Sunday, August 31, 2014

Rolling Thunder (1977)

Rolling ThunderI've loved this film since first seeing it in 1977 when its ultraviolent ending made viewers and critics cringe with shock and horror. Violence plays a significant thematic and on-screen role in this flick about war, horror, remembrance and revenge.

Briefly submitted, William Devane and young Tommy Lee Jones (before he hit stardom) are returning Vietnam war prisoners of war. Devane, an officer in the Air Corps, had spent time in the famous Hanoi Hilton prison and has occasional flashbacks of his torture.

Returning war hero Devane -whose wife took up with another guy during his lengthy absnece, adding real life drama and a soap operatic agenda to the movie -receives a generous local gift during ceremonies in his Texas hometown. Later on, a bunch of good old boys come to rob him of the gift. They torture him and off his family in the process.

The remaining 70 or so minutes of the film detail Devane's search for the killers and his revenge. He takes up with a lonely woman during the search while teaching himself to use a shotgun with his new mechanical hand (he lost the real one in the torture-robbery-murder back home.)

When he finds the killers, he looks up Jones, who is about to have dinner at home with his wife, dad and some other family members. What comes next is one of the greatest lines in all of macho male cinema:

"I've located the men that killed my family," Devane says. "They're in a whorehouse down in (Mexico)."

"I'll just get my gear," Jones retorts.

There's not much left to the flick after that except a few minutes of outright mayhem that was probably among the best of its type in 1977. I recall another Vietnam-murder-revenge film of the era, "The Exterminator", which did this one better; but not many movies provided the kind of high class mayhem that goes on at the end of this movie.

"Rolling Thunder" was, of course, the military code name for the U.S. bombing program that helped kill up to 1 million Vietnamese during our undeclared war with that nation circa 1962-75. The signature has both metaphoric and visual meaning for this movie, which is about a raid of another type that results in a lot of casualties.

Anyone that likes either of the main actors, high class violence, or revenge films will enjoy this movie, that is apparently not available on DVD. I've seen it recently on digital cable so I assume it will make an appeareance on DVD soon if it's not there already.

Warner Bros. does a good job with their on demand DVDs and I was hoping for the same level of quality from MGM. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the "Rolling Thunder" disc. MGM did a sloppy job when they prepared this movie for DVD. This is most apparent in the interior (low light) scenes when flickering horizontal lines follow the actors as they move. This is distracting and certainly not what you would expect from a home video released by a major studio. Also, the DVD cover art looks like it was Xeroxed at Kinko's. I hope that someday Criterion or Blue Underground will give this movie a proper DVD/Blu-ray release.

Bottom line: "Rolling Thunder" is a great movie, but this DVD is not worth $17.99.

Buy Rolling Thunder (1977) Now

looking back at this movie now is like going back in time for us who lived in the 70's. Rolling Thunder is a bleak movie that was made in the mood of the time and looks even bleaker now. Thunder is a no nonsense movie with no humor. It has sadness, rage against things that are beyond human control, and no promises of a bighter future. Devane never was an action type actor. A very good actor but not one who looked like an action star. However for those you who are new to the 70's movies or were not born then, that is the point the director was trying to make. Devane was every GI who came back fron Nam to a "hero's welcome." The people cheered for a minute then stopped and left you alone. People didn't understand what the war did to person. The movie shows in muted colors that no one comes home the same as they were as they left. It is sad that this movie,in hind sight, shows how love ones stopped loving and ran from the returning GIs. This is the saddest part of the movie, especially having know many who had this happen to them. The hand in the sink scene has not lost any of its grumsome violent effect on the viewer. You don't see it but you feel it. If you can detach yourself from the movie, watch Devane's change back to warrior as he prepares to go to "battle." It is cold and chilling but not flashy. I can not say enough about Tommy Lee Jones in this small part in this movie. He has the very same problem that Devane's character has and has felt what Devane has felt, yet his charcter is not a copy of Devane. The viewer is treated to two actors working together as one to create a mood and to honestly gilve dignity to two characters that could have been protrayed as psychos. That is the strongest part about this movie, the characters have honor, dignity, and are show in an honest light. They are not pure nor are they flawless. The viewer cares about them but doesn't want to be them. The action scene in the Mexico is was brutal when I first saw it back then, now is still seems realistic and brutal today. There are very few low tech special effects. The director does not want you to cheer for the two GIs, no this is not a glory moment nor a "redemtion moment." This is just two men doing what they know because they don't know how to do anything else. There is no happy ending, no getting the girl, no clearing away old ghost, chance of normal future, no nothing but livng the next day and not knowing what will happen next.

Read Best Reviews of Rolling Thunder (1977) Here

I am a huge movie buff and if you are looking for a raw, powerful, gritty movie experience, definitely check out this movie, which remains one of my all-time top three. I personally like this film better than "Taxi Driver", but if you liked "Taxi Driver" then you will definitely like this film, because it was written by the same guy and the themes are similar. I was blown away not only by the performances (particularly Tommy Lee Jones in a startlingly forceful role), but by the amazing amount of action. There is definitely more violence and action than there is in "Driver" and that's why I like it. Some people criticize the violence, but with the powerful storyline, disturbing violence is almost necessary. Definitely see this film. Along with "Driver" this film will awaken you to the horrors of the Vietnam War.

Want Rolling Thunder (1977) Discount?

Hands down one the most underated movies ever made. I had it on videotape for sometime and I had freinds begging me to sell it to them but there was no price that I would sell it. Two years ago it vanished from my apartment. Now I've been waiting and waiting for it to come out on dvd. But still no word of a release. Screw.

Save 25% Off

Into the Wild (2007)

Into the WildWhen I read Jon Krakauer's "Into the Wild" approximately ten years ago, I was mesmerized by the tragic real-life tale of Christopher McCandless. But as much as I loved the book, I never even thought about a film adaptation. Maybe that was shortsighted of me. Recounting McCandless's life and reconstructing it with minimal data and much introspection, "Into the Wild" succeeded as a cautionary adventure of idealism gone awry. Much of McCandless's life was lived alone and much of his story was pieced together though brief encounters or recovered writings. So what was a thoughtful portrait on the page never really seemed like it would translate to the screen--certainly not with the same impact. Luckily, though, Sean Penn thought otherwise. Adapting and directing Krakauer's fine book, Penn has fashioned a sad, funny and exciting film with tremendous emotional resonance.

An affluent and likable young man, McCandless graduated with honors from Emory University and then set a course to redefine his life. Abandoning his family, friends, and material possessions--McCandless assumed the pseudonym of Alexander Supertramp and set off to explore the world in its most innocent form. Living off the land and experiencing nature, fellow travelers, and much adventure--McCandless was looking for a modern day utopia and sought to discover his real self as he cast away the corruptions of modern life. Touring the country for two years, McCandless's exploration was to culminate in an Alaskan sojourn--where he would commune with "the wild." His aspirations can be viewed as both admirable and delusional--but that is part of the complexity of McCandless's life. As much as you want him to succeed, you realize there can be no happy ending with the expectations he has in place.

Penn's "Into the Wild," thus, depends on evoking a McCandless that you will care about--either because you commend his pursuit or because you want him to come to his senses. And it really works in combination. In a dynamic performance, Emile Hirsch transcends his previous work and becomes a full-fledged leading man. Hitting all the right notes, Hirsch creates a character who evokes our sympathy, our frustration, and even our laughter. McCandless meets a lot of companions on the road, and Hirsch makes it easy to see why he was so accepted. A great role--Hirsch meets all the emotional challenges and also makes a physical transformation that is a both startling and powerful. His great work is matched by a roster of big names including Vince Vaughn, William Hurt, Jena Malone, and Marcia Gay Hardin (among many others). But Catherine Keener and Hal Holbrook are real stand-outs--their adoptive relationships with Hirsch both challenge him and make him understand (eventually) that life is not meant to be lived alone.

If there is any flaw in the film, it exists in the book as well. We can only know so much about McCandless from the resources available. He had a heightened sense of injustice particularly when it came to the "untruths" or perceived wrongs perpetuated by his family. Nothing presented, however, can explain how his relatively normal dysfunction blossomed into such an extreme world view. This secret is in McCandless's mind alone.

"Into the Wild" works as a character study and a gritty drama, but also as an adventure. The scenery and photography are breathtaking and the action sequences are well executed. There is much genuine warmth and humor in the film as well. It was a fully satisfying film experience, to me, and has many quiet moments that have stayed with me. Highly recommended for serious adult audiences. KGHarris, 11/07

Christopher McCandless, in becoming 'Alexander Supertramp', holds a mirror to us all, a meditation on what the ideal life completely in tune with nature, surviving only on ingenuity and adaptation skills, leaving the increasingly burdensome conflicts of society behind in order to become at one with the universe. Based on Jon Krakauer's reconstruction of McCandless' journey from his diary, from letters, and from notes found after his death at age 23, IN THE WILD has been transformed into a Waldenesque film by Sean Penn who provided both the screenplay and the direction. While some may argue the very loose technique of relating this story, few will come away form this film untouched by the sheer dreamy valor of a youth determined to find his own connection to the meaning of existence.

The bright McCandless (Emile Hirsch) graduates from Emory University and faces a celebratory dinner with his wealthy but dysfunctional parents (William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden) and his adoring younger sister Carine (Jena Malone). During the stilted and revealing dinner Christopher declines his parents' gift of a new car and instructions on how to proceed with his life of success, instead electing to leave it all behind and secretly set off on a personal journey to live in the wild. Stripping himself of worldly possessions he begins his road trip with the ultimate destination being Alaska. Along the way he encounters various people: Wayne Westerberg (Vince Vaughan) who offers him work harvesting grain and camaraderie; Jan and Rainey (Catherine Keener and Brian Dierker), two middle-aged hippies who offer him a sense of family; Tracy (Kristen Stewart), a 16-year old who offers him physical love Christopher cannot condone; a Danish couple he encounters while rafting; and the elderly Frank (Hal Holbrook) who has no family and lives alone making leather trinkets, eager to 'belong' to the young man whom he sees as needy yet courageous.

