too much - so let me just say, that this film indeed is aged and yes, the plot has many holes, but it still remains a nice watch and of course a pretty powerful story, with the ending being particularly good. Actors are mostly forgotten today, even if both Richard Derr and Barbara Rush had a long and rather succesfull career, mostly on TV - she also played the main female character in another SF classic from 50s, "It came from Outer Space" (1953). Veteran specialists of second roles, Larry Keating and John Hoyt are in fact even more important in this film than actors who are in principle cast in leading roles. A sequel was planned, to be based on the second part of the book, "After Worlds Collide", but ultimately the project was abandoned. A remake of this film was considered also already for some time, but for the moment it seems also that all those plans were shelved. And it may be for the better, because this film, with all its weaknesses, still packs some punch and is still a darn good watch. Enjoy!

This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a <hl> darn good watch <hl>! Below, more of my impressions, with some limited SPOILERS.A new star is discovered near our solar system, on a collision course, approaching fast - VERY FAST! Some amongst scientific community believe it can pass near Earth, close enough to burn all life on our planet - and those are the optimists... Then, a planet orbiting this new star is discovered... I will say no more about the story.This film is based on a popular SF novel written in 1933 and therefore is definitely NOT linked to any kind of Cold War scares, unlike what some critics wrote back in the 50s. Far from being a parabol of nuclear war, both the book and the film are in fact SF variations on the theme of Deluge and Noah's Ark...This review will be short, because I really don't want to give away too much - so let me just say, that this film indeed is aged and yes, the plot has many holes, but it still remains a nice watch and of course a pretty powerful story, with the ending being particularly good.Actors are mostly forgotten today, even if both Richard Derr and Barbara Rush had a long and rather succesfull career, mostly on TV - she also played the main female character in another SF classic from 50s, "It came from Outer Space" (1953). Veteran specialists of second roles, Larry Keating and John Hoyt are in fact even more important in this film than actors who are in principle cast in leading roles.A sequel was planned, to be based on the second part of the book, "After Worlds Collide", but ultimately the project was abandoned. A remake of this film was considered also already for some time, but for the moment it seems also that all those plans were shelved. And it may be for the better, because this film, with all its weaknesses, still packs some punch and is still a darn good watch. Enjoy!

This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a <hl> darn good watch <hl> !


Question: Do you like cinematography?

This is one of the most interesting Hollywood films I have seen in a long time.  The plot revolves around a young man and a new friend with whom he starts up a fighting club for men.  However, contrary to the previews as  shown in theaters, the film is about a lot more than just a bunch of guys  fighting.  It explores some very troubling themes--the shadow, consumerism  and its deflection of our spiritual drives, alienation and lonliness in  urban culture, the repression of our basic instincts--just to name a few.The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the  character Tyler Durden in the film:  Tyler, in his job as a theater  projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs.  Watch Fight Club closely--there are two places where a fleeting shot  appears, once about 15 minutes into the film, another at the very end.  This end shot undercuts the rather schmaltzy Hollywood closing image in a  sarcastically humorous way.And that's another great aspect of this  film--the anti-social humor, which will not appeal to all tastes, but which  is brilliantly carried off.  Just seeing Brad Pitt in his filthy bathrobe  with the appliqued coffee cups all over it is funny.Pitt's acting is wonderful, so is Ed Norton's.....and the two  of them together make a synergy which is very powerful.  Helena Bonham  Carter does a great job as Marla, the love interest whose vulgarity comes  off as an almost endearing quality.I have never really liked Hollywood  films much, finding them too defensive of the status quo.  However, this  film is in an altogether different league.  It is daring, provocative, and  very funny.

Answer: The cinematography is stunning

This is one of the most interesting Hollywood films I have seen in a long time. The plot revolves around a young man and a new friend with whom he starts up a fighting club for men. However, contrary to the previews as shown in theaters, the film is about a lot more than just a bunch of guys fighting. It explores some very troubling themes--the shadow, consumerism and its deflection of our spiritual drives, alienation and lonliness in urban culture, the repression of our basic instincts--just to name a few. <hl> The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs. <hl> Watch Fight Club closely--there are two places where a fleeting shot appears, once about 15 minutes into the film, another at the very end. This end shot undercuts the rather schmaltzy Hollywood closing image in a sarcastically humorous way. And that's another great aspect of this film--the anti-social humor, which will not appeal to all tastes, but which is brilliantly carried off. Just seeing Brad Pitt in his filthy bathrobe with the appliqued coffee cups all over it is funny. Pitt's acting is wonderful, so is Ed Norton's.....and the two of them together make a synergy which is very powerful. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as Marla, the love interest whose vulgarity comes off as an almost endearing quality. I have never really liked Hollywood films much, finding them too defensive of the status quo. However, this film is in an altogether different league. It is daring, provocative, and very funny.

This is one of the most interesting Hollywood films I have seen in a long time. The plot revolves around a young man and a new friend with whom he starts up a fighting club for men. However, contrary to the previews as shown in theaters, the film is about a lot more than just a bunch of guys fighting. It explores some very troubling themes--the shadow, consumerism and its deflection of our spiritual drives, alienation and lonliness in urban culture, the repression of our basic instincts--just to name a few.<hl> The cinematography is stunning <hl> and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs. Watch Fight Club closely--there are two places where a fleeting shot appears, once about 15 minutes into the film, another at the very end. This end shot undercuts the rather schmaltzy Hollywood closing image in a sarcastically humorous way.And that's another great aspect of this film--the anti-social humor, which will not appeal to all tastes, but which is brilliantly carried off. Just seeing Brad Pitt in his filthy bathrobe with the appliqued coffee cups all over it is funny.Pitt's acting is wonderful, so is Ed Norton's.....and the two of them together make a synergy which is very powerful. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as Marla, the love interest whose vulgarity comes off as an almost endearing quality.I have never really liked Hollywood films much, finding them too defensive of the status quo. However, this film is in an altogether different league. It is daring, provocative, and very funny.


Question: What do you think about story?

Wreak It Ralph is the next "Toy Story." It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of "Tron," "Starship Troopers," and "Candyland." Ralph is a "bad guy" in a game. He wants to be a good guy and get a medal so he crosses over to another game and ends up in a third game where he meets the Vanellope whose voice is excellently portrayed by Sarah Silverman who made the film.The film has themes of being yourself, self sacrifice, and bullying. The language is sometimes saucy such as "gutter snipe" and "pussy willow." As an adult, I enjoyed this feature. It is one you can enjoy with your kids.

Answer: the next "Toy Story." It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of "Tron," "Starship Troopers," and "Candyland."

<hl> Wreak It Ralph is the next "Toy Story." It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of "Tron," "Starship Troopers," and "Candyland." Ralph is a "bad guy" in a game. <hl> He wants to be a good guy and get a medal so he crosses over to another game and ends up in a third game where he meets the Vanellope whose voice is excellently portrayed by Sarah Silverman who made the film. The film has themes of being yourself, self sacrifice, and bullying. The language is sometimes saucy such as "gutter snipe" and "pussy willow." As an adult, I enjoyed this feature. It is one you can enjoy with your kids.

Wreak It Ralph is <hl> the next "Toy Story." It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of "Tron," "Starship Troopers," and "Candyland." <hl> Ralph is a "bad guy" in a game. He wants to be a good guy and get a medal so he crosses over to another game and ends up in a third game where he meets the Vanellope whose voice is excellently portrayed by Sarah Silverman who made the film.The film has themes of being yourself, self sacrifice, and bullying. The language is sometimes saucy such as "gutter snipe" and "pussy willow." As an adult, I enjoyed this feature. It is one you can enjoy with your kids.


