Showing posts with label drive blu ray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drive blu ray. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989)

Last Exit to BrooklynIt's the 1950s. Under President Eisenhower's administration, everyone has a house in the suburbs, a decent job, a gas-guzzling car, and a basic "Leave It to Beaver" lifestyle.

Not so, said Hubert Selby, in his novel, LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN. For a good deal of the working class, times were still tough. Preyed upon by crime, toyed with by factory owners and unions, and, ultimately, shackled by their own ignorance, the working class had their promise of a white picket fence and primrose garden vacated. In Brooklyn, particularly, things were acutely tough. Manufacturing jobs were on a rapid decline, as companies moved out of town or out of state (which was why those companies remaining in Brooklyn were able to mess with their employees: take it or leave it, was their attitude). At the same time, an influx of immigrants seeking jobs made the hunt for work even more competitive--another bonus for the remaining factory owners. Slums rapidly worsened, so much so that Dodger owner Walter Alston decided his team's future was in jeopardy. L.A. looked like a much safer place for a stadium.

But neither Selby nor director Uli Edel portrayed this working class as merely innocent victims. Neither the book nor the film is a didactic rant about class warfare. The poor had their own vices of greed, brutality, and dissipation. Just about every other scene has someone going through someone else's wallets, union funds or pockets. If they aren't doing that, they're drinking, fighting, or whoring. It's a pretty dismal world. The natural response to this film might be: "Wait a minute. Not everyone working class Johnny-Punchclock guy was a criminal. Most people worked hard and honestly." Of course, this is true but it's not the film's concern. This is a study of those who were trapped in that world, and this study is compelling and horrifying.

Uli Edel has perfectly captured this bleak world, either bathing everything in a garish light or obscuring it in heavy shadows. The performances are brilliant. There's no understating Jennifer Jason Leigh's gritty and powerful performance. Also keep an eye out for a cameo by Hubert Selby as the driver who hits Georgette. Not for the weak-stomached and definitely not for kids, LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN is as cinematographically close to the innermost circle of urban hell as you can get.

This is a frank filming of the Hubert Selby novel about the brutality of street life in Brooklyn 1952. If you like "happy" films, this isn't for you. But if you appreciate a good dose of realism, the film is remarkable.

Buy Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989) Now

Here is a visually stunning adaptation of Herbert Selby's unvarnished novel about street-wise losers in 1952 Brooklyn. This film includes graphic violence and sexual situations not for the "Romantic Comedy" crowd. Jennifer Jason Leigh as the hyper-sexual prostitute Tra-La-La steals almost every scene she's in.

Although the screenwriters had to re-do the ending as the true nature of the book's finale would have drawn an "X" rating, this is a must-see for those of us who can appreciate the realities of the street for those living the most marginal of an existance.

One other treat is an obese Ricky Lake as a dim-witted knocked-up teen whose family forces a wedding to the poor sap who sired her child as a way tho save their reputation (as if they ever had a good one to begin with).

The beating and "cruxafiction" of Stephen Lang as the latant homosexual is also an unforgetable cinematic moment.

Read Best Reviews of Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989) Here

Over the summer I purchased and read Hubert Selby Jr.'s "Last Exit to Brooklyn". It was the first book I had read for pleasure since high school. I also only bought it because the film Requiem for a Dream was astonishing, and because it wasnt at that particular bookstore. Anywho, I read LETB in about a week, which is super fast for me, and was intrigued enough to go out and watch the film.

I had never heard of Uli Edel but was curious to see how well the book was illustrated through film. From the opening shot of the three military men walking through the dark streets to the Greeks to the factory to the strike office, things seemed to have been pulled straight from the book. If you have read the book you know how it can be sometimes quite difficult to read Selby's writing style, considering there are pages upon pages of text in all caps and run-on sentences up the wazoo, so a visual illustration really did a good job of bringing some confusing parts of the book to life.

Jennifer Jason Leigh gave a good performance as the infamous Tralala, Jerry Orbach was always refreshing to watch, but I think I liked the portrayal of Harry Black the best (I think it was Stephen Lang). As in the book, his "chapter", along with Tralala's, were the longest, and the two characters were also the most intertwined in the other stories, so they also got a majority of the screen time in the film. Oh, and Burt Young was well cast, too. He seems to thrive on the grumpy-caring-jerk-semi womanizer type character quite well.

I know others who have read the book or seen the movie have been put off by its unflattering portrait of the Brooklyn working class 60 years ago. Im only 22, and not the biggest history buff, so because of my little knowledge of the time I really cant form an opinion of how well it interprets the people and the places, or if much of it was dramatized, or if the stories told just represented a handful of the population in Brooklyn. But regradless, I enjoyed the less than perfect lifestyle and the struggles and sacrifices our characters endured to achieve their goals. I live near an upper middle class area, so lots of people take things for granted, and I think thats why Im drawn to these types of books and films.

But anyway, I liked this film; and I liked the book, too. Its not one of those films (or books) that you can watch or read everyday because the content strikes like a hammer and stays with you long after, kind of like Requiem, but I feel I am a better person for experiencing "Last Exit to Brooklyn".

Want Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989) Discount?

STEVEN LANG and JENNIFER JASON LEIGH dominate this virtually picture-perfect view of Brooklyn circa 1950. A sad and moving mix of Union Dispute [Teamster strike}, confused sexual identity [identeties], anger and misplaced love.

Lang is excellent [more than that] as the love-torn Strike Captain totally oblivious of 'the nature of things' Jaosn-Leigh more than award worthy for her "Tral" perhaps the whore with the platinum heart? Totally oblivious of long-term goals living from sailer to sailer ...

Art/Set direction and design, wardrobe, etc spot on.

Highly worth the visit if you can "Father Knows Best" it ain't!

Could be fun to pair Jason-Leigh and Lang as "George & Martha" and watch the conflagration ........

{DVD is great]

Save 15% Off

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Scream (1996)

ScreamPlease note: I'm rating the release, not the movie (which is a favorite of mine).

Save your money and wait for a complete, uncensored release, preferably with some new bonus material.

***SPOILER WARNING***

I broke down and picked this up because Amazon had it on sale for $6. Though not perfect, the picture quality is good/very good. The sound, on the other hand, is fantastic one of the best DTS-MA tracks I've heard on blu-ray. However, despite all the audio and visual goodness on display, the admittedly small edits to achieve the "R" rating are annoying. The tone of the film changes subtly as a result.

The slow-mo zoom at the end of the opening scene is far more effective than when sped up. A snipped second here and there in a number of other death scenes make them seem cartoonish and sanitized. Two characters appear to repeatedly stab each other with little consequence.

If Scream were released today, it would surely receive an "R" in its uncut form. Compared to the likes of Saw and Hostel, the on-screen violence is positively restrained. Lionsgate dropped the ball on this one. Please don't wait another 15 years to fix it.

Finally we get all the SCREAM films on blu ray and here we have the first and best that was hugely original and put a much needed original kick in the horror movie genre. We all know the story and we also know that when an older classic film comes out on a blu ray transfer it is really important to find out the quality and if the transfer succeeded. I was thrilled when I popped this movie into my blu ray player and was itching to see the infamous opening scene with Drew Barrymore. Sadly it was a huge disappointment. The audio was great but the video totally lacked clarity and seemed blury and overly grainy. For me the full effect of the scene was lost. Luckily when we get to the next scene with Neve Campbell at her computer the video had hugely improved. The picture was pretty crisp, colors were vibrant, flesh tones realistic and I was then impressed. Throughout the rest of the movie the video quality gets about a B. The dark scenes work well. Black and white ratio is clean and the colors do blend in well. The graininess after the opening scene is there on purpose and looks fine. When the villian dashes in and out of the picture the black and white of the costume looks great. But the part of the movie that is a truly huge improvement over the dvd is the audio. The DTS HD Master 5.1 audio track uses all surround speakers to full effect. Dialogue is crisp and you will be jumping out of your seat in all the right moments. The track is perfect for this classic horror movie and shines. The soundtrack blends in with all the films sounds perfectly.

But the video is where opinions will clash. For me the upgrade to blu ray is much better than my dvd version. I never liked the dvd presentations and the blu ray is in a 1080p enhanced widescreen which makes viewing the film better. There is some fine detail but the picture overall just does not POP like a quality blu ray does. I think when most people watch a blu ray they want that crispness and clarity that just makes it far surpass the dvd. It can become almost like you are in the movie. I think people forget the film is 15 years old and overall the picture is acceptable but the poor quality of the opening scene just leaves it lacking for me. When the movie is offered on blu ray at a steal price which Amazon seems to be doing now it is definitely worth a buy but if you are pretty satisfied with a dvd version you own I would think before purchasing it at full price.

Buy Scream (1996) Now

The writing behind the film is excellent, the idea of teens imitating the movies with more twists than twister. An action packed slasher movie with mystery behind it all no imortal killer just messed up teenagers. It was impossible to guess who done the murders from the begining, you may think you know who is doing the killings then somthing happens and turns your eye to someone else. Overall a fantastic beginning to the best horror trilogy around. The DVD has a few interesting special features, go for this special edition rather than the standard DVD.

Read Best Reviews of Scream (1996) Here

The town of Woodsboro is being haunted by a series of brutal murders. But the focus seems to be Sidney Prescott (Never Campbell). But this isn't your normal serial killer. Instead, the killer has been influenced by the horror movies he or she has watched over the years. Disguised with a Ghostface mask, the killer calls and daunts the victim before arriving to slice and dice.

While most of the high school takes it as a joke, Sidney is taking it seriously. But who around her might be the killer. Maybe it's reporter Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) looking for her next story. What about film geek Randy (Jamie Kennedy). Boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich) is a suspect, so that makes him innocent, right? Then again, any of these people might become the next victim. Will knowing the rules of the horror genre help them make it out alive?

