50/50 (2011)

This might just be my new favorite film.

I went to see this, primarily, because I've always loved the previous works of both Joseph Gordon-Levitt as well as Seth Rogen. The premise, a young man is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and tries to cope with it through humor, was appealing too. On a small sidenote: I'm from Vancouver and the majority of the movie was filmed there, so that was a pleasant surprise.

Adam is 27 years old and is shocked when he is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer on his spinal cord. He relies on his hilarious best friend, Kyle (Seth Rogen); his unreliable girlfriend, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard); and his overbearing mother, Diane (Angelica Houston), while he struggles with chemotherapy, doctor's appointments and losing all his hair. His interactions with each of these characters are ultimately hilarious, even when they aren't intended to be. Along the way his doctor sends him to a therapist named Katherine (Anna Kendrick), who is wet behind the ears but wants to specialize in helping cancer patients cope with their diagnoses.

Kyle is a very genuine character who wants to do everything he can to help Adam, although he stumbles along the way. He also takes advantage of Adam's situation as a way to meet girls, much to Adam's chagrin. He makes light of the situation whenever the chance arises, but shows himself to be a very sincere friend at every opportunity. Seth Rogen, actually playing the role he embodied in the real life story this movie is based on, is perfect as the somewhat dimwitted, but loveable best friend.

Rachel is the villain, if there is one. She is a typical flighty young woman who is torn between feeling guilty about Adam's condition and feeling freaked out and trapped by it. The audience can't help but dislike her from the get-go, which ultimately grows into loathing. Bryce Dallas Howard does really well in this role.

Diane is the kind of mom that almost everyone can relate to, whether as their own mother or one of a friend or loved one. She throws herself off the emotional cliff as soon as Adam tells her about this cancer, doing her utmost to support him, even when he keeps her at arms' length.

Katherine, the love interest, is a young woman who genuinely wants to connect with her patients, but who is, at the same time, insecure about her lack of professional experience. She connects with Adam (despite his initial reluctance) and ends up struggling with going above and beyond the appropriate protocol as a therapist.

Last, but never least, Adam: Adam is the everyman. He is hopeful, idealistic and passionate about his job as a radio broadcaster. He is committed to his girlfriend, whom he adores, despite her aloof behavior. He has a tight relationship with his best friend. He loves his mother, but avoids her at all costs because of her smothering behavior. His sudden cancer diagnosis throws his life into a tailspin, but he spends the majority of the movie trying to remain calm and rational about it. He makes friends with his fellow chemotherapy patients, he allows his best friend to use his cancer diagnosis as a way to garner the sympathy of pretty girls, he (reluctantly) follows his insensitive doctor's advice to talk to a therapist about his cancer. As one thing after another seems to go wrong we see him unravel and I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance was downright inspirational. He teeters back and forth between denial, anger, despair, pain, fear and humor. Although this role might not be typical Oscar fare, I think a nomination was definitely earned.

The story of 50/50 is based on the real life experience of the writer, Will Reiser. He was diagnosed with spinal cancer at the age of 26 while he was working on Da Ali G show with Seth Rogen. Rogen, much like the character of Kyle, supported Reiser and tried to help him cope through the use of humor. Fortunately, Reiser beat cancer and is alive today to tell the story he went through. Although this movie is a comedy it has an equal number of dramatic moments and is incredibly touching. You'll be struggling not to cry at moments. Making cancer funny is a tricky thing and could easily crash and burn in offending audiences, but Reiser pulls it off beautifully. You won't feel guilty laughing at humorous moments and you'll still empathize with the characters and each of their individual challenges.

I will definitely be picking this up on blu-ray as soon as it's released. Go check it out.

I can tell that this was inspired by the true story of screenwriter Will Reiser. He has got every detail down so perfectly that it would either be that or that the man was sharing an esp channel with cancer patients. His protagonist is diagnosed with spinal cancer. This is 27 year old Adam, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He discovers his is a rare form of spinal cancer with 50-50 odds of surviving it. It has not yet metastasized so they will try to shrink it with chemo first and then operate.

Seth Rogen plays his crude, loud, yet amazingly supportive best friend. Touchingly he even sneak reads on the side a book about going through cancer with someone. He provides the perfect foil for Adam.