Question: How about audio?

In its original theatrical release, George Lucas' iconic "Star Wars" (1977) made a big impact that continues to reverberate. That movie was followed by the cliffhanger sequel "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), and the third film in the series was "Return of the Jedi" (1983). After tinkering with the three movies a little, Lucas released new theatrical versions in 1997. Now, tweaked versions of the 1997 films have been released as a four-disc DVD set under the collective title "Star Wars Trilogy," marking the first time any version of these three films has been available on DVD.The 1977 movie commonly known originally as simply "Star Wars" has been retitled "Star Wars IV: A New Hope," and "Star Wars V" and "Star Wars VI" have been incorporated into the titles of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," respectively. The retitling came about in connection with a trio of prequel films that began being released theatrically in 1999, and the numbering scheme indicates where each movie fits into the epic story's chronology.I've always found all three films in the Star Wars Trilogy to be great, and they form a unified whole. I wouldn't characterize them as science fiction I would describe them as pulpy space fantasy action adventure movies. They are set in some distant galaxy during a civil war, and we side with freedom-fighter rebels who are battling the evil Galactic Empire. I would say the "Trilogy" is an elaborate coming-of-age tale where we follow the maturation of an idealistic farm boy named Luke Skywalker.On his adventures, Luke teams up with daredevil smuggler Han Solo and plucky young Princess Leia, But Lucas has packed the "Trilogy" with a host of quirky characters, including a pair of delightful androids called C-3PO and R2-D2. And I think the movies' chief villain, Darth Vader is one of the most memorable in all of cinema.I've always found it intriguing that some inhabitants of the galaxy embrace the belief that there exists a mystical energy called the Force. There are certain beings called Jedi who seemingly derive special powers from the Force and use them to bring about good. To me, Alec Guinness gives an unforgettable performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wise old Jedi who mentors Luke. Young Skywalker also receives training from another Jedi, the diminutive Yoda. But the Force is not automatically a source of good: it has a corrupting Dark Side that can result in evil.Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean. The DVDs provide feature-length audio commentary tracks for all three movies. George Lucas, actress Carrie Fisher, sound designer Ben Burtt, and visual effects expert Dennis Muren are heard on all three tracks, and these four commentators are joined by a fifth, director Irvin Kershner, on "The Empire Strikes Back." I found all three commentary tracks worthwhile, and I particularly enjoyed listening to Lucas and Kershner. Burtt gives more details about the sound than I really want to know.

Answer: the sound is clean

In its original theatrical release, George Lucas' iconic "Star Wars" (1977) made a big impact that continues to reverberate. That movie was followed by the cliffhanger sequel "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), and the third film in the series was "Return of the Jedi" (1983). After tinkering with the three movies a little, Lucas released new theatrical versions in 1997. Now, tweaked versions of the 1997 films have been released as a four-disc DVD set under the collective title "Star Wars Trilogy," marking the first time any version of these three films has been available on DVD.The 1977 movie commonly known originally as simply "Star Wars" has been retitled "Star Wars IV: A New Hope," and "Star Wars V" and "Star Wars VI" have been incorporated into the titles of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," respectively. The retitling came about in connection with a trio of prequel films that began being released theatrically in 1999, and the numbering scheme indicates where each movie fits into the epic story's chronology. I've always found all three films in the Star Wars Trilogy to be great, and they form a unified whole. I wouldn't characterize them as science fiction I would describe them as pulpy space fantasy action adventure movies. They are set in some distant galaxy during a civil war, and we side with freedom-fighter rebels who are battling the evil Galactic Empire. I would say the "Trilogy" is an elaborate coming-of-age tale where we follow the maturation of an idealistic farm boy named Luke Skywalker. On his adventures, Luke teams up with daredevil smuggler Han Solo and plucky young Princess Leia, But Lucas has packed the "Trilogy" with a host of quirky characters, including a pair of delightful androids called C-3PO and R2-D2. And I think the movies' chief villain, Darth Vader is one of the most memorable in all of cinema. I've always found it intriguing that some inhabitants of the galaxy embrace the belief that there exists a mystical energy called the Force. There are certain beings called Jedi who seemingly derive special powers from the Force and use them to bring about good. To me, Alec Guinness gives an unforgettable performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wise old Jedi who mentors Luke. Young Skywalker also receives training from another Jedi, the diminutive Yoda. But the Force is not automatically a source of good: it has a corrupting Dark Side that can result in evil. <hl> Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean . <hl> The DVDs provide feature-length audio commentary tracks for all three movies. George Lucas, actress Carrie Fisher, sound designer Ben Burtt, and visual effects expert Dennis Muren are heard on all three tracks, and these four commentators are joined by a fifth, director Irvin Kershner, on "The Empire Strikes Back." I found all three commentary tracks worthwhile, and I particularly enjoyed listening to Lucas and Kershner. Burtt gives more details about the sound than I really want to know.

In its original theatrical release, George Lucas' iconic "Star Wars" (1977) made a big impact that continues to reverberate. That movie was followed by the cliffhanger sequel "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), and the third film in the series was "Return of the Jedi" (1983). After tinkering with the three movies a little, Lucas released new theatrical versions in 1997. Now, tweaked versions of the 1997 films have been released as a four-disc DVD set under the collective title "Star Wars Trilogy," marking the first time any version of these three films has been available on DVD.The 1977 movie commonly known originally as simply "Star Wars" has been retitled "Star Wars IV: A New Hope," and "Star Wars V" and "Star Wars VI" have been incorporated into the titles of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," respectively. The retitling came about in connection with a trio of prequel films that began being released theatrically in 1999, and the numbering scheme indicates where each movie fits into the epic story's chronology.I've always found all three films in the Star Wars Trilogy to be great, and they form a unified whole. I wouldn't characterize them as science fiction I would describe them as pulpy space fantasy action adventure movies. They are set in some distant galaxy during a civil war, and we side with freedom-fighter rebels who are battling the evil Galactic Empire. I would say the "Trilogy" is an elaborate coming-of-age tale where we follow the maturation of an idealistic farm boy named Luke Skywalker.On his adventures, Luke teams up with daredevil smuggler Han Solo and plucky young Princess Leia, But Lucas has packed the "Trilogy" with a host of quirky characters, including a pair of delightful androids called C-3PO and R2-D2. And I think the movies' chief villain, Darth Vader is one of the most memorable in all of cinema.I've always found it intriguing that some inhabitants of the galaxy embrace the belief that there exists a mystical energy called the Force. There are certain beings called Jedi who seemingly derive special powers from the Force and use them to bring about good. To me, Alec Guinness gives an unforgettable performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wise old Jedi who mentors Luke. Young Skywalker also receives training from another Jedi, the diminutive Yoda. But the Force is not automatically a source of good: it has a corrupting Dark Side that can result in evil.Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and <hl> the sound is clean <hl>. The DVDs provide feature-length audio commentary tracks for all three movies. George Lucas, actress Carrie Fisher, sound designer Ben Burtt, and visual effects expert Dennis Muren are heard on all three tracks, and these four commentators are joined by a fifth, director Irvin Kershner, on "The Empire Strikes Back." I found all three commentary tracks worthwhile, and I particularly enjoyed listening to Lucas and Kershner. Burtt gives more details about the sound than I really want to know.

Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and <hl> the sound is clean <hl> .


Question: What did you like most about the film?

Ed Norton, a reformed racist/skinhead comes to grips with himself in prison.  Upon leaving he finds his younger brother heading down the same horrifying road.American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it.  We already know how to hate.  We are already racists.  What this movie does is ask you about how are you going to handle it.Ed Norton's performance is both frightening and powerful.  It is also very thought provoking.

Answer: American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it

Ed Norton, a reformed racist/skinhead comes to grips with himself in prison. Upon leaving he finds his younger brother heading down the same horrifying road. <hl> American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it . <hl> We already know how to hate. We are already racists. What this movie does is ask you about how are you going to handle it. Ed Norton's performance is both frightening and powerful. It is also very thought provoking.

Ed Norton, a reformed racist/skinhead comes to grips with himself in prison. Upon leaving he finds his younger brother heading down the same horrifying road.<hl> American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it <hl>. We already know how to hate. We are already racists. What this movie does is ask you about how are you going to handle it.Ed Norton's performance is both frightening and powerful. It is also very thought provoking.

<hl> American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it <hl> .


Question: How is it the story line?

Before anyone gets upset that I am reviewing this film before it is released in theaters, I want to let it be known I was fortunate enough to get advanced screening passes for the film. Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film. The plot is as thin and predictable as it is farfetched, but this could all have been guessed from watching the trailer as well.A few actors who weren't featured in the trailers make appearances, I won't spoil who they are or what roles they play, but they are a pleasant surprise as they provide some relief from a story that is a little too serious at times. While no one makes Oscar worthy performance, the acting is perfectly acceptable and on par with most action movies, although some of the actors are not the greatest at American English accents in spite of their efforts. I suppose this can be explained away as the film is set in the future, and who knows what American English will sound like then (I'll bet it will sound quite a lot like mine, my parents', and my grandparents' accents).While the plot, dialogue, and acting are on par with every other action blockbuster of the past decade, I must admit that the CGI and visuals are some of the most realistic I have seen. The visual effects are stunning. Thanks to the amazing work of Industrial Light and Magic there is not a single scene in the film where I felt as though the CGI was blatantly apparent beyond the fact that such things do not exist, something I wish I could say about the recently released Man of Steel. The 3d is also quite good, sometimes 3d is a little overdone and it feels unnatural and hurts your eyes, this is fortunately not the case with this film. This 3d experience is easily on par with Avatar, probably the result of a film which was intended for 3d from the get go. All in all this film is an entertaining escape, albeit one that may not be too surprising or particularly memorable.

Answer: this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film

Before anyone gets upset that I am reviewing this film before it is released in theaters, I want to let it be known I was fortunate enough to get advanced screening passes for the film. <hl> Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film . <hl> The plot is as thin and predictable as it is farfetched, but this could all have been guessed from watching the trailer as well. A few actors who weren't featured in the trailers make appearances, I won't spoil who they are or what roles they play, but they are a pleasant surprise as they provide some relief from a story that is a little too serious at times. While no one makes Oscar worthy performance, the acting is perfectly acceptable and on par with most action movies, although some of the actors are not the greatest at American English accents in spite of their efforts. I suppose this can be explained away as the film is set in the future, and who knows what American English will sound like then (I'll bet it will sound quite a lot like mine, my parents', and my grandparents' accents).While the plot, dialogue, and acting are on par with every other action blockbuster of the past decade, I must admit that the CGI and visuals are some of the most realistic I have seen. The visual effects are stunning. Thanks to the amazing work of Industrial Light and Magic there is not a single scene in the film where I felt as though the CGI was blatantly apparent beyond the fact that such things do not exist, something I wish I could say about the recently released Man of Steel. The 3d is also quite good, sometimes 3d is a little overdone and it feels unnatural and hurts your eyes, this is fortunately not the case with this film. This 3d experience is easily on par with Avatar, probably the result of a film which was intended for 3d from the get go. All in all this film is an entertaining escape, albeit one that may not be too surprising or particularly memorable.

Before anyone gets upset that I am reviewing this film before it is released in theaters, I want to let it be known I was fortunate enough to get advanced screening passes for the film. Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), <hl> this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film <hl>. The plot is as thin and predictable as it is farfetched, but this could all have been guessed from watching the trailer as well.A few actors who weren't featured in the trailers make appearances, I won't spoil who they are or what roles they play, but they are a pleasant surprise as they provide some relief from a story that is a little too serious at times. While no one makes Oscar worthy performance, the acting is perfectly acceptable and on par with most action movies, although some of the actors are not the greatest at American English accents in spite of their efforts. I suppose this can be explained away as the film is set in the future, and who knows what American English will sound like then (I'll bet it will sound quite a lot like mine, my parents', and my grandparents' accents).While the plot, dialogue, and acting are on par with every other action blockbuster of the past decade, I must admit that the CGI and visuals are some of the most realistic I have seen. The visual effects are stunning. Thanks to the amazing work of Industrial Light and Magic there is not a single scene in the film where I felt as though the CGI was blatantly apparent beyond the fact that such things do not exist, something I wish I could say about the recently released Man of Steel. The 3d is also quite good, sometimes 3d is a little overdone and it feels unnatural and hurts your eyes, this is fortunately not the case with this film. This 3d experience is easily on par with Avatar, probably the result of a film which was intended for 3d from the get go. All in all this film is an entertaining escape, albeit one that may not be too surprising or particularly memorable.

Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), <hl> this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film <hl> .


Question: What opinion would you give about the concept embodied in this movie?

'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX, but it's a poorly executed film! The film starts out interesting enough, but soon turns into a ridiculous and amateurish horror movie with no real tension. 30 days fly by 7 to 9 days at a time with so many people getting killed in the first few minutes it should have only taken half a day to kill everybody in town. It doesn't feel like these people have been trapped anywhere for more than a few minutes! OK, they added facial hair to the men to imply some time had passed, but the time element and isolation were completely forgot about. This was really a missed opportunity as this could have been a really intense film! It turn out to be a pretty mediocre film with one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen in a horror film! Watch it on cable if you must see it.

Answer: great setting and solid special FX

<hl> '30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX , but it's a poorly executed film! <hl> The film starts out interesting enough, but soon turns into a ridiculous and amateurish horror movie with no real tension. 30 days fly by 7 to 9 days at a time with so many people getting killed in the first few minutes it should have only taken half a day to kill everybody in town. It doesn't feel like these people have been trapped anywhere for more than a few minutes! OK, they added facial hair to the men to imply some time had passed, but the time element and isolation were completely forgot about. This was really a missed opportunity as this could have been a really intense film! It turn out to be a pretty mediocre film with one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen in a horror film! Watch it on cable if you must see it.

'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, <hl> great setting and solid special FX <hl>, but it's a poorly executed film! The film starts out interesting enough, but soon turns into a ridiculous and amateurish horror movie with no real tension. 30 days fly by 7 to 9 days at a time with so many people getting killed in the first few minutes it should have only taken half a day to kill everybody in town. It doesn't feel like these people have been trapped anywhere for more than a few minutes! OK, they added facial hair to the men to imply some time had passed, but the time element and isolation were completely forgot about. This was really a missed opportunity as this could have been a really intense film! It turn out to be a pretty mediocre film with one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen in a horror film! Watch it on cable if you must see it.

'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, <hl> great setting and solid special FX <hl> , but it's a poorly executed film!


