Custom Detailing Movie Reviews

I caught part of this program when it aired on PBS locally Sunday night, and I caught the rest last night on its second airing. On nearly all counts, it is a fine program, featuring not only clips from all of Goldwyn's famous films (including the long unseen 1959 "Porgy and Bess"), but interviews from many departed screen stars such as Bette Davis, Dana Andrews, and Laurence Olivier, all shown, thankfully, not at the end of their careers and in failing health, but in interviews made as long as twenty years ago. The funniest clip is a display of Olivier's towering acting skills when he immitates Goldwyn's voice as he reacted to Olivier's appearance during the filming of the 1939 "Wuthering Heights", one of the screen's greatest classics. Family members are also interviewed, giving sometimes poignant insights into Goldwyn's relationships with people.

However, this film does feature two howling errors which could easily have been avoided by more careful research. A. Scott Berg, author of the biography on which this documentary is based, is also responsible for the script here, and is featured heavily in interviews, so it is difficult to understand how on earth he could have missed these errors, but during the "Porgy and Bess" segment, we hear the narrator baldly stating that Goldwyn had loved it ever since he had seen it onstage in 1932, and that the 1959 film won three Academy Awards. In fact, "Porgy and Bess" opened on Broadway on October 10, 1935, and the 1959 film won only one Academy Award (for Best Adaptation of Score). In addition, it actually LOST three Academy Awards-- to the year's blockbuster, "Ben-Hur".

I watched this segment twice in two days to make sure my ears were not playing tricks on me, and sure enough, the errors were there. The "American Masters" TV series usually produces completely accurate programs, but this time someone was asleep at the wheel when it came to proofreading the script or doing the research.

After watching Life and Times of Hank Greenberg, I was still really in a documentary mood, so I decided to check out Goldwyn - The Man and His Movies, another documentary about someone I was familiar with, but didn't really know a lot about. With Life and Times of Hank Greenberg, the documentary focuses on a man really loved and respected by many people. Throughout the documentary, there are people who talk about the fact that Hank was their hero, their role model. Goldwyn - The Man and His Movies is a little different: almost everyone interviewed about Samuel Goldwyn mentioned at least once the fact they couldn't stand working with the often abusive and caustic Goldwyn.

Loved or hated, Goldwyn was certainly a Hollywood luminary who went to amazing lengths to insure that he had the final word on what went up on the screen. Considered by most to be a phenomenal success, Goldwyn always seemed to be fighting an uphill battle against insurmountable odds. A true film genius who is known for the mantra "make less films, make better films", Goldwyn always seemed to be at war with everything around him, while constantly doing what he could to 'fit in'.

What I really liked about Goldwyn - The Man and His Movies was the deep sense of irony in the story of Samuel Goldwyn and how his triumphs seemed to be worse for him than his tragedies. Goldwyn - The Man and His Movies does a great job of brining together the many people touched by Samuel Goldwyn to present a unique look at one of Hollywood's most interesting moguls.

[Geoffrey Kleinman, DVDTalk.com]

We rank this movie 35 of out of 41. It had some fun moments, but was generally a little dark for my kids. If you are looking for family entertainment there are so many other movies available that are better.

This movie was based on a book, but based on some of the reviews, the older viewers that have read the book hated the movie. I didn't hate it, but it was below average, 2 star quality when compared to its peers.

We had a lot of fun by gathering the family together to rank the 41 Disney movies we have that include some cartoon work. All the kids, ages 6 to 27, participated along with mother and dad. Lion King was selected number 1 of the 41 as the family favorite, but narrowly. Peter Pan was 2. Pete's Dragon 3, Beauty & the beast 4, Sleeping Beauty 5, Snow White 6, Robin Hood 7, 101 Dalmatians 8, Fox and the hound 9, Cinderella is 10th, Rescuers 11, Hunchback of ND 12, Aladdin 13 and Aladdin King of Thieves 14.

