The Doors (1991)

This review refers to the Artisan Special Edition(2disc)DVD of "The Doors".....

Become immersed in the wild ride that Oliver Stone takes you on in this legendary film of a legendary rocker.The extrordinary life story of Jim Morrison, played eeriley by Val Kilmer, will keep you mesmerized and stay with you long after the movie has ended.

The film explores "The Doors", from their beginnings in Venice Beach, California, where they exploded onto the rock scene,breaking the mold of music in the 60's, to their rise as superstars. Morrison's life is the main focus as a senstive poet type dropping out of film school, to becoming the Peyote addicted,culture shocking, philosphical rock idol.The LSD trips, the visions of this genius, his personal life and of course the famous controversial concerts are all told through Stone's unique cinematic magic.

You'll get lost not only in the time setting of the story but of course in the music as well. "The Doors" electrifying music is heard throughout the film and follows them chronologically on their journey. It's a film for fans of the cinema and music alike.

As mentioned above Val Kilmer is uncanny in not only his performance as Morrison, but seems to take on the physical appearance as well. The band members played by Kevin Dillon, Kyle Maclachlan and Frank Whaley are extraordinary in their portrayals. Meg Ryan, in a very dramatic roll as Jim's girl Pam is brilliant.

This "Special Edition" DVD is the one to have(and it's not as expensive as the other) It's a 2 disc set, with a fabulous widescreen picture, and a 5.1 Dolby Dig(get to this through the special feature selections) audio track that will blow you away. Lots and lots of special features. On the disc with the movie you can listen to Stone's commentary where he fills you in on how the band met, the genesis of the songs, and where he has taken license with the story. The second disc is filled with featurettes and production notes. Looking at the Technical info for the other edition ("The Collectors") it seems to be longer by 30 minutes and may have some extras not included with this one, but it is not in the 5.1 which for me was the deciding factor in this film featuring this exciting soundtrack.

So get out those mood rings and leather fringe vests and get ready to rock with "The Doors".....

"This Is The End"...........Laurie

also recommended:The Very Best of the Doors

"Pam joined him three years later . . ." is on my copy of the 15 Year Anniversary Edition; the movie is the same as the Special Edition.

The packaging and menus are updated and look great. Substantially better than the special edition.

On to the 2 new features.

The Doors in L.A. 20 minute feature; Robbie Krieger, John Densmore, (yaaay!), Jimmy Greenspoon, and Pamela Des Barres are the prominent interviews on camera here. Nothing earth shattering, but it's nice to see/hear John Densmore's abridged opinions.

The Jim Morrison Phenomena in Paris it's interesting. You've got a handful of people who met JDM in Paris and hung out; they describe his mood and what he was (arguably) saying at the time. There's a French librarian who breaks down a lot of the parallels in the subtleties of the lyrics w/Greek literature. There's a somewhat annoying 20 something saying Jim was done with music and The Doors and blah, blah, blah that isn't substantiated w/anything. There is an interview w/Michelle Rudler, who is listed as "Coroner" who says lots of things were done wrong in the documentation of Morrison's death. It's about 50 minutes.

All of the extras on the Special Edition are here as well.

So in conclusion, if you are looking to purchase The Doors movie on DVD, by Oliver Stone, this is the one to get. The movie is entertaining enough but, you know, it's fictional and not historically accurate enough to garner more than 3 stars from this reviewer.

Buy The Doors (1991) Now

The Doors suffers the same problems that Stone's other films about real people and events (JFK and Nixon) do; Stone uses the docu-drama format as a license to condense times and events, while simultaneously inventing composite characters and situations that never existed. All too often, these films, while containing exciting filmic and visual elements, ring a bit hollow.

The upside of The Doors is the performance of Val Kilmer, who threw himself into the role with ferocity and conviction; that he comes up short in the end isn't due to his acting abilities as much as the choice of episodes and Morrison's characteristics (both real and invented) that Stone chose to film. Simply put, Stone's Morrison comes across as little more than a sporatically gifted poet who sublimates his poetic callings to all the cliched rock star trappings. Perhaps this does describe some of Morrison's personality to a degree, but after seeing Morrison get stoned, drunk and act like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum for 2 hours plus, one wonders if Oliver thought of Morrison as basically an obnoxious drunk (possessed by the soul of a bald, silly-looking, half-naked dead indian that continually wanders around the movie) and, if so, what it was that turned Stone onto making the film in the first place...

The downside, in addition to the lack of scope regarding Morrison, comes in the numerous episodes that never happened (The Doors tripping on acid in the desert, Patricia Kennealy being present at the New Haven show Morrison got arrested at, Particia Kennealy and Pam Courson having a catfight, Buick actually making a commercial using the song Light My Fire and Jim finding out about it by watching tv, Jim setting fire to his and Pam's house while Pam was smacked up in the closet...and on and on). Also, the years of 1967 to early 1969 take up about an hour and a half of the movie, while the remainder of 1969 through to mid 1971 take about twenty minutes.

It's a shame that Stone went to such trouble to set up and film some great concert sequences, and Kilmer really made a terrific attempt at playing Morrison, but in the end both were content to rest the character on both the various myths about the singer and the confirmed instances of Morrison at his drunken worst. A well-shot film that, in the end, has little to do with reality.

Read Best Reviews of The Doors (1991) Here

Hey, I know I'm in the minority in my opinion here on Amazon, yet I will state unequivocally my view that the portrayal of Jim Morrison, his common-law wife Pamela Courson, the group, and even the supporting cast of regulars in The Doors Universe come off like characters in search of a serious screenwriter.

Come on already, Oliver. Who could sympathize with Jim and Company when they spew out lines of dialogue clipped, of all places, from Morrison's song lyrics? Did you actually think an audience would accept Jim uttering such discordant lines in an everyday conversation? Could you not separate the man from the performer? Because of that awful bit of writing, Jim comes off like a buffoon, not an erudite talent who, despite a lifetime of loneliness, alienation, and addictive tendencies (which would ultimately snuff out his life), still managed to push aside material comfort for a pursuit of the truth as he saw it.

Also, how come Jim revels in such horrible psychobabble? Had you not gleamed the interviews (available through Bright Midnight and other retailers) you'd hear an incredibly bright, articulate young man who lamented the day he elected to be part of a rock and roll band. You'd also have the makings of excellent drama, as a man who cannot escape his fame and a man who longed to create films and poetry in his own right.

How could one ever sympathize with a drunken lout (YOUR Jim) who acts like an ass (seems more like Val Kilmer playing himself rather than Jim), shows no compassion whatsoever, and just appears to become famous in one quick turn of events. The only clue we have to the success stems from the Sullivan show, the airport raid, and assorted concerts, but we never get a sense of Jim being nationally lambasted. Some archival footage might have helped there. But of course then the more sedate, intelligent Morrison--whom you portrayed as bumping into cops whereas Jim preferred to sway at a mike stand (see the archival footage)--doesn't figure in a Hollywood biopic.

What a shame. What a rotten, dirty, salacious mess. Maybe your own demons got the better of your good sense, Oliver. God knows, if your Morrison had been the true Morrison, I'd never had been a fan of his in the first place. Thanks for turning Jim into David Lee Roth, the members of KISS, Robert Plant, and all those other Circus Magazine posterboys for rock and roll excess. Too bad. An integrity, a nonmaterial nature, and a sincere attraction to make art distinguishes Jim from all those other Sex, Drug, and Rock and Roller hellions.

Want The Doors (1991) Discount?

(Blu-ray version)

For only those, who just like me, when look for a review, they only hope to find technicals opinions, nothing about the movie, history, critical or something like that, so...

The picture is great and the sound is great too. Buy it!

Save 40% Off

Frida (2002)

FRIDA, with Salma Hayek in the title role, is a vibrant celebration of the life of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo (1907-1954), and an unsparing look at her tumultuous, passionate marriage to the Mexican muralist Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina). Another major thread is the involvement of both with the Communist Party. In the latter half of the film, Geoffrey Rush makes an appearance as the exiled Leon Trotsky running from Stalin's death squads.

Hayek's performance is the finest I've seen by an actress so far in 2002. An Oscar nomination is surely in the cards. Though I understand that FRIDA uncovers nothing new about the life of Kahlo not already known by devotees of her work, the film was a total revelation for me who knew nothing about the artist. And Costuming and Make-up built on Hayek's natural appearance to create the spitting image of the real Frida (whose photo I've just seen on the Web).

Visually, the film is a riot of color. I especially liked those scenes where the viewers' eyes are drawn to a brightly costumed Frida set against surroundings colored with contrasting sepia and/or pastel tones.

My only picky-picky complaint about FRIDA is its treatment of Kahlo's physical condition after the horrific 1925 bus accident that left her with multiple fractures of her pelvis, spine, ribs and leg, and which necessitated over 30 follow-up operations in her lifetime. The visual force of her paintings is generated both by her complex emotional life as well as the terrible physical pain she constantly suffered. Yet in the film, between that time she learns to walk again without a crutch and much later when she climbs an Inca pyramid with Trotsky, there's absolutely no hint in Hayek's portrayal that the artist was in any way physically debilitated beyond an inability to bear children. Where was the stiffness of movement, or the inevitable grimaces of pain? At one point, Kahlo is shown dancing with the fluidity of perfect health. As one afflicted with yet only mild arthritis in the lower back, I found this aspect of Salma's characterization perhaps unreal. However, this is a trivial hiccup in an otherwise superb performance.

I have seen Frida five times at the cinemas, and got the DVD as a gift. I must say that this is by far the most visually stunning, inspirational, and emotionally impacting film I have ever seen. Before this movie came out, I went the Vancouver Art Gallery to see some of Frida Kahlo's paintings and saw the documentary of her life. I was very fascinated by several of paintings, but I didn't get to see The Two Fridas or the paintinngs with the monkeys. I was moved to tears by the documentary of her life, and I instantly became a fan. I then bought the novel based on her life, and read it before the movie came out. I was dying to see the movie.