Christopher's journey pretty much covers America and Mexico, from the plains and farms to the homeless streets of Los Angeles to the splendors and natural cruelties of nature in Alaska. His struggles survive are balanced by his inebriation with the wonders of the natural world untouched by society. Yet in the end he faces his own dissolution into the dust of nature alone.

Hirsch immerses himself in this physically demanding role and manages to hold onto our hearts all through his journey. The flow of the story is at times discordant with the over voice narration by Jena Malone and the insertion of bits and pieces of quotations that aren't pieced tightly together enough to avoid sounding superficial. Yet the supporting cast is very strong, including a brilliant little cameo by Cheryl Francis Harrington as a social worker with heart. The photography (Eric Gautier) is stunning and the musical score, courtesy of Michael Brook, Kaki King, and Eddie Vedder, fits the mood through the film. And throughout the film Sean Penn has the restraint and taste to keep the story vital without ever making it maudlin. A very fine film. Grady Harp, March 08

Buy Into the Wild (2007) Now

Into the Wild is one of those movies whose images stay with you after the screen goes dark. This is a tribute to the subject-a tragic and confused young pseudo idealist, Christopher McCandless-and Sean Penn and his crew.

McCandless has just graduated from Emory University. He's bright, well-liked, talented, the world is his for the taking-it seems. Then he chucks it all, burns his money, abandons his vehicle, donates his graduate school fund to charity and hits the road. He's a leatherfoot, hoofing all across the country from Atlanta to South Dakota, on to California and finally to his goal of the utopian loner's dream world of "Alaska". Alaska is quoted here because it represents far more for McCandless than just a remote place full of emptiness and nature. It represents the "wild" that gorgeous and challenging place where he can find himself, or so he thinks.

He's on a wild goose chase with himself but doesn't quite understand or realize it. He thinks he's stuffing life and experience and learning into all the time that he has-he's abandoned everything including his sister and parents. In fact, he refuses to communicate with them at all. Their heartbreak, worry, fears, and frustrations are with us the viewer at all times and we wonder (as do a few characters in the film) silently, "how can he do this to them"?

Chris hits the road hard. He takes odd jobs, and goes from frustrated relationship to the next one. But they always are frustrating because he simply will not give of himself. They aren't frustrating for him, but for those who want to befriend him. His search for personal meaning is truly little more than an avoidance of his own personal demons, mostly from his parents' history and rocky marriage. He is surrounded by love, people who want him, his company, his brilliance and soft, caring approach to the world. He is attractive to others, but he loathes himself somehow. In the wilds of the Alaskan wilderness he thinks he will find what he is looking for and he does, but not in the way that he expected.

Again and again, people that Chris meets offer their friendship to him and sometimes their love. But he cannot accept it. Something in him prevents him from accepting love or truly giving it. Perhaps it would be contrary to the loner path that he'd chosen?

This is a sad story, so beautifully filmed. The acting is spot on, too.

Hal Holbrook plays an old man with a painful secret of his own. He knows that Chris and he are two of a kind and need each other. We in the audience also know this. Holbrook is Chris' chance for stability and a home, the true path to insight for someone whose core issues are built upon a perceived betrayal and lack of love from others, mainly his parents. It's a hard moment for the viewer when Chris walks away from Holbrook abandoning another fortunate opportunity for healing and happiness, but it is not so hard for Chris whose focus is solely on getting to his personal nirvana that he understands and expects Alaska to be.

Alaska is a beautiful but challenging place. Superbly filmed, it is easy to see how Chris would want to be there, challenge himself and try to find himself, alone-try to find a way to fit in with others which is truly the issue-alone.

The exact cause of Chris' death is not fully known. The book's author and Penn both make the case the McCandless accidentally poisoned himself. But later tests on the suspected plant material recovered from his camp site cast serious doubt on this theory as no poison was found. According to the diaries that he left behind he had decided to return to civilization but a raging river full of spring melt prevented him from doing so. He stayed in his camp, wasting away. But only a mile away was a perfectly usable crossing, and less than half a mile away was a still part of the river where he could have fished to his heart's content with only his hands as the fish were so plentiful there. But he did neither and apparently chose to stay and face his demons and his new understandings alone.

It is not clear if Chris is a hero-the lone introvert heading into the wilderness akin to Thoreau to find the "truth", or rather a spoiled city boy with only ignorance and dreams and personal pain and perhaps some mental illness driving him on.

The locals in the wilds of Alaska often speak of such people who come to Alaska to find themselves, swollen with pride like the rivers full of melting snows. And they have little respect for them, as they tempt fate and the extreme wilderness and usually lose.

McCandless affected everyone he met in a positive way. His writings are those of a young man still trying to understand but so deeply haunted by something he could only identify at the very end that was at the heart of his troubles. The tears of his parents, his friends, and even his own at the end are palatable in this beautiful film by Sean Penn.

This is a deeply troubling story of someone who so needed help, was offered it-but would not or could not accept it.

The world is full of Chris McCandlesses going about their daily routines. And perhaps this is why his story has such resonance for so many. He chose to break out of the life he was living, a life that gave him no comfort or solace-and stride into the unknown to find one that worked for him. It may be a loner's story or a vagabond's tale, but there is a universality about the demons that haunted Chris, and his single-minded yet unfortunate response to them.

There is no glory here, and little to reflect upon but the pain of someone who is unable to stop, unable to find another path-until his dream of Alaska and the wilderness with all its perils was met and its lessons pulled from it at whatever the cost. This is a superb film.

Read Best Reviews of Into the Wild (2007) Here

Just about the time Sean Penn was reading the book "Into the Wild," so was I. The book reminded me, first, of a good friend whom I've known since the mid-1960s. He's always fancied himself as somewhat of a wild man. He barely made it through high school, lived a kind of offbeat lifestyle for a long time--even turned me onto some music I might not otherwise have heard. He always wanted to relocate to Alaska. Thus far, he hasn't made it.

Then, after seeing the movie, I spent a few days with a group of students and their teachers from Alaska. They were delightful people, yet when I brought up Chris McCandless, they referred to him as, essentially, nuts. That didn't surprise me much. Indeed, it's an irony: We live in a country that proclaims individualism, yet when one pursues his own path--look at even the well-known like Thoreau--they're condemned for it. "Conventional thinking" is that one is to pursue a lifestyle of comfort and consumption. That's why we go to school, right?

Anyway, when I finished the book, I envied first the author. He's one of the best writers of today. But I also envied McCandless. What? Envying a dead man? Well, we're all going to die some day. Some will do it without having lived--to paraphrase Thoreau. Chris lived before he died. Maybe a little naively, but he lived. That's truly enviable.

It was so long ago that I read the book that I need to read it again, or listen to the recorded version. Frankly, I recall that the author did a little speculation in the book. How much, for example, did Chris's parents' relationship have to do with his behavior? I repeat, the author speculated. In the film, Penn had Chris's sister self-reflecting a lot, and that's where the speculation took place. (And Chris's relationship with his sister in the film seemed a little peculiar. But I'll let you watch and see if you agree or not.) And in the film, it came across as assertion rather than speculation. That's the only weakness of the film.

The film, other than that, was quite accurate to the book. McCandless took off on his own, essentially cut all ties to his "past," including getting rid of a lot of money that could have made his pursuit less valid. Emile Hirsch looks uncannily like McCandless. And the over 100 lbs. that he lost for the role--incredible!

I thought the rest of the casting of the film was superb. Some of the roles were chanced into, but that made the film all the more realistic. And I thought William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden were spectacular as Chris's parents, their own self doubts and passions exposed in both expressions and behavior.

What motivated McCandless? We can only speculate. Did he make some mistakes? Yes, as would any of us.

Might we learn something from him? Most definitely! Like in the book, Chris's notes were an integral part of the film's script. I'm so tempted to list them here, but that would give away an important element of the film.

The additional disk in this version of the DVD also gives you a little to think about, on the characters, the production. And it's not a self-aggrandizing extravanza as many of the "bonus materials" are.

Anyway, my thanks to Sean Penn for making a fine film out of one of the better books I've ever read, about a "great American." No, Chris McCandless didn't write declarations. He didn't write bestsellers. He didn't make long speeches about himself. But he pursued something he was compelled to do. I wish more of us had the guts to do so.

Rest in peace, Chris.

Want Into the Wild (2007) Discount?

Excerpted quotes from Ranger Peter Christian are from a document available at George Mason University (pasted below):Chris McCandless from an Alaska Park Ranger's Perspective

by Peter Christian

Both Chris McCandless and I arrived in Alaska in 1992. We both came to Alaska from

the area around Washington, D.C. We were both about the same age and had a similar

idea in mind; to live a free life in the Alaska wild. Fourteen years later Chris McCandless

is dead and I am living the dream I set out to win for myself. What made the difference

in these two outcomes?

There was nothing heroic or even mysterious about what Chris McCandless did in April

1992. Like many Alaskans, I read Jon Krakauer's book "Into the Wild" when it first

came out and finished it thinking, "why does this guy rate an entire book?" The fact that

Krakauer is a great outdoor writer and philosopher is the bright spot and it makes a great

read, but McCandless was not something special.

As a park ranger both at Denali National Park, very near where McCandless died, and

now at Gates of the Arctic National Park, even more remote and wild than Denali, I am

exposed continually to what I will call the "McCandless Phenomenon." People, nearly

always young men, come to Alaska to challenge themselves against an unforgiving

wilderness landscape where convenience of access and possibility of rescue are

practically nonexistent. I know the personality type because I was one of those young

men.

