|
| 
 enlarge | Director: Nora Ephron
Actors: Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Bill Pullman, Ross Malinger, Rosie O'donnell
Studio: Sony Pictures
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.94
Buy Used: $4.50
You Save: $10.44 (70%)
New (74) Used (39) Collectible (1) from $4.50
Rating:  179 reviews
Sales Rank: 749
Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dvd-video, Full Screen, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), Chinese (Subtitled), Thai (Subtitled)
Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Region: 99
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 105 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: COLD01632D
ISBN: 1404939415
UPC: 043396016323
EAN: 9781404939417
ASIN: B0000AOV4I
Theatrical Release Date: June 25, 1993
Release Date: October 7, 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: DVD is in good condition. The case has several cuts in the plastic. Expedited Shipping and Tracking Available! Fast Shipping!
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 31-35 of 179
 What I think about Sleepless in Seattle May 18, 2007
Stuart Lee (Wyoming)
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
This was supposedly a little known film that made a big impact on me and the general product. Anthing with Tom Hanks is usally a good bet it's going to be good, plus add in Meg Ryan and it's going to be a winner. I realy enjoyed this movie
 Feel Good Movie! March 18, 2007
P. Kauffman (Memphis, TN)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
This is such a feel good movie. It makes you believe in "Love At First Sight" or Love at first touch. This is a movie I watch over and over again. When I am sad and want to be lifted up. When I want to believe in love. There is a line in the movie that goes something like this, "it was like coming home, but not to any home I have ever know before". That's what you want to believe love is, like coming home.
Outstanding Romantic Fantasy February 7, 2007
Tom Terrific (Illinois, USA)
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
I dislike most chick flicks, so I wondered why I found Sleepless in Seattle (SIS) so entertaining and emotionally satisfying. I concluded that it succeeds for me primarily as a fantasy. My remarks here focus on that aspect of the movie and ignore its other strengths, notably its witty screenplay and the outstanding acting, by both youngsters and old pros.
For me, a good fantasy, in a movie or in a book, does at least two key things. (1) It uses a fantasy environment to strip away distractions from underlying truths that are basically important and emotionally resonant but that are so simple that they seem trite when considered more baldly. (2) It provides characters with whom one can easily and enjoyably identify because they act -- within the unrealistic fantasy environment -- in ways that are very plausible, human, and appealing. The actions of these characters may be more admirable than the viewer or reader typically aspires to in everyday life, but they do not reach the point of being unrealistic (like the fantasy environment) and unbelievable.
To illustrate my first criterion for a good fantasy, consider the subgenre of heroic fantasy, where the defining underlying truth is that some battles are worth fighting, and some causes are worth risking one's life for. In a typical non-fantasy story about WWII, it is not entirely satisfying to realize that one is being induced to forget that many of the German or Japanese soldiers that are being mowed down would have lived entirely decent lives if the war had not occurred. On the other hand, in the fantasy environment of Lord of the Rings (LOTR), one is much less distracted by such issues when orcs and Uruk-hai are being mowed down. The empathetic consideration of bravery thereby becomes more powerful and satisfying. (Tolkien's books take a few moments to wonder about the family lives of orcs, but those moments are fleeting.)
Considering SIS as a fantasy, the most important underlying simple truth for me -- admittedly trite -- is that there is an important element of chance and luck in finding a more compatible partner, not to mention one that is more universally desirable.
Key elements of the SIS fantasy environment are more exaggerations than the kind of pure contrivance commonly employed in heroic fantasy: (1) Compatibility with a partner ideally exceeds a recognizable threshold beyond which it becomes "magical," and prospective long-run satisfaction from the relationship takes a quantum leap. (2) A few minutes of overheard phone conversation or a few seconds of direct observation are sufficient to identify a potential soul mate with high probability of success. (3) Certain gifted preadolescents can be extremely mature and perceptive in identifying promising and unpromising potential soul mates for adults.
From very limited examination of chick flicks, my impression is that most do not work as fantasy because they do not partition unrealistic plot elements into a fantasy environment. Instead, lack of realism pervades the plot and the behavior of the lead characters. The behavior of the lead characters is often made even less appealing because they are overwrought and self-absorbed.
In two-world heroic fantasies such as Chronicles of Narnia, the heroes typically have great initial skepticism about the fantasy world they have encountered, which serves generally to reinforce the realism of the heroes' personal behavior and particularly to reinforce the partitioning off of the fantasy environment. In SIS, protagonists Annie and Sam do something similar. Moreover, they do it with entertaining humor, which is even better.
Many professional movie reviewers liked SIS but seemed to be embarrassed to admit it and seemed compelled to express reservations. Considering SIS as a fantasy, their reservations tend to become insignificant or irrelevant. A typical criticism was that the plot was contrived and gimmicky -- a stunt. However, saying that the fantasy elements of the SIS plot are contrived is akin to criticizing LOTR because there is no such thing as a ring of power that can make its wearer invisible. The observation is literally correct but, for the cooperative viewer or reader, fundamentally irrelevant. Another typical reservation from the pros was that the proceedings of SIS are entirely feather-light and ephemeral. However, for me at least, a light touch is exactly what best serves the underlying simple truth that this fantasy is considering.
SIS particularly resonates for me because I have been lucky enough to find a wife who puts up with me much better than I deserve, despite idiosyncrasies that are more reminiscent of Walter than of Sam Baldwin. In fact, I am writing this commentary primarily for Valentine's Day 2007. I will be including a copy, with this concluding paragraph highlighted, in my card.
one of my favorite romances January 9, 2007
Joseph M. Seda
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks are perfect for these roles. Both are likable sympathetic characters, not overplayed.
We're rice men. January 8, 2007
David A. Baer (Indianapolis, IN USA)
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
What a great romantic comedy! The young Hanks, the adorable Meg Ryan, the preternaturally savvy Ross Maliner, Rosie O'Donnell being nice.
It all came together with Seattle as its backdrop, that city of radio pyschologists by the sea.
While Ryan's Annie endures engagement to the ueber-predictable ('Where is Duluth?') Walter, they are drawn inexorably together by fate, which both of them seem bent upon denying.
Yes, the guy gets the girl. And vice versa.
It's all a lot of fun. Ah, but it made 1993 a good year.
|
|
|
| |