Question: Does this have a good picture?

Okay, let's be brief: If you didn't grow up in the horror lovin' 80's or are not an established fan of Italian horror films, this movie probably won't work for you. This is the unofficial sequel to Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead" (the 1978 version of course) made primary for Italian audiences when Dawn was released there under the title of "Zombi". Even though this one doesn't take place in a mall or feature anything or anyone like the original storyline of Dawn, it does have almost the same feel. Eventually in America, this film came to us with English dubbed audio under the title of "Zombie". But now Shriek Show has finally released a remastered 2 disc set of this classic movie fully uncut for the first time in the states.Or so I thought.Ya see, when the movie starts, there's a brief scene set-up (as it always was), then it goes into the opening credits. I was expecting to see the original Italian credits showing it finally under it's original title "Zombi 2", like the box. But it isn't, it's the American version with the title "Zombie". Nitpicking, huh? But after a little searching I found an Easter Egg that shows that original title sequence that finally shows that this film was called "Zombi 2". Here's how to get to it (it's easy....):On Disc One go to the "Features" section. In there, press the number "6" on your remote. It will activate a red skull button in the upper right on the screen (you CAN'T activate it by searching around the menu with your arrow buttons, very rare by Easter Egg standards!), and it will press the button automatically and take you to the original Italian opening credits and clearly show that this film was called "Zombi 2", logo and all. Also, after they're done, it will show an alternate end credits, but honestly I couldn't see any difference on them as opposed to the ones on the movie now.All in all, this movie has never looked or sounded better ever. Some say it's looks too cleaned up now. They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday.This movie is a classic piece of horror history and should be owned (especially the Shriek Show 25th Anniversary version...the extras here are superior....the making of documentary is as long as the movie itself!) by anyone with two or more "Living Dead/Zombie" DVD's already in their collection. I'm glad I got it, THIS is the way classic horror should be re-released.P.S.: If you look hard enough (the DVD's trailer section has their previews), there is a "Zombi 3" and a "Zombie 4" movies out there too. Trust me, you don't need them or want them, as they don't have the same feel or quality of "Zombi 2" or "Dawn Of The Dead". Just be happy with their trailers. Enjoy!

Answer: the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a

Okay, let's be brief: If you didn't grow up in the horror lovin' 80's or are not an established fan of Italian horror films, this movie probably won't work for you. This is the unofficial sequel to Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead" (the 1978 version of course) made primary for Italian audiences when Dawn was released there under the title of "Zombi". Even though this one doesn't take place in a mall or feature anything or anyone like the original storyline of Dawn, it does have almost the same feel. Eventually in America, this film came to us with English dubbed audio under the title of "Zombie". But now Shriek Show has finally released a remastered 2 disc set of this classic movie fully uncut for the first time in the states. Or so I thought. Ya see, when the movie starts, there's a brief scene set-up (as it always was), then it goes into the opening credits. I was expecting to see the original Italian credits showing it finally under it's original title "Zombi 2", like the box. But it isn't, it's the American version with the title "Zombie". Nitpicking, huh? But after a little searching I found an Easter Egg that shows that original title sequence that finally shows that this film was called "Zombi 2". Here's how to get to it (it's easy....):On Disc One go to the "Features" section. In there, press the number "6" on your remote. It will activate a red skull button in the upper right on the screen (you CAN'T activate it by searching around the menu with your arrow buttons, very rare by Easter Egg standards!), and it will press the button automatically and take you to the original Italian opening credits and clearly show that this film was called "Zombi 2", logo and all. Also, after they're done, it will show an alternate end credits, but honestly I couldn't see any difference on them as opposed to the ones on the movie now. All in all, this movie has never looked or sounded better ever. Some say it's looks too cleaned up now. <hl> They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday. <hl> This movie is a classic piece of horror history and should be owned (especially the Shriek Show 25th Anniversary version...the extras here are superior....the making of documentary is as long as the movie itself!) by anyone with two or more "Living Dead/Zombie" DVD's already in their collection. I'm glad I got it, THIS is the way classic horror should be re-released. P.S.: If you look hard enough (the DVD's trailer section has their previews), there is a "Zombi 3" and a "Zombie 4" movies out there too. Trust me, you don't need them or want them, as they don't have the same feel or quality of "Zombi 2" or "Dawn Of The Dead". Just be happy with their trailers. Enjoy!

Okay, let's be brief: If you didn't grow up in the horror lovin' 80's or are not an established fan of Italian horror films, this movie probably won't work for you. This is the unofficial sequel to Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead" (the 1978 version of course) made primary for Italian audiences when Dawn was released there under the title of "Zombi". Even though this one doesn't take place in a mall or feature anything or anyone like the original storyline of Dawn, it does have almost the same feel. Eventually in America, this film came to us with English dubbed audio under the title of "Zombie". But now Shriek Show has finally released a remastered 2 disc set of this classic movie fully uncut for the first time in the states.Or so I thought.Ya see, when the movie starts, there's a brief scene set-up (as it always was), then it goes into the opening credits. I was expecting to see the original Italian credits showing it finally under it's original title "Zombi 2", like the box. But it isn't, it's the American version with the title "Zombie". Nitpicking, huh? But after a little searching I found an Easter Egg that shows that original title sequence that finally shows that this film was called "Zombi 2". Here's how to get to it (it's easy....):On Disc One go to the "Features" section. In there, press the number "6" on your remote. It will activate a red skull button in the upper right on the screen (you CAN'T activate it by searching around the menu with your arrow buttons, very rare by Easter Egg standards!), and it will press the button automatically and take you to the original Italian opening credits and clearly show that this film was called "Zombi 2", logo and all. Also, after they're done, it will show an alternate end credits, but honestly I couldn't see any difference on them as opposed to the ones on the movie now.All in all, this movie has never looked or sounded better ever. Some say it's looks too cleaned up now. They might have a point because <hl> the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a <hl> dark, grainy VHS anyday.This movie is a classic piece of horror history and should be owned (especially the Shriek Show 25th Anniversary version...the extras here are superior....the making of documentary is as long as the movie itself!) by anyone with two or more "Living Dead/Zombie" DVD's already in their collection. I'm glad I got it, THIS is the way classic horror should be re-released.P.S.: If you look hard enough (the DVD's trailer section has their previews), there is a "Zombi 3" and a "Zombie 4" movies out there too. Trust me, you don't need them or want them, as they don't have the same feel or quality of "Zombi 2" or "Dawn Of The Dead". Just be happy with their trailers. Enjoy!


Question: What story do I tell you?

First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful.  Just watching how Merida's (the main female character) long curly red hair moves in a wonder in and of itself.  Animation is just getting better and better.As are the plots for many animation movies.  I didn't see this movie in the theatre, a decision which I now regret.  But I sat down to watch it based on the idea of a main female protagonist and with a love of all things Scottish.  I was not disappointed.  The humor was great, if crude at times, and the Scots characters covered a spectrum as displayed by the different virtues and vices of each clan.Merida is a princess and is expected to wed one of the three sons of the other three clans.  Her own father is head of the fourth clan, and she discovers a clause so that she can "fight" for her own hand and takes part in the contests.  Of course, she is a wild girl who can ride, hunt, and shoot with the best and resents her much more dignified and formal mother's attempts to make a real "lady" out of her.  She resists what she sees as her Fate and so discovers that the question about Princess vs Rebel was never so far apart as she first thought.This is a real mother-daughter picture, one that brings the two together as they fight to overcome the results of a badly-chosen spell.  In-between the funny scenes, we see how they each learn to really see each other, rather than their expectations of each other.The movie has many elements (especially how people speak) woven into the (somewhat) more historical ones, so it will appeal to a modern audience.  Fortunately, it isn't too distracting.  There is enough action that most kids won't get too bored, but I would recommend this movie more for 8 year olds and up than any younger ones.  Highly recommended for young teen girls, the reasons for which will be obvious if you watch the movie.Not my absolute favorite animated movie, but right up there.