In fact, Alaska is populated with people who are either running away from something or

seeking themselves in America's last frontier. It is a place very much like the frontier of

the Old West where you can come to and reinvent yourself. In reality, most people who

make it as far as Alaska never get past the cities of Fairbanks and Anchorage because

access is so difficult and expensive (usually by airplane), travel is so hard, the terrain is

challenging, the bears are real, and so on.

A very few competent and skillful people make a successful go at living a free life in the

wild, build a home in the mountains, raise their children there and eventually come back

with good stories and happy endings. A greater number give it a try, realize it is neither

easy nor romantic, just damn hard work, and quickly give up and return to town with

their tails between their legs, but alive and the wiser for it.

Some like McCandless, show up in Alaska, unprepared, unskilled and unwilling to take

the time to learn the skills they need to be successful. These quickly get in trouble and

either die by bears, by drowning, by freezing or they are rescued by park rangers or other

rescue personnel-but often, not before risking their lives and/or spending a lot of

government money on helicopters and overtime.

When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did

wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic and inconsiderate. First off, he spent

very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail

without even a map of the area. If he had a good map he could have walked out of his

predicament using one of several routes that could have been successful. Consider where

he died. An abandoned bus. How did it get there? On a trail. If the bus could get into

the place where it died, why couldn't McCandless get out of the place where he died?

The fact that he had to live in an old bus in the first place tells you a lot. Why didn't he

have an adequate shelter from the beginning? What would he have done if he hadn't

found the bus? A bag of rice and a sleeping bag do not constitute adequate gear and

provisions for a long stay in the wilderness.

No experienced backcountry person would travel during the month of April. It is a time

of transition from winter's frozen rivers and hard packed snow with good traveling

conditions into spring's quagmire of mud and raging waters where even small creeks

become impassible. Hungry bears come out of their dens with just one thing in mind--

eating.

Furthermore, Chris McCandless poached a moose and then wasted it. He killed a

magnificent animal superbly conditioned to survive the rigors of the Alaskan wild then,

inexperienced in how to preserve meat without refrigeration (the Eskimos and Indians do

it to this day), he watched 1500 pounds of meat rot away in front of him. He's lucky the

stench didn't bring a grizzly bear to end his suffering earlier. And in the end, the moose

died for nothing.

So what made the difference between McCandless and I fourteen years ago? Why am I

alive and he is dead? Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide while I

apprenticed myself to a career and a life that I wanted more badly than I can possibly

describe in so short an essay. In the end I believe that the difference between us was that

I wanted to live and Chris McCandless wanted to die (whether he realized it or not). The

fact that he died in a compelling way doesn't change that outcome. He might have made

it work if he had respected the wilderness he was purported to have loved. But it is my

belief that surviving in the wilderness is not what he had in mind.

I did not start this essay to trash poor Chris McCandless. Not intentionally. It is sad that

the boy had to die. The tragedy is that McCandless more than likely was suffering from

mental illness and didn't have to end his life the way he did. The fact that he chose

Alaska's wildlands to do it in speaks more to the fact that it makes a good story than to

the fact that McCandless was heroic or somehow extraordinary. In the end, he was sadly

ordinary in his disrespect for the land, the animals, the history, and the self-sufficiency

ethos of Alaska, the Last Frontier.

6.13.08: Comment by Catherine Todd on the comments:

I just now saw all these comments from where I had originally posted this in the "review" section. I had no idea posting an actual letter from an Alaskan Park Ranger would elicit such a overwhelming response. I agree wholeheartedly with the ranger, having had some wilderness experience but not enough to ever attempt to "go it alone" in Alaska or elsewhere.

Being a Girl Scout and in the Boy Scouts too (when they would let me!) showed me how much I "didn't know." Living up in the mountains in Colorado for a winter's season when I was 18 years old, and being lucky enough to hike out in the snow by myself when I ran out of food & firewood and find my way to town showed me how much experience is really required. I could have died up there and wouldn't have been found until the Spring thaw. Just like in the old-time books and Western movies.

There is nothing "romantic" about the "Jeremiah Johnson" life, no matter how good it looks on film. This film showed that, to me. I'm going to post the Ranger's letter in a discussion area here on Amazon, where it probably belonged in the first place. Thanks for all the comments. Boy, am I surprised! But I absolutely LOVED reading the Alaskan Ranger's Letter (written by Ranger Peter Christian). He knows what he is talking about, "North South East & West, forward backwards over & under." I hope I never have to "get rescued," but if I do, let it be by him!

Update April 14, 2010 Two years later: more comments on the comments:

Reading all the comments about this review makes me wish, in part, that I hadn't posted the ranger's letter, no matter how on target it is. I am amazed that anyone could find fault with someone who is writing from EXPERIENCE. Here's my final comment I posted today, at the bottom of 6 pages of comments. I hope that Ranger Peter Christian knows how much I admire the work that he and countless others are doing to protect both our last remaining wildernesses, and our lives when we do go out there.

People who seem to like criticizing the ranger who wrote the commentary, written from EXPERIENCE, might change their tune if they get trapped in the wilderness and have to be bailed out by guys like him. I for one am grateful that people like this are prepared, and do their job; what would we do without them?

The ranger is saying that people need to BE PREPARED before they go out into the wilderness, as they endanger other people's lives when rescue teams have to go in to save them. It's no different than people who start forest fires inadvertently or through inattention; look at the damage they cause. These kind of people are dangerous, whether they mean to or not. TRAINING COUNTS. Doesn't anyone remember Boy Scout and Girl Scouts, where we learned a bit about how to survive in the wilderness before taking off on a trek?

In many countries in the world, no one would even try to help; you just die in the wilderness and someone might one day find your bones.

Hats off to the men and women who work in the field and save our skins and get little thanks for it. They deserve a medal, for sure. Forest Rangers are another group I call "hero" in my book.

---

Second update: Read more about McCandless at:

Flight: The Genius of Birds

Flight: The Genius of BirdsIn the best sense of the word, FLIGHT is not so much an argument for intelligent design, as it is a picturesque, graceful tribute to the genius of birds, to honest sense and level-headedness. Let me name anything heavier-than-air that flies, and I'd expect you to show me an instrument designed and engineered--and here's the key--by someone capable of design and engineering.

Helicopters are made of materials found on earth. How long, one might suppose, would those elements need be blown about by wind and sea and time and chance before a helicopter emerged?

FLIGHT says little more than that. But in making the obvious more obvious, it reaches beyond blueprint to visual beauty, beyond execution to emotional ecstasy. Who among us hasn't wanted to fly? Flight's investigation of birds will both amaze and uplift. One cannot ask for more. The film puts our heads on alert and our hearts on the wing.

In February of 1969, a stunning, larger-than-life Boeing 747 rose on its maiden voyage into the sky above Seattle. No one watching its magnificent ascent or its poetic descent on its first glide path believed they were witnessing a mutation of assemblage. Find the current 747 online Wikipedia entry and note the key words of the outline: proposal, design, production, and development. These are not the monikers of accident and chance, whether for the 747 or the starling.

I am grateful to FLIGHT and its makers. It answers questions and dispels nonsense of all kinds. More, it inspires. Beauty and truth always do.

What an incredible film! The grandeur and design of God has never been so clearly evident as in a bird's feather. My husband and I were astounded by the intricate mechanisms and intricate details that enable a bird to fly . . . and we were equally impressed with the film Flight: The Genius of Birds. We can't wait to share it with the rest of our family.

Buy Flight: The Genius of Birds Now

The photography is outstanding, making the video mesmerizing. We couldn't take our eyes off it. The film focused on only a few bird species in detail, which included the hummingbird, the arctic tern, and the starling. Each species has amazing features to ponder. We found the starling flocks containing many thousands of birds especially fascinating.

The details about the hummingbirds were super. How those little hearts could beat so fast, somewhere around 1200 beats per minute (going to have to watch it again soon) boggled me. The speaker said many birds' heart rates are over 500 beats per minute. I know how uncomfortable it feels when my heart approaches 150/min during a bout of atrial fibrillation, but the little guys and gals at the hummer feeder seem perfectly calm and content as they lap the extra concentrated nectar I make for them.

The evidence for intelligent design was clear and compelling. Birds are not glorified, flying lizards. The metabolism, musculature and skeletal systems of birds are perfectly adapted for flight. How all the required features for flight could develop by a long series of fortuitous accidents guided by natural selection requires blind faith, for there is no empirical evidence that birds evolved from some unidentified ancestor.

The presenters compared some human engineering accomplishments of well-designed flying machines, including a tiny, hummingbird like drone to the amazing designs found in birds. The design features in birds are far more elegant and effective that those designed by men. They talked about how evolutionary biologists insist students regard all the design features seen in organisms as development by mutation and natural selection over a nearly infinite span of time. The mantra is that "anything" is possible given enough time. A probability becomes a possibility, and that becomes a certainty. But when, the numbers are crunched, the probabilities are pooh-poohed by evolutionists because they are convinced with perfect faith that the universe and life was inevitable.

Evolutionists have speculated endlessly over the origin of birds, but birds are so unlike terrestrial creatures, that evolutionists cannot agree among themselves how it all happened. However, they insist with perfect faith that birds must have evolved from some dinosaur or lizard. The required structural and metabolic changes required to make such a transformation are outside the scope of science, yet evolutionists fill textbooks with ad hoc explanations how such transmutations might have occurred and then considered it virtual and incontrovertible fact.

The film referred to the development of the egg embryo without burdening the viewer with additional technical information concerning molecular biology and related fields. It did mention that the various cell types moved into their proper place as the bird embryo developed. Evolutionists say 97% of a species' DNA is junk because it doesn't code for protein. Clearly, most of a species' genome is involved in development, regulation, and other functions necessary to produce a viable organism.

I know crusading evolutionists are going to give this video a 1-star rating and put it down as stupid and made by ignorant creationists, but that goes with the territory. While atheists generally make up about 10% of the population, they often make up 50% of the reviews on Amazon--trying to stuff the ballot box. I've noticed that any book or film dealing with origins, evidence for God, or intelligent design is attacked by the same crew.

