Crashout (1955)

A curiously compelling little movie, Crashout is a throwback to the tough prison-escape movies of the 30's. Fortunately, the producers had the good sense to hire an expert cast of B-movie veterans to enliven an otherwise shopworn plot. Writer-producer Hal Chester and director-writer Lewis Foster provide each convict with a distinct personality that holds viewer interest as tensions mount, while the audience anticipates how each character will be brought to justice. Standouts in the cast are the always subtle Arthur Kennedy, an engagingly ambivalent Marshall Thompson, and William Tallman doing his scary psycho bit, this time as a knife-throwing religious fanatic. And in a poignant bit part, cult favorite Gloria Talbott as the prospect of a normal life for the ill-fated Thompson. Though you've seen it all before, there are many nice touches that lift this otherwise generous slice of thick-ear beyond the merely routine.

Sure, we've seen the escaped convicts formula before, but this one hits home. Here is a real diversity of the six characters; each one as convincing as the next. William Bendix is his usual great gruff self, playing the heartless, cold-blooded mastermind. My personal favorite, film veteran Arthur Kennedy, excels as the counterpoint to Bendix: he excels as the white collar criminal with a brain, and ultimately, a heart. Fine dialogue, plenty of action, and even a little romance thrown in. A winner!

Buy Crashout (1955) Now

CRASHOUT might come as a surprise to crime film fans or noir

enthusiasts who pick it up, expecting a routine mid-50s B movie. For

one thing, it's feature-length (89 minutes), and doesn't skimp much on

plot and character development. Director Lewis R. Foster was probably

pretty adept at action/adventure pictures, judging by titles in his

IMDb filmography. CRASHOUT was probably just another assignment to him,

but the film shows he was no hack. It's a foregone conclusion that a

Hollywood movie won't let criminals get away unpunished, but a superior

example like this makes the fate of its players more meaningful with

good actors and intelligent writing. Foster keeps things moving nicely,

once past the fairly talky first scene in the cave. The film never lags

once after that, because there is plenty of action, and characters are

given enough depth to differentiate them and keep them interesting.

Arthur Kennedy appears to be the main protagonist here. His Joe Quinn

represents the typical redeemed-too-late criminal (who had been jailed

for robbery). The actor invests Quinn with plenty of believability,

especially in his interactions with Beverly Michaels (an odd, rather

glamorous choice for a farm resident, but she is effective). William

Bendix plays another of his dumb thugs to perfection, this time never

letting up and with no redemption in sight. In Luther Adler's Mendoza

we see more evidence of this great actor's talent, making a good deal

out of what could have been a stereotyped cypher. Gene Evans, another

prolific actor, is allowed to show two sides to his Monk Collins,

intimidating one moment, and teaching card tricks to a hostage child

the next. Also interesting is Marshall Thompson--a performer who may

have never really gotten his due--as the 'nice young man gone wrong'.

Thompson really stands out in the very good sequence involving the

young woman he meets on the train. Gloria (I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM

OUTER SPACE) Talbot is nicely cast in this sequence. Last, and far from

least, is William Talman (THE HITCH-HIKER, ARMORED CAR ROBBERY), as

Remsen, a lapsed reverend, who obsessively plays the same record over

and over, as though it were a final vestige of goodness in his life.

In smaller roles we get a nice, but brief, dose of inimitable Percy

Helton, playing a country doctor called out in the middle of the night,

and who pays a hefty price for his professionalism. Also of note, Adam

Williams (memorable as Larry Gordon in THE BIG HEAT two years earlier)

in the role of Michaels's heroic date. And there's Morris Ankrum, as

the head guard in the crashout scene.

Another interesting aspect of this film is the question of its place in

the so-called 'Noir Canon'. Is this a film noir? In the strictest

terms, probably not (although the designation is more subjective than

many want to admit.) It has enough of the typical elements for some to

see it as noir. But its 'existential' qualities may be disputable. This

usually refers to a sense of isolation experienced by, typically, a

single protagonist: he or she feels trapped in an uncaring universe,

forced to proceed alone, resorting perhaps to uncharacteristic methods

for survival. The escaped convicts in CRASHOUT don't really fit this

profile. They are already immersed in crime. However, there is a strong

sense in this film of over-arching fatalism: we all know, the escapees

and the viewer, that they are trapped by their actions, that there will

be no true escape. So at this level, the film can be seen as belonging

to the 'noir universe'. Whatever category it fits into, CRASHOUT is a riveting corker of a movie not to be missed.

Read Best Reviews of Crashout (1955) Here

They just dont make them like this anymore! I would love to see Alpha Video put this masterpiece out on DVD. Very tough crime flick from the 50's, one of the greatest!

Want Crashout (1955) Discount?

BATMAN RETURNS (2001)

Batman Returns is very much a Tim Burton film. It is a stranger and darker film than Batman, netherless it is a striking film on several levels.

Michael Keaton returns as the stoic and haunted Dark Knight. Danny DeVito is Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin. In the comic book he's a short rotund man who has an affinity for birds and umbrellas. The character is reinvented here. Born grotesquely disfigured, as an infant, he's cast into the river where he's brought up in a criminal circus gang that lives underground in an abandoned Zoo. Michelle Pfeffer is Selina Kyle aka Catwoman, a beautiful yet mousy secretary who's been pushed too far (of a window) and is out for some serious payback.

These three disturbed characters make this Batman film more adult oriented than the first one. DeVito's Penguin is a tragic figure but is very evil and is looking to strike back at Gotham City any way he can. The grotesque make-up is impressive and DeVito delivers a powerful performance. Michelle Pfeffer is haunting as the mousy secretary who is pushed over the edge and finds herself battling with her new alter ego Catwoman. A nice chemistry is struck between Keaton & Pfeffer as the conflicted couple. Christopher Walken is on hand as the manipulative and power hungry businessman Max Shreck. Michael Gough returns as Alfred the butler as well.

The stunning production design by Bo Welch extends the look from the previous film and Danny Elfman's score is a bit more subdued but retains the perfect atmosphere. The story is solid but the plotline regarding the circus gang is thin.

Batman Returns isn't a film for small kids either. Between the overall look of the characters and some racy dialogue, this is a Batman film for more of a mature audience. If you're a fan of the first film, you'll enjoy this Batman film that has a few new twists to it.

The Dark Knight Bruce Wayne/Batman makes a roaring return in the second outing in the legendary Batman trilogy in a darker & much colder undertone with the mysterious hero now up against two menacing villains. One is a corrupt company CEO named Max Schrek (Christopher Walken) and the other is a deformed murderer named Oswald Cobblepot aka Penguin. A third rival character in this movie is difficult to categorize as a villain or a hero. That is the twisted seductive Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). Although I don't categorize her as a dangerous murderess, it's very difficult to really say if she's truly a villainess but it's easy to say that she isn't exactly the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of heroism but on the other hand, she's an extremely complex character whose eccentric personality renders one unable to help but really pay a lot of attention to her.

The movie begins in the cold snowy & remote stretches of a haunted mansion somewhere I'm guessing in upper New York state where a couple are the parents of a young but very odd child. The oddness of the child becomes highly evident after he pulls a cat into his cage and presumably killing it. Unable to handle the psychological burden of raising him, the Cobblepots toss him in his crib into the river and flee into the unknown. Many years later on, Cobblepot also known as the Penguin, runs in the election for the next mayor of Gotham City. The citizens though are unaware that he's actually plotting against the population and is in fact plotting to take over the city and kidnap the city's children. Meanwhile, The Penguin attracts the attention of a corrupt corporate CEO named Max Schrek (Christopher Walken), who wants to team up with him against `both' Bruce Wayne, and Batman, considering how much "they" oppose his plans for a toxic waste power plant. Schrek on the other hand also has to deal with a more vicious foe, and that is Catwoman, formerly Selina Kyle, a former employee who he had abused and tried to kill, and she is now out for revenge against him and also for competition against Batman. Now, with three major foes butting heads against him, Batman now has a dauntingly dangerous mission to stop the three from causing havoc and destruction across Gotham City and protect the citizens.

All of the cast in this movie are superb beyond any words that I can muster up. Michael Keaton IS Bruce Wayne/Batman. Neither George Clooney, nor Val Kilmer (No offense to them. They did well too) could compete against Keaton in the role as the dark Knight Batman. Danny DeVito brings a truly chilling acting role that is worthy of remembrance with the deformed Penguin. Michelle Pfeiffer brings the odd and often extremely complex character Catwoman to life. Christopher Walken is totally awesome playing the corrupt CEO of the Schrek Corporation. Michael Gough is absolutely brilliant as Bruce Wayne's/Batman's caretaker and aide, Alfred and is the only one who I felt kept all of the talent of his acting intact throughout the entire movie series. Combine the brilliant cast with a dark and truly foreboding atmosphere, and you have what I considered Tim Burton's crowning achievement at this point in his career (Before he outdid himself with "The Nightmare Before Christmas")

I can easily remember how this movie seemed to shape this period in my life around late 1992 and early 1993 and now in its 11th year of existence, "Batman Returns" has lost none of it's power and continues to be a thought-provoking masterpiece. Tim Burton did stunningly well on the first Batman movie from 1989, but he blew me away with "Batman Returns". Although it may sound like "Returns" is better than the first one, it's actually a tight toss-up between the two movies. The first one has a more fun atmosphere combined with a dramatic overtone to it. The second one, has a much darker, much colder, and more bleak atmosphere. The two perfectly complement each other so well that one's movie collection would be incomplete without them. Although I thought "Batman Forever" was a great follow-up, the more flashy direction that the movie saga went into would sadly go in a nosedive, sacrificing the drama, thoughtful plot, and intelligent dialogue, for excessive hodgepodges of colors and excessive flamboyance, ultimately killing the movie series with the campy, god-awful P.O.S. that was "Batman And Robin". Even to this day, I still cannot believe that the Batman series went from the dark, brooding, drama of "Batman" and "Batman Returns", and even the fun of "Batman Forever", down to just lowlife cinematic sewage that was "Batman & Robin". I just hope that Batman will recover soon and someday in the future, bring back the dark undertones that defined this incredible movie. Perhaps it was the stupidity of the entertainment industry at the time that they were disturbed at the `failure' of "Batman Returns" with "only" 280M dollars at the box office. I mean come on! 280M is HUGE! That's far fram a failure. It was when they turned Gotham City into a giant circus that caused the franchise to fail later on. It might have also been the stupidity of a large part of the audience that caused the franchise to die off later on after this movie. Of course for me, I was loving this movie when I was just ten years old when it came out, and loved far more than I `enjoyed' "Batman & Robin" when I was 14 when that came out. Even with all this I'm writing with this review, there's so much more from this movie that I can be able to explain with this review. The series would take a nosedive into campy oblivion later on in time but for me, give me the dark, dramatic, thought-provoking, and depth of "Batman Returns" anytime over the MGM grand flashy colors of "Batman & Robin".

