Perfect Understanding (1933)

As a classic film enthusiast, I was somewhat surprised that I'd never even heard of the 1933 Ealing Studio release "Perfect Understanding." Not only does it carry the Ealing brand, it boasts a screenplay by the great Michael Powell and lead performances from Laurence Olivier and Gloria Swanson. Heck, that's all I need to know! Sign me up. Billed as a romantic comedy, I'm not sure the movie entirely succeeds under this description. With aspects that veer from slapstick to complete melodrama, the tone of "Perfect Understanding" veers all over the place. An unconventional domestic drama centered around infidelity (both imagined and real), there are some aspects of the movie that play deadly serious. These moments are (for my taste) the strongest in the film. When it plays for a lighter appeal, the manic energy can feel somewhat overdone and chaotic. At times, it seems as if two different movies are competing against one another. But despite these reservations, it's still a easy recommendation for fans of Olivier and Swanson! They make the picture worth a look!

Swanson and Olivier play a young society couple who don't want to fall into the same trap as their other married friends. They want a marriage in which they can retain their independence without all the baggage of traditional domesticity. It's a fine arrangement (a perfect understanding, if you will) in theory, but somewhat harder in practice. After a blissful honeymoon, the couple separate at the end of their vacation. With Olivier enjoying the festivities of Cannes, his old circle of friends and a former flame end up sharing time with the new groom. Can he withstand the temptation of another woman? Coincidentally, Swanson also has another suitor on the home front. When the couple reunite, how much honesty can their relationship bear? Between real offenses and certain misconceptions, this marital experiment seems doomed to failure. Can love prevail? Should it?

I really liked Swanson and Olivier together. Swanson was trying to establish herself in the talkies after being a silent screen star and she even produced this movie (the only film she ever made in Britain). Olivier was a stage star (a trained Shakespearean actor) newly into a film career. They have an easy chemistry and charm to spare. If you know them primarily from their later works, this more lightweight piece is an interesting counterpoint. Olivier, in particular, is downright dashing! I don't think "Perfect Understanding" is an essential classic, by any means, but it is definitely worth a look. The early scenes are especially jumbled with dozens of characters and relationships thrown at you rather haphazardly. Things start to settle, however, once we leave this extended opening. Again, I probably wouldn't classify this as romantic comedy (although some might). To me, it's more of a relationship drama with some lighter moments. KGHarris, 5/13.

I love classic films. Especially old black `n whites. I couldn't say why exactly. I think it's that they're a bit more primal about how they had to approach the filmmaking process. They didn't have all of the tricks and twists of special effects and fancy-pants editing, so they were largely confined to using dialogue that great, great form of communication to convey so very much of the story. Without good, snappy dialogue, those movies of old were destined to one day end up on the trash heap. Consequently, I think they produced better screenwriters folks who had a learned ear for what sounded right, what conveyed the proper sentiment, what captured a precise emotion for their audiences. Still, it's a shame that more of these `classics' don't get the treatment PERFECT UNDERSTANDING has; it's an impressive discovery, and I can only hope there's more to come from the folks behind the Cohen Film Collection.

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters. If you're the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I'd encourage you to skip down to the last two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you're accepting of a few modest hints at `things to come,' then read on ...)

Judy Rogers (played by the forever lovely Gloria Swanson) and Nicholas Randall (a young and thin Laurence Olivier) are socialites in love. However, they see couples all around them mired in one unhappy marriage after another. Hoping to `buck the trend,' Judy and Nick decide the best they can do to preserve their own relationship magic is to draft a "marriage agreement," one which promises they will never argue, they will always treat one another as lovers, and they will always respect one another's private happiness. What appears to be a perfect understanding only leads to the discover of one imperfection after another as Nick succumbs to the charms of a former lover (Nora Swinburne) and Judy almost falls into the arms of another (John Halliday). Can they find happiness again or are they now destined for divorce?

Wow. Talk about a real eye-opener! PERFECT UNDERSTANDING was way ahead of its time. In fact, the agreement fashioned by the two lovebirds in the opening could almost be likened to an `open marriage' by contemporary standards. In fact, his own personal guilt forces Nick to confess, and Judy appears perfectly willing to forgive him; that is until she divulges her marital woes to her old friend, Ivan. To make matters worse, Judy realizes she's pregnant while it's clear to her that the child belongs to her one and only true love, Nick's suspicions only serve to push the two of them further and further apart. What's amazing is how open and nonchalant the script by Michael Powell treats all of this, almost as if this were the status quo in marital relationships of the time. I daresay it wasn't this was 1933, after all though Hollywood socialites and debutantes were always `ahead of the curve' when it comes to social mores. That much hasn't changed.

The film is smartly directed from staging to cinematography by Cyril Gardner. Gardner made impressive use of some vast interior sets, and he moved the plot along briskly by making extensive use of some rather elaborate video montages to establish the passage of time as well as the build-up of marital tension. Also, it's exciting to see Olivier so fresh and new in his career (promotional materials provided to me with the release point out he was only but a few years along in film); and, even at this ripe age, he was a master at the witty banter establishing the high points of his love with Judy (Swanson). The two of them handle both ends of the scale with great skill the first half is punctuated by their constant repartee while the latter half is richly nuanced with desperate, longing expressions of their mutual torture.

Billed largely as a "comedy of manners," UNDERSTANDING may not be PERFECT, but it's pretty darn close, and it's pretty darn impressive.

PERFECT UNDERSTANDING was produced by Gloria Swanson British Productions (the only film she made in Britain). DVD distribution is being handled through Cohen Media Group. As for the technical specifications, the film looks and sounds very solid be aware this is a (standard) two-track audio, and there's some marked gaps in quality in the first fifteen minutes or so, but it clears up as the film progresses. The Blu-ray release is blessed with two selected shorts from the era (two Mack Sennett shorts "Husband's Reunion" and "Dream Stuff").

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Given the era, it's certainly an exercise in some curious morality. PERFECT UNDERSTANDING is a wonderful find from Cohen this is its Blu-ray and DVD debut. It's been longingly restored for this release, and who wouldn't want to experience this Gloria Swanson/Laurence Olivier rom-com now that it's available? The script captures the marked trend of the time to propel the narrative through the use of clever dialogue and it's brilliantly delivered by two masters of the craft. I'll admit it dragged a bit for me in the last fifteen minutes that's when the marriage is coming apart but rest assured there will be a happy ending for those who work for it most ... just like in life!

In the interests of fairness, I'm pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cohen Media Group provided me with an advance DVD copy of PERFECT UNDERSTANDING by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.

Buy Perfect Understanding (1933) Now

This is a great little travelogue of a film, with great shots of various European locations, back before both WW2 bombing and later, globalization, had tampered with the scenery.There couldn't have been much international tourism in 1933, so these characters are indeed priveleged. Olivier seems very good here, not insufferably intense and hard to believe as he became after he returned to England in the 40's (though this is apparently an English film, with Gloria Swanson as a producer and other American actors it doesn'seem so.)

Read Best Reviews of Perfect Understanding (1933) Here

King Of New York (1990)

KING OF NEW YORK is, for my money, the most valuable (and the most underrated) film of the last 20 years. It is a homage to the classic American genre the gangster fable with the depth and subtext of a European art-movie. It's a precursor to urban crime thrillers like New Jack City and Menace II Society (Ferrara points out they first used a rap-score in 1982). An ode to drug-culture. A pitchblack satire of capitalism and its grotesque fallout. It's got a cast to die for, and a close-knit crew at the height of their powers.

It's shot across an array of locations including Sing-Sing, Donald Trump's Plaza Hotel, and various crack-lanes; it weaves seamlessly between an original score, and the music of Vivaldi and Schooly D; the film is meticulously colour-coded (as pointed out by Nick Johnstone in his book) to add up to a cold critique of the red WHITE and blue, the all-American war-on-drugs; the tempo is expertly-managed, the movie simmers for a while then explodes into heavy-metal carnage, and then it dies with a sad whimper. The film is spectacularly violent, but think about the handling of the violence. There's a big Peckinpah slo-mo shootout, then the audacious shootout in Chinatown. But in the 2nd half of the movie the deaths are direct, painful to watch, and pitiful in their execution.

And then there's the cast: Walken was never better. He mesmirises you, brilliantly charismatic. And he looks so otherworldy, what with the hair and the deathly complexion, he's like the man who fell to Earth, the oddest looking `hero' you've ever seen. Fishburne reinvented a character imagined for James Russo and the whole movie turns on that transition. Its simply impossible to imagine how it could have worked ½ as well with Russo, or any1 else for that matter. Caruso is a fire-engine red ball of rage. The scene when he rushes from his colleagues funeral is one of the most beautifully played-out expressions of vigilantism ever put on film. Argo as a weary, deflated, pill-poppin' `old man' who has been there and knows the war is unwise and un-win-able.

As far as Im concerned, every sequence, every line of dialogue ("I'm not the problem, I'm just a businessman") is pure gold. Ferrara's is the cult-of-cults, his movies usually too far-out or nihilistic to get much of a following. But this one I bet Tarantino wishes he'd made.

And the DVD package...The documentary is not comprehensive, but it re-enforces what sets Ferrara's films above those of most of his contemporaries, the sheer degree of collaboration involved. Abe's anarchist mentality has freed up guys like Joe Delia (music), Anthony Redman (editor), Charles Lagola (production design) and Ken Kelsch to make exactly the sort of films they want. Kelsch makes the most telling statement towards the end, which might explain why Ferrara hasn't made a film for about five years (after a Woody Allen-esque burst of creativity in the 90s). In fact, as basic as it is, the doco is startlingly honest and revealing about its subject.

Ferrara previously contributed a delirious commentary to The Driller Killer, but this time round you kinda feel sad listening to his hazy lack of insight, having the suspicion that his personal curse has robbed him of both his allies and his inspiration at the moment when he's finally getting his dues. But the commentary track is actually a blast! Abel and his best-mate Frankie crack open a few brews, he makes some funny asides about Walken's hair and the reaction to the film on release. And if you get to the credits, you get to listen to Abel bang out Schooly's title-track on an acoustic guitar with a Dylan drawl.

