Nanny McPhee Returns (2010)

I couldn't have picked a better movie. Snaggle toothed, dreadfully homely, and a wee bit of a woman that can cause even the bravest of souls to wince, McPhee is charming. It always amazes me to watch such a beautiful actress as Emma Thompson play a character that is just so different from herself.

Beauty aside, I find that Nanny is an endearing angel that rivals even the quintessentially beautiful Mary Poppins. Sans the musical notes that dance from Julie Andrews, Emma Thompson's character provides the sane sense of ease and comfort, while teaching a horde of little demons how to behave properly.

I have to say that Emma Thompson delivers a perfect performance in this film. She's everything that a frazzled mother Mrs. Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal) could wish for, especially during the trying times of World War II. Ewan McGregor plays her husband, who is off fighting the war. As often occurred during those times, he has left his young wife behind to care for the homestead and their rapscallion brood of children Norman, Megsie and Vincent. As if times weren't trying enough, the situation becomes worse when their spoiled cousins come to stay with them, escaping the Blitz.

While Mr. Green is away, his rotten brother Phil (Rhys Ifans) pressures Isabel to sell the farm to cover his own gambling debts. Five children, a frazzled mother on the brink of a nervous breakdown, and a horrid brother-in-law drives everyone to distraction.

Thus, the WWII version of Nanny 911 arrives, intent on teaching the children five valuable lessons via her own form of entrancing magic. As Nanny McPhee demonstrated in her first film, hilarity abounds, as well as life lessons that benefit the children.

Emma Thompson is magical, and her lessons to the children are filled with a patient wisdom we all could practice. My favorite part has always been the slight transformation that begins to overtake this dreadfully plain woman, making her the beauty that Thompson truly is.

I have to give this a family film 4 star, for the simple charm and magic that can hold youngsters enraptured and keep adults smiling.

This is a nice family film, somewhere between a 4 and 5 star, so I rounded up. Nannie McPhee (Emma Thompson) is a strange nannie. She is quite magical and quite delightful, but I'm getting ahead of myself. (Of course, better to be a-head than a little behind, I always say.)

The story begins on the family farm, in the English Countryside, far from London. It is WWII. Isabelle and the 3 children are taking care of the farm while the husband/father is away fighting in the war. The farm is owned by the husband and his brother Phil. The brother lives elsewhere.

Phil wants the money from his half of the farm and is pestering the heck out of Isabelle to sell it but she is trying to hang on until her husband returns. Meanwhile, Phil has incurred some gambling debts actually, he bet the farm. Two "Hit Women" are after Phil now, threatening to remove his kidneys.

The 2 cousins are coming from the city (London) to stay at the farm because bombs are being dropped in big cities. Of course, there is a clash between the farm kids and the city kids from the minute the city kids step out of the limo and into the "Land of Poo".

There is magic in the air when Nannie McPhee shows up at the front door and quickly gets the five fighting children in line. The animals become magical, too, including the adorable baby piglets that do "synchronized swimming" (like the old Esther Williams movies). There is also a bird that belches all the time and an adorable baby elephant.

Again, it's a cute film that you can enjoy with your young children.

Buy Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) Now

There's something about the Nanny McPhee character that appeals to me even more than Mary Poppins. I grant you that Nanny McPhee is no looker, what with her hairy warts, her snaggletooth, and her bulbous nose all glaring at you as if she were an endurance test for her clients. All the same, she knows what she's doing. Perhaps it has something to do with her magic, which doesn't serve as a vehicle for light, whimsical musical numbers; it's harsher and more direct, the kind that could conceivably subdue unruly children were it real. Under her rules, it seems plausible that a child can actually learn his or her lesson, and indeed, all the children in this film are challenged in ways that many family films wouldn't care to consider. But it's not all strict policies and firm magical consequences with each lesson the children learn, she gets progressively less ugly, and by the end, she looks like the Emma Thompson we know and love.

"Nanny McPhee Returns," the sequel to the oddly charming 2005 film adapted from Christianna Brand's "Nurse Matilda" books, is not an equal to its predecessor; it surpasses it on just about every level, from setting to characterization to dialogue to theme, making for a film that's fun, thoughtful, and every so slightly creepy. It's not creepy in traditional, obvious ways, like you would expect from a brooding horror movie. It is, however, heightened to a state of strange otherworldliness, a place where audiences children included can actually see the humor in a pair of hitwomen threatening to remove a man's kidney's before deciding he should be stuffed like a dead bird. It's also a place where we feel genuine tension from the sight of children disarming a bomb that's only seconds away from detonating. In a normal universe, all this would be astoundingly inappropriate. Here, it's just right.

The plot, which shifts the setting from the nineteenth century to the days of World War II, has Nanny McPhee (Thompson) entering the lives of the Green family, who manage a farm in the British countryside. The mother, Isabel (Maggie Gyllenhaal), is at her wits end. Her three children Norman (Asa Butterfield), Megsie (Lil Woods), and Vincent (Oscar Steer) are constantly fighting. Her husband is off fighting in the war. Her financial situation is steadily declining. She's continuously harassed by her good-for-nothing brother-in-law, Phil (Rhys Ifans), who has secretly gambled away the farm and is desperately trying to get her to sign away her half of the ownership. She tries to make ends meet by managing a village shop, but her associate, Mrs. Docherty (Maggie Smith), is just this side of loony, making it next to impossible to keep the shop in order. Worst of all, her children's rich, spoiled, snotty cousins Cyril (Eros Vlahos) and Celia (Rosie Taylor-Ritson) have been sent to stay on the farm.

Nanny McPhee, with her trusty cane, can make magic happen with a bang on the floor, although not in conventional, innocent ways. To make the children stop fighting, for example, she forces them to hit, pull, and kick themselves individually, and she makes it clear that she will put an end to it only on the condition that they apologize to one another. They better hurry; more of the room is being destroyed, and letters from the Greens' father are liable to get thrown into the fire. Later on, when all five children have to work together to find a litter of prize piglets, Nanny McPhee intentionally makes it harder for them by having the pigs do what they normally cannot do, such as climb trees, jump long distances, and have them partake in a surprisingly entertaining display of synchronized swimming.

With the notable exception of Uncle Phil, that rotten excuse of a man, every character develops in harmony with the story, which is to say we learn more about them as the film progresses. As a result, no one is a one-dimensional caricature. Cyril and Celia, for example, may have lived a privileged life, but that doesn't mean they're immune to emotional turmoil, mostly the result of parents who are more interested in themselves. If they act like brats, it's only because they know no other way to receive attention. Likewise, the Green children would like nothing more than for their father to come home; they're angry that he had to leave them and their mother alone, and since they're fairly isolated from the rest of the world, they have no one to take it out on except each other. Not a single child in this movie is bad. They merely have no healthy outlet for their pent up feelings.

Hanging over the whole situation is the threat of enemy bombing, unlikely though it may be. Thompson, who also wrote the screenplay, somehow manages to take this unfortunate reality and lighten it up, not to the point of ridiculousness, but just enough for it to be engaging to a younger audience. I don't know how she managed that delicate balance between childish whimsy, maturity, and morbidity, but somehow or another, she did it. I was also impressed by her portrayal of Nanny McPhee, a no-nonsense but caring witch whose magic can make the best of any situation, no matter how desperate it may seem. "Nanny McPhee Returns" is a pure delight from beginning to end charming, funny, touching, and intelligent, one of the best family films I've seen all year.

Read Best Reviews of Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) Here

I have no idea if today's children would like this movie. I just know I adored Nanny McPhee Returns. I'm in my 60s. This movie was so heart warming, I'll admit I shed a few tears. Reminded me of the great Disney movie Darby O'Gill and the Little People. Just an adorable little film. Why don't they make more movies like they did in the fifties? Surely not every film has to be made for teenagers?

Want Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) Discount?

How pleasant to see a movie without sex or violence. The movie is for kids, but can be enjoyed by adults. There are too few movies these days that do not contain bad language, sexual overtones or just plain violent action. They may sell well, but I prefer this type of movie that is clean fun.

The message for kids is usually something about being resposible.

I will purchase it for my own. It is a great show for grandkids as well.

Save 73% Off

Child's Play (1988)

A worthy edition of Child's Play hits shelves on September 9th as a nice appetizer before Halloween which is most horror fans version of Christmas. What better gift then a good guy doll.

Chucky has become a horror icon over the years. Directed by horror contributor Tom Holland who also directed Fright Night. Holland also wrote Psycho II and the screenplays for the brutal Class of 1984 and the classic 80s film Cloak & Dagger. Another horror regular Brad Dourif and that voice, he makes Chucky a doll version of Samuel L. Jackson's, Jules, from Pulp Fiction. Most notably his response to being thrown in the fire. Dourif along with the Fx team helped create one of the best doll horror movies. Other good one's that come to mind are the Zuni fetish doll from Trilogy of Terror and Stuart Gordon's Dolls.