Buy BATMAN RETURNS (2001) Now

Though not recommended for viewing by children under 10, "Batman Returns" is a definite improvement over the 1989 blockbuster. It's obvious that director Tim Burton had more creative freedom this time around. The result is a genuine vision behind the camera rather than filmmaking-by-committee. Admittedly, the 1992 sequel is a dark, strikingly mature fantasy-adventure with three iconic psychopaths Batman, Catwoman and the Penguin sharing screen time. However, it is the disturbing characterizations that make "Batman Returns" a standout among mainstream comic-book adaptations. The production design and special effects should have garnered Oscars, while the performances of Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Danny DeVito and Christopher Walken mesh perfectly with the expressionist surroundings. One wishes that Burton and Keaton had reunited for a third Dark Knight saga. Instead, Warner Bros. handed over the reins to schlockmeister Joel Schumacher, who drove the series into the ground with "Batman Forever" (1995) and "Batman and Robin" (1997). No wonder Keaton hung up his cowl.

Read Best Reviews of BATMAN RETURNS (2001) Here

Oh, this movie is so sad! It really is! This is a fantastic movie simply because it isn't afraid to be all of the other things that the original "Batman" was, also: Funny, exciting, thrilling, haunting, dark, romantic, and endlessly clever. It also features three terrific performances from the three leads; Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight (Bruce Wayne), Michelle Pfeiffer looking hot as ever as the sleek and smooth Catwoman (Selena Kyle), and Danny Devito as the diabolically demonic Penguin (Oswald Cobblepot). And we can never forget Christopher Walken, playing Max Schreck (yeah, just like the guy who played Nosferatu), who is quite the fiend.

The film opens with a rather heartbreaking scene that sets the tone for the entire movie, which takes the lightheartedness of the Joker character in the original and tosses it right out the window. Instead, we have the emotionally scarred darkness of the Penguin, who was literally sent up the river like Baby Moses in a covered wicker baby basket on Christmas Eve simply because he wasn't a normal child born with five fingers instead of the shiny flippers he has extending from his wrists. Despite his ghastly, unsightly appearence and mangled people skills, we sympathize with the Penguin's plight simply because we would never wish what happened to him on our worst enemy. Sure, being sent up the river worked out fine for Moses, but Penguin is no Moses, and he is not on a mission from God. He's on a mission for a simple reason: Revenge. Revenge of biblical proportions by kidnapping every first born child in Gotham City, in honor of his own castaway status on Christmas Eve, more than 30 years prior. Meanwhile, we have the newly resurrected-from-cat-saliva Selena Kyle, who decides to try on a skintight vinyl suit with a whip draped around her feminine feline torso, desperate to avenge her "death" at the hands of her boss, Schreck. And amongst it all, Bruce Wayne is in love with Selena Kyle and trying to shut down the blatantly illegal operations of Schreck, trying to connect him to the Penguin, who he theorizes runs the Red Triangle Gang that terrorizes the streets. His hands are quite full as Batman, too: He is trying to stop Catwoman, is unaware of Selena's murder at the hands of Schreck, he knows that Penguin is up to something but can't prove it, and he is being framed. It's an amazingly confusing plot to explain, but it all works seamlessly through the carefully constructed pace of the film, for which I credit Tim Burton, whose direction is flawless, as usual. He keeps the characters interesting while making sure the background is just as visually stunning as Pfeiffer in that catsuit.

"Batman Returns" may take a few viewings to totally appreciate it, but you're astounded a little more each time. It's one of the best comic book movies ever made.

Want BATMAN RETURNS (2001) Discount?

(4.5/5 stars) In some ways this movie is more entertaining than the first "Batman" from 1989, though the extent of your admiration might depend on how well Tim Burton's style suits you. For me, this one is the best of the 80's-90's Batman movies. This time, the Caped Crusader is up against evil magnate Max Shreck (the always peculiar Christopher Walken), the Penguin (Danny DeVito) and Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). Michael Keaton reprises the role of Bruce Wayne / Batman, looking a little less fit than the first time around. Even though I am not a fan of Michelle Pfeiffer, I must admit she turns in a very good performance as Selina Kyle / Catwoman. It helps that time is spent developing her character, though she is believable as the meek, passive secretary turned confident, vengeful vigilante. The Christmas setting adds a nice touch to the film's atmosphere, with the snow providing a false veneer of tranquility and peace. There are many memorable scenes in the film, though my favorite is the scene with Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle dancing, not aware at first of each other's identity. That scene is very well done and confirmed for me that Pfeiffer was the correct choice for that role. Gone from the first movie are the poorly chosen Prince songs and the annoyingly comical Robert Wuhl, though remaining are the impressive visuals, exciting action, cool gadgets and decent score. The only questionable element for me was the climax at the ending, which features penguins with missiles strapped to their backs. The scene takes too long to develop and doesn't pay off, even though I appreciate the truly bizarre nature of the concept. The final scene with Bruce Wayne in his car is a close second place for best scene in the movie. Great stuff.

Miral (2010)

It is refreshing to visit the Israeli/Palestinian conflict form a vantage too seldom shared in cinema. Director Julian Schnabel once again proves that he understands human responses in the face of political conflict. Rula Jebreal has adapted her own novel which in turn is a biography of her involvement in the history of the Palestinian conflict. It is a touching recounting of the events that took place form 1947 to the present and it leaves the window open for much conversation.

The film opens with a party held by Bertha Spafford (Vanessa Redgrave) in 1947 when she asks her guest to forget the conflict outside for a celebration of Christmas: the party is attended by both her Jewish and Arabic friends, the centerpiece being the Christmas tree brought yearly by the Husseini family and then replanted to restore the earth. Hind Husseini (Hiam Abbass) is there and meets Eddie (Willem Dafoe), an American friend of Bertha. A year latter in 1948 there is an Arab-Israeli War, the Deir Yassin Massacre, and the establishment of the state of Israel. The wealthy Hind Husseini encounters 55 starving children, victims of the war, and take s them home to establish what will become the Dar Al-Tifel Institute, a school for Arab orphans that within months grew to a population of 2000. The film then jumps forward and we meet Nadia (Yasmine Al Massri), an abused alcoholic who is imprisoned and there meets devout Muslim Jamal (Alexander Siddig) who later becomes her husband: Nadia, unable to change her life, drowns herself when their child is only 7 years old. It is now 1978 and Jamal brings his daughter Miral (Yolanda El Karam) to the keeping of Hind, reassuring her that he will see her on weekends. Time passes to 1988 and the older Miral (Freida Pinto) is victim to the intifada (uprising), is sent to a refugee camp where she falls in love with the PLO leader Hani (Omar Metwally) and commits to the Palestinian movement to secure a land of peace called Palestine that will be free of the Israeli governance and jurisdiction. Hind encourages Miral to follow her heart and convictions: it is the development of change represented by Hind, Nada, and Miral that personalizes this compelling epic. Though the conflict between Palestine and Israel continues to this day, this film allows us to appreciate the Palestinian response to the loss of their land and home by a international ruling to create the state of Israel.

Cinematographer Eric Gautier mixes the hot sun washed Palestine footage of the real intifada and the result is mesmerizing. The real star of this film is Hiam Abbass who as the gradually aging Hind Husseini brings the story to life. The large cast is excellent with special kudos to Alexander Siddig, Omar Metwally, and Freida Pinto: the presence of Vanessa Redgrave and Willem Dafoe add credibility tot he proceedings but their roles are minimal. Julian Schnabel is to be congratulated for bringing to light the 'other side' of the Arab/Israeli conflict. He gives us excellent food for thought. Grady Harp, July 11

After critical success with "Basquiat," "Before Night Falls," and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"--I was a little surprised that Julian Schnabel's latest feature "Miral" flew as under the radar as it did. Based on the affecting memoir of journalist Rula Jebreal (who takes a screenplay credit as well), it tells the story of a Palestinian girl growing up amongst the eternal struggles between Palestine and Israel. It is an unorthodox and interesting viewpoint to see events of international consequence filtered through such an intimate perspective. Growing up under military occupation, having hatred and fear as a part of your every day existence--the potential for powerful self exploration and deep drama is inherent. But, in many ways, the film wants to tell several stories by introducing three fascinating female characters before Miral (Slumdog Millionaire's Freida Pinto) is even in the picture. That's fine, of course, but in the grand scheme of things--I'm not sure if those life stories (left largely unexplored) weren't inherently more interesting than the one settled on. In particular, I wanted to spend as much time as possible with Hind Husseini (Hiam Abbass)--a truly remarkable woman who dedicated her life to caring for orphans in the war-torn area.