Answer: animation

<hl> First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful. <hl> Just watching how Merida's (the main female character) long curly red hair moves in a wonder in and of itself. Animation is just getting better and better. As are the plots for many animation movies. I didn't see this movie in the theatre, a decision which I now regret. But I sat down to watch it based on the idea of a main female protagonist and with a love of all things Scottish. I was not disappointed. The humor was great, if crude at times, and the Scots characters covered a spectrum as displayed by the different virtues and vices of each clan. Merida is a princess and is expected to wed one of the three sons of the other three clans. Her own father is head of the fourth clan, and she discovers a clause so that she can "fight" for her own hand and takes part in the contests. Of course, she is a wild girl who can ride, hunt, and shoot with the best and resents her much more dignified and formal mother's attempts to make a real "lady" out of her. She resists what she sees as her Fate and so discovers that the question about Princess vs Rebel was never so far apart as she first thought. This is a real mother-daughter picture, one that brings the two together as they fight to overcome the results of a badly-chosen spell. In-between the funny scenes, we see how they each learn to really see each other, rather than their expectations of each other. The movie has many elements (especially how people speak) woven into the (somewhat) more historical ones, so it will appeal to a modern audience. Fortunately, it isn't too distracting. There is enough action that most kids won't get too bored, but I would recommend this movie more for 8 year olds and up than any younger ones. Highly recommended for young teen girls, the reasons for which will be obvious if you watch the movie. Not my absolute favorite animated movie, but right up there.

First off, the <hl> animation <hl> quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful. Just watching how Merida's (the main female character) long curly red hair moves in a wonder in and of itself. Animation is just getting better and better.As are the plots for many animation movies. I didn't see this movie in the theatre, a decision which I now regret. But I sat down to watch it based on the idea of a main female protagonist and with a love of all things Scottish. I was not disappointed. The humor was great, if crude at times, and the Scots characters covered a spectrum as displayed by the different virtues and vices of each clan.Merida is a princess and is expected to wed one of the three sons of the other three clans. Her own father is head of the fourth clan, and she discovers a clause so that she can "fight" for her own hand and takes part in the contests. Of course, she is a wild girl who can ride, hunt, and shoot with the best and resents her much more dignified and formal mother's attempts to make a real "lady" out of her. She resists what she sees as her Fate and so discovers that the question about Princess vs Rebel was never so far apart as she first thought.This is a real mother-daughter picture, one that brings the two together as they fight to overcome the results of a badly-chosen spell. In-between the funny scenes, we see how they each learn to really see each other, rather than their expectations of each other.The movie has many elements (especially how people speak) woven into the (somewhat) more historical ones, so it will appeal to a modern audience. Fortunately, it isn't too distracting. There is enough action that most kids won't get too bored, but I would recommend this movie more for 8 year olds and up than any younger ones. Highly recommended for young teen girls, the reasons for which will be obvious if you watch the movie.Not my absolute favorite animated movie, but right up there.


Question: How is the show?

Veronica Mars is about a girl who is about 10 times smarter, sharp witted, and drama filled than anyone else around her, (not to mention she is 10 times prettier than everyone else).  She never fails to deliver a quick witted response to peoples slanders against her.  There is no case to hard, no villain to horrific, no relationship too broken to knock her off her feet.  The show is basically about a murder involving her best friend.  The mystery holds well, as do all the cases-of-the-week which never fail to involve great amounts of thought, no matter how silly the are.  The writing is as sharp as Kristen Bell's performance.  She can go from innocent teen one moment, to sarcastic know it all the next, to bubble head the next, to broken hearted girl on her own with an amazing ease.  The only problem with the show in general are the relationship plot lines.Beware of spoiler:The Logan, Duncan, police man triangle is very weak, especially the break up scenes with the police man.  They way that is resolved makes this show almost of 4 star show.  I have never in my life seen such a terrible resolve.  On the other hand, the Logan relationship is bizarre and never really is believable.  Veronica and Logan have chemistry, but not in a romantic way.  Their chemistry is from the contestant arguing.  Duncan and Veronica have a mild but believable chemistry.  The policeman, who gets very little screen time, seems to be the one that she has the most chemistry with, making is almost impossible to believe that she would dump him.end of spoilerwith that downfall, the show still gets a five stars because of the great season finale.  The guilty person is not the one I would have ever thought it was, and the cliff hanger, while a little set-up-for-next-seasons-mystery less, is not all that bad.  The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week.  I hope it doesn't get cancelled.

Answer: The show is fresh

Veronica Mars is about a girl who is about 10 times smarter, sharp witted, and drama filled than anyone else around her, (not to mention she is 10 times prettier than everyone else). She never fails to deliver a quick witted response to peoples slanders against her. There is no case to hard, no villain to horrific, no relationship too broken to knock her off her feet. The show is basically about a murder involving her best friend. The mystery holds well, as do all the cases-of-the-week which never fail to involve great amounts of thought, no matter how silly the are. The writing is as sharp as Kristen Bell's performance. She can go from innocent teen one moment, to sarcastic know it all the next, to bubble head the next, to broken hearted girl on her own with an amazing ease. The only problem with the show in general are the relationship plot lines. Beware of spoiler:The Logan, Duncan, police man triangle is very weak, especially the break up scenes with the police man. They way that is resolved makes this show almost of 4 star show. I have never in my life seen such a terrible resolve. On the other hand, the Logan relationship is bizarre and never really is believable. Veronica and Logan have chemistry, but not in a romantic way. Their chemistry is from the contestant arguing. Duncan and Veronica have a mild but believable chemistry. The policeman, who gets very little screen time, seems to be the one that she has the most chemistry with, making is almost impossible to believe that she would dump him.end of spoilerwith that downfall, the show still gets a five stars because of the great season finale. The guilty person is not the one I would have ever thought it was, and the cliff hanger, while a little set-up-for-next-seasons-mystery less, is not all that bad. <hl> The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week. <hl> I hope it doesn't get cancelled.

Veronica Mars is about a girl who is about 10 times smarter, sharp witted, and drama filled than anyone else around her, (not to mention she is 10 times prettier than everyone else). She never fails to deliver a quick witted response to peoples slanders against her. There is no case to hard, no villain to horrific, no relationship too broken to knock her off her feet. The show is basically about a murder involving her best friend. The mystery holds well, as do all the cases-of-the-week which never fail to involve great amounts of thought, no matter how silly the are. The writing is as sharp as Kristen Bell's performance. She can go from innocent teen one moment, to sarcastic know it all the next, to bubble head the next, to broken hearted girl on her own with an amazing ease. The only problem with the show in general are the relationship plot lines.Beware of spoiler:The Logan, Duncan, police man triangle is very weak, especially the break up scenes with the police man. They way that is resolved makes this show almost of 4 star show. I have never in my life seen such a terrible resolve. On the other hand, the Logan relationship is bizarre and never really is believable. Veronica and Logan have chemistry, but not in a romantic way. Their chemistry is from the contestant arguing. Duncan and Veronica have a mild but believable chemistry. The policeman, who gets very little screen time, seems to be the one that she has the most chemistry with, making is almost impossible to believe that she would dump him.end of spoilerwith that downfall, the show still gets a five stars because of the great season finale. The guilty person is not the one I would have ever thought it was, and the cliff hanger, while a little set-up-for-next-seasons-mystery less, is not all that bad. <hl> The show is fresh <hl> in this world of the same ol thing every week. I hope it doesn't get cancelled.