The original dvd:

Originally Child's Play contained a non widescreen edition. As for special features it contained a collectible behind the scenes booklet that wasn't very collectible. If you'd like a real write up on Child's Play check out the somewhat new magazine HorrorHound. In issue #10 they do a in depth retrospective on the Child's Play series. I highly recommend this magazine as well, unlike Fangoria it does more articles on horror over the years instead of just new stuff.

The 20th Anniversary Edition:

Special Features

Commentary track with creator/writer Don Mancini and producer David Kirschner.

A second track with FX guru Kevin Yagher, Catherine Hicks (Kevin's wife; they met on the film), and now-grown-up Alex Vincent.

A third track with Mancini and Chucky (Brad Dourif voicing in character).

The film itself is presented in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen.

Making-of documentary blending archival footage with new, on-camera interviews with Mancini, Kirschner, Yagher, Hicks, Vincent, Chris Sarandon, John Lafia and Brad Dourif.

All this commentary should blow away the 1 page "collectible" piece of paper with the original dvd release.

I'd also recommend to those who like the series, which I do, (there a fun time) to pick up Chucky The Killer DVD Collection, for those into cover art there is a doll of Chucky coming out of the cover with various weapons he can choose from on the side.

Hope this helps.

A serial killer has mysterious disappeared from the cops and found tumbled into a toy store after being shot by one of the policeman. He must find something to transfer his soul into another form of a body that will keep him alive until he can a living host. So he finds one of the childrens most favorite dolls known as the Good Guy dolls. He tranfers his soul into the doll and find a person to retransfer it into a human. If you ask me, I'd say this movie had suprisingly good special effects in the movie. Especially on the Chucky doll. Brad Douif does a great job on the voice of Chucky as he goes killing people without anyone knowing who he really is, except for the fact that he is a walking, talking, stalking, doll. The trouble starts as a little boy's dream was to get a Good Guy doll for Christmas and so the mother starts to panic, that she can't find one. But a strange man as just apparently had a Good Guy doll for sale. When the little boy gets the doll for Christmas...and well, you should know what happens from then on! Chucky's back, Jack!

Buy Child's Play (1988) Now

This is the best Child's Play/Chucky movie of all time! It was actuallly HORROR and scared me when I was a kid. This movie deserves to be bought, great acting, great entertainment, great horror. Watch this!!!!!

Read Best Reviews of Child's Play (1988) Here

Forget Seed of Chucky, Bride of Chucky, and the other two sequels that came after this surprisingly good horror romp. Tom Holland (Fright Night) directed this horror romp, in which the soul of a deranged killer inhabits a child's doll. Child's Play manages to boast a few genuine scares and add some creepy atmosphere to boot, with Brad Dourif doing great work as the voice of killer "good guy" doll Chucky. I won't go into the plot, since everyone pretty much already knows it, but what I will say is that this is about ten times better than any movie to feature the killer doll released since, and surprisingly the film hasn't aged too badly. All in all, if you've never seen the original Child's Play, give it a try; although I wish the DVD were presented in widescreen.

Want Child's Play (1988) Discount?

Child's Play (Chucky's 20th Birthday Edition) has some extras that the first DVD release did not have.

I of course recommend this to any fan of the franchise.

Save 41% Off

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Well, 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

Never Let Me Go (2010)

"The breakthrough in medical science came in 1952

Doctors could now cure the previous incurable

By 1967, life expectancy passed 100 years"

And so begins Never Let Me Go, a downbeat adaptation of a book I've never had the pleasure of reading by Kazuo Ishiguro. This film is an exercise in understatement; rarely have I seen a film that's so emotional and yet avoids bravado and manages to depict these emotions in such a gentle way. This is no straight-forward drama and there's an unconventional element to the story that I feel would be best to keep secret from the potential viewer. Unfortunately, it's difficult to discuss/critique the film without disclosing that element. With that said, the secret comes out very early into the movie so don't feel that I'm spoiling anything for you.

Besides a brief opening scene, the film opens in 1978 at a boarding school called Hailsham. While headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) gives her daily announcement to the students, it becomes clear that Hailsham is not the typical boarding school. The health of the students is greatly important and the students' existence is a sheltered one, completely cut off from the world outside the boundaries of the school. Students are at the age where romantic ideals begin to blossom and young Kathy H. takes a liking to a boy named Tommy. Those wondering what the purpose of Hailsham is don't have to wait very long as a disenchanted guardian named Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins) soon enlightens them that their purpose is to grow up and donate their vital organs before their "short-life" will be completed. As this chapter of the film comes to a close, Kathy watches her friend Ruth and Tommy grow close. These childhood scenes are handled with great sentiment, but also with great austerity.

The next two segments take place in 1985 and then 1994, where Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield take on the roles of Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy. This second part takes place at The Cottages, where the three Hailsham students have their first contact with the outside world and their sexual awareness comes to full fruition. It's here that we learn a bit more about the students' purpose, as well as watch some characters struggle with their already pre-determined fate. "Completion," the third part of the film is arguably the most tragic where hope and optimism leads to sad acceptance.

Despite being only 103 minutes, Never Let Me Go manages to tell a pretty full story and show characters completely evolve from naïve children to naïve, but optimistic adults. Watching these characters evolve is heartbreaking and the way the film burrows into your emotional center with such quiet nuance is astounding. Rarely do elements fall together so perfectly in a film that they completely immerse you in what you're watching and in it's own a soft, sad way this film absolutely casts a spell. This is not a film that will appeal to a wide audience, but I personally found it to be quite masterful.

The film's score by Rachel Portman is one of the most effective musical scores I've heard in 2010. The music evokes such sadness it becomes a key element to the success of the film as a whole. The picturesque photography by cinematographer Adam Kimmel is poetic and beautiful, static yet graceful and adds an additional level of poignancy that the screenwriter could not have foreseen.

As for acting, we get to watch three very promising young actors do some wonderful work. The most surprising is Keira Knightley who gives such an honest portrayal I forgot I was watching Knightley. Ditching any glamor or sharp-tongued wit, she plays the insecure, jealous, and frightened Ruth marvelously. Garfield continues to establish himself as one of the strongest up-and-coming actors at work today. He gets such pathos out of his mix of sadness and optimism; Watch Garfield's face as he learns the truth about deferrals and the way his expression quietly goes from hopefulness to helplessness. Contrast this with his acclaimed performance in The Social Network and you have an actor building an impressive body of work. Meanwhile, Carey Mulligan continues to prove that she is something special and refreshing in the film industry. What an elegant, immensely talented actress she is and her work here is brilliant. Mulligan is a true actress, something Hollywood is lacking these days and her performance here is so powerful, yet completely low-key.

There is something so brave and unexpected about taking a premise rooted in science-fiction and, in doing so, making a deeply moving human drama and a profound, meditative statement on life, death, and humanity. Again, I've never read the book but I wonder if the book is as much of an emotional journey as the film. I would never call this film "uplifting," but the tragic, beautiful ending is one of the most life-affirming endings of 2010.

Never Let Me Go had much more of an impact the second time I watched it. It seemed more heartbreaking, more poignant, more powerful, and more beautiful than it did the first time. It's a deeply emotional viewing experience that gripped my emotions in a way few films have. While highly praised by some critics, it's been largely overshadowed by other films of 2010. Never Let Me Go is as elegant, thought-provoking, and moving as films can get. It's undoubtedly one of the best films of 2010.

GRADE: A

As a 35 year-old-male with stage-4 cancer, I was easily able to relate to the three main characters in this film. The thing that I got from the movie was that it was not the issue of death itself that affected the characters, it was the feeling that there was no time to make up for past mistakes. A great feeling of guilt and regret along with the knowledge that the friendship would soon be over gave the film an even more emotional element not seen in other films. I cannot think of any other movie that has had the emotional effect on me that this one has. The day I received the movie, I watched it twice and promptly put the DVD back into the mailbox so I would not watch it again. Later that night while I was lying in my bed, I started thinking about the movie. Then I started to cry, something I had not done in a very long time. No movie had ever given me the reaction that this one did. "Never Let Me Go" is a movie I would recommend to everyone.

Buy Never Let Me Go (2010) Now

WARNING: This review, like 80 percent of the other reviews here, does contain spoilers. This is a shame but the nature of this film simply requires the insertion of these spoilers in order to discuss the work. If you want to experience the full impact of this work, DO NOT read any of these reviews, including this one, until you have finished the book.

After all of these reviews it would be difficult for me to add anything new other than my personal opinion (and you know what they say about opinions), and the impact this work had on me while I was watching it, and indeed, the impact which remains with me. This is not a movie which I will soon forget. I realize that tastes in reading differ widely and this is good. Some will love this work as I did; others will despise it. I personally feel it is one of the best works; one of the better movies, I have watched over the past few years. But that being said, the film version of the novel is simply my cuppa and I fully realize that not everyone will share my taste...again, this is good. If we all liked the same thing...boring!

