The Tempest (2010)

Let me say right off: I am a total Bardolator. I teach Shakespeare, I am obsessed with Shakespeare, I have read and seen all the plays, and my love affair with the Bard began with seeing a live performance of The Tempest in 1975. It was pure magic. I also love movies, and I believe that in the 21st century, filmed versions of Shakespeare's plays are probably the best way to reach the widest audience. The sneers and sniffs of snobs aside, I am convinved that if Will were alive today, he'd be writing movie screenplays (or even television), NOT stage plays, which today are aimed at a narrow, elite, theatre-going audience.

As a literature professor who has been teaching The Tempest for a decade now, I have always been singularly bemused by the lack of a filmed version that really captures the magical spirit of the play. The old TV Richard Burton show is well-acted but silly, the BBC version has great actors but terrible, flat production values, Prospero's Books is brilliant but incomprehensible to all but those who know the play intimately, Derek Jarman's version is terribly dated and, despite being a good "film," just doesn't work as The Tempest, in my opinion. The other, "scholastic" releases are plagued by poor production and/or undistinguished acting. And I won't even bother with "adaptations" of the plot, such as Forbidden Planet or Cassavettes's Tempest.

Until this version, the only truly excellent version of The Tempest was the HBO animated one, but at 25 minutes, not much of Shakespeare's story remained intact.

Just last week I had the great pleasure of seeing Julie Taymor's The Tempest in London. It was absolutely amazing. The magic was there! The acting, for the most part, was brilliant. The script contained enough of the actual play's language that the minor tweakings to make it easier for contemporary audiences did not bother me a bit. The visuals were absolutely stunning. The movie was a joy from start to finish. I can't wait to see it again--repeatedly--to savor all the special moments over and again. My only regret is that my students will be unable to see it this year due to the late release date.

[REVISION NOTE: This year's students had the opportunity to see this version, and they overwhelmingly LOVED it. It brought the play to life for them. At last, I no longer have to convince them that The Tempest really IS a great play! 01/19/12]

If you love Shakespeare, and if you enjoy movie adaptations of the plays, DO NOT MISS THIS ONE!

I saw this movie at the Chicago Film Festival last fall, introduced by Alan Cumming. While I'm a huge fan of Helen Mirren (and Alan), I was much less familiar with Julie Taymor, and not sure what I was in for.

If you're the same, then you can relax this is brilliant, and I wish that Mirren & Taymor would do some other Shakespeare plays with Helen in the (strong, male) lead. Aside from a few minutes in the very beginning, where I thought the verisimilitude of the storm interfered with actually being able to understand what the actors were SAYING there weren't any problems with either the language or being able to follow the plot.

Despite changing of the gender of the lead character, all the other elements we expect from Shakespeare remain intact: elevated, aristocratic figures bickering over their positions or inheritance, a love story featuring the younger generation of characters, a comedic subplot running alongside the primary plot, etc. And the acting was great top to bottom those who weren't aware that RusselL Brand could actually act will be very pleasantly surprised, and we get the amazing performances we expected from the "known" names. Reeve Carney comes off least well, but that is the fault of the character having so little to do (and most of THAT being to look attractive and moon over the young woman).

All in all, I was very happy I was able to catch this in the cinema, and can hardly wait until I'm able to own a copy.

Buy The Tempest (2010) Now

If you've been following the travails of Julie Taymor's Spiderman production for Broadway, you will understand them a little better once you watch the opening shipwreck scene in her version of The Tempest. It is elaborate and detailed and far removed from the play itself, which of course opens with a brief onboard scene and then goes to Prospero and Miranda on shore for a long scene of explication of their exile on the island. The genius in Taymor's take on the Tempest is to give us Prospera instead of Prospero and, especially, to give us Helen Mirren as Prospera. She is wonderful as always, and convincing throughout. I loved her delivery of the Act 4, Scene 1 "Our revels now are ended" speech that captures both the play and life itself in a few short lines. The rest of the cast, Chris Cooper, Russell Brand et al, is uniformly excellent except the young actor who plays Ferdinand and who reads his lines like he is, well, reading his lines from a script held in his hands. Taymor takes liberties with Shakespeare's text (the credits read something like "written by Julie Taymor based on a text by William Shakespeare") and Prospera's epilogue is a song over the closing credits, but overall this Tempest is in spirit faithful to the play and well worth seeing.

Read Best Reviews of The Tempest (2010) Here

The final Opus of William Shakespeare was carried to the big screen with that required vision, secure pulse and distinguished visuals without lacking the spirit of the play.

Helen Mirren is actually (Who can deny it?)one of the three best actresses in the world. She chews the whole show all the way through. But additionally the narrative rhtyhm never decays. Taymor (The Lion king and Titus, proves by far how domains Shakespeare's nerve) never abuses of the visual effects (dislike many of her colleagues).

And the outcome could not be more succesful. One of the best twenty films of the last year. No doubt it and go for it.

Want The Tempest (2010) Discount?

I'm a bit of a Shakespeare nut, owning the large majority of his plays on DVD, and often more than one version of the more popular plays. So I was eager for a new version of "The Tempest," and I wasn't able to catch this one in the theaters since it never played near where I live. Unfortunately nearly all of the reviews I had read of this version were decidedly mixed. Still, I wasn't going to let them keep me from seeing it. Well, I'm really glad I bought it because it's *much* better than the mixed reviews had led me to believe. Helen Mirren's excellent interpretation of "Prospero" as "Prospera" strikes me as quite natural -that is, it doesn't come across as a trendy gender-switching gimmick -and most of the other actors are superb as well. The "special effects," particularly with Ariel, are effectively handled. My only reservation, in fact, has to with Djimon Hounsou's performance as Caliban. He himself is, I believe, very good, but his strong accent sometimes makes it difficult to understand Caliban's speeches, which include some of the loveliest, most touching in the play. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend this DVD, which includes a terrific "making of" bonus extra.

Save 18% Off

Trick 'r Treat (2009)

I had a chance to see Trick 'r Treat at the Midwest Premiere in Chicago on the big screen and I am mystified as to why this excellent film was never given a full theatrical release? It far exceeded my expectations and I believe it to have already become a classic film for horror aficionados and lovers of the greatest holiday ever, Halloween.

The film is set up as a sort of anthology of short stories, yet they all intertwine and complement each other in the end. There is some great artwork in the tradition of Creepshow and at times reminded me of that film, but the main difference is Creepshow's stories are all their own and Trick 'r Treat follows one night with several groups and characters that each have their own encounter with a very evil character indeed. The film has lots of suspense, violence, gore, and some sexy nudity in one story involving werewolves. We also have a serial killer principal, some rotten teens trying to scare a nerdy girl, and a story told that is destined to be some type of urban legend in the future involving mentally disabled kids and a disastrous fate. The greatest thing about Trick 'r Treat is its style and campy flavor that truly stuck to the evil side of the tracks. The film was so much fun to watch and destined to be a genre classic.

It's too bad that an original idea comes to Hollywood and and they respond by not giving it a release in theaters and snubbing it. I was very lucky to see it in a theater at all. It really is a shame Hollywood is only pumping out atrocious sequels, remakes, and reinterpretations left and right. I guess seeing indie flicks is the only satisfaction I will be getting anytime soon, for the major studios are filling the theaters with boring horror crapfests!

People all over the webbins have been talking about Trick r Treat for some time now exploring conspiratorial notions on why the film has sat shelved for so long while rhapsodizing about just how well X-Men 2/Superman Returns scribe Michael Dougherty's directorial debut works. Having recently seen the film, I can tell you that I know why the film sat for years: It's one of the more ruthless studio-funded horror films ever made. It's not very gory or explicit at all but it has a truly, deeply, bad attitude. If William Gaines penned morality plays this venomous to hell with the Comics Code. He'd have probably served time. Trick r Treat is overflowing with the kind of anarchic, mean-spirited hilarity that never sits well with the suits.

One of the reasons the film feels so vile is that the people who populate the tale feel so utterly real. It's really hard to explain without spoiling a lot of what makes it work so well, but to give you an idea director Michael Dougherty explained to us that one of the notes he received during the production process was that the children he cast were "too young". Couldn't he make the kids older? Couldn't he cast hotter? That's not to say that elements of the cast aren't flat-out "foxy" (witness the sexi-sexi of Lauren Lee Smith and Rochelle Aytes) but there are sequences in the film that work perfectly because they're not about plasticine twentysomethings. Again I can't explain exactly what I mean without doing you a disservice but when you finally see the film, you'll understand completely.

Trick r Treat has been described in certain quarters as an anthology film but that's not wholly accurate. In truth, the film possesses a non-linear narrative structure it's more a Pumpkin Pulp Fiction than a Creepshow copy (though the EC Comics connection this film shares with Romero's classic make them kindred spirits and a great double bill). The film moves back and forth between tales that, at first, seem to be related only by the presence of the mysterious, malevolent little creature seen in the film's promotional materials. Over the running time, we come to realize that the tiny creeper pops up for a reason and even that detail is something I don't want to spoil for you.