This DVD should really be judged on 2 levels. For those who are interested in the movie, but are unfamiliar with the Prydain Chronicles, should find this fantasy movie compelling. The animation was unique for the time, and the movie itself should be compelling for adults and mature kids. Young children may find it disturbing.

Viewers who are familiar with the Prydain Chronicles and are militant about the rendering of a written story to film will probably react otherwise. The movie is more of a parrallel of the entire Prydain series than the second book in the series, the eponymous Black Cauldron, with characters and events appearing anachronistically. Viewed through this prism, The Black Cauldron will be seen as little more that Disney's debasement of a beloved story.

Like the review's title says,the movie is odd for somthing Disney would do. In my opinion,this movie is similar to the Harry
Potter movies in that there is a lot of magic spells type of stuff.I don't think kids 2-6 years old should watch this as it is a creepy kind of movie.

To be fair, I can honestly give this TV Movie Adaptation of Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon" two stars because of the lovely costumes, surprisingly beautiful sets, and the combined talent of most of the actors involved. The other three stars shall remain staunchly "unbestowed". Here's why...

First of all, I've never read this book, but from this movie alone I get a distinct impression that it's innovative and intriguing in its revisionist treatment of the Arthurian legend. (I had many flashbacks to Senior English. It made me feel quite learned, really.)

With this in mind I have to say "shame on you!" to the scriptwriters of this poorly adapted screenplay. It is glaringly and painfully obvious that the passionate themes present in any "good" book (assuming from the testimonials of those who have read the book that it is indeed "good") have been considerably watered down and hacked to pieces by time constraints and a need to please the TV censors.

For example, the romantic relationship between Guinevere (Samantha Mathis giving a fine performance despite being an inferior casting choice) and Lancelot (Michael Vartan is legitimately pretty, but almost completely void of similar passion) is about as interesting as a chipped coffee mug. Decidedly NOT exciting or interesting.

This also applies to the threesome between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere. It made pretenses to being intense and life changing and ended up looking like heavily edited soft core porn. Correction: heavily edited soft core porn devoid of anything remotely stimulating. The embarassment on the actors' faces was not just charaterization, it was actual professional embarrassment, like "What the hell am I doing with my career?!"

The plot meanders about, "speeding" and "slowing" at awkward moments. Frankly, the overal structure is sloppy and a two part miniseries may have given these writers an actual chance to faithfully and beautifully adapt a moving story about conflicting worlds. And speaking of conflicting worlds, the "battle" between Christianity and Paganism played out like a poorly reasearched trash novel. Would it have been so difficult to inject a little detail and believability into each group of believers and their respective believers? Do historians really charge so much for appropriate consultation that it wouldn't have fit in the production budget? I hope not, because that means giving up that history degree was a really big mistake.

Moving on though. I have to say a word about the direction of this movie as manifested in general "pictures" throughout the narrative and assumed coaching of the actors' performances. I watched many moments in the movie when I was slightly embarrassed by the loose and juvenile camera positioning and boring formulaic blocking (how the actors move, that is). It wasn't just ugly, it was also at times confusing. The artistic directing effort, which has the ability to truly move a viewer particularly through the varying levels of intimacy elicited by certain camera angles, was minimal at best.

And those poor, poor actors. My heart went out to them as a fellow performer because although they tried and tried to save this sinking ship, they ultimately failed. I could see the perpetual strain on their faces to make the lines, some of which were quite goofy and contrived, sound remotely dramatic.

In general, the actors took admirable risks to portray their characters as in depth, feeling individuals. But this is practically impossible to do with bad plot structure, lackluster writing, and sloppy directing. I have a strange feeling that the director did not really do his job of guiding these actors in their performances so as to prevent certain acting train wrecks. Case in point, the actor who portrayed Arthur was all over the place, and Michael Vartan's Lancelot was downright boring. Anjelica Huston bravely turned in a strong performance, which ultimately looked over the top in comparison to the rest of the movie's glaring downfalls discussed previously.