Enjoy the film. It is delightful and informative.

Read Best Reviews of Flight: The Genius of Birds Here

This very colorful, informative, well-documented film is all about birds, focusing on a few examples including hummingbirds, starlets, and arctic terns. It also covers the design of the wing, feathers, and the muscle and bone structure, showing in excellent animation how birds are designed to fly as well as their development. At the end it covers some evolution theories as well as design arguments. Highly recommended.

Want Flight: The Genius of Birds Discount?

Awesome film! You've got to see I! Very impressive and great photography. Recommend it highly. This is something you need to see?

Save 17% Off

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Ever After: A Cinderella StoryWell, I am sure that we have all heard the story of Cinderella many times over, but in Ever After we finally get to see a stronger female lead than those who dance through our little girls brains at an impressionable age.

Danielle De Barbarac (Drew Barrymore) lives alone with her father and their servants after the death of her mother, until one day her father brings home a new bride, the Baroness Rodmilla De Ghent (Anjelica Huston) and her two daughters, Marguerite and Jacqueline. When Danielle's father dies, the Baroness turns Danielle into a servant to wait on her and her spoiled daughters.

Danielle accidently meets young Prince Henry (Dougray Scott) when the Prince pilfers a horse from their manor in order to escape his parents restrictions. For her silence, he gives her coins, which she uses to pose as a courtier to buy back their old servant the Baroness sold to pay her taxes.

She meets Prince Henry again, but this time posed as a Lady, and Henry finds himself enchanted not simply by her beauty but by her intelligence and spirit. He becomes determined to know more about her, but first must find her for she keeps slipping away from him. In the meantime, Marguerite has set her sights on the handsome prince, with the help of her mother and a michevious courtier.

I won't give away any more of the movie, but absolutely must mention that there is a great deal of humor in this unique telling of the Cinderella story (take special note of the wedding chapel scene with the Spanish Princess). The acting is supurb and the script very tight and well written, the costumes are stunning, the scenery is breathtaking, and the photography brilliant.

Overall, this is a wonderful movie that softened even my cold, hard heart, allowing it to pump warm blood if only for the length of the movie. This is a love story without sappiness, a handsome hero with faults of his own, and a beautiful heroine who knows how to save herself. Enjoy!

This is a wonderful movie. The premise may be cliché, but this is much, much more than just another "Cinderella" movie. Its effects are really quite magical--it will make you laugh, it will make you cry, and it will totally immerse you in its spell. If you are human, it will produce a lump in your throat that will remain there for hours. Some people might call this a "woman's" movie, but I, as a man, will proclaim that it really touches my heart every time I watch it, and I freely admit that it does bring tears to my eyes. I need not go into detail describing the plot--it is a somewhat modernized Cinderella story, replete with the evil stepmother, charming prince, and angelic, mistreated heroine. Instead of a fairy godmother, there is Leonardo da Vinci--an unexpected but brilliant scripting decision, I feel. There are no magic pumpkins turning into horses and carriages, but there is magic; it is the magic of true love.

The entire cast is superb, particularly Anjelica Huston as the evil stepmother, but all of them are overshadowed by Drew Barrymore. Anyone who does not feel that Drew Barrymore is one of the greatest actresses of this and any other generation has obviously not seen this movie. I love all of Drew's movies, but I really believe this movie represents her finest performance. Even down to the most unimportant nuances of acting, she is simply brilliant. She is equally convincing as a peasant in the field as she is a royal courtier among the nobility of France. The emotion she is able to express to the audience is deep and amazingly real. I really can't say enough about her performance here.

All I can do is encourage you to experience this movie. I believe you will want to watch it more than once; it is just as fresh and moving the second and third time as it is the first. Don't dismiss it as a "sappy love story" or think its 16th century setting will make it hard to relate to. This is a story as old as time itself, really, and it is a story that will always be relevant to humankind. It celebrates the power of true love and shows all of us that dreams can indeed come true.

Buy Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998) Now

This is the kind of movie that no self-respecting guy would admit to liking in front of his friends. Seeing as i have no self-respect and even fewer friends, i have no reservations in stating that i loved this one from start to finish. It is a clever and highly original retelling of the classic Cinderella story, set in France. The entire cast does an inspired job. Drew Barrymore hasn't been this endearing since "E.T." (or was it "Doppelganger" ? I keep confusing the two), Anjelica Huston is a fittingly loathsome stepmother and even the featured "prince charming" i found easy to stomach. Need i recount the (allegedly true) tale ? (daughter turned lowly servant turned pretend courtier turned princess) Check elsewhere !

The pre-feminist subtext is hard to overlook, but far from obtrusive. Couldn't help liking the not so evil second stepsister. No fantastic elements are introduced: there is no evidence of sorcery, or a pumpkin anywhere to be found. Replacing the fairy godmother with Leonardo da Vinci of all people is a stroke of genius, adding to the credibility of the storyline. The payoff is thoroughly satisfactory, leaving you with a smile on your face. My fellow countryman Jeroen Krabbé (Barrymore's father) sees his acting career cut short as he is killed off within the first five minutes or so. The whole thing is accompanied by a great music score. Set aside your prejudice & suspend your disbelief. This is 1 hour and 57 minutes well spent !

Read Best Reviews of Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998) Here

Very often "realistic fantasy stories" flop like dying fish. "Ever After" is one of the few exceptions, a sparkling tale about Cinderella in a semi-historic setting, with an outstanding cast, strong script, and a delightful love story. What's a fairy tale without magic? It's "Ever After."

Danielle (Drew Barrymore) is a young girl raised alone by her father, who encourages his daughter's intelligence, curiosity and strong will. But her life takes a tragic turn when her father marries a haughty social-climber Baroness Rodmilla De Ghent (Angelica Houston), and brings her and her two daughters Marguerite and Jacqueline (Megan Dodds and Melanie Lynskey) to live with Danielle. He dies tragically of a heart attack, leaving his daughter alone with his widow. Years later, Danielle is treated like one of the servants, with whom she is a loyal friend. Her only relics of her past life are a pair of shoes and a beautiful dress left by her mother.

When one of the servants is imprisoned falsely for theft, Danielle goes to try to save him. And there, she bumps into the young Prince Henry, who is being pressured by his stuffy parents to marry -and Rodmilla is targeting him as a potential mate for one of her daughters. But Henry falls in love with Danielle -her intelligence, her political knowledge, her love of fun, her bravery, and her strength.As Danielle and the prince grow closer, the scheming of her stepmother threatens to destroy their relationship.

The director knows the right way to mix comedy and drama in a way that seems entirely plausible. When Henry "dumps" the Spanish princess, or when he wakes his parents with all sorts of bright plans, the audience laughs out of affectionate amusement. You like or dislike the characters exactly as the director wants you to. And he apparently knows that magic is less in plot elements than in the atmosphere -though the setting is medieval France, there is the sort of bright, ornate look to the castle and clothes that you see in fairy tales. (The only exception is the painfully-90s gown and sparkling makeup that Danielle wears at the climax. This is medieval France, not the Butterfly prom!) The script is full of funny or tense moments, and the frequent uses of Sir Thomas More's "Utopia" add an extra dimension of realism. And, in perhaps the most brilliant move in this film, one of the stepsisters is not "wicked." Rather the chubby, not-as-pretty but good-natured Jacqueline adds a silent ally to Danielle and prevents Jacqueline and Marguerite from turning, essentially, into one character.

Drew Barrymore is exquisite as Danielle, putting on Danielle's intelligence, wit and strength with ease and believability. Thankfully Danielle is never turned into a feminist in the usual sense of the word; she is unafraid to show that she is every inch a man's equal, but the movie doesn't bash viewers with that theme. Dougray Scott is equally good as Henry, mixing pride and confusion, sweetness and boredom into a very believable young prince. Anjelica Huston is almost hammily enjoyable as Rodmilla; Dodds and Lynskey are even better as her daughters. And even Leonardo da Vinci (Patrick Godfrey) makes an appearance to help smooth out the course of true love.

This is a family movie in the best sense of the word. The plotline and scripting are clever enough for adults to enjoy thoroughly, but there is nothing that the kids can't watch. So get everyone together and watch this enchanting retelling.

Want Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998) Discount?

Sure, like any rendition of a classic, Ever After has holes you could rear cattle in -everyone in France inexplicably speaks with a perfect British accent; Leonardo Da Vinci has nothing better to do than to advise a romantic couple in the matters of the heart; a young girl brought up on menial house chores has more grace in hand-to-hand combat than the Prince of France...etc.

Yet, amazingly, very little of this goes unforgiven if not totally unnoticed because the movie bears an infectious charm in its rhythm.

The script is thoughtful enough to maintain a distance from mickey-mouse concepts of pumpkins and fairies. The dialogue has enough grace to keep anglophiles glued, there's even a wanton skein of humour that makes it all more pleasant than your average garden-variety Cinderella narrative. The roundabout love story is beautifully developed, earning full marks for the screenplay. The visuals of nature, palaces, horse chases etc are stunning, and the costumes full-bodied and colorful. The background score, while not remarkable, makes for an excellent prop.

That is in itself a creamy cake, but the film wouldn't be quite the dessert it is, had it not been for some icing in the form of delicious acting all round.

I'm not a raving fan of Barrymore but her Danielle is thoroughly likable, sweet without being cloying, confident without being overly theatrical. Dougray Scott does his job as the Prince, but I could see why his character likes Danielle much more than she likes him. The vixen of a stepmother is played immaculately by Anjelica Huston, as are the two daughters and the crones who serve as the domestics.

A wholesome film that pulls all the right strings and pulls them fluently. Recommended in a blink.