The film's tag line "Is this the face of a terrorist?" also doesn't serve the movie well in setting up expectations. This is a coming-of-age story where a young women must come to terms with the economic, social and political climate of the area and time in which she was born. Sure, extremism and violent protest are a part of that world and Miral becomes entrenched in it--but this is hardly an examination of modern terrorism. It is a character study of how one adapts to such an environment when it is an inherent part of life. Miral's father leaves her with Husseini so that she may get the advantages and education that will help her avoid the pitfalls that doomed her mother. And the strongest elements within Miral's personal journey are her bonds with both her father and her adoptive mother figure. It is in personal moments shared between these characters that the film's quiet voice speaks much more powerfully.

Schnabel incorporates plenty of stock archival footage into the film to put the historical story in context. This is great and helpful, but you'll likely get more from the film if you have some knowledge of the political situation prior to viewing the movie. We haven't traditionally seen too many English language films that have viewed the conflict from the Palestinian perspective, so that may be off-putting or controversial to some. However, the story is more concerned with intimate human drama than in grand-standing. Fans of Vanessa Redgrave and Willem Dafoe should take note that they are barely in the movie (she has one scene, he two), so if that's of primary interest--you've been alerted. All in all, Miral is a good movie and surprisingly understated. But seriously, Hind is the most intriguingly complex character in the film--and her story seems so much bigger than the main narrative! KGHarris, 6/11.

Buy Miral (2010) Now

Judge Daryl Loomis, DVD Verdict-First and foremost, Miral is not propaganda, no matter what some reviews of the film would have you believe. I can show you propaganda, dark and evil material that is shockingly persuasive, but this is not that. Miral is more akin to Gillo Pontecorvo's incredible Battle of Algiers than it is to, say, any 1970s East German animation one might come across. Ultimately, I understand a pro-Palestinian film made by a Jewish director from an autobiographical book by Rula Jebreal, his Palestinian partner, is bound to drive opinions to already-established hard and fast views on the situation. If viewers can set those politics aside, however, they will be rewarded a gorgeous film of outward emotion and humanity, one that should be regarded as equal or greater to the rest of the catalog of director Julian Schnabel (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly), one that people owe themselves to watch.

Miral receives a lovely Blu-ray package from Anchor Bay. The 2.35:1 1080p image is impeccable, featuring perfect color balance and detail. The cinematography by Eric Gaultier (Into the Wild) is impeccable, and some shots are downright chill-inducing; the disc is a fantastic showcase for his talent. The landscapes and the interiors are brilliant in their clarity, detail, and color balance; this is a reference-quality image. The 5.1 DTS-HD audio isn't quite as strong, but it's well balanced and robust. Miral is presented in English, with the occasional snippets of Arabic and Hebrew, and all of it is nice and clear. Schnabel uses a heavy amount of popular music for the score, including two Tom Waits songs as end credit music; all of it very effective.

We also get a good slate of extras. Schnabel conducts an excellent audio commentary with producer Jon Kilik, filled with production information, background, and a few heartbreaking stories of people who appeared in the film. For example, one of his Palestinian actors, a theater owner in Gaza, was assassinated by a religious extremist for what he considered a too liberal production of Cinderella. That it occurred literally two weeks before Schnabel recorded the commentary makes the emotional nature of the story even more powerful. A slate of deleted scenes are all very good, most of which could have been included in the final cut. A short making-of featurette gives us time with Rula Jebreal, who explains some of the differences between the book and the movie, including scenes she deemed too painful to write, but Schnabel demanded be used in the film. A filmmaker question-and-answer session gives us more of the same, and a featurette called "Julian Schnabel Studio Tour" is unnecessary. All in all, an outstanding release for an outstanding film.

-Full review at dvdverdict.com

Read Best Reviews of Miral (2010) Here

Julian Schnabel is a genuine artist, a true risk-taker. He is a respected painter, a writer, and he even recorded an album. And, true to his genius, he is also a filmmaker, having directed unique, non-commercial, yet critical successes as "Basquiat" (1996), "Before Night Falls" (2000), and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (2007). His most recent film, the passionate and eye-opening "Miral," follows this special pattern, this time taking a sincere look at the lives of Palestinian women.

The film is based on a true story from a book by Rula Jebreal, and it begins at a party on Christmas day, 1947. It is there that we are introduced to Hind Husseini (the wonderful Hiam Abbass), who unbeknown to us, will be the most important character the glue, if you will -in the movie. This party, perhaps, will be the last happy one that its guests attended. Schnabel then proceeds to show archival footage of the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel, which would later be referred to as the State of Israel. We are then taken to Jerusalem in 1948, and we find Hind walking on its streets, where she meets a group of homeless children that were displaced due to bombings. She feels sorry for them, takes them home, and eight months later she successfully creates a school for Palestinian children. The director moves forward to 1967, and, as a result of the Six Day War, this time Hind is now limited to the Palestinian sector of East Jerusalem.

After Schnabel introduces us to Hind, we begin meeting other Palestinian women that are victims of racial, political or sexual abuse. One of them is Miral (Freida Pinto), who is raised by her loving father. He tries his best to protect Miral against her surroundings, by sending her to Hind's school. However, it is difficult to escape reality in Palestine, especially in 1987, during the first Intifada, where Miral sees firsthand the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Miral, as you can imagine, will have to make some serious choices in order to survive a harsh life under occupation.

Although "Miral" is mostly about Miral's journey in life, it is also, as I indicated earlier, about the lives of Palestinian women under difficult circumstances, both internal and external from their homes. It is also about women, like Hind Husseini, who made a difference. But Schnabel also presents a subtle, smart portrait of a society subjugated by a powerful neighbor, and how they live day by day. A real gem that deserved a better audience. The Blu-ray includes deleted scenes, making-of documentary, filmmaker Q&A, commentaries by Schnabel and producer Jon Kilik. (France, Israel, Italy, India; 2010; color and B&W; 106 mins plus additional materials). Reviewed on July 7, 2011 by Eric Gonzalez exclusively for The Weinstein Company / Anchor Bay Entertainment.

Want Miral (2010) Discount?

This is a true story, oh what a story this is. A story of perseverance , struggle and success. The story of a young woman who is an example of bravery, self confidence, beauty and reseliance. I would love for everybody to watch this film and read the book. It really is worth you time.

I Love Miral

xoxo

Miral: A Novel

Save 25% Off

The Dark Knight Rises Digi-Book (Blu-ray/DVD Combo+UltraViolet Digital Copy with Prologue Comic Boo

Having been a huge fan of Chris Nolan's previous two Batman films, couldn't wait to watch this when it was released. And The Dark Knight Rises didn't disappoint. The conclusion to the trilogy is fitting for the franchise, for Batman, and for Bruce Wayne (though I have read rumors that Nolan might come back for another film in the series or maybe a Batman/Superman film hope some of this is true!).

The film starts with a frail Bruce Wayne having pretty much retired and living a private life eight years after he eliminated the Joker. The peaceful Gotham City where police officers feel they will soon be "chasing overdue library books" is rocked by a series of events orchestrated by the ferocious and calculating villain, Bane.

The pace of this film is slightly slower (and heavier) compared to the previous two films, partly because there are a lot more characters in this film, and Nolan being the master storyteller that he is, gives each character enough time in the film. It could seem a bit lengthy at 3 hours of thereabout because of this. Lucius Fox and Alfred return in their usual roles of being Batman's brains and soul respectively. Michael Caine's performance as Alfred is simply remarkable even though his screen time is somewhat limited in the film. Christian Bale, as usual, has done a great job portraying the battles within Bruce Wayne overcoming his hears and rising from being as good as dead to come back to save his beloved city. His character comes a full circle from the first film as Thomas Wayne's words "why do we fall down Bruce" echo through this film and Bruce seemingly understands their meaning here as he prepares to pick himself up and "rise".

New characters added a refreshing touch to the series. Anne Hathaway is brilliant in her role as Selina Kyle. She lightens up the serious macho overdose of the film with her flair and flamboyant ways. Bane, with links to the League of Shadows, brings a dark element unlike any Gotham has witnessed before. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays John (Robin) Blake perhaps a younger version of Jim Gordon. He seems to be set to take over the reins from Commissioner Gordon, but eventually chooses to stay free of the shackles imposed by structure and protocols by the GCPD. Marion Cotillard (I thought she was brilliant in Inception) plays a convincing partner and love interest of Bruce Wayne.

The conclusion is definitely a lot heavier in terms of content and pace compared to the previous two films. This film requires focused attention to the dialogue and sequence of events, previous 2 films seem somewhat lighter compared to this one. The fact that Bane's voice was muffled with his mask doesn't help in this regard, it only increases the level of focus one needs to have which watching the film. In addition, the film has more characters with their place in the film. Chris Nolan has spent a fair amount of time with each character to fully bring out their roles and let the audiences savor the nuances of their personalities, inner conflicts, and goals. I personally think the editing room could have shaved off a good 15 to 20 minutes from the film, but this is Nolan's signature style of storytelling. Also some scenes make Batman seem too human, like the street fight scene with Bane towards the end. Batman is a superhero and it feels somewhat strange to see him battle his enemy bare hands in the middle of a street-fight. That being said, there are plenty of new toys in his arsenal and the Bat, in particular, is awesome!

Yes, the performance of Heath Ledger and the compelling storytelling of The Dark Knight are hard to match, but TDKR is an appropriate and epic conclusion to what I think is one of the best series of super-hero films made to date.