Check out the title card on the trailer. Under the title it reads (a Ferrara / St. John original), like the credits on the label of a 45" record. Like Mick and Keef, or Scorsese and Schrader, these guys made dynamite 2gether. KONY is their towering achievement, it's one of the great films ever made.

Some way into Abel Ferrara's 'King Of New York', two gangsters conspire in a small cinema showing F.W. Murnau's 1922 horror classic 'Nosferatu'. Playing the scene where the vampire disembarks his corpseand rat-ridden ship docked in England, it has clear reference to Ferrara's protagonist, Frank White (Christopher Walken in one of cinema's great, mercurial performances), a drug-smuggler recently released from a long period in prison, hoping to reassert his local criminal power. White refers to his return as 'coming back from the dead', and Walken's long, haunted figure and dancer's movements have some of the aristocratic grace of a famous screen Dracula, Christopher Lee. Mostly seen at night, he gathers new recruits (fresh blood) around him to 'feed' on. One remarkable shot, after a prolonged sequence of speedy violence, has him lit so his eyes shine like some haunted undead; another has the camera following him through a railway station until it is stopped by bars it can only impotently watch as White glides up the stairs to be swallowed by the night. The film even has as one of his opponents a cop played by future vampire-slayer Wesley Snipes.

But the 'Nosferatu' allusion points to something else Ferrara's strange absorption of silent cinema. In terms of content, 'King' is a gangster film like any other: loud, ugly, violent, brutal, lurid, hysterical. But it has a purity and beauty very different from the stylised melodramas of Martin Scorcese, whose equally bloodthirsty 'Goodfellas' came out in the same year. The first ten minutes is an astonishing, virtually wordless, visual tour-de-force, not simply presenting the main character, his situation and environment, but introducing symbolic motifs that are all the more powerful for being real, a part of Frank's world, and not simply imposed. Bars and grids (in prison, gates, bridges etc.) are the most prominent, signifying initially Frank's literal imprisonment, then his difficulties with the law and fellow criminals, and his frustrated ambitions (including a Guiliani-like zero-tolerance programme to clean up the streets), but eventually, as we might expect from a Ferrara littering his film with religious iconography, something much more metaphysical, outside the confines of genre (hence the references to Melville).

After this, there is a lot of talk noisy, profane, funny, aggressive, threatening but the best sequences retain this silent aesthetic: the night-club double cross leading to a car chase and man-hunt under a bridge; a police funeral in which a limousine hit provokes the scattering of black-clad, bankside mourners; the 'Le Samourai'-like subway confrontation between gangster and cop [although the film's very greatest scene, Larry Fishburne's Jimmy Jump ordering fast food just before being busted for murder, depends for its effect on the conflict between talk and silence, his bluster oblivious to the soundless arrests playing out behind him]. The use of huge, intense close-ups recall the emotional silent era, as does Ferrara's camerawork, more deliberate and heavy than Scorcese's flash pyrotechnics. The staging of set-pieces is as artifical as Murnau's setscapes in 'Sunrise'; the underworld carnival is more Celine than Scorcese. Even the use of blue filter in key scenes is less a signifier of atmosphere or artifice than a nod to the practise of 'colorising' monochrome silents.

By employing this style from a period he clearly loves, Ferrara is able to inject a spirituality and ceremonial gravitas not immediately apparent in the crudity of the genre subject.

Buy King Of New York (1990) Now

Frank White (Christopher Walken) is a crime boss just released from prison. He rejoins his henchmen, headed up by Jimmy Jump (Laurence Fishburne). No sooner does White step out of prison, that the killing games begin. White is out to finance a local inner city hospital that is on the verge of being closed for lack of funding. He is determined to do this by using the ill gotten gains of drug trafficking, his and that of other drug lords. Since the others apparently will not relinguish the money voluntarily, force is used, quite a bit of it as a matter of fact, to get their money and/or drugs.

Officers Dennis Gilley (David Caruso) and Thomas Flanigan (Wesley Snipes) are part of a team of cops that are looking to stop White. They are outraged that he is on the street and that they are seemingly unable to stop him by fair means. They decide to resort to foul means and end up all the worse for their efforts. Throughout the film, the line is sometimes blurred between the good guys and the bad guys. There is no happy ending here, and justice may or may not be deemed to have been served, depending upon the viewer's own subjective viewpoint.

The performances are good overall, and in particular, Fishburne's manic character, Jimmy Jump, is a good foil for Walker's coolly detached character, Frank White. This is not really a character driven movie, however, but rather a plot driven one. There is a lot of action, a lot of shootings and carnage, and some car chase scenes that will keep the viewer on edge. The violence, when it occurs, is bloody and protracted. Moreover, in addition to being bimbos and sex toys, the women also pack high powered heat and shoot with the best of them. Despite some plot holes, the film entertains, though just how entertaining the viewer will find this film will depend on the viewer's tolerance for violence.

The DVD itself is pretty much no frills, offering pretty standard features, such as widescreen, a theatrical trailer, scene access, and a music video. There is no commentary. The picture, though dark, is clear, as is the sound.

Read Best Reviews of King Of New York (1990) Here

Scarface is the greatest gangster movie ever made. This one is second. King of New York is one of the most underrated movies of all time. To begin with, if you really sit back and look at all of the actors in this movie, there is no way in this day and age you could assemble a greater cast. King of New York features Christopher Walken, Laurence Fishburne, David Caruso, and Wesley Snipes before most of them were truly famous.

This is one of those movies that I found myself watching over and over again, in fact when I was a teenager I watched this film once a day. I now have to limit my viewing to once a year so I do not ruin it and it still remains fresh, although I'm not sure how fresh a movie can be when you have the full dialog memorized.

The story is about a New York drug lord named Frank White (yes, this is the same Frank White that the Notorious BIG and other rappers refer to in their rhymes.) played by Christopher Walken who is let out of prison after serving 5 years. Once out of prison White is determined to make up for lost time and to continue to build his cartel and ultimately use money to fund hospitals and make the city of New York better. He teams up with his former workers led by high strung and insane Jimmy Jump and unforgettable character played by Laurence Fishburne (Larry at the time) who wields to 9 mili's and a sinister laugh when the stuff hits the fan.

David Caruso, Wesley Snipes and highly underrated Victor Argo play cops who are outraged by Whites release from prison and are so determined to get him back in that they will do anything to make sure White and his crew are off the street one way or the other.

This is a highly dramatic, riveting, and action packed film that will blow even the most jaded movie watchers away. I cannot say enough about this film, it is a must own and an all time classic. In its truest form it is a B movie, however it ranks up there with Scarface, the God Father and Goodfellas. Imagine what could have happened if this movie had a true Holly Wood budget! It might just have been the greatest film ever made and it is my all time #1 favorite film. A true masterpiece.

"I'm not your problem, I'm just a business man."

Want King Of New York (1990) Discount?

Christopher Walken plays Frank White, a druglord, murderer, and thief who has just been released from prison. He seems to be a powerful man who is also very well off. He is also on the radar of a gang of close freinds who happen to be police officers. Frank seems to be more at home in the ghetto than he does in his high-rise apartment. That much is clear. What is also clear is that his primary motivation for doing the things he does is to keep dishonest criminals at bay and to make enough money to fund a hospital in an underpriviledged part of town to keep it from closing.

The motivation of the police officers, however, seems to only involve doing their job.

Why I love movies like this is that we've all seen the cops and robbers story a million times. What we don't usually see in movies is that sometimes the line between cop and robber is very thin. In this movie, both groups are portrayed as almost the same type of character. They're all drunk on the power that their lifestyles afford them, and they all use bullets to get their way.

There really isn't much to say about this movie except that it's very realistic to my way of thinking, and it doesn't insult the viewer by portraying a black and white view of the world by favoring one way over the other. Everyone is selfish, and everyone is out to get their way. If anything, I found myself siding with Frank for most of the film.

I like that.

I like that I can watch a character on the screen that I have no realistic attachment to and feel for them. I like that I can look at the "bad guy" and know, if not completely identify with, why he does what he does.

This is not a movie for those of you who get uncomfortable hearing points of view you're not used to.

This is for open-minded viewers only.

Forget about good vs. bad. This is every man for himself, and it's one of my favorite movies of the genre.

Save 57% Off

Lord of War (2005)

I'm kind of shocked to see poor reviews of this film here at Amazon.com. I think part of the reason some individuals didn't enjoy the film is that they didn't explore the depths of the characters very well; and this is definitely a character-driven film.

Nicholas Cage is perfect at Yuri Olav, a Ukrainian native who's family moved to America years before. They run a substandard Russian restaurant that serves borscht (beet soup) as a staple. Their father has become a devout Jew. And Yuri and his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM) help with the restaurant. Then one day, after witnessing a failed assassination attempt, Yuri receives an epiphany: everyone needs guns. Thus the stage is set for him to become one of the premiere arms dealers in the world.

Against the backdrop of Yuri's life, we get to see the effects of his chosen profession upon his brother's psyche. Vitaly gets into drugs and women, anything he can to help him forget that he and his brother are involved in a business that allows people to kill other people. And when Yuri gives up gun running for a while, Vitaly too comes back to a semblance of normalcy. But when Yuri returns to guns, and asks Vitaly to join him, the stress becomes overwhelming (this is something that I have yet to see any other reviewer comment on and, the way Jared Leto pulls off his excellent portrayal of Yuri's brother, it's a pretty powerful message.)

I also think that many reviewers may not understand the mentality of a sociopath. Their moral compass is broken, according to our standards. So when Yuri (Cage) doesn't grow out of his morally ambiguous state, it didn't surprise me one little bit.

Also, Nicholas Cage is a deadpan actor, and that's probably why they chose him. Remember RAISING ARIZONA and the diaper scene in the convenience store? Or LEAVING LAS VEGAS? Or BRINGING OUT THE DEAD? Cage was the only person I could think of who could pull off a convincing Yuri.

I also need to comment on the brutal message that smacks the viewer. From the opening sequence in the film where we see Yuri standing in a war-torn street surrounded by a paved street covered in spent gun shells, to the scene where Vitaly witnesses the execution of children in Africa, there's not a single moment in the film where the biting reality of what Yuri does and how it effects those around him isn't displayed.