Okay, so this is so NOT my normal genre of film. And yes, it definitely earns its R rating with brutal violence and horrid language. But I have always had a fascination with the genre, so when this movie became a surprise hit, I wound up checking it out. And the mystery fan in me loved it. The clues and red herrings are everywhere. However, the jump factor had me going from the start as well. Yes, I jump quite easily. My roommate used to laugh at me watching this film, in fact.

The thing that sets this apart from other slasher films is that we actually do get to know some of the victims before they die. These aren't just the stock characters you'd normally find, but real people.

Okay, so the other thing that set it apart is the humor. These characters know they are in a horror fan and talk about how to make it out alive. Of course, convention is thrown on its head (at times). But that wink at the audience as it attempts to scare us silly adds to the fun.

While most slasher movies still don't entertain me, I keep coming back and watching this franchise. If you want your scares with a post modern edge, this is the place to turn.

Want Scream (1996) Discount?

I'm sure in this day and age it's appropriate to give "Scream" less than 5 stars. Plenty of folks will say how "unoriginal" the movie is, or how it's just a rip-off of a bunch of 80's flicks......and I say Bull***t.

"Scream" jump started the horror movie genre in the 1990's. Without "Scream" we woudn't have flicks like "I Know Whay You Did Last Summer" or "Urban Legend". Without "Scream" we might not have "Inside" or "Martyrs". Sure "Scream" ushered in the 90's version of slasher flickes, but it also ushered in an era of self referential horror films. Wes Craven was able to poke fun of the genre he helped create....and the "Scream" audience was in on the joke.

So many horror films since "Scream" have come to rely on the horror converntions set forth in "Scream" that it actually feels original.

"Scream" is meant to be fun, the cast, and the soundtrack both indicate that this is a fun film, not to be taken too seriously. If you've seen "Terror Train" or "Prom Night" or "Hell Night" than you are the target audience for "Scream", as an homage to 80's horror, you won't find a better film. It plays on the viewer's recollection of Jamie Lee Curtis' early film work, and updating the horror genre beyond what is found in the latest "Halloween". If you are a fan of 80's horror this is a must see.

Save 47% Off

Saturday, July 19, 2014

The Robber (2011)

The RobberThere's a new "running" film available on DVD/Blu-ray. It's "The Robber" (aka Der Räuber), which is the Benjamin Heisenberg-directed film based on the true story of Austrian bank robber/marathoner, Johann Kastenberger. The screenplay was adapted from Martin Prinz's 2006 book, "On the Run." The film made the film festival rounds in the spring, but the DVD/Blu-ray release will be most's first exposure to the film. It's also available on Netflix Instant. The film is in German, but is sub-titled in English and is very easy to follow, as the dialogue is very deliberate.

So who was Johann Kastenberger? According to the film, and to Wikipedia, Kastenberger was a convicted bank robber, who was first arrested in 1977 for robbing an Austrian bank. He served a 7-year prison term and trained extensively while in person. Upon release, he made an instant splash in the marathon, setting an Austrian national record (the film shows 2:20, but I can't corroborate that anywhere online and haven't read Prinz's book yet). The film does show him winning the ultra difficult Kainach Mountain Marathon in a still standing record of 3:16. Not long after being released from prison the first time around, Kastenberger reverts to his bank-robbing ways and becomes known as "Shotgun Ronnie," due to his penchant for wearing a Ronald Reagan mask during his robberies. This is something that is left out of the film.

Andreas Lust does a very passable job in portraying a competitive runner. He's fit, has good form and most importantly, looks the part. There are some excellent action scenes in "The Robber," particularly one after a robbery nearly goes awry and he runs through multiple buildings being followed by a single camera, and ends up hopping on a trail to evade the police. It's a very entertaining film and is well worth 90 minutes of your time.

The Robber is loosely based on a true story of a champion marathon runner who also robbed banks in his spare time. The cinematography in this movie is fantastic the running and chasing scenes where the camera follows is as good or better than any hollywood production, overall this is well worth having a view on a quiet evening...

Buy The Robber (2011) Now

Hmm, I wanted to like this film a lot more than I did by the time the credits rolled. The story of a talented marathon runner who is also a cold blooded, unfeeling bank robber/killer. As a runner with nowhere near the talent of the 'anti hero' of the film played by Andreas Lust, the scenes of him running throughout look better than any I can ever recall in a movie. As the film opens Andreas gets out of prison for bank robbery and immediately returns to the only two things he lives for--running and crime. Its unclear why he does either activity as neither one seems to bring him pleasure or meaning in his life any more than the beautiful girlfriend he resumes living with upon release. In fact the 'why' of what is driving Andreas in his life is never explored or revealed in this film. He's gifted athletically; his Parole Agent & others bend over backwards to help him; and yet he seems to be a complete, unfeeling, 'zombie' hurtling towards self destruction. 'The Robber' seems to be driven by the theme of nihilism to its quiet, near wordless conclusion. Be aware this is not a 'satisfactory ending', 'it all makes sense now'film, but it is compelling & well done.

Read Best Reviews of The Robber (2011) Here

This movie has it's moments, but is a missed opportunity. I have never watched a film with such an interesting subject matter be so boring most of the tiime. There is virtually no character development. The chase scenes are extremely well done and that is what saves this movie from being a total disappointment. I had read many positive reviews and was expecting more. I am an American that really enjoys foreign films. I hope someone else tells this story again that is capable of really good story telling. It's clear that the film crew is very talented to do some of the things they do, but someone really needs to re-tell this story and do it justice. Definitely rent before buying. The PQ & AQ are top notch.

Want The Robber (2011) Discount?

Must see... Not your typical Hollywood smash & grab shoot em up style action flick. Great performances by both the main Character and supporting. Great ending.

Save 36% Off

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Avengers Illuminated 3D Lenticular Gift Set - Best Buy Exclusive (2012)

Avengers Illuminated 3D Lenticular Gift Set - Best Buy Exclusive$19.99 the week of March 17th 23rd, 2013 in Best Buy stores! Get them while you can and don't pay these crazy prices on here.

VERY FAST SERVICE.I LOVE THE BOXSET PRESENTATION.THE BOOK OF THE MARVEL CHARACTERS IS INCREDIBLE.ALSO THE LITOGRAPH OF THE AVENGERS IS VERY NICE.

Buy Avengers Illuminated 3D Lenticular Gift Set - Best Buy Exclusive (2012) Now

This really is a step up: the box is made of some sort of rubber which sets it apart. And the illuminated lenticular, once lit, looks awsome.

The book offered about Marvel's characters is also a good adition to have around with all the new stuff coming...

Read Best Reviews of Avengers Illuminated 3D Lenticular Gift Set - Best Buy Exclusive (2012) Here

Monday, June 30, 2014

The Five Deadly Venoms (1978)

The Five Deadly VenomsFirst of all let me tell you how good is this Kung Fu classic. The story is good, about 5 Venoms who live a secret life and are trying to be found by the Poison Clan's master. I think we should all have this fun kung fu flick in our collection but! They have to come out with a better DVD. This DVD has no special features, no original language track, and the image quality has not been restored at all, they didn't even try! So unless you must have it, wait for a better print.

You can add me to the nostalgia group, having seen this movie as an 11 year old in 1981 on a Saturday afternoon matinee. I was quite thrilled to find the DVD a few days ago, having eschewed the then difficult to find VHS version. DVD quality is pretty poor, but they were of course hampered going from a disintegrating master. Ghosting and screen artifacts abound, but hey, that's really secondary to anyone who's been searching for this title for some time. While formulaic in the genre sense, [dying master tells pupil to avenge him / right a wrong using every ounce of technique] the story is carried out in a much more sublime whodunit, as a teasing mystery with spurts of action. The last of the Poison Clan practitioners [dying of course] commands young pupil to find the hidden money cache of an earlier teacher before his boundlessly corrupt former students do. Centipede, Snake, Scorpion, Lizard, and Toad already have a head start on our last pupil who hasn't mastered any one of the techniques mentioned, but is versed enough in all of them to be effective when combined w/ another. The story progresses as the rich teacher is found in turn by the various factions. Centipede and Snake have teamed up as have Toad and Lizard. The mysterious Scorpion does not make his true intentions known, skulking around in the darkness to pick up the pieces and sow dissent. Slowly through the film, the members become clear and eventually fight one another which are the highlights. Who will prevail, who will our young student pair with during the end game, and what of the Scorpion? All answered in due time, well, actually in long drawn out periods of slack but when it does start cooking it certainly does. My favorite: the fight between my preferred poison The Snake, and the Toad. Watching and listening to the sound effects as the Snake struck, probing for weak points while the Toad would flex and bounce him off 10 feet was fun then and now.. and surprisingly mirrors the battles based on this scenario I would have with my 8 year old sister. Hah hah. This is a definite cult classic, campy enough in later viewing that it doesn't take itself too seriously, but with enough action to satisfy new viewers too. Recommended.

Buy The Five Deadly Venoms (1978) Now

When it comes to martial arts films, most claim that Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon" is the best ever made. I gather because it was a Warner Brothers production with it's producer Fred Weintraub. I also gather it is because it has a "multi-cultural" cast instead of an all Chinese traditional cast. Well, if you believe that to be the case or not, others suggest that "The Five Deadly Venoms" is either the next best thing or the best in and of itself!

No need to go into the story as many are familiar with it. This is one of the few martials arts films that has a decent story, suspense, action and intrigue. A few years ago, I bought the DVD version and I was very disappointed. It looked like a 3rd generation dub of a bootleg VHS tape! I wrote the company and they sent me another film (on a VHS tape!) to make it up to me. From then on, I get very concerned whenever a martial arts film get's released, let alone on Blu-ray.

