The Help (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD + Digital Copy) (2011)

"Oscar season", as it's typically referred to, is a period of time, usually beginning in late November, and ending in late January. This year, it starts early, with "The Help".

"The Help" is based on the well-known novel by Kathryn Stockett, someone who I had never heard of before discovering this film and book. For the most part, when I hear about a film that I want to see, I try to read the book prior to viewing the movie, to enhance the whole experience. Usually I get bored, or stop mid-way through one of these said books, before I end up watching the movie.

But "The Help" grabbed me. Stockett kept me on a leash, dying to know what happened next, and I ended up finishing its 530 pages in a few sittings. And, I'm glad it did, because "The Help" is not only the best movie I've seen this summer, but it very well could be the best one I see all year.

The film centers on Aibileen, Skeeter and Minny (Davis, Stone and Spencer, respectively) three very different women in Mississippi, in the year 1962. Skeeter is returning from college with a journalism degree, whose beloved childhood black maid Constantine has disappeared, and no one will tell her where she has gone. Aibileen is a maid who has raised 17 white children in her life. The word "maid" is pretty blandly used. She's a nanny to these children, if not a surrogate mother. Her outspoken friend Minny has never been able to keep quiet, or, because of this, hold onto a job very long, and she is hired on the sly by Celia (Chastain), a white-trash rich girl who has some grave secrets of her own. Skeeter decides to write a tell-all book of interviews from the maids of Jackson, Mississippi, which, as you could imagine, was a very taboo, and perhaps even illegal thing to take on in the time of Jim Crow, and segregation.

One of the reasons that this film succeeds is that not a single character is miscast, and there is not a single caricature. In the book, Stockett paints a vivid picture of each character, and the actors clearly got lost in their characters. Emma Stone is becoming a very important actress. I haven't seen her in a role that I didn't love her in. After getting her first notable role in 2009's "Zombieland", and then livening and carrying the otherwise bland teen comedy "Easy A", this is her first dramatic role, as Skeeter, one of the lead characters. While she sometimes blends into the background in this movie, she shines beautifully with the rest of the cast. She's definitely one to watch.

While Stone is great, this movie belongs to Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. Davis's Aibileen is perfect. She has a silent sadness about her, a lot of pride, and a great sense of anger, her expressive eyes displaying a silent protest, while never raising her voice the whole film. She handles emotional scenes beautifully, reducing the audience to tears in more than one scene. She's a early in the year front-runner for Best Actress this Oscar season.

Spencer also does a beautiful job as Minny. Octavia Spencer was the original inspiration for the character of Minny, who voiced the character's section in the audio-book. She was clearly made to play this role. She does a lot more for this movie, than just adding comic relief, however, she does plays the comedic side the best. The "terrible awful" that her character does in the book, is made into the funniest thing in the whole movie.

The supporting cast is dead-on too. Bryce Dallas Howard plays the town's snobby ringleader, Hilly. She's absolutely chilling, nailing the evil character. Her mother, played by Sissy Spacek is a hoot. The town's secretive lush, and Minny's boss, Celia, is played by scene-stealing newcomer Jessica Chastain, who wowed earlier this year in "The Tree of Life". She was completely like I envisioned her character in the book. Chastain would be perfect to play Marilyn Monroe. Just saying. There's not enough typing space in this review to describe how much I loved the rest of the supporting cast. Everyone was dead-on.

I was under the assumption that this would be yet another disappointing film of a book loved by many. The reason for this was the director and writer. I had never heard of this Tate Taylor, and because of that, I wasn't sure that I trusted him. He had a large part in making this movie all that it was. One of the big reasons that "The Help" works as a movie is because it feels authentic. It was filmed in Mississippi, where it's based, it is set in the 1960's, and every feeling about the movie hits the right note.

I later discovered that Taylor was a childhood friend of the book's author. Not some Hollywood hack. I forget the many disappointing film adaptations of books I loved that were made by the Hollywood elite. "The Da Vinci Code" by Ron Howard, "Memoirs of a Geisha" by Rob Marshall, "Eat, Pray, Love" by Ryan Murphy. Enough said. After seeing this film, I couldn't imagine anyone better-suited to making the film.

What is special about this film is that it is not what a lot of people will probably write it off as. It's not a film designed to make audiences feel less "white guilt", and it isn't about how black folks need white ones to succeed. It's about good-hearted people wanting to make a change to a world that is unjust. It avoids the usual sentimentality and melodrama that typically plagues this kind of film. I don't know how, but it succeeds in that, like I thought it wouldn't.

While some changes are (intelligently) made from the book, it's almost a scene-for-scene adaptation of the book. Some things are different, because they need to be, and things are a little more concise, yet it's almost like watching an abridged version of the book, onscreen. It will stir up emotions in you that you didn't know you had. At the ending of this film, in a packed house, there was a thunderous applause. Almost everyone in the theater stayed seated through out the ending credits. I cannot remember a time where a movie evoked such emotion from its audience, that it wasn't until after the credits had ended that people actually started walking out. This is gripping stuff. Don't miss it.

Grade: A+

"The Help" works as well as it does because it doesn't offer easy answers. This lovely and sometimes extraordinary film is not concerned with big sermons about clivil rights, religion or easy to swallow messages. The film is simply about behavior; how we should act, morally, towards other people, no matter who they might be. This thematic line is structured nicely throughout the film by zeroing in on a select group of people. This was a smart move since the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s is just too large a subject to truly flesh out in a 2 hour film. Because the film is about actual characters instead of predisposed, prepackaged lessons, the audience can take with them what they choose from the story (none of the characters have a major epiphany, each just starts to become aware of their behavior and effects, both good and badthey all have so much more life to live). Surprisingly the film rarely gets melodramatic, and when it does it almost seems cheep and easy. Thankfully the films few flaws (structure, pacing, some silly dialogue here and there"You broke her heart...!") can be overlooked due to the tremendous performances. Each actress is exceptional in their own ways with the wonderful Viola Davis stealing the film. Emma Stone is reliable here as always and proves that she can be funny and carry dramatic weight in the same film. I have always considered Bryce Dallas Howard to be a very accomplished actress and hopefully her scathing, pointed work will be recognized. Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain find a tender chemistry all their own. I have to say that "The Help" really, truly surprised me. I have never read the mega-selling novel from which it's based but I can tell you the film is a beautiful testament to American history and is a great display for some truly fine acting. For those who are turned off by sermonizing, preachy, obnoxious message movies (like myself), "The Help" is far from that. This is a tender film about real emotions and a subject that is rarely discussed in film today.

Buy The Help (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD + Digital Copy) (2011) Now

Now we see this film wins award nominations aplenty. Biggest winner was the public. Leads of Davis and Spencer that stole the spotlight. DVD to own, not rent.

The only drawback with the DVD is the sparse bonus material. 4 min. of 2 deleted, and a 5 min. music video of one of the film's songs. Pathetically weak bonus, but then it is a 5.5 star film. Everyone asks to borrow our copy, I should have bought 2.

Oh yes, there are SUBTITLES.

We attended the opening matinee; we'll view it again, that good. Is `The Help' the soul of 60s era race relations? This worthy film based on Kathryn Stockett's #1 best-seller is equally a first-class view as true for the read. The story of 3 daring Mississippi women is as absorbing as any you'll see this year. The plot is writing a book which attempts to tell the truth about B/W relations in the city of Jackson, between wealthy whites and `the help'; but doing it anonymously. Without being fired or lynched.

There is humor in the way the Jackson Belle socialites operate, and eventually react to the book publication. Bryce Dallas Howard is the personification of Bad Girl, Hilly. Although beautiful, I loathed Hilly in the film and book, as you are supposed to. And Jessica Chastain (Murder on the Orient Express) has all it takes to be the scene stealer while playing Celia. Truly believable!

Humor erupts in how the help secretly reacts to their treatment. There's sadness at some injustice.

Viola Davis plays a slimmer/sexier Aibileen than was my mental image while reading the book. Octavia Spencer is right on as Minny. Both girls pack their roles with perfection.

The film has intrigue through the months of secret interviews.

There's a mystery related to Skeeter's (Emma Stone) own childhood maid's story, which is a larger part of the story in the book.

Skeeter, Aibileen, & Minny are the key book writers. The casting is near perfection. Should be some Oscar nominations someplace.

Some other stars too, like, Sissy Spacek, Cicely Tyson, & Mary Steenburgen (Proposal, Joan of Arcadia).

I remember reading the book and doing it as quickly as possible toward the end; and praying that all the `help' have a happy ending, but expecting some casualties. With the movie, it is evident when the story is climaxing, and then you just wish that you could make it last another hour or two. An excellent story, but then we all knew that from the book.

It is a tribute to the story that you forget it is fiction. How much is real, a docu-drama of the early 1960's of the south (& north)? We need reviews from the real-life `help' of the early 60's. Only they know!

If you view only one film this year...this should be it. See it soon, & as the film's dialogue states, "Before the whole civil rights thing blows over." That line brought a theater audience LOL.

As Aibileen believes, quoted from the book, "We done something brave and good here. And Minny, maybe she don't want a be deprived a any a the things that go along with being brave and good."

`

Read Best Reviews of The Help (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD + Digital Copy) (2011) Here

This is an amazing movie. I just finished watching it a few minutes ago and my emotions are still reacting to it. After hearing a commentator talk about it, I had almost decided not to watch it, but I'm glad I did. I'm old enough to have lived through the time period covered. What I observed as a small child was only the tip of the iceberg. This movie brought out so much more that I just hadn't noticed or thought about. While the movie itself was done in an entertaining manner, I just have a sick feeling. I don't think I'll ever forget some of the scenes.

I recommend the movie, and that's the bottom line.