As someone of the unpopular minority who didn't like Christopher Nolan's previous Batman film 'The Dark Knight' (but really liked 'Batman Begins') I find 'The Dark Knight Rises' a pleasant surprise. It carries a lot of the elements of the first two films, especially TDK's darker tone but manages to off-set it's self-seriousness with a strong story, terrific action-scenes and characters I wanted to root for!

The story of 'The Dark Knight Rises' takes place eight years after the events of 'The Dark Knight' Gotham Ciy is seemingly crime free and the Batman hasn't been seen since (still wanted as a fugitive after the events of TDK). In steps Bane: a super-strong, methodical terrorist leader intent on destroying Gotham and ends up forcing Batman/Bruce Wayne out of retirement. There's a lot of elements at work in this dynamic story (taking obvious influences from the Batman comics Knightfall, No Man's Land and Dark Knight Returns) and the movie's almost 3-hour length is felt, but Nolan's strong directing and script manage to bring it all together and he keeps things moving at a brisk pace.

As much as I like the story in 'The Dark Knight Rises' it's the characters I found myself most vested in. Regular greats Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman return as Jim Gordan and Lucius Fox, while Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays honest cop John Blake and Anne Hathaway the thief Selina Kyle (each giving the film both an every-person to follow and moments of comic-relief). Marion Cotillard gives protagonist Bruce Wayne a business partner as well as a love-interest in Miranda Tate. Tom Hardy doesn't make Bane as memorable as Heath Ledger's Joker (no one could) but he's an imposing presence and a terrific foil to Batman in terms of strength and ingenuity.

All the characters in 'The Dark Knight Rises' have a chance to shine, especially in their personal journey's and relationships but the one holding it all together is Bruce Wayne/Batman himself. It's fun seeing Batman drive through the dark in the Bat-Pod, stealthily take down criminals from ceilings and dodge gun-fire between muzzle-flashes. Watching a middle-aged and physically impaired Bruce Wayne build himself back up (especially after a nasty beat-down from Bane) is almost as awesome as watching him become Batman for the first time! Christian Bale's amazing performance sells this character in every scene and I especially liked how his relationship with his Butler Alfred played out (an equally compelling Michael Caine with much more screen time). This is the hero I wanted in the first two films!

While the direction is sharp and the story exciting, 'The Dark Knight Rises' does have some obvious faults. Hans Zimmer's musical-score is strong as ever but the film's sound kept drowning-out character's dialogue, even during some key moments; Bane's voice-box really didn't help matters either. Nolan's usual self-seriousness is also most apparent in this film, and while the dialogue is less artificial this time around (with much more humor) the movie still got a bit heavy-handed.

Even with it's short-comings 'The Dark Knight Rises' is an original and exciting superhero epic. Most fans will probably still favor 'The Dark Knight' as the best of Nolan's trilogy but I'm just glad TDKR is such a great conclusion.

Buy The Dark Knight Rises Digi-Book (Blu-ray/DVD Combo+UltraViolet Digital Copy with Prologue Comic Boo Now

After watching this film the first time, I wasn't quite sure what to think of it. I knew it wasn't a bad film, but at the same time it just didn't sit right with me for whatever reason. So I went back and watched Begins and TDK and I think I figured out why I didn't really care for it. In my opinion it doesn't seem to fit with the other two films.

Warning: Some spoilers

First there's the setting. The concept of a broken and retired Batman living as a recluse is interesting, but it seems to sort of contradict what we saw in the other films. We learn that he hasn't been Batman for 8 years since Dent was killed, which made me wonder, why is he in such bad physical shape then? Rewatching The Dark Knight, I didn't see anything to show where these injuries came from. Why is his leg screwed up? The last scene of Dark Knight was him running away from the camera. If he hasn't been Batman since then and has been living like a hermit, how did he screw up his leg? Also, why did he stop being Batman? Rises seems to suggest it was stress over Rachel, although that happened midway through The Dark Knight and didn't seem to stop him. He sort of suggested at the end of Dark Knight that since Dent died, he had to be the hero. That was sort of the point of Dark Knight that Gotham's savior had to be either Dent or Batman and since Dent died, it had to be Batman, but then Rises suggests that Batman just kinda went home literally right after that. Rises sort of gets around this by introducing what I consider to be a highly implausible "Dent Act" in honor of Harvey Dent, in which all of Gotham's criminals are apparently just straight locked up with no sort of legal due process, the streets become clean as a whistle, and Batman "isn't needed anymore". The Dent Act also asks you to believe that everyone now believes without a question that Batman killed Harvey Dent, despite having saved him very publicly from the Joker in Dark Knight. I find it strange that things like this are considered realistic, yet more cat features on catwoman's suit are not. Anyways..

Second, the villains. I found Bane to be just plain underwhelming. Physically intimidating sure, but I felt like they had to seriously water down Batman's competence in order to artificially make Bane more threatening. In Begins and Dark Knight Batman would fight using his surroundings. That's basically how he fights, something he learned from the League of Shadows and Ras Al Ghul. "Always mind your surroundings." Yet when confronted with Bane and reminded of the League, Batman simply charges at him swinging like a brawler. No tech, no using the environment around him, just straight fisticuffs. I realize that he's been "retired" for 8 years, but again, that felt forced and unexplained as I mentioned in my first point, which just reinforces my belief that this was done simply to make Bane seem more threatening. As for Talia, she just felt too much like Ras, and a lesser version at that. Not only does she not get the character development that Ras got to make him interesting, but in the end she's only doing it to carry out Ras' will, which just made her feel like a pawn. The main villian and she doesn't even have her own plan. Overall they felt too similar to the Begins villians. In Begins the villains worked within the system, using it to try to destroy Gotham. In Dark Knight the villains worked to try to destroy the system and induce chaos in Gotham. In Rises, I was expecting another progression to give the villains an overall theme to work with, but it just feels the same as Begins. Talia manipulating the system to try and destroy Gotham.

Third, not enough Batman. Having Bruce trapped in a pit for the better part of the film's second half served no purpose imo. I don't think anybody thought that he wasn't going to escape this pit and return to face Bane. I realize this sort of had to happen based on what we know of Bane and Batman in the comics, but the way it was handled only served to take us away from Gotham and Bane where things were getting interesting, and into a dull situation miles away in which we already know the only possible outcome. Obviously the movie won't end with "And then Batman died in the pit" It employs odd and often confusing time jumps that the previous films didn't have, taking away from the pacing and making the film feel frantic. Once Bane starts implementing his plan and things start to pick up, there's literally a 5 month time skip that glosses over Gotham transitioning from normal society to anarchist warzone in favor of Bruce's previously mentioned antics in the pit.

Warning: Spoilers!!!!!!

Fourth, John Blake. I liked the character and portrayal but I felt the "big reveal" about him at the end was totally unnecessary and handled in the worst possible way. First off... his actual legal name is Robin? ....... I'll leave that at that, but what bothered me more about how this was handled is that again, this doesn't seem to be consistent with the previous films. In Rises we get Bruce spouting a bunch of nonsense about how Batman was supposed to inspire people into action and that "anybody can be Batman" Oh really? What about those guys in The Dark Knight who were trying to help Batman take down Scarecrow and some drug dealers? They tried to be Batman and Bruce responded by kicking the living cr@p out of them, breaking all their weapons and then making fun of their outfits. They did exactly what he's talking about in Rises and he personally beat them up for it. Just seems weird is all.. Also, how did Blake know Bruce was Batman? You can assume that since he's a cop he could've done the detective work and figured this out, but he doesn't say that's what happened. He says he literally figured it out by having met Bruce once a long time ago and recognizing he had the same hidden pain that Blake had from losing his parents? Really?! That's it?! How can you reasonably make such a huge assumption based on meeting someone once and looking at their face?

Fifth, Catwoman. Again, nothing wrong with the performance, but I felt her character was unneeded. Nothing she did in the film seemed to matter, except of course for the fact that they decided to let her be the one to kill Bane. The romance between them felt forced as well imo. I don't see why he would be attracted to her. Her ideology is almost the direct opposite of his. In the comics there's a sense that she genuinely cares about him and a lot of that is due to their long history, none of which we get to see here. I never really get the sense that she saw him as anything other than a 1 percenter or necessarily cared about his well being. When Bane "breaks" him, she doesn't seem concerned about him, just concerned about what Bane will do to the city and how it will effect her. It's all about her and I just don't really see what draws him to her in this film.

Finally, the ending. I get it, he retired. Batman gets to live a happy life in Europe or whatever with Catwoman. Great for him I guess, but isn't Gotham gonna be worse than ever now? Gordon will likely lose his job as commissioner because of his 8 year lie to the public and for knowingly framing Batman for Dent's murder. Dent has been revealed as a murderer, meaning the Dent Act will likely be repealed and all these criminals are gonna come pouring back to the streets, including Joker, who isn't dead and who happens to be the direct cause of almost everything that happens in Rises to begin with. I get that they can't use Ledger anymore, but I for one found it strange that they deliberately chose not to once mention the Joker even though nothing in Rises would be as it is without him.

And who's left behind in Gotham to handle this new mess? "Robin" John Blake, a man who now has Bruce's suit and gadgets, sure, but none of the League of Shadows training that would let you take on dozens of thugs/SWAT officers at a time, meaning the first time he suits up and hops down into a group of 5 guys thinking he's a bad@ss, he's gonna get wailed on. Bruce didn't even bother to train the guy like the real Robin. Not only that, but Bruce only met this guy what... twice, for a total of 10 minutes and he trusts him with the Batsuit? But I guess Bruce isn't concerned with any of that anyways. He's "moved on" and I should be happy that he doesn't have to be the hero and protector Gotham needs like we've come to expect from him over the course of this trilogy, right? I just feel like it sent a strange message where you should do what you feel is right but only until you're tired of it, then you should sit back and have some "me-time" with a foxy lady despite the fact that there's still more to be done. I dunno about you but that just struck me as not very admirable and as something no respectable version of Batman would EVER do...