I read one (non-professional) review and they said it was as good as they have ever seen it and the convinced me to buy it. I made the right call! The picture far exceeded my expectations! It is true HD, crisp, clean, very detailed and looks as if you are watching them film the movie in person! This is no BS! I cannot believe that I could not find s decent copy on DVD, but BD hits a homerun right out of the gate!

From the moment the picture starts and they show the masks and smoke, you know that you are in for something special because you have NEVER seen this film look this good! The whole film just looks so much better, that I would hope that all martial arts films could look this way! It is in mono 2.0, but who cares? Surround would have been nice, but I'll take the high level picture quality over an after-the-fact surround sound.

The only reason I give this 4 stars instead of 5 is becuase there are no extras. I would have at least preferred a trailor. A behind the scenes featurette or an interview with the actors would have been nice. My only other non-Hollywood martial arts film is "The 36th Chamber of Shoalin" which was in 1080i, not 1080P, but that still looked great too. Even "Enter the Dragon" was not encoded right. It has "jaggies" and it must be 1080i converted of something.

If you know what this is about, get this without delay, the picture is nearly flawless!

Read Best Reviews of The Five Deadly Venoms (1978) Here

Like so many others on Amazon.com, I used to watch weekend Kung Fu theatre programs on TV. Many movies I remember fondly (Kid With The Golden Arm and Shaolin Master Killer [aka 36th Chamber of Shaolin] come to mind) but one in particular stands out: Five Deadly Venoms. I caught it one rainy Saturday afternoon as a teenager and it has stayed with me ever since.

Set in "old" China and featuring a suspenseful plot (a mystery, no less), garish (yet not overly lavish) costumes/set design, and some great old school combat/camera work, this may not even be the best film from either the legendary Shaw Brothers or famed director Chang Cheh himself but there's just something about the pacing of the story which is in no hurry to go anywhere too soon. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. It is creepy and the tension builds...perhaps not remarkable qualities for a vintage Kung Fu flick but this picture makes the most of it.

Another thing about the movie deserves praise: the absolutely fantastic score! It is austere AND comical, spare, seductive, and sinister without being cheesy. Extraordinary music! even if it IS "borrowed" from other movies as some say....so be it. To me, the score is what really puts you in the world of 5DV.

PLEASE READ: I own both the DVD and the VHS video (the Steeplechase/Martial Arts Video versions) and they are flippin' LOUSY, with the DVD having a marginally better picture/bad sound and the video having much clearer sound/a horrible picture tracking problem. I could be wrong, but in their mastering of the DVD, it seems that Steeplechase/ M.A.V. simply took a bad widescreen edition VHS tape of the movie and did a poor transfer (although I HAVE seen worse) via the ol' mirror in a shoebox technology. Ha! Typical! The soundtrack is muffled like when you play a non-Dolby encoded cassette tape back with the Dolby switch on. I can't speak for the Front Row Video, Inc. version they're selling on Amazon.com but don't hold your breath. Here's hoping that Celestial Pictures (who now owns the rights to many 1970s Hong Kong classics like this one) get their act together and release a spiffy new version of 5DV. Two essential things for a new release: Original film negatives for a better picture and, for Pete's sake, the original recorded elements for clear, non-muffled sound. Some subtitles would be nice, too. Note to Celestial Pix: Please do it justice, fellers!

The 5 stars given are for the film itself which is remains uniquely satisfying: classic, yet refreshing and timeless. The Five Deadly Venoms is still cool and I've tried to turn friends on to it, usually by forcing them to watch it with me so that I can "re-experience it" thru their eyes! It's hard to define how much unconsciously bigger this movie is than its own genre. But it is. In a way, it stands alone. :-]

Rent it if possible. If not, approach with caution or wait for the eventual "special edition". Good luck.

Want The Five Deadly Venoms (1978) Discount?

This DVD is a poor quality bootleg. A company called Celestial owns the worldwide copyright on ALL Shaw Brothers movies. Their digitally remastered DVD has been available for a couple of years, and puts this bootleg to shame. That catch is that you must purchase it from a Hong Kong based web site. Amazon is not allowed to sell it, so they have listed this bootleg. Find a Hong Kong based web site and purchase the official DVD!

Save 25% Off

Monday, June 9, 2014

Tooth Fairy (2010)

Tooth FairyDwayne 'the Rock' Johnson dressed up as a fairy has got to be one of the more ridiculous images in recent movie history. That's just one of the things that makes Tooth Fairy hilarious. The movie is filled with witty (and sometimes corny) humor. The plot and character development also feel pretty natural. Indeed, even though the plot device of a boyfriend trying to win the love of his girlfriend's children has been used far too many times, it didn't feel stale.

Meanwhile, the toothfairy "kingdom" or whatever had a great combination of magic and sass. It's set up kind of like MI6 from James Bond Julie Andrews even acts as the head tooth fairy. At the end of the day, it's kind of like The Santa Clause but with wings and an attitude.

TOOTH FAIRY

STARRING: Dwayne Johnson, Ashley Judd, Stephen Merchant, Ryan Sheckler, Chase Ellison, Destiny Whitlock, Seth MacFarlane, Julie Andrews and Billy Crystal

WRITTEN BY: Lowell Ganz, Babaloo Mandel, Joshua Sternin, Jeffrey Ventimilia, Randi Mayem Singer and Jim Piddock

DIRECTED BY: Michael Lembeck

Rated: PG

Genre: Comedy

Release Date: 22 January 2010

Review Date: 18 February 2010

Nearly all of Dwayne Johnson's movies have been enjoyable, but this is the first time he's shown talent with acting. I've gotta say, he was pretty darn good in Tooth Fairy.

Johnson plays Derek, a professional hockey player with the nickname `The Tooth Fairy' which he was given for knocking out so many teeth on the ice. It's more than annoying in movies like this, where we know the character will eventually become the tooth fairy, and for some reason they feel the need to previously deem him with a strictly on the nose nickname; kind of like Tim Allen's character Scott Calvin having the same initials as Santa Clause, if you will. But I'm not a child, so my point here is irrelevant.

When Derek makes an un-wanted comment to his girlfriend's daughter about the tooth fairy not being real, he is sentenced to two weeks of `tooth fairy duty'. This sounds a little ridiculous, but we both know this film isn't aimed at you or me, but at the little ones. So looking at it from their point of view, it's on level with the plot of a great film like The Godfather or Saving Private Ryan, in comparison.

Derek's girlfriend is played by Ashley Judd and the harbinger of Derek's two weeks of doom, is a head fairy of sorts, played by Julie Andrews. There are plenty of humorous shenanigans to be had with Derek trying to cover up the fact that he is a tooth fairy, between his girlfriend and her two kids; which is to be expected.

While in `fairy land', Derek is met by a kind of Q character from the James Bond Franchise. His name is Jerry and he is played by none other, than the legendary Billy Crystal. Thank God he's back! Crystal is as enjoyable as ever, while him and Johnson exchange comedic moments back and forth while Derek is being given his fairy `instruments'; dog and cat repellent, magic fairy dust that will shrink you, etc.

Derek is also granted a humorous British side-kick / guardian angel named Tracy (Stephen Merchant). I don't know that I have ever seen this gentleman before, but I'm sure I haven't seen the last of him; he was hilarious. Jerry is a fairy who has been denied his wings and is forced to assist those sentenced to `tooth fairy duty.'

No it's not going to be the best movie of the year; but if you have even a smidgen of a sense of humor, you will at the very least smile.

Buy Tooth Fairy (2010) Now

I must have missed something. I considered myself lucky to have laughed a couple of times, otherwise I found myself staring at my TV screen in total disbelief. This was a comedy?

Derek Thompson (Dwayne Johnson) aka, THE tooth fairy, is a washed up hockey player who gets his kicks crushing the dreams, hopes, and aspirations of children. He steals a dollar from his girlfriend's daughter then tells her there's no tooth fairy. Everything has consequences and he soon finds himself on the bad side of the head tooth fairy, Lily (Julie Andrews). His punishment, become a real tooth fairy for two weeks. What follows is a spate of slapstick, tooth jokes, and a whole lot of nastiness on the part of this over-the-hill hockey player.

Dwayne, as Derek, spends most of the film whining, pouting, and shouting while ginning like a psychotic lunatic at the oddest of times. He looked like a maniac. And let's not forget that he got his kicks from knocking out teeth and destroying the dreams of children; things he obviously enjoyed doing. Worse. Every time the audience is led to believe this repugnant idiot finally gets it and is about to be redeemed, he reoffends and does worse. That's a definite pattern of abuse not to be applauded (the fact that it's at the very heart and soul of this film is disturbing. The fact that it's a comedy is even more troubling). That this cretin keeps apologizing after every abuse then does something worse suggests that any form of a relationship with this guy is doomed. And that too is troubling. That this movie became a box office hit................!

Read Best Reviews of Tooth Fairy (2010) Here

I thought this movie would be so corny that I would have to turn it off after a few minutes, but to my surprise I really liked it! It's genuinely funny and fairly unpredictable. I was very pleasantly surprised. It's actually not just for kids, adults will enjoy this one as well.

Want Tooth Fairy (2010) Discount?

There hasn't been a Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson movie that's failed to deliver yet (as far as I'm concerned), but Tooth Fairy is the first disaster on his resume. He'll bounce back just fine, I'm sure, but this movie is as close to unwatchable as any movie I've seen.