One thing that really intrigued me, too, is that I saw the film's trailer on TV long before the movie came out, and they always showed the bit where Yuri is in the airport and is approached by agents from the ATF, and Yuri says "I guess this isn't about the alcohol or tobacco." I laughed at the trailer. But interestingly enough, once that scene came up on screen in context to the rest of the plot, there was very little comedy in it and the message much more powerful and poignant.

This film definitely had it's comedic moments, but laughing at it is oft-times painful to think about because of what we see Yuri and his brother go through later.

Many of the reviews of this movie are unusually naive and stupid.

My review of this movie is based on a lifetime overseas as the son of an oilman, as a Marine Corps infantry officer, as a clandestine case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, and as the foremost trainer of governments interested in getting a grip on reality by focusing on open source of information in all languages.

This is a first rate movie with some truly extraordinary visuals and some truly extraordinary lines. It is an intelligence movie for intelligent people, and it should certainly give anyone both a couple of hours of enjoyment, and a couple of hours of reflection.

Among the highlights:

1) AK-47 as the real weapon of mass destruction

2) Africans stripping a plane overnight, literally pulling every piece of it off and making it "disappear"

3) There is one gun for every 12 people, the arms dealers goal is to arm the other 11 as quickly as possible

4) The top arms dealers ("merchants of death") are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

I read more than I watch movies, and will end with two comments: a) all of my reading bears out the importance and relevance of this movie; and b) it is easily one of the more serious and appreciable movies I have seen in some time. The intellect in the devising and presentation of this movie is absolutely first rate.

Buy Lord of War (2005) Now

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage) sells international weaponry like he's selling used cars. If you don't like the deals from the former Soviet Union's stockpile of arsenal, you may be interested in a huge lot of discontinued assault rifles. How about unused guns and ammo from the U.S.-led aid to the Bosnian War? If you stick a gun in his face, he'll bring the price way down.

"Lord Of War" is a cynical, yet not heartless and probably accurate portrayal of an American 'secondary market' international weapons dealer. Yuri globe-trots the world scooping up fantastic deals on abandoned and obsolete weaponry and peddles it off to third world countries where demand for blooldshed is high. His biggest competitor, he likes to joke, is The President of The United States.

So you get a heavy dose of good-humored anti-war subtleties, with a highly entertaining movie thrown in for good measure. The first person narrative, sometimes spoken directly into the camera, offers an endless stream of topical one-liners. Some work, and some don't "Buying your first gun is like making love for the first time. You don't know what you're doing, but you know you're having fun." or something to that effect. You eventually come away with a crash course in international arms dealing, that all the Time magazine issues in the world couldn't offer, sure to make you a more politically conscious observer. Exposure to the horrific results of weaponry in such an entertaining fashion is harsh, humane and like an unexpected needle from a doctor.

Like a confident puppateer above the chaotic gunsmoke of war, Nicolas Cage reveals a believable and likable global arms dealer, who could be the same guy you saw selling a hot car radio in an ally. His scenes selling guns are nerve-bending as he makes bold physical and vocal gestures never riling dangerous warlords, while the slightest nervous tick could set off a slaughter. Bridget Moynahan's 'trophy wife' is anything but, an honest and touching portrayal of a rather superficial person coming to terms with her husband's means to wealth. I loved what she said about her failed careers and her stand against Yuri's profession, "I have been a failed artist and a failed actress. I will not be a failed human being." Eamonn Walker as Liberian dictator Andre Baptiste delivers a suave and vicious characterization as a man who will 'test drive' a new assault rifle by killing someone in the room with it.

I went into this film mistakenly thinking it was the upcoming film, "Jarhead". I saw previews for both and confused the titles. A little troubled by my mistake, it was as if someone pointed a gun to my forehead and said, "watch this film instead." I'm sold. Good deal!

Read Best Reviews of Lord of War (2005) Here

This is partly in response to the 1 star review. I don't know what kind of system he is using, but on my 37 inch 1080p LCD display this blu-ray disk looks WAY better than DVD.

That said, could it be a better? Sure it could. But it's ridiculous to slam this movie for that. The detail is actually amazing in most of the picture. I can see pores of skin, blood vessels in eyes, small grit, and other sharp details throughout.

If you want a movie that makes the DVD version look ugly this will fit the bill. If you can't tell the difference you need glasses or a new HDTV.

Want Lord of War (2005) Discount?

Just a warning to those purchasing this DVD. Inexplicably, Lions Gate has reformatted this film from its original 2.40:1 aspect ratio to a 1.78:1 ratio. This means the film has been pseudo pan-and-scanned to entirely fill a widescreen TV, just as a full screen version fills a standard TV.

However, new shipments of the DVD are being sent out with a sticker over the original packaging listing the aspect ratio as 2.40:1; presumably, Lions Gate has realized their mistake and shipped out corrected discs.

When purchasing this product from Amazon, I would recommend either waiting a few weeks to ensure Amazon has the corrected discs, or I would check the back of the DVD case before removing the shrink wrap once the DVD has arrived. If the sticker is on the lower-left corner of the back of the DVD stating "Aspect Ratio 2.40:1," then it is one of the corrected discs. If, however, there is no sticker and the packaging states "Aspect Ratio 1.78:1," then I would ship the DVD back to Amazon and request a replacement with the corrected aspect ratio.

No word yet as to whether or not Lions Gate will be offering a disc replacement program for those who purchased the 1.78:1 version, but hopefully they will offer one soon. In the meantime, make sure you check the package to make sure what you are buying is, in fact, the correct version of the film, as it was intended to be seen.

Save 33% Off

The Square (2010)

Had the good fortune to see this in Pittsburgh last night, with a Q&A session with director Nash Edgerton after the film. This is the best thriller I've seen in a very long time -gritty, emotional and incredibly tense. Comparisons with the Coens and their debut 'Blood Simple' are inevitable, but 'The Square' is not a copycat film in any sense. The tension barely lets up during the course of the entire movie, and there's a constant feel of menace, like something really bad is always lurking just around the corner (it usually is).

Performances, direction, screenplay, music -everything is top-shelf here. If you like thrillers this is not to be missed.

Noir films obsess over unintended consequences, on the destruction that may proceed from the slightest failures of foresight or from simple chance. This notion is best illustrated in the literary forebear "The Maltese Falcon," where Spade reflects on Flitcraft, a seemingly normal, happy man who one day abandoned his job and family after nearly being crushed by a falling beam. The truth, Flitcraft realized, was that the seeming solidity of his world was a lie--all could be lost in an instant for no reason at all. So, he abandoned this world, abandoned regularity and left it all behind. In Nash Edgerton's feature debut "The Square," Raymond Yale (David Roberts), an ethically dubious construction manager, decides to begin anew as well, not for any philosophical reasons, but rather because he is tired of his wife or, at least, much more interested in the lovely young Carla Smith (Claire van der Boom [a ridiculous name, even by Dutch standards]), a neighbor from across the cove in their small Australian town. Raymond would actually prefer to simply keep seeing Carla on the side, but Carla wants to escape her loutish, criminal husband Smithy (Anthony Hayes), and gives Raymond an ultimatum. Raymond finally relents, and they decide to fund their escape by relieving Smithy of a few hundred thousand ill-gotten dollars, and covering their theft by hiring the shady Billy (Joel Edgerton, co-writer and brother of Nash) to burn the Smith house while the town collectively takes part in Christmas festivities. This seemingly straightforward plan, however, goes horrifically awry and, in a vision rather more moralistic than that of the Darwinian-minded Hammett, Raymond and Carla soon find that the beams are falling with disturbing regularity. Many viewers will be incredulous that Murphy's Law could be applied with such speed and merciless consistency, but this is part of the film's fun, seeing how everything falls apart so completely. More significantly, while chance is clearly against all those involved, the human motivations remain clear and believable. They repeatedly fall into traps, but we can see how and why they wandered into them.

"The Square" is a somewhat difficult film to review, as the reviewer must reveal little. Many have compensated by comparing it to earlier works, particularly "Blood Simple." This is indeed apt even beyond the obvious fraternal debut collaboration on a severely noir-oriented thriller angle. Significantly, Edgerton and co. take a Coen-esque hyper-cinematic and slightly postmodern approach (though in a non-winking manner), reinforce the drama via delicious black humor, and even the sparse solo piano that often drives the score reminds of "Blood Simple"'s minimalist soundtrack. The Australian setting, however, makes "The Square" stand apart somewhat from its antecedents. Though perhaps I'm alone in this, my exposure to Australian film have given me a quasi-mythical view of the country as being somehow more brutal and raw then the rest of the Anglosphere. This is no doubt hyperbolic if not an utter fabrication, but this vision is reinforced and expanded by "The Square," where this Australian town seems a sort of grotesque recasting of the stereotypical image of the American south, filled with steamy intrigue and hardened rednecks bearing antisocial hair. (The mullet budget on this film must've been enormous.) Thus, it is appropriate and familiar, yet still somehow new. Similarly, Edgerton expands the visual palette, mixing standard noir high-contrast and emphasis on night, shadow and rain with a dusty, gray-brown color scheme that oozes sleaze and treachery. (Indeed the film is so smudged and muted looking that I wondered if the theater had turned down the bulb, though viewing the DVD proved this was not the case.) Despite the low-budget and 16mm film stock, however, the film is quite smooth and professional, filled with terse, hard-edged performances and edited down to a sharp, tightly knit narrative. (This efficiency is made even more evident after viewing the 25 minutes of deleted scenes on the DVD.) The film is not exactly fast-paced, but it has an unrelenting intensity to it--everything seems to matter, and does. (That said, the film still has the odd little touches that make a movie stand out, such as the peculiar subplot about the adulterous pair's similarly enamored pet dogs.)