Overall the film is well acted and looks and sounds great, but it's only mildly entertaining and drags in a lot of places. I also felt it was the least realistic of the trilogy which I found unfortunate since the realism is what drew me to the trilogy in the first place. Things like the Dent Act, an old man in a pit who can heal a broken back by punching it, a usb drive that can erase your name from every computer on the planet and a cheesy imo nuclear bomb plot that emerges somewhat randomly near the end of the film serve to make it the most comic-booky feeling film of the three. All that said, again it's not a bad movie by any means and I'd say it's worth a watch, but it's easily the weakest of the trilogy in my opinion.

Read Best Reviews of The Dark Knight Rises Digi-Book (Blu-ray/DVD Combo+UltraViolet Digital Copy with Prologue Comic Boo Here

I wanted to like this movie. Truly, I did. With the production values and people behind it, everything on paper said this movie should be an absolute joy. And I suppose if you ignore the previous films, and franchise as a whole, turn your mind off, and just watch these pretty scenes cut together then it can be enjoyed just fine. Delve any deeper, however, and you might find a story that does not mesh with the series, the franchise, or reality, and one that becomes heavy-handed in its drama. Warning, this review does contain spoilers.

The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years after The Dark Knight, and Batman hasn't shown his face since the climactic events of that movie. Wait, what? The previous movie establishes a continued need for Batman, of how this is supposed to be a hero that can accomplish things a normal man cannot, yet directly after establishing that and the credits roll we are expected to believe Bruce Wayne hung up his cowl and sat in his room mourning for eight years...when the death of someone close to him is what set him off to begin with. The idea of a Batman just giving up is...unfathomable. Yet that is the basis this film hinges upon

So we get into 45 minutes of slogging through this plotline, of Bruce Wayne being a crippled hermit slowly brought out of retirement by a thief linked to a greater plot. 45 minutes before we see anything of the Batman. We get things like the Harvey Dent Act, in which criminals are able to be held indefinitely without parole. We get a character knowing the connection between Bruce and Batman...all due to the pain he recognized in Bruce's eyes over the loss of his parents. We get Alfred telling us in exacting detail the ending of the movie two hours before the ending of the movie. We get the great dossier of Bane, of how he escaped from a hellish pit to be trained by Ra's al Ghul, a person whose entire organization was a massive secret yet somehow now has a former members listing. Then there's a great stock exchange robbery, where clearly illegal transfers are somehow allowed to stand, followed by one of the poorest moments of editing I've ever seen, where a daytime chase scene switches very suddenly to night as finally, dun dun dun! the Batman makes his anticipated appearance...

...and fails to do anything impressive. Remember in Batman Begins, the sequence of taking out Falcone's men one by one? Or crashing in on the Scarecrow? Remember in The Dark Knight how he managed to smuggle a money launderer our of Hong Kong? Or managed to subdue an entire SWAT team before they mistakenly killed a bunch of hostages while taking out numerous armed criminals? Or flipping the semi truck? There's none of that here. Batman's grand entrance consists of a bunch of people getting all excited watching a guy ride a motorcycle. Oh sure he punches a guy or two and o hai! Flying Bat vehicle. But none of this accomplishes anything. These things are just there to be there without any of the jaw-dropping set pieces. But wait, Batman's not done yet! He also...punches a bunch of guys. Lots and lots of guys, in an open space, who don't realize they have guns, or how to attack more than one at a time. Exciting. And how about that fantastic fight midway through the film against Bane, where Batman turns into a full out brawler who suddenly forgot about all the equipment he's shown off the past two films.

And this is supposed to be the better half of the film.

From there the plot is finally unveiled to us and everyone goes full retard. See, the League of Shadows wants to get revenge on Bruce Wayne for his destruction of their base and killing of Ra's, as well as to fulfill Ra's legacy to cripple Gotham. To do so they do things such as seduce and comfort Bruce during his time of need and take months to set off an explosive which could wipe out Gotham instead of blowing the thing and being done with it. To stop this nefarious plot the police send their entire force into a sewer system where they suspect Bane is hidden, with predictable results. Then, to complete his embarrassment of the police, Bane reads a letter from Commissioner Gordon detailing the truth about Harvey Dent and Gordon's lie about Batman's supposed murder of him...and people just believe Bane. But do the trapped police forces die? Nah, of course not. Over the following months Bane's forces keep them well-fed, despite all intention to just blow the city up. Do I really need to explain the problems with all this? So the film takes a turn and focuses on good cop Blake and his stay in a broken city, trying to restore order without any success to speak of. His story is a long wait for no payoff. Meanwhile, we spend another 45 minutes of film without any Batman where he must slowly build himself to recover and don the cowl. Again. For the second time in this film alone.

Then when Batman makes his (second) triumphant return? He appears back in the city. Which is locked down under threat of extreme violence. From the other side of the world. When he has no money or equipment. With no explanation. There's big, epic fights, (obvious) plot twists (Talia al Ghul?! no wai) and a great, climactic battle in which weaponless cops (apparently all lost in the sewers)take on vastly superior numbers of criminals armed with automatic weapons in a gigantic...fist brawl? In which Bane's plot is resolved out of nowhere. In which the true villain dies in terribly acted fashion moments after being formally introduced. And in which Batman can escape a nuclear blast in five seconds and Gotham has never heard the words "nuclear fallout" used together.

But it's ok. In the end it all works out. Bruce runs away with Catwoman, having given up the cowl for good (ironically when the city might need Batman most, considering the state of chaos it happens to be in and all the escaped criminals which happen to be free, not to mention repealed Harvey Dent Act releasing all mobsters back into the world and thus negating everything he accomplished in the first two films) and nobody recognizes the famous billionaire playboy who drunkenly burned down his home, lost all his money and mysteriously died at the same time as Batman. Meanwhile good cop Blake (real name: Robin) takes on the cowl...without any of the training. After having not accomplished a single thing of note during the entirety of this nearly three hour epic film.

When everything's said and done, this does not feel like a part of anything. It uses familiar names and faces, but they don't line up with anything we've ever known, they don't act in any logical manner, the film follows no rules of the series or reality, and it follows none of the established themes. It's as if the writer never read the comics or understood the happenings of the previous film. Remember that chilling moment when Joker said, "I think you and I are destined to do this forever," and you just had to wonder when he might escape and who the next villain might be to show their face? There was an understanding there about the characters and franchise which went completely unrecognized in this story and the movie collapses in on itself because of it.

Want The Dark Knight Rises Digi-Book (Blu-ray/DVD Combo+UltraViolet Digital Copy with Prologue Comic Boo Discount?

First of all Tom Hardy's performance as Bane is just magnificent as well as his meanacing voice. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman was actually pretty sexy and Batman is just a badass plain and simple. I'm a little sad to see the trilogy end...so I would like to thank Mr. Nolan for reviving the Batman series after that Batman and Robin crap. I highly recommend getting this movie, I personally think its a little better than the Avengers(Despite it making 1.5 billion dollars).

Simply Irresistible (1999)

First of all let me say I am a HUGE Sarah fan, and this film has gotten bad reviews from alot of people. This is not a film for you if you are looking for action, if you are, don't get this, because you won't like it. If you like romantic dramas, you will definetly like this. This movie wasn't made expecting EVERYONE to fall head over heels in love with it, it was made for people who enjoy films like this. Sarah plays a young girl who has no parents, and she lives by herself, and she runs her mom's resturaunt with her aunt. When the resturaunt may have to close because rent can't be kept up, somehow, Sarah's character starts to make delicious, delectable, irrisistible food that everyone falls in love with. She meets this guy who is opening a resturaunt, and the film just flows out from there. It's a great film, and it's great for those who want to watch a good movie with their girlfriend or boyfriend or for someone who just wants a good Saturday night movie to chill and watch. Sarah Michelle Gellar gives an amazing performance as usual, and you will not be dissapointed.

Simply Irresistible may not have done well in the box office, but that certainly doesn't mean that this film doesn't have any charm. Just because a movie doesn't find a proper following doesn't make it any less charming, in my opinion. Simply Irresistible is one of the best movies I've seen that hasn't had much viewership. It's fun, sweet, romantic, and just simply enjoyable all the way through.

This movie certainly boasts a top-notch cast that is led by the wonderful and amazing Sarah Michelle Gellar and Sean Patrick Flanery. Amanda, played by Sarah Michelle, starts off as an awful chef but almost magically turns into a wonderful one overnight. She then begins falling in love with Tom, played by Sean Patrick, who is the owner of a popular department store.

Simply Irresistible tells a wonderful and romantic story of how scary falling in love can truly be and how wonderful it can be all at the same time. If you're in the mood for a light, romantic comedy, then I highly recommend this movie.

Buy Simply Irresistible (1999) Now

I rented this movie purely on the basis of a pretty charming little rave print review by Roger Ebert,and was glad I did (ended up even buying a copy on VHS for myself). The movie is slight and whimsical -lots of magic, not a lot of gritty reality -but it's sweet and strange and has a lot of charm. The characters are daffy and whimsically painted, and don't go the usual hollywood movie route. Gellar is sweet and insecure as the heroine -a much less glamorous role than her weekly (equally fabulous) vampire slaying Buffy heroine -while Buckley and Flanery and the fine supporting cast are all enjoyable to watch in the romantic mishaps that ensue. The wonderful Patricia Clarkson meanwhile is so much fun that she steals every scene she's in without detracting a bit from the appeal of her costars -a pretty good trick (it's worth the price of admission to hear her say, "This is nutty. Hazel-nutty.").