Despite the aforementioned EC Comics vibe (wherein the table-turning reveal that hands the petty thief or adulterous couple their just desserts is par for the course), the twisted twistiness of Trick r Treat still manages to surprise. At different points during the running time, the audience could be heard to speculate on how they felt some swerve might play out very early on, I had an idea of how I thought the tale featuring Dylan Baker should end but I was convinced that there was no way my resolution would fly. That Dougherty was able to do exactly what common sense told me would be excised by an executive before it was ever filmed completely negated my anticipation of the last shot. The sequence ended the only way an understanding of the horror genre dictates it should but instead of feeling "been there, done that" the payoff plays like the reward for sitting through all of the committee-created genre projects that lack the spine to do it right. Another reveal easily the film's most glorious made me feel like a complete idiot. Thinking about it now, I still don't understand why I didn't call it with a chuckle the very moment True Blood's Anna Paquin awkwardly stepped out of her fitting room to face the derision of her friends. At least I wasn't alone by the end of her character's arc, the audience I was part of sat in stunned silence...then burst into reverent applause a response based on elements converging in a perfect storm: a beautifully-shot and edited sequence featuring a fantastic revelation, a flawless mix of practical and computer generated imagery, an awesome character beat and one super-cool line of dialogue. You could sell the film with that single scene...if it didn't give so much away.

The most brilliant thing about Dougherty's film is how it uses Halloween holiday iconography to craft iconic visuals (if the film received the 3,000 screen release it so richly deserved, really cool parents would be dressing their kids up as "Sam" for years). It's Jack O' Lanterns and autumnal golds and vacuformed masks and flame retardant costumes that tie in the back and urban legends and classic monsters and tainted candy and everything else you know and love about October 31st. As so many before me (including Dougherty himself) have said, this is not a film that takes place during Halloween this is a film about Halloween. It's about the reason for the season. Dougherty says his hope was that his film could become a Halloween holiday perennial the one you watch every year. And trust me it is. I'll watch Trick r Treat every CHRISTMAS because the film is a gift.

Jason Pollock

Buy Trick 'r Treat (2009) Now

In October of 2007, a film was briefly marketed and then abruptly shelved by Warner Brothers. The film in question was Michael Dougherty's TRICK `R TREAT, and the theatrical trailer looked promising. Audiences were frustrated when Warner Brothers repeatedly pushed back the release date, and then, without warning, pulled the film completely out of the public eye.

There are a few reasons why this would have happened. For instance, Warner Brothers had just suffered from the box office dud that was SUPERMAN RETURNS, which was directed by Bryan Singer and was written by Michael Dougherty, who eventually helmed TRICK `R TREAT. Both individuals were probably seen as potential risk hazards for executives at Warner Brothers considering the failure of their previous film. Another reason could have been that they simply did not want to compete with the latest SAW-fest. Whatever the case, the people responsible for the marketing of this film should be ashamed very ashamed of themselves. TRICK `R TREAT premiered at several different film festivals, and won the audience award at Screamfest. Harry Knowles and other critics hailed it as one of the greatest Halloween films ever made. With all of the positive hype surrounding the film, no one could quite understand why the good people at WB had remained silent about it.

As of next Tuesday, TRICK `R TREAT will be released...on DVD. Now, there is a stigma attached to straight-to-DVD fare. This is for a reason. Getting a straight-to-DVD release is a bona-fide guarantee that the film sucks. It's never a good sign. However, TRICK `R TREAT is the exception to that rule. Technically, you could say that it doesn't qualify in the S.T.D.V.D. hall of shame simply because it actually screened in theatres, and won awards and critical acclaim, and you'd be right. The film is excellent. It is everything that you would expect it to be and more. It is the little Hallow's Eve indie that could, and has already gained a strong cult following.

What we have here is an homage to eighties horror films, such as CREEPSHOW, TALES FROM THE DARKSIDE: THE MOVIE, and CAT'S EYE. Each film is basically split up into three or four segments, each one telling a different story. TRICK `R TREAT follows this formula, but the narrative structure has more in common with PULP FICTION than anything else. The film is fun. It's not going to keep you up at night, but if you are on its wavelength, you are going to have one hell of a good time! With all of that being said, the film does have it's disturbing moments, but the humor contained within the film tends to balance it all out. We have stories of demons, zombies, werewolves, vampires...we even have a story that centers around an elementary school principal played by Dylan Baker, with just the right amount of creepiness that made his deranged character in HAPPINESS so memorable and disturbing who just so happens to be a serial killer. He knocks off children one by one by poisoning their candy. Afterwards, he proceeds to bury them in his backyard, while his son watches admiringly from the window. Yeah, this segment of the film was pretty controversial, and was probably another factor that caused mainstream film executives to shelve the film.

In short, it's the most fun that I have had with this particular genre in a long time! Both creepy and hilarious at the same time, this film delivers what it promises, and for those of you who have followed the film up until now, I can tell you this: believe the hype, it's all true one of the best Halloween films that I have ever seen. If you love Halloween as much as I do, you'll understand why I loved it so much! Michael Dougherty has given us an instant classic.

Also stars Anna Paquin (THE PIANO, True Blood) and Brian Cox (BRAVEHEART, ADAPTATION).

Read Best Reviews of Trick 'r Treat (2009) Here

I caught Trick `r Treat at the Midwest premiere and was simply blown away. Like most horror fans out there, I have been following this movie since it was first announced and was anxious to see if it could live up to my expectations. And boy did it ever.

Trick `r Treat is a phenomenal movie that captures the spirit of the great `80s horror flicks. It gives us one night of interwoven stories that scare you, make you laugh, make you cry and make you cheer. All the right people get their comeuppance and the viewer is presented with a chewy moral center. The greatest offering Trick 'r Treat has is its heart and honesty. Director Michael Dougherty's passion for the genre bleeds out of the screen and into your heart. This doesn't feel like a photocopied version of what was once great, but instead an original masterpiece that ought to be studied and revered.

I walked out of this movie rejuvenated and filled with wonder. It reminded me of the first time I saw Return of the Living Dead, April Fool's Day, Dolls and so many other classics of the `80s. You see, this isn't gore porn, this isn't a remake, this wasn't originally in a foreign language and this doesn't star the WB actor of the month: THIS IS HORROR! This is a movie that speaks to fans, not one that speaks to our wallets. It speaks to you, not at you.

Now, I don't want to go into a commentary on Hollywood and the way they choose which movies we see, because ultimately, it isn't entirely their fault. We are the ones who spend the money that justifies what they make. If we keep putting money into seeing PG-13 remakes of our favorite horror films from the `80s (and in some cases `90s), it is our fault that they continue making them and watering down the horror gene pool. With the internet, fans have more power than ever to make their voices heard. If we don't fight for the types of movies we want to see, who will? Don't be bullied by Hollywood; fight back. I had never felt the need to really post reviews or opinions before; instead I would commiserate with friends about the inferior products I was being offered. Well, no longer will I passively sit by and watch the genre I love be destroyed. It is up to all of us to make a difference. I can only hope that Trick `r Treat is but the first shot fired in a horror movie revolution.

Want Trick 'r Treat (2009) Discount?

To have just seen this last night and know it has been sitting at Warner Brothers doing nothing for two years is a sad sad thing.I've known about this movie in the vaguest of ways for about two years now.Watching this last night was damn amazing.This really should be seen by people,it is a great anthology of Halloween stories.The group of kids pulling a prank was the highlight.You can understand the way WB was thinking by how the writer/director afterwards said the studio wanted hot 20 somethings instead of real kids.Sometimes thinking about the projects that don't get funded or sit in a vault like this,and then think about the garbage that does come out makes me mad.I can't wait to see this again.

Save 43% Off

Frenzy (1972)

Frenzy was a homecoming of sorts as it was Hitch's first film shot in the UK since he left during the 40's. I would disagree with those who claim that Frenzy can't stand with Hitch's best work; Hitch's droll and dark sense of humor change what could have been a run of the mill thriller into a minor masterpiece. The best bits in Frenzy are every bit as startling and powerful as those in Rear Window, Vertigo and North by Northwest. Although his wife Alma's heart attack couldn't have informed the pre-production stages of the script and film, it certainly had an impact on the atomsphere captured in the film. There is an underlying darkness here only hinted at before (most explicitly in The Birds, Vertigo and Marnie).

The performances are uniformly excellent. The fact that Hitch chose stage actors and lesser known British film actors for this film gives it a bit more grit and reality than his earlier films. Anthony Schaffer's script plays with the routine cliches of suspense films. A number of sequences (including the scene where the murderer is trying to retrieve a bit of incriminating evidence from one of his victims) flirt with sardonic humor. The dialog like most of Hitch's films is outstanding. Here Schaffer, again, turns many of the cliches (some from Hitch's own films) from film dialog into a droll commentary on both the action and the film audience as observers.

The extras included on this DVD are particularly outstanding given the standing this film has with most film buffs. The new interviews with Anna Massey, Jon Finch and others sheds considerable light on Hitch's methods during the making of the film and discounts a number of myths about him (including the idea that he didn't really work much with the actors. While he trusted the actor's instincts he also recognized that a well rehearsed film is akin to a storyboarded film; it's clear that preparation for both aspects were equally important).