I'm shocked at the majority of favorable reviews on here. I'm not sure if I was watching the same movie! Or maybe they watched the movie with their 5 year old kids, and the kids laughed and had a good time. But for an adult without children, this movie was a complete disaster.

Save 40% Off

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Monster (2003)

MonsterI watched Monster without any expectations, save knowing that it was a movie about two women. At the end of the screening, i was totally blown away. One, Charlize Theron gives a spectacular performance as 'serial killer' Aileen Wuornos. Her facial expressions and bodily movements strongly resemble that of the actual person (based on what i read). Secondly, the 'human' aspect of Aileen was brought out in the film, and despite her brutal killings, one can symphatise with aspects of her life which brought her to this point of no return when she started killing her johns. Thirdly, although Monster is primarily about Aileen the killer, yet the viewer is treated to a love story between Aileen and her lesbian lover. This is in many aspects, the driving force of the film and which makes the film memorable. Some prison psychologists had diagnosed Aileen as having Borderline personality disorder, which explains her behaviour of wanting to keep Selby Wall, her girlfriend (in real life, the girl's name is Tyria Moore) at all costs, despite the fact that Selby was at times a selfish, immature person who ultimately betrayed Aileen. The final scene of the 'confession' phone call (which basically nailed it for Aileen) is heartbreaking. Aileen basically took the fall for everything and absolved Selby of any blame. Even though the audience may sense a taste of Hollywood drama here, one must remember that in real life, Aileen did take the blame for everything, and even went to the extent of sending Tyria money while she was on death row. Perhaps this is a glimpse into a rare aspect of her life (which traditional documentaries on her never cover), which shows us that at the end of the day, she is a human being like the rest of us and despite her heinous crimes, she too longed to be loved and feel love. The betrayal scene will stick in my mind for a long time to come. I welcome emails on this film as i am interested to know more about the film as well as Aileen and her lover.

Charlize Theron gives a five star+ performance as the executed serial killer Aileen Wuornos, the monster in "Monster." I would have rated the movie the same, except it is just too filled with pain, desperation and hopelessness for me to rank it that high. The script is not particularly strong. We only get a glimpse into the life and mind of this woman, and we never discover what made her kill. Many abused women hate men, but they don't become serial killers. There is also a lot of repetition, as Wuornos goes through her pattern of solicitation, violence and anguish over and over again. Without Ms. Theron's magnificent acting the film would be rather mediocre.

Director Patty Jenkins begins Wuornos' story in 1989-90, just before she was caught and imprisoned. She portrays Aileen more as a victim than as a victimizer. Through an initial monologue and various dialogues the viewer learns of Aileen's very troubled childhood in Michican. Her father, a convicted child-molester, committed suicide. Aileen was raped repeatedly by a family friend, and she began prostituting herself when she was thirteen. Her only job had been as a hooker. I think Ms. Theron portrays Aileen as a woman suffering from serious mental illness. Her moods swing from suicidal depression to euphoric overconfidence. She had delusional periods where she believed that all her dreams would come true and that she was invincible. She is a tough talking lady who drinks too much and barely holds her rage beneath the surface.

It is during this period that she meets Selby (Christina Ricci is superb in this role.), a shy, naive teen, in a bar. Selby is a lesbian who wants to come out of the closet against her family's wishes. She is a misfit, without friends. So is Aileen. At first the two are so thrilled that they like each other that they are not alone anymore. Their desperate, mutual quest for affection culminates in this doomed relationship. To me the relationship is more about loneliness and emotional dependency than physical attraction. The honeymoon is short-lived, however. Selby had never been on her own before and for some reason, doesn't think to get a job. She expects Aileen to provide for them. She manipulates Aileen into continuing to work as a prostitute, even though she is aware of at least one murder. Jenkins suggests that as long as the money keeps coming in she will ask no questions. Wuornos tries to get work and go straight but has no job skills or experience. She winds up going back on the road as a prostitute again, and then, after a violent episode with a john, her rage takes over and the murders begin.

Charlize Theron does give an extraordinarily powerful performance as the serial killer. It is amazing how she was able to literally transform herself into a woman who looks exactly like the actual Aileen Wuornos, mannerisms and all. This transformation is not just make-up. She speaks like Wuornos, walks like her, with a masculine swagger, captures her intensity, and her eyes often hold a glint of madness.

The film is shot in a gritty style on the highway, streets, bars and motel rooms. The ambiance is pure sleaze, reflecting the true crime drama. Overall, the story is fascinating, as is the point of view. And, as I have said, the performances are simply excellent. Highly recommended!

JANA

Buy Monster (2003) Now

I really wish I could give this movie more then 5 stars because it truly deserves 100,"Monster" is possibly the best films ever made. Charlize Theron's performance has the highly interesting Aileen Wuornos is phenomenal! Christina Rucci performance has the native Selby works so well in contrast with Theron's strong and independent character that two have incredibly chemistry. The directing, the story line, acting, and everything else in the movie is remarkable and it all helps to show the pain in Alieen Wournos' lonely life. After trying to leave their horrific pasts behind new friends Alieen and Shelby move away together, but when money gets low, Alieen is forced to go back to prostitute lifestyle. But one night after Alieen is rapped, she kills the man and knows she just can't go on hooking again. But being the only way she can make money, she decides instead of having sexual relations, she'll murder the men and take their money. This sad and true story left me amazed and even forgiving. Please watch this movie, I promise you won't regret it.

Read Best Reviews of Monster (2003) Here

Though this film is brutally honest about Aileen 'Lee' Wuornos' crimes it does provoke some sympathy for her. Yes, she does kill many people (all men) but when you consider how many men battered her and raped her all through her life, even as a child, it's no surprise she became so psychotic.

And I don't think it's exactly fair that she got the death penalty. Surely it would have been best to help a woman who lived her entire existence in the dregs of society (which is surely to blame for sending her mad) than executing her.

Focusing entirely on Lee instead of the police investigations following her (there is a TV movie from the mid-90s that does exactly this if you're more interested), we see her straggle from thinking about suicide, hooking up with lonely, naive Selby (Christina Ricci), killing in self-defense and finally killing for revenge/money.

Charlize Theron completely vanishes as she brings her take on Lee (her full name is never mentioned in the film) to the screen. She sure deserved her Academy Award and Christina Ricca (who is very cute here) is also very good. However, for a lesbian couple I just didn't see any real feeling between them. It annoyed me how fast the film moved and there are not really many quiet moments for these two characters to bond in any way. Yes, they proclaim their love for each other but I just didn't see it. There was too much shouting and screaming.

There are no surprises in the film, as we all know how it ends anyway. But some of Lee's killings are harsh, compelling and even ironic. The overall effect of the film isn't so long-lasting on me though.

It's shot and lit like a TV movie and Lee's heavy judgment at the end of the film is played down. For a film that is slightly biased to her point of view it's annoying that her unfair trial and life are not exploited just a little bit more for us to gain a little extra insight into the making of a 'monster'.

Keep a lookout for Kane Hodder as an undercover cop near the end.

The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen with Dolby/DTS 5.1 sound and some slight extras.

Want Monster (2003) Discount?

"Monster" delves into the mind of the first female serial killer, Aileen Wuornos (Charlize Theron.) But it does not condone what she did or take sides. Instead, the film describes her life over the nine months after she found love with Selby (Christina Ricci); from 1989 to 1990. I really liked the narration/voiceover that Charlize did (as Aileen.) It lent a little credence to the movie and some humanity to Aileen, as well.

Charlize Theron very rightfully won the Academy Award for her portrayal of Aileen Wuornos. Charlize completely metamorphosed her entire look which was so eerie and uncanny because it was impossible to tell that she was acting in a movie. She also changed the sound of her voice, sounding exactly like the women she played. Charlize is a true actress and very deserving of the Best Actress nod from the Academy. Christina Ricci was also excellent playing the shy and introverted Selby, and has proven herself to be a very accomplished cinema actress.

The movie follows the tale of harried and hopeless Aileen Wuornos as she tries to pick up the pieces of her shattered and tattered life. When Aileen meets Selby it was almost love at first sight. Selby practically saved her life and for that Aileen was forever in her debt. I think my favorite scene was when they were together in the bed (that first night they met) and Selby asks Aileen if she could touch her face. Aileen seemed so sensitive and gentle.

Besides that horrible rape scene and other depictions of degradation (I really hated that scene with that scumbag cop that picked her up after her job interview), I also found the scenes when Aileen tried to look for work very bitter. No one would give her a chance or listen to her. She had no money, no education, no family; absolutely nothing. All the doors were loudly slammed in her face. Society gladly threw Aileen Wuornos away. She was just another hooker, why did it matter that she wanted to clean up her act? Charlize was especially perfect during these parts. Her look of rage, and total desperation was purely obvious.

Another aspect of this story that I found terribly sad was when Selby turned her back on Aileen. Aileen loved her more than her own life and she finally thought that she had a chance of happiness. Maybe Aileen also thought that she finally found a person that she could honestly trust. Maybe if Aileen never met Selby she would still be alive today?

I really liked the way the movie ended. It wasn't too deep or sad, instead I found it very surreal because it wasn't too weighty. The movie ended the way it started, with Aileen narrating to the viewers in her own sarcastic and comical way.

"Monster" did make me feel sorry for Aileen because she was obviously an incredibly broken person that was never given a fighting chance. Someone please tell me why is Aileen vilified while these horrible men that raped her and sexually abused her aren't? Whoever said it's a man's world sure wasn't kidding.