The main criticism viewers will have of "The Square" is from a human interest angle. There are no heroes, as Raymond is a cheater and corrupt businessman (he receives kickbacks from contractors) even before they embark on the scheme, while Carla is little more than an adulterous cipher. (Quite an attractive one, though. Mentioned that before did I? May well do so again before the review is done.) Though I can't deny that Raymond is a bad guy, I'll admit to sympathizing with him. While films of this sort often suggest that venal sins lead to those of a mortal nature, Raymond doesn't really become more malevolent as the film progresses, but merely has the world collapse around him. As soon as the arson goes awry and Raymond begins receiving mysterious cards demanding cash for silence (but about what? He has many secrets), he is paralyzed, hopeless. Other reviewers have compared the film to a nightmare, the sort where you perform some terrible deed and spend the rest of the dream awaiting and fearing your punishment. (And, of course, failing at simple tasks and having absolutely everything go wrong is another common dream theme.) The resemblance is indeed uncanny, and the dreadful sensation it imbues draws me deep into Raymond's plight even if, objectively speaking, he seems to be asking for some sort of rebuke. (Many others, however, receive rather unwarranted retribution.)

I've been pretty cagey here by necessity, so I'll throw in a few honorifics. In short, "The Square" is the best thriller since "No Country For Old Men" and perhaps the best thrillers of the 00s apart from that film. Discover it now before the other cult film aficionados find it and be hipper than the rest.

Grade: A

Buy The Square (2010) Now

When you are looking for a movie that is a little different and that will keep you interested throughout, but without any big names, this one will do nicely. The movie is a low budget film from Australia directed by Nash Edgerton and it stars his brother Joel Edgerton who also was a writer for this film. I found the acting to be quite good and the plotline was interesting and entertaining. This movie kept me on the edge of my seat throughout. I don't like to give away plots, so I'll give a quick summary: A contractor is taking bribes from his subcontractor. Meanwhile he is having an affair with woman in the same town. Her husband is close friends with another subcontractor. The woman finds that her husband has a stash of cash and so she and the contractor begin a plan to escape their marriages and their spouses. Thus begins the Manifestation of Murphy's Law.

There are some negatives. The sound is very annoying. The actors are difficult to understand with their Aussie accents and the clarity of the sound makes it doubly difficult to make out all of the conversations. So I missed some of the subtleties. Some of the parts were overplayed at the end particularly.

However, that said, I would definitely recommend this film to anyone that enjoys an edgy, tense drama. There was also a short film prior to the main feature; this was also a Nash Edgerton film. It was terrific and once during The Square, one of those characters makes his way into the emergency room (very Hitchcock like).

I'm giving it a 4 star rating because I enjoyed it; beware, though, my wife would only have given it a 2.5 star rating. But we often do not see eye to eye on movie reviews.

Read Best Reviews of The Square (2010) Here

The story has been painstakingly described by other reviewers, so I will dispense with that formality. The plot was intricately conceived and played out, easily the equal of Blood Simple, A Simple Plan, and other, similar productions by far better-known directors such as Sam Raimi and the Cohen brothers. Indeed, each step in its progression meets the criteria of plausibility. Anyone who yields to the temptation of a seemingly simple, straightforward but illegal path always discovers that it rapidly escalates into a dangerous labyrinth of unforeseen consequences and suffocating guilt. Each new move simply makes the noose a bit tighter. So it was with Raymond and Carla.

But from the first few moments, an issue began nagging at my common sense. What forces could have ever brought this couple together in the first place? Yes, they lived in semi-proximity on opposite sides of an inlet, but what traits did Raymond display at any time which would endear him to a much younger and more attractive woman? He was completely devoid of personality and humor, of meager financial means, physically unimpressive, weak-willed and submissive. Go to a young-singles bar looking and acting like Raymond and you will be going home alone.

Yet, he somehow so excited Carla, who could have her pick of younger and much more attractive men, that she chose to sneak around on her intimidating husband and engage in a risky, tawdry affair in parked cars and motels. If she wanted out of her marriage, why didn't she simply steal the satchel of money and run? Raymond was never portrayed as a dupe, as in Body Heat. Her passion for him is presented as real and unwavering, yet at no time did I honestly sense a real, explicable bond between these characters. For this story to work for me, Raymond would have to possess a lot more charm.

This deficiency detracted from my enjoyment of the movie somewhat and cost it one star. I still highly recommend it, but with a much more dynamic Raymond, it could have been a minor masterpiece.

Want The Square (2010) Discount?

Every choice seems fairly reasonable (if not necessarily honorable) at the time but things spin slowly farther and farther out of control. Justly compared to the Cohen Brothers' thrillers. I'll be on the lookout for the Edgerton brothers' next film. The short film "Spider" which precedes "The Square" is a pretty near perfect short; a little morality fable about the unintended consequences of a practical joke.

Save 25% Off

La Jetée / Sans Soleil (The Criterion Collection) (1983)

I am very happy that Chris Marker's La Jette (and Sans Soleil) are on DVD. La Jetee is a wonderful, incredibly haunting film. It can easily be classified as one of the greatest science fiction films ever made in my opinion. It only runs 28 minutes, and is composed of nothing but still images and narration (except for one shot), yet the universe is contained within it. It's that rare cerebral science fiction that hardly gets made these days, along the lines of 2001, Blade Runner, and Solaris (Tarkovsky's version). It was the inspiration for Twelve Monkeys, and while Monkeys is a great film in itself, La Jetee is much more haunting and moving. It's wonderful to be able to see La Jetee in a proper transfer.

La Jetee (1962) is one of the seminal works of the French New Wave as well as one of the all-time great science fiction films. It deserves all the respect it receives but what is really so amazing is how much is achieved with so little. Made entirely of still black and white images--of WWII cities in ruin, of an airport observation deck in the fifties, of generic shots of a woman one could find in any magazine, of a group of men in one of the many tunnels beneath Paris--and a mundane but strangely compelling voice-over, Le Jetee is not so much a film as a series of random images linked only by the narrative spell of a single voice.

We view only one still photo at a time and we assign meaning only because the narrator tells us the significance of each. It doesn't sound like much to describe it so and yet because the technology is so primtive we are somehow less distracted than we would be were this a full-fledged cinematic production with action sequences and a pulsing soundtrack. This is basically a slide-show and that is the key to this films appeal. This film essay works because it asks for a different kind of attention than we are used to giving films. La Jetee asks for a much more personal kind of attention, the kind of attention we give to our own photo albums, slide shows and dreams. But, also, since many of the images look like they could have come from LIFE or National Geographic there is also a kind of generic quality to the slide show and we are lulled into a kind of attentive trance as we get the feeling that Marker is making a connection between our own personal memories/dreams/markers and the generic memories/dreams/markers of the culture at large. Watching this film is like looking at a pile of old magazines and contemplating our own deepest dreams/desires at the same time--perhaps viewing both as vehicles leading to the same place.

The presumption that there is a link between the personal and the universal is not a new idea, it is a presumption that various artists and essayists (Montaigne is the most obvious example) have held throughout history. The idea has developed in two ways. Some (Noam Chomsky is the most famous in our day) argue that the deep structures of the mind are the same in all men regardless of cultural/racial/gender differences. Others argue that man is no particular way but that he is shaped by the culture in which he lives. The former group celebrate universalism (or globalism, a word which began to be used after WWII) and the fact that we are all generic creatures capable of understanding each other. The latter group (and many science fiction writers fall into this group) fear that the more homogenous and pervasive the mass/universal/global culture becomes, the more homogenous man/existence becomes. Marker is in the latter group, so it is no surprise that he has a strange love/hate relationship with technology--for technology is seen to be the thing that facilitates the spreading of sameness as well as the thing that allows us to meditate upon it. In his films there are no special effects nor any of the usual visual or audio markers that we usually equate with science fiction, and the matter-of-fact monotone of the voiceover gives his films the feel of a documentary but a documentary that we somehow feel compelled to watch because as the speaker drones on we are reminded of our own archive of memories and our own personal views on the matters raised. La Jetee alerts us to the importance we place on memory and the recall process in establishing and maintaining an identity in an image saturated world but it also asks us to question the reliability and authenticity of memory and to what extent personal memory has been invaded/colonized by collective memory. In the later Sans Soleil (which makes use of moving images and color and in many ways resembles a contemporary travelogue or catalogue of all the various cultures that co-exist today), Marker alerts us to how conditioned our responses have become. Even in the presence of one exotic culture after another all the narrator can muster is a kind of bored resignation that there is no escape (except perhaps in death, a device/conceit that Godard also makes use of as early as Pierrot le Fou and as recently as Notre Musique) from the universalizing cultural processing machine that we have each internalized and that reduces all to a monotonous sameness.

That said, the films are at once both generic and intensely personal. The latter film is perhaps the more intimate as it is delivered as a personal letter. What is personal about existence and what merely generic is the question that informs every still and every moving image in a Marker film. This strangely unsolvable riddle is what gives the films their timeless power.

This is film essay/art of the highest order.

Buy La Jetée / Sans Soleil (The Criterion Collection) (1983) Now

Sans Soleil has long been one of my favourite films. Superlatives barely begin to scratch the surface, but it is surreal, haunting, poignant, ethereal and unlike any other 'documentary' you have seen or are ever likely too. The film is ultimately about the heartbreaking beauty of the time and place in which we (do or do not) exist. Featuring Marker's central preoccupations of time, space and memory, Sans Soleil needs to be seen to be believed.

Read Best Reviews of La Jetée / Sans Soleil (The Criterion Collection) (1983) Here

Simply stated, this disc features two of the greatest films of the 20th Century. La Jetee is often called a "science fiction" film while Sans Soleil is labeled as a "documentary", however both films defy these simple descriptions. While very different in form, both La Jetee and Sans Soleil will challenge your ideas of memory and time and spacial relationships. These films are absolutely critical viewing for discerning film fans. Kudos to Criterion for finally bringing these films to the U.S. I only wish that other films such as "La Mystere Koumiko" by Marker will follow.

Want La Jetée / Sans Soleil (The Criterion Collection) (1983) Discount?

This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the films

La Jetee is about a post World War III Paris where the survivors live underground. One survivor, haunted by dreams about an event in his childhood of a man being gunned down is asked to volunteer to go back in time to bring supplies back to them.

The film is a series of still photographs with narration by an unseen reader.

This film later became the main inspiration for the film Twelve Monkeys.

Sans Soleil is a documentary about life in Japan. The film is in an avant garde style and has elements of the Qatsi trilogy and other films.