This beautiful biopic is directed by the Julie Taymor, whose film Titus was an equally visual feast. It's a dream come true for the Oscar nominated Salma Hayek, who had spent more that seven years trying to get this movie made. It was a good thing that Madonna and Jennifer Lopez didn't get to do it, because they wouldn't be suitable to play Frida. Salma Hayek gave the performance of her career, and she actually hadn't done anything great before this movie, except for In The Times Of The Butterflies, which also costarred Mia Maestro who played her sister in both movies. Even though Salma lost the award to the overrated Nicole Kidman(The Hours), Frida still won two out of the six nominations. The music composed by Elliot Goldenthal trully capture the spirit of Frida and Mexico. Some of the songs are sung by Lila Downs, and Chavela Vargas. Burn It Blue heard at the end of the film is so beatiful. I even bought the soundtrack. Salma Hayek had more than fifty costumes here, designed by Julie Weiss on a shoestring budget. She made Hayek looked stunningly beautiful and striking, especially the photo shoot for the Paris Vogue cover, and the scene when she steps into her painting The Two Fridas.

This movie chronicles the life and times of Frida and Diego Rivera(played by the underrated Alfred Molina), a womanizing fellow artist, mentor, and husband. Frida had endured a great deal of physical, emotional, and spiritual pain, and she survived, because she was strong and self-absorbing, and she transcend her life's most unforgetable moments onto the cavas in the form of surrealism that's autobiographical. From the bus accident that left her crippled for life to her stormy marriage to Rivera, to miscarriage, to international stardom, to heartaches of failed marriage and distant from her parents, to betrayed by her sister....and then there's the self-destructive behaviours(alcohol addiction and promiscuous sex with men and women). Life without Diego was meaningless to her at times. She intensionally had an affair with Leon Trotsky(a Russian Communist in exile played Geoffrey Rush) to provoke or repay Diego for his infidelity. She still loved him even when they were separated for a period of time, leaving her financially and physically devastated, that's when she painted her best work including The Two Fridas, which was one of the high points in the film. The reconcilation and remarriage of Frida and Diego was a heartfelt experience.

The supporting cast are all superb. Alfred Molina was overlooked by the Oscar, he should've been nominated for best supporting actor, even though he doesn't look a whole lot like the actual Diego Rivera. I thought Valeria Golino was very good too. She played Diego's ex-wife, and she stole scene in this movie. Mia Maestro was great as Christina Kahlo, she was seduced by Diego to bed when she posed for his paintings. The affair broke Frida's heart. I also enjoyed Patricia Reyes Spindola's portrayal of Mrs. Kahlo. She was always negative about the choices Frida made in love and career. As for the big-star cameros which including Antonio Banderas(David Siqueiros), Ashley Judd(Tina Modotti), and Salma's ex-boyfriend Edward Norton(Nelson Rockefeller) who co-wrote the screenplay, I loved Judd's performance the most. Her sexy "lesbian" dance number with Salma Hayek was quite a treat.

Salma Hayek gave a mesmerizing and multi-layered performance, and she was in every scene. She trully transformed herself in all aspects of character and showed the world that she's not just a bombshell, but a great actress to be taken seriously. I cried during several scenes including the scene when she got dumped by her first boyfriend(Alejandro/Diego Luna). I was also moved a great deal by the miscarriage, and the scene when she was devastated and started to cut her hair and got very drunk. The most powerful scene was when she was drinking and crying while listening to an old lady(Chavela Vargas) sang a ballad to her, and she went home and stepped into her painting(The Two Fridas).The music, cinematography, acting, art direction, editing, and direction all worked together to achieve a very memorable experience. The special features has some very good materials included, and I really enjoyed the interviews on Julie Taymor, Salma Hayek, and the singers and composers.

I loved this movie and worship Frida. I admired her life's work as an artist, and her endurance of pain and struggles, and ultimately her relentless passion for love and creativity. I also collected the soundtrack, the Frida screenplay with photos of many of the scenes from the film, the postcard book, and a wall fabric drape painted with Frida and the Monkeys.

This movie is definitely a must-see for artist, art lover, fashion lover, music and cultural fans, and of course all Salma Hayek fans too!

Buy Frida (2002) Now

This is the best artist biopic I have seen, and it's a remarkable achievement for Salma Hayek, and director Julie Taymor.

Based ( with certain fictionalizations) on the excellent Hayden Herrera biography, the re-creation of Mexico in the first half of the 20th century is a marvel.

The cast is wonderful. Hayek is perfect as the petite Frida, and Alfred Molina so believable as Rivera. There are small parts filled in by Edward Norton, Ashley Judd, and Antonio Banderas, and with Geoffrey Rush as Trotsky.

I especially like the acclaimed Welsh actor, Roger Rees, as Guillermo, Frida's father, and beautiful Valeria Golino, as Rivera's ex-wife.

The soundtrack by Elliot Goldenthal (Taymor's husband) is terrific, full of traditional Mexican songs that add so much to this film.

The magnificent Lila Downs sings several songs (she is briefly seen in 3 of them), and among them is a signature song for her, "La Llorona"...a second version of this song is sung by the legendary Costa Rican star of years gone by, Chavela Vargas, and another treat is the voice of Caetano Veloso in the final end title song.

Perhaps my favorite part of this film are the "living paintings". Innovative and spectacular, I think Frida would have loved this added dimension to her work. The film ends with the final words from her diary: "I hope the exit is joyful--and I hope never to come back--Frida".

Read Best Reviews of Frida (2002) Here

Wow art within art within art a grand love story, a political commentary, a love letter to an artist, and homage to her vision Julie Taymor and Selma Hayek have done Frida proud in this film. Be sure and get the book about the making of the movie [aisn: 1557045402] to accompany the DVD.

The cinematography is stunning. The performances are flawless. The way the live action is interwoven with adaptations of Kahlo's paintings is inspired. If you've ever been to Mexico, this will have you aching to go back you can taste the fruit and feel the sun and the colors. I wish I could give it more than 5 stars this is the one to get for any lover of art, woman of vision, or for a person who struggles to find meaning in pain or disability.

Want Frida (2002) Discount?

Before watching this movie I had no idea who Frida was. I knew that the film was directed by Julie Taymor (Titus), which meant that it would have a striking visual style. I knew that the movie starred Salma Hayek and that she had wanted to play this role for years. I knew that it had been nominated for 6 Academy Awards including a Best Actress nomination for Hayek. But I did not know anything about the subject of the film.

Frida is a biopic focusing on the life of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo (Salma Hayek). As much as the movie focuses on the life of Frida, it seemed that the main thrust of picture was on Frida's relationship with her husband, painter Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina). The film does cover Frida's life from her childhood right up to her death. We begin the movie when Frida is a young woman aspiring to be a painter. Her father is highly supportive of her dreams. However, she is riding on a trolley one day when it gets into an accident. She has to be in a body cast for some time and it was in doubt whether she would ever walk again. She recovers, but she lives a life of pain. Frida meets the womanizing painter, Diego Rivera and they get married. This does not mean that he changes his ways and naturally this causes problems in their marriage. They remain committed to each other even when they are each sleeping with other people. Over the course of the movie we see Frida painting, but it seems that Frida the artist gets pushed to the side and we see Frida the woman/wife. I don't know enough about Frida Kahlo to know if this is a flaw in the movie or not, but it is just the way the movie is.

The acting in this movie is superb. Nothing feels wrong or forced. But, surpassing even the excellent acting is the visual presentation of Frida. Her artwork appears throughout the movie, but not simply as paintings hanging on the wall. Kahlo's artwork appears first as a painting, but that painting transforms into the scene itself. This also works the opposite way in that a scene will end up as a painting and the transitions between the two are so smooth it is very impressive.

I was very impressed with Frida. I didn't care for Julie Taymos's other film (Titus), so I didn't know what to expect. Everyone (Hayek, Taymor) exceeded my expectations for the movie. This was a very good movie.

Save 25% Off

Wall Street (2012)

When Oliver Stone made Wall Street, he was riding high from the commercial and critical success of Platoon (Special Edition). His father, Lou Stone, had been a stockbroker on Wall Street in New York City and this film was a son's way of paying tribute to his father. Almost twenty years later, it has become one of the quintessential snapshots of the financial scene in the United States and epitomizes the essence of capitalism, greed and materialism that was so prevalent in the 1980s.

Michael Douglas owns the role of Gekko and by extension dominates the movie with his larger than life character. He gets most of the film's best dialogue and delivers it with such conviction. There is a scene between Bud and Gekko in a limousine where he tells the younger man how the financial world works, how it operates and lays it all out, pushing Bud hard to go into business with him. It is one of the strongest scenes in the movie because you really believe what Gekko is saying and how Bud could be seduced by his words.

The culmination of Douglas' performance is his much lauded, often quoted, "Greed is good" speech that his character gives to a shareholders' meeting of Teldar Paper, a company he is planning to take over. He concludes by saying, "Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words -will save not only Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A." This is one of the best delivered monologues ever put to film as Douglas goes from charming to downright threatening and back again, succinctly summing up the essence of '80 capitalism and greed.

The original DVD did not have many extras but the quality of what was included was excellent. They have all been carried over to this new release (minus the trailers) but do the new extras really merit a double dip?

There is an audio commentary by co-writer and director Oliver Stone. Stone talks about Michael Douglas' early struggles with the huge amount of dialogue he had to deliver and how he dealt with it. The filmmaker is candid with his shortcomings and those of others (i.e. Daryl Hannah, Charlie Sheen, etc.). As always, Stone delivers the goods, offering all kinds of fascinating insights into the making of the film.

The second disc features a new introduction by Oliver Stone that is brief and really should have been put on the first disc.