Now here is the first spoiler and it is a big one: The thrust of this entire film concerns the ethics of human cloning. This of course came to the attention of us all when Dolly the Sheep was cloned and there was much speculation as to the ethics and wisdom of human cloning. Now it will not take the viewer very long to figure this "mystery" section of the film out even though the film has skillfully led the reader in a round about way with little hints here and there. The viewer will very quickly realize that something is "just not right" about the situation as described.

This story is told though the voice of Kathy H. who is currently a "Carer," and a graduate of a very exclusive school. Her job is to travel around England and give care to those who are in the final phase of acting their part as "donors." Kathy is finishing her time as a "Carer," and is about to begin the next phase of her life.

The story is told in a series of reminiscences as told by Kathy as she remembers her time at Hailsham, the exclusive school mentioned above. The story centers around three primary characters, Kathy, the teller, and her two best friends, Tommy and Ruth.

Of course the reader will eventually place all the pieces of these intricate and detailed reminiscences together and figure out that all of these children have been cloned for the express purpose of harvesting their organs...one at a time, until they die. This is done when they become older and of age.

Now some have classified this work as Science Fiction. That would be an unfair assessment and could be likened to classifying `1984.' or `Brave New World," as Science Fiction. No, this work falls more or less into the category of social observations...what if scenario...not really a futuristic society, but rather a society that simply is; in this day and time...speculative fiction I suppose you could call it.

It is interesting to note that one once has the film offered the opinion of the rightness or wrongness of the situation. It has merely laid out the story and lets the reader shudder and become rather ill when they realize what is happening and allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions. The filming style is extremely detailed, dealing with emotions, facts and speculation and is filled with instances of digression; a method of telling the story I find extremely appealing and fits my taste in reading perfectly. Some find this cumbersome and a bit boring...I do not. I think the author's prose is beautiful and it is extremely thought provoking.

I found myself becoming extremely emotional while watching this work and admit that it touched me. Much has been written as to the fact that many feel it is unbelievable that the characters in this work can accept their fate, not make any great attempts to "escape" and accept their lot in life (for the most part) as natural. I personally found this aspect of the work to be spot on and feel the author was making some very good points here. All of us, in one way or another, accept social norms and accept our particular lot in life. We like to tell ourselves differently, but for the most part it is true. History pretty well teachers us that the majority of mankind, down through the ages, has been pretty sheep like in their obedience to social norms. Think about it. It has happened in the past and is still happening to us today when we kid ourselves, believing that we are too smart and too sophisticated to fall into such a trap. No, for me, the premise of the story is all too believable...which sort of makes me scared and sad at the same time.

Please do not that there are not explosions, car chases, desperate and exciting scenes of escape efforts, no violence, no special effects. This is a thinking film and to be quite frank, one of the most horrifying films I have seen in years.

I also might suggest that you read the book on which this work was based. Like the movie, it is truly a haunting story.

Like this film or hate this film, I seriously doubt that any viewer will not remember this one long after it has been read.

Don Blankenship

The Ozarks

Read Best Reviews of Never Let Me Go (2010) Here

This movie brings up many philosophical questions about life, death, love, and what it means to be human. It leaves itself open to many interpretations, and will leave you thinking about the larger meanings and messages long after the film is ended.

****ALERT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!****

First off, I think one main message of the film is about how certain forgotten classes of people are used and tossed aside by the rest of us, to make our lives more luxurious or comfortable. The only way we can manage to live with the knowledge that we are profiting off this exploitation, is to pretend these people don't exist. We know there is child labor, and sweatshops, and that many of our clothes/sneakers/electronics are made in 3rd-world factories in borderline slave conditions, often by children who have no hope for a better life. But we push this inconvenient truth out of our minds in order to enjoy the luxuries these forgotten people make possible. It was interesting that in the film, almost every "regular" person who came in contact with the schoolchildren (deliverymen, maintenance workers, etc.), seemed very uncomfortable around them and wanted to avoid interaction with them. They did not want to be reminded of the cost innocent people are paying for their longevity.

I also found it interesting that you almost never saw the beneficiaries of the Donor's sacrifice. They lived in an alternate universe where the organs they needed just appeared the messiness and horror of the process was hidden from them. One very brief but telling scene is when the children were all in a restaurant laughing loudly, and an older couple at a nearby table looks at them with disgust and annoyance. These are the very same people who will likely live a long life thanks to the ultimate sacrifice of the "annoying" young people.

I also found the issue of the "Deferrals" to be full of philosophical significance. In essence I think Ishiguro is making a comment about death, and how we all bargain for more time with the ones we love. Interestingly, in the film the deferrals turn out to be nothing but a false rumor, a children's fairytale. I think perhaps the author is making a comment on belief in the afterlife... we all want to believe that death is not the end, that we will see our loved ones in the afterlife. After all, if our love is true enough, justice MUST dictate that we get more time with them. Is there any basis in truth to this belief? Or, are we like the kids at Hailsham desperately believing a made-up story?

Of course, the film makes it clear from the very 1st scene that deferrals are false we see Tommy clearly about to reach "completion" even as the opening credits roll, so we know there will be no happy ending for he and Kathy. So the viewer is not surprised by the revelation late in the film that there are no deferrals. What is touching, however, is the childlike hope with which Tommy and Kathy cling to this dream of more time together. One of the most moving parts of the film is when we realize that Kathy, always the more grounded one, has just realized there are no deferrals even as Tommy still clings to his hope. Carey Mulligan does wonders with the smallest of expressions in this scene.

Also on the subject of the afterlife, in the final scene when Kathy looks across the field, she imagines seeing Tommy running across to her. This is clearly a reference to the standard Hollywood version of two lovers reuniting in the afterlife. We've seen this type of "happy ending" so often in movies, that we almost expect to see him come running over the horizon. But tellingly, he never does and Kathy never even allows the fantasy to progress to the point where they actually embrace. The thought of something that she knows will never happen is too painful. There is no more time. There is no deferral. All she will ever have is the brief time they had together.

So in the end I think this is a movie about life specifically, the blink-of-an-eye flash of time we all get on this earth. Anyone who has been truly in love will know that no amount of years will ever be enough. We all want a deferral, and would give almost anything for one. In fact, the people in this fictional society in effect bargain their humanity away in exchange for their own deferrals they allow innocent young people to suffer and die in exchange for their own "deferrals". But in the end, deferral or not, "completion" comes for us all, and too soon. All we can do is appreciate every moment, and respect all of our fellow humans, and never let each other go.

Want Never Let Me Go (2010) Discount?

I'm really gravitating to the less mainstream and not super popular movies and books these days. I had never heard of this as far as it being in theaters. I loved it. It haunted me for days after watching it. The weird thing was that I wondered for an hour or so after watching it if it was maybe a true story, if something like this could have really happened. Of course it couldn't, except way long ago and in secret. I got so caught up in the characters and the tiny details, like the people making deliveries to the schools and halfway houses making such an effort not to get to know or care for the kids, to protect themselves from the horror and saddness of the whole thing. This is a movie that has alot of saddness but I enjoyed watching it so much and it really made me think. I think there might be people out there who have philosophies that this kind of thing would be okay. So I think movies like this are terrific to keep us thinking and watching what we do to each other as human beings. I was so glad to see Carey Mulligan in something more than just a supporting role. I think she's very talented.

Save 25% Off

The Gold Rush (The Criterion Collection) (1942)

Surprise came to this reviewer when he realized that the main feature on this DVD is the 1942 re-issue version of THE GOLD RUSH (with added music, narration, and sound effects) rather than the 1925 silent original. Fortunately, the silent version is available on the second disc as an extra. Seems like an odd decision to make though; I would have reversed that, as I much prefer the original. For one thing, the title cards are much more lyrically impressive than the rather strained narration. Pictures speak louder than words, and the images Chaplin created on the soundstage simply don't need a voice-over. And the rather drastic cuts (the original film runs 96 minutes, the later clocks in at 69) leave out a lot of good stuff. Still, both versions are included anyway, so I can't complain too loudly.

I watched a battered old VHS copy of this film many, many times as a child in the 1980s. It was a delight to get this film on DVD, not just for the impressive extras, but to have the picture looking crisper than ever. While I'll admit to preferring the musical score they used on that VHS release, the stunning restoration work more than makes up for it. Jokes that I had missed because of the fuzzy picture were suddenly revealed to me (I had never realized that the building that Chaplin inadvertently covers with snow is the town's jail). And although this has nothing to do with the picture quality (though it does come from seeing scenes that had been cut from my VHS copy) I also never really noticed how awful Georgia is to the tramp. Sure, she's a bit regretful about her pranks, but she never really apologizes or makes up for her behavior. I wonder if that was part of Chaplin's decision to modify the happy ending.