Both films are excellent and very nice in this version.

Both films have an optional English dubbed track and two versions of subtitles.

One flaw is they can be out of sync when switched they also have different content. Use the regular subtitles for the French dub and the SDH (Subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing) for the English dub. The SDH subtitles follow the English dub verbatim but are not as precise as the other subtitles.

The special features are an interview with Jean-Pierre Gorin, and excerpts from the French TV program Court-circuit, and exerpts from David Bowie's music video "Jump They Say" which contains a scene inspired by La Jetee.

This is a must buy!

Save 42% Off

An Innocent Man (1989)

I always like Tom Selleck movies. Some are actually very entertaining. This is by far his best dramatic role. I was very impressed how well he played the part of a framed Airline crew chief Jimmie Rainwood. F. Murray Abraham gives a great performance as one of the prison inmates, Virgil Cane, that befriends him. It has all the elements for some good drama, bad cops, drugs, decent and really bad convicts, attractive loving wife, and motive for revenge.



David Rasche and Richard Young do a fine job as the crooked detectives that frame him. I have recommended this to many people since many Selleck fans are not even aware of it. Whether you like Selleck or not you will enjoy this film if you like movies like "The Fugitive","US Marshals", and "Shawshank Redemption". It is being released on DVD soon and you can bet I pre-ordered a copy.

An Innocent Man Blu-ray Review

Distributor: Mill Creek Entertainment (US)

Tom Selleck will always be known as Magnum P.I. to anyone who grew up watching classic TV shows throughout the 1980's, however this little known film actually showcased a real talent for playing a very different kind of leading role.

The film takes a basic prison drama as the stories middle and adds a character driven beginning and an ending which at times almost borders on an action movie. Tom Selleck plays Jimmie Rainwood, an average ordinary every day guy, wrongly sent to prison by two cops that you will just love to hate and the film follows his characters story as he progresses through his time spent in a harsh prison trying to adjust to a very less than average life style. Usually, the release of the main character from his incarceration would mark the films natural conclusion, however being released from prison is only the start of Rainwood's troubles and the film continues at steady pace until the final climatic showdown which will leave you totally rooting for main character.

A very welcome, although somewhat surprising release for Blu-ray treatment, the film is presented in a 1080i 1.78:1 wide-screen transfer which actually looks pretty good. Ultimately, there is nothing here of stand out quality, however the picture looks quite sharp with some nice detail on display as well as showing reasonable colour representation and black levels also appearing natural. With minimal print damage on display apart from the odd slight flicker or speck, this new HD release really marks a vast improvement over previous DVD releases. Thankfully, Mill Creek Entertainment have produced this Blu-ray as a region free disc, so people who need to consider region coding issues need not be concerned.

Audio is presented as a DTS 2.0 master and although entirely unremarkable, dialogue is clear without any distortion and the now memorable score obviously sounding better than ever. Admittedly certain action scenes do come across as a little flat, however this is only in comparison to more modern day releases and the soundtrack overall provides a reasonably good listening experience.

Sadly there are no extras present on this release, however the main selling point here is the film itself and this being a budget release, you actually get an awful lot of film for your money.

If you are looking for an emotion filled yet realistic character driven story, complete with excellent acting from the lead role and supporting cast, then this film is a great way to be thoroughly entertained while also probably left wondering how you would ultimately cope should the same situation occur.

Almost a mini classic, for certain it is nice to see these less remembered titles finding their way to Blu-ray and hopefully other lesser known movies will now follow suit.

"Two cops on the take just made the biggest mistake of their lives, they framed an innocent man."

BLU REVIEW OBSCURA for reviews of those less mainstream Blu-ray releases find us on Facebook

Buy An Innocent Man (1989) Now

Even though you know what's going to happen to Tom Selleck's character, and you know that the ending will be happy, watching the process is enjoyably discomfiting. This is a plot film -stuff keeps happening to the main character, things he appears utterly incapable of controlling, and everything spirals right into disaster. Great Friday night fare. Make a lot of popcorn and savor it.

Read Best Reviews of An Innocent Man (1989) Here

Jimmie Rainwood (Selleck) is a hard-working crew chief for a major airline. Two crooked cops are ready to line their pockets from a drug bust. It goes badly and Jimmie's new home awaits: a maximum security prison.

Life ain't easy on the inside. Luckily, he becomes friends with Virgil (F. Murray Abraham) who shows him the ropes and takes a liking to him. So does Jingles (Young). For all the wrong reasons.

The tension behind the prison walls is equal to what's happening to Rainwood's wife (Robins)outside them, courtesy of our vigilant 'protect and serve' friends. If you like your revenge sweet, and the bad guys getting theirs, then "An Innocent Man" will be your cup of poison.

I was never a huge fan of Selleck's but this film changed my mind. You'll want this movie in your personal collection.

Want An Innocent Man (1989) Discount?

Innocent? Yes, aren't we all? But in AN INNOCENT MAN, Jimmie Rainwood (Tom Selleck) really is, albeit a presumably highly paid one as a senior mechanic on the aircraft maintenance line of American Airlines in Southern California. Married to Kate (Laila Robins) and living in a hillside house with a view of Los Angeles-San Pedro Harbor, Jimmie has the good life. That is, until he runs afoul of two corrupt drug squad detectives from the local constabulary, Parnell (David Rasche) and Scalise (Richard Young), who supplement their income partnering with a major narcotics supplier, stealing from competing dealers, and selling the goods to their patron. Mistakenly led to believe that a deal is going down at Rainwood's home, they bust in while Jimmie is home alone finishing up a shower. Parnell and Scalise shoot Rainwood thinking the hair dryer he's holding is a weapon. Realizing their mistake, they cover their tracks by planting drugs in the home and a gun in Jimmie's hand, with which he ostensibly took a shot at the officers. Ultimately, Rainwood angrily refuses to plead guilty to lesser charges to get a reduced sentence, and a jury trial results in six years in the state pen.

While incarcerated, Jimmie must thrust aside inhibitions and learn how to literally kill to survive. He does this under the tutelage of fellow con and self-admitted criminal, Virgil Cane (F. Murray Abraham), also put away by Parnell and Scalise, though they beat up Cane's girlfriend during the process of the arrest. Eventually, Rainwood is let out on parole after three years. Returning home, he and Kate continue to be oppressed by the two crooked cops, and Jimmie falls back on his hard-won survival skills to break himself and his wife free.

My Mom recommended AN INNOCENT MAN since, in her former capacity as a staff psychiatrist for the Nevada Department of Corrections, she worked out of the men's prison in Carson City, where the exterior shots of Jimmie's lock-up were shot. If you've ever been to Nevada's state capitol, you'll recognize the adjacent Sierra Nevada range in the film. (The interior shots were apparently filmed at a disused prison in Cincinnati, OH no mountains there.)

Now, the corrupt cop Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington) in the 2001 film Training Day was one bad dude. Here, the Parnell and Scalise characters, while dangerous, are played as obnoxious wise guys almost to the point of caricature; Rasche and Young rendered them positively annoying by overacting, which is probably why Washington is an "A List" performer while the latter two aren't and never will be. At the other end of the spectrum is Detective Fitzgerald (Badja Djola) of Internal Affairs, who sympathizes with Kate's and Jimmie's dilemma and knows Parnell and Scalise are dirty, but can't prove it. Djola's performance is about as animated as a wooden hitching post.

Kate Rainwood, played competently by Robins, is believable and sympathetic as Jimmie's loyal wife, but her character is essentially tangential. The best supporting performance is undoubtedly by Abraham as the wily, prison-savvy Cane, whose motive for helping Rainwood is mostly inscrutable until the film's end when the payback Virgil is now enabled to deliver is delicious in the audience's contemplation.

Tom Selleck reminds me of John Wayne. The Duke never really acted; any role he played was essentially John Wayne dressed in a different costume. Wayne was, in my opinion a superlative entertainer, but not a great actor. Selleck, I think, falls into this same category. The majority of his movies are class B flicks more suitable for television, but his on-screen characters are so consistently engaging and attractive perhaps accurately reflecting Tom himself that I'd rather watch any one of his efforts than a substandard outing by a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. For Selleck's presence alone, I'm awarding AN INNOCENT MAN four stars.

There's one aspect of the film that continues to niggle at my mind. At the conclusion, Jimmie packs a pistol that evolves in the plot as the one placed in his unconscious hand by Parnell and Scalise during the original frame-up three years previous. How did Rainwood come into its possession? Wouldn't it have been confiscated as evidence, and then destroyed by the police after his conviction?

Save 56% Off

Deep Impact (1998)

Although "Deep Impact" invariably gets compared to "Armageddon", I think it's more appropriate to compare it against all other disaster movies. Viewed in that light, it not only surpasses "Armageddon", but every other film in the genre.

Unlike most disaster epics, "Deep Impact" is character driven. I think this is a direct effect of its having been directed by a woman rather than a man. While the special effects are there and are impressive, what drives this film are the emotions of the excellent ensemble cast. All of them ring true, from the occasional duplicitousness of the government bureaucrats, to the real tear jerking moments of those facing tough life and death decisions, to the small intimate moments. It's powerful enough stuff that I have to believe that a lot of the negative reaction the film elicited vis-a-vis "Armageddon" came from guys who don't like their action movies to move them to the verge of tears in public.

All disaster films depend on a hook to set them up. In this respect, most fall far short of realism and believability. Of ones that come immediately to mind, only the cosmic collision movies and "The Towering Inferno" had realistic setups.

All disaster films depend on the heros to come up with some way to save the day. Of the ones with a believable setup, many still fall short of believable and/or technically accurate resolutions. This is where "Armageddon" failed miserably. Mimi Leder had expert advice from NASA and it shows. "Armageddon" has some impressive training facilities shots from NASA, but ignored the actual technology. Very early in "Armageddon", when I saw the two shuttles docking with the space station by coming in from opposite directions, performing clearly aerodynamic banking maneuvers, I was ready to start pelting the screen with rotten tomatoes!

Giving the devil his due, both films glossed over the full impact of operations in the microgravity environment of the comet's surface.