Save 25% Off

Sunday, April 27, 2014

V for Vendetta (2012)

V for Vendetta"V for Vendetta" is going to confuse a lot of people. Nevertheless, and make no mistake about it, this is movie making of the highest order, combining all the finest elements of great storytelling into a potent roller coaster of a movie filled with great action,intellect and above all, ideas. Its message can and will easily be dismissed by naysayers as sophomoric or too "out there," or "anti-american" but there is also an earnestness here that will resonate strongly, and perhaps, frighteningly, to many viewers who will not fail to see the correlation between this fictional tale and the way the world we live in works.

Filled with stereotypes and archetypes, "V" is unapologetic in its essaying of morality and in its strongly held sentiment that this tale is "for the people, by the people." Brothers and writers Larry and Andy Wachowski (of Matrix fame) have infused their screenplay with the anger, confusion and hope captured in Alan Moore's original graphic novel and it's better looking as a result.

I truly believe that many who see "V" will be upset by it, but hopefully more of us will be inspired by its bold, blatant message and take a good hard look at ourselves and the way the world works around us and see that, with sacrifice and thoughtfulness, the world can be changed.

As Evey, Natalie Portman is cast in something of the "victim" role, but she makes us route for her, and to her credit she goes beyond that making the transformation of her character not only believable, but in the end, noble.

Hugo Weaving the man behind the mask gives a performance that can only be described as mesmerizing. As "V" he exposes all of the strength and weakness of a character that is equal parts savior and villain.

The physical production is beautiful in its realism as it paints a nightmarish world of the not-very-distant future (2020) and is chilling in its depiction of governmental power, socio-political corruption and, ultimately, the complacency of its citizens. Weaving's "V" challenges, and ultimately changes all of that, as he quickly unravels the fabric of civilized society, capturing the public with his bold ideas and with the promise and permanancy of change through rebellion and political uprising.

Most chillingly, the film invokes the dread once feared in "1984" but with a renewed vigor that drives home the horrors Orwell foresaw, and still loom large in our comfy modern world. Chilling? You betcha! For those who know the novel, there is little skimping, and, given the current world situation, one must absolutely applaud the filmmakers for "going there" as far as the ending is concerned. This is film making at its emotional and challenging best.

Are there flaws? Of course there are, but ultimately "V for Vendetta" rises far above them in its presentation of a world filled with ideas that have forever been debated, and does it in a story well told, beautifully acted and full of hope for humankind. Not bad work for a movie. Actually, it's magnificent.

Alan Moore's decision to want his name off the final credits for the film adaptation of V for Vendetta now makes sense. Moore has had a hate/hate relationship with Hollywood and the film industry in general. They've taken two of his other works in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell and bollocks'd them up (to borrow a term used quite abit in V for Vendetta). Outside of Watchmen, Alan Moore sees V for Vendetta as one of his more personal works and after reading the screenplay adaptation of the graphic novel by The Wachowski Brothers his decision afterwards was to demand his name be removed from the film if it was ever made. Part of this was his hatred of the film industry for their past mistakes and another being his wish for a perfect adaptation or none at all. Well, V for Vendetta by James McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers is not a perfect film adaptation. What it turns out to be is a film that stays true to the spirit of Moore's graphic novel and given a modern, up-to-the-current news retelling of the world's state of affairs.

V for Vendetta starts off with abit of a prologue to explain the relevance of the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V throughout the film and the significance of the date of the 5th of November. I think this change in the story from the source material may be for the benefit of audiences who didn't grow up in the UK and have no idea of who Guy Fawkes was and what his Gunpowder Plot was all about. The sequence is short but informative. From then on we move on to the start of the main story and here the film adheres close enough to the source material with a few changes to the Evey character (played with skill that more than makes up for her Amidala performances) but not enough to ruin the character. Caught after curfew and accosted by the ruling government's secret police called Fingermen, Evey soon encounters V who saves her not just from imprisonment but rape.

Right from the start the one thing McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers got dead-on was casting Hugo Weaving as the title character. Voice silky, velvety and sonorous, Weaving infuses V with an otherworldly, theatrical personality. Whether V was speaking phrases from Shakespeare, philosophers or pop culture icons, the voice gave a character who doesn't show his face from behind the enternally-smiling Guy Fawkes mask real life. I'd forgiven the makers of this films for some of the changes they made to the story and some of the characters for keeping V as close to how Moore wrote him. Once V and Evey are thrown in together by the happenstance of that nightly encounter their fates became intertwined. Portman plays the reluctant witness to V's acts of terrorism, murders and destruction in the beginning, but a poignant and emotionally powerful sequence to start the second half of the film soon brings Evey's character not much towards V's way of doing things, but to understanding just why he's doing them. This sequence became the emotional punch of the whole film and is literally lifted word for word from the graphic novel. I heard more than just a few people sobbing in the theater as the scenes and story unfolded.

The rest of the cast seemed like a who's who of the British acting community. From Stephen Rea's stubborn and dogged Chief Inspector Finch whose quest to find V leads him to finding clues about his government's past actions that he'd rather have not found. Then there's Stephen Fry's flamboyant TV show host who becomes Evey's only other ally whose secret longings have been forbidden by the government, but who's awakened by V's actions to go through with his own form of rebellion. Then there's John Hurt as High Chancellor Adam Sutler who's seen chewing up the scenery with his Hitler-like performance through Big Brother video conferences (an ironic bit of casting since John Hurt also played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of the Orwell classic 1984). I really couldn't find any of the supporting players as having done a bad job in their performances. Even Hurt's Sutler may seemed over-the-top to some but his performance just showed how much of a hatemonger Sutler and in the end his Norsefire party really were in order to stay in power.

The story itself, as I mentioned earlier, had had some changes made to it. Some of these changes angered Moore and probably anger his more die-hard fans. I count myself as one of these die-hards, but I know how film adaptations of classic literary works must and need to trim some of the fat from the main body and theme of the story to fully translate onto the silver screen. The Wachowski Brother's screenplay did just that. They trimmed some of the side stories and tertiary characters from the story and concentrated on V, Evey and Inspector Finch's pursuit of both and the truth. This adaptation is much closer to how Peter Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings. As a fan of Moore I understood why he was unhappy with the changes. But then Moore is also an avowed perfectionist and only a perfect adaptation would do.

Already critics on both sides of the aisle have called V for Vendetta revolutionary, subversive, daring to irresponsible, propagandist. All because the film dares to ask serious questions about the nature and role of violence as a form of dissent. But the granddaddy question the film brings up that has people talking is the question: terrorist or freedom fighter? Is V one or the other or is he both? Make no mistake about it, V for all intents and purposes is a terrorist if one was to use the definition of what a terrorist is. The makers of this film goes to great lenghts to describe throughout the film just how Sutler and his Norsefire (with its iconic Nazi-like symbols and fundamentaist Christian thinking) party rose to power in the UK. Partly due to what seemed like the failed US foreign policy and its subsequent and destructive decline as a superpower and the worldwide panic and fear it began as a result. V for Vendetta also ask just who was to blame for allowing such individuals to rule over them. V has his reasons for killing these powers-that-be, but he also points out that people really should just look in the mirror if they need to know who really was to blame. For it was the population --whose desire to remain safe and have a semblance of peace --gave up more and more of their basic liberties and rights for a return to order. If one was to look at the past 100 years they would see that it's happened before. There was the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Milosevic's Greater Serbia, and the king of the hill of them all being Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Inner Circle.

Another thing about V for Vendetta that will surely talked about alot will be the images used in the film. Not just images and symbols looking so much like Nazi icons, but images from the current events sweeping the globe that has been shown time and time again in the news and written about in magazines and newspapers. The film shows people bound and hooded like prisoners from Abu Ghraib. The reason of the war on terror used time and time again by Sutler to justify why England and its people need him and his group to protect them by any means necessary. V for Vendetta seems like a timely film for our current times. Even with the conclusion of the film finally accomplishing what Guy Fawkes failed to do that night of November 5th some 400 plus years ago, V for Vendetta doesn't give all the answers to all the questions it raises. For some I'm sure this would be something that'll frustrate them. So much of people who go to watch thought-provoking films want their questions answered as clearly as possible and all of them. V for Vendetta doesn't answer them but gives the audience enough information to try and work it out themselves.

In final analysis, V for Vendetta accomplishes in bringing the main themes of Alan Moore's graphic novel to life and even does it well despite some of the changes made. It is a film that is sure to polarize the extreme left and right of the political pundits and commentators. But as a piece of thought-provoking and even as a politically subversive film, V for Vendetta does it job well. It is not a perfect film by any respect, but the story and message it tries to convey in addition to its value as a piece of entertainment mor than makes up for its flaws. V for Vendetta more than continues the current crop of seriously done comic book fillm adaptations (Batman Begins, X2, Sin City, and A History of Violence) but it also shows that Alan Moore's work can be adapted well to the screen when given to the right people. It may not be perfect and it may not make Alan Moore happy, but it comes close and more than makes up for LXG and From Hell.

Buy V for Vendetta (2012) Now

The brilliant Hugo Weaving excels and Natalie Portman redeems herself (Princess Amidala, anyone?) in this all-too-relevant film. This film deals with many of the issues relevant to politics today and brilliantly skewers many characters who will seem very familiar from current events politicians who exploit fear, blowhard talk-show hosts etc. Set in England after the demise of the US as a superpower, the film deftly refers to current political events as background to the rise of totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing. The central theme of the film is the trading of civil liberties for security, and the difficulty of undoing such a pact once it has been made.

The film also tackles many ethical issues such as vengeance and torture with what may be for some people uncomfortable conclusions.

Much has been written about Alan Moore (the original author) removing his name from the credits of the film, a decision which was based on the Wachowski Brothers (of Matrix fame) departing from the original text in their efforts to update it. However, the Wachowski's have created a masterpiece that adheres to the spirit of the original book whilst holding up a mirror to contemporary politics. Most importantly, the character of V (dandy, intellectual, mysterious) is largely untampered with.