The biggest train wrecks were the campy performances given by the young Morgaine and Arthur (are you telling me that these kids couldn't have been coached better or the roles cast better?), the ridiculous portrayal of a 14 year old Morgause by a middle-aged Joan Allen (who otherwise delivered a good performance), and Hans Matheson's desparate attempts to inject much needed evil into the poorly adapted Mordred who is given little explanation and even less screen time. Perhaps the final downfall of Camelot and lost hope of Avalon would have been more impactful if the one responsible (Mordred) had been more properly fleshed out by the dolts who wrote the screenplay.

I was pleasantly surprised by the performance delivered by Julianna Marguiles. I had low expectations for this actress considering the narrow range of characterization she has displayed to date as an actress. She was a believable if not, at times, enjoyable Morgaine. I will say, though, that her British accent (can anyone say Queen Mother?) was occasionally giggle-worthy.

In conclusion, this movie is a sad, sad excuse of serious literary adaptation. And although I suffered significantly from watching all three shameful hours, I'm willing to bet the real victims are the actors and actresses who have to look back on their careers now and shudder at the terrible product that resulted from their good intentions and hard work. It was a chance of a lifetime for any actor to portray any of these legendary characters in such a innovative retelling of this legend. But now, it's nothing more than a line on their resume that they wish they could erase.

Don't see this movie if you have a hard time watching good actors crash and burn at the hands of bad directing and a lousy script. And any enjoyment you may find in the romance of this legend will be overshadowed by the campiness of its re-creation on screen. Perhaps we should all just stick with the book.

Too bad the director and screenwriters couldn't have done their jobs properly.

I have to say that I found Juliana Margulies to be a great casting choice for Morgaine, as well as some other casting choices...too bad the book wasn`t given a chance to become a feature film. Like many have mentioned already, the complex relationships and plot would have been given better chances to make it to the screen. I would recommend this video over other versions of the Arthurian Legend so far.

If it`s any indication, though,I have NOT seen any video or DVD version of this production for sale on the Amazon.uk site, but I have seen many of Zimmer-Bradley`s books (including "Mists" of course), which says a whole lot to me. (I am an American, by the way.)

If you haven`t read the book, this version is an eye-opener for sure, particularly for an American audience, but if you have, it is disappointing, but understandable at the same time. But then again, why do we look for film to recreate great books for us all the time? That`s our own mistake...(shrug)...I have to say I am very guilty of it, too. Nothing comes that easy... I highly recommend the book above all.

What about this movie is not to like. It tells a story that has been told before, but in a way that has not been heard. This movie moves you and takes you to the hight of hope and the depths of sadness. You will feel as though you were there. Those of christian faith should not be offended, nor those who are followers of the goddess, wiccan or druid. This movie will leave you with a scence of reflection and calm happiness. Watch it and you will understand.

Clint Eastwood is a very durable leading man, and if that's not enough he also manages to produce and direct this film. He plays the part of a retired F.B.I. agent who has recently had a heart transplant. The sister of the heart donor asks Eastwood's help in tracking down her sibling's killer, and he can't refuse. As he gets into the investigation, his old instincts return, despite the threat to his health from over-exertion. Ignoring his doctor's objections, he continues his quest to identify the killer, and proves he's not lost his touch as a tough, understated hero. This is an entertaining movie which will be enjoyed by Clint Eastwood fans, old and new!

...I enjoy watching Clint Eastwood. If you are Clint Eastwood fan or simply like watching him occasionally you can hopefully appreciate the way he's adapted the roles he's taking to reflect that he is "maturing."

Blood Work is one DVD that I'm glad I got for myself but that doesn't mean my husband hasn't appreciated the movie's allure. It put me into such a "Clint" state of mind that I went out the next day and bought In the Line of Fire (which we had on VHS) and True Crime (which we didn't have on VHS.) Clint, as a director, is including a lot of interviews and behind the scenes footage on his DVD releases...interesting stuff!