Another new extra is "Greed is Good," an hour-long retrospective documentary with Hal Hoolbrook, John C. McGinley, Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas amongst others returning to offer their impressions of the financial world depicted in the movie. This substantial doc examines the appeal of Gekko and why he inspired people in the business world.

Also new to this edition is over 20 minutes of deleted scenes with optional commentary by Stone. There is a nice little scene with Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller as one of Bud's clients. Also included is an earlier scene where Bud and Darian (Hannah) meet in a bar but Stone cut it because the Hamptons scene at Gekko's house was stronger. The filmmaker puts all of these scenes into context and why there were cut.

Finally, carried over from the original edition is "Money Never Sleeps: The Making of Wall Street," a top-notch, 47-minute making of documentary. There is very little overlap with the "Greed is Good" documentary.

If you're a fan of this film and already own the previous edition, the new extras definitely warrant a double dip. They are quite substantial in nature and shed more light on this excellent film.

To watch this movie in Moscow in 1988 as a student was a liberating and exhilarating experience. Here is the capitalism close-up, warts and all. And we loved it. In three more years the Soviet communism will be dismantled, free market hurriedly introduced, and some of my friends and fellow students will proceed to become very rich people themselves. I did not know then, that Gordon Gekko, a villain who incidentally was much admired by me, was a thinly veiled portrait of Ivan Boesky. Boesky, who incidentally was a son of Russian immigrants, became a center of the biggest insider trading scandal and government investigation in the 1980s, which let to the collapse of junk bond powerhouse firm Drexel Burnham. However, I knew that Gekko must be much more than a villain, otherwise how this ugly character could be so attractive? Of course, a huge part of it was a superb acting by Michael Douglas. But watching this film now, 17 years later, gave me an opportunity to ponder more on the subject from a different perspective. I think now that Gekko's character is archetypal and has the same qualities as Bulgakov's Woland from `Master and Margarita'. He is the Wall Street Mephistopheles, the Grand seducer, not just some greedy upstart and `faux bonhomme'. But one of the qualities of Lucifer is that he `brings out the light', he helps to illuminate things, partly because of his own darkness. Untimely, in the movie it was his turbulent encounter with Gekko, which helped Bud Fox to find his character and, in a way, redeem himself. So in some strange way, the movie is a Wall-Street-version of age-old story of Faust.

Buy Wall Street (2012) Now

2 Disc Set Insider Trading Edition, released September 7, 2010

Wallstreet was made in 1987 by writer and director Oliver Stone and starring Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Martin Sheen, Darryl Hannah, and John C. McGinley. A young stockbroker after months of persistence finally bags the big fish, Gordon Gekko, a man whose presence and lifestyle he idolizes. He shuns his blue collar background in pursuit of greed and impatiently engages in illegal insider trading.

I first watched this movie after a book called "Now Showing" claimed it to be one of the best 25 movies....ever, I guess. I must say, all in all, it was a good movie. I actually really liked Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen's work in it and I believed their relationship. The pull of an actual father and son relationship really added to the authenticity of the roles. I finally got to see Michael Douglas just the way I like him -being a bad guy, someone getting the best of him, and not seducing women.

Michael Douglas plays a big Wallstreet player who has money falling out of his eyeballs and is idolized by Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox. Fox is taught to bend and eventually break the rules to get ahead and get that cold hard cash. This movie is all about greed. Douglas' character likes to buy out the majority of shares in a company and then liquidate it getting away with a quick buck. When Douglas gets going into a lengthy monologue, he oozes confidence which is amazing considering the pressure he was under. Bud Fox grows a conscience when he sells out his father's company to this same fate and decides to fight against it ruining everything he's worked for. This was one of those roles that really made Charlie Sheen stand out and become a celebrity in his own right and brought the extra challenges of that responsibility with it.

There is an appearance by Darryl Hannah as random home decorating girlfriend who is very comfortable in her way of living and leaves Fox the first time it gets tough. I thought it would be more dramatic and more of a point of her being in the movie, but there really isn't and it ended up being a waste of screen time and just one more thing for him to lose on his fall from grace. She is a symbol of the rewards that can be earned by a fast way of living stepping on others and her substance is very shallow. Again I really loved seeing someone get the best of Michael Douglas, even if they couldn't get away scot-free and had to face the music. Shows the value of time, hard work, and morals over getting rich quick with some family values thrown in too.

Probably an undervalued asset to this film is one of my favorites, John C. McGinley whom you'll remember as one of the Bob's from Office Space and his role of Dr. Cox on Scrubs. Always there to heckle and mock his good friend and has some of the best one-liners in the movie. Actually three of the main five lines people quote from this movie can all be attributed to this character he developed.

This is especially a great movie for men and/or people who love business and stocks. This is one of my husband's all-time favorites and many men can quote it readily.

DVD Extras:

First, there is a new commentary by director, Oliver Stone. He is a precise fellow! Stories are told of how filming is going on and he isn't even looking through the camera, he is following along word for word in the script to make sure his actors don't miss a moment of his dialogue. Before Michael Douglas, Stone considered Warren Beatty and Richard Gere for the role of Gordon Gekko which both declined when the script was in an earlier form. Apparently Gere still wonders where his career would have gone if he had gotten the script that Michael Douglas got to shoot. Douglas had a heck of a time with the lines. There was so much to his monologues and dialogue and much was shot in long takes. When he finally put in the time and memorized his part better, he was able to put in the performance that was needed. The commentary reveals more behind-the-scenes information as well as Stone's apparently neurotic tendencies. So many times after a line is said, he commented on how so-and-so of some magazine or whatever complained about THAT line but why he justified it being important to the script. If he really was that confident behind each one, he probably wouldn't need to expain, right? He had a LOT of issues working with Darryl Hannah and in retrospect wouldn't have cast her in the role if he could do it over again.

On Disc 2, you can watch the entire film with a Trivia Track that pops up helpful facts like when it's Gekko's birthday that he is a Taurus and other facts that are actually interesting about the making of the film and New York and the stock exchange in general.

"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is a very short few minute conversation with the main actors in the new film: Michael Douglas, Shia LaBeouf, Carey Mulligan, and Josh Brolin about their characters and new situations. "Fox Legacy with Tom Rothman" talks about a generation of men who took up "Wall Street" as something to be quoted and idolized Gekko, whom was intended to be a villain but was a hero to these young, hungry executives.

So really when it boils down to it, this version is just to make a few bucks with the new movie coming out and does not provide much that the 20th anniversary edition didn't out-do.

Read Best Reviews of Wall Street (2012) Here

While the subject of the stock market and trading on Wall Street doesn't interest me in the least, I loved how Oliver Stone made it interesting is "Wall Street". It stands as one of his most intellegent and accomplished films, with a smart (if overly-technical) script and superb acting.

Charlie Sheen, the quintessential 80's heartthrob, takes on a new role as Bud Fox, an ambitious young stock trader. He works his days selling stocks, all the while hoping to be a player in the same league as the big guys. One such big guy is Gordon Gekko (Michaek Douglas, in a standout performance), a millionaire tycoon who makes his living buying out companies and liquidating them for profit. He takes Fox under his wing, gives him a taste of the wealth and power, and Fox becomes insatiable. So much that he makes some wrong decisions, not realizing that this new power and wealth comes at a higher cost, one that he cannot afford.

The 80's was characterized by hotshot young executives looking for the quick and easy buck, and Oliver Stones portrayed that very well here. Gordon Gekko is the benchmark corporate villian, someone who one see's the world only in shades of green. The acting in this movie is first rate, especially from Michael Douglas. The long lines of dialogue, the speeches, and the emotional undertones are a challenge for any actor, and all involved here did an excellent job. I often watch "Wall Street" just for the acting.

The DVD is not a full-blown Special Edition, but it's a quality release nonetheless. Oliver Stone's commentary is insightful and articulate, even though he rambles and speaks in an annoying deep voice. The "Making Of" documentary is a real treat. Simply titled "Money Never Sleeps", it is over 1 hour of new interviews with the cast and crew, discussing all major points of the movie and the stories behind the scenes. It is one of the better DVD-exclusive documentaries I have seen.

Whether or not you find the subject interesting, "Wall Street" is a great movie in almost every way. While the script wanders off into technical stock jargon, it is one of the best scripts I have ever seen put to film. The acting is top notch, and Oliver Stone directs with panache and style. A must have.

Want Wall Street (2012) Discount?

I thoroughly enjoyed "Wall Street" when it first came out 25-odd years ago.

I was looking forward to the BD version, thinking it would look spectacular compared to the DVD copy was I wrong! The transfer to BD looks herendous in fact, it looks like you are watching a DVD copy of the movie, not some digital remastering at 1080p.

Save your money buy the DVD copy and enjoy.

Save 45% Off

The Illusionist (2006)

This is an excellent gothic thriller based on the short story by Steven Millhauser, Eisenheim The Illusionist, set in late 19th century Vienna about the son of a young cabinetmaker who falls in love with a young Viennese aristocrat and is banned from seeing her as he is a basic commoner. As the legend goes about the young lad, he meets a travelling magician on the road who shows him the secrets of illusion, where he sets off to exotic lands to learn the mysteries of life. He returns to Vienna after his travels and opens a show in the great city to astonish not only Vienna's common public with his quasi supernatural illusions, but also Crown Prince Rudolf, son of Emperor Franz Josef who then reigned over the Austrian Hungarian Empire.

Originally the short story was written as a political criticism of the Monarchy, based on the scandalous incident, where the bodies of Rudolf and his mistress, Baroness Mary Vetsera were found shot in a Royal hunting lodge, apparently a murder suicide which the Royal family kept from the public for many years.

Edward Norton as Eisenheim is understated and brilliant, as the many sleight of hand tricks in the film were actually done by the gifted actor. Norton must have practiced for months to reveal such confidence and skill needed for these types of trick. However, Norton's character portrayed a perfect man of mystery, begging the question, are these mere illusions or does Eisenheim possess supernatural power, controlling matter, energy, space and time itself.