Watching this film for the first time as a child, I'll admit that it didn't quite live up to all of my expectations. But while I'm not sure that I'd place this as Chaplin's best films, it's still pretty damn good. His comedy is, of course, excellent -well conceived and extraordinarily executed. Yet his directing is also worthy of mention. I love they way he lets the camera linger. Look at the pan across the faces of the partygoers at the New Years bash inter-cut with the shots of the lonely tramp. It's difficult for a director to accomplish this without being corny, but Chaplin pulls it off successfully.

THE GOLD RUSH is a film made up of several now-famous set pieces. Most of the sequences are now so ubiquitous that people would recognize them even if they'd never seen a silent film before. The movie's successes are too numerous to mention. The dance of the dinner rolls, the Thanksgiving shoe, the cabin on the edge of the clip. These are all unforgettable scenes that deserve more than to be simply listed in an on-line review; they deserve to be watched by everyone. The "Chaplin Today The Gold Rush" documentary (quite good overall) shows a room full of young school children enjoying this film for the first time. They laugh at all the right places and stay glued to the screen throughout. Chaplin still has it.

I cannot agree more with "A viewer from Dallas, TX" -this 1942 version lessens the whole "Gold Rush" experience, even though the video quality is astounding. Having just watched "The Kid" and "City Lights", I found the commentary on this version most annoying and distracting from Chaplin's fantastic pantomime. While in the other films one becomes engrossed in the visual elements, in this version of the film it is impossible to become fully involved, as the commentary actually distances you from what is going on. It would be such a grave mistake if this version would be the only one available for today's audiences, so I urge and plead: Image, please release the original 1925 version on DVD too, please!

Buy The Gold Rush (The Criterion Collection) (1942) Now

This has been a long time coming but we now finally have Chaplin's 1925 original release in a form that does justice to what many feel is his masterpiece. Kevin Brownlow and the late David Gill have worked many years on gathering the material from archives and collectors that would allow for a decent reconstruction of THE GOLD RUSH as it was originally shown. In 1942 Chaplin prepared a sound release in which he removed the titles, added a delightful narration that he spoke himself (at least in the English language release) and composed a music score that is perfect for the film. In doing so he went back to his vaults and chose different takes that played better at the 24fps sound speed. In the process the original 1925 negative was partly used and the sound version became the version that Chaplin preferred. In 1942 audiences were delighted with the new approach as films from the silent era as a rule were not being reissued. Over the years interest in silent films has made a come back and there are many who regret not being able to enjoy THE GOLD RUSH as it was original shown. Now on the Criterion release we have a beautifully restored copy of both releases. Criterion has gone the extra mile with the 1925 version and removed scratches and dirt so that the film looks the best it has since its original release. Now thorough the efforts of Timothy Brock, who has reconstructed Chaplin's music from the 1942 release, we can watch the film with the music that it should be heard with. With the excellent extras, booklet and restoration there is no question that the Criterion release is one of the most important releases ever. While the Blu-ray is marvelous the DVD release will also be a big improvement over any previous release. And even if you are not a fan of the 1942 release you can use this version to introduce younger children (who do not yet read well enough for silent titles) to the art of Chaplin. I've done this and their response is wonderful. And yes there are some differences between the two releases. Take a look at the letter Georgia Hale writes after not showing up for the New Year's dinner that Charlie has worked so hard to prepare. And for my money the ending of the film works far better in the 1925 release. Judge for yourself.

Read Best Reviews of The Gold Rush (The Criterion Collection) (1942) Here

The real news here isn't the second video release of Chaplin's 1942 talkie reissue of the 1925 film, with narration in his plummy later voice detracting from much of the fun. What's significant here is on Disc 2-the first video release of a definitive version of the original silent classic, which has been restored by Kevin Brownlow and David Gill from Chaplin family material and is about 14 minutes longer and noticeably better quality than the best previous version, the Killiam print which had seen assorted releases on tape and laserdisc. The Chaplin family had previously refused to release that version, believing that the 1942 version represented Chaplin's final thoughts on the film, when what it in fact represented was Chaplin's best idea of how to make an old silent film seem relevant to Casablanca-era audiences. Now it's the '42 version which seems old fashioned, while the '25 one is timeless as ever. Be sure you get this new Warner/MK2 version.

Want The Gold Rush (The Criterion Collection) (1942) Discount?

The four stars goes to the DVD I give the original silent version of GOld Rush 5 stars, and the re-edited sound-era version 2 stars. This DVD edition lost a star for putting the inferior remake on the first disc. I am mainly writing this review to urge Chaplin newcomers, or anyone for that matter, to watch the original 1925 version first. The re-release has highly distracting and tedious narration throughout the entire film, as all the intertitles have been deleted. At times this narration comes across as bad dubbing, as the words are very roughly synced up with characters talking on the screen. Even though Chaplin himself did the narration, the effect is very cheesy and amaturish, and makes the film MUCH more dated, while taking away much of the emotional effect of the original film. I also prefer the slightly longer, more dramatic 1925 edit, and the original ending, which is just perfect. It seems like the 1942 re-release was more of a gimmick and a chance to make an extra buck than a serious artistic endeavor (kind of like the Star Wars "special editions"). Some would say that at least the re-release had Chaplin's own score. However I think the piano score for the silent version is excellent, despite reviews here to the contrary. First off, the score is based on the original cue sheets, so it is quite authentic to the time. It is played excellently, is well recorded, and is very fitting to the overall mood of the film.

Save 50% Off

Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)

One of the most beautifully crafted and moody epics to come out of Hollywood (or, to be accurate, Britain), "Nicholas and Alexandra" has never acquired the reputation it deserves. Released at a time when big budget spectaculars were considered passé, hostile contemporary reviews have shaped the film's reputation. While hardly perfect, the film nonetheless provides a reasonably accurate, if politically conservative overview of pre-revolutionary Russia and does an excellent job of individualizing the two monarchs.

The two central, completely convincing performances are by relative unknowns Michael Jayston and Janet Suzman. Several first-rate actors (Laurence Olivier, Eric Porter, Ian Holm, Alan Webb, Harry Andrews, Irene Worth, Jack Hawkins, Michael Redgrave, John McEnery, Curt Jurgens and others) support them in small parts and manage to make us forget their familiar presences to concentrate on their characters. The actors are cushioned by Yvonne Blake and Antonio Castillo's lush costumes and Richard Rodney Bennett's symphonic score in an elegant jewelry box crafted by designer John Box, cinematographer Freddie Young and director Franklin Schaffner.

The film has two major failings. First, it is just a touch *too* sympathetic to the monarchs. Quite apart from the lack of any evaluation of their short-comings as leaders, there are too many scenes calculated, presumably (and questionably), to demonstrate Nicholas "learning" from his mistakes. Second, in the effort to dramatize a complex historical moment, there is simply too much of it. We jump from the Russo-Japanese War to the 1905 Russian Revolution to Stolypin's reforms, to Rasputin's influence, to the First World War, the Februrary Revolution, the October Revolution, and on and on. In this rush to include everything, little other than the monarchs' lives is dealt with in any depth and the efforts to depict the revolutionaries are particularly awkward.

One of the most notorious scenes in the film, commented upon by more than one contemporary review, is a brief early moment when Lenin says to a journalist, "Pay attention, you're about to see the birth of the Bolshevik party." That's about the level of the political evaluation, and one can understand why the scene, along with about ten minutes elsewhere, was cut in subsequent theatrical and video release. (On the other hand, the characterization of Lenin as an intolerant prig, however uncomprehending of his political ideas, does ring remarkably true.) The DVD restores these excisions. The transfer is considerably warmer than Columbia's previous video releases, and is 16:9 enhanced.

I recommend the disc to anyone interested in the subject or the capacity of films to make history live for audiences. Apparently like several other reviewers here, I first saw "Nicholas and Alexandra" in its initial theatrical release and loved it. I immediately read Massie's book after seeing it, which was the first step in what has proven a life-long interest in the period. Despite its failings, it is a testament to the film's power that it can exercise this level of fascination over viewers' imaginations.

The unadulturated history of the Russian monarchy has produced more compelling drama than anything Hollywood could produce in its wildest flights: Ivan the Terrible's descent into madness; Peter the Great's violent childhood and adult retributions (including the murder of his son) as the backdrop for supreme political accomplishments; Catherine the Great's seizure of a throne from a madman and her emergence as the dominant monarch of her age; Alexander I's possible complicity in the assasination of his father, his defeat of Napoleon, and likely faking of his death to live out his life as a religious hermit; Alexander II's death at the hands of terrorists. And the curtain drops on the Russian monarchy much as the play ran -in pools of blood. The main difference in the Nicholas and Alexandra saga is that their predecessors created their own dramas, whereas Nicholas and Alexandra succumbed to the drama of events swirling around them.

This movie is inaccurate in many details. For instance, the real Dowager Empress visited her son on his train only after his abdication, not in the weeks before the monarchy fell. Anna Vyrobuva, a signficant and unwittingly sinister player in the Rasputin debacle, is missing. And the loyalty to the Tsar professed by the other Romanovs in the movie glosses over the fact that there were serious family discussions about a coup to send Alexandra into exile and maybe even to remove Nicholas himself.