Unsurprisingly for a film that is based on a comic book/graphic novel, the main characters almost border on archetypes, and this lends an appropriately comic-book feel to the film, and in this respect although it has no animation it has some similarity to films like Sin City.

The plot centers around the interaction of Hugo Weaving as V and Natalie Portman as Evey. Carefully-placed reveals allows us insight into the events that (literally) moulded V's worldview and show his conversion of Evey from timid obedientarian to revolutionary. Of particular note is Hugo Weavings ability to emote from behind a glossy, permanently-grinning mask. The mask (and I am not going to give any spoilers here) is of a character called Guy Fawkes, a would-be revolutionary who long ago was foiled in his attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in England.

Natalie Portman gives a convincing portrayal of the personal journey that Evey is persuaded to undertake, and John Hurt excels as the megalomaniacal Chancellor Sutler. All similarities between Hurt's Sutler and Adolf Hitler are of course completely intentional, as are the ruling party's insignia and oppressive behaviour both of which have definite Third Reich similarities. Hurt's performance would seem over the top if it were not for the fact that we regularly see the same hate-spewing histrionics from political pundits and talking heads. I would guess that Hurt modeled his performance on talk-show hosts every bit as much as the crack-pot dictators of the Second World War. It is no accident that when Hurt addresses the public, or even his political allies in private, he does so over a giant TV monitor.

To call the supporting cast excellent would be an understatement. Of particular note is Rupert Graves' brilliant portrayal of Dominic, the 'Voice Of London', a twisted, hate-filled talking head whose concentration-camp crimes are rewarded by a cushy job spewing vitriol over the airwaves on the government-controlled TV channel, a man so in love with his own persona that he even rants along to recordings of his own shows whilst in the shower. His diatribes are punctuated with catch-phrases such as "I'm a God-fearing Englishman!" and "England Prevails!". Also notable is Stephen Rea's portrayal of the beaten-down Inspector Finch, a man who has risen in the ruling party despite his not-quite-ethnically-pure family background and whose disillusionment with the party enables him to play a defining role in the plans of V and Evey.

Perhaps inevitably, despite providing the catalyst for societal change, V is ultimately consumed by his vengeance.

This film is not afraid to take on issues that many vendors of popular culture would shy away from, and that inevitably will invite criticism. However as the poet Hardy once said "If way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst". If you haven't already seen this film, get yourself a copy.

Read Best Reviews of V for Vendetta (2012) Here

This isn't a review of the actual film (there are plenty of reviews for that). I just wanted to give people an idea of what they're buying with this edition so as to avoid any potential disappointment. The following is an opinionated description of the contents:

The DVD package itself is identical to the two-disc widescreen special edition. Thumbs up.

The lenticular slipcase has three modes (red circle-V, circle-V in flames, movie poster). The lenticular part is pretty cool. However, the dimensions of the slipcase are not ideal. Both the DVD case and the book must be contained inside the slip case to ensure a snug fit and to avoid colapsing the slip case. Not so great.

However, the real sore spot for me is the inclusion of the "64-page 'V for Vendetta' graphic novel". It's not the complete graphic novel, but only the first half or so (spoiler: it ends when V appears in the coroner's / Larkhill doctor's bedroom). This was no mistake since the last page of the books states "to be continued in the 'V for Vendetta' graphic novel". Thus, while the marketing blurb is not an outright lie (had I done my homework, I would have known there was no way the graphic novel would fit in 64 pages, and would have thus avoided disappointment), the marketing is indeed misleading. Stating "Includes the first half of the 'V for Vendetta' graphic novel scaled to the size of a DVD case" would be much more accurate.

I would suggest not going out of your way or spending extra money for this edition over the two-disc special edition, unless you're out to collect an abridged version of the graphic novel. If you're interested in the graphic novel proper, I'm sure you'll know where to start your search.

Cheers, and I hope this helps.

Want V for Vendetta (2012) Discount?

One of the most unexpectedly pleasant movie surprises I've had this year was the Wachowski Brothers' brilliant screen adaptation of the DC Comics graphic novel, V For Vendetta.

It's not often you find yourself somewhat moved by something advertised as a Hollywood popcorn action movie, but V For Vendetta had that exact effect on me. After seeing the movie (twice), I bought the graphic novel and devoured it in about a day.

You see, even if it has been somewhat cleverly dressed up as a Hollywood popcorn movie, V For Vendetta is clearly a movie with a point to make. It's a story that has been told numerous times before (though not nearly enough lately given the times we live in) of the people rising up against an oppressive government. The closest comparison you would find in literature would be something like George Orwell's 1984.

The paradox of V For Vendetta lies in it's hero and central character, the mysterious (and sympathetic) masked terrorist known only as "V," expertly played beneath the mask by Hugo Weaving.

V is something of a cross between the masked serial killers of slasher fare, like Friday the 13th and Halloween, and the avenging angels of Reagan-era action movies like RoboCop and The Terminator. But in between blowing up government buildings to symphonic soundtracks and slicing and dicing his enemies with his ever so trusty knives, V is also something of a renaissance man.

He quotes Shakespeare, lives in a crypt like underground "Shadow Gallery" filled with priceless artifacts banned by the government, and dances alone to the torchy slow jazz songs on his own personal jukebox.

But "V" is no angel.

Make no mistake about it. "V" is a terrorist who has a vendetta with an agenda, which is what makes this such a fascinating film. You see, "V" is a sympathetic terrorist. Remember that scene in the movie "Independence Day" when the aliens blew up the White House? That scene actually had movie audiences cheering in the theatres. When V blows up the British Parliament, you likewise actually find yourself cheering him on, which is no small accomplishment given the post 9/11 era in which we live.

In a not too distant future, America has been destroyed by civil war and England is ruled by the iron fist of High Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt, who ironically played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of Orwell's 1984), with the aid of jackbooted goons called "The Fingermen," headed up by a very nasty guy named Creedy.

As the plot unfolds, it becomes apparent that the rise to power of Sutler, Creedy, and company comes through the exploitation of fear created by a national crisis that, as it turns out, they manufactured themselves. This may all sound quite familiar if you follow the various conspiracy theories floating about on the Internet about 9/11.

Anyway, it turns out that "V" was rounded up with the rest of the minorities, homosexuals, and other undesirables and placed in an internment camp once the goons took over. In the internment camp, some very nasty medical experiments took place which V survived. And now, V is pissed.

After he rescues damsel in distress Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman), an employee of the state run propaganda television network, from an attempted rape by a couple of the Fingermen goons, "V" takes her to the rooftops to watch him blow up a government building.

"Do you like music?" V asks Evey in one of this film's several great lines of dialogue as the 1812 Overture blares the soundtrack to the fireworks over loud speakers in the streets.

But V is just getting warmed up.

Turns out "V" has taken a cue from his spiritual mentor, 16th Century Catholic Guy Fawkes (whose mask he wears), and has decided to send a message to his oppressors by blowing up the British Parliament building on November 5th (the anniversary of Fawkes' original attempt to do the same). Leading up to that event, he slices and dices his way through an array of villains ranging from the fascist government's television propaganda mouthpiece to everyone's favorite pedophile Catholic priest.

Meanwhile, with the none too subtle assistance of "V" himself, Evey has her own spiritual and political epiphany and becomes his accomplice.

As I noted above, there are so many great lines of dialogue in this movie. I couldn't begin to note them all, but here are a few of my favorites:

"A revolution without dancing isn't one worth having."

"Beneath this mask lies an idea, and ideas are bulletproof."

And my personal favorite:

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Though cleverly disguised as a popcorn action picture, V For Vendetta is a movie that makes you think. Even as it entertains you by blowing things up and slicing and dicing it's way through all the bad guys (loved the knife trails in the fight scenes), there is a definite statement being made:

Question authority.

The double disc DVD comes with some great extras, too. In addition to a short documentary on the making of the film, there are features on the new wave of comics focusing on the eighties and nineties rise of the graphic novels which spawned V For Vendetta, as well as a history piece on the Guy Fawkes backstory which inspired it.

V For Vendetta is a thinking man's action picture. I loved this movie in the theatres and I loved watching it at home. It comes to your nearest video store August 1.

Save 33% Off

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)

The Greatest Story Ever ToldThis film is often compared with the 1961 "King of Kings", and "Jesus of Nazareth", but this one is by far my favorite of the three, because of the exquisite beauty of it, and Max von Sydow's powerful portrayal of Jesus; his performance has a strength and boldness that is lacking in the other two, and therefore for me much more believable. Sydow was only known to fans of Ingmar Bergman's films at the time, having starred in the Swedish director's "The Seventh Seal" among others, and was a surprise choice to play Jesus, and a good one. He does a marvelous job, and I especially like the scene after Lazarus has died...it is brilliant, and very moving.

George Stevens' vision of the story has a stark majesty, and is taken at a leisurely pace; it is also quite verbal, with some of the major events in the gospels not pictured, but spoken of instead.

Filmed in Arizona and Utah, the cinematography by Loyal Griggs, who took over from William Mellor when Mellor passed away during filming, is glorious. There are scenes that have the composition and balance a fine painting, with extraordinary detail, often framed by doorways or windows, and it's a film I never tire of just looking at. Graphic artists should make a point to see this film, as there is much that can be learned from it. Alfred Newman also wrote a lovely score (with a little help from G. F. Handel) which adds to the aesthetic appeal of this film.

In the huge star-studded cast, some performances are truly memorable, like Claude Rains as a bitter and devious Herod, and Jose Ferrer excellent as his son Herod Antipas; Charlton Heston's ferocious, wild-man John the Baptist is impassioned and perhaps more like the actual Baptist than some of the tamer portrayals.