Save 24% Off

IMAX: Hubble 3D (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy Combo Pack) (2011)

IMAX: Hubble 3DI've been an astronomy buff ever since I was a small child. So, when I learned that the Denver Museum of Nature and Science was showing a new IMAX movie about the Hubble Space Telescope, I had to see it. The theater hadn't yet upgraded to a 3D projection system, so the version I saw was in 2D. Believe me, that was plenty good enough.

It is said that Hubble is the most famous telescope ever built, and there are about 20 years' worth of fabulous cosmic images to prove it. When NASA initially announced that it was too dangerous for the Space Shuttle to make one last Hubble servicing mission to do needed repairs and upgrades, a lot of us went into mourning. And when they changed their minds, we rejoiced.

The movie is partly about the 2009 servicing mission, along with archival footage from earlier missions. This part is interesting, but not particularly new to me -the PBS science program Nova has done at least one hour-long segment which goes into much greater detail. We get to meet the seven very brave astronauts who were literally willing to risk their lives to get the job done. Space is a dangerous place, and a single careless slip of the hands can lead to a sliced glove and a fatal loss of suit pressure.

Also, two space shuttles have been lost over the years, along with 14 astronauts, so they had a backup shuttle on the pad just in case a rescue mission was needed. Thankfully, it wasn't.

We learn a few fun things about life in orbit, such as how to make a chicken burrito in microgravity, and how to get ready for a space walk. I discovered that, even though space is silent, the sounds of power tools can be transmitted through a space suit, to be picked up by the helmet microphone.

Where the movie really shines, however, is when they show footage of the Earth from orbit, and especially when they begin to explore the cosmos. Decades of effects-laden blockbuster films have tended to jade us, but what we see in Hubble IMAX is real, as seen from the Hubble Space Telescope itself.

I about lost it when the camera began to zoom in on Orion's Belt, and slowly the Orion Nebula swam into view. It was as if we were spanning lightyears, at warp speed, in mere seconds. Then the camera began to explore an enormous cosmic valley with walls of gas and dust, some 15 lightyears across, hollowed out by fierce interstellar winds and dotted with infant solar systems dubbed "tadpoles" by scientists. One particular system looked like a tiny golden gem swathed in a huge, black nest, and might well resemble our own solar system aeons ago when the planets were just beginning to form.

What struck me more than anything else was how uniquely privileged our generation is, of all the generations in human history. The ancients could gaze up in awe at the stars from their campfires and make up poems and stories, but only we, thanks to telescopes like Hubble, can see such stunningly beautiful images of planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, even the entire visible universe looking like a piece of gauze, the strands sprinkled liberally with gem dust.

I was struck also by the fact that there was hardly a peep from any of the children in the audience. They were all paying rapt attention.

I've never before seen any IMAX movie more than once. So far, I've seen Hubble three times. My most recent trip was to a 3D showing at a local cineplex. That was a plus. Now, as the camera zoomed, the stars actually came out of the screen at me. The 2009 shuttle footage, presumably shot in 3D, was incredibly real -I was tempted to reach out and try to touch the astronauts' equipment as they got ready for a space walk. Archival footage, most likely converted to 3D, had a peculiar, subtle flatness to it I've dubbed 2-1/2D. It just didn't look quite right. I'm sure the producers did their very best, but the technology is still evolving.

A note on the music: The film featured two familiar tunes -"Somewhere, Over the Rainbow" and "What a Wonderful World". I would have loved to have heard, respectively, the original Judy Garland and Louis Armstrong versions. However, what appeared in the film did the job -and I can't get the tunes out of my head.

In conclusion, this movie is well worth watching, if you're into astronomy or if you have kids who are. I'm seriously looking forward to the DVD. Even in 2D, it will be worth it. For the first time, I can imagine why someone would want a giant-screen TV in their house. If ever I come into a large amount of money, maybe I'll build my own IMAX theater in the basement.

Excellent 3D bluray to keep on your shelf and showcase the power of your 3DTV.. I'm going to make this review short and sweet and to the point. You can find this at Best Buy for half the retail price as Amazon. Unless they choose to price match, I recommend going to your local BB for the purchase. Just a friendly suggestion, I'm a loyal Amazon fan, but not at the sacrifice of assisting fellow shoppers on a great deal.

Buy IMAX: Hubble 3D (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy Combo Pack) (2011) Now

I saw this movie last night and am still in awe at what the space program has done and also how IMAX filmed this incredible movie. I worked for NASA during the development of Hubble and felt pride (and goosebumps) seeing it put into place in this film. Amazing to witness and see the stress on the astronaut's faces as they were being dressed in their flightsuits just a few hours from liftoff.

It also left me a little sad that we're so blessed to live on such a beautiful, miraculous planet and to know how society (and terrorists) are trying its best to ruin life on this planet Earth.

I've just ordered my copy; can't wait to share it with family and friends.

Read Best Reviews of IMAX: Hubble 3D (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy Combo Pack) (2011) Here

This IMAX 3D movie is not only the best use of 3D that I've seen on my new set up but it's also a fantastic film in its own right. The 3D isn't a 'gimmick' added just to cash in; it's clearly an important tool that scientists use especially when dealing with the vastness of 3D space. The fact that there's gorgeous stereoscopic footage of the original shuttle launch shows that even back then it was considered an essential part of documenting important events.

I've yet to see a more mind-numbing film which educates and informs and yet puts you in your rightful place, showing just how insignificant we all are. And whilst we are shown as naught more than a spec, we are also reminded of how special and unique we are. To aid this goal the narrative is exquisite with planets, stars even entire galaxies referenced in a very human way in so much as to their birth, their childhood and their ultimate demise. The 3D nebula are incredible as are the shots of the Hubble Telescope that enabled them to be discovered.

I bought this video to show off my set up quite a shallow goal. I'm a changed person for having seen it.

Want IMAX: Hubble 3D (Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy Combo Pack) (2011) Discount?

Like the Last Airbender, this Blu Ray 3D disc is, at least initially, an exclusive of another large electronics retailer. As with many Blu Ray 3D discs, the package includes a 3D BD, 2D BD, DVD and digital copy. (All of this could be provided on a 2-sided, single disc, with 3D/2D BD on one side and DVD/digital copy on the other, but that is obviously not as fiscally advantageous to the distributor.)

The 3D images in space were shot using an IMAX 3D film camera to document the final repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope in particular, but also the NASA Space Shuttle program in general, which will come to an end in July, 2011, for future generations. No future Hubble repairs will be possible as our ability to do heavy lifting for space delivery will end with the last shuttle unless private space companies rise to fill the gap. As such this 3D Blu Ray disc gets the job done well in 40 minutes. There are also many additional 2D segments which are all worth watching.

The 3D image is spectacular, as might be expected from IMAX. The camera is in a static position on the shuttle with the astronauts moving around in front of it for a given sequence. Presumably the camera was too big to hand hold. There are no trick shots, just documentary-type 3D, and it is very nice.

Of additional interest are the 3D images created from Hubble 2D images of distant, distant galaxies -the thing Hubble was created to do. So the observer gets to "fly" through the cloud-like cosmic cradles where stars are born. This part of the disc was, to me, jaw-droppingly unexpected, and a very real reason to buy this 3D BD.

I dropped one star from the rating because of the number of 2D extras on the disc. 3D digital cameras are now small enough that many extras could have been shot in 3D. The quality would not have matched the IMAX 3D image, but would have made the cost of this short 3D Blu Ray disc more justifiable.

The Terror (1964)

The TerrorJust got to say after the bad print of Kansas City Confidential from this company, I was scared to get this version of The Terror on blu ray. Just like KCC, they DNRd the crap out of this. To the point you're looking at a soft picture. Maybe I am confused, but shouldn't 1080p have plenty of detail and more grain? I admit, this is the best it has looked on home video, but it definitely is not the crisp MGMHD print. Some scenes on this blu ray combo look alright, while others there is no detail. I expect the stock film Corman used to look bad, but not the studio shots. Even the close ups are fuzzy. It is over cropped at 1.85 instead of its 1.66 frame (except for the credits), but at least its anamorphic. The 5.1 sound is horrible, I suggest switching to two channel to utilize the center channel at least. For ten bucks, its not a bad buy (at least it comes with a DVD copy)...but it could've been so much better. But this will have to do until MGM puts it out on blu ray. One interesting note is the American International logo is still at the beginning....I find that interesting, since their films are released by MGM on video.

I cannot complain as others have about this transfer. It is, by far, the best representation of the film I have ever seen.

The aspect ratio fills a 16:9 screen and its sound is in 5.1 surround. I thought it sounded terrific!

Also for the first time, I was able to watch the movie all the way through. Because other transfers' images were always so blurry and the sound so muffled, it was almost like watching snow on the screen. I'd lose interest halfway through and fall asleep.

This time, though, the movie grabbed my attention. How could it not? The image and sound were both clear. Happily, I changed my mind from judging the film mediocre to just as intriguing as Roger Corman's other masterpieces, like "The Fall of the House of Usher (1960)," "The Pit and the Pendulum (1961)," "Tales of Terror (1962)," "Tower of London (1962)," "The Haunted Palace (1963)," "The Raven (1963)," "Masque of the Red Death (1964)," and "The Tomb of Ligeia (1965)." It would be awesome to have these MGM features transferred to Blu-ray!

The Fall of the House of Usher

The Pit and the Pendulum

The Fall of the House of Usher /The Pit and the Pendulum

Tales of Terror (Edgar Allan Poe's)

Tales of Terror/Twice Told Tales (Midnite Movies Double Feature)

The Haunted Palace / The Tower of London

Double Feature: The Comedy of Terrors & The Raven

The Masque of the Red Death / The Premature Burial

The Tomb of Ligeia / An Evening of Edgar Allan Poe

Buy The Terror (1964) Now

I have searched high and low for a high quality print of THE TERROR, a favorite of mine since I saw it back in 1963, but since it's in the public domain, the numerous VHS and DVD copies have ranged from bad to worse. My search is finally over, for the print in this new DVD/Blu Ray set is almost perfect. The creative and colorful use of lighting, resembling that used by Mario Bava, can now be seen in all its glory and the colors (including the famous butterscotch finale) are sharp and vivid. Although not in the original widescreen ratio, it still looks astonishingly good. For those of you unfamiliar with its history, THE TERROR was cobbled together in a few weeks by 5 different directors including the 26 year old Jack Nicholson who has the starring role. Karloff's scenes were shot in 3 days.

