Awards Movie Reviews

This Collection From Atomfilms includes the 2000 Oscar Winner - Best Live Action Short: My Mother Dreams the Satans Disciples; Directed by Barbara Schock. This short is worthy of its Oscar and DEFINITELY worth owning! It's about this Granny who starts hanging out with a motorcycle club--The Satans Disciples. Very Cool.

I got this set last year. I wasn't sure what to expect at the time that I placed it into my DVD player, but I was a huge fan of the theatrical version and I knew it could only get better! It was better than I expected. The additional footage adds so much depth and so much more characterization that I can't understand why it wasn't apart of the original release. Simply amazing! Also the bonus material is nothing short of awesome! If you liked the movie in the theater BUY THIS NOW! If you are not sure, get this and THE TWO TOWERS: EXPANDED EDITION, and get ready for the third film, because they will get you hooked!
(GIFT SET INFO: This set comes with the movie, plus a set of bookends, and an addition disc with a documentary on the books. The set is beautiful, and the bookends are just wonderful. Spend the extra money and get the gift set!)

I forgave much of the necessary artiistic licence of the director because P.Jackson delivered magnificently in the major scenes and cleverly combined original elements that though "invented" maintained many essentials of the original narrative.
The extended DVD(though still not a literal translation of the book) contains many of the moments and subtleties that I so wanted to see in the theater. Though still a compromise relative to the book the additional detail of the extended version adds much more to the story than the extra 20 minutes of footage implies (some additions in places amount to 1/2 to 15 seconds of footage within a scene, yet they contribute much greater depth to the story).
The commentaries provided are fun, fascinating and quite welcome to the acting/filmaking enthusiast. The production-side documentaries and reports are a huge treat--sets, props, costumes, makeup and the insight into everyones dedication show clearly the huge commitment made by the crew and their concern in staying true to the source material as much as possible whilst also translating practically the tale from written word to film faithfully.
There's nothing really wrong with the theater release, but for home viewing even on a small screen the extended version is simply better and more engaging.
I couldn't help but buy the standard version of The Two Towers--tired of waiting--but I have just ordered the extended version of it as based on my experience with FOTR Extd. I know TTT Extended will also be superior to the theater release (and with TTT it ought to be--the editing was a bit choppy).
The extended version is a great value if you want all the extras it provides, and even if you don't, the additional footage is an improvement on the original release and thus worth it.

This is soooooooooooooooo much better than the regular version! It's got a bunch of funny parts in it! BUY IT...... NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got this set last year. I wasn't sure what to expect at the time that I placed it into my DVD player, but I was a huge fan of the theatrical version and I knew it could only get better! It was better than I expected. The additional footage adds so much depth and so much more characterization that I can't understand why it wasn't apart of the original release. Simply amazing! Also the bonus material is nothing short of awesome! If you liked the movie in the theater BUY THIS NOW! If you are not sure, get this and THE TWO TOWERS: EXPANDED EDITION, and get ready for the third film, because they will get you hooked!
(GIFT SET INFO: This set comes with the movie, plus a set of bookends, and an addition disc with a documentary on the books. The set is beautiful, and the bookends are just wonderful. Spend the extra money and get the gift set!)

I forgave much of the necessary artiistic licence of the director because P.Jackson delivered magnificently in the major scenes and cleverly combined original elements that though "invented" maintained many essentials of the original narrative.
The extended DVD(though still not a literal translation of the book) contains many of the moments and subtleties that I so wanted to see in the theater. Though still a compromise relative to the book the additional detail of the extended version adds much more to the story than the extra 20 minutes of footage implies (some additions in places amount to 1/2 to 15 seconds of footage within a scene, yet they contribute much greater depth to the story).
The commentaries provided are fun, fascinating and quite welcome to the acting/filmaking enthusiast. The production-side documentaries and reports are a huge treat--sets, props, costumes, makeup and the insight into everyones dedication show clearly the huge commitment made by the crew and their concern in staying true to the source material as much as possible whilst also translating practically the tale from written word to film faithfully.
There's nothing really wrong with the theater release, but for home viewing even on a small screen the extended version is simply better and more engaging.
I couldn't help but buy the standard version of The Two Towers--tired of waiting--but I have just ordered the extended version of it as based on my experience with FOTR Extd. I know TTT Extended will also be superior to the theater release (and with TTT it ought to be--the editing was a bit choppy).
The extended version is a great value if you want all the extras it provides, and even if you don't, the additional footage is an improvement on the original release and thus worth it.