Blood Work is certainly a bit formulaic but it also has some very interesting twists. I certainly won't spill the beans but I'd highly recommend it. It's not particularly violent (in comparison with some of his other movies) but it's definitely not G-Rated in it's content either.

Sometimes when I read other reviewers, I think I've seen a different movie? Oh, well, I think Eastwood did a remarkably good job in bringing this excellent Michael Connelly book to screen. Having read the book, it was good to see Brian Hildegard's screenplay maintain the feel and tension of the novel. Eastwood directs well, and plays his role of Terry McCaleb to the max. It's one of the first movies where he plays a character more suitable to his age; but as my wife says, who cares if he's 72 and romances younger women? She said he could put her shoes under her bed anytime; of course, she'd have to move mine! But I digress...Wanda DeJesus and Tina Lifford are fine as the women in Clint's life--I particularly liked Lifford's portrayal of Jan, whose involvement with Clint goes a little deeper than what we think? I loved Paul Rodriguez and Dylan Walsh as the LA cops who want Clint out of the way. Walsh who doesn't say a lot, has a commanding presence as an alternate to Rodriguez's bravado. Anjelica Huston is perfect as Clint's doctor: I've known medical people just like her. Takes a small role and commands the screen when she's on. And of course, we can't overlook Jeff Daniels in his loopy role as Buddy Noone, Clint's neighbor and "partner."
There are twists galore, and I think someone out for an entertaining mystery should not be bored.
I LOVED IT.

Clint Eastwood is a very durable leading man, and if that's not enough he also manages to produce and direct this film. He plays the part of a retired F.B.I. agent who has recently had a heart transplant. The sister of the heart donor asks Eastwood's help in tracking down her sibling's killer, and he can't refuse. As he gets into the investigation, his old instincts return, despite the threat to his health from over-exertion. Ignoring his doctor's objections, he continues his quest to identify the killer, and proves he's not lost his touch as a tough, understated hero. This is an entertaining movie which will be enjoyed by Clint Eastwood fans, old and new!

...I enjoy watching Clint Eastwood. If you are Clint Eastwood fan or simply like watching him occasionally you can hopefully appreciate the way he's adapted the roles he's taking to reflect that he is "maturing."

Blood Work is one DVD that I'm glad I got for myself but that doesn't mean my husband hasn't appreciated the movie's allure. It put me into such a "Clint" state of mind that I went out the next day and bought In the Line of Fire (which we had on VHS) and True Crime (which we didn't have on VHS.) Clint, as a director, is including a lot of interviews and behind the scenes footage on his DVD releases...interesting stuff!

Blood Work is certainly a bit formulaic but it also has some very interesting twists. I certainly won't spill the beans but I'd highly recommend it. It's not particularly violent (in comparison with some of his other movies) but it's definitely not G-Rated in it's content either.

Sometimes when I read other reviewers, I think I've seen a different movie? Oh, well, I think Eastwood did a remarkably good job in bringing this excellent Michael Connelly book to screen. Having read the book, it was good to see Brian Hildegard's screenplay maintain the feel and tension of the novel. Eastwood directs well, and plays his role of Terry McCaleb to the max. It's one of the first movies where he plays a character more suitable to his age; but as my wife says, who cares if he's 72 and romances younger women? She said he could put her shoes under her bed anytime; of course, she'd have to move mine! But I digress...Wanda DeJesus and Tina Lifford are fine as the women in Clint's life--I particularly liked Lifford's portrayal of Jan, whose involvement with Clint goes a little deeper than what we think? I loved Paul Rodriguez and Dylan Walsh as the LA cops who want Clint out of the way. Walsh who doesn't say a lot, has a commanding presence as an alternate to Rodriguez's bravado. Anjelica Huston is perfect as Clint's doctor: I've known medical people just like her. Takes a small role and commands the screen when she's on. And of course, we can't overlook Jeff Daniels in his loopy role as Buddy Noone, Clint's neighbor and "partner."
There are twists galore, and I think someone out for an entertaining mystery should not be bored.
I LOVED IT.