With its huge budget (over 20 million in 1965 dollars) it was a critical and commercial failure when it was released, but it has had a long life, and is being watched today while some successful films of the mid-'60s quite forgotten, and will continue to be appreciated by everyone who likes Bible epics. It was however, nominated for 4 Academy Awards: Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Color Cinematography, Costume Design, and Original Score, losing out in all those categories to "Doctor Zhivago". There is "artistic license" taken with the story, but overall, it is a reverential, fairly accurate telling.

Total running time is 196 minutes.

"The Greatest Story Ever Told" is certainly the most reverential treatment of the life of Jesus. The 1965 movie was based on the book by Fulton Oursler, which integrated the four Gospels into a single narrative. To appreciate this task just look at the different versions of what Jesus said on the cross according to each Gospel. Reconciling the various versions is not an easy task and while viewers may question some of the specific choices, the only really significant alteration is the death of Judas by throwing himself into the sacrificial pit of the Great Temple, a symbolism that is unnecessarily heavy handed.

The choice of Max Von Sydow to play Jesus is an interesting selection to say the least. His slight Swedish accent and closely cropped beard are certainly in keeping with the reverential tone of the film, but I can not help wondering if this was something of a reaction to the more populist Jesus portrayed by Jeffrey Hunter in "King of Kings." After all, this was 1965 and the Beatles invasion was underway making male hair length a hot issue. This is a Jesus who is too solemn and too sedate for the most part. There is a nice moment where one of the new disciples comments that he likes Jesus' name. The smile and "Thank you" that follow are one of the few glimpses of the charisma of the man from Galilee.

The strength of the film is in the gorgeous cinematography by William C. Mellor (who died on the set of a heart attack) and Loyal Griggs, and scene composition under the direction of George Stevens. The opening narration goes from the opening verses of John shot over ancient Christian murals to a shot of the manager, ending with a shot of the hand of the baby Jesus as the narrator announces in a most simple manner, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." The juxtaposition of images and moments from the live of Jesus is prevalent throughout the film. When Mary and Joseph return from Egypt they travel the road to Nazareth that is lined with the crucified victims of the Roman occupation. The voice of John the Baptist is first heard over a series of aerial shots covering the many miles traveled by all those who came to hear him make straight the way of the Lord.

Stevens shows a deft touch in the large scenes involving crowds. The resurrection of Lazarus is down in a long shot, with the focus more on the faces of those who are witnessing the miracle rather than on the actual emergence from the tomb. To the finale of the Hallelujah Chorus a trio of the faithful ran across the plain to the gates of Jerusalem to spread the good news. There is also a wonderful scene of the confrontation between the Roman soldiers and the crowd that had come to the Temple to hear Jesus preach at night. The film also contains some nice small touches. When Pilate presents Jesus to the people, the figure of Satan strides through the crowd to utter the first demand for crucifixion. When Mary Magdalene remembers the promise of the resurrection and Thomas proclaims his disbelief, Peter looks up and sees the smiling face of Lazarus. The musical score by Alfred Newman, Hugo Friedhofer and Fred Steiner is wonderfully attuned to what is on the screen.

The main problem is not that there are so many stars in this film-Charlton Heston is an imposing John the Baptist, and Jose Ferrer as Herod Antipas, Sal Mineo as Uriah, and Van Heflin as Bar Amand all perform admirably-but rather the cameo appearances that invariably detract from the moment. It is one thing to recognize David McCallum, Jamie Farr and Russell Johnson in "before they were stars" roles, but it is quite another to suddenly see Sidney Portier help carry the cross or John Wayne silhouetted against the darkening sky as a Roman Centurion. While such cameos may have worked in "The Longest Day" or "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" during the heyday of the fad, they most certainly do not work in this film.

I was surprised to learn this movie was filmed around the Lake Powell region of Arizona, having always assumed it had been filmed in the Holy Land. I would be interested to know which scenes were directed without credit by David Lean (who was finishing up "Doctor Zhivago" at the time) and Jean Negulesco ("Johnny Belinda" and the 1953 "Titanic"). I want to resist the impulse to credit my favorite scenes to Lean rather than Stevens.

The reverential tone of the film ends up hurting the pacing so that it seems overlong at 3 hours and 14 minutes. Ultimately I prefer the vitality of Zefferelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" and the monumental performance of Robert Powell as the quintessential Jesus. But there are several lovely moments in "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and I always end up screening one version at Christmas and the other at Easter. The print obviously needs to be RESTORED and the film really should be seen in the widescreen format, although that makes the credits impossible to read.

Buy The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Now

This movie is one of the most beautifully filmed and the restoration to its original splendor attests to this. It is faithful to scripture and sets forth the message of Jesus in a classic style.

The film itself is generally well done, although it falls somewhat short in its sanitized depiction of the passion. However, most of the film is absorbing and the numerous "celebrity" cameos no longer (as time goes by) are the distraction they once were. John Wayne's "Truly this man was the Son of God" centurion is an exception. Claude Rains as Herod the Great, Jose Ferrer as Herod Antipas and (surprisingly) Ed Wynnn as the blind man healed by Jesus give powerful performances.

The movie is worthy of anyone's library and is a great companion to The Passion of the Christ.

Read Best Reviews of The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Here

Although I prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" over all the Biblical films depicting the life of Christ, this film comes in at a close second ("King of Kings" is enjoyable although loses most of it's luster when compared to "Greatest"). Max Von Sydow (with those piercing blue eyes) turns in a notewrothy portrayal as Jesus and should have at least gotten an Oscar nod for his performance. Charlton Heston with his booming, commanding voice and rugged, masculine physique is the idyllic John the Baptist and should have been an Oscar contender in the supporting actor catagory, Dorothy McGuire is radiant as the Virgin Mary ( even if she does have a small role--which should not have been so relegated) and Jose Ferrer gives a wry, yet somewhat gruff portrayal of Herod Antipas while Claude Raines is a terrifying Herod the Great. Telly Savales is rather mediocre as Pontius Pilate, Angela Lansbury as his wife Claudia, should have had more than one line and John Wayne should never have been offered a part in the film. Despite the few minor flaws this is an enjoyable film and does not lack the essence of the Gosples.

Want The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) Discount?

The Greatest Story Ever Told is a huge epic movie that boasts an impressive cast full of Hollywood notables. The movie follows the life of Jesus from his birth in a stable in Bethlehem to his teachings with his disciples all the way to his crucifixion and Resurrection. Because the film is so huge, many parts of the life of Jesus are just skipped over and talked about later by characters who saw it happen or heard about it. This is surprisingly effective to show how quickly Jesus' notoriety spread throughout the area. There are several very good scenes done with no sound except for Alfred Newman's fantastic score even though we know people in the background are screaming at Jesus as he walks by carrying the cross. One particularly effective scene involves Simon of Cyrene, played by Simon Poitier, helping Jesus carry the cross after he has fallen. As Jesus gets up, he grabs onto Simon's arm who helps him go on. It is a very short scene, but nonetheless very moving.

The cast for this movie could go on for pages. Max von Sydow gives an excellent performance as Jesus Christ, although he might not look like the usually accepted idea of Jesus. Charlton Heston and Telly Savalas also give very good performances as John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. The film also stars David McCallum as Judas, Jose Ferrer as Herod Antipas, Dorothy McGuire as Mary, Martin Landau as Ciaphias, Donald Pleasence as Satan(although he is credited as the Dark Hermit), and many others. The film also stars Michael Anderson JR, Roddy McDowall, Victor Buono, Ed Wynn, Sal Mineo, Ina Balin, Carroll Baker, Van Heflin, Jamie Farr, and so many more. There are several very small cameos most notably John Wayne, Shelley Winters, Sidney Poitier, and Claude Rains all of which are pretty good for how small they are. The Special Edition DVD offers the widescreen presentation, theatrical trailer, making of documentary, an altered scene during the crucifixion scene, still gallery, and a filmmaker's documentary. For an excellent look at the life of Jesus, if somewhat sanitized, check out The Greatest Story Ever Told!

Save 45% Off

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Infernal Affairs (2002)

Infernal Affairs'Infernal Affairs' is the biggest box-office hit in Hong Kong in 2002, and if you see it, you won't be surprised with that fact. The film's premises are very simple; it's about a cop who is actually a gangster, and a gangster who is really a cop. With this clever version of 'undercover' theme (that was previously seen in the films like 'Donnie Brasco'), 'Infernal Affairs' presents as much tension and humanity as was seen in that Johnny Depp/Al Pacino film.

Ming (Andy Lau, 'House of Flying Daggers') is a young mole in the Honk Kong police, whose real boss is Sam, head of the Triads. He has been in police force for nearly ten years, and starts to doubt his life while faithfully swears his loyality to Sam.

At the same time, Yan (Tony Leung, 'In the Mood for Love') is an undercover cop, who has been in Sam's Triad for ten years. His superior officer Wong (Anthony Wong) is the only one who knows his real identity in the police, and Yan is also getting fed up with the life based on lies.

As the poilce force confronts the Triads, both Ming and Yan attempt to help their side anticipate the moves of the other. Finally, both sides realize that there are moles among them, and investigations and revenges make these characters lives more complex and unbearable.

DO NOT EXPECT the martial arts or so-called actions. This is a noir, and that means that it is the characters that matter, or their lives. I know, though the story is simple, it needs leap of faith. But the portraits of the people, and the pains of keeping on pretending what they are not, are vividly presented that the audiences will be sucked into the turmoil of their emotions. And the results are often nerve-shattering.