Why is this film a "lesser" Hitchcock for most critics? It probably has to do with the more contemporary edge in some of the scenes. Frenzy has more in common with the brutality evident in early Hitchcock classics like Murder than with Rear Window or Shadow of a Doubt (a film that shares a lot of the same themes although Frenzy is a darker, more contemporary take on the same type of story). Frenzy clearly is Hitch's last great film and although it occasionally slips, its best moments are every bit the equal of his best films. On the whole the strengths of Frenzy outweight the weaknesses and make this terrific film a must for Hitch fans. One interesting observation in closing about Frenzy. Everybody points to Hitch's classic films as influencing Brian DePalma. It's clear that DePalma (who had already begun making films prior to 1972)borrowed more from Frenzy than other Hitchcock classics. Even a film like DePalma's Sisters (released the year after Frenzy) owes a great debt to this film.

For the first time in twenty-plus years, Alfred Hitchcock returned to his native England to make what turned out to be his final psychological thriller FRENZY. Despite a series of only modestly successful films since his 1963 triumph with THE BIRDS, Hitchcock had not lost his touch when he was handed Anthony Shaffer's fine screenplay (based on the Arthur LaBern book "Goodbye Picadilly, Farewell Leicester Square"). And although his approach to sex and violence is more explicit here (thanks to the ease in censorship restrictions that happened only a few years before), Hitchcock still delivers a film quite typical of his work--suspenseful, chilling, and often quite funny in a blackly humorous way.

The film revolves around a series of grisly strangulations of women occurring around London that have the police totally baffled. The killer's choice is a necktie, which pretty much leaves the door wide-open, since almost every man there wears a necktie. We are then introduced to Richard Blaney (Jon Finch) an ex-RAF officer and divorcee who has this tendency to drink too often and get a little bit too rough with people, including his ex-wife (Barbara Leigh-Hunt). The only real solace he gets is from his friend Robert Rusk (Barry Foster), a fruits-and-vegetables salesman in Covent Garden. What Finch doesn't realize, however, is that Foster is, in fact, the necktie strangler. And when Leigh-Hunt is found strangled in her office, the police, having interviewed her secretary, who had heard Finch arguing with her violently only half an hour before she was killed, immediately suspect and later arrest Finch, while Foster gets away. But an alert detective (Alec McCowen) suspects that there is something to Finch's story that could prove him innocent of the crimes.

Although it was only a moderate hit here in America, owing to an all-British cast (all of whom are extremely good), and also quite controversial because of the grisly nature of Foster's strangulation of Leigh-Hunt, FRENZY is nevertheless a brilliant movie, far more concise and better plotted than many of today's serial-killer films of this day. Foster's performance is extremely complex; instead of the typical mad-dog killer, he is a suave businessman with a thing for women--for seducing and then strangling them. Finch's performance is, by necessity, less sympathetic so as to keep the audience off-balance, thinking that he is indeed the killer.

And unlike too many pseudo-Hitchcock films of our time, FRENZY has moments of dry British wit and morbid dark comedy. One involves two policemen chatting in a bar about the killings, where one remarks, "We haven't had a good murder since (Agatha) Christie", and that such a spree "is always good for tourism." Another involves Foster having to get an incriminating piece of evidence off of the corpse of one of his female victims in a potato truck--and he has to actually break off her fingers to do it. Hitchcock later said, "The remarkable thing about that scene is how it improved the taste of the potatoes." Still another is McCowen enduring the "gourmet cooking" of his dotty wife (Vivien Merchant).

A superior piece from one of the all-time great directors, a man who was an influence on everyone from DePalma to Spielberg and beyond, FRENZY is a disturbing but always intriguing horror opus well worth re-discovering.

Buy Frenzy (1972) Now

Hitchcock's second last film is a tightly-written, well-acted suspense thriller featuring a luckless and underachieving hero being framed for murder, a cunning and psychotic villain whose murderous itinerary is detailed, a gritty and realistic directorial style from Hitch, a story set in a working-class milieu that is far apart from the glamorous and exotic settings of his earlier films, and one horrific murder scene in which the depiction of brutality and evil reached a new height for the director. This film is quite a world apart from the elegant, smooth, urbane suspense pictures he made in the 40s and 50s. But with the increasingly jaded audiences in the 70s, the change was probably inevitable. Still, Hitchcock's craftsmanship made FRENZY as exciting and memorable as his more traditional thrillers.

This DVD from MGM/UA presents the film in a new, widescreen video transfer and a Dolby Digital monophonic sound track. The picture looks a bit dark for my liking; unfortunately there is no "color bars" on the disc for me to test the display. Colors are bright and realistic, however. The audio is bright and sharp.

There is an original 45-minute 'Making-Of' documentary that features new interviews of actors Jon Finch, Barry Foster, and Anna Massey, a theatrical trailer (showing Hitchcock floating on the Thames), 100 or so B&W production photos, and the usual "production notes" and "cast biographies".

Read Best Reviews of Frenzy (1972) Here

Think about this.The man was 70 when he directed it---6000 miles away from home.For someone who had enjoyed the comfort and routine of shuttling each day from Universal to Bellagio Road for the last twenty years,this was pretty radical---and it couldn't have been any picnic sitting all day on those wet,chilly London streets either. I never appreciated all of this at the age of 21 when I was running "Frenzy" as a 16mm college rental.At that time,I enjoyed a good,tense---maybe not top drawer,but certainly up to standard---Hitchcock thriller.Having seen it many times in the intervening years, I have modified my opinion---"Frenzy" is a GREAT Hitchcock thriller.I won't say "one of his best",because how much room do we have in a pantheon that includes "Shadow Of A Doubt","Notorious","Strangers On A Train" and so many others?Let's just say that "Frenzy" is utterly different from the rest----another bold stroke from a director who was always ahead of the cutting edge. It's also one of the wittiest pictures ever made---funnier than any one of a hundred celebrated comedies I can think of.Anthony Shaeffer had a lot to do with that---he was the writer---and it's a masterful job he turned in---if only these two could have done a whole series of thrillers together!Besides the well-known set-pieces(the potato truck,the back-tracking shot from Barry Foster's doorway,etc.),there are so many wonderful little throwaway moments to treasure---Jon Finch stepping on the grapes,Foster picking his teeth with the tie pin---so many priceless details.Hitchcock obviously loved being in that Covent Garden---it's teeming with moving crates of fruits and vegetables---people hiding out among the deliveries,casually picking samples and eating---it's all so relaxed and evocative---you feel as though you're right there in the bustle of a typical London day. It's great that Hitchcock was able to share such a vivid and colorful homecoming with us---the fact that it's such a marvellously grisly and twisted ride is like the icing on the cake.Yes,the first rape/murder scene is truly disturbing,and I wish he'd toned it down,but Hitchcock was clearly pushing the limits here---releasing a few of those demons that had been pent-up through so many of the code-compliant pictures he'd made for so many years.It's a lapse in taste,but I've forgiven it.There's so much to love in "Frenzy",it's hard not to---besides,you've all got fast-forward buttons.MCA should release this on DVD---truly a buried treasure among Hitchcock classics.

Want Frenzy (1972) Discount?

Everyone who's seen a lot of Hitchcock and read up on him has their favorite Hitch film, and then they have the one which isn't quite their favorite, but which they feel has been criminally neglected in the general consensus. For me, Frenzy is that second film. For some reason, this late-life thriller has never been accorded much respect (most people haven't even heard of it), but it's one of his most well-crafted and cohesive films, without the demure hesitancy which makes Shadow of a Doubt and Strangers on a Train less effective now, and with a great sense of purpose that keeps the audience focused. Even classics like Vertigo have a tendency to drift and lose the audience, I think; in Frenzy, everything is succint and to the point. Hitchcock also finally found the nerve to show murder onscreen, and its occurence is as brilliant as anyone would expect. A cast of relative unknowns deliver excellent performances, particularly the rough-around-the-edges 'hero.' This is beside the point, of course, but I love the way he rolls his R's 'Rrrrrrrrusk!' Another thing I appreciate is that Hitchcock seems to have lost some of his obsession with unreal beauty. There are no polished Cary Grants or dreamlike Grace Kellys in the lower-middle-class world of Frenzy, giving it a terrific gritty reality; here are ugly men and women doing (and suffering) ugly deeds. Some people, discussing this film with me, have pointed out that it may have been the time frame which made the movie seem so realistic after all, that was more the style in the seventies, when it was made. I don't think so, however, when you consider that he followed Frenzy with the funny but airheaded Family Plot, which is as unlike Frenzy as apples and potatoes. Finally, the role that food plays as a motif and symbol is wonderful, totally relevant to the film. This is Hitchcock's underrated masterpiece, period.

Save 43% Off

The Company (2007)

Robert Littell's The Company is a massive novel that follows the history of the CIA from post WWII to the end of the cold war. As long as three books, this novel is rich and full of characterization. So it's obvious that any such book would be hard to bring to the screen, large or small. The TNT TV version, at around 4 1/2 hours, tried hard, but didn't do justice to the book. It sometimes seems like an outline of the book, and so much is left out, that the action moves too quickly, changing locations and characters, making it hard to follow. This is more so in the early part of the series; the last 1/3 focuses on a more limited situation, the attempt to find a CIA mole.

Suffering from overbearing music that is way too loud in the early parts (which makes you wonder why the music was toned down so much in the last third), and characters who are supposed to age about thirty years, but look only a few years older, The Company is, nevertheless, good TV. It will keep your attention, and the intrigue is interesting, but be prepared to give it a chance; it's hard to follow at the beginning. The acting is good, the sets and locations interesting, and the plot good vs evil works well, especially since we already know who won the cold war.