The special effects in this film are well done. My favourite illusion in the film, (and they're many) is the Excalibur Sword illusion where Eisenheim borrows Rudolf's sword, somehow magnetizes it to the stage standing straight up, asking the various aristocrats' in the audience to release it from its position. Of course none can release the sword, as they, like the Arthur legend, are not meant to be king. When Prince Rudolf attempts to pull the sword from its stationary stance, he finally does so with great effort; by causing the ruthless Prince some embarrassment, Eisenheim is now a targeted enemy of the Crown.

Paul Giamatti as the corrupt Inspector Uhl really shows what a versatile and gifted actor he really is, able to do comedy, tragedy, fantasy...a very impressive performance.

The overall look of the film had the atmosphere as if we are viewing a primary historical source, the director using 80 year old editing techniques etc., this was unusual but effective for such a mixed genre film fantasy, thriller, supernatural thriller and fairy tale romance.

When first seeing this film I was spellbound and the ending, a perfect twist, making The Illusionist a perfect example of skilful storytelling.

This is an excellent film.

Set in Vienna, filmed in Prague,and just about as lovely as anything I've seen on the large screen, "The Illusionist" stars Edward Norton as a charismatic magician, and Jessica Biel as his high-born love interest. In keeping with its magic and later, occult, theme, the film unwinds through shadow and darkness, like a carriage being horsedrawn through fin-de-siecle Europe's narrow streets. Philip Glass's minimalist score, rather than acting as an anachronism as one might expect, enhances the ethereal, other-worldly quality. Edward Norton brings to Eisenheim, the central character (the book is based on the short story "Eisenheim, the Illusionist", by Steven Millhauser)an understated quality that adds to the sense that he always knows more than we do...and more than the characters in the film, including the two that most want to undo his works of magic, Inspector Uhl and Crown Prince Leopold. Unfortunately, the latter is engaged to Dutchess Sophie van Teschen, Biel's character. Leopold's intent is not only to prevent his lower class rival's success, but to control Sophie completely. Uhl, on the other hand, continues to respect Eisenheim, even as he is carrying out the Crown Prince's orders to shut the magician's show down.

As the tale unwinds (and it does ever more quickly as it moves toward the end), we do learn more and more about what lies behind Eisenheim's sad eyes. When Sophie's body turns up in the river after an argument with Leopold, Eisenheim's shows take on a dark change and he becomes kind of a "John Edwards" of the 19th century...but this John Edwards can summon holographic ghosts onto the stage, much to the delight of his audience. Is he becoming more and more obsessed and perhaps insane as Sophie begins to appear in these seances? In a twinkling, we find out as much about Eisenheim as we have during the entire film, and the lines in the Sophie-Leopold-Eisenheim triangle between the innocent and the devious aren't so clear.

A film to be savored.

Buy The Illusionist (2006) Now

The Illusionist is one of my favorite films. A unique magic/mystery/love story that is wonderfully written, perfectly cast and excellently directed and acted. The blu-ray is a solid improvement over the dvd, however, because the film was shot in a bit of a soft-focus way, it may not come across as razor-sharp as the newer blu-rays. Still, its well worth an upgrade from the dvd for such an excellent movie.

My only criticism is with the rest of the blu-ray treatment. While the picture and sound are excellent, everything else is an embarrassment. There is no main menu, no chapter selection or bookmarks, and no special features on the blu-ray disc. Just a garish intro page telling the viewer that they can access the specifications by pressing the top-menu button. That gives you access only to the audio setting. And there are no subtitle options either. Madness! Subtitles actually would help occasionally on this particular film as sometimes the actors are speaking quietly and are difficult to hear, and what they are saying is important to the mystery of the film.

This set includes the original dvd disc which DOES have a main menu with all the expected options, so the buyer gets a bizarre combination of a blu-ray disc with nothing but a hi-def picture, and a vastly inferior standard-def disc that treats the film with at least a little of the respect that it richly deserves.

In the end, I'm glad to finally have a hi-def version of The Illusionist, but I'm baffled and frustrated that Fox treated it with such contempt.

Read Best Reviews of The Illusionist (2006) Here

I was taken by surprise when I saw this film I had read Steven Millhauser's short story, on which it is based, but had missed the film when it came out. The film takes the bare bones of the short story and imposes upon them the intense childhood attachment between Eisenheim and his aristocratic neighbor, and the ensuing romance touching the core of the Hapsburg dynasty shortly before it and its empire go down to ruin. Neither the childhood romance nor the rivalry with the Hapsburg heir appears in the short story. I am usually outraged when original literary works receive such treatment by Hollywood. However, in this case, I was rewarded with a lovely, romantic jewel of a film that works quite well on its own terms. The script begs one or two narrative questions, but this is one of the rare cases in which these don't matter much, overall. Contrary to the opinion expressed by a reviewer below, in my opinion the film is defined by the sense of hidden strength and longing with which Edward Norton imbues Eisenheim. The broken childhood attachment that convinces him to follow his calling as a magician, and the later reunification with his lost love that this choice brings about, make for a very satisfying journey, indeed. It is precisely Eisenheim's ability to hide his thoughts, his canny self-control, and his relationship to his magic (which is to say, his broader view of what is possible and what is not), and their ultimate triumph over blunt authority and the social order, that make the film so appealing.

The rest of the cast is very good, as well, particularly Paul Giammati as the police inspector and Rufus Sewell as the unstable and vicious Crown Prince Leopold. Jessica Biel is the weakest leak in this chain as Eisenham's (adult) love: her "Viennese" accent slips the most often, and she is not as charismatic as Norton, but she does well enough and doesn't spoil the movie. The film is set in Vienna in 1910, and the American actors, as well as the British Sewell, were coached to produce a "Viennese" accent, but it isn't, quite, and the result among the Americans is an inconsistent sound that is neither British nor Viennese, and which Biel, in particular, had trouble maintaining. There are a few narrative weakness. One is the Duchess not recognizing Eisenham, the love of her youth, 15 years later as she stares into his eyes on stage he was already an extraordinary young magician when she first knew him and already possessed of an adult voice. Then there is the little matter of the Duchess's exit, apparently with no questions from the noble family who presumably would have wished to bury her! But these quibbles, somehow, are easily set aside in the somewhat fairy-tale-like atmosphere of the film, which was imaginatively shot in sepia tones that enhanced this. This eerie atmosphere is also greatly enhanced by Philip Glass's delicate, mysterious score. Romantics, rebels, and dreamers everywhere will appreciate the themes of this film as expressed through the relationships among the characters. The magical effects, of course, are enhanced by the wonders of computer technology. One is aware of this while watching, but doesn't care.

A charming and romantic film with a truly unique feel to it, highly recommended.

Want The Illusionist (2006) Discount?

A good story, great acting, beautful sets, great costumes, special effects.. this movie has it all!

It's a clever story. You sort of know how it will end, but it moves so quickly its always two steps ahead of your ideas on how it all ties up.

This movie didn't shake up the box office. The Oscars will pass it by. The neglect is not deserved.

Save 47% Off

Total Recall 4 Disc LIMITED EDITION EXTENDED DIRECTOR'S CUT - Blu-ray (2 Disc) / DVD / Ultraviolet

Plot/Scripting perfect; better than the original by light years.

Acting, particularly Ferrell's dramatic (even his over-the-top trademark moments) believable;verbal and non-verbal, body language,everything.

All other actors, extraordinary! Especially their fight gymnastics.

Directing/editing, complex but understandable/vivid,

delivering a constant shot of adrenalin.

Production values: Computer Generated Images are spectacular. Sharp,vivid, real-er than real. Who needs reality anyway, these days?

(( BUT, an example of reality rising above computer effects(by light years),

3 IDIOTS3 Idiots (English subtitled) It shows how good 'real'

can be. Yes, it's subtitled, but only brief comments and insertions of english designed to make 'listening' easy... ))

Back to TOTAL RECALL: I bought the Extended Cut (it extended the movie maybeeee three minutes(!)) EH?.

It offers 'both theatrical and extended cuts' and promised four disks, which

turned out to be two disks, both BluRay, which has me discussing promises with Amazon product description folk (I need DVD versions vs a BluRay for viewings away from my media room...) A-typical over-promises by Amazon product page and the Amazon MarketPlace seller's representations have me severely irked...

If I didn't REALLY like the film as much as I do, I'd ding down a few stars; but really, the film's really fine. Just consider carefully the disk count, bonus disk, value paid-for, but consider what is value... etc.

The Director's cut adds a more fleshed out version of the story and the commentary by Wiseman was informative and engaging.

Buy Total Recall 4 Disc LIMITED EDITION EXTENDED DIRECTOR'S CUT - Blu-ray (2 Disc) / DVD / Ultraviolet Now

Death Race 2 (Blu-ray + DVD) (2011)

After a bank robbery goes bad Carl Lucas (Goss) gets sent to prison. The crime boss who sent him out (Bean) is afraid he will testify against him and sends in assassins to the prison to make sure he doesn't. First of all, if you haven't seen the first "Death Race" I would start with that (you will get some of the call-backs), but I would say its more like the "Star Wars" prequels...you can watch in either order and it will still make sense. I loved the first movie and was very leery about a direct to DVD prequel, but I was very surprised. There were a couple characters from the first one, along with a few "set-ups" that happen in the original movie. I would say this is more of an origin story, it explains the origins of the death race and the character of Frankenstein. Most sequels/prequels are never as good as the original (especially direct to DVD ones), but this is a rare exception. The first Death Race is still the better movie but this one holds up very well. I give it a B+.

I was skeptical about this movie seeing as I am a huge Jason Stathan fan but Luke Goss had me in the palm of his hand from about frame three.

Death Race 2 follows the story ,or leads you into it,I should say perfectly.