I really loved this movie - started out wondering where it was going, but by the end I didn't care - the writing is offbeat and fun, not so by the book. The movie's not "Schindler's List" or anything, sure -it's pretty lightweight -but it doesn't feel as Hollywood-ish as your usual romantic comedy, and you really never know what the characters will say next. The food also looks glorious and really adds to the sense of whimsy. The soundtrack is as sweet and fun as everything else -if you need cheering up, or convincing that there's still a bit of Astaire and Rogers in the world, this one's a great choice, where a perfect eclair can create true love, and a wonderful meal can make people weep with delight (and float in the air a time or two)...

Read Best Reviews of Simply Irresistible (1999) Here

"A good cook is like a sorceress who dispenses happiness." ~Elsa Schiaparelli

Sarah Michelle Gellar's softer side appears as she picks up the batterie de cuisine and tackles saving a restaurant from certain death. When it looks like Amanda's career is about to end as a chef, an angel appears in her life and gives her some sage advice about looking for a door that will open when another one closes. As the chef of a failing 70 year-old restaurant, the Southern Cross, she only has her loyal clientele who are not there for the food.

To say she is adorable as a chef is an understatement. She appears in a variety of fashionable outfits and weaves a sweet innocent spell on the viewer. Worth watching to see Sarah dressed up in a variety of outfits and different hairstyles.

There are also scenes of outdoor markets, beautiful orchids and of course restaurant scenes, Sarah shopping, cooking and crawling about on the floor chasing after magical crabs all to romantic music.

Instead of slaying vampires, "Buffy" bewitches Tom Bartlett (Sean Patrick Flanery) and entices love right into her life through cooking a variety of gourmet dishes. If every man has his weakness, Tom's weakness is luscious cuisine.

"She can cook things that make you crazy." ~Tom

As every kitchen sorceress has discovered, the right food can create the right mood and can invite happiness and love into your life. I loved the dance scene and the scene where Tom and Amanda disappear into the scented mist. This movie emphasizes the aphrodisiac qualities of food.

Amanda Shelton (Sarah) only discovers her true cooking talents after meeting Tom. At first she seems unaware of her current fate while Tom seems to be trying to control his fate. He is disturbed by his lack of emotional control and when he falls "in love" with Amanda, his world seems to be spinning out of control.

"My whole life was ordinary and then we met and these amazing things started to happen." ~Amanda

Is it love that makes Amanda a better cook and makes her cooking taste even better to Tom? Are their senses in a state of heightened awareness from the chemicals rushing through their bodies or is there magic floating about? Once she finds a recipe for caramel éclairs, Tom is even more attracted to her.

There are very few movies about cooking or chefs so this one is a treat. Tear drops in the food reminded me of Like Water for Chocolate. The emotions Amanda feels are somehow magically mixed into the food she is cooking. Either the dishes make people cry, stun them or make them lose their inhibitions. She seems to have a magical gift for culinary creations that have an effect on anyone who consumes them.

Is the orchid plant in this movie the "Oncidium Sharry Baby?" It did look similar, although I can't say for sure. Some people say it has a fruity vanilla scent and not really a chocolate scent. Most types of vanilla do not produce the vanilla beans. If you wanted to cook with flowers, you would want to make sure that the flowers you added to your cooking were edible. Orchid flowers are apparently edible.

Vanilla beans are the cigar-shaped seed pods from a climbing orchid and the pods must be picked, boiled and heated in the sun. It literally takes months to produce the delicious vanilla flavor. It actually takes 100 beans to make 1 gallon of vanilla extract. If you love vanilla extract, you might also enjoy: Fiori di Sicilia flavoring for your baking.

After watching this movie you may want to feed your lover oranges, invest in some expensive vanilla extract, get lost in a kiss or cook up some bliss. If you are looking for the best vanilla for your cooking, Bourbon-Madagascar vanilla is superior.

Deliciously cute, silly spells, sweet innocent love and a few hot and steamy kissing scenes in the kitchen. For romantics and lovers of kitchens and cuisine. Almost a culinary Cinderella story.

You might enjoy these books:

The Seduction Cookbook by Diane Brown (Baked Salmon with Raspberry Cabernet Sauce, ideas for late night seduction snacks and information on growing an erotic herb garden.)

A Passionfruit Cookbook by Patrick Jesse Pons-Worley (The flavor of passion fruit is so seductive and exotic.)

Written with a Spoon (Poetry and Recipes)

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Orchids by Alec Pridgeon

The Edible Flower Garden by Rosalind Creasy

InterCourses: An Aphrodisiac Cookbook (The "Fig Pastries" are decadent and naughty.)

Crab Cooking: Famous Recipes from Famous Places by Joyce Lafray

Movies with Food Themes:

Babette's Feast

Like Water for Chocolate

Scent of Green Papaya

My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Big Night

~The Rebecca Review

P.S. If you need a recipe for the caramel iced éclairs to entice someone with see the comments section for the link.

Want Simply Irresistible (1999) Discount?

Mmmm, mussels...

They provide an excellent metaphor for this little known romantic comedy as they are an unforgiving shell surrounding an unmistakeably unique tasting meat. Either you like them or you don't and so it is with this film. If you have trouble enjoying the average Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan canoodler then this movie probably isn't for you. Only the truly romantic who believe in spells and rapture will appreciate "Simply Irresistible".

The story doesn't always make sense as it tends to meander off in odd ways just like the character Stella, (played dizzily by Betty Buckley), but this is also part of its charm, it's unpredictability. There is a woozy style to the filmmaking that perfectly captures the story's setup. A young chef finds love and fulfillment at the claws of a magical crab. As silly as it sounds, "Simply Irresistible" is also incredibly sincere with first rate performances from all involved.

However even the tastiest mussels sometimes get gritty and there are enough (what the?) moments in "Simply Irresistible" to snap first time viewers out of their trances. This is a film that actually improves the more you watch it, as the discordant moments tend to soften with exposure.

The ending is by far the movie's weakest link as it asks the viewer to believe in an instantaneous makeover for the movie's star and revisit a restaurant scene that has long exhausted its interest. How much better would it have been if leading man Tom, (Sean Patrick Flanery), had met Amanda, (Sarah Michelle Gellar), on the pavement in front of the department store and taken her for a walk through the nighttime streets of midtown Manhattan? We would have gotten to see more of their admirable chemistry and maybe been given a glance at how their relationship would develop after the credit roll. Instead were left literally dangling in mid air feeling a bit silly.

Because of its flawed ending, I can only give "Simply Irresistible" four stars and certain plot holes would have reduced this score to three if it weren't for the always inventive use of soundtrack in the movie. One plot hole that particularly disappoints is the disappearance of Amanda's benefactor Gene O'Reilly, (played wonderfully by playwright Christopher Durang), after the film's first few minutes. More of his presence might have helped to ease the audience into the magical realism the script so heavily relies upon.

Thankfully moments of spontaneous convergence abound, when the dialogue, acting, and direction merge into such effortless liquidity that it's like watching a lava lamp; hypnotic. Nothing creates this effect better than Patricia Clarkson's sumptuously brassy performance as Tom's assistant Lois. Every scene she's in she steals and her seduction of department store tycoon Jonathan Bendel, (Dylan Baker), more than justifies the suspension of disbelief this film requires.

Flanery and Gellar work well together here with Flanery delicately walking a fine line as an ambitious yet romantically feckless young executive enchanted by Amanda's cooking and then by Amanda herself. My favorite moment: when Tom arrives at Amanda's very busy restaurant to break it off with her only to be smitten all over again as she hands him a customer's plate to deliver. The song "Secret Smile" by Semisonic starts to swell as Amanda intones "The mussels are ready" while beaming a thousand watt grin in his direction. It's the kind of magic scene that enlivens this unusual and giddy confection of a film.

Save 23% Off

Stephen King's Thinner (1996)

You might not expect it from a Stephen King novel but the film is realitivly tame by todays standards. The result is a thriller of the best kind. The characters are less-than-desirable and that makes things all the more fun to watch. Robert John Burke stars as a morally corrupt attorney who we can't help but empathizing with, after all most of us are carrying a few extra pounds but he's tipping the scales at 300 lbs. and shows no sign of stopping. That's until he hits an old gypsy woman with his car and finds himself the victim of her father's wrath. You see he's over a hundred years old (the gypsies father that is), though by the looks of the cancer growing on his nose he won't be around much longer. Burke and co. conspired to make the old woman's death look like an accident and thus free him of any and all charges he could face in court. After being touched by the gypsy he finds himself on the role of his life, or so he thinks. He drops pounds like there candy which we get to see him cosume much of. Enter Joe Mantegna in his typical Mafia hitman role. The two fight back and thats when things get really good. In the end nobody's spared there just deserts (excuse the pun). The DVD offers and interesting if incomplete commentary track by it's director Todd Holland, of Larry Sanders fame, and costar Mantegna. The widescreen format keeps Burkes weight in proper perspective, instead of streching the screen like they do in those horrorendous pan and scan discs. And the 5.1 sound is very commendable. It's a Halloween treat that I've grown to appreicate more each year 'round this time.

If you are old enough to remember "Room 222"'s gentle principal in that 1960's TV hit, then you will marvel at Michael Constantine's performance as Tadzu Lempke, the centenarian patriarch of a roving band of gypsies. Considered unsavory nuisances whom the sheriff wants evicted, the gypsies legally lure curious onlookers. One of them, Billy Halleck (Burke), a dangerously overweight lawyer, ogles the nubile gypsy daughter gyrating seductively, but her unexpected vulgarity sets a sinister tone for what follows.

In this 1996 Stephen King thriller, Billy and his wife accidentally run down and kill Lempke's aged wife after she pilfers from a drug store. However, the couple is immediately acquitted as townsfolk "testify" in a stacked courtroom. Enraged, Lempke eerily grazes Billy while murmuring the curse, "Thinner."