But if you like this mini-series, do read the book it is probably the best spy novel I've ever read, and is so much more interesting than this over-short TV version. No film could do it justice, but I can't help but think that a couple more hours could have saved this from its weaknesses.

Years ago I gave up the spy novel for the crime novel, so I was hesitant to spend six hours in front of the tube to watch this miniseries. I was pleasantly suprised. Addicted, actually! Hyped for more! Great acting, photography and directing. Michael Keaton was AMAZING in his depiction of James Angleton.

Sign me up for the DVD.

Buy The Company (2007) Now

Sometimes it's all about the competition. If you have read The Company, you probably agree that it is a wonderful book. To say that a book that is almost 900 pages long ends too soon is saying a lot. But there is a lot good to say about The Company. And a lot in the 900 page book that is not going to make it to the screen in four and a half hours of run time.

So, if you compare the mini-series to the book, this probably gets three stars, notably for a few key changes to the plot, several omissions due to run time limits, and the problem of portraying characters who age by 40 years visually. (Yes, the music is annoying in the first episode, but it isn't that bad.)

However, if you compare to most other mini-series, this is close to five stars. After all, it starts off with a tremendous plot line and story. It does a great job of shooting realistically in foreign locales (Berlin and Budapest are done really well). And Molina and Keaton do a superb job with their characters. Keaton in particular goes to a whole new level in his portrayal of James Jesus Angelton, the real-life head of counter-intelligence in the CIA. The performances of these two actors alone make this DVD worth watching.

Sadly, Chris O'Donnell playing the main character is not up to what his two peers deliver. He just a great job as the 'Hail, fellow, well met!' Yalie, but just does not seem to ever grow or learn as he gets older. Having watched first hand the US betray their promises to the Hungarian freedom fighters in their 1956 revolt, he seems utterly surprised (first hand again) 5 years later that the US leadership does it again to the Cuban rebels on the Bay of Pigs. Some of this is the fault of the script writer, who otherwise has done a good job, but some of it is O'Donnell himself. I completely forgot that Keaton once played Batman in a movie. I was reminded often that O'Donnell played Robin. Keaton's growth as an actor over almost 30 years is remarkable. O'Donnell has stuck to what he does. Nothing wrong with that, but it means he is miscast.

But, if you like mini-series, or want to learn about the CIA and can't face up to 900 pages, The Company is recommended strongly. And if you really like the book and would like to see it visualized for you, it is a real treat.

Read Best Reviews of The Company (2007) Here

First of all, I actually enjoyed this mini-series, which, as has been noted, is elegantly produced and, on the whole, well acted. The costumes and settings are also excellent and evocative of the period. Michael Keaton is especially good in the role of chain-smoking James J. Angleton. And Tom Hollander, who seems to be making a career playing various Cambridge spies (He still has to play Maclean, Cairncross, and Blunt [which will require a real suspension of disbelief].), is brilliant (as usual) in the role of Philby (whom the writers have coyly called by one of his middle names, Adrian, so that viewers who may be only vaguely familiar with the early history of CIA will not guess he is Kim, the British Soviet Mole). Hollander plays the spy with understated charm, and his suggestion of Philby's stammer never slips into parody.

Good points being acknowledged, I now come to various aspects that have been already stated in other reviews: the overproduced music (which sometimes drowns out crucial dialogue); the handsome but rather wooden hero, who ages twenty years only in the steel color of his hair; and the confusing flashbacks, which cloud the narrative. As one who is fairly familiar with the historical background, I was also annoyed by details, which I admit are picky: if the heroes graduated in the Yale class of 1954 (as has been indicated), Philby, along with Burgess, had vacated Washington in 1951; by 1954, Burgess was in Moscow and Philby was being interrogated in London, cleared, and rehired by SIS and sent to Beirut under cover as a foreign correspondant, so there is no way that the young Yalies would have been in on the Philby debacle (One of them is depicted as delivering whisky and other goodies to him in Washington.). I think I prefer the "Good Shepherd's" solution of giving real people false names [We still knew that Matt Damon was Angleton!]. Then, none of these plot points would make the slightest bit of difference.

Again, I enjoyed the mini-series, which, under the aegis of Ridley Scott, sticks to standards that are much higher than the usual U.S. television fare. I did not think the series was as bad as some reviewers have judged it, but then, I think it could have been far better with a little more planning and a lot more editing.

Want The Company (2007) Discount?

The Company is an epic mini-series, and if that sounds like an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, or military intelligence, then that is a fitting tribute to its subject: The Central Intelligence Agency. The Company is about the CIA and it covers a span of 40 years -focusing mainly on the Cold War, and three men who meet on a rowing team while attending Yale: Jack McCauliffe (Chris O'Donnell) and Leo Kritzky (Alessandro Nivola) go to work for the CIA, while Yevgeny Tsipin (Rory Cochrane) is recruited by the Soviets as a spy.

Jack is assigned to the Berlin office under Harvey Torriti (Alfred Molina), known as The Sorcerer. Jack falls for the first asset he handles, a ballerina with the code name Rainbow. My favorite line is when the Soviet agent threatens him with the revelation that they've seen the two together at the opera, he responds with "It was the ballet" before opening fire. Her cover was blown by a mole and she shoots herself to avoid capture. He is shattered by her death and haunted by wondering if her identity had been given up by The Sorcerer as a "barium meal" to flush out a mole. Just as barium is used as an X-ray radiocontrast agent for imaging the human gastrointestinal tract, information is released that a mole, or a double agent, will act on, and if so, then the identity of the mole is revealed. Did The Sorcerer use the ballerina, Rainbow, as a Barium Meal? Jack goes on to other adventures, notably the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and The Bay of Pigs.

Meanwhile, Yevgeny Tsipin leads an outwardly quiet life as a liquor delivery man, but in actuality, he is passing secrets to the Soviets. He listens to a radio broadcast, and whenever he hears a quote from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, or Through the Looking-Glass, he knows to pay attention to the winning lottery numbers. He subtracts the lottery numbers from the serial number of a bill, revealing a phone number. Rory Cochrane does a good job as Yevgeny.

The Company covers quite a bit of territory, but there is so much to tell in a history of the CIA. There is almost "an embarrassment of riches" -too much to tell even for a 6 hour + mini-series. Since the decision of what to leave in and what to leave out will almost certainly reveal the biases of the director and the editor, and when you are talking about a controversial subject like the history of the CIA it is impossible not to have biases, I think they have put out a fairly objective, though dramatized, version of the truth. Lefties will think it is too right wing nutty, and conservatives will say it is too leftist. It does question a lot of actions that were taken, but you might also come away with a new respect for the CIA, knowing what they were up against.

Jack, Harvey, Leo, and Yevgeny are all fictional characters, but James Angleton, played very well by Michael Keaton, was a real person, and quite a colorful one. Keaton even had to tone him down a bit, as he was such an unusual and complicated creature. Like the fictional characters from the rowing team Angleton also went to Yale, but instead of rowing he was a poet and, as a Yale undergraduate, editor of the literary magazine Furioso, which published William Carlos Williams, e.e. cummings and Ezra Pound. While at Yale he was trained in The New Criticism and influenced by William Empson, author of 7 Types of Ambiguity. One of his teachers was Norman Holmes Pearson, a founder of American Studies.

During the Second World War Angleton served under Pearson in the counter-intelligence branch (X-2) of the Office of Strategic Services, in London, where he met the famous double agent H.A.R. ("Kim") Philby. Later, they would work particularly closely in Washington as Kim Philby, being groomed to head MI-6, was also in Washington, and Angleton was the head of Counterintelligence Staff at the CIA. They had regular lunches together until Philby was exposed as a spy for the Soviets.

Michael Keaton puts in a brilliant performance, covering all 7 Types of Ambiguity. As Angleton searches for "Sasha," a second mole described by a Soviet defector, you are never sure if he is paranoid, brilliant, or both. There is a very good scene where he talks to Jack McCauliffe about deception while tending his orchids. Orchids, you see, practice deception in order to get bees to pollinate them. Orchids also require infinite patience to cultivate, something Angleton has in abundance.

"Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State."

~ James Jesus Angleton (1917-1987)

As he searched for more moles, he gleaned from the defector that the KGB was not only gathering information from the moles, but also planting false information manipulating the CIA to unwittingly assist the KGB in its objectives.

Angleton extrapolated from this his theory of a "wilderness of mirrors," (a reference to line 65 of T. S. Eliot's poem "Gerontion"), which proposed that the KGB was capable of manipulating the CIA to believe what it desired, and that the CIA could neither identify nor defend itself from this manipulation.

How should I use them for your closer contact?

These with a thousand small deliberations

Protract the profit of their chilled delirium,

Excite the membrane, when the sense has cooled,

With pungent sauces, multiply variety

In a wilderness of mirrors. What will the spider do,

Suspend its operations, will the weevil

Delay? De Bailhache, Fresca, Mrs. Cammel, whirled

Beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear

In fractured atoms. Gull against the wind, in the windy straits

Of Belle Isle, or running on the Horn,

White feathers in the snow, the Gulf claims,

And an old man driven by the Trades

To a sleepy corner.