This movie was very boring, it was hard for me to beleive the actors and enter into the story, I could not wait it to end. I do like Uma thurman has an actress and the atmosphere and all the beautiful costumes was great but it could not help to save this movie.

Merchant Ivory is known for costume drama. But this dramatization - and I use the word loosely - of James's The Golden Bowl - is all costume. As beautiful as it is to look at, you still find yourself drumming your fingers on the arm of your chair, waiting for the spectacle, please God, to end.

As for the acting, yikes! Why, oh why would any director settle upon Nick Nolte for a major part? In his last several forays in front of the camera, Nolte speaks his lines - indeed, every drawn-out syllable - very, very carefully, but his mind is obviously elsewhere. I do not know what he is paying his agent, but that fee is worth every penny. Anjelica Huston, normally a good, solid actress, was all at sea, and could never quite settle upon her character's accent. Such as it was, it came and went. Uma Thurman played her character as extremely unlikable, even repellant, which cannot be what Henry James had in mind, and which makes no sense dramatically. After all, it was her character, Charlotte, who initiated all the action in the story. Whether this was Thurman's misinterpretation or the director's misguided coaching is anyone's guess. Kate Beckinsale as the wronged wife was completely and utterly dull. Only Jeremy Northam inhabited his part with any credibility. A contemporary Englishman playing an Italian prince, ca. 1903! And you know, he wasn't bad.

I used to (past tense) look forward to the next new movie from Merchant Ivory. But there was always the danger that their style - of a too-reverent, nostalgic regard for the upper-class style of the Edwardian era - would grow ever more mannered, sugarcoated, and lifeless. They are reaching the point where the viewer would be well advised to watch their movies with the sound turned off.

I kept waiting for a twist in this movie that never came. Maybe I just didn't get it. This is my second Henry James novel to movie that I have watched and not enjoyed. The other movie, Turn of the Screw, has a rather disturbing ending. Golden Bowl just ended. I found Nick Nolte's line delivery to be more like he was reading from cue cards. Northam and Beckinsale are the only redeemeding factors in this film.

This movie was very boring, it was hard for me to beleive the actors and enter into the story, I could not wait it to end. I do like Uma thurman has an actress and the atmosphere and all the beautiful costumes was great but it could not help to save this movie.

Merchant Ivory is known for costume drama. But this dramatization - and I use the word loosely - of James's The Golden Bowl - is all costume. As beautiful as it is to look at, you still find yourself drumming your fingers on the arm of your chair, waiting for the spectacle, please God, to end.

As for the acting, yikes! Why, oh why would any director settle upon Nick Nolte for a major part? In his last several forays in front of the camera, Nolte speaks his lines - indeed, every drawn-out syllable - very, very carefully, but his mind is obviously elsewhere. I do not know what he is paying his agent, but that fee is worth every penny. Anjelica Huston, normally a good, solid actress, was all at sea, and could never quite settle upon her character's accent. Such as it was, it came and went. Uma Thurman played her character as extremely unlikable, even repellant, which cannot be what Henry James had in mind, and which makes no sense dramatically. After all, it was her character, Charlotte, who initiated all the action in the story. Whether this was Thurman's misinterpretation or the director's misguided coaching is anyone's guess. Kate Beckinsale as the wronged wife was completely and utterly dull. Only Jeremy Northam inhabited his part with any credibility. A contemporary Englishman playing an Italian prince, ca. 1903! And you know, he wasn't bad.

I used to (past tense) look forward to the next new movie from Merchant Ivory. But there was always the danger that their style - of a too-reverent, nostalgic regard for the upper-class style of the Edwardian era - would grow ever more mannered, sugarcoated, and lifeless. They are reaching the point where the viewer would be well advised to watch their movies with the sound turned off.