Years ago I got my first job, downtown, when I was 16 years old. The job was too hard for me and after a couple of days I was let go. As I waited for the bus in the department store lounge with a dozen or so other people, I picked up the phone and called my mom. I could only blurt out the words, "Mom, I lost my job" and just started crying. Nobody else in that room said anything or reacted. A very large black woman jumped out of her chair and just came over and held me while I cried. She kept saying, "Oh, you poor sweet little child. You sweet little angel." That woman was the first black person I had ever been close to, and I immediately loved her. She and her family are still in my prayers today, many years later. Now, after watching this movie, I have so many thoughts about what her life was like back then. She was in the same position as the women in this film. She had to know that I, a little white teenaged girl, had so many more job options than she would ever have, but she took the time to comfort me with everything she had to offer, and it was a great blessing to me.

I'm going to be thinking about The Help for a long time. It hit me right in the gut! What an amazing movie!

Want The Help (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD + Digital Copy) (2011) Discount?

I enjoyed the book tremendously and was disappointed in the movie. Some important aspects were lost in the film: the terror that the book authors experience every time they get together at Aibilene's house, the real reason why Constantine was fired, the fact that Hilly turned the toilet-damping incident to her advantage, etc., etc., etc. Instead, saccharine sweetness is added to all relationship and Skeeter is turned into a White savior. I would recommend the book to a friend, but not the film. Too Hollywood. Too happy-ending.

Save 29% Off

Zodiac (Two-Disc Director's Cut) (2007)

After the technically accomplished but ultimately hollow thriller Panic Room (3-Disc Special Edition), director David Fincher returns to familiar subject matter with Zodiac, a dramatization of the murders perpetuated by the infamous serial killer known as Zodiac that terrorized the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With Seven (New Line Platinum Series), Fincher seems like an obvious choice to direct this film but those of you expecting a rehash of that film will be disappointed. With Zodiac, he faces the daunting challenge of making an exciting thriller that runs two hours and forty minutes long where the killer was never caught. He does this by focusing on the people who investigated the case and how it affected them.

This is a film that shows people talking and doing research hardly, dynamic, cinematic material but Fincher makes it fascinating with strong performances from his talented cast and a solid screenplay to anchor the film. Like Michael Mann's equally obsessive serial killer movie, Manhunter (Restored Director's Cut Divimax Edition), Fincher spends a lot of his movie showing offices buzzing with activity as the case heats up and we see people hard at work as the police, FBI, the Chronicle and even the CIA all try to decipher the Zodiac's code and solve the case. He also show the minutia of their methods while also reminding us of the limits of technology at the time (no personal computers, no internet, no DNA testing, etc.). These people faced a monumental task of sifting through hundreds of false leads and crank calls from the substantial information that might actually further the case.

Zodiac presents a wealth of information and invites you to sift through it like the three protagonists. In fact, there is so much to absorb that repeated viewings will undoubtedly reveal more details that might not have been caught upon an initial viewing. The film's long running time allows you to gradually immerse yourself in the film and the story it tells. However, it never feels too long because Fincher maintains a brisk, efficient pace cramming as much detail and information as he can into every scene. The killer is a fascinating enigma and his encrypted letters, his blatant taunting of the police, and the discrepancies between murders only it makes it more interesting. It is easy to see why people became obsessed with this case. Ultimately, the Zodiac case doesn't just leave a trail of actual bodies but also collateral damage in the form of failed marriages, ended partnerships and substance abuse. And this is just the people who investigated the case. The toll taken on the victims who survived, their families and those of the people who were killed is inconceivable. A whole other movie could be made about them. Fincher has made a smart, engaging thriller that suggests a new direction for the filmmaker, one that places an emphasis on character and story instead of atmosphere and set design.

Last year, Paramount released an obligatory bare bones DVD and in the meantime, Fincher and DVD producer extraordinaire, David Prior have assembled an in-depth two-disc special edition that covers all aspects of the production. The director has also added five minutes back into the film that improves on an already great motion picture.

The first disc features an audio commentary by director David Fincher. He touches upon the "oddly personal" period details as much of the film takes place during his childhood and around areas he lived. This also informed the period songs he picked for the film. This is the kind of engaging, informative track we've come to expect from Fincher.

Even better is the second commentary by actors Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr., producer Brad Fischer, screenwriter James Vanderbilt, and crime novelist James Ellroy. Fischer and Vanderbilt talk about how closely they stuck to the actual facts of the case and delve into its details. Ellroy, a self-proclaimed fan of the film, does his entertaining Demon Dog of crime fiction persona that fans of his love while also talking about the film's place in crime fiction. Downey and Gyllenhaal provide all kinds of anecdotal information with Downey displaying his trademark dry sense of humour.

The second disc is broken up into two sections: extras dealing with the film and ones dealing with the actual Zodiac murders. "Zodiac Deciphered" is an hour-long documentary on the making of the film. Producer Brad Fischer and screenwriter James Vanderbilt talk about the origins of the project. We see how each of the film's key locations were faithfully recreated, often shooting at the place where one of the murders took place. Period costumes were authentically recreated from police reports and evidence photographs. When actual locations could not be used, the San Francisco Chronicle offices, they were built from scratch on a soundstage. Fincher nailed the newspaper office down to the tiniest details like vintage rotary phones, typewriters, etc. There is plenty of on-the-set footage that shows Footage and co. at work.

"The Visual Effects of Zodiac" takes a look at how CGI was used not only to recreate certain period details of San Francisco but also the blood in the murder scenes. We see before and after comparison shots and it is incredible how seamlessly the effects are integrated into the film.

The "Previsualization" for three scenes compares the computer animated storyboards with the final product in the film.

Also included is a theatrical trailer.

"This is the Zodiac Speaking" is a four-part documentary on the actual Zodiac murders, featuring interviews with original investigators and the surviving victims. These featurettes present the facts of each murder along with crime scene photographs and vintage TV news footage, taking us through each one in detail.

Finally, there is "His Name was Arthur Leigh Allen." Police investigators and people that knew him talk about the prime suspect in the Zodiac murders. Friends recount chilling anecdotes about the man and investigators provide their own accounts to paint a disturbing portrait.

ZODIAC is director David Fincher's finest film to date. All of the preparatory exercises in violence and horror he served so well in such films as FIGHT CLUB and SEVEN now are even more terrifying because of the manner in which he internalizes the events of the infamous Zodiac killer of the 1960s and 1970s and allows us to see how the murders and lack of proof of the perpetrator destroyed the personal lives of those bound to reveal Zodiac's identity. The story of course is true, as documented in Robert Graysmith's book (adapted extremely well for the screen by James Vanderbilt), and the history is so well known that rehashing it in a review is pointless. But on to the production.

Filmed in the Bay area the film has that peculiar light known to artists of the region but rarely captured so well as it is here by cinematographer Harris Savides: the sunlight (when visualized is brilliant and the night portions are dank not only form the seeming constant rain but also form the seediness of the story's message. The acting is of the highest caliber: newspaper cartoonist Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal, in a standout role), police inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo, in one of his finest performances), news writer Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.), Melvin Belli (Brian Cox), Inspector William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards), Graysmith's long-suffering wife Melanie (Chloë Sevigny), down to the more minor roles are all pitch perfect.

What makes this film work so well is the emphasis on the human aspect of how violence, especially random and uncontrolled, alters the psyches of people. The breakdown from the stress of the fruitless and frustrating investigation by each of the primary characters is heart wrenching. How much of this is actor driven by such talented pros and how much is due to Fincher's directorial abilities is probably a moot point. The very long unwinding of this struggle (158 minutes) becomes almost unbearably tense. While the Added Features of this set open windows of information that delve more deeply into this unsolved horror story, the film still stands solidly on its own without the added accoutrements. This is a very fine film that is worthy of the many awards that are dangling in space at the moment. Grady Harp, January 08

Buy Zodiac (Two-Disc Director's Cut) (2007) Now

As the beginning of any new year rolls around, after awards season, there tends to be a significant drop off in quality or what you might call serious drama. Usually we're left with crowd pleasing, if not critically acclaimed comedy, or low budget horror until the kickoff of the summer season. There are a few gems that sneak in once in a while (perhaps the most notorious was "Silence of the Lambs" with its oddly timed Valentine's opening), but as a generalization--this is true more often than not. So David Fincher's "Zodiac," which make no mistake is a drama--not a thriller, is a welcome respite from traditional fare at this time of the year. Fincher, who made an artistic splash with "Se7en," "The Game," and "Fight Club," has been noticeably absent since hitting it big with the more routine "Panic Room" in 2002. Eschewing the sensationalistic approaches a film of this type might employ, Fincher has crafted a sprawling and ambitious investigative drama about the men whose lives were changed in the obsessive hunt for a serial killer known only as Zodiac.

For those unfamiliar with the story, I will borrow an excerpt from my review on "The Zodiac" (a lesser film that covers some of the same ground, but concentrating more on Zodiac's earlier murders in Vallejo). "Over a period of years during the sixties and seventies, the San Francisco area was plagued by a series of seemingly random murders perpetuated by a man known only as the Zodiac killer. Using the press and taunting the police, Zodiac became one of the more prominent "celebrity" serial killers with his need to be in the spotlight." Fincher's film focuses primarily on three major characters, although a huge cast contributes to this complex tale. There is David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) who is the lead police investigator when the Zodiac moved to San Francisco, Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) who is the star reporter covering the case for the San Francisco Chronicle, and Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is a cartoonist at the Chronicle who becomes obsessed with the case. In fact, Graysmith's obsession turned into the book which serves as source material for this film.

Clearly, the strongpoint of the film is in the performances. Downey is impeccable in self destructive mode--recapturing some of the energy and unpredictability that made him a star in the first place. Ruffalo is great--persistence turning into frustration. But it is Gyllenhaal who makes the greatest transformation from an awkward youth to someone willing to sacrifice everything to pursue an obsession. The immense cast of supporting characters are, also, well written and beautifully performed. It is in the details of the script that characters, even with limited screen time, leave a lasting and believable impression. The film, which spans decades, recreates the time frame accurately--the art direction, in particular, is spectacular when viewing this city of the recent past.