This is soooooooooooooooo much better than the regular version! It's got a bunch of funny parts in it! BUY IT...... NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to watch A Beautiful Mind for English class, and if I hadn't enjoyed the change in class schedule for that day, my irritation with this film would have been unbearable. My teacher made the grave mistake of comparing this sentimental, light-weight, and vacuous film to J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. Exactly how John Nash, a character with only two personality traits: schizophrenic mania and grumpiness, can be compared with the multi-dimensional and uplifting Holden Caulfield is beyond me. My teacher's unwise decision to compare this film to one of the greatest postmodern books ever written does not fault the filmmakers on any level, but it does expose this film's lack of thought even further.

On virtually every level this film fails, and it is not merely a film made with no skill; it is made with arrogance and hostility for elevated thought. I would argue that people who enjoy this movie probably view me as some kind of cynical deviant for denouncing this film, when really the film itself is more cynical than any criticism it provokes.

The audience is asked to follow the journey of a brilliant mathematician without ever learning about his mathematical genius. Chalkboards and math equations populate this film, but with no breadth or insight into how analytical thought processes were integral to John Nash's existence. The one example that attempts to illustrate Nash's concepts and genius involves a getting-laid scheme that is sexually crude and simplistic. It is cynical for the filmmakers to assume that audiences are only smart enough to accept the topic of mathematical genius in such a lightweight and salacious way.

The film, for those who do not know, follows John Nash from his years as a student at Princeton to his Nobel Prize win in 1994. Russell Crowe does what he can with an underwritten character. Like I said, he has no traits other than arrogant grumpiness and schizophrenic delirium. That is what is written, and Crowe cannot, despite his abilities, bring that to life. As a result, John Nash is not a sympathetic hero worthy of two hours of anyone's time. The real John Nash probably is. But not Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard's whitewashed one-dimensional portrayal.

Blander than him though is the portrayal of Nash's wife, Alicia. She is objectified from the beginning of the film. There are at least three closeups of her buttocks and breasts with the ogling John Nash looking on in pleasure. When John and Alicia finally connect on a supposedly intellectual level, it is through a series of sexual one-upmanships. Surely there was something unique and extraordinary that connected these two people. And surely it wasn't the cleverness of their sexual innuendoes...When a rift eventually occurs in Nash's marital life, it is portrayed singularly through Nash's inability to hold an erection. What is this film's obsession with reyling on sex as a cheap mechanism?

When Nash's signs of schizophrenia escalate, the filmmakers take the position that insults not just medical science but human reason altogether. Schizophrenia happens to be a very real, harmful disease and this film, by puporting that it can be overcome without the persistent intervention of the medical and psychological community denigrates the ceaseless, tangible pain of those afflicted with it. Furthermore, schizophrenic hallucinations are portrayed as a linear action movie subplot; while dangerous, they're also highly exciting. The movie doesn't present the hallucinations through Nash's warped tv-influenced notions of saving the world; but rather through endorsing those notions with cheapo cardboard stereotypes. I think it's clear that Ron Howard would rather us be excited by the illusionary car chase at hand than Nash's own jaded vision of that car chase. In that respect, the film fails to uncover insight into his unconscious's thought processes. David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, by showing one character's dream, uncovered a whirlwind about that character that was fascinating and psychologically compelling.

I really hated this movie, and I'm sure Holden would have called it "the phoniest of the phony."