I kept waiting for a twist in this movie that never came. Maybe I just didn't get it. This is my second Henry James novel to movie that I have watched and not enjoyed. The other movie, Turn of the Screw, has a rather disturbing ending. Golden Bowl just ended. I found Nick Nolte's line delivery to be more like he was reading from cue cards. Northam and Beckinsale are the only redeemeding factors in this film.

Sorry to be insisting, but I seem to have gone on a real crusade re "Beat the Devil". I didn't want to, I just wanted to buy a decent DVD version. O boy! There isn't any. And it's not only the quality that is lacking, its the content. All you get is the US recut of Huston's film (1954, 89', not 1953, 100'). It really changes the character of the movie. To the bad.
Check: Scene 1 should not be the flashback of the four crooks being marched off to the band - there is no reason to tell the plot as a flashback anyway. Spoils the whole layout. Scene 1 should be the following (censored in the US by the 50s - 50s, still sold today!!! - Censorship Board):

Running Time: about 3'

1The Chelms, EU on the right, a walking stick in his right, JJ on the left, a basket over her left arm, walking towards you down a street. Camera first full shot, then moving in to half shot (waist upwards) , then half portrait (bust upwards). They are followed by a bunch of children, half seen behind their backs. A man they pass turns round to stare at them unpleasently. They turn round (towards each other).

2Portrait shot of six small boys looking very ugly, glaring at them. Mouth movements as if they were about to spit.

3The couple turns again, resuming their walk.

EU:I must say I do resent the way these people stare at us. You'd think they might be going to spit.
JJ: (spits over her left shoulder)
EU:Gwendolen, dash it all!
JJ:Here, it's unlucky to have someone spit at you unless you spit first.
EU:What a filthy superstition,
JJ:(chants:) May yours be defiled!
EU:What's that about?
JJ:These people may be thinking of putting a curse on us, like „may your grandmothers be defiled". That's why I say it first, just in case.
EU:Wherefrom do you get all this stuff?
JJ:My old Spanish nurse told me.
EU:Surely you don't believe it now. You were only a child then.
JJ:She wasn't a child. She was old.
EU:I only wonder why your parents left you in charge of such a dirty, ignorant woman.
JJ:They cared for nothing except to have me off their hands. I told you that. They'd have sold me on the slave market if they hadn't been afraid of the scandal. Besides my father was incompetent. I suppose he just didn't know how to contact the slave people.
EU:I don't believe a word of it. Probably they were very fond of you, really.
JJ:(making as if to spit again)
EU:Stop it, Gwendolen! Don't do it!
JJ:You'll be sorry if you run into bad luck just because you didn't take proper precautions. Suppose when we get to Africa there is a native raising and they are slaughtering all the Whites! (prepares to spit again)
EU:Gwendolen!
JJ:If you don't let me spit I'll just feel like standing here in the street and screeming with terror!
EU:(looking to the left) Stop it, Gwendolen! Look: those men!
JJ:(looks to the left too)
EU:They might be fellow passengers.

4Morley, Marco Tulli, Peter Lorre descending down a street.

Quite a difference, isn't it? Well, ask for the original!...

I've just bought the equivalent of DVD no 12 ... (the one with the gorgeous colored "action" cover) - and guess what I got? Though the studio is quoted as "Diamond Entertainment" and the disc is distributed ... through yet another German studio in English (no subtitles, no special material), it has to be the Laserlight version (without the Tony Curtis special): there is the Delta-logo in the lower right, and the quality is bad. And though the DVD-cover boasts "Original Version in English", and "cult classic for movie-fans", the movie is NOT the original one Huston made according to Halliwell in GB 1953, as shown in our cinemas and on our TV, but a special "American" cut that distorts and spoils it. Does your version begin with the dialog between Jennifer Jones and her husband where she spits on the ground against the presumed evil eye of a bunch of children and tells of her superstitious "Spanish nurse" and her indifferent parents? Or have you the cleaned-up version with the playback-opening, the four crooks handcuffed together marching to the music (this scene is or should be repeated at the end) and Bogie's voice-over comment? Giving the movie a completely different turn? Beware: this is not Huston's "cult classic" that was such a hit when shown in Paris and is/was sold on VHS tape in GB (and probably also by Madacy Ent. in the USA - at least there is a review that mentions the "Spanish nurse"). How come nobody complained? Or do you just not know the difference? How come neither ... tell us about it? Are they ignorant - or don't they care? To sell the one version for the other is cheating the public and degrading Huston!
...