The story, itself, is a procedural--recounting years of work trying to locate Zodiac. Again, the script is so detailed that you really feel as if you are following the action in the same step by step fashion that the real participants must have. "Zodiac," ultimately, is a smart film. It trusts that you will follow its logic, and perhaps even draw some conclusions of your own. It paints a picture of who Toschi and Graysmith believed to be Zodiac (despite evidence to the contrary), but the film is open-ended enough for you to accept this position or discount it entirely. There is plenty of intrigue as the investigation leads to unlikely places, some chilling recreations of Zodiac's killings, but most of all--real drama about real people. A great adult picture. At over 2 1/2 hours, it's a commitment--but one well worth it. KGHarris, 03/07.

Read Best Reviews of Zodiac (Two-Disc Director's Cut) (2007) Here

David Fincher, director of the fascinating, impeccably composed, cerebral "Zodiac" has not heretofore been known for his subtlety though his "Fight Club," "Alien3" and "Seven" are filled with Life and a doomed even ugly sense of reality. But "Zodiac," the story of the Northern California serial killer, who was more aware of his reputation and celebrity than any Hollywood starlet, gives us a subtler, more rational Fincher than his previous films would suggest. There is very little of the trademark Fincher violence and brutality here and more of a psychologically astute and emotionally cognizant one.

"Zodiac" is a story of Men working together for a common goal: that of capturing the Zodiac killer. There is the Police primarily consisting of San Francisco PD Homicide, David Toschi (a remarkably committed and persuasive Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (stalwart and dedicated Anthony Edwards) and the San Francisco Chronicle reporters Paul Avery (intelligent, pathetically alcoholic Robert Downey) and Robert Graysmith, who would go on to write the book about the Zodiac murders portrayed by the excellent and wounded, ultimately crazed-by-the-case, Jake Gyllenhaal.

As a rule, in most movies of late dealing with serial killers, the serial killer is merely a jumping off point for brutal and disgusting slash and dash murders. But here Fincher has stepped back, adjusted his sights and telescoped on the psychological and emotional effects of the killings, the endless procedural details of the investigation (handwriting experts, the "2500" suspects), the letters sent to the SF Chronicle by Zodiac and the detritus of a 20+ year investigation that wears down and whittles away at any kind of normal life for Toshi and Graysmith. As such "Zodiac" is more about the furtive, brutal legacy of the Zodiac murders and its effect on these two men than it is about the Zodiac killer himself.

Gyllenhaal plays Graysmith as a man possessed: alternately repulsed by the Zodiac as a mass murderer but at the same time fascinated by his facility with the obscure language of codes, symbols and puzzles and his seemingly insatiable, preening desire for celebrity. Matching his intensity is Ruffalo's Toschi. Ruffalo has never been more persuasive and effective even bettering his feral performance in "In the Cut." Both men are obsessed with Zodiac and both pay for this obsession with the hard currency of years and loves lost and never regained.

"Zodiac" goes on a bit too long but its ultimate success can be attributed to its brilliant, careful and intricate accumulation and dissemination of case detail that forms the backbone of this tragic, interesting and intelligent film. The larger tragedy that this film inadvertently points out though is that Zodiac's murderous swath across California in the mid 20th. Century now seems oddly remote, old-fashioned and even quaint in this time of 9/11 and international terrorism.

Want Zodiac (Two-Disc Director's Cut) (2007) Discount?

~In December 1968, police were called to the scene of a double homicide; no motive, no suspects, no witnesses. On July 4th, 1969, "he" struck again, but this time, one of the victims lived. The survivor's name was Mike Mageau, and he is now one of the consultants in this top-notch movie. The attack on Mageau, and the girl he wanted to one day marry, named Darlene Ferrin, comprise the first sequence in the film. Thusly, the the December attack isn't depicted. This is because the makers of "Zodiac" wisely chose to only recreate the crimes which had witnesses or survivors, removing as much speculation from the script as possible.

But, to the dismay of today's A.D.D. riddled audience, there are only three scenes of violence in "Zodiac," although they are recreated with such authenticity, anyone already familiar with the story will cringe at how brutal and heartless the crimes are. Bryan Hartnell, who survived the attack at Lake Berryessa in September 1969, says he actually had to look away during the scene involving him. The realism was simply too much to handle. For this sequence, the film crew actually went to Lake Berryessa, and, referring to crime scene photos, reconstructed the crime scene to look exactly as it did the day of this attack, even transplanting trees to replicate scene as closely as possible. It's strange, Lake Berryessa is a breath-takingly beautiful location, the scenery is simply gorgeous. But, it has the permanent stigma of being the location where the suspect donned an executioner's outfit and hog-tied Bryan Hartnell and Cecilia Sheperd at gunpoint, butchering them with a hunting knife. It is one of the most horrifying scenes ever filmed, because it is faithfully reproduced, with almost 100% accuracy. It's difficult to watch.

"Zodiac: The Director's Cut" is a very long film, almost three hours in total, with very little real on-screen action, but it is a fascinating movie. It focuses on San Francisco Chronicle employee Robert Graysmith's obsession with the case, and his personal and professional relationship with fellow newspaper employee Paul Avery, as well as the fear that spread through the San Francisco area once this crime spree made the paper. It is a story of obsession, as already stated, but it vividly tells the audience exactly how frustrating this case was to the police and the media. It has derailed careers and jeopardized health, as well as causing an extended panic all over California. The joke about California being a cereal bowl comes to mind. It has its share of fruits, nuts, and flakes, and it becomes apparent here. Of course, in all fairness, weird people live all over the place, so don't call me out on it. Just a comment.

It is frustrating to the audience as well as the police, because no suspect has ever been caught, and none are arrested, even in the film. The prime suspect, one Arthur Leigh Allen, had his share of scrapes with the law, usually on sex-related charges, and had even done hard prison time for these offenses, and virtually all of the Zodiac evidence points directly to him, but various little things throw just enough of a wrench into the works to keep him from being formally charged. And when a solid enough case is finally built against him, the arresting officer found Allen dead on his floor, the victim of a fatal heart attack. So, if he really was the Zodiac, his letter claiming they will never catch him came true, because he never did one day of prison time for the Zodiac killings.

This release has a treasure trove of material; you have the uncut movie, the director's vision being shown in tact, with almost every little nuance covered. The sets were made to look like they did at the time, as faithfully as possible. In the bonus materials you have interviews with police officers who worked on the case and two surviving victims, archive footage of news reports from the time,as well as interviews with friends and aqcuaintences of Arthur Leigh Allen.

It is exhaustive in its efforts to inure the viewer in the case, and the fact that people still look at the case, is fascinating, as well.

"...goodbye..." (you'll get this quote if you have seen this movie)

DreamWorks Spooky Stories (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo)

Just received the DreamWorks Spooky Stories Blu-ray and I have to say, it's great. There are five features with both the characters from Shrek and Monsters vs. Aliens having some Halloween fun. In the same vein as other holiday specials like "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown" and "Garfield's Halloween Adventure", both my children and I enjoyed watching it together and so will you.

This set has both of the Halloween shows that DW made for tv, but in addishion it has several new catoons never seen on tv or theaters; and the Shrek 3D movie from the Universal Studios attraction. The "Play All" feature weaves the old with the new, it starts w/a new one "Thriller"; where they mirrors the MJ mv. Then it leads into "Scared Shrekless" the tv special, followed by the short "The Pig Who Cryed Werewolf"; this starts as a "Rear Window" like story. One of the 3 pigs thinks there new neighbor (The Big Bad Wolf)is up to some thing, and it smells delicious. It ends like the Abbott and Costello movie "Hold That Ghost," with the heroes running off into the horizon; w/one the saying "I told u so!" This leads into the the "Monsters vs Aliens; Attack of the Mutant Pumpkins" another tv special. This is fellowed by the new cartoon "Monsters vs Aliens; Night of the Living Carrots"; this is a continuation of "Attack of the Mutant Pumpkins." It starts w/BoB in froint of a curtain, (like Frankenstein)introducing; showing clips from the previous show, which set up the rest of the show. The carrots come to life and the only way to stop them is to have BoB eat them. The DVD concludes w/ "The Shrek" 3D show "The Ghost of Farquaad." It, however, is no presented in the 3D format, so it's a little odd; because the film has thing being thrown at the camera. The plot is very simple, while taveling Shrek, Fiona, and Donky are attacked. Fiona is taken, to the Ghost of Farquaad, who plans to killer her to make her his ghost queen. The DVD is verey good,very funny, and clever; and I would say it's good for all ages.

Buy DreamWorks Spooky Stories (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo) Now

My son got this for Halloween and we are still watching it in January. It is cute and the whole family enjoyed it.

Read Best Reviews of DreamWorks Spooky Stories (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo) Here

We ordered this set because we had DVR'd "Scared Shrekless" a long time ago and wanted to have a permanent copy of that program; it came as part of this package. It's very funny and well worth the modest expense for this set.

Want DreamWorks Spooky Stories (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo) Discount?

Very enjoyable Very funny! Whole heartedly recommend this wonderful Halloween special , now i can't wait to get the xmas disc

Save 19% Off

Shallow Hal (2001)

Being that I am a heavyset person myself, I was able to put that fact aside and appreciate this movie for what it really is. Truthfully, I didn't find this movie funny but I did find a strong message. This movie goes to show that size doesn't have anything to do with the person on the inside. Gwyneth Paltrow's character Rosemary goes to show how underneath all that excess flesh that there is still a person. I think "Shallow Hal" is a movie that helps demolish discrimination against heavyset people. This movie didn't only give examples of heavyset people but of people who were skinny and just not physically attractive to that of one's expectations. Hal is a very shallow character and he is an example of all those people who discriminate against heavyset men and women and people who are not attractive. Like Hal in the movie, people can change and widen their horizons for something more beautiful. "Shallow Hal" is less of a comedy and more of a motivational, moving story about life. I think this is a family friendly movie, something that kids would like as long as the situation is explained to them. Let this movie touch you on several different levels and check it out.

Okay, I sheepishly confess that I watched this DVD expecting to see some patented Farrelly brothers humor: crude, insensitive, and in-your-face. WOW, was I surprised.