It starts off with death matches and when that starts to fizzle they decide to start Death Race.

It takes awhile to get to the actual racing but what precedes it is action packed and entertaining ,so much so you almost hope that it continues to stay with the death matches.

I love Danny Trejo and after seeing his full potential in Machete feel he was a bit wasted here,they could have expanded his character some.

They of course show the evolution of "Frankenstein" which was sad but effective. If you're a fan of Death Race you will like or love this movie.After viewing I immediately wanted to go and pop Death Race into my DVD player,and I did,it's like watching one long movie when you view them consecutively ..

Buy Death Race 2 (Blu-ray + DVD) (2011) Now

I was lucky enough to be in the audience of the Toronto premiere of this film 1/10/2011 and DR2 BLEW ME AWAY!!!

FIRST This movie was made as a PREQUEL to the movie with Jason Statham and this film is NOT about that character. Luke Goss plays Carl Lucas, Jason played Jensen Ames.

And as I have seen this I can tell you that it is absolutely FABULOUS!

It started fast and hard and I knew from that moment that we were all in for a heck of a film, and we were not disappointed!

The audience gasped and laughed, cheered and applauded. Luke Goss took you through the emotional transformation of Carl Lucas and made you feel it all!!

The effects and stunts made you lean toward the screen in anticipation and made you forgot that you were actually not a part of it.

The cast was perfectly chosen and the whole audience agreed that this film should have been a theater release!!

This movie is receiving much more positive reviews than negative... and MOST of the negative comes from people with preconceived ideas about it because it does NOT have Statham. Luke Goss is a STELLAR actor who did AWESOME in this movie. I HIGHLY recommend it and I can not wait for my pre-ordered dvd to arrive!

Read Best Reviews of Death Race 2 (Blu-ray + DVD) (2011) Here

Loving the Death Race series, starting with Death Race 2000, I was skeptical about a sequel as most movies fail to match or beat the predecessors. After watching this movie I came away very happy.

For those who don't know, this is a prequel of the series. In this movie they clue you in on how it all started and how Frankenstein came to be.

I bought this elsewhere and paid more to do so... would definitely recommend you buy it from here.

Want Death Race 2 (Blu-ray + DVD) (2011) Discount?

Let me just first say that I fully realize that this move, the 2008 movie with Jason Statham and the original Roger Corman flick are all 'B' grade movies and I judge them on that level. I am a fan of Mad Max / Road Warrior type movies and the recent Death Race movies have been the only movies in that Car Wars genre for quite some time. I disagree with most who say that this is surperior to the 2008 film. It's clear that this movie has been made with the leftovers from that movie. I was expecting new characters and new cars (save Frankenstein's Mustang) what we get it the same cars with vaguely analogous characters Big Bill is no Machine Gun Joe, Sheik is no Reaper and so on. 14K is the only driver other than Frankenstein to be in both movies it seems like we could have seen more of the track history of the drivers in the first movie. The scenes with Sean Bean were clearly shot separately and edited in, as he never seems to interact with others ... the same is almost true of Ving Rhames.

In short, I wanted more combat car action and I got less and the bit that I got wasn't as fast paced and thrilling as the 2008 movie.

Who knows, maybe this series of films has done well enough to make a third film (death race 3000?) that would actually be a remake of the original

Save 47% Off

Shorts (2009)

I thought this was a really good and very funny movie that the whole family will love! It has an awesome plot, funny situations, and lovable characters. The movie is told out of order in a series of 'short' episodes! In the town of Black Falls, all the adults work for Black Box Unlimited Worldwide Industries Incorporated. Toby Thompson is a lonely kid who gets picked on gets picked on by Mr. Black's kids, until Toby finds a Rainbow colored wishing rock that will grant his every wish. Toby is just one of the many kids who have found the rock, like Nose Noseworthy, Loogie, Cole, and Helvetica Black. When Mr. Black gets ahold of the rock, he uses it for world domination. Can the kids of Black Falls stop him before he becomes mad with power? I highly recommend SHORTS!!!

A cute family movie geared towards the younger generation! It was fun to watch with the children though.Mostly clean with a little crudeness.

Buy Shorts (2009) Now

My daughter saw this movie in the theatre a few years ago and just wanted to see it again. Not as good as the SPY KIDS brand which Rodriguez directed as well.

Read Best Reviews of Shorts (2009) Here

Robert Rodriguez does not dissapoint my kids! Creative and funny. Like all the Spy Kids movies, my kids were entertained!

Want Shorts (2009) Discount?

my kids 3 and 5 really enjoyed this movie. they watched it 3 times in 2 days. a good movie the whole family will enjoy. kept the kids laughing till the end.

Save 49% Off

The Scent of Green Papaya (1994)

This Vietnamese film is a remarkable piece of film-making. A delight for the senses, there is very little dialogue in this movie and aptly so given that the movements, sounds, facial expressions, etc. are the dominant features of the film. The story's central character is Mui, a ten-year-old girl who has moved to Saigon to work as a house maid. Mui is treated well by the mistress of the house, a woman who is still grieving the loss of her young daughter seven years ago. The fact that Mui is the age her daughter would have been had she lived makes the mistress look kindly upon Mui.

Mui soon learns her way about the household (father, mother, and two sons) under the guidance of an older maid who is also the cook. She learns that the master and mistress are not close to each other, and that the master has occasionally run off with the wife's savings to fool around with other women.

The movie's charms lie mainly in Mui's portrayal of interest in her surroundings watching an ant heave a piece of burnt bread; hearing birds sing; frogs croaking, etc. Viewers also get to see Mui's emotional growth from a naïve young child into a beautiful young woman, who eventually leaves her old household to find her livelihood in another household, where a relationship develops between Mui and her new master. This is a leisurely-paced movie that allows viewers to luxuriate in every little detail, sights, and sounds without being bombarded by non-stop dialogue or too many characters. A true cinematic gem.

I saw this movie on TV back when I was 17, and it floored me. I had never seen a movie with such power; power derived from simplicity and stillness. It inspired me to expose myself to more foreign films, and see what cinema can really portray. This movie is an experience. I would give this movie my highest recommendation (especially on bluray). Also, this directors next movie, "Vertical Ray Of The Sun" is equally as good.

Buy The Scent of Green Papaya (1994) Now

This film is sort of a cinematic poem and it looks and sounds terrific on Blu-ray. I was very impressed by the picture quality, and the film was great as well. It's not heavy on plot, dialogue or action. It's a simple story about a peasant girl who goes to work for a wealthy family in 1950s Vietnam. Even though she is a poor servant, she is able to take pleasure in the small things (like the scent of green papaya). The cinematography and the performances of the two actresses (the same girl at age 10 and then at age 20) are what make the movie great. Incredibly, the entire film was shot on sound stages in France! In a behind the scenes doc, you can see the sets being built. This film is an impressive achievement and I look forward to viewing more of this director's works on Blu-ray.

Read Best Reviews of The Scent of Green Papaya (1994) Here

This is a lovely French-Vietnamese film that tells the story of Mui (Man San Lu), a ten year old, illiterate girl with a sweet disposition who becomes a servant in a traditional upper middle class, Saigon household in 1951 Vietnam. Separated from her mother at such a young age, Mui takes the world in stride, enjoying and savoring all that is around her. Even the simple scent of green papaya charms her. She is definitely someone who looks at her glass as being half-full rather than half-empty.

She comes to the household like a breath of fresh air. The household consists of a mother, a father, three sons, and the grandmother, the father's mother. The mother (Thi Loc Truong) seems to be a somewhat unhappy woman. Having lost her only daughter, a child that would have been Mui's age had she lived, the sight of Mui makes her happy. She otherwise has little about which to be happy. The father (Ngoc Trung Tran), a seemingly uncommunicative man, spends his time playing melancholic music. He occasionally leaves the household for months at a time, taking with him the family's money and small valuables in order to carouse and have a good time, leaving the mother to fend for the family as best that she can. The grandmother is given to berating her, blaming her for the father's absences.

There are three sons in the household, two young ones who play pranks and torment others, as well as a much older son, whose best friend, Khuyen (Hoa Hoi Vuong), occasionally comes to dinner. It is there that he first catches Mui's eye, and she is smitten, developing a little crush on him. Ten years later, with the family on the skids, their wealth having dissipated, the father and mother-in-law now dead, the oldest son married to a shrew, a now twenty year old Mui (Tran Nu Yen Khe), who is quite lovely to look at, can no longer remain in the household, as they can no longer afford to keep her. She is to go and work in the household of the wealthy Khuyen. The mother, heartbroken at Mui's leaving, gives her valuable gifts that she would have given her own daughter, had she but lived.

When Mui goes to Khuyen's westernized household, the influence of the French being obvious, Khuyen is engaged to a very cosmopolitan and worldly woman who makes demands upon Khuyen that upset the harmony of his life. Khuyen is an artist, as he is a composer and pianist. Mui quietly walks around the fringes of his life, bringing peace, harmony, and beauty along with her. Comparisons to Khuyen's fiance are inescapable. Mui is now a beautiful young woman who still delights in the simplest things around her. One day she decides to use the valuable gifts that her former employer gave her. The artist in Khuyen cannot help but notice. It is then that Mui's life is transformed and becomes the stuff of fairytales.

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, this is simply a beautiful film. With a minimum of dialogue, the director, Tran Anh Hung, who also wrote the screenplay, manages to convey much, exacting exquisite performances from the entire cast. It is Mui, however, who captures the heart of the viewer. Mui is a pure delight, patient, joyful, and loving. It is the role of Mui that is central to the film, and both actresses succeed brilliantly in anchoring the film through their respective portrayals. Moreover, although most of the film takes place in the two households in which Mui works, the film does not cease to fascinate. It is hard to believe that this film was shot on a sound stage in Paris, as the sets look so authentic. This is not a film for everyone, however, as the scenes are slow and deliberate and contain little dialogue. For those for whom beauty is of the essence, their patience will be amply rewarded.