~ Excerpt from Gerontion, Poems. 1920. by T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

The 2006 film The Good Shepherd is loosely based on Angleton's life and his role in the formation of the CIA.

The term Angletonian is an adjective used to describe something conspiratorial, overly paranoid, bizarre, eerie or arcane.

A Scanner Darkly (2006) .... Rory Cochrane was Charles Freck

Spider-Man 2 (Widescreen Special Edition) (2004) .... Alfred Molina was Doc Ock / Dr. Otto Octavius

Frida (2002) .... Alfred Molina was Diego Rivera

Chocolat (2000) .... Alfred Molina was Comte Paul de Reynaud

Batman & Robin (1997) .... Chris O'Donnell was Robin / Dick Grayson

Dazed & Confused (Widescreen Flashback Edition) (1993) .... Rory Cochrane was Ron Slater

Scent of a Woman (1992) .... Chris O'Donnell was Charlie Simms

Batman (Two-Disc Special Edition) (1989) .... Michael Keaton was Batman / Bruce Wayne

Beetlejuice (1988) .... Michael Keaton was Beetlejuice

Night Shift (Keep Case) (1982) .... Michael Keaton was Bill Blazejowski

"Who am I then? Tell me that first, and then,

if I like being that person, I'll come up: if not, I'll stay down here

till I'm somebody else"

~ Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

Save 44% Off

Last Action Hero (1993)

I think I know why this film was so poorly received and tanked at the box office. It was TOO "inside". Much of this film is a series of jokes about the standard, conventional, formulaic, bombastic action film genre. But the humor was so tongue-in-cheek so often that it probably didn't bode well with the average action-junkie film fan. "Last Action Hero" made fun of itself as it unfolded, and one would need a certain sense of humor to fully appreciate it on its intended level. I dare say that most folks who went to this film just didn't "get it". Too bad for them.

The major flaw of the DVD is that the film is presented in the god-awful Pan and Scan format. Pan and Scan presentations of frenetically-shot widescreen films should be outlawed, it's just that simple. You almost get a headache watching this P&S version. The digital pan is so obtrusive and distracting that it can drive one to anger! It pulls you out of the film, to say the least. I like (but don't really love) this film, and the low price of the DVD makes the purchase a no-brainer. But it is too optically uncomfortable to watch in P&S.

Release it in widescreen and all will be okay.

It's sad to think that 18 years after its release Last Action Hero is still trying to find its target audience. Audiences don't like smart movies. Or perhaps I should say audiences don't like to be OUTSMARTED by movies. In the summer of 1993 the world was going crazy for a certain dinosaur movie, almost everything else didn't stand a chance. LAH came out a week after Jurassic Park. The only people who really went to see it were those who were too late for sold-out screenings of Spielberg's movie. Bad word of mouth spread for many reasons.

Those lucky enough to actually see it on the big screen walked away confused and disorientated. They thought they were in for a straight-up action movie, not an existential, meta-fictional parody of the genre they cherish. It was just too much and they weren't ready for it. Arnold had been riding the wave of Total Recall and Terminator 2 before the release of Last Action Hero, no one expected such a radical deviation from the norm.

Danny Madigan is a lonely kid living in a tiny New York apartment with his single MILF. His only friend is Nick, an old-time projectionist at a run down theater (a REAL theater, no multiplex nonsense). Danny likes to escape into the world of action movies, his biggest hero, obviously, being Arnie himself. The latest Arnie blockbuster, the simply-titled Jack Slater IV, is a day away from its premiere, and old Nick has been tasked with checking the print. Before Danny sits down for his own personal pre-premiere midnight screening Nick gives him a magical ticket he's been saving since childhood. Five minutes after Jack Slater IV begins Danny is warped into the cinema screen and becomes part of the movie.

In the movie world Danny quickly learns that the laws of physics and simple logic don't apply (how often has THAT proven to be true?). He's partnered with Slater, a renegade L.A. cop and the absolute zenith of action hero stereotypes, to find who killed his favorite second-cousin Frank (BIG MISTAKE!). Danny and Slater smash their way into a hokey, James Bond-ish plot, though it's not long before suave English henchman Mr. Benedict discovers Danny's secret and plans to escape to the real world. Danny and Slater follow, but Slater's movie-world abilities are rendered useless in reality. Doubt begins seep in for the first time as he ends up questioning his powers as a good cop.

Last Action Hero scores huge points all round. It's technically wonderful, with gorgeous anamorphic Panavision photography full of wide angles and lens flares. The writing is sharp is funny. Arnie is great as an infallible hero in crisis as well as making fun of his screen persona. And the action, both fictional and meta-fictional, is wild, overblown, and exciting. I just love Slater's huge fall from the elevator.

It's interesting to note that it has a lot in common with Loaded Weapon, which came out earlier that year. Both are send-ups of the 'L.A. cop movie' genre, both star F. Murray Abraham in supporting roles. Both feature Frank McRae as a screaming Lieutenant. Both have obvious Die Hard references (also directed by the infamous John McTiernan).

The bad reputation is unjustified. The financial loss was a mistake entirely on Sony's part and their lack of foresight into the 1993 summer season. Last Action Hero and Jurassic Park went head-to-head with their advertising but the dinosaur movie's marketing campaign was just too groundbreaking. They also competed with each other on a technical level. JP was the first film to feature DTS sound, while Last Action Hero was the first to feature SDDS (Sony Dynamic Digital Sound), an eight-channel system that delivers every decibel of Slater's big gun and the multiple explosions of his daily life.

It may be a satire, but Last Action Hero just may be one of the last true action films. Real stunts, real explosions, real destruction, reality gone twisted. It's Arnold's most subversive movie, and it's many things, but bad ain't one of them.

The Blu Ray features a great 2.35:1 1080p picture with a loud DTS HD-MA soundtrack. Zero extras are included. Sony seems to still be ashamed of the film. The hate is not deserved.

Buy Last Action Hero (1993) Now

This is one of those movies that a lot of people that haven't seen it say, "That movie wasn't really that good, was it?" but those that have seen it, say, "Why wasn't this movie more popular?" Maybe it was bad timing, or as some others suggested, just not correctly billed to the public.

Last Action Hero is hard to describe. It's funny, it's witty, with lots of those one-liners that Arnold became so popular with, and I loved the way he constantly poked fun at his fictional character as well as his "real" self. Some of my favorite dialogue in the movie is when the kid is trying to convince "character Arnold (aka: Jack Slater)" that he's actually just a character in a movie. The kid starts asking about phone numbers and how can they possibly all start with 555in a city with several million phone numbers, when Jack Slater exasperatedly says, "That's why we have Area Codes..." Priceless. The movie is full of fun stuff like that, and I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is even remotely a Schwarzenegger fan, or who just like campy, yet intelligent, movies. The parody within a parody, and movie within a movie actually worked well in this one.

I thought the movie had a lot of great character performances, and clever scripting, and I think this movie got a bum rap. It's really a great movie, I'm glad I bought the DVD. The transfer is a little sloppy in places on the one I bought, but since it's a "Special Anniversary Edition", I have a feeling that had something to do with it. There's only a fullscreen version on my DVD, no widescreen, and the camera pans are really noticeable in a few places.

Read Best Reviews of Last Action Hero (1993) Here

The following story will tell you why this movie bombed at the box office.

While visiting family in Miami one of my cousins went to see the movie. When he got home he was telling me how much the movie stunk. As he was talking it became obvious to me that he had taken the movie seriously. So I yelled at him "It's a parody!! He's making fun of action movies in general and himself in particular!!" I could see the lightbulb go on over his head and he went right out and saw it again.

Needless to say, he loved the film. As do I. It's not often that a big star has the guts to make fun of himself just to make his fans laugh. So if you have this film languishing in your collection somewhere you need to see it with this in mind. It's parody. Satire. Comedy! Watch it and have fun.

Want Last Action Hero (1993) Discount?

This is a resoundingly misunderstood film. Probably the finest parody ever made of the action genre as a whole; this film mocks the absurd excesses that most summertime action blockbusters indulge in. The script is clever enough to divide itself between the dark brutality of the real world and the campy superficiality of Hollywood. It revels in poking fun of the very films that have made Arnold Schwarzenegger (in?)famous.

The world outside the silver screen is filled with stark reminders of how un-Hollywood life is. There is crime, bullets hurt good people, and extras that are killed have families they've left behind. Young Danny (Austin O'Brien) loves film more than anything else. He attempts to put aside the problems of his life in live in the world that Hollywood has created for him. His favorite indulgence is the Jack Slater series of films. They star Arnold Schwarzenegger as the title-hero, a cop modeled after the cloned result of Dirty Harry and Rambo. Slater is a smooth operator who never makes a wrong step and never fails to land on his feet. He is essentially everything that Danny, and in reality most children, wish they could be. When he is given a magical movie ticket by Nick the friendly pathetic mildly wise projectionist at his favorite theater, Danny is transported beyond his world into that of his hero, Jack Slater. He is quickly engulfed in one of the most entertaining action sequences ever put to film. It is the crystallization of the genre where there is unexplained action and unnecessary and unequal reaction. A car explodes because another car goes near it. A would-be assassin is thrown from his perch atop a moving truck into a parked ice-cream truck that then explodes. A truck explodes in the air for no good reason, and meanwhile, all the women are attractive (by Hollywood standards). They move from action sequence to action sequence, all of which are completely superfluous and equally delightful. Anyone who has ever made fun of, or rightly criticized, the films of Jerry Bruckheimer would find this work profoundly amusing. On screen, Slater and Danny must confront the cycloptic henchman Benedict (Charles Dance) and his benefactor Vivaldi (Anthony Quinn) in order to stop a takeover the SoCal black market and to extract revenge for the killing of Slater's favorite second cousin. This plot of course, is secondary to the parody. It moves well and revels in its self-justifying fictional world where a cartoon cat can be a cop, because it's normal there.