This movie is definitely humorous (we laughed out loud at times) but when it's over, you come away with a heightened sense of sensitivity for those people society categorizes as "ugly", "fat" or "undesirable." And if you're not careful, you may just approach life a bit differently once you've watched this excellent movie.

Hal (portrayed wonderfully by Jack Black), and his best friend Mauricio (Jason Alexander) are a couple of obnoxious, shallow guys who make no apologies for their fixation on dating ONLY young, beautiful women. This is tough for both of them, as neither one is particularly good-looking. But, they drive on doggedly in their pursuit of women who are consistently "out of their league."

Everything changes when Hal is stuck in an elevator with a self-motivational guru, who gives Hal a "gift". In fact, Hal is hypnotized; now, he sees a person's inner beauty, not their outward physical appearance. Unattractive or obese women look like supermodels to Hal; and when he approaches them, genuinely attracted to their true beauty, they respond. After years of being unable to connect with beautiful women, suddenly Hal has an unprecedented run of success...only, the women are really not physically attractive, and this is evident to Mauricio, and everyone else...except Hal. In short order, Hal hooks up with Rosemary (Gwyneth Paltrow), who is smart, funny, caring, and to Hal, stunningly beautiful. One problem: to the rest of the world, Rosemary is a 350-pound behemoth who breaks restaurant furniture simply by sitting on it.

Rosemary and Hal fall madly in love, and it turns out that Rosemary's father is the CEO of Hal's investment company. Taken by Hal's sincerity, and his insightful ideas for improvements to the firm, Rosemary's father promotes Hal to his right-hand man. Everything is going wonderfully for Hal and Rosemary...that is, until Mauricio decides to "rescue" Hal by breaking the hypnosis. What will happen now that Hal can see the REAL Rosemary?

This is a great movie, and can even be watched and appreciated by preteen children. The sexual situations are mild, and there is little or no foul language or nudity. Gwyneth Paltrow, and especially Jack Black, give excellent acting performances. Make it a point to watch and enjoy this DVD. It just might change your life, and make you wish we could ALL see only the "inner beauty" of others. Our world today is much too preoccupied with physical appearance, and other shallow concepts that don't truly matter in the grand scheme of things.

Buy Shallow Hal (2001) Now

First published Stanford Daily, Nov 2001.

The Farrelly brothers have done it again. From the makers of such outré comedies as "There's Something About Mary" and "Me, Myself and Irene" comes "Shallow Hal," a comedy with a conscience. Known for movies that feature imperfect men lusting after gorgeous girls with a few laughs thrown in for good measure, the brothers delve a bit deeper this time, seeking to convince us that fat is fun. Jack Black (the crazy music store employee in "High Fidelity") is Hal, a shallow male (if you'll pardon the redundancy) of modest looks, besotted with breasts and waiflike figures. He prefers a girl with just one large breast to one with half a brain. Needless to say, in the true Farrelly tradition, Hal is a loser when it comes to girls.

Hal's messiah is Tony Robbins, the self-help guru who achieves the impossible and makes him see inner beauty. Ergo, Hal moves in a haze, stripping fat women of the excess padding, glossing over manly moustaches etc., to visualize them as the epitome of pulchritude. One such beneficiary of Hal's x-ray vision is Rosemary (Gwyneth Paltrow), who trades her corsets from "Shakespeare in Love" and "Emma" for a fat suit. Despite being well over 300 pounds and gluttonously devouring any source of fat within range, Hal can only see her as the nubile nymphet of his dreams. His consternation at being in a minority of one in his admiration is palpable. Eventually the blinkers fall off, courtesy his shallower pal, the meddling Mauricio (Jason Alexander). The crux of the film lies in how Hal confronts the fat in his femme fatale.

Black's virtuoso performance as Hal makes us squirm. Rosemary, with the fat suit, is ponderously poignant. She shames us with her starkly evident low self-esteem and tame acceptance of stereotypical notions of what passes off as beauty. If only her character had more flesh than fat, the full range of emotions that obese people experience could have been hung out to dry. By resorting to stilted portrayals in black and white of fat people being angelic do-gooders while ugly non-fat people (the ones in this film, barring Jill, can't be called slim), are shallow shysters, the many shades of gray in between are ignored.

Paltrow took a stroll in a New York hotel with the fat suit on, and has been quoted as saying that "...no one was making eye contact with me, or would even look in my direction. No one wanted to connect with me. It was a profound, very sad and startling experience." Some of that sadness is revealed in her portrayal of Rosemary. However, it would however, be a safer bet that UFOs would land at Stanford than to hope that Hollywood would make us laugh and cry in the same movie.

Paltrow looks as radiant as ever. Rather strangely, she reminds one of Phoebe (of "Friends" fame) when she attempts to be goofy. Jack Black has the makings of a star. His Hal is a flawed bungler who is redeemed solely by an inner core of middle-American harmlessness. Rene Kirby as Walt is a casting coup. His joie de vivre is at the heart of the movie's message. Kirby, an ex-IBM employee, was discovered by the Farrellys in a bar in Burlington, as he plodded along on all fours (owing to spina bifida). The character was specifically written for him. Jason Alexander, chubbier than ever, does not disappoint as Mauricio.

The Farrellys have been known for at least one memorable cinematic moment in their movies most notable of course, Ben Stiller's nuts and bolt coming in the way of his zipper, and Cameron Diaz's organic hair gel in "There's Something About Mary." This one has a twist in the tail. Eminently enjoyable.

Read Best Reviews of Shallow Hal (2001) Here

First of all, let me state this: I am myself overweight not obese, but overweight. One of my best friends is morbidly overweight. I found the film, hilarious on several occasions and so did she. I will admit, that she also found it flat for the most part. I won't say it was completely flat, but the film could have been funnier though when it was funny, I thought I would pass out.

Is it offensive to overweight people? Let's look at this in the light it is presented... Jack Black and Jason Alexander's characters are the narrators (so to speak) of the story. Neither one of these guys is in shape and that is key to the story. They are losers who are both trying to prove to the other that they are studs with the ladies, when in truth neither of them can get a date.

In a casting coup, Tony Robbins, the self help guru, sort of brainwashes Jack into only seeing women for who they are inside instead of on the outside. This is something that we should all do, but very very few of actually do. From there forward, Jack only sees women for the beauty within them. The fact that most of the beautiful women he sees are in fact physically unattractive in one way or another, is a point that is actually rather delicately handled. It is a telling point of the filmmakers that one woman that he sees as an old crone, is in reality a gorgeous woman. So what's the point of this? I think the filmmakers actually wanted to show that just because a person is beautiful on the outside, they can be ugly on the inside. Conversely, an unattractive person on the outside can be equally or moreso unattractive on the inside (this is a point that could have been brought out but was not).

Does the film pander to the idea that fat people are jolly, etc.? Yeah. Does it presume that unattractive people are more beautiful on the inside? Yeah.

Is the film politically correct? Who cares! We have all become so overly sensitive that we're a nation of big cry babies. I hope that I am evolved enough that if I countenance something that I don't like I can ignore it and move on. Who's the fool if I let something get under my skin? It's me. My folks taught me to "consider the source" when I was offended by something or someone.

So, if you think you will be offended by this film then don't watch it. No one is holding a gun to your head.

But if you do watch it and get offended then get a thicker skin I can promise you there are going to be many more offensive things in life than this film. In short grow up and get over it!

It's a funny film watch it.

Want Shallow Hal (2001) Discount?

This movie has a feel-good message, making it enjoyable enough for three stars. It says that we all deserve to be loved even if we're not physically attractive (in what it considers the "conventional" sense). But will it really change anything of what it deems mere "convention"? Will Gwyneth Paltrow go on being an advocate for the inner beauty of obese people and others "conventionally" unattractive? I kind of think not. Her performance here is significant and may display genuine talent. But most likely her future roles will reflect a sense of glamour in slimness as much as ever, meaning nothing was really changed by the movie. Similarly, will Jack Black, after his similarly impressive performance be any more inclined than before to accept an obese woman as a girlfriend? I similarly doubt that. For all its feel-good message, SHALLOW HAL builds us up for a let-down when we realize its lack of realism. Many of us will go on with our inner beauty as underappreciated as ever because of outer appearances, and will still find hard to swallow that suggestion that prevalent standards of beauty run no deeper than convention.

Save 31% Off

Chocolate

Chocolate is the perfect "acid test" to determine who are fans of action movies and who are not. How so? Let me explain. A true fan of action movies has the ability to overlook some flaws in film-making (e.g., script, acting, character development, etc.) if the action sequences are exceptional enough to make up for them. This is no different from fans of art-house dramas who can overlook minimal content if the film can portray everyday life in interesting ways. With that said, Chocolate is one of the best examples of an action movie that has such extraordinary fight sequences that they easily overpower any deficiencies in the script.

An autistic girl with martial arts skill attempts to collect on the debts of her sick mother. This movie is not well written, and requires some patience from the viewer to slug through the early moments. Once the 30 minute mark arrives, however, the viewer is treated to one of the most amazing displays of asskicking by a female protagonist in the history of action cinema. Virtually all of the remaining 50 minutes is devoted to high quality choreography and bone-crunching maneuvers. The settings and scenarios change frequently, thereby avoiding any feel of repetition or monotony. This is brainless action at its very finest. JeeJa Yanin an amazing specimen with her fluid moves and hard strikes catapults herself into the upper echelon of female action stars with this single movie. Her punches and kicks start off rather basic, but get increasingly more complex until they peak during the jaw-dropping finale that lasts a whopping 20 minutes. Lots of fun to be had here.

Now, a snobby moviegoer will cry about the negatives without even considering the positives. Anyone who does not enjoy the action in this movie seriously needs to get their pulse checked, or at least schedule for a re-alignment of their action movie tastes. There's nothing more scintillating than watching a cute girl kick the living hell out of hundreds (quite literally) of stuntmen in a variety of environments. Basically, if you're not entertained by this, you're not a fan of action movies. (You probably didn't like So Close or Azumi either, right?) Stop fooling yourself and go watch another Tsai Ming-liang film.