Question: How was the film?

In reviewer Ronald Thomson's DVDTown critique of the previous release of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," he called it "a landmark film in special effects development." True, and Artisan's "Ultimate Edition DVD" establishes yet another benchmark, the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. It's what director James Cameron was said to have wanted with "Titanic." Now, he gets his way. The disc contains two versions of the movie, the primary theatrical release and a special, extended version, plus over forty special features. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ronald's assessment of the film's having an entertainment value of 10, but I'm willing to concede the point in its "Ultimate Edition" trappings. I certainly concur with everything else Ronald said, especially that "Terminator 2" belongs in any sci-fi collection. Now, before I comment on the special bonus items, here's more of what Ronald said about the movie itself...the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc."The first terminator failed to change history. It's up to a second terminator to terminate John Conner in his youth years after the attempt to kill his mother. Granted, just another cyborg won't do. The terminator sent back to change history has the ability to emulate any non-mechanical object it comes in contact with, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is up to the task of saving the world, even against an indestructible, morphing adversary in this terminator-on-terminator battle.Thanks to the marvels of time travel, John Conner was raised believing that the world would be devastated and he would lead the rebellion against the machines. His mother, however, was committed for being delusional. After all, how could machines take over the world? Now, two terminators show up, and he realizes that his mother was right."Video & Audio:The audio and video for the movie are fine. Definitely high quality. The sound and anamorphic picture are THX certified, but more important, the detail in sound staging is excellent. For instance, in one of the opening scenes, a motorcycle drives by on the road, and the audio definitely tracks with the location of the bike, even though it's a simple background noise. Amazing battles, fights, explosions, gun shots, and chase scenes leave the viewer enjoying the movie, not just admiring its technical perfection. The picture is slightly light, overall, and perhaps a tad soft. I would have liked a greater color depth.More from Thomson: "'T2' is not perfect, the acting leaving much to be desired. But then, so is the acting in "Star Wars" imperfect. In both cases, however, the acting does not detract from the movies' overall effectiveness, presentation, or entertainment value."Extras:Thanks, Ronald, now let's hit those new bonus features, starting with side one, which is labeled "Side A" in print so small you have to hold it to the light and squint to read it. This is the main side, and the first thing you'll notice when it starts up is the snazzy new interface. The animated menu design looks like the inside of a robotics factory for terminator cyborgs. However, while it's beautiful to look at, it presents some problems getting around. A warning comes with the package (which is housed, by the way, in a handsome brushed-aluminum casing) stating that "due to the advanced features utilized in the creation of this DVD, some players may experience minor navigational difficulties." My Sony 7700 player had no technical difficulty navigating the menus, but I had trouble finding everything I needed to. Some of the directional arrows are so dark and so tiny, they can be hard to spot, and they are often not located with the rest of the items on a screen. It also took me a moment to locate the THX tests advertised on the box. They're in the audio section and indicated by a little "THX" sign on the skeletal metal head to the left of the main audio choices. Once you find these tests, though, which are about the same as those found on the "Fight Club" DVD and basically duplicate the tests on most standard DVD setup discs like "Video Essentials," you'll find them handy to use. They include checks for color calibration, brightness, convergence, channel balance, channel-phase polarity, subwoofer integration, and other such criteria for optimizing a home theater.Now, you're almost ready to choose which version of the movie you want to watch. The first is the regular theatrical release at 136 minutes; the other is the special edition with sixteen minutes of additional material. Some of this extra stuff is in bits and pieces scattered about; and some of it is contained in completely new scenes, raising the chapter index to an astounding eighty selections, maybe a record of its kind, an index point for about every two minutes of screen time! If you have already seen the film, and who hasn't, I advise watching the special edition; it's one of the few instances where the added material makes sense and isn't just included as a gimmick. But the chapter selections menu is no longer animated as it was in the previous disc. I suppose some things had to go, and it's a miracle the engineers were able to cram as much as they did on both sides of one disc. Anyway, the side also contains four different audio tracks: one in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, another in DTS 5.1 ES, a third in Dolby Surround 2.0, and a final one featuring commentary by members of the cast and crew. English is the only spoken language option, but subtitles are provided in English for the hearing impaired. There are also extensive cast and crew biographies and filmographies, plus some DVD-ROM items. The keep case claims that the film was newly remastered in THX, but as far as I could tell in comparing it to its prior DVD incarnation, the picture and sound quality appear the same, with the anamorphic screen ratio an identical 2.17:1. Perhaps Artisan meant that the film was newly remastered for DVD previously. In any case, the picture and sound are still as good as could be hoped for and deserving of the highest rating that could be assigned them.Side two (B) is where you'll find most of the bonus materials. Again, navigation may be an initial problem, but once you think you get the hang of it, it becomes no easier. Here, in various categories, you will discover more than you could ever want to know about the film, its history, and its production. One of the subdivisions is called "Information Programs," and it includes the disc's three main documentaries. The first is a thirty-minute promo titled "The Making of T2," produced at the time of the film's shooting in 1991. You'll see interviews with the stars and crew and various behind-the-scenes looks at the techniques used in the filmmaking. The second, twenty-two-minute, featurette, made in 1993 for the Showtime cable channel and titled "T2: More Than Meets the Eye," is even more interesting. It deals with the longer version of the movie and explains why certain scenes had to be cut for the original theatrical release and why they were filmed in the first place. The third documentary, the twenty-three-minute "Making of Terminator 2 3D: Breaking the Screen Barrier," is all about the creation of the MCA/Universal Studios theme park attraction and hints that the attraction may be a stepping stone to a possible third theatrical feature. We'll see.Another subdivision on side two is called "Visual Campaigns." It includes four trailers, three in partial widescreen and one in pan-and-scan, and five Japanese teasers. Then there's a third subdivision, called "Data Hub," which has even more information. To begin with, it contains the complete shooting script of the film in 574 text frames. Placing the written text over a flaming red-and-orange backdrop, though, was a questionable decision. I didn't read the entire script, only the first few pages, but had I tried, I probably would have needed new glasses by now. (The DVD-ROM portion of the disc allows one to read the script while looking at many of the storyboards.) Next, there are what appear to be hundreds of regular storyboard sequences and archives. Tons and tons of archival stuff. In fact, there are sixty separate video selections, each individually indexed, probing the filmmaking process with cast and crew. Of these, I was particularly taken with the segments using multi-angle shots, the Terminator saying "I'll be back" in a variety of languages, and the sequence demonstrating the video transfer of "T2" for separate letterbox and pan-and-scan versions taken from the same Super-35 negative. And in yet another section, "Data Core," you'll find fifty more chapters worth of supplemental items. Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled "Battle Across Three Dimensions" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it. Next, if you have the patience, wait twenty seconds or so for a static menu screen to come to life and then click on it; you will be rewarded by a link to a not-so-hidden Web site. Finally, a thirty-two-page informational booklet insert may also set a record of sorts. You'll be exploring for weeks.Parting Thoughts:Without question, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," the Ultimate Edition DVD, is well named. It is a milestone in the evolution of the DVD medium for its ability to carry huge quantities of information into the home. The movie itself looks and sounds as good as ever, and in its extended version it may even be a better story. This disc is an obvious must-buy, whether you own the earlier DVD or not.