Within days, Billy credits his new "diet" for his sudden weight loss which continues at a frightful pace. The sight of him going from obese to "normal" to gaunt are truly frightening, especially as the gypsies mockingly camp nearby. Although other townsfolk are cursed in even more grotesque ways (one commits suicide), Billy realizes all are doomed unless he can reason with Lempke, man-to-man. Still, Billy is continually mocked, and flees with a near-fatal slingshot wound through his right hand.

Now, leveraging the threat of violence against Ms. Slingshot, Billy forces Lempke to reveal that the only "antidote" is to pass the curse to someone else, as deceptively as possible. With a few scores to settle, including that of his unfaithful wife, Billy sets the trap, but forgets one very important detail.

Buy Stephen King's Thinner (1996) Now

Let me just start of by saying that I am a huge fan of both stephen kings, and horror movies. This however really isn't scary. However it did have a few scary parts. just be warned: this is not your average stephen king movie...but its still really good.

By the way...why do people give movies bad ratings if they have crappy special features? I don't know about everyone else, but I buy my movies for the movie, not for the extra stuff!

Read Best Reviews of Stephen King's Thinner (1996) Here

I just read the book a few days ago and I thought the movie was pretty good. I was a little disappointed with the special effects. He didn't really look bad at all when he was supposed to be 120 lbs, most of the work must have went into making him look 300 lbs. Stephen King does make an appearance in the movie as a pharmacist. Not a waste of time or money!

Want Stephen King's Thinner (1996) Discount?

I think the thing that surprises me the most about Tom Holland's "Thinner" is that it was released theatrically. Based on the novel by the infamous horror writer Stephen King, this adaptation of one of his better-known books feels more like a direct-to-video release than a big-screen feature, with its low production values and overall cheap appearance. Having said that, the movie itself is entertaining to a point, after which, like many of King's novels (or movies based on them), it just flatlines.

The story centers around attorney Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke), whose string of successes have made him a name in his small town. He has a wife, Heidi (Lucinda Jenney), and a young daughter, both of whom have issues about his serious weight problems. "I can't stop thinking about food," he tells his wife in the car on the way home from a celebration dinner, to which she responds with A) the statement "There's more to life than just food," and B), a timely session of... well, you'll see.

Of course, during the "act," Billy fails to notice the old Gypsy woman crossing the street, and strikes her with his vehicle. Given his status among the townspeople (coupled with the fact that almost everyone we meet in the film is prejudiced against gypsies), Billy receives little more than a slap on the wrist, after which he is greeted by the dead woman's father (her father?), who brushes his cheek and chants the word "thinner."

Now I'm sure I don't have to tell you exactly what happens to Billy, who, despite his efforts to maintain a stable weight ("I'm digesting 12,000 calories a day!" he later tell his wife), loses 40 pounds in no more than two weeks. And the fat grams just keep flying, to the point where Heidi insists he check himself into a nearby male clinic, disbelieving of his theory that he has been cursed by the old gypsy man, whom he later sets out to find with the help of a vigilante he helped set free in a case.

If this all sounds rather hokey to you, that's because it is. The problem is, if my synopsis gives you this notion, then you're much better off leaving your experience with "Thinner" at this exposition, and avoiding the movie at all costs. Even for a Stephen King adaptation, the film is incredibly tough to swallow; the beginning and mid-section fares somewhat nicely, setting us up for a third act that showcases some nifty yet under-imagined make-up tricks (like we really couldn't guess that he was wearing a fat suit from the beginning), but fails in regards to giving us a sturdy conclusion that's worth waiting for.

Aside from the low-budget look of the film, there's not a great deal of commendable acting to be dealt with, either. Burke has some effective moments of biting humor, but he fails to register much in his confrontations with his wife, nor do we ever care much for him as a person wasting away as a result of his wrongdoing. The wife and child are basically stand-ins for those pesky times when the film needs some refreshment from slingshot-wielding gypsies and subplots involving two men who share a similar fate to Billy as a result of letting him go without punishment.

There is an intriguing premise underneath the mess that is "Thinner," but the story and its execution follow a pattern very much akin to its main character's descent from obesity.

Save 32% Off

Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, T (2013)

The Curious Case of Benjamim Button is by no means a feel-good movie. In fact upon watching it, I felt depressed even the next day just thinking about it. People may confuse this for a love story but to me the film clearly symbolizes death. The love aspect is certainly present, though it is not the center of attention here.

Brad Pitt stars as Benjamin Button, a man who essentially ages backwards. When he is born, his own father attempts to drown him before a sudden change of heart has him leaving the swaddled and very whithered newborn upon the steps of an elderly home. There he is found by Queenie, played to motherly perfection by Taraji P. Henson. She sees past the deformity and oddity and loves him immediately.

Instead of dying, as a doctor predicted, Benjamin actually begins to age backwards. He appears as a very old man and slowly grows younger, but only in body. His mind seems to function as a typical human's mind. He learns, and dreams and experiences. This basically sets up the magnificent story and from then on, you are taken from country to country, from one decade, to another and it is just superb to witness.

The acting is fantastic all around. Brad Pitt does an outstanding job, portraying both the old Benjamin as well as his younger counterpart. Cate Blanchett as his childhood friend/love interest is also a joy to watch. She can do no wrong, she is simply stunning. For such a short part, Tilda Swinton surely makes the most of it. Her tale and part with Benjamin in Russia is just stunning. There is also the talented Julia Ormond, who has a bigger part to play in the tale than we may realise at first.

The most impressive aspect of the film is the flawless visual effects. Just flawless. You have never seen aging/deaging done like this. There is a scene, towards the end, with Benjamin and Daisy (Blanchett) that had my jaw dropping. It was like looking back in time. I can't describe how utterly impressed I was. The cinematography, the sad musical score, the costumes, just every little minute detail is just so impressive and authentic.

I have heard grumbles from people who compare it to Forrest Gump. What? How? There should not be any comparing the two films-or the two characters. Gump was a slow and mostly ignorant person who fell into unbelievable situations. Button clearly chooses his own paths, though it may not seem it, at the beginning. It irritates me how someone can make such a comparison.

This is a long film, nearly three hours, though with the plot and subject matter, it makes sense and really, it is such a beautiful film, you hardly notice the passing of time. Like I mentioned, it will leave you feeling blue but that does not diminish from the fact this is one of the better newer films out there now, and one that people will remember in the future.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has such a high concept that some people were thrown off. Even major critics like Roger Ebert bashed the film as a whole based only upon his thought that the concept made it a film that no one could ever relate to. I wholeheartedly disagree, and am a little disappointed that after so many years of reading Ebert's reviews, that he's limiting his scope by writing off concepts that, to him, just can't work, especially when this film makes its concept work so brilliantly. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a brooding, sweepingly epic tale about--no surprises here--Benjamin Button, who was born as an old man and will age backwards until he is once again an infant. While this is certainly never the case in life, the unusualness of it even more poignant, because it still does, in a way, mirror real life. When Benjamin Button becomes a boy after years of "growing down," he will begin to lose his memories the same way an elderly man with Alzheimer's would. Truthfully, it is a high concept that perhaps would have been one of those "huge idea, not so much story" films in different hands, but screenwriter Eric Roth and director David Fincher made a film that transcends even this looming premise.

The movie has a sort of Burtonesque whimsy, though it is textured in a way that none of his films are. The film is almost three hours long, and it's such a busy three hours that it feels more like four. There is a framing story, in which a dying woman and her daughter read the diary of Benjamin. These may be considered the weakest parts of the story, but it also comes together nicely in the end. All of the various characters that Benjamin meets along the way are so interesting and so well thought out. There's a man who gets struck by lightning seven times (we see six of these through hilarious flashbacks), a woman who wants to break a swimming record but is limited by her age, a drunken captain who opens up his world to carnal pleasures, and a whole lot of other characters who you will fall in love with over the course of the film. Many people die, because death--one way (old age) or the other (youth)--is sort of the whole point behind this film. People come into your life and one way or another, they leave. And they leave an imprint. The film is such a weird way to tackle the premise but it's so deliciously inventive and brilliantly made that its weirdness plays a central role in its overall greatness.

One of the better movies of 2008, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a universally enjoyable film that I suspect it will be even better to watch on DVD when one can take a bit of a break between scenes. The length, and the war scene, will definitely lose some viewers for a while, but everything that comes before and everything that follows is so fantastic that you'll definitely catch back up with it.

8/10

Buy Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, T (2013) Now

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is a wonderfully staged fantasy based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's fantasy about a boy born old and aging younger instead of older. The story could obviously be off-putting and distracting, but everyone involved does such a magnificent job of telling this story that it is not hard to accept this as fact, and following the story as it shows Benjamin growing younger and falling in love with a young girl named Daisy.

Benjamin and Daisy's story and the balance of Benjamin's life impart so many valuable life lessons that it is hard to recount them all the idea that life brings many hardships and the best we can do is doing the best we can with what we're given, making the most of every moment because life is fleeting and unpredictable, find the joy and happinessin life and hold on to it dearly, and many other lessons.

"Benjamin Button" gives Brad Pitt the chance to shine in the title role, and he makes the most of it. He is ably assisted by Cate Blanchett as Daisy, Taraji P. Henson as Benjamin's adoptive mother, Tilda Swinton as another love of Benjamin's, and many others. This film is marvelous and a hopeful fable for all of us.