Some critics have claimed that this movie "ripped off" other movies. It didn't. There are a few homages that last a few minutes at most (a few Bruce Lee references, a locker scene reminiscent of Jackie Chan, and some footage from Tony Jaa's movies). These few scenes are only a drop in the bucket, because 95% of the action is independent of any references to other movies. The sign-post battle on the apartment complex balconies is one glaring example of a completely novel (and breathtaking) sequence that pays homage to no one but itself.

This is definitely worth a blind buy. True fans of martial arts mayhem will end up re-watching the action scenes about a thousand times.

My rating: 4.5 stars out of 5

Premise

*An autistic girl learns martial arts through imitation, and uses her skills to collect money from some unsavory people who owe her mother, who is is need of medication (and was formerly associated with the Yakuza). Then the Yakuza retaliates, and all heck breaks loose.

The Good Things

*Video quality is almost perfect; it's very clean, sharp, and colorful, with only a couple of grainy scenes. The sound quality is pretty good.

*Includes a short 8-minute making-of featurette and a few trailers for other movies.

*Includes both English dubbing and the original Thai language track with optional subtitles.

*The movie has a lot of phenomenal fight scenes. They are extremely well-choreographed and distinctive. Judging from the outtakes, it also looks like they were made to be completely authentic, and the actors sustained some serious injuries in the process. Even though the fighting is fantastic, it's also very real.

*The movie is also very well-filmed, with lots of good camera angles and unique colors.

*Production design is good. Sets are interesting, costumes are good, props are good. Look out for one or two unique motifs.

*It looks like there were one or two homages to earlier films by Prachya Pinkaew ("Ong Bak" and "The Protector").

*The storyline is good and easy to follow. Aside from the action, it has some drama and emotional parts, but it's nothing too sappy. It's actually quite invoking, and seems to carry a strong message about love (believe it or not).

*The characters are excellent. The main character, aside from performing so many amazing stunts, shows some good compassion and emotion and makes the character believable. Other characters are great too.

*Music is good.

The Bad Things

*Not very many special features; it's especially dissapointing since the region-free British import seems to have deleted scenes and featurettes and other stuff. Oh well...

*Not for the squeamish; contains brutal violence, some blood, and some brief sensuality.

Thailand seems to be pumping out some of the coolest martial arts films these days, and "Chocolate" is probably my favorite of them all so far. Aside from boasting some incredible fight scenes and stuntwork, it is a surprisingly emotional story with strong characters. This Blu-Ray has exceptional video quality, and would highly reccomend it to any martial arts fan.

Buy Chocolate Now

This film by the makers of Ong Bak, was both heartmelting, and spectacular in its choreography, featuring as centerpiece the new action star of Asia, Nicharee Yanin (Jeeja) Vistmantananda, who is nothing short of a wonder of the world. The plot of course is simple, focusing on the efforts of young Zen, (Jeeja) to recover funds owed to her cancer stricken mother from her days as a moneylender for a criminal gang, a mission which brings her into several violent confrontations with gangsters. The plot twist, which makes the whole film, is that Zen is an autistic savant, who has assimilated the techniques of the greatest martial artists whom she has watched on TV, from Bruce Lee, to Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and of course, Tony Jaa. (who helped train Jeeja for this part, a program which took her 4 years.) There are many things to criticize in this film, but these fall away quickly and are overcome with the escalating storm of adrenaline which kicks in, as Jeeja demolishes wave after wave of attackers using techniques which are right up there with the best in their execution and form. The one thing which explodes from the screen, is the ferocity and fighting ability which flows from the 5'3" 93 LB little Jeeja, who uses her lithe frame like a whip with a hammer on the end, bringing more power to bear with each kick and elbow strike than you can believe from someone so small, and so cute. She is also very authentic in her sensitive portrayal of an autistic girl, which she prepared for by spending time at a home for autistic kids to observe. For her acting debut, she is superb, and has a fantastic future ahead if she can broaden her audience to the West, and get some Michelle Yeoh type parts.

Read Best Reviews of Chocolate Here

Chocolate [Blu-ray]

I went into this movie expecting a so-so movie with a girl that can do decent fight scenes. Well, the girl can do some awesome fight scenes. Using no stunt doubles and no wires, the only fake stuff in this move are the baseballs she catches (you can tell that it's 3D effects there). If she makes another movie, she could become as big of an icon as Tony Jaa.

As for the fight scenes, there are mainly around 4 really good leangthy ones, with the last one being really long and nonstop, taking place in multiple areas of a building, one inside with guns and samurai swords, another on the roof against a transvestite, a couple of women (the only women who actually fight the main character), and one other sequence that has to be seen to be believed, on the side of a building where Chocolate and the never-ending bad guys (seriously, there were too many, but that can be forgiven since it's a martial arts flick) duke it out on narrow ledges, big street signs sticking out of the walls of the building, and the side of a subway line only a couple yards away from the structure, easily connected by the street signs. 3 stories of 2D fighting goodness, and the people who fall take hits that will make you cring, including, but not limited to, a guy falling 3 stories straight down, while others hit a few obstacles on the way down (ouch).

It's also funny to see scenes from Ong Bak and Tom Yum Goong (also great movies) on a television Chocolate watches, as well as hearing sound effects from Bruce Lee movies (supposedly). It's great in the first fight scene hearing her immitate Bruce Lee's hoowaaah-ooo! voice. That'll put a smile on your face.

Yanin "Jeeja" Vismistananda is good in her role, playing an autistic girl who learns from watching, fast. She was already a taekwondo practitioner before production, but then trained extensively for 2 years before the film shooting began, and another 2 years during the shoot. She is somewhere between the age of 21-24 during the filming of the movie.

For anyone who loves martial arts, they'll enjoy this. Anyone who wants to see a woman who can hold her own in these types of movies, definitely watch it. And one more thing, be ready for some bloopers at the end credits to show the real hits that the cast (including Chocolate herself) took during the shooting.

Want Chocolate Discount?

CHOCOLATE, named for its protagonist's favorite snack, is about an autistic young Thai girl who is a martial arts savant--parallel to the compensatory abilities of Dustin Hoffman's character in RAINMAN. Early in the film she takes on and defeats a gang of nasty kids. Next, she demolishes an array of deadbeats, who owe her sick mother money. Finally, as we can easily foresee, the evil gangsters who have split up her parents are going to be no match for her. (Telling you this is not "spoiling" the story--anyone who can count to three can see it coming.)

The excellently choreographed fight scenes have a sweet and fairly touching story around them. If you enjoy watching women "kick butt," Yanin Vismitananda (Jeeja Yanin), the star of this film, is sort of a tiny female Jackie Chan. Another big plus in my view is that this film is not pretentiously artsy and "meaningful" the way the excellent CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON was.

As a bonus feature, the DVD includes a rather short "making of" piece that shows just how dangerous its stunts really were and how amazingly athletic these people are!

Save 32% Off

No (2013)

Last Fall, we were treated to the triumph that was "Argo", a historical political thriller the likes of which we hadn't seen much since the 1970s. About the same time, another historical political thriller from Chile was released in certain foreign markets, after making a splash at the 2012 Cannes film festival. The movie is now finally being released into US theatres, with a DVD release on the horizon as well.

"No" (2012 release from Chile; 115 min.) brings the true story of how the military regime of Pinochet, under pressure from the international community after 15 years of dictatorship, called a referedum in 1988 on whether General Pinochet should stay on for another 6 years. A "yes" vote meant another 6 years, and a "no" vote meant the end of the Pinochet regime. As the movie opens, we are introduced to René Saavedra (played by Gael Garcia Bernal), an advertizing wizzard (we see him presenting a new, US-style, commercial for the "Free" brand of cola). Saavedra is approached by the NO campaign to bring some new ideas to the table. We get to see the actual commercials that were being considered or used by both the YES and NO campaigns, and they are dreadful on both sides. When Saavedra makes his pitch to the NO side (namely, "we need to sell a product that people will want to buy"), the initial reaction of the NO campaign is very negative, even hostile. At that point we are just about half-way into the movie and to tell you more would ruin your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Several comments: first and foremost, writer-director-coproducer Pablo Larraín does an outstanding job in bringing us a good feel for the build-up of the NO campaign (at some point someone exclaims "We need more content! We'll never be able to fill 15 minutes of TV airtime every day!"), and how it all leads up to the frantic last days of the campaign. Second, the movie is shot as if to bring you the late 1980s for real: the movie is shown in a 4:3 ratio (rather than the usual 16:9 widescreen ratio), and is shot as if this is a home movie, with heavily grained images and light contrasts. Third, I read somewhere that the movie was made on a shoe-string budget, proving once again that you don't need a hunder million dollars to make an exciting and engaging movie. The art-house theatre I just saw this at here in Cincinnati was absolutely packed, which is great news indeed. If you are in the mood for a top-notch quality foreign movie, you cannot go wrong with this. "No" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

"No" in its first minute is a jarring visual experience. It's grainy and shaky, as though it were a youtube video blown onto the screen, and it's only well into the movie when we realize that the visuals are meant to evoke the visuals of late 1980s Chilean television so that actual television footage from that era could match seamlessly with the rest of the film. Once we overcome this psychological hurdle we come to appreciate "No" as a moving and stirring tale.

It's 1988, and Pinochet's military dictatorship of Chile has endured for fifteen years. Facing growing international pressure (namely, US pressure), the dictator decides to hold a referendum whether to extend his rule by another 8 years. It seems to the majority of those most opposed to him (40 percent of Chileans live below the poverty line, and there are tens of thousands of political dissidents either killed, exiled, or disappeared) that the referendum is just a sham, and they are determined to ignore it. But one adman (played by the always wonderful Garcia Bernal) is determined to get the apathetic (the young) and the scared (middle-class women in their sixties) to vote, and to finally topple Pinochet from power.