Answer: Three

In reviewer Ronald Thomson's DVDTown critique of the previous release of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," he called it "a landmark film in special effects development." True, and Artisan's "Ultimate Edition DVD" establishes yet another benchmark, the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. It's what director James Cameron was said to have wanted with "Titanic." Now, he gets his way. The disc contains two versions of the movie, the primary theatrical release and a special, extended version, plus over forty special features. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ronald's assessment of the film's having an entertainment value of 10, but I'm willing to concede the point in its "Ultimate Edition" trappings. I certainly concur with everything else Ronald said, especially that "Terminator 2" belongs in any sci-fi collection. Now, before I comment on the special bonus items, here's more of what Ronald said about the movie itself...the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. "The first terminator failed to change history. It's up to a second terminator to terminate John Conner in his youth years after the attempt to kill his mother. Granted, just another cyborg won't do. The terminator sent back to change history has the ability to emulate any non-mechanical object it comes in contact with, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is up to the task of saving the world, even against an indestructible, morphing adversary in this terminator-on-terminator battle. Thanks to the marvels of time travel, John Conner was raised believing that the world would be devastated and he would lead the rebellion against the machines. His mother, however, was committed for being delusional. After all, how could machines take over the world? Now, two terminators show up, and he realizes that his mother was right. "Video & Audio:The audio and video for the movie are fine. Definitely high quality. The sound and anamorphic picture are THX certified, but more important, the detail in sound staging is excellent. For instance, in one of the opening scenes, a motorcycle drives by on the road, and the audio definitely tracks with the location of the bike, even though it's a simple background noise. Amazing battles, fights, explosions, gun shots, and chase scenes leave the viewer enjoying the movie, not just admiring its technical perfection. The picture is slightly light, overall, and perhaps a tad soft. I would have liked a greater color depth. More from Thomson: "'T2' is not perfect, the acting leaving much to be desired. But then, so is the acting in "Star Wars" imperfect. In both cases, however, the acting does not detract from the movies' overall effectiveness, presentation, or entertainment value. "Extras:Thanks, Ronald, now let's hit those new bonus features, starting with side one, which is labeled "Side A" in print so small you have to hold it to the light and squint to read it. This is the main side, and the first thing you'll notice when it starts up is the snazzy new interface. The animated menu design looks like the inside of a robotics factory for terminator cyborgs. However, while it's beautiful to look at, it presents some problems getting around. A warning comes with the package (which is housed, by the way, in a handsome brushed-aluminum casing) stating that "due to the advanced features utilized in the creation of this DVD, some players may experience minor navigational difficulties." My Sony 7700 player had no technical difficulty navigating the menus, but I had trouble finding everything I needed to. Some of the directional arrows are so dark and so tiny, they can be hard to spot, and they are often not located with the rest of the items on a screen. It also took me a moment to locate the THX tests advertised on the box. They're in the audio section and indicated by a little "THX" sign on the skeletal metal head to the left of the main audio choices. Once you find these tests, though, which are about the same as those found on the "Fight Club" DVD and basically duplicate the tests on most standard DVD setup discs like "Video Essentials," you'll find them handy to use. They include checks for color calibration, brightness, convergence, channel balance, channel-phase polarity, subwoofer integration, and other such criteria for optimizing a home theater. Now, you're almost ready to choose which version of the movie you want to watch. The first is the regular theatrical release at 136 minutes; the other is the special edition with sixteen minutes of additional material. Some of this extra stuff is in bits and pieces scattered about; and some of it is contained in completely new scenes, raising the chapter index to an astounding eighty selections, maybe a record of its kind, an index point for about every two minutes of screen time! If you have already seen the film, and who hasn't, I advise watching the special edition; it's one of the few instances where the added material makes sense and isn't just included as a gimmick. But the chapter selections menu is no longer animated as it was in the previous disc. I suppose some things had to go, and it's a miracle the engineers were able to cram as much as they did on both sides of one disc. Anyway, the side also contains four different audio tracks: one in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, another in DTS 5.1 ES, a third in Dolby Surround 2.0, and a final one featuring commentary by members of the cast and crew. English is the only spoken language option, but subtitles are provided in English for the hearing impaired. There are also extensive cast and crew biographies and filmographies, plus some DVD-ROM items. The keep case claims that the film was newly remastered in THX, but as far as I could tell in comparing it to its prior DVD incarnation, the picture and sound quality appear the same, with the anamorphic screen ratio an identical 2.17:1. Perhaps Artisan meant that the film was newly remastered for DVD previously. In any case, the picture and sound are still as good as could be hoped for and deserving of the highest rating that could be assigned them. Side two (B) is where you'll find most of the bonus materials. Again, navigation may be an initial problem, but once you think you get the hang of it, it becomes no easier. Here, in various categories, you will discover more than you could ever want to know about the film, its history, and its production. One of the subdivisions is called "Information Programs," and it includes the disc's three main documentaries. The first is a thirty-minute promo titled "The Making of T2," produced at the time of the film's shooting in 1991. You'll see interviews with the stars and crew and various behind-the-scenes looks at the techniques used in the filmmaking. The second, twenty-two-minute, featurette, made in 1993 for the Showtime cable channel and titled "T2: More Than Meets the Eye," is even more interesting. It deals with the longer version of the movie and explains why certain scenes had to be cut for the original theatrical release and why they were filmed in the first place. The third documentary, the twenty-three-minute "Making of Terminator 2 3D: Breaking the Screen Barrier," is all about the creation of the MCA/Universal Studios theme park attraction and hints that the attraction may be a stepping stone to a possible third theatrical feature. We'll see. Another subdivision on side two is called "Visual Campaigns." It includes four trailers, three in partial widescreen and one in pan-and-scan, and five Japanese teasers. Then there's a third subdivision, called "Data Hub," which has even more information. To begin with, it contains the complete shooting script of the film in 574 text frames. Placing the written text over a flaming red-and-orange backdrop, though, was a questionable decision. I didn't read the entire script, only the first few pages, but had I tried, I probably would have needed new glasses by now. (The DVD-ROM portion of the disc allows one to read the script while looking at many of the storyboards.) Next, there are what appear to be hundreds of regular storyboard sequences and archives. Tons and tons of archival stuff. In fact, there are sixty separate video selections, each individually indexed, probing the filmmaking process with cast and crew. Of these, I was particularly taken with the segments using multi-angle shots, the Terminator saying "I'll be back" in a variety of languages, and the sequence demonstrating the video transfer of "T2" for separate letterbox and pan-and-scan versions taken from the same Super-35 negative. And in yet another section, "Data Core," you'll find fifty more chapters worth of supplemental items. <hl> Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled "Battle Across Three Dimensions" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it. <hl> Next, if you have the patience, wait twenty seconds or so for a static menu screen to come to life and then click on it; you will be rewarded by a link to a not-so-hidden Web site. Finally, a thirty-two-page informational booklet insert may also set a record of sorts. You'll be exploring for weeks. Parting Thoughts:Without question, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," the Ultimate Edition DVD, is well named. It is a milestone in the evolution of the DVD medium for its ability to carry huge quantities of information into the home. The movie itself looks and sounds as good as ever, and in its extended version it may even be a better story. This disc is an obvious must-buy, whether you own the earlier DVD or not.