The other side of the screen is filmed with dim lighting and always hinting at danger beneath the surface. Danny's mom (Mercedes Ruehl) is a widow who struggles to support her child both materially and emotionally. She works the unglamorous midnight shift. Nick is a washed-up never-was who had dreams of another career and justifies compromises he has made to his goals by referring to his job in the manner, "Hey, it's still show business." When Slater enters this world, and gets shot, not only do the bullets hit him, but they cause more than flesh wounds. In the "real world" the on-screen villains can take advantage of corrupt systems to come out on top.

This film parodies not only action heroes and the action genre, but also bad scripts. Danny knows not only what has already happened in the movie, he can accurately predict the next steps of the transparent plot of the action film he was watching and then participates in. The film makes groan-inducing puns and points them out. The film points out how action films sometimes modify classics to fit into modern pop culture. This movie could have been a bit shorter and could have done without some of the melodrama in the "real" world. But those are miniscule flaws next to the eminently enjoyable rest of the film.

Save 25% Off

For Your Eyes Only (2012)

THE MOVIE

There wasn't much further 007 could go as far as sci-fi wizardry and fantastic characters after the cartoonish MOONRAKER that had seen James Bond propelled into space.

What was called for was a `back to basics' approach that emphasized realism, exotic locations, less gadgetry, down to earth villains and a return to the ruthlessness that Roger Moore had exhibited in movies such as THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. What better way for the filmakers to return Bond to his roots than to tap into original Fleming source material.

Taking characters and situations from not only the Fleming novel FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, but also the keel-hauling sequence from LIVE AND LET DIE writers Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson wove together a complex and enticing cold war spy drama that included some of the staple setpieces underwater and on the slopes that had served the character so well in the past.

As the late John Brosnan noted in his review of the movie this production is essentially one long chase, but in the one solitary tip of the hat to the fantastic plots of the previous two movies, here the stakes could not be higher. Those stakes are the fate of all the British nuclear missiles in the polaris fleet. Forget the kidnapping of a few nuclear warheads in previous movies, here the balance of nuclear brinksmanship is at risk and ultimately the fate of the world.

This movie sports several of my favorite characters from the entire EON canon. Topol plays a brilliant, amiable Greek smuggler named Columbo and the good natured trust and friendship between him and Roger Moore's James Bond is clearly evident in every scene they share together. Noted British television actor Julian Glover plays Greek mercenary and chief villain Kristatos and I love the understated mannerisms and menace that literally oozes from every line. The movie also has one of the series most beautiful women with the appealing Carole Bouquet and this particular Bond fan had a huge crush on Lynn Holly Johnson who portrayed the chipper Bibi Dahl. Add these elements together and place it against the backdrop of the Italian Alps and the Adriatic and you have one of the best entries in the series.

THE DVD

This DVD was one of the first wave of the newly refurbished Bond DVDs (most had previously been released in the snapper cases). Arriving in stores in Oct. 1999 I quickly snatched them up and devoured them.

Whereas the later two sets all had DVDs with two documentaries on them this one has just the one on the Making of the movie. For Bond fans this is a true treat because we get to see new on camera interviews with the likes of Rick Sylvestor, Topol and Lynn Holly Johnson. Narrated by Patrick MacNee it's both breezy and fascinating.

With only the one documentary and the standard selectioon of trailers, music and radio spots, we do have two audio commentaries (rather than the one that appeared in the later sets). Unfortunately these are the spliced together kind which means that often what the interviewees are talking about is not relevant to what is playing out on screen. Whereas this means we get a lot of information it does tend to get a bit dry and I would have preferred a scene specific track with participants sitting together in a studio discussing the movie as it plays.

Still...this is a great movie and the packaging isn't too shabby. For the time (late 1999) these DVDs were viewed as on-top as far as special features go because at that time most movies being released were bare-bones editions.

Highly recommended.

UPDATEIt should be noted that there is a rerelease of this movie coming up on DVD which will feature a newly recorded scene specific audio commentary by Bond actor Roger Moore. So, it may well be worth holding off on a purchase until these Ultimate Editions are released towards the end of 2006.

After MOONRAKER's excesses, it was a wise decision to bring Bond back to earth, and back to basics with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. FYEO features one of the best casts of any of the Bond films, including standout performances from Topol (playing one of the most likeable rogues in all of the Bond films), Julian Glover, and one of the best (and most beautiful) Bond women of all in Carole Bouquet. Lynn-Holly Johnson IS a little annoying as a spoiled young olympic hopeful, but the character is SUPPOSED to be annoying, so she actually was a bit of inspired casting. The story brings Bond back to the style of the films of the 60's, as Bond once again squares off with the Soviets in a race to recover a sensitive piece of computer equipment. Roger Moore gives his best performance as Bond in FYEO, as we finally see him show some toughness as well as his suave sophistication. Humor is present, but not so much as to distract from the film. The pre-credits sequence is a fun bit of tongue-in-cheek action, but a little out of sync with the rest of the movie (although the opening with Bond placing flowers on his wife's grave is touching). The special features on this DVD are (as usual with a Bond Special Edition) outstanding. Multiple trailers, documentaries, audio commentary from Director John Glen (probably the best Bond Director!) and Executive Producer Michael G. Wilson & menbers of the crew, radio commercials, and more, make this one of the most complete DVD packages around. Not to be missed! If you are a James Bond fan, or just like good Action-Adventure movies you really should add FYEO to your DVD collection.

Buy For Your Eyes Only (2012) Now

The new range of special edition DVD versions of the Bond films are being released in groups from 1999-2002, and fortunately this fine effort was in the first batch. Others have remarked on what most fans regard as the very best of the Moore Bonds, and I won't dispute them here. From it's nifty nod to the George Lazenby performance in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" to the fine ensemble acting, to the sheer style of the non-traditional ending, FYEO succeeds because it marks one of the few times the producers took special pains to incorporate Fleming into the script. For that effort, a full five stars are well-deserved.

Where this product fails, however, is in living up to the standards this Special Edition series has set for itself. Like other entrants in this series, FYEO has audio commentaries by the filmmakers. As with all the Special Editions, the Ian Fleming Society, perhaps the most 'serious' of the Bond Fan Clubs, provides a narrator who ties together the sometimes meandering recollections of various memebers of the cast and crew. Unfortunately on this outing, the narrator's voice is heard far more than the filmmakers', and what the narrator has to say is often inane.

For instance, something on the order of five minutes is given to a painfully detailed discussion of the Citroen car used in the chase scene, and its place in 20th century Europe. Interesting stuff for trivia buffs, but it hardly lends useful, direct information about the film itself.

Frequently, too, the narrator seems eager to do rather arbitrary comparisons between this Bond and another. It's interesting, in its way, but it prevents us from hearing primary source information from the filmmakers.

Worse, there are very few times where the audio commentary actually speaks about the action on the screen. Oh, to be sure, you find out how certain stunts were effected, but whole scenes go by without comment on either track.

This goes in stark contrast to the much superior "Thunderball SE", wherein the extra material truly amplifies your enjoyment of the film.

Having said all this, of course, I would still recommend that you buy this version of the film over any other. It does uncover some of the mysteries of the production. But it's probably not where you want to start if you're a student of the filmmaking process. Far better in this series for its depth of commentary is "Thunderball" or even "License to Kill"--even though both are actually less enjoyable films than FYEO.

Read Best Reviews of For Your Eyes Only (2012) Here

This was Roger Moore's best effort in the series (even better than The Spy Who Loved Me). I rank it in the top 3 of the entire Bond series(along with From Russia With Love and Goldfinger). Moore plays the role not only with his usual humor but in this particular movie he seems to have a dark side to him in a few scenes (not seen since Connery). The story is very believable, the characters are very believable. After Moonraker the Producers went back to more of a film that was not reliant on special effects, It was a very good move, I think that with Moore's acting and the less reliance on the gadgets make this particular film very memorable. Only nitpick I have with it are the prime minister and his side-kick who take the place of M. After this film there was a 6 year wait for another good Bond Film (Living Daylights). Octopussy was decent but should have been Moore's last effort and A View to a Kill was just god awful (Not Moore's fault though). This film should be considered the definer of Moore's legacy, not either of the last two which is what so-called critics have a great tendency to do. A definite must have and own for any Bond fan and any fan of action/spy movies

Want For Your Eyes Only (2012) Discount?

Roger Moore is at his absolute best in this top-notch action hit. The thing I like most, aside from the splendid acting by Moore and all the rest is the fact that the plot doesn't rely on a mad super criminal.

Rather it involves Bond in a race for ATAC, a powerful system that will give the bearer unlimited control over Polaris Nuclear Submarines. The plot is simple and self explanitory. In the race for ATAC, there's no silver medal for finishing second.