There are two dimensions to the film, both equally powerful and effective. The first dimension is how a political/media strategy is formed and executed with limited resources. Knowing that Pinochet's first weapon of choice is to instill fear in Chileans, the adman wisely decides to instill hope, excitement, and optimism with a colorful, funny, and irreverent media campaign. He carefully calibrates that to stir people into action you should not remind them of the terrible times and sacrifices made in the past (people would rather forget these things), but remind them of the good times ahead if Chile were to become an open and free democracy.

The second dimension is the adman's personal struggles that reveal the deep tensions within Chilean society, and here the director has used a lot of creative license. The adman is married to a political dissident who lives with an artist when she is not in jail, and she constantly reminds him how by seeking to struggle he is helping to legitimize the fraud that is the referendum. His boss in the ad agency is close to the dictatorship, and he becomes the dictatorship's main media strategist, and thus the adman's antagonist. And he has a son whom he is trying to protect from Chile's political turmoil while fighting to create for him a better future.

The premise of the film -that a media campaign that lasted for 15 minutes on television for 27 dyas -toppled Chile's military dictatorship is shaky at best, pure fantasy at worst. Nevertheless, "No" is a very stirring film that will be celebrated by Chileans for a long time as its "Birth of a Nation."

Buy No (2013) Now

You might notice as the film No begins that the colors are faded, the images aren't very crisp and the whole thing kind of looks like a Youtube clip of an MTV video they recorded back in the eighties. And then you'll begin to observe that this is a good thing. The tattered cinematography allows the director, Pablo Larrain, to weave news footage, telenovela clips, commercials and music videos from a quarter of a century ago seamlessly into his political drama of the 1988 referendum on the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, drawing the viewer back to that time and place.

This Chilean made, Spanish language film tells a fascinating story that makes reading the subtitles well worth the effort. In 1988. Pinochet was feeling the pressure from other nations (particularly the United States), to put himself in the hands of the electorate after years of military dictatorship. The vote will be a simple one. "Yes" means Pinochet will be in power another eight years and "No" means he must leave office.

The "No" campaign has little hope of success. They are given 15 minutes of television air time each day for twenty days. The "Yes" campaign also has 15 minutes a day (along with the other 23 and a half hours a day, along with glowing press and radio coverage guaranteed by the dictatorship).

The "No" campaign is composed of all political parties opposed to the President: Communists, Social Democrats, Libertarians, etc. Most have little hope of actually winning the election. But they hope to use the air time to expose the wrong doings of the government. They envision a daily barrage of the names and faces of the people wrongly imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" by the government.

But along comes a director of television commercials who wants to run a very different campaign. Rene (a fictionalized version of a real ad man played by Gael Garcia Bernal) wants to sell democracy using the same jingles, happy images and garish colors he uses to sell soda and microwave ovens. Many are appalled that these important issues would be trivialized in such a way, but Rene has one advantage that others in the campaign lack: he believes he can win.

The film follows Rene's work to use all that he has learned in advertising (humor, imagery, marketing, etc) to bring down a dictator. Along the way, he is threatened with the loss of his job, his home and the safety of his family. But he persists.

Now if you want to avoid spoilers, please don't look in any South American history books before you see the film. The central conflict in the film reminded me of one that many organizations face, that even the Church faces: should we ever compromise the things we hold dear to make our beliefs and values more palatable to the world?

Watching the film, I thought about G. K. Chesterton's response to critics who reprimanded him for making jokes about serious topics: "The truth is, as I have said, that in this sense the two qualities of fun and seriousness have nothing whatever to do with each other, they are no more comparable than black and triangular" and "[The critic] thinks that funny is the opposite of serious. Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else."

Read Best Reviews of No (2013) Here

...Once again proves what a diverse actor he is. As a devoted GGB movie fan I highly recommend this movie.

Want No (2013) Discount?

Like "Argo," Pablo Larrain's "No" hurls us right into the center of a recent historical crisis. And, like "Mad Men," it is a compelling portrayal of the advertising game, and how it can be used for good or ill. In the case of "No," ads are used very much for the good.

"No" is set in Chile in 1988. The dictator Augusto Pinochet has been in power for 15 years; Chile enjoys prosperity under his rule, but at the cost of vicious political repression, including the "disappearance" of thousands of dissidents. Facing a tidal wave of negative international opinion, Pinochet schedules a plebiscite--a simple up-or-down vote, "Si" or "No," as to whether he should be allowed to stay in power for another eight years. A "No" would mean an orderly transition to the formation of a new government.

Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal), a hotshot Santiago ad man, at first is indifferent to the plebiscite; his life is good, after all. When the opposition asks him to orchestrate the "No" ad campaign--a mere 15 minutes every late night in the month before the vote, as mandated by Pinochet--Rene at first refuses. But when he sees Pinochet's police rough up his estranged wife Veronica (Antonia Zegers), he changes his mind on the spot.

Opposition leaders have no hope of winning the plebiscite, and seek merely to stake out the moral high ground against Pinochet. Rene, however, is bent on winning. He overrules the lofty ideas of his employers in favor of a happy, bouncy ad campaign to associate a "No" vote with progress and a better future for Chile. The campaign strikes a chord with Chileans, but Rene and his crew face increasing threats from Pinochet's thugs. Furthermore, Rene's boss, Lucho Guzman (Alfredo Castro), is handling Pinochet's ad campaign, and is not above stealing tapes of Rene's ads to orchestrate rebuttals even before the originals air.

Ben Affleck fit old videotapes of the Iran hostage crisis into the state-of-the-art Hollywood photography of "Argo." Larrain tried a different strategy in "No;" he shot the entire film on Sony magnetic tape, the kind that was ubiquitous in 1980s news coverage. "No," a much lower-budget film than "Argo," obviously lack "Argo's" polish, but Larrain's choice means that the old footage from the Pinochet era fits seamlessly into the film as a whole, giving it a rare, gritty verisimilitude. However, "Argo" also seemed pretty seamless and truthful. Which strategy was better? You be the judge.

What is undeniable is that "No" is less polished as a whole than "Argo," and not just in its photography. Some of Larrain's transitions from scene to scene are unduly abrupt, and he adds a coda to the film that dissipates the exciting triumph of the scenes just before it, though I understood why he included it.

Nevertheless, "No" is an admirable film. Its scrappiness deserves respect, as does its high-minded stand for democracy and plain dealing against tyranny and brutality.

Save 25% Off

Harry Potter - The Complete 8-Film Collection[Region Free] (2011)

I'm actually very pleased with this product! It's very cheap, and very good quality. There are, however, a couple of things that I feel I should point out.

First, the case that it comes in is a standard mass production case that most multi-disc sets use. Don't expect a lavish collectable case, especially for the price. The case is still very durable, and allows all of the movies to be stored in a small amount of space.

Second, the films in this set ARE NOT THE SPECIAL EDITIONS. They are standard edition, as if the first disc from each movie was put in here. While there are some special features, there are not a lot.

Next, the discs themselves appear to be great quality. All of mine worked extremely well, and there were no defects whatsoever, save one thing. The disc that I received for Deathly Hallows Part 1 is missing a cover. The disc is all black, and the title and copyright information are on there, but there is not picture. This, however does not in any way affect the viewing of the movie, and is only an aesthetic concern.

Also, the box that the DVD's come in is not the absolute best quality, but it is sturdy. It serves it's purpose, and it looks very nice!

PLease note, if you want something that's collectible, DO NOT BUY THIS SET. There are others out there that will better suit your needs. However, this set satisfies all of the casual viewers' needs. It presents the movies in an accessible, affordable manner, and is absolutely a great buy! I recommend this to all Harry Potter fans who wish to have all of the movies!

I like how a lot of fans are slamming Warner Brothers for offering up a box set containing all eight films in one compact package. They accuse how WB constantly does this for the Harry Potter franchise, and to be fair, WB has been doing incomplete Potter boxed releases for years, starting with "Prisoner of Azkaban" onwards. But when the WB actually makes a nice package with all eight films included, they still complain because there's hardly any bonus material. WB did this for their first four Batman movies before the glorious Batman Anthology came to be, so those fans have been waiting a long time that as well.

The set will just have a repressing of the initial releases, and the first three movies include their respective trailers, while "Deathly Hallows Parts 1 & 2" have deleted/extended scenes, so the "no extras" claim doesn't hold as much water. They have some, as opposed to none. Not to mention the quality of the past three Ultimate Editions' bonus features have declined to the point where I just stopped buying them (bulky packaging, no commentary and no extended editions are the deal-breakers). For me, I just want the movies, and this set allows that. For that alone it gets 4 stars. It's a no-frills package but worth it if you just want the movies and save shelf space.

If you want a comprehensive box set with tons of extras for each movie, you'll have to wait. Don't buy it if you don't want to.

Buy Harry Potter - The Complete 8-Film Collection[Region Free] (2011) Now

amazon.co.uk has the three different HP movies 1-8 sets

just go to the site and type in "harry potter 1-8"

ALLL BLU RAY CUSTOMERS can order, as these are region free and with HD media, there is no such thing as PAL encoding.

"Harry Potter The Complete 8-Film Collection [Blu-ray] [2011][Region Free]"

and "Harry Potter: The Complete 1-8 Film Collection Limited Numbered Edition (Blu-ray + DVD) [2011][Region Free]"

I live in philly, i ordered the regular set, its going to come to around 40 bucks i believe

the special edition version will be way less than 100 and far surpasses this version sold here

the dvd set is SUPER cheap but it is not region free and it IS in PAL. so most americans wont be able to see it

this is true for most of amazon.co.uk 's inventory. as far as blu ray, as long as it says region free, it will work in america, and it only takes a week to get here, and it is ALWAYS cheaper. and they have WAY more unique box sets and artwork.

Read Best Reviews of Harry Potter - The Complete 8-Film Collection[Region Free] (2011) Here

Nobody in their right mind should buy this. Seriously. If you don't have any of the HP films on Blu, go on Amazon.co.uk and buy the version from there. You get all 8 movies on Blu, same as this set, plus three extras discs that this set does *not* have, and it costs you about $30 less even AFTER shipping. You'll have to wait a few extra days to get it in your hands because they have to ship it overseas, but I think most people would probably rather wait than spend than the money.