Adam makes and loses relationships along the treatment way, which is also very normal. Some people are just better at coping with grave illness than others' are and if one has never had to move beyond a certain level of commitment to people, it can be neigh unto impossible to cope with it.

One of the best turns of the whole film is the role of his smothering but loving mother. I kept saying to myself, why does the actress playing the Jewish mother so brilliantly look so familiar? I then almost fell off the sofa as I realized that it was Angelica Huston (who was raised by her loud, boisterous Irish father so is not a Jewish mother at all in real life). Huston, however, not too long ago lost her long time spouse under similar catastrophic illness circumstances so I can see why she was a natural for the role.

Adam even manages to connect with one of his medical workers played by Anna Kendrick. She brings a lot of humor to the role as he is but her third patient. She is interning as a therapist on the way to her PhD in psychology. What she lacks in polish, she makes up with sincerity and compassion.

I am a cancer patient and this film is totally authentic. It is not depressing. This is a trial in this character's life and you see him go through this trial. You live your life while you have cancer. It is another life event which sometimes ends in your death. You don't suddenly become another person with cancer. You are the same person facing a terribly difficult ordeal, which may be terminal. But then again, there is always one life event which always ends up bringing one's death. On that the odds are 100%.

Buy 50/50 (2011) Now

Striking the right balance and tone has got to be an incredibly difficult thing to do when you are centering a comedic picture around a serious topic such as cancer. I suppose that's why we see so few cancer comedies--it just isn't a particularly amusing topic. On TV, Showtime has a Laura Linney helmed program called "The Big C" which addresses cancer as its principle theme. That program, however, (despite being beloved by many, so send me your hate mail) has the deck stacked with wacky caricatures and unbelievable situations that make it almost unbearably over-the-top. Maybe that's why "50/50" was an incredible surprise! It's easy to see why its perfectly measured screenplay has won numerous year-end accolades because the story deftly juggles the hilarious with the heartfelt. This is comedy that comes from a very real place with exceedingly believable characters, and yet--it is also surprisingly hard-edged and never devolves into sentimental treacle. In a word, the film's tone is perfect. With its smart screenplay and a wondrous lead performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, "50/50" is easily one of my favorite films of 2011.

Gordon-Levitt plays a relatively uptight professional whose life is upended when he is diagnosed with a particularly nasty strain of cancer in his back. Reeling from the news, he tries to carry on as normal as possible. But outside influences and those who care about him soon start breaking down some of the carefully erected barriers he's hid behind his whole life. Seth Rogan as his obnoxious best friend, Anjelica Huston as his somewhat estranged mother, Anna Kendrick as his hospital therapist, Bryce Dallas Howard as his girlfriend, and Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer as his chemotherapy partners round out one of the most effective ensembles of the year. Of course, when you're facing death--you figure out how precious life is and who is always going to be by your side. From a plotting standpoint, "50/50" may follow a somewhat expected course--but it is distinguished in the details and the performances. As Rogan pushes Gordon-Levitt to leverage his disease for moments of debauchery, the scenes expertly mix the disturbing with the hilarious with the real.

If you're looking for just another lightweight sex comedy, this might be a little heavy. But any emotional investment is earned and worth it. I laughed out loud frequently AND experienced many instances where I was genuinely moved. But the movie and its great screenplay (inspired by writer and Rogan's pal Will Reiser's real story) never turns into a maudlin weepy. It may be one of the least manipulative films to deal with a fatal disease that I've seen in years, and I mean that as a huge compliment. There are certain actors that I will follow on faith, and through the years Joseph Gordon-Levitt has become one of those people. He has managed his career with precision, bouncing between indie and mainstream fare as well as lead and supporting roles. I always appreciate a young actor who is willing to take chances, to pick roles and movies that they're passionate about or that might challenge them. Gordon-Levitt rose to the top of his generation with an eclectic bounty of great performances in oddball films (Brick, Mysterious Skin, The Lookout) and, in my opinion, recently served up Oscar caliber work in "(500) Days of Summer" and stole every scene he was in during "Inception." "50/50" is a worthy addition to his resume. I absolutely loved it! KGHarris, 12/11.