But these are nits. In a larger sense the movie compellingly captures the essence of the two fundamental issues that combined to bring the Romanov dynasty crashing down. The first had to do with Nicholas. He was a kind, gentle family man much more suited to the life of a country gentleman. When called upon to exercise real power to influence complex events, he fell into a pattern of posturing, denial, and a passive belief that he could just go with his reactionary biases instead of with disciplined examination of reality. After all, God had made him emperor, and therefore it must be God's will that he felt and decided as he did.

The other issue had to do with Alexandra. A shy, high-strung woman who was equipped neither by temperament, intellect, nor upbringing to ride herd on a decadent court or fractious nest of in-laws, she inclined to a mystical view of religion and monarchy that could rise almost to hysteria. It would have been a volatile situation in the best of circumstances. But Alexandra got dealt a very bad hand. Russia was opening up culturally and intellectually and looking to unshackle itself from unthinking political and religious orthodoxy. And she was failing in her principle purpose -to produce a male heir to the greatest throne on earth. Nearing menopause after bearing four daughters, she finally bore a son, only to find him cursed by the hoemophila that ran through her relations. She had offended God, and she had to know why.

Alexandra responded with a downward spiral into an increasingly bizarre mysticism that further clouded her husband's foggy view of his world and his role -and that ultimately opened the door to perhaps the most bizarre case of malign political influence in the annals of government: Rasputin.

While botching a detail here and there, the movie does a marvelous job of accurately portraying the salient aspects of how these things ate away at Nicholas' real power to replace it with a mushrooming fantasy of power as he, and Alexandra even moreso, perceived it. Although ruling one-sixth of the world's land surface, the couple's world view finally came to extend no further than the small circle of their tight-knit immediate family and their gilded enclave at Tsarskoye Selo.

When the revolution came -as Nicholas's fatalism and the insane yielding to Rasputin's interference in government made inevitable -Nicholas actually entered a few months of calm that on some level were the most peaceful of his life. Power scared and exhausted him. The shackles of jailers were light compared to those of a throne.

The fact that the revolution that deepened his country's enslavement actually freed Nicholas from those things he most abhorred illustrate just how far the Romanov dynasty had come to odds with the very purpose of its existence. In the end, Nicholas and Alexandra showed a grace and sanguinity in captivity and extermination that was utterly absent when they ruled the world's largest country. No scriptwriter could improve on this script, and the great art of this movie is that none tried.

Buy Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) Now

My beef about the film is that they took liberties in telling and condensing the story when it wasn't necessary. In Tobolsk the family lived in the Governor's Mansion not a log cabin in the woods. Yekaterinburg looked like some Spanish town rather a city in the Urals. None of the movie was filmed in Russia or Finland (for obvious reasons). The execution involved eleven people in the movie they cut down the number. Other scenes were outright inventions.

None of the church or religious scenes came off right. They seem more Catholic or Anglican than Orthodox.

Nicholas was taught English from the age of 8 by a Scottish teacher, Mr. Heath. He had an accent in English, but it wasn't identifiable as "Russian". They all would have sounded 'upper crust' so the accents were fine for me.

Suzmann and Jayston were superb. Suzmann was a little too glamorous and Hollywood looking for the role, but she pulled off the characterisation well.

I don't know if it's well known, but the Romanov family walked out on the premier because of the changes made to the story.

Read Best Reviews of Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) Here

I love "Nicholas and Alexandra." I read the book when I was a teenager and it helped start me on my lifelong interest in Russian history and history in general. I saw the movie when it first came out in 1971-72 and have seen it many times since. The VHS version is OK but suffers by being too obviously edited down and shortened. The DVD version is much preferable because we now get all of the original film. The parts which were edited from the VHS version were not crucial to the story, but they add so much to it. We see Nicholas and Alexandra in a tender moment with their newborn son, before they learn of his hemophilia, Lenin with his wife helping to start the Bolshevik Party, the Tsar's daughters in a moment of light hearted play, a sweet family discussion between the Tsar, Empress, and their children, and a tense encounter between one of the daughters and a prison guard in Siberia, plus several more scenes. Furthermore, the DVD version has a "featurette" narrated by the actress who played Tatiana. This gives us some interesting behind the scenes looks at the movie's filming. So, even if you already have the VHS version, by all means buy the DVD too!

Want Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) Discount?

NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA is an epic and lavish production, deliberatly paced (almost to the point of boredom), rarely seen nowadays. The performances, particularly the leads, are excellent. The detail in costuming and settings are remarkable. The story of the last years of Russia's Tsar and family is depressing, somewhat like peering down a sprialing drain to an inevitable tragic end. A great deal of historical material is touched upon in this movie, making it difficult to keep the story on track withen 3 hours running time. The movie leads the viewer to want to read the Robert K Massie book, which is even better (and highly readable). The DVD is the best edition of NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA available to home audiences. The wide screen picture and sound (possibly mono)are excellent.The DVD restores aprox 15 minutes of footage not seen sinnce the movie's early roadshow presentations. Also included for the first time is composer Richard Rodney Bennett's great intermssion music. More chapter stops should have been included. A trailer and a bland "making of" featurette are included. Definitly worth watching, true fans of epic movie productions may consider purchasing this DVD.

Gamera: Guardian of Universe & Gamera: Attack of (2010)

Gamera's first BD release in the US is great. While not entirely perfect, as it's lacking any extras and other small flaws, the video is excellent and audio very good as well. My only complaint, as stated, are the lack of extras, and some of the onscreen Japanese text goes untranslated (all of the dialogue is subtitled, though). Given the extremely cheap price and quality I'd highly recommend this to all kaiju fans, and monster fans in general. These are two of the best Gamera films and the BD quality only makes them better.

Two of the best Japanese monster movies in one Blu-Ray package. Though I love Godzilla as the king of the monster, as movies, the Heisei Gamera series beats most Godzilla movies hands down. GAMERA is probably the most realistic (as in, how people and the government would respond if giant monsters appear) movie ever made. Its sequel, LEGION, expands on the idea and how realistically the military would respond to giant monsters, strategically, as well as legally. All in the crisp Blu-Ray glory.

Buy Gamera: Guardian of Universe & Gamera: Attack of (2010) Now

I gave this a high mark simply because I love these two movies and there are some improvements --The blu-ray does a lot for GOTU as far as picture quality but falls short on "Legion"

I really did not notice much in the difference on "Legion" mostly because my 240hz tv and Blu-ray player already does an incredible job of upconverting ---so I can see the advantage for people who have 60hz tv's. The big difference on GOTU is the 16:9 aspect ratio -- which is a great improvement from the DVD version.

Now for the bad ----No special features, at all! Advent of Legion is one of my favorite movies of all time and one of the reasons is because of the "Lake Texarkana Gamera" version on the DVD. Don't get me wrong, I love the movie as is but the "LTG" version is a riot and losing that as a special feature kind of sucks.

All in all, it is worth the money, just don't expect your favorite special features or much of a menu at all ---still, for the average fan who wants better picture quality for two of the best Japanese monster films out there, you won't be wasting your money.

Read Best Reviews of Gamera: Guardian of Universe & Gamera: Attack of (2010) Here

The GAMERA Trilogy of the 1990's is regarded far-and-wide as some of the best monster movies ever made, recapturing the long-lost essence of the 1960's "Monster Boom" which gave us classics like MOTHRA VS. GODZILLA, ATRAGON and GHIDORAH: THE THREE HEADED MONSTER. The Gamera Trilogy boasts strong human characters, great effects for a budgeted 90's monster series, and a spectacular finale in the third film that is one of the best genre deconstructions to be found on either side of the pacific. Gamera himself is a character with a defined arc his reconnection with humanity after his long sleep, his climactic battle which strains his relationship with mankind, losing his connection as well as his sympathy, and his eventual redemption. It's darn good stuff.

While it's really, really nice to have both of these films available in a slick, cleaned-up format (as opposed to the rather sinfully bad transfers on the ADV releases), it's unfortunate that it's only two of the three, and it's a rather barebones release. It's also a shame that all three films couldn't be released in a single package, perhaps as a three-disc set to maximize quality.

Still, for the price and for the films themselves, this is a definite must-buy. Ridiculously cheap and nice transfers to boot, it's a welcomed addition to the collection. Not to mention the promised GAMERA 3 Blu-ray on the way that should hopefully be a meatier release. Just get it! :)

Want Gamera: Guardian of Universe & Gamera: Attack of (2010) Discount?

Love this movie and this BD doesn't disappoint. I picked it up for $9 but now it's $5? Amazing price! Great quality!