Okay, the UK box isn't quite as spiffy-looking (or maybe it's better, if you're into Daniel Radcliffe). Is a better box worth a $30 price premium? The UK 1-8 box set is undisputably a better version, and it costs significantly less. Warners, why are you trying to sell us this? Anybody with a half a brain sees right through you.

**December 2012 edit**

This is STILL applicable advice, but in light of some of the comments I think I should clarify that I am ONLY talking about the Blu-rays, not the DVD set. The UK DVD set is Region 2 and will not work with most players in the US and Canada. Current price as of this edit is GBP 20.00, which works out to around $33 or so before shipping. Enjoy!

Want Harry Potter - The Complete 8-Film Collection[Region Free] (2011) Discount?

The reviews warning against this product due to a lack of special features are completely misguided. The title of this release is "The 8 Film Collection"; it is not called "Collector's Edition" or "Deluxe Edition" or "The Bonus Features Galore Collection". This is a nice little set for casual fans who simply want all 8 films on blu-ray. And considering this set is (currently) less than $80, how can you complain?

Yes, if you're a huge fan of the franchise and want extended cuts and bonus features, save your time and money and wait for a possible future release. But I find it silly that so many reviewers are "warning" others not to buy this release because it doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

You know what it does have? The films.

Saturday Night Fever / Grease (2013)

I couldn't believe that two of my favorite movies were included in one package and for the best out there.

If you like John Travolta and you like musicals, you'll love these two movies. The music is a blast from the past and really good to listen and remember times past.

Buy Saturday Night Fever / Grease (2013) Now

Excalibur (2011)

It's tough to compress the 900-some-odd pages of text that Thomas Malory used to tell his story of Le Morte d'Arthur into 140 minutes of film, but director John Boorman and screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg give it a good shot. While it sometimes leaves out important details or compresses events in the interest of time, it can never be accused of playing fast and loose with the legend. However, the film also requires a bit of work on the part of the viewer to fill in some of the details, and it's obvious Boorman expects his viewer to be at least passing familiar with the traditions of the Arthurian legend (anyone unfamiliar with Arthur's fate after his death, for example, will be baffled by the film's final shot). So brush up just a bit before you sit down to this one.

With its darkened, cloud-streaked skies, lonely stone castles, eerie green lighting, (all caught in beautiful widescreen glory on the DVD), and effective use of the music of Richard Wagner, you won't find a moodier, more beautifully shot film. In fact, there are some downright breathtaking cinematic moments in this film, none more so than when Perceval hurls Excalibur back into the water, and Wagner's music swells just in time for the Lady of the Lake to make a dramatic clean catch. Great stuff.

It also helps that Nicol Williamson turns in a very game performance as Merlin, but it's Nigel Terry who carries the film in an underappreciated but wholly believeable interpretation of King Arthur. Terry leaves the scenery-chewing to Williamson, and anchors the film instead with a steady, understated performance. Look also for stars-in-the-making Liam Neeson as the jealous Gawain, and Patrick Stewart as Guenevere's father, Leodegrance.

EXCALIBUR has all the elements one expects in a fantasy, yet, in a sense, Boorman does for the sword-and-sorcery film what Sergio Leone did for the western: whereas prior horse operas showed cowboys riding across the desert and shuffing down dirt streets without a bit of sweat, and firing pistols that never drew blood, Leone made everyone look hot and sweaty, and showed that a Smith & Wesson could rip a real hole through your gut. Boorman does the same for the knight in this film -knights clunk around clumsily in heavy armor, get skewered on pikes, get their heads bashed in, and cough their guts out in bloody mud puddles. It all lends an air of veracity to the film that makes it all seem like It Could Really Have Happened This Way.

The widescreen format available on DVD gives this film the weight and heft it has long deserved, and there are some real gems lurking among the additional features -including a surprisingly cheezy, Grade B trailer, and a really great alternate soundtrack in which director John Boorman discusses the action and shares some behind-the-scene goodies (such as the fact that Nicol Williamson and Helen Mirren couldn't stand each other, or that the actor playing the grown-up Mordred was actually a first-rate horseman).

Give this one a try.

Within my memory, there've been only a couple films featuring the legend of King Arthur. However, one of them released in 1981, EXCALIBUR, is the standard by which all others, past and future, must be judged. It's positively stunning in its excellence, and a must-see for any devotee of the tale.

In a sense, EXCALIBUR is more a story of Merlin than Arthur since Nicole Williamson's fabulous, unique portrayal of the former overshadows Nigel Terry's role as the latter. However, the film faithfully depicts the Arthurian legend from his conception and birth at Tintagel Castle, to his death at the hands of Mordred. In between are all the other elements of the story one would hope for and expect: Uther Pendragon, the Sword In the Stone, the Battle of Mount Badon, Camelot, the Knights of the Round Table, Sir Lancelot, Guinevere, Sir Percival, the Quest for the Holy Grail, the Lady of the Lake, and Lady Morgana (a.k.a. Morgan La Fey).

A note of caution for parents of young children. At times, the film is intensely violent, bloody and sexual. (Gee, it sounds like any normal day at the office.) You are warned. And it's not a movie for squeamish adults, either.

The costuming is superb. The brilliant cinematography and film editing, combined with a magnificent soundtrack that includes "Carmina Burana" and "Tristan's Funeral March" at just the right scenes, make EXCALIBUR absolutely awe-inspiring. You'll want to watch it over and over. (I've talked myself into wanting to view it again right now!) The final scene is one you'll wish you could extract from your TV screen and frame, with sound.

Oh, my! What a cinematic achievement!

Buy Excalibur (2011) Now

This movie comes the closest of any theatrical rendition to capturing the grandeur and pageantry of Mallory's Le Mortre De Arthur. From opening scene to closing credits, this is one of the most well-done movies ever made. Boorman is at his best in its direction & the soundtrack is all Wagner. Who could ask for anything more? Also, unlike many other Arthur films (Such as First Knight) Excalibur addresses the entire scope of the legend instead of just one aspect. Fans will furthermore delight in seeing a young Liam Neason and a performance of Patrick Stewart from his mid-life years. This film is, quite simply, excellent.

Read Best Reviews of Excalibur (2011) Here

Late in the film, King Arthur is about to fight his last battle against his estranged son Mordred. His kingdom of Camelot is falling; the knights of the Round Table are disbanding; and Guinevere has entered a convent. In short, Arthur's world is collapsing. He rides to the nunnery to see Guinevere for the last time. And there, she produces the ancient timeless object hidden beneath some linen: the sword Excalibur, still gleaming, still magical, still potent to fight in the battle that Arthur cannot win. He sheathes Excalibur, and, in full knightly regalia rides with his remaining loyal knights through the English countryside, their pennants and banners flying in the wind. The fortissimo chorus of Carmina Burana accompanies their ride in perfect harmony, chanting the lyrics from the medieval poem "O Fortuna". This is the stuff of legend...

Artistic treatments of the Arthurian legends date back to illuminated codices from the Middle Ages. Thereafter the first, and one of the greatest, attempts to bring the stories into a novelistic form was written in the late 1400's by a knight, Sir Thomas Malory, entitled Le Morte d'Arthur ("The Death of Arthur") which is probably the most famous work of English letters proceeding Chaucer but before Shakespeare. Even later renditions include T.H. White's "The Once and Future King". By the 20th century, theatrical adaptations began appearing as well, including "Knights of the Round Table" (1953), Disney's "The Sword in the Stone" (1963), and the musical "Camelot" by Lerner and Lowe which was possibly the most popular rendition of the story before "Excalibur". These last renditions, although they have their appeal, cannot measure up to the movie "Excalibur" which was largely based upon Malory's original tome.

Many here have detailed very well the merits of the film, and since most people know the story, I will keep this short. The reason why this is the best of the Arthurian-based films is its imagery and its dedication to the original Arthurian myths. The entire look of the film, which I have not seen in a movie since, reeks of Medieval Legend. The lush forests, the huge castles, and the glittering swords give a visual and dream-like reality. This is NOT how it was in the Middle Ages. This is how people in the Middle Ages would have liked it to have been, which is the entire point of the Arthurian myths. The filmmakers of Excalibur understood that myth is about dreams.

Several moments in the film are inspired directly from Malory and earlier Medieval codices. For example, several Medieval illuminated manuscripts feature the hand of the Lady of the Lake bestowing the sword Excalibur to Arthur. Strangely this episode, which becomes an important theme throughout Excalibur, is lacking from other theatrical versions and yet it is central to the original myth. Another is the strange rhetoric that Arthur and the land are one, and when Arthur becomes ill, the land of his kingdom becomes barren. This concept was a widely held belief in the Middle Ages: that the sovereign was essentially married to the kingdom.

Another aspect that makes this film outstanding is the portrayal of Merlin by Nicol Williamson. This was possibly the best Merlin ever to come to the large screen. Some of the most humorous moments of the film occur with Merlin. Instead of being the absent-minded wizard of "The Sword in the Stone", he is the last of the Druids, a race giving way to Medieval Christians. Worth the price of admission. It is sad that he obtained very little recognition for this portrayal.

The fact is, a viewer either experiences "aesthetic arrest" with Excalibur, or he or she doesn't. If the scenes when the knights go riding through countryside with their pennants flying behind them doesn't give you the shivers, this is not and will never be your kind of movie. If Malory had lived to see this film, he would have been awed and proud. Malory gave Arthur to the world, and Excalibur gave Arthur back to Malory.

Want Excalibur (2011) Discount?

Excalibur is the definitive Aurthurian film. Everything in this film is first rate. The scenery was grand. The castles and battlefields made it all seem real. The staging of the battle scenes was impressive. The fighting was convincing, like these battles were really taking place. They were, if anything, too bloody.

The acting was excellent too. Nicol Williamson did a great job of portraying Merlin. Merlin came across as wise, intimidating and stern, but caring. Nicholas Clay and Liam Neeson gave fine performances as the great knights Lancelot and Gawain. Nigel Terry managed his role of Arthur, but not as well as the others.