Be advised that while this is not an official MGM release like the other AIP Poe pictures, it is certainly the best copy of the film out there. I cannot speak about the quality of the Blu-Ray disc as I don't have a Blu-Ray player but in order to get the DVD I had to buy the combo pack. I can say that the DVD looks great on my flat screen and sounds great too. In addition to the dialogue, Ronald Stein's memorable score also comes through loud and clear. The packaging also restores the original poster art which clearly states that THE TERROR is a Boris Karloff vehicle not a Jack Nicholson one although that's how it used to be marketed in previous incarnations. In addition it's a rare opportunity to see Jack's then wife Sandra Knight in what is her best known role.

Read Best Reviews of The Terror (1964) Here

I am a fan of this movie, but think there is some flaw in the DVD copy mechanism, not Blu-Ray. I have had to return two copies to Amazon and one to DVD empire all with the same problem. The DVD sticks in the third chapter. The color and transfer were fine with me, I just wish I could watch all of this clinker

Want The Terror (1964) Discount?

A brief and to the point review to tell those waiting "Buy this set." The movie has been remastered and has Dolby 5.1. As with "Dementia 13," the company Cultra has delivered the version you have been waiting for on Blu-ray or dvd. Buy it! I have a dvdr of MGM HD version and this looks about the same to me. I will take this set over my homemade dvdr any day. Too bad Sony dragged their heels on this one and all of the rest of the "no brainer" instant sale releases!

Save 24% Off

Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984)

DreamscapeDo you ever remember your dreams? I rarely do...unless they are of the really intense kind and I wake up during the dream, and even then the images tend to slip from my conscious like grains of sand through your hand. Why am I bothering telling you this? Well, I needed some kind of opener for my review of Dreamscape (1984), a film that deals with dreams and such, and this was the best I could come up with at the time, lame as it may be...directed by Joseph Ruben, who later did Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Money Train (1995), Dreamscape presents quite a cast with Dennis Quaid, Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer, Kate Capshaw, Eddie Albert, and even George Wendt (Norm!).

Dennis Quaid plays Alex Gardner, a young man of fantastic psychic abilities who has since dropped off the radar, preferring to use his `gifts' to manipulate women and pick winners at the horse track, rather than continuing to subject himself to an endless series of tests meant to study and learn of his abilities, tests conducted by Doctor Paul Novotny (Von Sydow). Seemingly content to squander his skills, Alex's path once again leads him back to Dr. Novotny and his assistant, Jane DeVries (Capshaw) as they've developed a machine that would allow someone with Alex's talents to enter the dreams of others, and possibly help those plagued with reoccurring nightmares, specifically in the President (Albert) who is suffering from apocalyptic dreams that are beginning to affect his ability to do his job. Seemingly concerned with the President's well being, Bob Blair (Plummer), government head of Dr. Novotny's project and shadowy leader of an intelligence group even the CIA fears requests Dr. Novotny assist in relieving the President of these nightmares, but we soon learn he has other plans, plans of a sinister nature involving another, less stable psychic within the project by the name of Tommy Ray Glatman (David Patrick Kelly). Can Alex uncover the plot, help the President, and stay alive? Possibly, but the odds are certainly against him...

Given some of the films that came out in 1984 like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters, Amadeus, Footloose, Romancing the Stone, Starman, A Passage to India, and The Killing Fields, it's no surprise this `sleeper' got lost in the shuffle. I've always enjoyed it, and thought it deserved a bit more credit than it's gotten. Dennis Quaid is really good and charming as hell as the smart alecky Alex Gardner, a character who seems to be able to handle himself, yet exhibits a smidgen of naiveté which possibly stems from a core belief of decency, despite his ventures into gray areas, specifically using his skills to determine winners of horse races, earning him money to live. Max Von Sydow is also very good, although I feel as if I've seen him in similar roles so many times before, as a doctor involved in ground-breaking research, not being able to see the forces which conspire to use his research for their own, sinister means until it's too late. As far as Kate Capshaw, I have to admit I've never cared for her all that much as I found her character in Temple of Doom to be highly annoying and distracting. She's not bad here, even though she does suffer from a common malady of the 80's here in big-hairitis syndrome. Plummer is good as the conniving powerful government agent with a secret agenda, although I've seen this whole `evil government stealing research meant for the good of mankind for it's own corrupted means' theme about a thousand times before. Even so, he's perfectly suited for the part, oozing a smarmy, almost quiet charm that hides disturbing ulterior motives...I did like the aspect that his goals were driven mostly by his desire to protect what he thought needed protecting, even if he was misguided by his own sense of twisted patriotism.

The special effects, while seeming quite dated now, were actually very good for the time this film came out, especially the dream sequences of the President detailing post-apocalyptic visions of decimated cities and ruinous wastes. The stop motion work, while not really appreciated by many, is really pretty good and reminds me of those old Ray Harryhausen films I love so much. One thing that annoyed me the most about this release is what's missing due to a hack editing job on a few scenes, all within dream sequences, I suppose, to more aptly fit the movie's PG-13 rating. One scene involved Quaid and Capshaw and a romantic interlude on a train with some pretty steamy stuff, but here it's cut short, removing the nudity. A second edited scene had Quaid inside a mousy man's dream about his wife, which contained some nudity that was excised out of here, and finally another scene has to do with Quaid's character helping a little boy overcome a terrifying reoccurring nightmare about a monstrous snake man. The part removed had a bit of gore in it, but it certainly wasn't anything, in my opinion, that deserved to be removed.

It says the movie is available in full and widescreen anamorphic formats, but I only saw the widescreen format. The picture quality is pretty good, but the transfer print does suffer very minor age deterioration at some points, but it's hardly noticeable. The audio is much better, with Dolby Digital 2.0, new Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Audio available. Special features include an audio commentary track by producer Bruce Cohn Curtis, writer David Loughery, and special effects artist Craig Reardon that's pretty good, although dry at more than a few points. Also included are a behind the scenes special effects makeup test reel and a slide show. I really wanted to give this four stars, but given that's it missing parts from a few scenes, I have to go with three...

Cookieman108

I love this movie. It was one of the first PG-13 flicks to come out, so when I was a kid this was quite exciting. It had some action, some nudity and a snake-monster all rolled into a fun pseudo sci-fi package.

Imagine my disgust and horror upon discovering that the DVD of the film had been edited for content! Don't believe me? Compare it to the video or laser version. The comical sex dream scene at the beginning has been altered so that there are no breasts. There are also no children watching. This may not seem all that important to you, but I think that this silent trimming is quite insidious. The film is rated PG-13 after all, which means that parents should be cautious about showing it to younger kids. Why then must it be cut without telling us so on the package?

To sum it up, I love the movie, but I hate this version. Hooray for Hollywood.

Buy Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984) Now

I adore this movie for various reasons; the good script, lots of memorable scenes, and a great cast including the very inviting Capshaw and the very underused Kelly. To me it's not so much the movie's special effects, but the genius story that involves you and make you want to watch it from time to time. -Especially now that it's been letterboxed. However, as good looking as this DVD is, there are a couple of ridiculous cuts. -The kid cutting off the snakeman's head, now with less blood spurting than before. -This cut is rather pointless since there wasn't that much red stuff seen to begin with, and certainly not more than people are used to today. Even worse though, are the changes made to the Homer Simpson guy's dream sequence. -What was before a very amusing bedroom scene, now is shortened to an unfunny mess leaving those who know it uncut perplexed. It really makes no sense to cut this film, when it wasn't before. Who are they trying to protect ?. Just because it's out on DVD, doesn't necessarily mean it's now suddenly more available to folks with small children, does it ?. They've jammed the disc with lots of extra goodies, like a commentary track, but why go to that extent and still cut it ?. Did they plan it for the family market, or what ?. We, the true fans of the movie are left feeling somewhat cheated, and so in the end nobody really wins.

Read Best Reviews of Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984) Here

I am disgusted that companies can market a movie as a blu ray which implies enhanced sound and picture only to provide you with an unaltered straight from DVD transfer. While the sound was on par with standard DVD audio the picture was horrible. The movie had all the little white static-like spots in every frame as if you were watching a high school reel projector movie. It was VHS quality visuals. Nothing is touched up visually from the original movie. The green screen scenes are obvious. And with barely 5 minutes of extras, most of which are still photos, this can hardly be considered a "special edition" of anything.

Image Entertainment has made a name for themselves releasing IMAX and concert blu rays. Reviews of those discs have me scratching my head as to why they would release "Dreamscape" on blu ray at all when they enhance other films for the blu ray upgrade. It is apparent to me this movie came out to capitalize on the upcoming blu ray release of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" which shares some similar themes.

Do not buy this blu ray. You can purchase the "Special Edition" DVD release here on amazon.com for $6.99 or this movie shows up in the Walmart $5 bin from time to time. There is no difference in the quality of the DVD and blu ray releases except for the price. Someone should prevent these companies from releasing "fake" blu rays at once. And amazon.com should pull this release from their site before someone else makes the same mistake I did and purchases this "fake" blu ray.

Want Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984) Discount?