Still, it's the raw emotions that elevate "Deep Impact" above its genre, not just the technical stuff. It's actually best in its quiet moments. Among the ones that clearly stand out:

The president (Morgan Freeman) tries to continue to maintain an upbeat message as each plan successively fails. His press conferences and the dialog around them rings true.

The dialog between the reporter (the usually annoying Tea Leoni) and her mother (Vanessa Redgrave) also rings with truth.

The ultimate reconciliation between the reporter and her father (Maximilian Schell) just before the end reflects the bitterness of choices each has made in getting to that point.

The reunion of the kid who helped discover the comet (Elijah Wood) and his girlfriend (Leelee Sobieski), oblivious for the moment to what was going on around them again, this simply rings true.

The astronaut observing wryly, "Well, the good news is that we'll all have high schools named after us." No melodramatics, no macho heroism, just someone injecting a sense of humor into a shared fate she has accepted as necessary to save the people they love. My favorite line in the film.

From start to finish, this film is a class act. A realistic film that carries an emotional impact to be expected of its serious subject matter. Part of this impact is that you can't always guess in advance which characters will and will not survive. Of the ones who don't survive, not all face their fate gracefully, but all are believable.

This movie began my fandom of Mimi Leder, who I consider to be one of the best directors working today not always commercial, but always excellent. This is on my short list of my top ten favorite movies of all time. Highly recommended!

Of all of the disaster epics I have seen in my life, Deep Impact was the most moving and original. I cried my eyes out, even when the sentimentality was over-the-top, as with the kid/romance subplot. I thought the emotional rendering of a core group of people you come to know as the world is about to end was wonderfully done, and so movingly told. Tea Leoni got a short shrift; her TV anchor was appropriately confounded, disturbed and knocked out by the juxtaposition of her own success/ambition coming about via the worst single disaster known to man. The astronaut sequences were well-done, and featured a small ensemble of strong acting, lead by the reliable Robert Duvall. It was refreshing to see Morgan Freeman as a President you wish was your own. James Horner's music moves the multi-layered plot with deep emotion and color. Though the movie surely delivers knockout special effects in its final reel, this movie is no Armageddon; expect a deep resonant response, one of the heart. It makes sense that this movie was directed by Mimi Leder; it has a woman's touch, which for me brought it a sensitivity and compelling beauty. There are so many moving moments in the final 20 minutes it will be difficult to remain calm, and dry-eyed.

Buy Deep Impact (1998) Now

First things first. If you want action, don't see this movie. Go rent Armageddon with it's static characters and predictable plot.

To tell the truth this is the most moving disastor movie I've ever seen. It seems every charachter gives a powerhouse performance. This was a relief after watching the charachters in Armageddon make jokes just when Earth was supposed to be destroyed. The cast includes the ever-great Morgan Freeman, superb Robert Duvall, newcomer Tea Leoni, and screen favorite Vanessa Redgrave. A lot of movies try too crowd too many good actors into a story line, with awful results. Somehow this one works. All the characters are believable. And you care about them. Morgan Freeman is painful to watch at times, he performs so well.

People die in this movie. But you feel though through their sacrifice, hope will prevail. It different from Armaggedon. I felt that they killed charachters off in that movie to either keep the plot going, or because they had already served their purpose. Deep Impact is more realistic though, I gurantee that by the time it's over, there won't be a dry eye in the house.

Read Best Reviews of Deep Impact (1998) Here

I have recently purchased the Blu-Ray version of Deep Impact and i just have to say that the transfer to Blu-Ray is very very good. Great! The picture is crystal clear and the special effects are even better. I had the dvd and decided to purchase it on Blu-Ray because its one of my favorite movies of all time. If you have not bought this movie on Blu-Ray or have thoughts about it regardless its quality, BUY IT! you will not regret it! This is what you call a Great transfer to Blu-Ray.

Want Deep Impact (1998) Discount?

Of all of the disaster flicks out there, I'd have to rank "Deep Impact" in the top five. Why? Because it makes a good effort at making the viewer feel for the characters involved. So many of these films are driven by their special effects that the story is left behind in the cosmic dust. Why then, did I give it only three stars? For the simple fact that the film does seem to drag along too much for my tastes. Also, the relationship between Elijah Wood and Lelee Sobieskie isn't that believable. I understand why they got married, but I just don't "feel the love" between these two.

Rober Duvall turns in a good performance as the "old guy" sent off to destroy the comet of death with a bunch of hotshot astronauts. There is a comaraderie between all of the astronauts(and the one cosmonaut) that makes you hope that they pull through this ordeal. Back on Earth, Tea' Leoni's character is a dead-on representation of a nosey reporter who lets her imagination turn loose in an attempt to gain glory on the television. The rest of the cast is also very good.

If you're looking for a character-driven end-of-the-world flick, this film is for you. It doesn't have quite the action that a movie like "The Core" has, but it's science is a lot more believable. I recommend for an evening at home. It will pass the time just fine.

Save 40% Off

Robots (Blu-ray / DVD + Digital Copy) (2011)

As reviewers, it's natural for us to compare an artist's work to his/her previous album, movie, book, etc. In this case, it becomes "natural" to compare "Robots" to the previous animated hit by Fox, "Ice Age". If we do this, "Robots" comes out lacking against its frozen predecessor. It is not as novel in terms of its intent and also the script is not as powerful (perhaps because it's also tougher to relate to inanimate beings such as robots, than it is to relate to animals or humans). But still, it is a funny (though predictable) movie, with touching moments and plenty of excitement all through it. I particularly enjoyed the ride that Rodney is put through when he arrives in Robot City, in order to get to the headquarters of Big Weld, where he dreams of working.

The humor can be argued to be more adult-oriented, but still with proper supervision, I totally see it being fit for children. The fact that our 18-month old was jumping out of his seat halfway through the movie is more the result of him being hyper than the movie not being fit for children. Now I admit this is no "Finding Nemo" (which keeps him entertained all through it, time and again). So, bottom line, while not as good as or innovative as "Ice Age" and without a very powerful storyline and groundbreaking animation as "Nemo" got us used to, "Robots" is still a funny movie worth checking out.

Animation is a hot genre these days, thanks to the phenomenal success of Pixar's multi-million dollar blockbusters "Toy Story," "Monsters, Inc," and "Finding Nemo," and DreamWorks' "Shrek." These studio giants have opened the door for other, smaller companies like Blue Sky Studios to release innovative and high-quality movies, such as their first film, "Ice Age" in 2002, and their new, more ambitious endeavor, "Robots."

Visually, "Robots" is stunning, both in the look of the world and the creativity of its inner workings. The colors are vivid and the setup is ripe with potential for visual gags. The first half hour of the film is especially entertaining, beginning with Rodney's "delivery" as a baby. In the robot world, babies are delivered in boxes and are put together like children's toys at Christmas.

The characters, led by an all-star cast of distinctive voices, are fun too, especially Broadbent's deliciously evil Madame Gasket and Williams's high-energy Fender, though I thought Williams could have been given more screen time and more freedom to improvise.

The film's only weak spot, if you can call it that, is in its overzealousness to please. At times, there are so many visual elements, action sequences and gags going on at once, it feels as though we have no time to breathe. But, I applaud the creators for their passion for the project. I'd much rather see a studio go too far with its enthusiasm than not far enough. The film's storyline, too, could have been a bit more complex, but kids will love it, and parents will appreciate the complexity of the visual world in exchange for what it might be lacking in story. Overall, this film is a joy to watch, primarily because its cup runneth over with creativity and delight. It's obvious the creators put a lot of time and soul into it, and it paid off-in spades.

It's exciting, too, to see this level of animation coming more frequently to the big screen. Pixar sparked a new interest in animation with its release of "Toy Story" in 1995, and has bred an entire generation of animation lovers over the past decade with its subsequent blockbusters. This trend, in turn, has given companies like Blue Sky Studios, Fox, DreamWorks, and others an audience hungry for more of what they have to offer and they are only too happy to deliver.

Buy Robots (Blu-ray / DVD + Digital Copy) (2011) Now

I adore Robin Williams in most things he appears in, but this little movie was not up to his usual standards, and that disappoitned me.

In fact, I was expecting to watch a show along the lines of Cars or Monsters, Inc. and this one was nowhere near as good as they were. However, the being said, it IS a good little movie.

One of the things I noticed about it that makes it a bit different from other cartoonish type animation movies out right now is that this one had a lot of adult innuendo that the other movies don't have. While a younger child, of say age 3-9 or 10 might not notice it, my son was 11 when he watched it, and he got a lot of the 'adult' innuendo in the jokes. He was slow on the uptake, but on one scene, he turned around and looked at me and said, "Oooohhhh, I GET it now!"

While I liked the movie, and so did my daughter and son, I found myself diappointed in my expectations of what this movie would be about and what it would be like. If you let go of those expectations and realize that this is NOT Monsters, Inc. or Cars, or a Bug's Life, or any of the others like this, you might be able to enjoy the movie for what it is. Otherwise, you'll probably be disappointed too.

I don't recommend the movie for little kids. The only thing about the movie that will appeal to them is the actual animation. Boys ages 10 and up might enjoy it, and teenagers seem to like it because of the innuendo. I wouldn't show this one to a younger child though. It's just not that kind of movie.

Read Best Reviews of Robots (Blu-ray / DVD + Digital Copy) (2011) Here

Don't listen to the lame people saying they thought it was too noisy, or stupid. Personally, I hate how on Amazon, adults, complain how much they despise kid movies. Folks, they're for kids. You're opinion doesn't matter and shouldn't be taken into consideration. This movie is amazing. I am 16, and still considered a kid in most standards, and I thought it was simply mind-boggling. It was funny, heartfelt, and exhilerating. This is the story of Rodney, an inventor, who leaves his beloved parents to go to Robot City to pursue his dreams. There he befriends a delightful cast of miscreants and discovered he must save the greatest robot of all, Big Weld, to save his father and their world. Ewan McGregor and Robin Williams were wonderful as were all the other voice actors. This movie has you laughing every other second. This is the most imaginative movie I've seen in a long while. If you want to inspire your kids to hold onto their dreams and be creative, then this is the movie for you. Believe me, you won't regret spending $7 to spend 90 minutes with Rodney, Fender, and the crew. It's worth every penny.