This is one of the very few films on my favorites list that is not war or combat-oriented. I still can't decide which Crowe film I like better, this or Gladiator. The acting is superb from all the chief characters (Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connely, Ed Harris), and I am very pissed that Denzel Washington robbed Crowe of the Best actor award for the crappy "Training Day". The plot is a little screwy, but Ron Howard's good directing makes it work. The only thing that really kept me from giving this movie a perfect 5 is that it robbed "The Fellowship of the Ring" of best picture.

John Nash, a Nobel prize-winning mathematical genius afflicted with schizophrenia, had an incredible life. Russell Crowe does an amazing job wresting this performance into a groundbreaking movie. Ron Howard did a spectacular job directing this difficult material and creating a memorable movie that follows Nash from his early days at Princeton thru a long series of delusions involving persecution by the Department of Defense, a child of an imaginary friend who never seems to age - and it's that last fact that Nash finally uses to convince himself of what others have been trying to tell him for years: he's crazy. So began his slow recovery with nothing but will power and the love of a good woman.
I know, I know: it's not totally factual and leaves out some important dirty laundry that the filmmakers would rather have left in the closet, but still.
It's fantastic.

I had to watch A Beautiful Mind for English class, and if I hadn't enjoyed the change in class schedule for that day, my irritation with this film would have been unbearable. My teacher made the grave mistake of comparing this sentimental, light-weight, and vacuous film to J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. Exactly how John Nash, a character with only two personality traits: schizophrenic mania and grumpiness, can be compared with the multi-dimensional and uplifting Holden Caulfield is beyond me. My teacher's unwise decision to compare this film to one of the greatest postmodern books ever written does not fault the filmmakers on any level, but it does expose this film's lack of thought even further.

On virtually every level this film fails, and it is not merely a film made with no skill; it is made with arrogance and hostility for elevated thought. I would argue that people who enjoy this movie probably view me as some kind of cynical deviant for denouncing this film, when really the film itself is more cynical than any criticism it provokes.

The audience is asked to follow the journey of a brilliant mathematician without ever learning about his mathematical genius. Chalkboards and math equations populate this film, but with no breadth or insight into how analytical thought processes were integral to John Nash's existence. The one example that attempts to illustrate Nash's concepts and genius involves a getting-laid scheme that is sexually crude and simplistic. It is cynical for the filmmakers to assume that audiences are only smart enough to accept the topic of mathematical genius in such a lightweight and salacious way.

The film, for those who do not know, follows John Nash from his years as a student at Princeton to his Nobel Prize win in 1994. Russell Crowe does what he can with an underwritten character. Like I said, he has no traits other than arrogant grumpiness and schizophrenic delirium. That is what is written, and Crowe cannot, despite his abilities, bring that to life. As a result, John Nash is not a sympathetic hero worthy of two hours of anyone's time. The real John Nash probably is. But not Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard's whitewashed one-dimensional portrayal.

Blander than him though is the portrayal of Nash's wife, Alicia. She is objectified from the beginning of the film. There are at least three closeups of her buttocks and breasts with the ogling John Nash looking on in pleasure. When John and Alicia finally connect on a supposedly intellectual level, it is through a series of sexual one-upmanships. Surely there was something unique and extraordinary that connected these two people. And surely it wasn't the cleverness of their sexual innuendoes...When a rift eventually occurs in Nash's marital life, it is portrayed singularly through Nash's inability to hold an erection. What is this film's obsession with reyling on sex as a cheap mechanism?

When Nash's signs of schizophrenia escalate, the filmmakers take the position that insults not just medical science but human reason altogether. Schizophrenia happens to be a very real, harmful disease and this film, by puporting that it can be overcome without the persistent intervention of the medical and psychological community denigrates the ceaseless, tangible pain of those afflicted with it. Furthermore, schizophrenic hallucinations are portrayed as a linear action movie subplot; while dangerous, they're also highly exciting. The movie doesn't present the hallucinations through Nash's warped tv-influenced notions of saving the world; but rather through endorsing those notions with cheapo cardboard stereotypes. I think it's clear that Ron Howard would rather us be excited by the illusionary car chase at hand than Nash's own jaded vision of that car chase. In that respect, the film fails to uncover insight into his unconscious's thought processes. David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, by showing one character's dream, uncovered a whirlwind about that character that was fascinating and psychologically compelling.