Dreamscape is a fun, if undeniably underrated, thriller from the early 1980s. Dennis Quaid plays a psychic who is recruited into a secret, government-funded operation by Max Von Sydow. Under the direction of Von Sydow and colleague Kate Capshaw, Quaid learns how to enter other people's dreams. Amongst other things, this ability allows Quaid to romance the reluctant Capshaw and to help a small boy who is haunted by nightmares involving a demonic creature known as Snake Man (who, years later, remains one of screen history's scariest monsters). However, Quaid also discovers that the real force behind the project is Presidential advisor Christopher Plummer and Plummer has somewhat more sinister goals in mind for Quaid's newfound abilities. President Eddie Albert, it seems, is having nightmares of his own and there leading him to sign a disarmament pact with the Russians. While Plummer makes plan to send his own personal assassin (David Patrick Kelly) into the President's dreams, Quaid and Capshaw struggle to save the President's life.

Dreamscape is an entertaining film that, luckily, doesn't take itself all that seriously. The film itself is a hybrid of several different genres -part horror film, part political conspiracy thriller, part speculative science fiction, and part comedy and director Joseph Ruben manages to pull of an impressive balancing act by seemlessly integrating all of these elements into a cohesive whole that actually holds together pretty well. Ruben keeps the action moving nicely and brings a truly memorable flair to the film's dream sequences. As stated previously, the Snake Man (a creation that would simply be a cartoonish computer-generated image if the film were made today) is still truly frightening and the President's nightmares, with their images of nuclear devastation, still retain their power to disturb. Ruben also gets uniformly good performances from his cast with special praise going to David Patrick Kelly who creates one of the most memorably quirky and hateful film villians of the 1980s. All in all, Dreamscape is a blast from the past that is more than worth tracking down.

Save 45% Off

Our Hospitality: ULTIMATE EDITION (1923)

Our Hospitality: ULTIMATE EDITIONFor some reason this film is less well-known than a lot of Buster Keaton's others...yet I find it a lot more satisfying than something like Steamboat Bill, Jr. or even Sherlock Jr.! It's got his fixation with trains in the first act, a very fun depiction of old narrow-gauge trains that, like most historical depictions in Keaton films, is based on actual accurate history (exaggerated for comic effect). It's got great comedy and suspense in the main plot, which involves Buster inadvertently stumbling into the home of a family, after falling for the girl who lives there, who are the Hatfields to his family's McCoys (or is that the other way around?), and relying on the family's strict Southern Hospitality rules to keep himself from being shot. Of course, if you know much about Keaton you probably already know this film, but if you've just seen a little, this is one of his best.

As for the Blu-Ray: the main musical option is the Thames Silents score by Carl Davis. This alone is reason to get this edition...his scores for this, Keaton's The General, and other silent era films are among the best...fun, tuneful, entirely appropriate yet exciting and never falling into hackneyed contrivances. The transfer is decent...a little more money might have allowed cleaning up the title cards, where the tiny and dense scratches of this print (not as pristine as the one used for Kino's The General Blu-Ray) are very obvious and kind of distracting over the black title card backgrounds. But luckily they don't really show up much in the actual scenes. The transfer is at 1080i from reading around online that seems to be because this HD transfer was done a few years back before they'd decided 1080p was the way to go for releases, not for any reasons relating to frame rate or anything like that. But again, I'm sure money wouldn't allow a new HD transfer, and I doubt anyone could tell by watching it that it wasn't 1080p...it looks fine to me.

The extras are interesting and worth watching. One extra that needs a slight disclaimer is the unreleased earlier test version, "Hospitality," which seems to be a test cut with mostly just the dramatic scenes, speculation being that Keaton wanted to see if they played before adding in the funny business. It's a nice historical artifact to have, but the print is a very poor reduction print of an original which had suffered major nitrate damage. So, it's historically of interest and I'm glad it's on here, but it would take a fairly obsessed Keaton fan to actually watch more than a few minutes of it.

So: if you are at all a fan of Keaton, or of silent comedy in general, or you think you might be, make sure to snap this up and help assure that the rest of Keaton's library is financially worth putting out in HD! I keep mentioning finances, but silents aren't exactly big sellers, so you take what you can get, and overall this is a great release! If only some Spielberg-type would spend a couple bucks and pay for a fancy restoration/clean-up of one of these historic and still-entertaining films. Oh well.

PS: Yes, silent films can look great in HD! Film's resolution, even back then, was/is much higher than 1080p. This print isn't as wonderful as the one used for The General, but it's still quite an improvement over previous versions and is worth seeing in HD. Plus, Keaton (and other silent era filmmakers) worked in a purely visual medium seeing a detailed, quality image is definitely worth it!

The picture quality of this film is superb, even better for that it is in HD. The Carl Davis score creates such a beautiful and climatic mood which this film requires. The extras are fantastic and the the film itself I have always enjoyed, but now with the Carl Davis score and the beautiful way it has been presented now shoots up amongst my favourite Keaton movies.

Buy Our Hospitality: ULTIMATE EDITION (1923) Now

OUR HOSPITALITY (writ./dir. Buster Keaton, 1923, 73 minutes) is another favorite of mine given to us by the immortal Buster Keaton. I rank this with his The General (The Ultimate Two-Disc Edition) and Our Hospitality/Sherlock, Jr. (I recommend this awesome two-fer DVD set). HOSPITALITY is BK's first great feature-length film, though he had already done a couple of them.

Set in the Antebellum South (1830, Keaton was impossibly ahead of his time making this period authentic-looking) Buster plays Willie McKay, a New York-bred unwilling member of the old Canfield-McKay feud. (Yes, loosely based on the Hatfield-McCoy feud that really lasted only a few years.)

Returning to Kentucky to claim his inheritance (an "estate" that will make you howl with laughter when you see it), Willie soon falls right into the arms of the waiting Canfields. They are, of course, waiting to kill him. Luckily for him he is already sweet on the young Canfield girl (played by his 1st wife Natalie Talmage Keaton) and this will save him later. Uniquely, Buster's son Buster, Jr., plays him at age 1.

There is a waterfall scene in this, and all I'll tell you is Keaton designed and had built the entire thing on one of his lots. Goes to show you, alongside works like THE GENERAL, what Keaton was capable of achieving. You will marvel at Keaton's partly rebuilt, partly restored Stephenson's Rocket locomotive ... and yes, they really did ride those once upon a time.

Another bittersweet detail: Joe Roberts (Old Man Canfield), a dear friend and traditional heavy in Keaton's films, suffered a heart attack while filming. He insisted on returning to finish the film and died very shortly after they wrapped. Keaton's films are filled with disasters, hair-raising, realistic and funny as hell. Just as often they are filled with tragedies: in this film, along with Roberts' heart attack, Keaton was brutally carried off by water and almost drowned. The scene remains in the film.

While this does not have the accolades of THE GENERAL (then again, how could it), no one can miss watching it. Here for the first time, Keaton experiments fully with his signature lighting, model sets and daring camera shots. The acting is refreshing and surprising: everyone seems extremely realistic except for good old Roberts, bless him. Once in a while Keaton had to have the Old Schoolers in there too. Although it certainly does not quite reach the heights of THE GENERAL, this is Buster Keaton at his prime!

How can anyone remotely interested in film miss this?!

Read Best Reviews of Our Hospitality: ULTIMATE EDITION (1923) Here

Our Hospitality (1923) was Buster Keaton`s first true feature film. Keaton's previous "feature," Three Ages (1923) was actually three short films assembled together. There was both an artistic and a commercial reason for this: Three Ages was a parody of the similarly structured D.W. Griffith feature Intolerance (1916). Additionally, Keaton had proved his audience appeal in shorts. Metro Pictures realized the inherent risk of a Keaton feature, and the structure of Three Ages created the option of breaking it down into three shorts. Fortunately for all concerned, Three Ages was a commercial and critical success.

Our Hospitality may be seen, in retrospect, as a model for Keaton's features and a precursor to The General (1926). What separates Keaton from his peers (Chaplin, Lloyd, Langdon) is the way his character integrates into a larger narrative. That is not to say that Keaton's films are not character driven, but the character serves the narrative, not vice versa.

Our Hospitality opens with a prologue of the ongoing feud between the Canfields and the McKays. A young Canfield and the McKay patriarch are killed in a rainy shoot out at night. To avoid the curse of the feud and further bloodshed, the McKay widow takes her infant son, Willie, and sends him north to New York. Meanwhile, the Canfields swear revenge.

Twenty years later, Willie (Keaton) is the personification of a 19th century New York Yankee, adorned in a dandified suit. His mother has since passed away when Willie learns he has inherited his father's estate. Imagining a southern mansion waiting in the wings, Willie hops onto the next train like a salmon returning to its birthplace. Before departing, he is warned by his guardian to stay clear of the Canfields.

The trip south foreshadows the archaic world Willie is about to enter. The train itself is primitive and, naturally, encounters numerous mishaps along the way. Luckily for Willie, the ordeal is made bearable because his fellow passenger is a pretty girl (Natalie Talmadge, the first Mrs. Keaton). Unfortunately, Willie's spawning choice here, unknown to him, is a Canfield daughter.

There are numerous aquatic metaphors. Willie stands apart from his fellows, like a fish out of water, with city clicker suit and queer umbrella. While fishing, he catches a minnow, throws it back, and then gets pulled into the water by a bigger fish. Willie's mansion turns out to be a dilapidated shack and he unwittingly finds himself in the home of his sworn enemies. True to Southern hospitality, the Canfields vow not kill Willie while he is a guest in their home. When Willie learns of this, he naturally tries to remain a permanent houseguest. Almost forced out, Willie is saved from leaving by the sudden appearance of a heavy downpour. A dam blows up, nearly drowning Willie, but it also safely conceals Willie from his predators, the Canfield boys. In a reversal of the fishing line, Willie is tied, by rope, to a Canfield son. Both get hauled into the water. A descent into the rapids brings further peril, as does a waterfall. Willie dangles over the waterfall like that salmon on a line. Yet, it is the waterfall which unites Willie with his girl, allowing him to spawn.

Our Hospitality is replete with inventive sight gags (a tunnel is cut to fit the train, a horse's rear-end is disguised as Willie in drag), but it's really a sophisticated, yet simple retelling of the Romeo and Juliet narrative.