Want The Scent of Green Papaya (1994) Discount?

The Blu-ray release of The Scent of Green Papaya is truly cinematic poetry. This is how the film should be viewed ...in all it artistic High-Def glory! It's like night and day compared to the DVD release I own. The details of the sets down to the papaya seeds will leave you breathless. Trust me, if you loved the film back when, you'll love it even more on Blu-ray.

Save 40% Off

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (Blu-Ray/DVD Combo Pack) (1946)

It's a fine little race to watch, with everyone trying to stay one step ahead of each other in this malevolently decadent thriller about love, marriage,... and murder. Barbara Stanwyck is cunningly vicious in her role as a woman whose mysterious and intriguing past forced her to give up her childhood sweetheart, (Van Heflin, in a well-executed performance) bound her to marry a man she hated (Kirk Douglas, in an auspicious film debut)... and made hers one of the richest and most modern industries in America. But now her tightly knit secret is beginning to unravel... her husband is beginning to drink, her ex-flame is back... and he's trying to solve a famous crime committed in the town years and years ago. A remarkable film, with the suspense of a Hitchcock thriller, atmosphere of a Wilder noir, and the acting of a Wyler drama, come together to make this noir a chilling and memorable experience, ranking with "Double Indemnity" and "North By Northwest". A must-see for fans of film noir.

Some people call this a noir, and a good one. Some call it a psychological study of guilt. I think it's a melodrama, but a well-crafted one. What moves it from noir to melodrama for me is that there are two weak motivating actions for the plot; the first (the death of the aunt) doesn't have enough power to justify the drama, and the second (a conviction of an innocent man) is barely mentioned until the end of the movie.

Sam Masterson (Van Heflin) is driving west when he decides to go through Iverstown. He has a car accident and has to stay in town until his car is fixed. He meets a young woman, Toni Marachek (Lizabeth Scott), just out of jail and on probation for a crime she wasn't guilty of. Sam decides to go to the district attorney to see if he can help her. Years before as young kids, Sam and the DA, Walter O'Neil (Kirk Douglas), were sort-of friends, tied together by their friendship with Martha Ivers (Barbara Stanwyck).

Now O'Neil is married to Martha. He's running for re-election. Martha inherited Ivers Industries and is the wealthiest woman in town. She's a force to be reckoned with. She inherited millions when her aunt fell down a flight of stairs 18 years ago...the night she and Sam were planning to run off, when Walter was in the house with her and Sam. Her aunt (Judith Anderson), a rigid, disapproving, condescending woman, fell with the help of a crack on the head from a cane wielded by Martha. A few years later a man was hanged for the crime, prosecuted by Walter with testimony from Martha. They married and now live a loveless life, with Walter still the uncertain and sometimes scared child he used to be and Martha a controlling woman. Walter drinks heavily and Martha is contemptuous of him. Now Sam is back, innocently, but Walter in particular is convinced Sam is out to shake them down. "He's a gambler, a sharp shooter, an angle boy," he says to Martha. "They come through my office by the hundreds. Couldn't you see blackmail in his eyes?"

Things quickly spiral down into a morass of misunderstandings, guilt, what might pass for love, and temptation. Walter loves Martha. Martha loves Sam. Sam loves Toni but is tempted by Martha. Toni loves Sam. All is resolved one night in the Ivers' mansion with Martha, Walter and Sam playing out a potentially murderous triangle. But it's 1946, and with the Production Code in place there's little doubt which two people will die and which person will survive as a wiser man. When Martha urges Sam to kill Walter so that they can be together, Sam puts his finger on it. "Martha,' he says, "you're sick...in your mind, I mean, that's where you're sick...so sick you don't even know the difference between right and wrong."

The movie is beautifully photographed, for the most part the pacing is good, the establishment of the three leads' personalities as children is excellently carried over into the performances and personalities of the three as adults. Unfortunately, the death of the aunt just doesn't seem to be a strong enough element to justify all the angst. The aunt was in the process of beating Martha's cat with her cane on the stairs when Martha grabbed the cane and struck her aunt. Any half-way competent lawyer would have been able to get a young heiress off without relying on Martha coming up with having seen a large burglar running from the house. This makes what follows, even with Martha's intensity, seem out of proportion. Some of the dialogue, especially that given to Stanwyck and Douglas, is solid and uneasy...or maybe it's their expert line delivery. But a good deal of the words Heflin and Scott have to say can sound artificial. "They said they wouldn't hurt you," Toni says to Sam when she tries to explain why she helped set him up for a beating. "No more parole, they said, if I went for it. I'd draw the whole five, they said, if I didn't. I went for it. Go ahead and hit me, Sam. I've got it comin.'" Sam looks at her questioningly...then tenderly. "The one thing you've got comin', kid, is a break."

Even so, as melodrama it's fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck and Van Heflin do nice jobs, and Kirk Douglas makes a strong impression. He may be playing a weak drunk, but you look at him while he's on screen.

The DVD picture is in great shape. If you buy this movie, be sure you get this Paramount version. There are a large number of other public domain versions out which look terrible. There are no extras.

Buy The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (Blu-Ray/DVD Combo Pack) (1946) Now

In response to "Good movie yet awful copy" from "Noir": Your experience is common: videos and DVD's from Gotham, Dark City, and Alpha are very poor quality. I purchased the Image Entertainment DVD of Strange Love (ASIN: 6305944369) and can tell you it's probably the best print of the film you're going to find. Picture sharpness is good, sound is acceptable, and there are no missing frames to cause a "jumpy" picture. The brightness & contrast are normal for most of the film, except for a few early scenes where the picture looks washed out and grey. According to the research I've read, after this film dropped into the public domain, no one took the responsibility for preserving it, and as a result the best surviving print has suffered a lot of deterioration. However, I can easily recommend the Image Entertainment version of Strange Love Of Martha Ivers. Please note, that is NOT a blanket endorsement of all Image Entertainment DVD's -for example, they did a TERRIBLE job on another Lizabeth Scott movie, Too Late For Tears -it looks as bad as anything from Alpha or Gotham, yet Image charges a premium price for it. Skip Too Late For Tears, but definitely buy the Image/Hal Roach DVD of Strange Love. And while you're at it, why not write to Paramount Studios, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, CA 90038, and ask them to give us a DVD of another Barbara Stanwyck film noir, The File On Thelma Jordan (Paramount owns the rights). Let's all let the studios know we will support film noir and other classic films!

Read Best Reviews of The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (Blu-Ray/DVD Combo Pack) (1946) Here

Unfortunately the Blu-ray released in 2012 isn't very good. Its been scanned from not-great prints from the Library of Congress, and then digitally cleaned up a tiny bit, but the result is not remotely up to the level of, say, recent B&W Blu-ray releases of Casablanca or All About Eve. Apparently Paramount itself owns better prints, so in theory there could someday be a better version than this.

Want The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (Blu-Ray/DVD Combo Pack) (1946) Discount?

It's pouring rain as this dark noir melodrama opens, and after the night is over, it will always be raining for Martha Ivers. Lewis Milestone directed this tale of a life-long guilt that has festered until misplaced suspicion destroys one person and puts another out of her misery. There are good performances from a great cast, none better than Lizabeth Scott's as a girl down on her luck and hoping against the odds for something good to happen. She is the outside element to three lives bound together since childhood by a crime that has haunted two of them into adulthood.

This is a strange noir in many respects, mostly due to Milestone allowing the moviegoer to see the story in chronological order, rather than using flashbacks. It creates sympathy for the twisted Martha Ivers, because we know how one selfish moment of hatred in her youth set her on a coarse she can not change. It has been raining inside her ever since, until the water is sick and stagnant, but it always keeps coming. At the same time, however, we are rooting for the vulnerable Scott, hoping she'll be the victor in a battle she's not sure she can win.

Judith Anderson is Mrs. Ivers, little Martha's (Janis Wilson) aunt. She's none too nice and on a rainy night Martha causes her death in the heat of the moment, only her pal Walter (Mickey Kuhn) a witness. But they both think their friend Sam (Darryl Hickman) saw the crime also, and ran away. He did run away, but before the event that would change their lives forever.

It is nearly two decades later, and the adult Sam Masterson (Van Heflin) has an accident just outside of Iverstown. It brings back memories of when he was a brash kid, and the girl who now controls both Walter (Kirk Douglass) and the town. He meets the lovely Toni Marachek (Lizabeth Scott) on his first night there and helps her out a bit. She is fresh from jail and though Sam is a WWII veteran, his past is nothing to sneeze at either. There is something beginning between them but fate may decide Toni's future as a past Sam was no part of intrudes on the present.

Barbara Stanwyck is the adult Martha, married to the weaker of the boys from her youth, Walter. But you can tell she always wished it had been Sam who'd stayed that night so long ago. Even though they think he's there to blackmail them, she can't help but throw herself at him, even though she is too far gone on the inside for anything like real love. She does this right in front of her weak husband Walter, who may be more courageous in the end than Martha. Martha has it over on Walter because he loves her, but he is a constant reminder of the past for her. What they have together is a sick and twisted version of the real thing.

The relationship of Sam and Walter sort of mirrors their childhood but Heflin starts to feel sick about it and begins to like Walter, especially when he finally understands why they are so scared he'll tell something he didn't even know about. It's one thing to kill someone, but quite another to let someone else hang for it. All the while Toni has little moments with Sam, hoping it's enough to make him care, and blow Iverstown forever.

Even at the bitter end, there is that moment when you see in Matha's eyes, ever so briefly, that little girl again, and feel sympathy. Douglass is very good in his first screen role and Stanwyck's portrayel of the sad and sick Martha Ivers can stand proudly with any she played in the 1940's. Though her screen time is less by comparison, it is Scott who steals this film, however, as Toni is easily the most memorable character. Even when she isn't around, we are thinking about her plight, wondering where she's at and what will happen to her.