Lacking extremely explosive end-of-the-movie action scenes as in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and others, the movie departs from this trend and features a cliffhanging assault on a mountaintop fortress.

A top notch Bond movie, it's a must see for Bond buffs and novices alike.

Save 15% Off

TAE GUK GI-BROTHER HOOD OF WAR (Blu-Ray)

I thought this movie was very good. It has its flaws (which I will get into later), but overall, it's a very well done piece of cinema. This film, along with many others is proof that Korean movies, and by extension Asian movies, have grown up and are ready to seriously compete with Hollywood for global influence, audience and market share. I am impressed with Tae Guk Gi's attention to detail, special effects, cinematography and other high production standards.

Now, enough people here give you a quick synopsis of the story and adequate description of the plot, so what I am going to do is respond to some of the comments that other reviewers have made. I think my input might be helpful be cause I am a Korean raised in North America and can understand both worlds and explain things that were either misinterpreted or not clearly understood by non-Korean reviewers.

Some non-Korean reviewers have commented that it seemed like there was some over acting or acting "over the top" going on. Well, believe it or not, Koreans act like that in real life. They are emotional by nature, yell at each other a lot, slap around their younger peers, etc. Jin Sok and Jin Tae's mother collapsing after the train departs looks like something a Korean mother would do in that situation. What some non-Koreans would consider as "overacting" I would, as someone from a Korean background, consider realistic and normal (give the extreme situations that the characters go through). Anyone who thinks overacting is purposely going on in this movie needs to join the peace corp or something and get exposed to other cultures in different parts of the world.

One reviewer thought that Koreans fought unusually well given their supposed reputation at the time as poor soldiers. Well yes, South Korean soldiers did run away and retreat from North Koreans early in the war. South Koreans were badly underequipped and poorly trained because the U.S. thought their priorities in 1949 were in rebuilding Japan, not stop communism in the Korean peninsula. It's interesting to note that U.S. soldiers early in the war also broke and fled the field because they were fat and lazy occupation troops formally stationed in Japan. Jin Tae and Jin Sok were in the 1st ROK division commanded by the brilliant 29 year old general Paik Sun Yup. The 1st ROK division never broke or fled the field without orders. It reached Pyongyang before any U.S. units despite the fact that they didn't have as many motor vehicles and was largely a foot mobile unit. Thus, the scenes were ROK troops are fighting without U.S. support in the streets of Pyongyang are largely true. Speaking of General Paik, if any of you want to read a Korean War history book that's from a fair Korean perspective, read Paik's book entitled "From Pusan to Panmunjom." It's available on Amazon.

I understand that this movie has been compared quite a bit with Saving Private Ryan. I have to say that in the areas of intensity, dramatic power and overall sincerity, I believe Tae Guk Gi supasses Saving Private Ryan. However, in terms of battlefield realism and special effects, I believe SPR surpasses TGG. To me, the battlefield effects are a notch below SPR, but a notch above John Woo combat movies like Windtalkers. I mean, molotov cocktails exploding like motar rounds when they should really flash and flame modestly, machine guns blaze without spent cartridges being expended, the tanks look like an inaccurate cross between a Sherman and a Pershing, cannon rounds and grenades alike all seem to have the same size explosions, so on and so forth (btw, Jin Tae does not walk through a hail of gun fire from a "mini-gun". That Russian machine gun is not a gatling-type "mini-gun" it is infact a conventional, single barrel Pulemet Maksima obrazets, vintage World War 1. The cylindrical sleeve is to help keep that single barrel from overheating). Having said that, the battle scenes are nonetheless highly entertaining and better then 90% of all other war movies. However, due to those modest technical slips, I give the movie 4 and not 5 stars.

This 2004 Korean film is about two brothers caught up in the national tragedy of the Korean War. The older brother is large and strong and shines shoes for a living with the hopes of becoming a shoemaker. His younger brother is 18 years old and the pride of the family because he is going to college. We first meet these brothers in a happy time when their future looks bright and the older brother is planning to get married. But suddenly, war is upon them and the family is forced to flee their home in Seoul. The two brothers are forcibly drafted and we soon see them on the battlefield.

The older brother is determined to protect the younger one. He risks his life to go on dangerous missions because he knows that if he receives a medal, the younger brother will be able to get out of the army. The battles are gruesome and real and better than any I have ever seen. I understand that the director accomplished this with a very small budget and I have nothing but applause for him for this effort. There's a human side of every battle, and I felt real emotion watching them.

Somewhere along the line, the older brother turns into a monster of aggression. Not only does he show exceptional bravery, he also shows exceptional cruelty.

This story goes deep into the heart of Korean national identity. Both sides are equally cruel to ordinary villagers who are just trying to survive. But one thing is clear and that is the bond between the brothers even though they eventually wind up in opposing armies. This is a serious film about brotherhood. And it is also a film about Korea. Actually, it helped me understand what is happening there today.

The film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long and it didn't drag for one single moment. Something new is happening constantly, whether it is the relationship between the brothers, the different kinds of battles, or the horror in Seoul when the South Koreans are executing North Korean sympathizes and the brothers see their family involved.

If you hate watching war films, stay away from this one. This is surely one of the bloodiest I've ever seen. But if you are interested in history and in the impact war has on people, this film will help you understand. It might haunt your nightmares, but it is certainly worthwhile. War film buffs especially should make a note not to miss it. Highly recommended.

Buy TAE GUK GI-BROTHER HOOD OF WAR (Blu-Ray) Now

TAE GUK GI (literally translated, is the name of the South Korean Flag) or THE BROTHERHOOD OF WAR is one of the most consistently moving, desperately realistic, harrowingly poignant films about war in the international motion picture repertoire. While many directors and writers have prolifically produced films about the Civil War in the US, World Wars I and II, the Vietnam War, and other wars from other countries, few have touched on the Korean War. Director Kang Je-gyu corrects that omission with this dazzling epic and in doing so, he elects to make the story of that war a tale of two brothers (a metaphor for the North vs. South Korean conflict ignited by the fires of communism versus capitalism).

Jin-tae (the strikingly handsome and fine actor Jang Dong-gun) shines shoes and works at small jobs to encourage his younger brother Jin-seok (the refined and delicate actor Won Bin) to study to go to college to be the saviour of their poor family. The degree of camaraderie of these two brothers is some of the most touchingly portrayed on film. The joy of this South Korean family fills the screen for the first moments of the film, only to change abruptly on June 25, 1950 when suddenly the North Koreans attack at the 38th parallel, forcing communism and death down the throats of the South Koreans. Jin-tae realizes he must join the South Korean army to protect his mistakenly conscripted brother from the horrors of war.

The remainder of the film explores the progress of this war with great detail, leaving no battle untold and visually depicting the atrocities of war more brutally than any other film of this genre. But overriding the visuals of the war is the relationship of the two brothers, their reliance one each other, and the gradual transformation of Jin-tae into a well-trained soldier bent on being a hero to gain medals, for in doing so, he is assured that the younger, worthier Jin-seok can return home to safety.

The poison of war infects Jin-tae's personality and he becomes obsessed with killing, a fact that eventually frightens Jin-seok into believing that his brother's criteria have changed for the worse. The two are split, Jin-seok is mistakenly taken captive as a 'communist sympathizer' when he briefly returns to his home, and when Jin-tae feels he has lost not only his brother's love but that his brother is dead, Jin-tae's rage drives him to join the ranks of the North Koreans.

How the truth of the misinformation that always accompanies war tears at the bond of the brothers is finally resolved in a way that explains the futility and madness of war as clearly as has been captured on film. Credit Director writer Kang Je-gyu and his extraordinary cast and crew with not only making us understand the elusive history of the Korean War, but also the universal lessons that we still fail to recall whenever conflicts merge into warheads.

The DVD is accompanied by a separate disc that includes the 'making of the film' and a lot of the history of the Korean War by scholars and veterans of that war. This is a monumental achievement that deserves as wide attention internationally as it gained upon its release in South Korea in 2004. A tough, yet ultimately tender film, with the sanctity of familial love at its roots. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp, February 2005

Read Best Reviews of TAE GUK GI-BROTHER HOOD OF WAR (Blu-Ray) Here

Nations do not fight wars. Citizens fight them, and these citizens are honorable men and women who serve their country willingly or, as history shows, by decree of a desperate government.

As a result, patriotism has become the unlikeliest casualty. Once welcomed in the trenches of battle, patriotism has lost its limbs, fought back from life support, and suffered shell shock. Once easily recognized, patriotism has become a bit of a chimera, an ideal more easily attached to definable characteristics than it is any single soldier. However, in the bitter end, patriotism is defined by the actions of these individuals who serve; it is rewarded by the nations who sponsor this service; and, more often than not, it is measured in hardships endured.

Such is the complex, ever-changing battleground of writer/director Kang Je-Gyu's "Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War."

In 1950's Seoul, Jin-Seok (Won Bin) and his older brother Jin-Tae (Jang Dong-gun) are enjoying a strong family life of perfect happiness. Suddenly, they find their lives turned upside down as soldiers of the South Korean government seize them all men aged 18 to 30 are taken and they are forced to take up arms despite their lack of training against the approaching North Koreans. On one brutal battlefield after another, the bonds of family are put to increasingly demanding tests as Jin-Tae originally driven by his responsibility to protect his younger brother continues to further exhaust his physical and emotional prowess despite the protests of Jin-Seok. He learns that he is a good soldier, one with a talent for inspiring others as well as an unanticipated thirst for killing the enemy. Eventually, these two brothers once bound by a love for family find themselves at odds within this new brotherhood of war, and the pressures to prove one another continue to exact heavier and heavier tolls as the war escalates. As circumstances evolve, the brothers inevitably find themselves on opposite sides of a losing conflict ... but can either find a path to redemption or reconciliation that can save both of them?