* My review was originally published at 366 weird movies.

Want Our Hospitality: ULTIMATE EDITION (1923) Discount?

This is great film! Clever and imaginative, featuring wonderful sight gags and stunts that astonish and confound the imagination. Be careful not to pre-judge this edition from the version now available on Netflix streaming that used to have the same music. That music may be more contemporaneous with 1923, but is barely adequate compared with the music here. Written by Carl Davis, the score fulfils the potential of Our Hospitality to be a wondrous experience to treasure and to share!

Save 29% Off

Saturday, August 30, 2014

The Sacrifice: 2-Disc Remastered Edition (1986)

The Sacrifice: 2-Disc Remastered EditionTHE SACRIFICE is a true work of art. It is probably the most beautiful film by the cinematic poet Andrey Tarkovsky. It is also the most accessible among his works: unlike his films prior to this one, the plot of THE SACRIFICE itself is quite simple and easy to catch. A retired actor journalist-author (some kind of an intellectual superman) hero living in a beautiful sea-shore house suddenly faces the end of the world: a nuclear war. What can he do to stop it? He prays to God, he who never believed in God before, and offers himself to be the sacrifice for saving the world as he knows, a world which for the first time, he realises how much he loves it.

The plot is simple, but its implication is complex. One who believes in God and the absolute love he represents can see this as a story of miracle. An atheist can see this as all being a hallucination of a repressed old man. Tarkovsky makes the film in a way that you can interpret it in whatever way you want. But in whichever way you see it, the film will lead you to our fundamental question; why we live? What is the meaning of our life? How we can achieve the state in which we can say when we face eternity, "I understood the meaning of my life and I fulfilled it"?

THE SACRIFICE was shot beautifully by cinematographer Sven Nykvist, one of the greatest master in the art of creating filmic images, whose talent is perfectly in match with Tarkovsky's narrative strategy of filling the frame with symbolism that the audience can interpret in what ever way he/her wants.

The disappointment with this rather expensive DVD is that, the transfer fails to catch the richness of Nykvist's work, and in the case of this particular film, it really hurts because it prevent you to create your own interpretation from what the film shows. The nature plays a big role in the story, and already at the very beginning, you cannot feel the richness of the green grass by the sea, the mystery of the trees surrounding the house. Later in the film you miss the richness of the shadows, the complex texture that the lights and shadows create on a simple wall, the subtle reflection on a framed painting (a study of the Madonna by Da Vinci). It actually looks like it was made from a video tape. The yellow subtitles are also build in the images, it's not an optional subtitling and you cannot erase it. I suggest you wait for a few years if you have already seen the film, then maybe KINO will come up with a better DVD. But if you have never seen it, well... it's a must-see film.

Kino on Video should be proud of their work releasing Tarkovsky's THE MIRROR and THE SACRIFICE on DVD. The DVD of THE SACRIFICE looks markedly superior to any version of the film available on home video. Doing a direct comparison with the old Image laserdisc, I was struck by how much better the DVD captured the film's subtle gradations of light and color, how it revealed details in the set design which I had never noticed before. For Tarkovsky this is all-important. In addition, the DVD includes a feature-length documentary on Tarkovsky which says a great deal about his working methods as a director and his thoughts on the cinema in general. If you have any interest in Tarkovsky or in film as an art form, the DVD is recommended.

This is not to say that the film itself is perfect. I strongly believe that Tarkovsky's last two films, made in Europe (the other was the Italian co-production NOSTALGHIA), are distinctly inferior to his Russian films, especially his masterpieces ANDREI RUBLEV and THE MIRROR. The same stunning imagery is there, and there are a number of truly great moments; THE SACRIFICE has two celebrated l0-minute takes--the tree-planting and house-burning scenes--which push the cinema about as far as it can go. But there is also a certain preachiness and an implicit sense that the film is Great Art, so therefore you must sit quietly and pay attention to everything it has to tell you. Many of Alexander's speeches sound suspiciously like the more didactic moments in Tarkovsky's book-length essay SCULPTING IN TIME.

Since it's Tarkovsky, I'm willing to listen--when I'm in the right mood--but not without a murmur of protest. His contemporary Sergei Paradjanov managed to be playful and profound at the same time, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. There is an underlying fundamental lack of vitality here compared to his Russian films. (Yes, I'm aware that Tarkovsky was dying of cancer when he made the film). However, under the right conditions I've found THE SACRIFICE to be a mesmerizing experience. I do urge you to see it.

Buy The Sacrifice: 2-Disc Remastered Edition (1986) Now

On the morning of his birthday, Alexander takes his young son ("little man") for a walk and plants a tree. It is no ordinary tree, but a tall dried out sprawling limb, supported by stones. Alexander tells his son that a single act, repeated daily, can change the world, and tells him the story of a monk who brought a tree to life by his daily watering and devotion. Events that unfold later that evening, raising the specter of a nuclear holocaust, suggest the possibility there won't be time to carry out any such plans. Alexander finds himself faced with a choice. Is he willing to make a leap of faith, a Faustian bargain with God, perhaps? to save his family?

Andrei Tarkovksy's final film, completed from his death bed as he died from lung cancer, is perhaps his most philosophically complex, and shows him at the height of his powers as a filmmaker. With cinematographer Sven Nykvist, the Ingmar Bergman favorite, Tarkovsky created some remarkably subtle and beautiful and provocative imagery, that cannot help but unsettle the viewer, and raise questions about the relative merits of intellect and conviction, of individuality and community, of realism and superstition. Like his previous two films, Stalker and Nostalghia, the film focuses on a troubled individual at the crossroads, doubting the moral validity of his life, and then faced with a choice to either act upon faith, where the task appears outwardly absurd but may make all the difference, or to refuse and rest secure in doubt and uncertainty.

One nice bonus included with the Kino version (this one) is the very fine documentary "Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky" that reveals a good deal about his filmmaking process as it covers his work making "The Sacrifice" and includes several of his personal thoughts on cinema as Brian Cox reads passages from Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time. Highly recommended.

Read Best Reviews of The Sacrifice: 2-Disc Remastered Edition (1986) Here

Kino's blu-ray release of "The Sacrifice" is unquestionably a better release than all previous DVD versions. Unfortunately, it is also plagued by several forms of unnecessary manipulation by Kino. There are visible edge-enhancement halos everywhere, especially in outdoor scenes. The picture has also been egregiously bathed in excessive DNR, to where the image rarely looks filmic, but rather soft and digital. I'm ecstatic that Tarkovsky films are making their way stateside in HD, but you can't help but feel that the transfer would have been handled better by a distributor like Criterion, who knows how to restore films without such destructive tinkering.

Want The Sacrifice: 2-Disc Remastered Edition (1986) Discount?

...that seems to be the opinion of some reviewers. This film Tarkovsky's final work is certainly more accessible than his others, more straightforward in its storytelling...but there's a lot of wonderful elements involved, and it certainly doesn't deserve to be relegated to the 'minor works' category. Other reviewers have also drawn comparisons between this film and the work of Swedish director Ingmar Bergman there is some of Bergman's 'look' to the film, perhaps because Tarkovsky chose to work with Sven Nykvist, who worked on several of Bergman's films. Even with this 'Bergmanesque' presence, this is definitely Tarkovsky's film and if it's more accessible than some of his other works, perhaps it's a good place for someone who is unfamiliar with his work to start.

Several of Tarkovsky's favorite themes are present in SACRIFICE alienation, an aching emptiness of the spirit, the slighting of nature by mankind. Erland Josephson portrays Alexander, a wealthy, semi-retired writer who lives with his wife, teenage daughter and 'Little Man', his young son, in a lovely house that sits rather isolated on the seaside in Sweden. His young son is obviously his favorite, the center of his soul and existence. We see him with the little boy, planting a tree, telling him a story about devotion to duty involving a young Japanese monk and his master.

Alexander's birthday is at hand, and his family, along with a couple of friends, makes ready to celebrate. As the group awaits dinner to be served, there is a roaring like a low-flying jet in the sky, followed by what appears at first to be a mild earthquake. A ceramic milk pitcher vibrates its way off a shelf, shattering on the floor news broadcasts on the television indicate that World War III has begun. Each of the characters reacts in their own way Alexander's wife falls to pieces and requires a sedative from their friend Victor, a doctor. Alexander is shaken as well but he's not sure what to do. He has lost his faith several years before, and yet he finds himself begging God to reverse the horrible events unfolding on the television screen. In one of the film's most poignant moments, we see him drained of strength, falling on his knees, barely able to speak, praying with all his might. He attempts to 'strike a bargain' with God, offering to give up everything his home, his belongings, his family...even Little Man, his beloved son, if the world can be 'put back like it was before'.

In a conversation with his friend Otto, the postman, Alexander learns of Otto's suspicion that Maria, one of Alexander's servant girls, is a witch and Otto suggests that if Alexander goes to Maria and sleeps with her, she has the power to reverse the horrible events. In his desperation, Alexander succumbs to Otto's suggestion he never voices his request to Maria, but she sees the pain in his eyes (and in his actions) and takes him to her bed in an attempt, I think, simply to comfort him. This scene like lovemaking scenes in all of Tarkovsky's films, when they occur is photographed beautifully and tastefully. Tarkovsky never stooped to gratuitous or graphic sex or nudity. We see the couple lie down, embrace and levitate, floating gently into the air, a lovely, tender visual rendition of the healing power of love.

You'll have to see the film in order to find out if Alexander's efforts in either theatre are rewarded. I don't want to spoil anything for the potential viewer. Suffice to say that even as the film ends, the viewer is left with as many questions as answers and that's one of the things I find so stimulating and rewarding about Tarkovsky's work. I can't give anything I've seen by this director less than five stars and while this might not be quite on the same levels as his other films, it's still head and shoulders above the commercial films coming out of the major studios.

Save 38% Off