Beat The Devil is a fun, forgotten film from a great director and many Hollywood legends. The sound and lensing are about what you''d expect for a film released in 1950's. The film surely deserves a new day in the sun and with the help of DVD, that day has arrived. The plot centers around the characters going to Central Africa to make it rich through uranium. Alas, fate has different plans throughout this movie, filled with subtle quips even though the movie is an adventure based film. No real special features to speak of, but a good one to watch.

Timecode is a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood life - the business, the politics, the jealously, and even the drugs, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Salma Hayek plays Rose, an aspiring actress who will do anything to get an audition - even if it means cheating on her jealous lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn) with a male film exec (Stellan Skarsgard).

But I said that Timecode is unique, right? Well, it is. It had no script - just a story, four digital videocams, and a bunch of actors who could improvise their way through 90 minutes of filming. The four cameras shot non-stop - no cuts, just one take. The entire film was shot 15 times - and the final one was released. No editing was required because viewers see the footage from all four cameras - simultaneously. The screen is divided into four quarters, and it's up to the viewer to decide which one to watch. Believe me - it's not exactly an easy task. Though you're often given audio hints (the sound of one quarter will dominate for a while), you'll still keep jumping from quarter to quarter, trying to figure out what's going on - and what you've missed. It's definitely not a movie to watch if you're not completely alert. It is, however, very interesting. And while I wouldn't say that this is one of my favorite movies, it's still an interesting experience. If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, it's worth checking out.

If you happen to pick up a copy of the DVD, you'll find all kinds of goodies. The special features include the entire Version 1 of the film (and yes, it really is different) and an audio option that allows you to choose which dialogue you want to listen to. Perhaps, then, if you watch the entire movie four times, you'll be able to make sense of it all...

Timecode is quite simply a well-executed but failed experiment.
The concept is brilliant, but it is not supported at all by a good plot. What we have is basically mindless hipster dross; jet-set stereotypes stabbing each other in the back with their cell phones, and not much else. And yet, I was entertained by the film on a technical level. Certainly worth a look, but I would love to see this idea done again, even by Figgis, with a more engrossing story.

Whatever. I mean, I appreciate the experimental nature of the film -- the screen split into four separate-but-interlocking screens, each shot in a continuously-running tracking shot, filmed on digital video. The "action" shifts from scene to improvised scene, and gradually we figure out how each of the characters know each other. Still... did the story really have to be set in (yawn) Hollywood? Can't modern filmmakers think of something else to make movies about? Couldn't the actors improv their way through somebody else's life, for once? Regardless, this is one of the better uses of DVD technology I've seen -- they kept the audio tracks intact on each camera's footage, so after you soak up the edited version of the film, you can go back and see (hear, actually...) what they had to work with... Rarely do we get such a clear-cut chance to get into the headspace of the director and editor, so that at least was kind of cool.

This really is a poor movie. The REAL version with Elijah Wood that comes out soon will be much better!

Rated: PG for No Paticular Reason.

Running Time: Approx. 96 Minutes

I watched this movie again for the first time since I was a child. Having read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings Several times since then, I can only use one word to describe how watching this movie now that I am an adult made me feel: aghast. The movie starts off with Bilbo's final birthday before he leaves Middle-Earth, the number of which they promptly got wrong, and Bilbo cannot remember why Frodo no longer had the Ring. Then they bring a minstrel out to tell him why. The tale they tell from that point is very much disjointed and far removed from the story that the Professor created, touching it and coming back to it only when whatever demagogue who controlled this production's direction felt like a little veracity. The whole story is given as a narrative from the point of view of Gandalf, and Gandalf in this story is not even a shadow of the one in the books.