The soundtrack was magnificent. Boorman chose the right music for the right scenes. This music conveyed the varied moods of this film-mystery, excitement, sorrow, and exultation.

These elements come together amidst an epic taleA story of Rise, fall, and redemption; trust, betrayal, and revenge. This film is good enough to watch many times. Even when one becomes familiar with this version of the Arthurian legend, it is still worth watching for its' looks, sounds, and performances. It can stir the emotions of viewers even when they know exactly what to expect.

Save 33% Off

Emma (1996)

Being a die-hard Austen fan, I couldn't resist watching this movie. Emma Woodhouse's story has always been my favorite of

Austen's efforts, and I am always glad to see her work brought to the screen. I was VERY pleased with this film.

Casting was well done. Northam provides a sturdy, but not overly-stern, Knightley, and Paltrow does an amazing job of convincing us that she is, indeed, British in her portrayal of Emma. Her accent is nearly flawless, and I felt that she truly captured the personality of Austen's most spoiled heroine. The sets and lighting are bright, airy, and perfectly suited to the comedic approach taken by this particular director. The scenes are edited just brilliantly. Each scene flows seamlessly from one to another, and the pace of the plot runs along just perfectly. It moves fast enough to keep everyone interested and slowly enough to make sure that everyone has enough time to absorb what's going on.

The criticism I've heard most often is that the film really only touches on the Jane Fairfax/Frank Churchill subplot for the briefest of moments. I did not find that to be injurious to the film. It's plain, while watching this version, that the director wanted to keep the story light and funny. Adding Jane and Frank's saga would have done two things: First, it would have seriously darkened and dramatized the bouncy and bright atmosphere of the entire film. Second, it would have taken the spotlight off of Emma Woodhouse as the focus of the story. I felt that, given the abbreviated length of time that a movie has in which to communicate a story...the omission of Frank & Jane's affair was a wise choice.

The second criticism I've heard of the film is that it's just too clean and "pretty" to be accurately representative of Regency England. Again...this didn't bother me. The focus of this film is NOT to be true to history. It is not a Regency documentary. It is a fun and aesthetically pleasing depiction of Emma Woodhouse and her friends. It's romantic, funny, charming, and very very pretty to look at.

I loved it.

Emma is a wealthy and bored young woman in Regency England. She lives the good life in her rural manse, where she lives with her hypochondriac father, and she has just successfully seen a match she's made lead to the altar. Flushed with success, she is determined to continue her role as Cupid, which leads to disaster and comedy at every turn.

Director McGrath proves to have a good eye for exterior shots and comedic elements. The script is delightful, the cast superb, and Rachel Portman's score is faultless. The real problem with this adaptation is dear Gwyneth. Paltrow is absolutely lovely and charming as the heroine here, but she is not Emma as written by Jane Austen, and the discrepancy changes the story entirely. To see this character played to perfection, you must see her played by Kate Beckinsale. Before you click the "No" button, hear me out: watch both films' version of the pivotal scene of the picnic on Boxer Hill, where Emma insults poor chatty Miss Bates. Austen's Emma is intelligent but thoughtless, generous but as yet unkind, in the way that young people can sometimes be. The essential drama of Austen's story lies in Emma's realization that she has been mistaken about oh! so many things, in her growth as she internalizes that realization, and in her discovering love when she becomes worthy of it. By contrast, Gwyneth Paltrow is perfect from the first scene. She exudes sophistication; she cannot help it. You never feel that she does not know what's what and who's who, and therefore she cannot develop as Austen means her to. And that precludes her from playing Emma to perfection. That said, if you are a Paltrow fan, you will love her in this charming film. She is effervescent. If, however, you are an Austen purist, then you MUST see the Beckinsale version instead.

Regardless of your opinion of the film, you WILL be disappointed in this DVD. Apparently Miramax's Harvey Weinstein has heard of neither bells nor whistles. Special features listed are: a theatrical trailer, subtitles in English and chapter selection. And that accurately sums it up. There's really no excuse for such a trifling package.

Now I've had my say and you, dear reader, may click away.

Buy Emma (1996) Now

"Emma" was made during a spate of Jane Austen films and miniseries awhile back, and thankfully (except for the fiasco called "Mansfield Park") all of them have been fantastic. Gwyneth Paltrow provides some droll comic relief as the title heroine of the movie "Emma," proving that yes, she CAN act quite well.

Emma Woodhouse (Paltrow) is on a matchmaking rush after she successfully pairs her former governess to a rich widower. Convinced that she can make a good match for anybody, she sets out to pair her penniless, sweet-natured pal Harriet Smith (Toni Collette) with someone more elevated than a prosperous young farmer, such as the eager young minister, Mr. Elton (Alan Cumming). Problem is, Mr. Elton turns out to be in love with Emma, not Harriet.

More romantic complications ensue when a charming bad boy, Frank Churchill (Ewan McGregor in a bad wig) comes to the area and seems to be interested in Emma -until Emma decides to pair him with Harriet. Emma's good-natured meddling continues unchecked, until it threatens her own happiness and her unspoken love.

"Emma" is probably the frothiest of Austen's novels; there aren't any big scandals or anything like that. Embarrassment is the big opponent in here, but Douglas McGrath has a good sense of how to use the droll humor to best advantage. This is definitely a comedy, except for one or two moments near the end; even there, it's amusing when Emma wails "I love John! I hate John!". The only source of humor that falls flat is Mrs. Elton, who is too overdone in her vulgarity and stupidity. Bit of a cheap laugh there.

Gwyneth Paltrow seems very in-her-element as Emma, managing to be cute and fumbling without ever making Emma seem precious or stupid. Ewan McGregor may hide whenever he sees his performance, but he's pretty good as Frank (and fans of his should definitely see him sing a duet with Paltrow -he has a wonderful voice). Toni Collette is sweet as Emma's rather naive younger friend, Denys Hawthorne endearing as Emma's hypochondriac dad (he's kind of weird, but likeably so), Alan Cumming annoying as the juvenile Mr. Elton, and Greta Scacchi does a great turn as Emma's kindly mother-figure. And Jeremy Northam steals the show as Mr. Knightley, the barb-tongued aristocrat with a kindly heart and a genuine affection for Emma, even though her romantic prodding makes him nuts.

There are a few points in the movie where it does seem a little too light and frothy, but fortunately most of the time the direction stays in sync with the storyline. The lighting, the costumes, the music -all of them are cute and lightweight. Kids can watch this as well as adults, since there are Disney cartoons that are more offensive than this. (But younger kids will be bored out of their skulls, probably)

"Emma" is a great film for anyone in search of a genuine comedy with lots of laughs and no stupid gags. Definitely something to watch, especially if you like hearing Ewan McGregor sing or Gwyneth Paltrow freaking out over a failed matchmaking.

Read Best Reviews of Emma (1996) Here

Ah, this is a fun movie!

A relatively faithful adaptation of the Jane Austen novel is a bigscreen treat (the recent "Mansfield Park" was a disaster). Even looking at the cover is nice.

An unusually good Gwyneth Paltrow plays the well-intentioned but inept Emma, a pretty, witty aristocrat who believes that "the most beautiful thing in the world is a match well made!" Having married off her ex-governess to a family friend, she decides to take a poor friend of hers under her wing and find Harriet Smith a husband, but royally botches it in the process. Amid the tangle of loves, infatuations, and deceptions, Emma discovers that her own true love has been standing off to the side...

Paltrow is genuinely enjoyable-she practically glows. Ewan McGregor is totally convincing as the two-faced charmer Frank Churchill (despite his own claims, he does a good job). The actors playing Mr. Knightly, Harriet Smith, and the usual smarmy pastor and his creep of a wife are jewels.

It doesn't have quite the emotional resonance of "Sense and Sensibility", the BBC "Mansfield Park," or "Pride and Prejudice," but "Emma" is something of a lightweight story--there isn't much in the way of scandals. It's a nice bit of G-rated fun and comedy, enjoyable but not too heavy.

Want Emma (1996) Discount?

The first time I saw this movie was when it was released in theaters back in 1996. I thought it was quite enjoyable and my husband and a guy friend who saw it with us, enjoyed it as well. However, after watching it, I never really thought about it again.

About a year ago, however, I rented it and just fell in love with it. After re-renting it so many times, I finally went ahead and bought the DVD. Frankly, I don't quite understand how I missed how great this movie was the first time. I suspect it might have been Austen overload, as 1995-96 was right around the time that when Austenmania gripped Hollywood. Anyhow, I can't say enough about how much fun this movie is and how infinitely re-watchable it is. The acting by the entire cast, from Gwyneth Paltrow to Jeremy Northam, Toni Collette, to Sophie Thompson and Phylidda Law, is simply superb. Gwyneth is much better here than she was (IMO) in Shakespeare in Love. It's hard to take your eyes off her; her Emma just so funny -supremely confident in always knowing what's right for everyone and, to her and no one else's amazement, invariably is always proved wrong. Jeremy Northam is also wonderful as Mr. Knightley. Austen's Knightley in the book is so gentlemanly and perfect that he can almost be a cipher. Northam however allows us to see into Mr. Knightley's psyche as he battles with Emma and her machinations, and his own exasperation, anger, jealousy and lust. His body language and eyes convey it all. Although Toni Collette is a bit of a miscast because she visually doesn't match Austen's Harriet, she redeems herself admirably by being so lovably dim that you can't help but wish her the happy ending she deserves. And Sophie Thompson is just perfect: funny and heartbreaking.

Although I agree with other reviewers that this version of Emma is not perfect (it loses some of Austen's sense of irony, just drops the ball on the Frank and Jane subplot, and never really let's you get too mad at Emma, who frankly deserves it), I think it makes up for it with the sheer joy, beauty, humor and romance of it all. To put it another way: As an adaptation, I'd rank it as 3-1/2 stars; as a movie, I give 5 stars plus! It's just wonderful moviemaking.

Save 6% Off