In reviewer Ronald Thomson's DVDTown critique of the previous release of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," he called it "a landmark film in special effects development." True, and Artisan's "Ultimate Edition DVD" establishes yet another benchmark, the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. It's what director James Cameron was said to have wanted with "Titanic." Now, he gets his way. The disc contains two versions of the movie, the primary theatrical release and a special, extended version, plus over forty special features. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ronald's assessment of the film's having an entertainment value of 10, but I'm willing to concede the point in its "Ultimate Edition" trappings. I certainly concur with everything else Ronald said, especially that "Terminator 2" belongs in any sci-fi collection. Now, before I comment on the special bonus items, here's more of what Ronald said about the movie itself...the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc."The first terminator failed to change history. It's up to a second terminator to terminate John Conner in his youth years after the attempt to kill his mother. Granted, just another cyborg won't do. The terminator sent back to change history has the ability to emulate any non-mechanical object it comes in contact with, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is up to the task of saving the world, even against an indestructible, morphing adversary in this terminator-on-terminator battle.Thanks to the marvels of time travel, John Conner was raised believing that the world would be devastated and he would lead the rebellion against the machines. His mother, however, was committed for being delusional. After all, how could machines take over the world? Now, two terminators show up, and he realizes that his mother was right."Video & Audio:The audio and video for the movie are fine. Definitely high quality. The sound and anamorphic picture are THX certified, but more important, the detail in sound staging is excellent. For instance, in one of the opening scenes, a motorcycle drives by on the road, and the audio definitely tracks with the location of the bike, even though it's a simple background noise. Amazing battles, fights, explosions, gun shots, and chase scenes leave the viewer enjoying the movie, not just admiring its technical perfection. The picture is slightly light, overall, and perhaps a tad soft. I would have liked a greater color depth.More from Thomson: "'T2' is not perfect, the acting leaving much to be desired. But then, so is the acting in "Star Wars" imperfect. In both cases, however, the acting does not detract from the movies' overall effectiveness, presentation, or entertainment value."Extras:Thanks, Ronald, now let's hit those new bonus features, starting with side one, which is labeled "Side A" in print so small you have to hold it to the light and squint to read it. This is the main side, and the first thing you'll notice when it starts up is the snazzy new interface. The animated menu design looks like the inside of a robotics factory for terminator cyborgs. However, while it's beautiful to look at, it presents some problems getting around. A warning comes with the package (which is housed, by the way, in a handsome brushed-aluminum casing) stating that "due to the advanced features utilized in the creation of this DVD, some players may experience minor navigational difficulties." My Sony 7700 player had no technical difficulty navigating the menus, but I had trouble finding everything I needed to. Some of the directional arrows are so dark and so tiny, they can be hard to spot, and they are often not located with the rest of the items on a screen. It also took me a moment to locate the THX tests advertised on the box. They're in the audio section and indicated by a little "THX" sign on the skeletal metal head to the left of the main audio choices. Once you find these tests, though, which are about the same as those found on the "Fight Club" DVD and basically duplicate the tests on most standard DVD setup discs like "Video Essentials," you'll find them handy to use. They include checks for color calibration, brightness, convergence, channel balance, channel-phase polarity, subwoofer integration, and other such criteria for optimizing a home theater.Now, you're almost ready to choose which version of the movie you want to watch. The first is the regular theatrical release at 136 minutes; the other is the special edition with sixteen minutes of additional material. Some of this extra stuff is in bits and pieces scattered about; and some of it is contained in completely new scenes, raising the chapter index to an astounding eighty selections, maybe a record of its kind, an index point for about every two minutes of screen time! If you have already seen the film, and who hasn't, I advise watching the special edition; it's one of the few instances where the added material makes sense and isn't just included as a gimmick. But the chapter selections menu is no longer animated as it was in the previous disc. I suppose some things had to go, and it's a miracle the engineers were able to cram as much as they did on both sides of one disc. Anyway, the side also contains four different audio tracks: one in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, another in DTS 5.1 ES, a third in Dolby Surround 2.0, and a final one featuring commentary by members of the cast and crew. English is the only spoken language option, but subtitles are provided in English for the hearing impaired. There are also extensive cast and crew biographies and filmographies, plus some DVD-ROM items. The keep case claims that the film was newly remastered in THX, but as far as I could tell in comparing it to its prior DVD incarnation, the picture and sound quality appear the same, with the anamorphic screen ratio an identical 2.17:1. Perhaps Artisan meant that the film was newly remastered for DVD previously. In any case, the picture and sound are still as good as could be hoped for and deserving of the highest rating that could be assigned them.Side two (B) is where you'll find most of the bonus materials. Again, navigation may be an initial problem, but once you think you get the hang of it, it becomes no easier. Here, in various categories, you will discover more than you could ever want to know about the film, its history, and its production. One of the subdivisions is called "Information Programs," and it includes the disc's three main documentaries. The first is a thirty-minute promo titled "The Making of T2," produced at the time of the film's shooting in 1991. You'll see interviews with the stars and crew and various behind-the-scenes looks at the techniques used in the filmmaking. The second, twenty-two-minute, featurette, made in 1993 for the Showtime cable channel and titled "T2: More Than Meets the Eye," is even more interesting. It deals with the longer version of the movie and explains why certain scenes had to be cut for the original theatrical release and why they were filmed in the first place. The third documentary, the twenty-three-minute "Making of Terminator 2 3D: Breaking the Screen Barrier," is all about the creation of the MCA/Universal Studios theme park attraction and hints that the attraction may be a stepping stone to a possible third theatrical feature. We'll see.Another subdivision on side two is called "Visual Campaigns." It includes four trailers, three in partial widescreen and one in pan-and-scan, and five Japanese teasers. Then there's a third subdivision, called "Data Hub," which has even more information. To begin with, it contains the complete shooting script of the film in 574 text frames. Placing the written text over a flaming red-and-orange backdrop, though, was a questionable decision. I didn't read the entire script, only the first few pages, but had I tried, I probably would have needed new glasses by now. (The DVD-ROM portion of the disc allows one to read the script while looking at many of the storyboards.) Next, there are what appear to be hundreds of regular storyboard sequences and archives. Tons and tons of archival stuff. In fact, there are sixty separate video selections, each individually indexed, probing the filmmaking process with cast and crew. Of these, I was particularly taken with the segments using multi-angle shots, the Terminator saying "I'll be back" in a variety of languages, and the sequence demonstrating the video transfer of "T2" for separate letterbox and pan-and-scan versions taken from the same Super-35 negative. And in yet another section, "Data Core," you'll find fifty more chapters worth of supplemental items. Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled "Battle Across <hl> Three <hl> Dimensions" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it. Next, if you have the patience, wait twenty seconds or so for a static menu screen to come to life and then click on it; you will be rewarded by a link to a not-so-hidden Web site. Finally, a thirty-two-page informational booklet insert may also set a record of sorts. You'll be exploring for weeks.Parting Thoughts:Without question, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," the Ultimate Edition DVD, is well named. It is a milestone in the evolution of the DVD medium for its ability to carry huge quantities of information into the home. The movie itself looks and sounds as good as ever, and in its extended version it may even be a better story. This disc is an obvious must-buy, whether you own the earlier DVD or not.