I really hated this movie, and I'm sure Holden would have called it "the phoniest of the phony."

This is one of the very few films on my favorites list that is not war or combat-oriented. I still can't decide which Crowe film I like better, this or Gladiator. The acting is superb from all the chief characters (Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connely, Ed Harris), and I am very pissed that Denzel Washington robbed Crowe of the Best actor award for the crappy "Training Day". The plot is a little screwy, but Ron Howard's good directing makes it work. The only thing that really kept me from giving this movie a perfect 5 is that it robbed "The Fellowship of the Ring" of best picture.

John Nash, a Nobel prize-winning mathematical genius afflicted with schizophrenia, had an incredible life. Russell Crowe does an amazing job wresting this performance into a groundbreaking movie. Ron Howard did a spectacular job directing this difficult material and creating a memorable movie that follows Nash from his early days at Princeton thru a long series of delusions involving persecution by the Department of Defense, a child of an imaginary friend who never seems to age - and it's that last fact that Nash finally uses to convince himself of what others have been trying to tell him for years: he's crazy. So began his slow recovery with nothing but will power and the love of a good woman.
I know, I know: it's not totally factual and leaves out some important dirty laundry that the filmmakers would rather have left in the closet, but still.
It's fantastic.

Really. It's good!
Quite a good movie. it's full of good qualities
that belie (?) the fact that it's quite good.

It's goodness is similar to that of a finely cut diamond - in a good way. As it's tiny facets sparkle their goodness along the full spectrum of good and beautiful colors from the good part of the filmaker's palate..

Carefully crafted goodness.
Cleverly designed and good-acted.

The gist here is that I saw it a while ago and I don't quite have the will to gather my energies to the fore and put forth a real review.

But it's still a good movie.
You should have a look at it.

This is a great movie.

Every actor is awesome.

The only disappointment is the ending.

Behind every set of eyes there is someone who you only thought you knew. Behind closed doors on tidy suburban streets life takes place in ways less perfect than we wish it really was. Yet... there IS so much beauty in the world - if only we have the eyes to see it. Lester, you DO rule!

WASN'T AS GOOD AS I THOUGHT,ALTHOUGH I DID ENJOY WATCHING NADINE'S EVERY MOVE. SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH A LITTLE CLASS IN THIS MOVIE.THE OTHER TWO WERE A PEST.ONE WAS A TROUBLEMAKER/FREAK AND THE OTHER WAS A WIFE WHO WANTED TO BE A FREAK BUT WAS TRYING TO ACT NICE IN CASE HERE HUSBAND WATCH THE VIDEO.

Its Aiight, Its nothing to write home to mom about, but its worth looking at, if you can blow $20.00 dollars on a dub sack, you can blow $20.00 dollars on this DVD. I gave it 3 stars only because of nadine, she kept me interested. If you wait a few more weeks, you may see it on Mtv or BET. I will say this, viewing this DVD without your dub sack is not reccomended!!!

Its Aiight, It aint nothing to write home to mom about, the only reason I gave it 3 stars is because of Nadine, she was worth watching the whole flick, but its worth a peep, if you got 20.00 dollars to burn. I would admit, the women were nice to look at.

Why is "Rockin' in the Free World" performed by Pearl Jam w/ Neil Young not on the DVD! That's one of the most memorable MTV moments I can think of. Why is Pink on here? She's not rock!!! It's also ashamed that there is no Linkin Park. Their "One Step Closer" performance was awesome. Hopefully in the future there will be a Vol. 2 of this collection of MTV VMA performances. Blink 182 and Lenny Kravitz are definetly highlights to the DVD.
There were great performances by Silverchair and U2 as well.

I can't imagine why Madonna, Janet Jackson, or Michael Jackson's VMA performances were not included in this DVD. The most influential artists in videos and performance were excluded. I don't understand. It is a travesty. I hope MTV releases more of the VMA performances with Madonna, Janet, and Michael. I'll buy this one in hopes they will release a really great complilation of VMA performances.