ANd the acting is all top-notch. I hear the talk of Hollywood remakes, which, I am afraid, is a tough work to do. Lau and Leung are both perfect, but more fantastic are Anthony Wong as police inspector and Eric Tsang as Triad boss. Their performances are so magnificient, even sublime at times, that you will stop caring which side would ultimately win.

Helped greatly by the moody camera (Andrew Lau and Lai Yiu Fai & 'visual consultant' Christopher Doyle, 'Rabbit Proof Fence'), 'Infernal Affairs' tells you that without John Woo Hong Kong movie industry can still produce excellent films with a touch of reality.

'Infernal Affairs' is part of trilogy, and you will see 'IA II' and 'IA III' sooner or later. 'Infernal Affairs' is the one you are watching now; 'Infernal Affairs II' is a prequel to it; and 'Infernal Affairs III' is a sequel to the original. But remember, the series is not the usual Hollywood commercial tactics to cash in on the hit movie, for some say '2' is better than the original. That's the only reason I don't give 5 stars, which 'Infernal Affairs' certainly deserves.

There are some very good reviews already posted about "Infernal Affairs", although they got some minor facts wrong (such as which actor played which role). This review will look at differences between this film and "The Departed"--for Scorsese fans who enjoyed his version and now wonder if they should see the original.

Yes, they should see the original.

Scorsese did a remake which followed the original storyline closely. Scorsese's style, as always, is marvelous. His work is more controlled than usual--no digressions into extended violent scenes (as in Casino, although "The Departed" film is much more violent than "Infernal Affairs"), no plot diversions into draft riots during the Civil War...etc.

However, the Scorsese film--which I enjoyed and was his best film in years--left me unsatisfied, while "Infernal Affairs" was extremely satisfying. Both films are tragedies, but the drama is far more deeply felt (for me) in "Infernal Affairs" than in "The Departed".

Why?

The answer lies in the difference in approach between the film making cultures of Hong Kong and Hollywood. Between what each culture feels the audience wants. Between the pressures of a higher budget and bigger stars. Scorsese, whether the actors asked for it or not, clearly felt a need to give the principal actors meatier roles. The film brothers who made the Hong Kong original only wanted to get the job done--a crisp story that did what it needed to, and then got out.

The Hollywood version takes a lot of time to provide additional detail to the story to flesh out the characters and give them showy scenes. "The Departed" runs about forty minutes longer than "Infernal Affairs". It adds a love interest (which really goes nowhere) and a lot of character details. Probably worse...

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

...the Scorsese film attempts "justice" at the end. It is perhaps an American need to tie up loose ends, to make things right. Maybe it is the pressure stemming from a bigger budget, and needing to satisfy a larger audience. But dramatically, the Hong Kong version had it much better.

REALLY SPOILERS, REALLY! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE DEPARTED!!!! STOP!!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU???

In the Scorsese version, an additional character, played by Mark Whalberg, is added to create justice--someone, in the end, to bump off the Matt Damon character. The problem with this is dual. First, it creates a huge plot hole--if Whalberg is around, then there is someone to prove that the DiCaprio character is really a cop, so much of how the film ends simply makes no sense at all. DiCaprio does not need to get Damon to prove he is an undercover cop if Whalberg is around. And, why does Whalberg remain in the background instead of going directly to his superiors? Why does DiCaprio not seek out Whalberg?

No, sorry Marty. None of it really works. Whalberg is only there to kill Damon in the end.

But this is very misguided. I personally felt a lot of involvement with the DiCaprio character. When the bad stuff happened to him, I felt the tragedy, but when Whalberg bumps off Damon, I felt cheated.

If the movie was going after justice, why not just have an ending with DiCaprio living? But this is the big budget American idea of entertainment, I guess--a more or less happy ending, even if it completely screws up the story.

So while I enjoyed the film, I walked out unsatisfied.

Then I watched, a few days ago, the Chinese original. The ending is far more cynical, and as a result works a lot better. There is no Whalberg character, no big plot hole. In addition, the film was faster and cleaner, much less showy. No bigger role for Nicholson to strut his stuff. No extraneous love interest. Not as much explicit violence to give the audience a cheap thrill.

Less Hollywood over the top and pandering to the audience was what makes "Infernal Affairs" the superior film--and one worth buying, as you'll never see it on tv.

Oh well, guess this means Scorsese will send Joe Pesci after me!

Buy Infernal Affairs (2002) Now

Infernal Affairs begins as young police cadet named Chan Wing Yan (Tony Leung) is being groomed by the highest ranks of the Academy to eventually become an inside man for the police. His keen eye and steady dimeaner makes him the perfect candidate to infiltrate the Triads, who have taken control of Hong Kong's streets and are peddling massive amounts of drugs to it's citizens. At the same time, a different road is laid out for fellow Academy officer Lau Kin Ming (Andy Lau). Although we aren't witness to the actual path he takes, Ming becomes Yan's counterpart in the film, as he uses his position within the higher ranks of the police department to keep Triad Boss Sam a step ahead of any police actions. Sam is deftly played by Eric Tsang, who gives a highly effective, authentic performance here. What follows is one of the best table-turning, catch-me-if-you-can cop stories ever put to film.

Often compared with another great epic, Heat, Infernal Affairs is quicker, brighter and goes down in 40 minute less time. It's apparent why this film became a smashing success in Asia and in turn, exploded onto the world scene. Spawning a sequel (which is actually a prequel) and then a third installment.

Returning to the story; Yan, after leaving the Academy and subsequently earning his chops

on the street as a Triad footman for 10 years, becomes a member deep in Sam's inner circle. Yan continues to work directly and exclusively with Superintendent Wong (played by Anthony Wong) feeding him information that Wong puts to good use. He brings that information to his most elite police team led by Officer Ming, who unbeknownst to Wong, relays it back to the Triads. Ming showcases his moxie and stealth inside an active command center, feeding police channels and locations to Sam in real-time, within five feet of fellow officers. Yan, at the same time, finds a way to keep Wong informed. A brilliantly scripted Felix Chong & Siu Fai Mak screenplay lends weight, tension and gravity to even the simplest scenes. Finally, Wong is able to get Sam brought in to be interviewed, but by that time, they both know that each has an undercover man inside their particular camps. In a Pacino/DeNiro-esque face-off, Wong and Sam smugly challenge each other to find their respective moles. The rest of the film is yours to enjoy.

One aspect of this film that gets as much attention and kudos as the characters themselves

is Chan Kwong Wing's stellar, powerful, moody soundtrack. The original score begins the

film along with sweeping, abstract visuals that flow gracefully across the screen, accompanied by the undulating score. What stuck with me in particular (as a first time listener to his work) was the alternately light, then heavy drum tracks as they scurried from front to back, left to right, left-rear to right-rear and diagonally back; washing the entire room with energy and life. The mood shifted from forceful grandeur to intricate suspicion and back again. The perfect audio preview to what was to follow. Deep inside the film is a heart-wrenching female vocal track that seems to signal the true beginning to Yan and Ming's respective gambits toward finding out each another, and when she sings again, yet another chapter begins to take shape. It's brilliant in depth and scope. Never a track out of step with the film and only the most appropriate volume and energy. So rarely does a soundtrack fall into line and dance so well with a film. So rarely does one set the tone for a film.

Infernal Affairs is loaded with subterfuge and intrigue. We're privy to both sides of the proverbial infiltration equation from the start, but this formula gets more complex with near misses and natural character evolutions, even as the story itself appears to begin it's resolution. At least that's what I found. There is a touch generic cop vs. cop to it (if I must find a flaw), with a couple classic stand-offs, but very little mano a mano conflict. The film's confrontations are wholly group against group; good against bad. That can't be ignored. The beauty of the film is in the interaction. It has all of the elements of many crime dramas, but Infernal Affairs is genuine and sophisticated like none other.

Read Best Reviews of Infernal Affairs (2002) Here

This is one of those movies you want to tell people about, coming from someone who's not really a Hong Kong film aficionado.

It has a simple but ingenious plot, first-rate acting, nice dollops of suspense and gunplay and a satisfying ending.

Simply put, a Triad boss places a young, up-and-coming gangster in the police academy to become a mole. Simultaneously, the police pull an up-and-coming cadet OUT of school, to become a Triad mole.

Ten years later, both moles still exist, and are entrusted by their respective bosses to, bluntly, find themselves.

The two scenes where the good guys and the bad guys dizzily interlace during attempted crimes are real corkers...as good as anything I've seen in years.

You can't watch this film and NOT think of Michael Mann's "Heat"...the cinematography, the urban gun fights, the two mercurial leads...and the rumors of a Scorsese remake only add to my fascination with this movie.

The thing keeping this from a five-star experience is that there are a few peripheral characters that feel like they should be more important, but they're not. There were a few characters who appear once or twice, but are all given these meaningful shots at the film's conclusion...

Maybe if I had seen more HK cinema, I would understand more...but I'll tell you, this is a great movie period, whether you think you like "foreign films" or not.

Want Infernal Affairs (2002) Discount?

I decided to check out Infernal Affairs after it got a lot of positive word of mouth at the Denver International Film Festival a couple years ago. I was not disappointed. The storyline is immediately engaging, as the police and a major crime gang each place an undercover member into the opposing organization. From that point on, the groups race against each other to find the mole that has infiltrated their ranks. The storyline's twists and turns keep the viewer guessing until the very end. The movie is fast-paced and suspenseful throughout.

Martin Scorsese is currently shooting a remake of this film. The American version will be called The Departed. I question whether a remake is necessary, since Infernal Affairs easily stands on its own, and as it is it should be accessible to American audiences. However, since Scorsese always puts his own stamp on his works, I'm eager to see his take on this fascinating thriller.

Save 25% Off