The specific points that make this production so horrid are:
Aragorn is portrayed as a lord driven into exile, as opposed to the heir of a line of kings who have stopped claiming the title of king because they are too busy trying to rebuild their kingdom in the North, as well as supporting the kingdom in the South;
the whole story is supposed to take place according to a Prophecy, when in fact the Lord of the Rings had nothing to do with prophecy and the only foretelling in it was about the paths of the dead;
the voices, while all talented, were miscast, particularly the Lord of the Nazghul and Meriadoc(Kasey Kasem just does NOT work as a hobbit);
they had to throw in the element that this was a proto-history that took place in our world which was exactly not what the Professor intended(Gandalf's disertation and ascertation that hobbits were going to evolve into men at the end of the movie was really, really too much);
the dialogue of the hobbits was almost completely made out of anything other than what the Professor wrote,the dialogue of the other characters being not much better;
they cut out all mention of the quest, the fellowship, the dwarves, and stripped out of it all the background history that makes this such a rich story. To sum-up, they raped this story, and raped perfectly describes it. I see no merit in any adult watching this production.
As to why this production is so bad, I can only speculate. My hypotheses are as follows:
they could not finish it before they ran out of money;
they needed a quick influx of cash to keep from going out of business;
they thought that nothing could be worse than Ralph Bakshi's production( they could not be more wrong:this production's existence makes that production five star by comparison/at least he tried to not mess anything up);
they thought they were untouchable;
mass-insanity;
someone influential in the production had an attack of megalomania;
several people important to the production died or were lost in a contract dispute and they had to go with an out-line;
or they simply wanted to anger the family of the Professor to such a degree that they would never give permission to cinema-ize the works again.

I have tried to keep my possible explanations from being too far-fetched, but this is the worst adaptation of any book that I have encountered. The best thing about it is the animation, and the best thing that can be said about that was that it was a knife taken to a gunfight. It is written as propaganda that has no ideal to uphold, and I had to force myself to finish watching it, several hours later than I started it. I would give it no stars if the option were availible, and if this production were a book, the publishing house would have burned it.

It still shows Minas Tirith in a grand way.I hope Peter Jackson does as good a job on his model of Minas Tirith for HIS BILLION DOLLAR BLOCK BUSTER!(Idon't want a dumb bust of a city.)
Now the the battles are not at all comparable to P.J. Battles.Slashing heads,volleys of arrows,terrible screamsfrom Orcs,Ringwraiths ect.Clanging swords,great horse battles.......It's unbeatable almost.So Why do You have to think that this cartoon has to be as good. After all it's less violent,gruesome for Kids.It would realy not be wise to take a five year old to Petes Epic.This one is a lot less scary for one thing too.....except Gollum is still creepy and can stand up a bit to the other Gollum of Jackie computer serkis guy.
This is a good way to introduce your Children to the grand world of Tolkien.It still has a Myth in the air feeling about it.Like Lord of the Rings books.
Now the story is strong on Frodo and Sam's journey to mount doom.It shows it pretty well.
Some characters like Aragorn,Gimli,Legolas,Faramir,Arwen,Eomer and Bergrond don't appear at all or just briefly.Aragorn is just a hero King who is coming back to help Gondor and become King.You never now much about him,Ranger in the north or that he helped Frodo on the Fellowship or anything. P.J. Aragorn is so much more of a character.
Eowyn slays the witch king and does her role well but you never see her in any scene else untill the end when she's watching the parade of King Aragorn.A Man is beside her who is probaly Faramir.
I think the songs were ok at least.Though older people would love P.J. version much better of Lord of the Rings,This one still stands on it's own two feet.