Read Best Reviews of Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, T (2013) Here

This is, while a technically brilliant piece of filmmaking that fully exploits all the wizardry of CGI and makeup of which the filmmaker's art is now capable, strangely hollow at the center. One begins the movie expecting some profound truths about human existence to be explored, but it ends not with a big life-affirming bang, but more of a whimper, quite literally. Benjamin says though his diary at one point: "Life is defined by opportunities--even the ones we miss." And that could be a sum-up of this film project as a whole, as well as the life of the bizarre hero at its center. One gets the sense of promise grasped for here but not quite realized as the technical and stylistic gymnastics of this movie overwhelm the fragile love story that should be its beating heart.

The film opens with Mr. Gateau (Cake) constructing a magical clock that runs backwards and mounting it in a train station in New Orleans in honor of his son, dead in the Great War. No mention is made again of Mr. Gateau or whether his clock was successful in rewinding time to bring dead boys back to life. It does have a curious effect on the life of one boy, though, as Benjamin enters the world essentially running backwards. As other reviewers have pointed out, it's quizzical that the clock has this metaphysical effect on only Benjamin among all the other children born afterwards, but then, fantasy is not required to operate by the rules of logic. Perhaps Benjamin, with a Gullah mother was particularly susceptible to magic, and how serendipitous that old-man baby Benjamin's grieving father abandoned him, along with $18 on the steps of an old-folks home, rather than say, a brothel . . .this being New Orleans, after all. What are the chances, outside the realm of fantastical fiction, furthermore that Benjamin's progenitor be named Mr. Button, and that he own a button factory? Otherwise we wouldn't have such nifty alliteration.

Countless comparisons have been made to "Forrest Gump", with which this narrative does share structural similarities. However, that didn't occur to me while I was watching and found instead resonance with one of Pitt's earlier characters, Tristan Ludlow from "Legends of the Fall"--like Benjamin, Tristan is a soul set apart, blessed or cursed with mystical powers he does not fully understand; uncomfortable among other people and destined to lose the true love of his life due to his own inability to live a normal life. Scenes of Benjamin travelling to foreign shores and sailing a boat underscored this impression. (The presence of Julia Ormond, here playing the adult daughter of the aged Daisy was just a bonus, since she and Pitt have no scenes together.) The setting of New Orleans during Benjamin's childhood in the early decades of the last century also reminded me of Louis Malle's "Pretty Baby".

This film is technically dazzling, but I think it was justly deprived of the top acting awards. With so much else to be distracted by, the acting had a job of it to even be noticed, really. Cate Blanchett is luminous, as usual. I had my doubts a 38-year-old mother of three could pull off a 23-year-old ballerina, but La Blanchett can do anything. The greatest curiosity I had, to be honest, was in how they were going to make Brad Pitt look 18 again. Brad has taken pretty good care of his body over the years, but the strain of being father to the United Tribe of Benetton is starting to show . . .at least when he's not on a movie set. When he's lit and coiffed for a film, he does not look anything like a 46-year-old father of six. He can easily pass for a decade younger . . .but I thought 18 would be pushing it. Well . . . did I say that the makeup department is amazing?? Looking at the scene of an 18-year-old Benjamin coming to visit the now-58-year-old Daisy--wow. It was like having a flashback to Mr. Pitt's debut in "Thelma & Louise", and it was a very unsettling feeling. "Unsettling" is the best descriptor for this movie. Parts of it were stunning to look at, but its tragic meditations on the ultimate inablity of love to bring any meaning to human life leaves you wrung out and uncertain whether you are better off having seen it than you were before.

Want Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, T (2013) Discount?

Visually, this is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Every period in the film, from the roaring '20s of Benjamin's earliest years, to the 1960s when he lived briefly with the girl of his dreams, are captured almost perfectly onscreen. The cinematography is practically flawless. The film is so wonderfully atmospheric it's almost worth watching for that alone. The special effects are remarkable as well. At different points in the film, both Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt are made to look roughly twenty years younger than their actual ages. This is relatively new in film. It's been possible since the medium began to age actors with makeup, but now it's also possible to de-age them through the magic of CGI. So where it would once have only been possible to make this film using very young actors to play the leads, and use make up to age them into their 40s and 50s and beyond, they can now cast established stars in their 40s and still have them convincingly play characters just out of their teens. The technical wizardry behind this is amazing, and it's yet another example of the magic of the movies.

So on technical merits alone I'd give the film 5 out of 5 stars. Unfortunately, the story does not quite live up to that high standard. It's not bad, to be sure; I did enjoy the movie, but I couldn't help wonder, at the end of it all, what the point was. As the reviewer for the Sunday Times aptly put it: "It's a gimmick that goes on for nearly three hours." Now I don't think every story has to have a moral, or a great message, or all kinds of weighty allusions and themes, and so forth. But simple, escapist entertainment just works better as a comedy or an action piece. A moody, character-driven drama, one can't help but feel, ought to have a little more to say. This movie, enjoyable as it is, seems like nothing more than an exercise in "what if" thinking -what if a man could age backward? What would that be like? Storywise, the film seems to have nothing to offer beyond that, and one really doesn't need a 2 1/2 hour film to spell out all the sorrowful ramifications of such a scenario.

Still, the film is good for an evening's entertainment, and is a feast for the eyes. Cate Blanchett is nearly always worth watching, and Pitt gives a very good performance as well.

Save 30% Off

Saboteur (1942)

Like their previous Blu-ray upgrades of "Shadow of a Doubt" and "Psycho", Universal finally gives "Saboteur" it's due with a near pristine picture for it's Blu-ray debut. I've owned every format of this Hitchcock film(VHS,DVD) and was stunned by the picture and sound. "Saboteur" has never looked better on Blu-ray and the restoration team at Universal deserves the highest praise for making this film finally look the way it should. Filmed in black and white, there is no print damage(vertical lines, dirt, white specs, etc.) compared to previous video versions with blacks, whites, and grays looking clear and sharp. You can make out the smallest details and the overall picture quality is well balanced throughout. The story is a familiar one for Hitchcock that he returned to time and again-that of a man wrong accused of a crime and the things he does to clear his name. The restorers at Universal have cleaned up the audio too and there is no more static or hiss that plagued previous versions. Credit once again should be given to the expert restoration team at Universal for their superb work. Besides the above mentioned Hitchcock titles that have been restored on Blu-ray, the team at Universal has recently given new life to such black and white classics as "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Cape Fear"(both from 1962) for new audiences to discover and enjoy. "Saboteur" is 109 minutes(Aspect ratio: 1.33) and contains the following subtitles: English SDH, Spanish, and French. Audio includes: English DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 Mono and English Dolby Digital 2.0. Special features include "Saboteur: A Closer Look" which is carried over from the standard DVD. "Saboteur" has never gotten the respect it should from critics but hopefully this superb new Blu-ray presentation from Universal will get a second look from not only Hitchcock experts but fans as well. Watching it, you'll be rooting for Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane just like audiences did in 1942. I sure did.

The Hitchcock films are all favorites of mine. The way he filmed is simply awesome. People who feel it is dated..well..how can it not be in some ways. I love some of todays movies and am a big fan of computer generated graphics. They make incredible movies possible. But they become an addiction and some movies suffer from lack of audience connection and blurring of characters. Hitch put you in the shoes of the actors. Sure it is slow sometimes. But I recommend slowing things down once in a while! The Statue of Liberty scene is awesome and just imagine what it was like when it came out. It was a film like this that I believe laid the groundwork for a movie like "The Fugitive".

Buy Saboteur (1942) Now

It is 1942; we are in the height of war. Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) and his best buddy are putting out a mysterious fire. A stranger Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd) assists them. When it turns out to be sabotage, naturally the authorities have to accuse Barry. Barry's only chance of survival is to follow clues across the country to find Fry. On his travels he gets teemed up with Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who wants to do her patriotic duty and turn Barry in to the authorities. You can not tell the good guys from the bad guys until it is too late.

Can Barry convince Pat that he is innocent?

Can they ever find Fry?

Even if they do find Fry will the authorities ever believe that Barry is innocent?

Be prepared for a lot of long winded speeches from both sides they do not add or subtract form the story.

Shadow of a Doubt DVD ~ Teresa Wright

Read Best Reviews of Saboteur (1942) Here

First the good: It's a great looking Blu ray* transfer. More on that later. And it's Hitchcock, so we get some nice cinema work including fine black and white texture. Hitchcock also knows when he makes a clunker so remakes it. Still in his Hollywood infancy, he had much of cast and crew forced upon him. This 1942 innocent-man-accused movie is a precusor to the much better "North By Northwest."

The bad: The acting is pretty terrible although I'll make an exception for a dour Robert Cummings and Norman Lloyd. The movie is also pretty boring, not much tension here until the final act.

Now the ugly: The screenplay is terrible with even Dorothy Parker on the credits. Can we really believe the hate against the cops and the government in 1942? Can we really believe that even in those times we are so certain to open our hearts up to reported dangereous escaped criminals? Do we really need long sililoques about what's right with America, yada, yada, yada.

It is interesting to see Cummings in a dramatic role as he is best remembered for his TV shows, specifically "My Living Doll" and "The Bob Cummings Show" from the 50-s and 60's. Also Lloyd is probably best remembered for his great role in "St. Elsewhere" from the 80's. I have almost all of Hitchcock's films so fans will probably want to check this out. So do it on Blu ray. It looks magnificent.

The transfer comes in 1080p resolution and with an original 1.36:1 aspect ratio. The blacks, greys and whites are perfect. I could see no artifacts or other anomalies in this great restoration. Very nicely done. The audio is likewise excellent. The primary track is DTS-HD Master Audio mono. Even faint sounds are recaptured. Nothing to complain about. Extras include a 35 minute documentary with actor Norman Lloyd and Robert Boyle, the art director. There are also some sketches, storyboards, photos and a trailer. While this is not Hitchcock's greatest work, the Blu ray will make it look and sound as good as it ever did.

*Disc included in "Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection"

Want Saboteur (1942) Discount?