Save 60% Off

Puppet Master 3 Disc Set

Don't be fooled! These aren't hoity toity full screen reissues, these are the releases a Puppet Master/Full Moon fan has been waiting for! This 3-pack for both formats includes the first 3 films in the series (1 and 3 are my favorites in this pack) and have been digitally remastered in high definition! No more having to buy the shoddy full screen releases, no more having to look at the awful DVD transfer of Puppet Master II, you are getting what you always wanted; restored and remastered HD transfers, in widescreen, with 5.1 sound, and extras! Infact, Charles Band has informed us that the Puppet Master disc in the 3-pack will be all new with extras (so sooner or later, retire your old disc)! So buy this set today and get ready for the next upcoming chapter in the Puppet Master series Puppet Master X: Axis Rising (though XI if you count Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys)! And from what I understand, more Full Moon flicks will be remastered so stay tuned!

You likely already want these, so I'll cover the key points regarding the remastering job they present you with then you can decide.

The first film is clearly not from the original elements. It looks very poor like it was processed through way to much noise reduction (and the audio as well).

There is very little detail in the image & the audio is very muffled. This is not what I call High Definition Many upconverted regular DVD's look far better than this.

The giveaway is that you can see the reel change cue marks about midway through.

The second & third films are totally done the way they should be. Even for a low budget movie, these look amazing in terms of detail & color balance + the sound is much clearer. These will be like seeing them for the first time.

It's too bad they did such a shoddy job on the first one it borders on fraud to be honest. Full Moon really should offer free replacements of this movie.

I'd give the set 5 stars if it looked as good as the other 2.

Let price be the deciding factor if you purchase this set.

Buy Puppet Master 3 Disc Set Now

I like how these movies use the puppets, first as evil than later has hero's. It's great B Movies I like.

Read Best Reviews of Puppet Master 3 Disc Set Here

I remember when i was a kid and these kind of movie would scare me, but as an adult i enjoy watching them because of the great story lines.

Want Puppet Master 3 Disc Set Discount?

The Motorcycle Diaries (Blu-Ray+DVD+E-Copy) (Blu-ray) (2004)

As most potential viewers know, this film is based on diaries and letters to home written by Ernesto "Che" Guevara during a motorcycle and foot tour of a significant portion of South America during the early 1950s, years before Guevara achieved international renown as a Communist and Latino revolutionary. Thus, the film functions as an attempt to get at the heart of the person who preceded the myth. The film is therefore difficult to judge as pure cinema. Is this, on its own merits, a great film? Or is it a great film about Che Guevara? Interestingly, the person I saw this film with knew absolutely nothing about the subject of the film before it started, and did not connect Ernesto Guevara with Che Guevara until very late in the film. Her reaction was interesting. Until she realized that it was about Che, she says that she considered it a decent but only slightly above average "road" picture, but it gained considerably in her estimation once she realized who the film was about. I think she was correct, and I would agree with those who feel that what merits the film has depends to some degree on who the film is about. If Ernesto hadn't become Che, it would be a good film but of considerably less interest than it is.

The film does a good job of rooting Che's eventual concern with the liberation of the oppressed by depicting his broad and constant encounters with everyday people throughout the continent. Camus wrote that it was important to side with the victims and not the executioners, and in his travels Ernesto spends most of his time with the victims. His near-epic exposure to the continent clearly condition his sympathies and inform his vision. At the end of the film it is easy to understand why Che chose a life dedicated to aiding the oppressed in Cuba and elsewhere. The great question left unanswered, and the one reason one can find Che's life morally troubling, is why he felt that the causes he espoused demanded a violent, military response. Why follow in the steps of Trotsky and Lenin rather than Gandhi? Apart from a single line which merely hints that Che felt violence might be necessary, the film doesn't come anywhere close to answering this question.

In many ways, the star of the film is the South American continent. I have seen many films over the years set in one corner of the continent or another, but none provided a panoramic view. This film, however, by swinging through Argentina, Chile, Peru, Columbia, and Venezuela provides a graphic impression of the continent's immense geographical diversity, expanse, and enormous beautiful. I don't think it would be possible to see this film without a deep urge to visit the land. The scene shot in Machu Picchu reveals the incredible beauty of the site better than anything else I have ever seen.

Gael Garcia Bernal is a remarkably handsome, talented young actor, formerly best known for one of the two young men in Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, and is outstanding in portraying the young Che Guevara. One suspects that his days as an actor in primarily Latin productions is close to an end, his next several projects originating in Hollywood. Rodrigo De la Serna does not have the enormous charisma of Bernal, but he more than holds his own in the film. The cast is rounded out by a large roster of professional and amateur performers.

Che Guevara is such a controversial figure that this film could elicit a host of differing responses. How one will respond to this film will be deeply conditioned by how one views him. But I do think that it is a film that virtually every viewer will respond to with great interest, and I defy anyone not to find the remarkable landscapes anything short of stunning.

...I want to offer an almost-opposite reaction. Yes, I admit I went into the theater not knowing a) much at all about Che Guevara, or b) that the film was even about Che. I was mesmerized all the way through, by the subtle messages about the plight of working-class Latin Americans, by the sweeping landscapes and by the fantastic performances. Once I (finally) figured out that the Ernesto Guevara in this film was indeed *the* Ernesto Guevara, I thought, "How brilliant." It doesn't set out to portray him as a saint (as a previous reviewer said), or as a villain-in-the-making. It's a very rare thing in cinema, or history studies in general: a portrait of a man as a man. What you make of the path Che later chose as a result of these experiences is a different matter entirely, and one frankly not related to this film at all.

Some have cried, "Would you enjoy a movie that portrayed a young Hitler sympathetically?" My answer: a) that's really not an accurate comparison, and b) maybe, if it were this well written and acted and filmed. Imagine the story of the Beer Hall Putsch told in such a way that we really got into the youthful main character's mind to discover its workings and motivations. It wouldn't excuse what he did, but explain it in a more insightful way than the boiled-down mush we are served in our history books. This is what cinema should be used for more often.

Buy The Motorcycle Diaries (Blu-Ray+DVD+E-Copy) (Blu-ray) (2004) Now

This is a tough review to write because of the subject matter we're dealing with: a militant revolutionary who became Castro's right-hand man during the 1959 Cuban revolt. But here in THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES film, we don't see this man; we see instead the formation of the person whom this man (Ernesto "Che" Guevara played by the talented Gael García Bernal)would become. He's a young idealist living in South America when he and a friend (Alberto Granado played by up-and-coming actor Rodrigo de la Serna) decide to take a road trip across the continent before bellying down into their chosen carriers in medicine.

The film succeeds in giving us a very myopic view of these two men: Guevara for the initial changes he begins to go through as he witnesses injustices to the low and poor; Granado for his love of women and grudging dedication to Guevara. We travel with them on a 1939 Norton 500 motorcycle (my hat's off to the two actors who had to ACTUALLY learn to ride one of these behemoths!) as they argue with each other over money, their deficient form of transportation, and Guevara's unflinching honesty when asked delicate questions (this is brought into focus when they first meet a man who looks very German in a small village and asks Che and Granado to look at a lump on his neck, which Granado diagnoses as a cyst but Che calls a tumor).

The cinematography was done exceptionally well on a small budget. The beauty of Machu Picchu, the green forests of Peru, the nothingness of various deserts, all added great visuals for the viewer.

The film's faults lay with its omissions. Yes, Che was a thinking man. Yes, Che was concerned with humanity as a whole. But Che was also somewhat of a bigot. He didn't like blacks, jews, and homosexuals (read the book THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES). So when he shows his concern for lepers in a colony along the Amazon River, we're only see a part of this complex man. Granted, for a film you need to have your audience empathize with the main character, but this also pulls us into the shallow end of the depths that this man was. The convoluted sections of Che's life might have added an extra level of understanding for film viewers, especially those who have knowledge of his later life when he becomes an executioner of spies and deserters, quite a dichotomy compared to the hippocratic oath he took when becoming a doctor the oath basically promising to "do no harm."

But, again, I can understand why the film makers decided to omit these sections. We are, after all, seeing only the early life of Che, a fomenting of ideas that would change his life forever. But I think we have to be careful when looking at such a potentially volatile subject and controversial man, and only showing the "sunnier" side of Che to a new generation of movie-goers. More research is needed if one really wishes to understand the levels of Che.

Read Best Reviews of The Motorcycle Diaries (Blu-Ray+DVD+E-Copy) (Blu-ray) (2004) Here

I don't get some of the ranting reviews here that claim this movie has communist contours; there's as much radicalism in this film as there is Oriental Buddhism in Jackie Chan kungfu capers.

I never felt that the movie couches any fiery or didactic political message, or that it even ought to.

It's a romantic ode to the youthful Guevara, and truly captures the adventurism and empathy of his formative years that may have affected him in later life. The director is wise not to weigh his narrative down with too many explicit allusions to his eventual activist zeal.