Want Robots (Blu-ray / DVD + Digital Copy) (2011) Discount?

The thing I like best about robots is its originality. You keep seeing new computer animated movies coming out and they're either copied ideas from previous ones, or they're just plain not funny. Or both. Shark Tale, to name one. The Incredibles had enough action and stuff in it to make up for the lack of belly-shaking humor, but it still could've been better.

Robots has some hilarious sequences in it. Namely, Rodney and Fenders armpit moment, in which everyone in the house joins in *most memorable line* "Aunt Fanny, we were using our ARMS!!!" Another sequence that made me split was Fender's dance moment. The idea of Robin William's robot wearing a small skirt and dancing is funny enough; combine it with Britney Spears' hit Baby One More Time and you've got serious funniness.

All in all, robots rates right up there with Shrek and Finding Nemo. Every family should own it.

Save 41% Off

Embodiment Of Evil (Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (2008)

[Embodiment of Evil (2008) co-written, starring and directed by Jose Mojica Marins widescreen presentation] Horror fans rejoice, as this film marks the return to the screen of Coffin Joe (Jose Mojica Marins), the gruesome graveyard caretaker, murderer, torturer and existential executioner of exploitation extraordinaire. And it's a helluva homecoming, establishing a new watermark in the annals of contemporary horror films and redefining the horror/exploitation genre for a new generation. In this transgressive terror tale, Coffin Joe makes Freddie, Myers, Jason and Leatherface look like cub scouts or altar boys. No horror enthusiast/collector should miss this one. Even if you don't agree with my previous remark.

After serving 40 years in the mental wing of the Sao Paulo State Penitentiary, Josefel Zanatas, Coffin Joe's birth name, is finally being released, not for good behavior, he killed nearly 30 men during his term there, but through an administrative decision, overcrowding and the financial burden of keeping him in solitary confinement. His re-emergence back into a society he loathes will be a simple one, as he is greeted by his faithful hunchbacked servant, Bruno, and they prowl the streets witnessing extreme poverty, prostitution, drug use, crooked cops killing kids they deem irredeemable and too young for prison, and a military so corrupt they torture innocents into confessions before doing away with them in the most heinous way possible; that is until Coffin Joe puts his agenda into play.

Upon the return to his lair, whose upkeep was Bruno's loyal labor of love all these years, Coffin Joe mutters, "Perfect", when in fact this place would make Dracula uncomfortable. The modern gothic creepiness of the surroundings and its accoutrements is sickeningly splendid. Bruno has also recruited four new 'apprentices' to undertake the missions of CJ, and their tasks are not the type dictated by Donald Trump, I assure you. Now the carnage and butchery begins anew, and these events make scenes in 'Saw' or 'Hostel' seem sometimes tame in comparison. CJ still espouses his blasphemous, anti-biblical philosophical diatribes throughout the movie, peppering each scene of insanity to add almost operatic overtures to the gruesome and ghastly imagery heaved upon us with near projectile-vomiting brutality. There's no downtime, no flat, static or dry moments to even catch our breath; the plot was constructed to maximize the onscreen onslaught of audacity. We're continually barraged with flinching scenes of torture, barbarism, cringing crucifixations, scalping, skinning, whipping, dismemberment, flesh-eating bugs and a scene with a rat you'll never forget you know, the things fans of this psychotic cinema want and expect from these flicks. No disappointments here, the 'rituals of purification' are the most disturbing you'll find it makes a Bosch painting look like a church-sanctioned Da Vinci fresco. This is madness in a class all its own.

As in the first two flicks from the 60's ('At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul' and 'This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse' there was a third film that's totally ignored here by all, `Awakening of the Beast', one of my favorites, but I believe it's being ignored due to the plotline here is a continuation from the second film) the saga of Coffin Joe searching for the right woman to have his 'perfect' child subtext (and isn't that what it always comes right down to the search for a 'soulmate' in every romantic comedy and drama throughout history? See folks, Coffin Joe's just an extremely misunderstood romantic at heart) is still vital to the story and referenced continually in nightmares, flashbacks (done in B+W, like the earlier films), hellish hallucinations and spectral haunting from his past female victims, who also appear in B+W. It's a great effect in the context of the film.

In spite of this entire demented phantasmagoria, the film has a clear, linear plot, great dialogue, mood, settings, a strong budget and alarmingly realistic special effects that are never reduced to CGI effects, as detailed in the 'making of' featurette. There's also abundant nudity heaped upon us (some gratuitous, some plot essential, all of it enjoyable) along with the extreme hyper-violence and gore that's near heart-stopping yes, kids, there's something here for everybody. I was impressed from start to finish (but that might be admitting there's something dreadfully wrong with me...) and I'm a harsh critic of modern horror films.

The fourth act is supremely and sadistically satisfying, and a posthumous-procreation finale results in a perfect ending and set-up for a sequel insuring the legacy of Coffin Joe is far from over (let's hope we don't have to wait nearly so long for it, Marins is already ancient). After all, he is 'The Embodiment of Evil, isn't he?

My initial exposure to Coffin Joe was through Fantoma's box set including "At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul," "This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse," and "Awakening of the Beast." I absolutely loved these films for their spacey, pseudo-philosophic criminal worldview, shocking-for-their-time violence, and trippy visuals. I had no idea Jose Mojica Marins had filmed a long-delayed follow up to these films until Amazon emailed the suggestion to me. Naturally I jumped all over the Blu-Ray once I learned about it.

I would compare "Embodiment of Evil" to Dario Argento's "Mother of Tears" for several reasons. Both are more modern looking films by classic directors. Both serve as a sort of homage to each respective director's prime. And both movies are pretty much insane. As a long-time Argento fan, I actually liked "Mother of Tears" a lot more than most. However in comparing these two films, I would say that Jose Mojica Marins' movie was more successful. While both make numerous and welcome references to characters and scenarios of the past films, Marins delves into a sort of meta-fictional territory by having Coffin Joe haunted by his former victims, who appear in black and white just as they were in the sixties films. Marins also imbues his new film with a greater sense of gravitas (despite the inherent silliness of the entire premise) than Argento. "Embodiment of Evil" feels like a logical progression in the series, whereas "Mother of Tears" feels almost like a parody of the classic "Suspiria" and "Inferno."

Marins also touches upon all the elements that made his earlier films great. There is shocking violence (much more intense than the previous films), crazy pseudo-philosophical ramblings, and trippy visuals. There's even a descent into hell just like there was in "This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse," although it looks much different this time around. Argento failed, at least in large part, to recapture the beauty and grandeur of his earlier masterpieces, choosing instead to take "Mother" in a more campy direction.

Moving away from this comparison, I would also say that I hope Marins finds time to film another Coffin Joe movie. Without spoiling the ending, it opens up an extremely interesting possibility for another movie.

Buy Embodiment Of Evil (Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (2008) Now

This film is very exploitive and gratuitous, but it doesn't look or feel sleazy. The production values look pretty high; and it's also well acted, directed, and the gore FX are very good. It contains some great gruesome imagery, as well as a plentiful amount of nudity and graphic violence. This is a Brazilian film, so there's no shortage of nudity; there's full frontal nude scenes in the film, and all the women are really good looking. I thought the films pace is pretty fast, and it has really good replay value. The film will obviously appeal to most horror fans of exploitive 70s and 80s horror, but it also might appeal to many mainstream horror fans because the film looks and feels modern; it isn't a cheap sleaze film. I personally thought it was a great horror flick.

The DVD quality looks great, and the extras are good as well.

Read Best Reviews of Embodiment Of Evil (Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (2008) Here

If you're like me, you adore Coffin Joe's first two films, "At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul" and "This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse", and snatched up the UK Blu-ray for the third and last in the series, "Embodiment of Evil", the moment it came out. When I saw that a US Blu-ray was put out, I ignored it for a while. "Why bother when I already own the film on the format?"

Well, upon buying a few Synapse BDs and being highly impressed by their quality film reproduction, I started to wonder if their release for this film was any different from what I already owned, whether there was an appreciable difference in the transfer. I inquired about it, to which I was informed that a whole new master was struck for this release based on a 2K telecine of the film, whereas Anchor Bay's UK release was sourced from an HDCAM tape (not HDCAM SR, but regular, old-fashioned HDCAM from the mid '90s), which has a maximum interlaced resolution of 1440x1080 (rectangular pixels which are then upsampled to 1920x1080 during playback). In other words, this isn't true HD by today's standards, while the Synapse release is.

In addition to that, Don May fixed special effects shots and they look a whole lot better this time around. The overall presentation is just a whole lot more filmic and pleasing to the eyes; color reproduction is beautiful, whereas the UK release looks incredibly drab. A pleasing, healthy veneer of grain graces the image. (I've said it before, I'll say it again: grain COMPOSES the image, and you're bananas if you hate grain in film.)

It's a must-own Blu-ray for Coffin Joe fans and definitely worth upgrading to if you already own the UK BD. The HD footage spliced in from the original films makes me yearn for those two to be released on Blu-ray. As of now, the Brazilian lab has yet to scan the two in HD. Here's hoping that they do so soon. In the meantime, Synapse plan to release them on DVD, and they're sure to be a vast improvement over the non-anamorphic DVDs by Fantoma.

The film? A worthy end to the Coffin Joe trilogy. The fact that it was made forty years after the second film and the story has the same amount of time in between is astonishing. José Mojica Marins plays the character with such elegant ferocity that rivals and even tops his previous performances. The content in the film can be quite extreme at times, so isn't for somebody who has a weak stomach. One example is of a naked woman who is drugged and made to show her loyalty to Coffin Joe and his vision by having her right buttock cut off like Christmas ham and fed to her raw. "For you, I would eat my own flesh." Sure to make some queasy.

Want Embodiment Of Evil (Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (2008) Discount?

I love this film so much. And I knew it was going to be great. Although it does not carry the same mystique and soul of his first two films, it creates a completely new horrific sense and awareness. I will not go on about the plot, other than to say it is genius. If you are a fan of Ze do Caixao you must do exactly what I did: buy a multi-region player, then buy this film. You'll thank me in the end. Brilliant horror!