There are many elements of "Taegukgi" that elevate the film from the status of standard war film to a message of hope set against the backdrop of war. The film's scope is grand, dealing with the far more intimate themes of family, brotherhood, and personal responsibility when Director Kang Je-Gyu could have easily opted for banging the drum of nationalism. At its core, "Taegukgi" is the story of two brothers, a strikingly poignant analogy for the entire North Korea / South Korea dilemma. While the battlefield choreography is as frenetic as it is harrowing, it never takes the film's center: this picture is founded on relationships the human perspective to the world outside and it never falters. Instead of focusing on history, Kang Je-Gyu crafts every scene to highlight the thoughts, actions, and emotions of the participants of history, and, for that, "Taegukgi" deserves countless accolades.

Much like exploring the heart of darkness as depicted in American classics as Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" and Oliver Stone's "Platoon," Kang Je-Gyu forces Jin-tae to explore his own budding evil, and this journey is not without its own relative scars. Once a man has crossed over and embraced wartime madness, can he ever truly find a way out? Arguably, if "Taegukgi" suffers from any setback, it is that perhaps Jin-tae goes too far for an audience to accept his madness: believing his brother to have been killed by North Koreans, Jin-tae turns traitor once he is captured and seeks to wipe out every soldier serving South Korea. While the story offers the motivation for so drastic a change, it's hard to believe that the man who once fought so valiantly against the spread of Communism would suddenly choose to embrace it.

Still, it's a small diversion ... but it's necessary to bring the aspect of brotherhood full circle, to have these two unique men face their darkest hour, and to make one final statement on the role that family inevitably plays in every man's life.

Recently, thanks to the worldwide success of "Taegukgi" and 1999's blockbuster "Shiri," Director Kang Je-Gyu has signed an agreement with Hollywood's own powerhouse, CAA, to produce his next film in America. Only time will tell whether or not this agreement will afford some of the "Korean sensibility" to American films, but certainly having one of South Korea's premier directors breaking into the Hollywood film system is a tremendous advantage for fans of international film.

Only the passage of time will earn "Taegukgi" its rightful spot alongside the other great films dealing with the consequences of war.

Want TAE GUK GI-BROTHER HOOD OF WAR (Blu-Ray) Discount?

Once in a while, which in this case has been years, comes a movie that makes me want to rise above the meager existance to be something larger than life, to be part of the movie. This movie did that to me.

It started with the life of two brothers before the war, a life that was almost perfect until the war shatters it. Everything goes downhill from there. Despite all their best intentions, the two brothers helplessly watched their fate sinking and themselves drifting apart. Overall it's a very intense tragedy, dotted with only moments of hope and triumgh.

The unconditional love between the two brothers, tangled with cruelty of war, made the movie so heart-wrenching that it's almost painful to watch. I can't imagine what it feels like to be the little brother who had to carry this for the next 50 years, not knowing where his brother is, and with the pair of shoes to remind him that they had it perfect for a while.

Being a big war-movie fan, I have watched a ton of them. This one is definitely among the best. Comparing to "Saving Private Ryan", this movie gives characters a more human touch. "SPR" seems to moralize too much, no flaws, just hero's. The result is the characters came off plain and two-dimensional. Agree with some reviewer's comments that "SPR almost seems like nothing more than a visually stunning, flag-waving movie". By the way, I am a big fan of Steven Spielburg and Tom Hanks, so there wasn't any bias there. On a side note, "Band of brothers", on the contrary, is very good.

As for special effects, it's good. But we have seen it all in big-budget Hollywood movies, so that's not what made this movie special. It's the intense human emotion made this movie an unforgettable experience. Hats off to Koreans for making such a great epic. I think this one deserve an Oscar. If a movie like "Lord of the Ring" can win something, so should this.

The only complaints that I could think of are: 1. The movie can get quite sentimental from time to time, especially the music during the beginning of the movie. 2. The camera shakes too much during action scenes, probably deliberately, to create the chaos with a limited budget. But I don't have a problem with the length of the movie. The 2.5 hrs felt like nothing once you are drawn into the intensity of the movie. Actually when the movie finished, I wished it didn't have to end, or at least didn't have to end like that.

As for some reviewer shooting down the movie because of a Hershey Bar with barcode, give me a break. I would rather watch a movie like this with 10 bloopers than one that gets all the details right but doesn't touch a soul.

IMHO, Matt Zoller Seitz from New York Press wrote the most accurate review on this movie: "Tae Guk Gi bypasses academic concerns and plugs straight into one's emotions. To watch it is to understand another country's fears and dreams-an opportunity that does not come along every day."

Save 35% Off

Annie (1982)

Well, I think this is a really swell movie. Albert Finney and Carol Burnett crack me up, Aileen Quinn is exactly what Annie should be, and Sandy is perfect.

But WHY OH WHY is this not being offered in a widescreen format? I have yet to see all of "It's a Hard Knock Life" and I know those girls are knocking themselves out offscreen. I've seen this movie on three different media. All were pan and scan, and all three showed different parts of the picture! The worst was a VHS release. (...)

I don't know which is more frustrating about this anniversary dvd, the fact that it doesn't offer widescreen, or the fact that the dvd menu and the special features show the movie clips in widescreen, teasing me with those brief glimpses.

There is no reason that dvd manufacturers shouldn't at least OFFER a widescreen version. Let's get with the 21st century already!

You cannot beat the cast in this movie. It has some of the greats, like Carol Burnett, Bernadette Peters and Tim Curry. That is part of the reason why the Disney version could never compare to this one. Also, Aileen Quinn makes such a great Annie. She really looks spunky. She can look really sweet, but also tomboyish. She can look threatening, like all the times she raises her fists. The girl in the Disney "Annie" looks too sweet. She isn't as convincing when she tries to fight. If you want to watch Annie, this is the version to get.

Buy Annie (1982) Now

I can't help but wonder if ALL the widescreen prints of this movie were destroyed in a warehouse fire. Why would you bother to master another "Special Anniversary Edition" with a new DTS soundtrack and not include a Wide screen version? Especially with more and more widescreen TVs on the market. It is going to look pretty silly in a few years showing this pan and scanned musical on your widescreen TV. While not my favorite movie musical, I would still buy it if they ever have the sense to release it in it's original format! Until then...forget it!

Read Best Reviews of Annie (1982) Here

Many people pass off ANNIE as a children's musical, when in actuality it has one of the most sophisticated scores and the book is of a higher standard than of many other shows. It still holds a record of something like the 8th or 9th longest running show on Broadway, and it is a delight among theatre-goers.

This new Disney version stays faithful to the stage score and script, not like John Huston's rambling version back in 1981 (refer to my review for this), and it is a delight to watch. It has that 'theatrical-style' feel to it.

The esteemed cast, the bulk of which are seasoned Broadway performers, include Kathy Bates as Miss Hannigan, Alan Cumming as Rooster, Audra McDonald as Grace Farrell, Kristin Chenoweth as Lily St Regis, Victor Garber as Daddy Warbucks and the lovely Alicia Morton as Annie. Making a cameo in the 'NYC' number as ''Star To Be'' is (oh happy day) the original Broadway Annie Andrea McArdle.

The cast is sensational, and while I will not bring down the 1981 performers of Carol Burnett, Bernadette Peters and Ann Reinking, they are far more believable in their interpretations.

You must buy this new version of the Broadway smash ANNIE!

Want Annie (1982) Discount?

"Annie" is the original movie based on the highly successful Broadway musical, based on the highly popular comic strip character little orphan Annie. I'm going to refrain from reiterating the story herein, because I have already reviewed the previously issued DVD. Herein, I am taking the opportunity to lambast Columbia Home Video.

TRANSFER: IT'S NOT WIDESCREEN. Enough said! You can't squeeze a 2:35:1 aspect ratio image into a 1:33:1 t.v. screen so you get what film buffs, such as myself, have been screaming about for years a chopped up version of the movie (affectionately known as pan and scan)that in no way captures either the scope of the image or the director's original intent. This short coming alone leads me to fail this DVD on all accounts. That the cropped image is quite often blurry, at times hopelessly out of focus, and truly a weak transfer for its color balancing, contrast and black levels, is inexcusable. I'd really like to know why Columbia decided to re-release this movie on DVD. Certainly, no updates to the image quality have been made and worse still the film is missing 50% of its picture. Misguided doesn't even begin to sum up Columbia's blunders on this disc. Also, the audio remains the same strident mix as before. No audio clean up or noise reduction leads to dialogue sounding way too forward and unnatural, while the songs screech, rather than sing, across your speakers.

EXTRAS: Some, but not enough to make you forget that "Annie" is just about the most miserable looking DVD experience you've seen in a long while.

BOTTOM LINE: To Columbia executives: get a clue! Get a 'really big' clue. To the consumer save your money!

Save 33% Off