Whatever it's political underpinnings, at least it's a gorgeous looking picture, a trekker's fantasy that catalogs the ramshackle journey of a couple of young men who hailed from good stock, but gave all that up to set off on a rinkydink motorcycle to see places they'd only read about and meet people they'd never imagined.

It is difficult not to fall in love with the stunning imagery that pervades the film, as we watch a neorealistic camera cut a vast Latin American skein from the snow-covered Andes, to the mysterious ruins of Machu Picchu, to a sprawling Chilean desert and a Peruvian river that the young Guevara swims across in the film's climax -all physical destinations to be reached and crossed as well as stages in our protagonist's spiritual and psychological growth.

Some traces of ham-handedness may be evident in the latter half, when Guevara speaks with a homeless person or a coarse day labor manager or an ostracized leper. But Bernal does a fabulous job of maintaining a perfect dose of traveler's passivity coupled with boyish inquisitiveness.

Thinking back, the movie could also have thrown in some measure of a conclusive message into the fray, but the guitar strumming that serves as a backdrop to the closing credits simply overtakes that thought in my mind. I'm off to buy the soundtrack as soon as I am done with this review.

I highly recommend it for the discerning viewer. Won't be surprised if this gets in line for those nude male statuettes.

Want The Motorcycle Diaries (Blu-Ray+DVD+E-Copy) (Blu-ray) (2004) Discount?

(2008 HOLIDAY TEAM) When I visited South America on my own extended trip a couple of years ago, I was amazed how many times I saw pictures of Che Guevara everywhere I went....cafes, outdoor bulletin boards, art galleries, even department stores. Now I understand why. Having just read his diary, I was greatly anticipating this film, and my interest only heightened when I started seeing the travelogue shots in the previews. I am happy to report the film surpasses my expectations on almost every level. It is exquisite perceptively directed, beautifully photographed and wondrously acted by a cast headed by two charismatic actors who tap deep into the hearts and souls of their characters. Whereas the book is more observational, the movie provides a more involving feeling in its portrait of a young man on the brink of his political awakening. It starts out somewhat deceptively as a comic buddy picture with the young Ernesto Guevara (pre-Che), a medical student, leaving his family and accompanying his seemingly more worldly pal Alberto Granado, a biochemist, on a dilapidated 1939 Norton motorbike traversing South America from their native Buenos Aires to Caracas. It is obvious what Alberto's hormonally charged intentions are on this months-long journey, but at 23, Ernesto is at a more sensitive juncture in his life where his encounters and observations have a deeper impact on his ideology.

What I really like about the film is how it changes in tone and texture as the boys' hunt for adventure evolves into life-changing experiences for both of them. The motorbike acts as a metaphor for this change, as it unsurprisingly breaks down forcing them to open their eyes to the poverty and quiet struggle of the local people in each of the countries they visit. The story winds through wintry Patagonia, the blistering Atacama Desert, the awe-inspiring Machu Picchu and several towns in between. But the most touching passage takes place at the San Pablo leper colony in the Peruvian Amazon basin, where Ernesto bonds deeply with the lepers to the chagrin of the local nuns. His night swim across the Amazon, struggling for air through his asthma, is a powerful scene among many in this subtly potent film.

As he proved with his wonderful "Central Station", director Walter Salles has an acute ability to connect his characters to their settings in deeply emotional ways. He is the ideal choice to guide this road movie. As Guevara, Gael Garcia Bernal transcends his Tiger Beat, teen heartthrob looks and delivers a deeply touching performance, as he grows from a big city innocent to a haunted young man ready to take on a greater cause than his medical career. He does an especially strong job in conveying his character's unblinking honesty and displaying unexpected acts of rage and compassion. Just as good is Rodrigo de la Serna in his feature film debut as Granado, effortlessly showing his character's bravado and humor while finding his own bumpy way in the world. His reactions to his buddy's political declaration at the birthday party, and to his own feelings during their goodbye at the end, are among the most poignant moments in the movie. In fact, much of the film's power comes from their palpable chemistry and unforced rapport. They are instantly and completely believable as best friends. And much more than the book, the film builds a solid emotional bridge between the young innocent and the Communist revolutionary Guevara was to become. If you are not aware of his fate, it is briefly summarized in subtitles at the end, and the coda with the real Granado is moving. While this may be the most glowing portrayal of a Communist-in-the-making since Warren Beatty's film about John Reed, "Reds", don't let that stop you from seeing this mesmerizing work. This is a wonderfully heartfelt film.

**ADDENDUM ABOUT THE DVD RELEASE POSTED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2005**

There are three extended deleted scenes included in the DVD package, none indispensable but still valuable for the additional context they provide to an essentially episodic movie. I particularly liked the sequence with the blind truck driver risking the lives of the two vagabonds as he swerves perilously on a treacherous mountain road. The obligatory making-of documentary is helpful, and includes comments from Salles, screenwriter Jose Rivera and executive producer Robert Redford. There are also a couple of brief Spanish-language TV interviews with Bernal and a quick interview with the film's composer, Gustavo Santaolalla.

American Mary (2012)

What happens when life doesn't go as planned? When the simple expectations that we set for ourselves and others fall way below acceptable standards? Many of us end up lost, wandering in a haze of confusion and misdirection that, if left unchecked, can put us on a destructive course that we may never recover from. The real world is cold, harsh, and unforgiving, though we are brought up to believe otherwise. This simple and unwavering fact lies at the core of Jen and Sylvia Soska's new film "American Mary".

Mary Mason is a medical student, a starving medical student more to the point. She is alone in the big city, trying her best to survive her schooling which brings the promise of a well-paying career. She is dedicated and enthusiastic, but also a little bit desperate. The world seems to be closing in on her from all sides, Proctors on one end and bill collectors on the other. With no other alternatives, Mary seeks a job as an exotic dancer, after all, the money's good and more importantly, immediate. Arriving at the low rent and downright seedy strip joint (say "seedy strip Joint" with a New York accent for proper effect), she meets owner Billy Barker, who might as well be wearing a shirt that says scum bucket on it, or so we assume.

Mary is an innocent, in its purest form. She brings a resume to her strip club interview, just in case he might request it. This is the first of many complexities in the film. Usually, its takes a smart and seasoned individual to bother bringing a well-maintained resume with them to a job interview (trust me, that statement is surprisingly and alarmingly true), but it takes an innocent to bring a resume to an interview at a strip club. Not to mention the fact that we have an innocent girl applying to work at a strip club in the first place. Some people may find the entire scenario unlikely, but I've known many young women in a similar situation who end up doing the same thing, because dancing for money and showing some flash sounds much better than sitting alone in a dark and empty apartment with nothing but your thoughts.

It's not only the innocence but also her sense of professionalism that sets Mary's life on a collision course with madness. In the middle of the interview, one of Billy's guys burst in and informs him that they've got a serious problem. Annoyed and angry Billy runs out, telling Mary to stay put. This is the first of many turns in the film. Billy returns, desperate, demanding to know how far along Mary is as a surgeon. Being satisfied with her answer he offers her $5000 cash, no questions asked, for a patch job. Mary handles it and walks out $5000 richer but leaving her resume behind. This almost immediately leads to a second job, a larger job that calls upon all of her skills as a surgeon, and requires her to learn a few new ones.

Once the money has a grip on her, it begins to dictate the course of her actions, and of course this happens quickly. With cash in hand, Mary handles her business as well as treating herself to some new threads. This doesn't go unnoticed by the surgeons at her school, and soon Mary finds herself invited to very swank party. So desperate for approval and overwhelmed at the thought of socializing with the medical professionals that she so desires to be, she doesn't question it and the Mary that walks through the hotel door is never truly seen again.

American Mary is a downwards spiral of a film and I mean that in the best way. It's first and foremost a horror film, but it's also equal parts a cautionary tale, and maybe even a little bit romantic comedy. It's a tale not only of innocence lost but also innocence found. As Mary's life seems to spiral out of control many of the characters whose lives are jaded and chaotic reclaim their innocence and find focus through her. And for a moment they all seem to be on the same page, but the reality is that they're ships in the night, heading in opposite directions.

Mary has a pet bird; it's interesting to note that once Mary accepts her position as a back alley surgeon and moves into a new place that can also serve as her office, we never really see the bird again. Its cage remains covered. In the East, birds symbolize the departed soul, and in the West, the bird symbolizes the saved soul. Mary seems to be Hungarian, and Hungry is considered the transitional country between the East and the West. Which does the Bird represent? Since it remains covered, it can be thought of as both departed and saved, dead and alive. Perhaps it's a reference to Schrödinger's cat. Either way, the principal remains the same. No, I'm not over-thinking the film, it really is that deep.

American Mary is a deeply effective film. You can't help but fall in love with Mary and want to save her, and she wants to be saved, but won't let you. Like the best films, it will haunt you for days afterward, forcing you to play out scenarios in your head where the sun would rise and better decisions would be made.