Save 1% Off

The Wages Of Fear (The Criterion Collection) (1953)

It is difficult to overstate what a terrific blend of suspense, biting images, and nihilistic philosophy this film is. It works at several levels, the most compelling being a thoroughly existential treatment of the action adventure movie. Clouzot layers his irreverent cynicism into every aspect of the film, but it is actuated by the tight interplay of the characters. They are the kind of fugitives, hucksters, fortune seekers, down on their luckers you'd expect to find at a squalid, end of the world drilling camp. The director portrays them all in a dour, brave light as they struggle with futility and fear.

The corruption, exploitation and innocence, are brought to a boil by a raging inferno and a couple of truck loads of nitroglycerine. Three hundred miles of rugged roads are all that separates these desperadoes from a ticket out of town. Clouzot rolls his audience into the drama with ingenious visual cues, cables stressed to snapping, tobacco blown from its paper. He uses no gimmicks, though, to impose an artificial sense of spectacle. Everything is shown with a taut authenticity. The film never loses its devil-me-care bravado in spite of all its tension and pathos. Clouzot intersperses little milestones of grace, in a prayer or a dance, with images of death. Alternately- ambivalence, compassion and admiration are elicited for characters pushed beyond human boundaries and endurance.

It resembles Treasure of the Sierra Madre (another excellent film), but caves in to none of its happy endings, higher ideals, saving benedictions. All here is carried out in a quiet desperation as every vestige of hope, purpose, escape are systematically sabotaged. All that is left is the moment, and survival. The scenes on the bridge, the oil pond, the road, are among the most unforgettable in cinema. The characters strive for freedom but are continually confronted with their interdependence and frailty. The director's final gesture, in the face of potential victory, provides a seal of consistency to this sinister, masterful brew. Clouzot delves into motivations, relationships, doubt. He challenges pat assumptions of life and destiny. It is a remarkable and original film, even more so in the context of the conventions imposed on Hollywood films of that era.

We can thank the Movie Gods that Jean Gabin didn't want to play a coward or else we'd never have had Charles Vanel's superb performance in Clouzot's The Wages of Fear: it's notable that Friedkin's intriguingly feverish but suspense-free remake didn't even attempt to give its equivalent deadbeat killer a similar arc, despite the fact that the character and his curious shifting relationship with Yves Montand cuts to the very core of the story's take on the nature of courage, bravado and machismo. At the beginning of the film Vanel is the tough guy who can walk the walk, while Montand is his puppy doggish sidekick, throwing over his best friend for his new crush until his feet of clay are revealed when the chips are down. Even in a place where, in the absence of white women the white men cling to each other, this relationship seems to go a few steps beyond mere hero-worship, but when they hit the road the power in the relationship shifts, and in the process we get to watch Yves Montand become a genuine movie star before our very eyes, which is almost as exciting as the road trip to Hell with a truckload of unstable nitro and miles of very, very bumpy roads. Almost, because I doubt there's anything to beat the film's extraordinary double-jeopardy sequence on a rotting platform on a mountain road a scene pretty much done for real which takes your breath away until you suddenly realize that the second truck is going to have to do the same thing in even worse conditions... I remember when I saw that at a revival house a couple of years ago I genuinely forgot to breathe during that sequence, and found myself doing the same even on DVD.

Criterion's recent 2-disc DVD is a great improvement on their previous single-disc version in terms of picture quality and extras, but sadly, the `new and improved' subtitle translation is just as politically correct as the old one, dropping most of the obscenities and all of the racist language that's an important part of the hatred and self-loathing that drives the characters to risk everything for a chance for a ticket out of this backwater South American hellhole (amazingly recreated in the Carmargue in France because Montand refused to film in Fascist Spain). The shoot may have been jinxed by delays, accidents and colossal budget overruns, but damn, it was worth it.

Buy The Wages Of Fear (The Criterion Collection) (1953) Now

There are two things often said about this film that I would like to strongly agree with: first, it begins rather slowly, and second, it really is one of, if not THE, most suspenseful films ever made.

The first third of the movie moves inexplicably slowly. I can understand many of the reasons why: the attempt to define the characters, to show their interactions with one another, to depict the quiet desperation of their lives to make it plausible that four men would undertake such an astonishingly dangerous job as hauling nitroglycerin over treacherous jungle and mountain dirt roads. Even granting all that, however, the start is by any standard really, really slow. And I suspect that of the people you encounter who proclaim the film a bore either gave up before getting to the good parts or never recovered from the slow start.

The most suspenseful film ever made? Some people assert that the film has been so overhyped along these lines that it would be impossible for any film to come up to one's expectations. There are two edges to this sword. I am far more impressed that despite being hyped as the most suspenseful film ever made, I was nonetheless utterly on the edge of my seat for most of the final 100 minutes. And if some of the scenes seem somewhat familiar, it is undoubtedly because of the score of films that have plundered this film for their own tension-filled scenes.

I have often thought that Yves Montand was, at his best, one of the more compelling performers of the last half of the twentieth century. He wasn't consistently successful internationally. Sometimes one or two decades would come between some of his greatest triumphs. To illustrate, I think Montand's two greatest film appearances were THE WAGES OF FEAR (1953) and JEAN DE FLORETTE/MANON OF THE SPRING (1986), only thirty-three years apart.

Many viewers are not comfortable with the very ending of the movie and I I have to agree somewhat. Nihilism was very fashionable in the early 1950s in European cinema. The ending, which seems completely unnecessary and not organically connected with the rest of the film, reflects less any inner necessity for a downer ending than the general mood in "serious" films at the time. So, in a sense, one could argue that this movie manages to be one of the great classics of cinema despite a slow beginning and an arbitrarily negativistic ending. Where the film shines is in the utterly riveting journey through the jungle and mountains.

Read Best Reviews of The Wages Of Fear (The Criterion Collection) (1953) Here

There are two things often said about this film that I would like to strongly agree with: first, it begins rather slowly, and second, it really is one of, if not THE, most suspenseful films ever made.

The first third of the movie moves inexplicably slowly. I can understand many of the reasons why: the attempt to define the characters, to show their interactions with one another, to depict the quiet desperation of their live to make it plausible that four men would undertake such an astonishingly dangerous job as hauling nitroglycerin over treacherous jungle and mountains dirt roads. Even granting all that, however, the start is by any standard, really, really slow. And I suspect that a couple of the one star reviews proclaiming the film a bore either gave up before getting to the good parts or never recovered from the slow start.

The most suspenseful film ever made? A couple of reviewers indicated that the film has been so over hyped along these lines that it would be impossible for any film to come up to one's expectations. There are two edges to this sword. I am far more impressed that despite being hyped as the most suspenseful film ever made, I was nonetheless utterly on the edge of my seat for most of the final 100 minutes. And if some of the scenes seem somewhat familiar, it is undoubtedly because of the score of films that have plundered this film for their own tension-filled scenes.

I have often thought that Yves Montand was, at his best, one of the more compelling performers of the last half of the twentieth century. He wasn't consistently successful internationally. Sometimes one or two decades would come between some of his greatest triumphs. To illustrate, I think Montand's two greatest film appearances were THE WAGES OF FEAR (1953) and JEAN DE FLORETTE/MANON OF THE SPRING (1986), only thirty-three years apart.

Finally, I have to agree somewhat with a couple of reviewers who disliked the ending. Nihilism was very fashionable in the early 1950s in European cinema. The ending, which seems completely unnecessary and not organically connected with the rest of the film, reflects less any inner necessity for a downer ending than the general mood in "serious" films at the time. So, in a sense, one could argue that this movie manages to be one of the great classics of cinema despite a slow beginning and an arbitrarily negativistic ending. Where the film shines is in the utterly riveting journey through the jungle and mountains.

Want The Wages Of Fear (The Criterion Collection) (1953) Discount?

This movie has two flaws. The first is that some of the logic is screwy; the second is the oilman O'Brien is a grotesque anti-American caricature, in sharp contrast to the beautifully limned characterizations of the protagonists. Neither of these flaws make a whit of difference in my reaction to this film. THE WAGES OF FEAR is all the things others have claimed: an action-packed suspense classic with a strong existential flavor. But, first and foremost, it is a masterful MOVIE. When you watch WAGES, you can't help but notice there isn't a wasted foot of film: Clouzot seemingly never plants a wrong foot in 2 1/2 hours of storytelling. The 'slow' first half in the hot little village is never less than completely absorbing...you can smell the stale breezeless air, hear the buzzing flies, and taste the salt of your own sweat after an hour of Clouzot's detailed, swooning-from-the-humidity immersion of the audience into this hellish purgatory: by the time O'Brien is looking for drivers, you know exactly why these men are so desperate to risk death to get out. (One man, denied the job, commits suicide; another, who did get the job, may have been murdered by one of our 'heroes'. It is a plot point left tantalizingly unresolved.) The pitiless journey they must make to get their $2000 is unforgettable: every emotion, every frayed nerve-end is exposed during the ordeal. We see these men at their most elemental and vicious and cowardly...but we also see their incredible nobility and love for each other later when they have gone so far beyond turning back that hope, dignity and courage are the only things they have left to combat their fear and despair. Even though none of these things matter when a hard bump on the road will immolate the saint and the sinner alike, they nevertheless become the only things that matter. It's a beautiful, inspiring message for a film to contain. Those moments in WAGES where we see the men at their best (the scene where Lulli is discovered alive after the blast; Montand's comforting the dying Vanel at journey's end) are even more indelible and affecting than the noirish scenes of the men falling apart from stress and THOSE are considerably powerful. Some of the setpieces -the rickety wooden precipice and the oil puddle foremost aren't just suspenseful: the remote locations, stark black and white photography and tense editing create moments of timeless beauty and wonder, even (especially?) with the threat of death looming close by. Remade for no earthly reason I can discern, and another example of how superior French films before the Nouvelle Vague were to those that followed. Godard, Truffaut, Resnais: none of them ever made a film approaching the power or beauty of CHILDREN OF PARADISE, FORBIDDEN GAMES, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or this movie. Essential viewing.

Save 50% Off