Heflin is solid as always and this is one of the great neglected noirs of the 1940's. There is a great ending where both couples get what they really want, and neither will look back on Iverstown anymore.

Save 25% Off

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

Star trek III is widely considered to be an infinitely inferior sequel to The Wrath of Khan, yet is in fact a more complex film and has a much more difficult task set in front of it. Although not perfect, it is an engaging story filled with a number of excellent reversals and has some of Shatner's best acting.

Montalban is the absolute driving force in Star Trek II and much of that film relies on this fact. Christopher Lloyd does a fine job as a merciless Klingon, yet it is up to Shatner to carry this film. And he does an great job. His stealing of the Enterprise gives Kirk back the initiative in the entire series, and is one of the all-time great moments for the original cast. Why this sequence, and so many others, is not given more credit is beyond me. One gripe: As usual, Kirk gets a LOT of screen time, cut-aways shots etc. at the expense of the other cast members.

Mired in some necessary exposition, The Search for Spock effectively navigates its way through Klingons, Vulcans, the tragic genesis project, Starfleet regulations... no easy task. The finale is lovingly presented, and tests the depths of not only the crews's emotions but that of the audience and fans. Nimoy did a fine job with this film, and it led the way to the unprecedented Star Trek IV.

Star Trek III The Search for Spock is a wonderful, middle movie to the more or less trilogy of II, III and IV. I was a little disappointed that Kirstie Allie couldn't pick up where she left off in the role of Saavik. Robin Curtis does do a very good job though. Christopher Lloyds Klingon Commander is absolutely Klingon through and through. All of the original cast members are true to their characters. Overall, Star Trek III is not the best of the original six, but it's most certainly not the worst either. A wonderful story that, like all the rest, I've watched more times than I can remember.

Buy Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Now

Though lacking the philosophical depth of The Motion Picture, and the heart-pounding action of The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ultimately succeeds because it's primarily a character driven story, which recalls the best episodes of the original series. Spock's resurrection is handled convincingly--no magical regeneration with a shiny blue animated line here. In all aspects, Leonard Nimoy does a fine job in his directorial debut--he can clearly handle a camera and brings forth strong performances from his actors. Robin Curtis more than holds her own in the role of Lt. Saavik, originally portrayed by Kirstie Alley. The consistently underrated William Shatner shines here, giving a performance which is by turns somber and impassioned. DeForest Kelley also deserves praise as the Spock-possessed McCoy.

Most of the special effects have held up well over the years, and the few that haven't are not overly distracting. Star Trek has never been beholden to special effects, but has generally relied upon character development and story--and this emphasis has served it well over the years.

The picture is identical to the first DVD issue, which improved on both the VHS and Laser Disc issues--the colors are more vibrant and crisper. The sound also has more impact than the earlier versions.

This is one of the few films where the theatrical cut WAS the director's cut, so there are no added scenes here. The commentary by Nimoy and the rest is interesting and informative, as is Michael Okuda's text commentary. The cast interviews, as always, are entertaining, although I would have liked to have heard more of what REALLY happened during the infamous 1983 fire at Paramount studios. Less entertaining are the featurettes on terraforming, the Klingon language, and the visual effects, which contain almost no behind the scenes footage.

Read Best Reviews of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Here

In the footsteps of "The Wrath of Khan" Director's Edition DVD comes the Special Collector's Edition of "The Search For Spock", in my opinion the best Star Trek movie of all. The writers held nothing back, giving us an ingenius way of bringing Spock back. Though definitely no among the most exciting of the series, it does the best job by far of illustrating the eternal friendship of the Enterprise crew.

It also sprouts first-rate preformances, notably Christopher Lloyd as Commander Kruge, who perfectly personifies the ultimate Klingon. Robin Curtis, replacing Kirstie Alley as Saavik, makes a more traditional Vulcan, showing hardly any emotion whatsoever (the way Vulcans are supposed to). The entire Enterprise crew is in top form. And, of course, Spock; Leonard Nimoy's screen time, no matter how limited (only a couple of minutes), makes you want to stand up and cheer.

The special effects more than match up to (and at times surpass) those of "The Wrath of Khan". And James Horner once again engorges himself, providing a haunting and incredibly beautiful score that perfectly captures the sense of Vulcan mysticism (as well as everything else in the movie). All of which is displayed very nicely on the DVD.

I've been waiting for this new two-disc DVD for well over two months, but it was worth the wait. The picture quality is nothing short of spectacular. The cast and crew interviews are once again very interesting and funny (William Shatner is utterly hillarious). I have not yet seen the "Terraforming & The Prime Directive" or "Star Trek Universe" documentaries, but you can bet your *** that I will.

Now I just can't wait for the two-disc edition of "The Voyage Home" to be released. If it's half as good as the Special Collector's Edition of "The Search For Spock", I'll gladly pay my money for it!

Want Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) Discount?

If anyone is wondering where the Klingons of the later Star Trek movies and television series' came from, this is it. Christopher Lloyd's "Kruge" is the defining character after which all the later ones were patterned.

This movie also dramatically introduces the much used Klingon Bird-of-Prey that turns up frequently in later movies and on TV.

In my opinion, this is the best movie after "The Wrath of Khan" and keeps the drama and action moving quickly along.

Save 31% Off

From Hell (2001)

Jack the Ripper is perhaps one of the most famous (or should I say infamous) serial killers known. His has indeed become somewhat of a household name that has withstood the test of time. The Whitechapel murders, to this day, remain unsolved, and many people find themselves morbidly drawn to this slew of ghastly occurrences. The Hughes brothers are no different from the countless others who seek to dissect the facts surrounding these heinous crimes, and they approach this fascination with cinematic fervor, creating an excellent movie from the excellent comic book.

There have been countless books, movies, and PBS specials produced that delve into the Jack the Ripper tales and theories. This particular adaptation is the depiction of a detective named Inspector Fred Abberline (Johnny Depp) who is hot on the trail of the murderous monster. Enlisting the hallucinatory effects of absinthe, he can induce visions that aid him in his quests. Throughout his investigation, he gradually begins to fall for one of the Whitechapel prostitutes at risk (Mary Kelly played by Heather Graham), and this serves to up the ante regarding the challenge to find the villain and, furthermore, accelerate his efforts. Sir William Gull (Ian Holm) is a doctor who contributes to Inspector Fred Abberline's profile of the meandering butcher. Add to this an illegitimate marriage and a royal scandal, and this equates to an enticingly dour, moody thriller that one can't help but to enjoy.

The sets on this film are incredible, and included in the two disc edition within the extras existing on the DVD is an intriguing explanation of the recreation of the sets from actual photographs and maps from the period. The props and attire were also quite well done. The acting and casting were superb. The dark lighting created a potently thrilling and disturbing atmosphere, and the excellent cinematography only served to strengthen that sinister ambiance, as well as create an almost overwhelming sense of impending danger. The blood and gore effects are incredible as well, yet they never take precedence over the story line, which is very much appreciated. Though fairly predictable, this film is still an exhilarating, if somewhat fictitious, romp through some dreary and obscure pages in history.

This movie is a must for fans of horror, true crime, and dark thrillers. I very highly recommend this film to those with any kind of brooding fascination for the macabre. Not for the easily disturbed.

When I had seen the trailers for the film "From Hell" I'd expected it to be good. Was it good? Yes. As good as I hoped it would be? No. But it is still a damned fine mystery-horror-thriller that incorperates romance and drama into the story as well.

The story follows Inspector Fredrick Abberline as he begins his investigation of the infamous Whitechapel murders, perpetrated by the shadowy, never-caught Jack the Ripper. During the course of the investigation, he has precognitive visions that lead him deeper into the mystery, as he tries to save the beautiful prostitutes who are being viciously murdered, and are somehow linked to a massive conspiracy. He even begins to fall in love with Mary Kelly, who would be the Ripper's final victim.

The performance of Johhny Depp as Inspector Abberline is overall an excellent performance from an actor who always takes notoriously quirky roles. Heather Graham came off rather well as Mary Kelly--much better than I thought she would be. Robbie Coltrane plays the part of the Inspector's sidekick, Sgt. Godley, extremely well, and he manages to steal all of his scenes. Another wonderful portrayal is that of Ian Holm as the royal physician Sir William Gull, who assists Inspector Abberline and may have a key to the mystery. Supporting performances are all pulled off very well.

The set design and visual effects are gorgeous and haunting, giving a vivid presentation of 1888 London(the visuals rival even those of Tim Burton). The murders are left more to the imagination rather than being very explicit--but the onscreen gore effects are decidedly gruesome. Even the music by Trevor Jones is haunting in the simple, dark textual feel that it gives off.

The story itself is overall good. The first 3/4ths are quite ingenious, but in the very end of the film is not what I expected and I was a little disappointed in the resolution and conclusion of the tale. The Ripper's identity and motive were excellent, even when kept faceless in the shadows. But the as the climax builds up, it seems to be running out of steam. My only major gripe is how complicated the story gets as it progresses--adding in the conspiracy and the romance, it just seems unable to hold its own weight, building up to nothing. Although this can be accounted by trying to stick close to the source material and history itself, the conclusion is not wholly satisfying.

But overall this is a good movie that will undoubtedly become a favorite among Ripper fans, as well as fans of "Seven" and "Silence of the Lambs". If you can tolerate its massive complexity and the rather limp ending, then you will find this an entertaining and enjoyable--and rather nasty--little pleasure.

Buy From Hell (2001) Now

The most important thing you need to know about "From Hell," is that the Hughes Brothers really let you off easy with this one. When you go home after seeing this movie late at night and have trouble getting to sleep, just remember that they could have shown you a lot more, which means you might not have gotten to sleep for a week. I have read Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's graphic novel "From Hell," and have also spent some time researching the historical record regarding Jack the Ripper, which includes not only autopsy reports but also photographs of the victims. Consequently, I was surprised that the film verion of "From Hell" actually backed off three times from completely grossing out the audience.