Katharine Isabelle is Mary Mason and is absolutely captivating. In the many great performances she has had over the years this is her finest. She owns the character and the film every second that she is on screen, causing us to feel emotions that are constantly at odds with each other, and that takes subtlety and talent.

Antonio Cupo, who plays Billy, the strip club owner is truly endearing. As we get to know him through his actions we find that he is not the two-dimensional thug we perceive him as at the beginning of the film, but Mary's counterpart, a little boy who got lost along the way and is just doing what he needs to do to survive.

Tristan risk as Beatrice Johnson, the living Bettie Boop stripper, kind of represents choice in the film. She is a saint and sinner, Mary's salvation and she could end up being her undoing. Beatrice is a woman who has the best intentions, but whose world is violent, unpredictable, and most of all, unforgiving.

Lance Delgreggo, Billy's strong arm and Mary's protector, is played by Twan Holliday. A leather clad enforcer whose performance may be the film's most poignant, in the sense that he's the only one that brings out the light and Mary's eyes, if only for instant.

And finally, Paula Lindberg as Ruby Realgirl, the ultimate in duality represented on screen. Ruby is the innocent sex symbol, the beginning and the end, the cause and effect and in some ways, the moral center of the film.

Every one of these performances is crucial to the film and I do not hesitate to say that each of these characters is important to the story no matter how large or small the part.

This brings us to the Soska sisters. The girls are wise beyond their years and talented beyond reason. That may sound heavy-handed, but I've seen many many films by many many writer-directors and it takes a very special person, or persons, to make a film this perfect on their sophomore try. The last person to do it was David Fincher with his film "Seven" and that was almost 20 years ago.

With Dead Hooker in the Trunk, Jen and Sylvia Soska showed the horror community that they can make complete and entertaining film with almost no money. With American Mary, they're about to show the world what they can do when you write them a check. Beautifully composed shots, lighting that conveys warmth while sustaining the feeling of cold isolation, and layers of imagery and emotional substance, this is a film to be absorbed, and you will do so with minimal effort. A film about hope and love as much as it's about violence and violent intent.

I urge everyone to see this film and support it. An original horror idea by arguably the next great film-making team and brought to life by true artists. American Mary is the type of film you can discover again and again, seeing something new each time you watch it. There are so few of those films out there and even fewer filmmakers capable of telling a story in such a way. I've met the future of horror; its last name is Soska.

Read all my American Mary coverage at sinfulcelluloid.com

American Mary was by far the best Horror film of 2012 in my opinion.Directed brilliantly by Jen and Sylvia Soska It was Raw,Gritty and Fearless.

(Katharine Isabelle)in the Title role as Mary Mason was amazing and never faltered in her performance who's dialogue went from dead serious to humorous at a moments notice.

Mary is a Medical Student studying to be a surgeon, she gets down on her luck and needs some quick cash in which along the way she meets some real amazingly freaky characters and gets mixed up in Body modification and eventually revenge that involves unwanted Body modification.

You do not want to mess with Mary that is for sure.She has some help in the form of an underground sex club owner who may or may not be in love with her. The gore and effects are amazing and the film is beautifully shot.In this respect and other respects it reminds me of Asian extreme cinema such as (Audition) (I saw The Devil) etc but the English version.

I paid 40 dollars for this import because it is the uncut version and it is worth every cent, the one being released in June in rated R and has about 6 minutes cut from it.

Buy American Mary (2012) Now

I am totally disappointed in this so-called horror flick. I pre-ordered it based on published reviews...2 months before it was released. What a mistake. The parts I remember most are the agonizing sounds of Mary's cell phone chimes. If I counted correctly, 37 times this phone rang in the movie...and each time it took away from the moment/mood. I think the 1-star topper is at the end of the film when the police are more concerned about carrying Mary's birdcage out of her apartment than focusing on the crime. What a lame script. In fact, there really wasn't a script and nothing creepy...just some blood-filled slicing (way overdone). I urge others to save their money. This is not what it was built up to be. I am a horror film fanatic and this one does not make it into my Top 200. This takes horror films to a new all-time low.

Read Best Reviews of American Mary (2012) Here

"American Mary" is about a young female medical student (Katherine Isabel) who turns to a world of body modification surgery in order to pay her way through medical school. The movie turns too bizarre right around the middle, and as a result, it fails because of a lack of character development.

In some ways this film is similar to "Excision" because is has a strong female lead and focuses the majority of its running time on a bizarre fixation with surgery. "Excision" was a success because the audience was able to connect with its lead characters. This film, however, takes a look at the underground world of plastic and cosmetic surgery, and it would all have been spectacular if the viewer was able to maintain any type of emotional connection to any of the film's stars. The cast does a good job, but the script is lacking, and at times, random characters who have nothing to do with the plot are introduced and their actions are often unexplained. As a horror film goes, this is better than most of what's out there, especially in the acting and production department. But this film could have been something special with a bit better script and better development of its characters.

Want American Mary (2012) Discount?

Horror films can be a tough sell. There are so many of them produced under conventional means i.e. follow the basic `scare' formula but every now and then one comes along with a flair all of its own, with a style all of its own, with a look all its own. That's a cause for celebration however modest because flair, freshness, and originality aren't exactly available with every feature. AMERICAN MARY has some wonderful touches, and on those points alone I think it's definitely worth seeing. Will it be entirely satisfying? I think that depends upon your personal tastes and expectations for character development.

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters. If you're the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, this ain't it! Still, I'd encourage you to skip down to the last two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you're accepting of a few modest hints at `things to come,' then read on ...)

Mary Mason (played by the comely Katharine Isabelle) is your typical med school student struggling to make ends meet. She's about to be kicked out of her classes for failing to keep up on her tuition payments when she answers an advertisement at a strip club for performing erotic massage. Before the night is over, she's swept into a world of underground surgery fixing up a victim for the club's owner which only opens the door to an even stranger off-the-records business of body augmentation. Suddenly, she's up to her elbows in blood and stitches. What's an American Mary to do?

It's easy to give kudos to AMERICAN MARY for attempting something original because, largely, that's what writer/director/sisters/stars Jen and Sylvia Soska did. Unfortunately, that's all they did, as they amped up the `weird for the sake of being weird' factor but heavily scrimped on any (and I do mean ANY) emotional connection between these characters. That's what I found a shame to the picture I wanted to not so much `like' Mary Mason (I don't believe filmmakers ever really intend for us to like their villainous creations) but I wanted to fully `appreciate' the journey she was on. However, Mary as played by Katharine Isabelle approaches the role preand post-catharsis (her rape and the subsequent descent into medical madness) absolutely devoid of any emotion. In other words, before being awakened to this weird subculture, Mary behaves mostly passionless to all things; and, after being awakened to the same, she's still pretty much passionless. Before being raped by what must be the most downright evil portrayal of a college professor/surgeon, she's passionless about life; and, after the assault, she's still pretty much devoid of any feelings.

Now, maybe (and I do say MAYBE) that's what the sisters Soska wanted to show that Mary was always destined to be what she became, that she was never going to be a victim in her world but, if that was the case, how is it she could still casually dismiss the only person in this world her ever cared about her her `Nana' by simply deleting her telephone contact once she learned she died and THEN sit sulking in the dark? If she wasn't going to be a victim of her emotions, then why the one scene sulking? If it was to convey "see, she's only human after all," then they've changed their message. If it that wasn't the intent, then why include such a trivial plot development at all?

That's the thing about Mary I never know how she thinks about anything. As a character, she simply `does' what she does. At times, much of the film felt like what others call `torture porn,' but I never got the sense as a viewer that Mary took any delight in torturing those that she did. The only legitimate display of emotion I can recall in the entire piece was when she was almost discovered, was konked over the head by a security guard, and then got back up and beat the young man (presumably to death). While her face showed little emotion, her body betrayed her, thumping and thumping and thumping away on the body the way she did. That was the only real emotional development Mary suffered, so I'm still left wondering what it was all about.

AMERICAN MARY is produced by IndustryWorks Pictures, 430 Productions, American Mary Productions, and Twisted Twins Productions. DVD distribution is being handled through XLrator Media. As for the technical specifications, the film looks and sounds mostly very solid, though there's one really strangely miked club sequence wherein vocal levels clearly are out of whack (not a big deal, I just like mentioning these little things when I see `em). The disc offers a making of short as well as a director's commentary, if you're so inclined.

RECOMMENDED. AMERICAN MARY is slow. At 100-plus minutes and all the glowing praise I've read for the film, I was really expecting something more than just `weird for weird's sake.' I don't know that this world this bizarre body modification culture is real (I suspect it is), but I kept wondering what the Soska Sisters were trying to say about it since it didn't seem particularly `American,' particularly `Mary' (i.e. routine, predictable), or particularly anything other than the portrait of a really unconventional class of people bordering on torture porn. When I don't know what the message is, I don't know what to take away from the experience; when I don't know what to take away, then I'm left to my own devices ... this time out, my devices haven't a clue.