First, when the Ripper killed Annie Chapman he draped some of her intestines over her shoulder. The film does not even suggest this happened, beyond the idea that organs have been removed. Second, the night the Ripper claimed two victims, most Ripperologists have surmised that because he was interrupted when he killed Liz Stride, he was really angry when he killed Catherine Eddowes, since he hacked away the bottom half of her face. But when her face is revealed it is just the same as the other victims. Finally, when the doctor begins to describe the final body--usual the very words of the actual report--he stops after having described the position of the corpse. More to the point, he stops before describing what Jack did with her organs. Believe me, you do not need to see this to freak out because just hearing about it would keep you awake all night. Now, to be fair, the dialogue is the same as that scene in the graphic novel; but then Moore and Campbell had already devoted a entire volume to what Jack the Ripper did that night in graphic detail so it did not have to be articulated. But I was all set to hear the one of the biggest audience moans in cinematic history and was somewhat disappointed the Hughes Brothers let everybody off the hook.

Ironically, the Hughes Brothers could legitimately get away with showing us much more blood and guts. After all, the autopsy reports tell us in excruciating detail what the Ripper did to each of his victims and they could simply claim historical accuracy. But instead they pull up short, giving them even more latitude for getting away with what gore they do offer up. However, during Abberline's vision of what will happen to Jack the Ripper's final victim, one of the images that flashes before our eyes is indeed a photograph taken by the police of the mutilated body of Mary Kelly. This only goes to reinforce the great divide that exists between those who have studied the murders of Jack the Ripper and/or read "From Hell" and those who simply know Jack the Ripper killed a bunch of prostitutes in London in the late 19th century and was never caught.

Certainly, the Hughes Brothers do play with us in this film. If you can stomach seeing it a second time, or if you already know who "From Hell" contends is the Ripper, then they are several scenes were Abberline is tantalizingly close to the killer. Of course, they are not alone in such regard; "The Bone Collector" was particularly audacious in offering us a first glimpse of the killer. Moore and Campbell let us know the identity of Jack from before he ever starts his killing spree, but the movie version decides to keep it a mystery and apparently succeeds in surprising those who only know about "From Hell" from the trailer and television commercials.

The Hughes Brothers have described "From Hell" as a "ghetto" film, and certainly the production design stands out in providing a fitting atmosphere for the tale. The events we are watching are not taking place in the London we have come to know from countless Hammer horror films but in what we readily accept as the city's Whitechapel district in the fall of 1888 (with Prague doubling nicely). This is as stylish a slasher flick as you will ever see, with the time-lapse sequence of the discovery of one of the bodies and the revelation of the Masonic meeting beneath the streets of London particularly memorable. Even the lighting works towards the proper atmosphere for the story.

Johnny Depp's performance as Inspector Abberline is nicely understated (the character's psychic visions come from a fake psychic who was in the graphic novel). Unfortunately, Heather Graham is just too darn cute, sticking out from the rest of the totally believable group of prostitutes (Annabelle Apsion, Katrin Cartlidge, Susan Lynch and Lesley Sharp). I had heard that the producers made actually made them shoot a "happy ending" to this film, but fortunately they had the wisdom not to use it. Ripperologists knew going in that this was not going to be the "true" story about Jack, so that additional liberties such as all of the victims hanging out together all the time and the total absence of men in any of their lives, are easily forgivable. What was always impressive about Moore's tale was how he managed to weave so many different elements together into a comprehensive tale, even if it is ultimately suspect. But the film version strips the story down to its essentials and while it is certainly the best Jack the Ripper film made to date, I cannot shake my head and think how much better it could have been by letting the audience glimpse just a little bit more of the true story.

But, oh, boys and girls, "From Hell" could have upset you a whole lot more than it did. If only you can understand how close to the edge of the cliff you were on this one...

Read Best Reviews of From Hell (2001) Here

The case of Jack the Ripper has long been, and continues to be, one of the great unsolved mysteries of all time, and as such has been the subject of numerous treatments in film. Of them all, however, none has advanced a more logical or plausible theory in explanation of the who, whys and wherefores of the infamous serial killer than "From Hell," directed by Albert Hughes and Allen Hughes, which attempts to solve the mystery that has by consensus long been deemed "unsolvable." But-cinematically speaking, at any rate-the Hughes Brothers make a decidedly solid case of it.

It's 1888, London; in the Whitechapel district prostitutes are being systematically slaughtered in a precise and grisly manner. Scotland Yard is at a loss to solve or stop the murders, and Inspector Fred Abberline (Johnny Depp) is assigned to investigate. Abberline is somewhat unique in his approach, as he is invested with certain prescient abilities, which he enhances through the use of opium, laudanum and absinthe; not the usual methods employed by the police, but it does effect the desired results.

Abberline discovers a link between the victims, and along the way becomes involved with one of the "girls," Mary Kelly (Heather Graham), who may be in danger because of something she knows. But as Abberline gets closer to a solution, he very well may be in danger also; he knows too much, and there is one, especially, who would find ease if he were to just disappear. And by any means necessary.

The proper atmosphere is, of course, a requirement if one is to tell this story convincingly, and the Hughes Brothers succeed nicely in this regard. But it would be hard to find a movie about the Ripper that did NOT achieve a proper mood; it's kind of a common link that ties all of the previous offerings together, up to and including this one. This film differs from the rest in one important respect, however, and it's a big one-that being the story itself. Whereas the others are good at leading you down the path and taking you nowhere, the Hughes Brothers go out on a limb and actually deliver a satisfying ending, and moreover, one that solves the mystery. It's all speculation, of course, but this film will leave you feeling closer to the truth than ever before. It's well crafted and executed, and they manage to keep the air fairly heavy with menace and suspense, from the beginning right up to the very end, which ultimately defines it as something of a "fable-noir."

Johnny Depp gives a solid, convincing performance as Abberline, who is something of the antithesis of another of his creations, Constable Ichabod Crane, of Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow." It's a challenge for an actor to take on two roles somewhat similar in nature to begin with, and successfully manage to make them quite the opposite of one another in the end, which is what Depp has done with these respective portrayals. The events surrounding Crane may have been dark, but Ichabod was not; here, however, Deep finds a dark side of his character, Abberline, that is as enigmatic as the case with which he is dealing, and it is that to which Depp plays, approaching from the depths and looking up, rather than observing from a position of light, as he did in "Hollow." And it demonstrates that Depp is endowed with that same kind of chameleon-like quality that serves such actors as De Niro and Billy Bob Thornton so well; it's a matter of being able to transform oneself from the inside out, which comparably few actors can do with any real success.

Heather Graham does a good job with her role of Mary; she's convincing for the most part, but there are moments when it's something of a challenge for the viewer to totally believe that she is a "lady of the night." Her appearance seems almost a bit too polished, especially compared to the other girls. It's a minor complaint, however, as overall, though her performance may not necessarily be one of the strengths of the film, it certainly does nothing to detract from the effectiveness of it.

The performance turned in by Ian Holm, on the other hand, is definitely one of the film's strengths. As Sir William Gull, he is quite believable, with a probing portrayal that does much for the credibility of the story.

Also helping things along substantially, are Robbie Coltrane (who has since become known, and will forever after be, "Harry Potter's" Hagrid), as Abberline's colleague, Peter Godley, and Susan Lynch (who previously gave such a remarkable performance as Nora Barnacle in "Nora," opposite Ewan McGregor), as Liz Stride.

The supporting cast includes Ian Richardson (Sir Charles Warren), Jason Flemyng (Netley), Katrin Cartlidge (Dark Annie), Terence Harvey (Ben Kidney), Paul Rhys (Dr. Ferral) and Lesley Sharp (Kate). Arguably the best and, without question the most satisfying of all the "Ripper" movies, "From Hell" is a well made, graphic and thought provoking consideration of the Whitechapel killings, which for quite some time held all of London in the grip of fear and terror. The conclusions offered here may just be as close to the truth as anyone will ever get; in the event that it is pure fiction, however,it is decidedly good fiction that makes for a couple of hours of riveting entertainment and speculation. Be forewarned, this one is not going to be for everyone, as many of the mental, as well as visual images it presents are extremely disconcerting. Definitely not for the squeamish, but for those who are so disposed, this one will prove to be quite an experience. It's the magic of the movies.

Want From Hell (2001) Discount?

When I first saw the trailer for "From Hell", I was understandably ecstatic. Based on graphic novel of the same name, written by Alan Moore, I had really high hopes for this one. Judging by the previews, it looked as though the Hughes brothers might do it justice. But alas, as film adaptions of books often go, they butchered it. Let's start with Johnny Depp's character, Inspector Abberline. They turn him from an honest and hardworking detective that slowly develops some feelings for a young prostitute, into an opium-addicted clairvoyant that falls madly in love with the aformentioned hooker (Heather Graham). And speaking of Heather Graham, could they have made a more horrible choice for a 19th century prostitute? The other hookers in the film look, well, like they should (ugly), but Graham sticks out like a sore thumb. As for the story, this butchery is typical of big Hollywood films. The book focused on the character of Jack the Ripper more than anyone else in the story. In fact, he was revealed in Chapter 2! That's what made it so fascinating: the book went inside the killer's head and tried to explain the motivations for his gruesome killings, besides the obvious ones presented in the film. It deconstructed and analyzed a truly twisted mind and tried to convey how, in the words of Alan Moore, "Human experience went to the very edge...then stepped beyond". The film turns into a typical whodunit, keeping you guessing until he is revealed at the very end. Anyway, I've ranted long enough. See the film if you want for pure entertainment, you'll probably enjoy it. But if you want a richly textured and fascinating, albeit fictional, story about one of the most notorious serial killers of all time, read the book.

Save 30% Off