Read Best Reviews of 50/50 (2011) Here

As someone who has had and survived cancer in there 20's....was dumped when diagnosed....and found out who really is and will always be there for me and love me, this movie truly hit home. Yes it's a comedy, but I also wept like a baby. This movie is well made, great acting, and brings you through a real roller coaster of emotions. I loved this movie....loved.

Want 50/50 (2011) Discount?

Striking the right balance and tone has got to be an incredibly difficult thing to do when you are centering a comedic picture around a serious topic such as cancer. I suppose that's why we see so few cancer comedies--it just isn't a particularly amusing topic. On TV, Showtime has a Laura Linney helmed program called "The Big C" which addresses cancer as its principle theme. That program, however, (despite being beloved by many, so send me your hate mail) has the deck stacked with wacky caricatures and unbelievable situations that make it almost unbearably over-the-top. Maybe that's why "50/50" was an incredible surprise! It's easy to see why its perfectly measured screenplay has won numerous year-end accolades because the story deftly juggles the hilarious with the heartfelt. This is comedy that comes from a very real place with exceedingly believable characters, and yet--it is also surprisingly hard-edged and never devolves into sentimental treacle. In a word, the film's tone is perfect. With its smart screenplay and a wondrous lead performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, "50/50" is easily one of my favorite films of 2011.

Gordon-Levitt plays a relatively uptight professional whose life is upended when he is diagnosed with a particularly nasty strain of cancer in his back. Reeling from the news, he tries to carry on as normal as possible. But outside influences and those who care about him soon start breaking down some of the carefully erected barriers he's hid behind his whole life. Seth Rogan as his obnoxious best friend, Anjelica Huston as his somewhat estranged mother, Anna Kendrick as his hospital therapist, Bryce Dallas Howard as his girlfriend, and Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer as his chemotherapy partners round out one of the most effective ensembles of the year. Of course, when you're facing death--you figure out how precious life is and who is always going to be by your side. From a plotting standpoint, "50/50" may follow a somewhat expected course--but it is distinguished in the details and the performances. As Rogan pushes Gordon-Levitt to leverage his disease for moments of debauchery, the scenes expertly mix the disturbing with the hilarious with the real.

If you're looking for just another lightweight sex comedy, this might be a little heavy. But any emotional investment is earned and worth it. I laughed out loud frequently AND experienced many instances where I was genuinely moved. But the movie and its great screenplay (inspired by writer and Rogan's pal Will Reiser's real story) never turns into a maudlin weepy. It may be one of the least manipulative films to deal with a fatal disease that I've seen in years, and I mean that as a huge compliment. There are certain actors that I will follow on faith, and through the years Joseph Gordon-Levitt has become one of those people. He has managed his career with precision, bouncing between indie and mainstream fare as well as lead and supporting roles. I always appreciate a young actor who is willing to take chances, to pick roles and movies that they're passionate about or that might challenge them. Gordon-Levitt rose to the top of his generation with an eclectic bounty of great performances in oddball films (Brick, Mysterious Skin, The Lookout) and, in my opinion, recently served up Oscar caliber work in "(500) Days of Summer" and stole every scene he was in during "Inception." "50/50" is a worthy addition to his resume. I absolutely loved it! KGHarris, 12/11.

Save 41% Off

Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984)

Do you ever remember your dreams? I rarely do...unless they are of the really intense kind and I wake up during the dream, and even then the images tend to slip from my conscious like grains of sand through your hand. Why am I bothering telling you this? Well, I needed some kind of opener for my review of Dreamscape (1984), a film that deals with dreams and such, and this was the best I could come up with at the time, lame as it may be...directed by Joseph Ruben, who later did Sleeping with the Enemy (1991) and Money Train (1995), Dreamscape presents quite a cast with Dennis Quaid, Max Von Sydow, Christopher Plummer, Kate Capshaw, Eddie Albert, and even George Wendt (Norm!).

Dennis Quaid plays Alex Gardner, a young man of fantastic psychic abilities who has since dropped off the radar, preferring to use his `gifts' to manipulate women and pick winners at the horse track, rather than continuing to subject himself to an endless series of tests meant to study and learn of his abilities, tests conducted by Doctor Paul Novotny (Von Sydow). Seemingly content to squander his skills, Alex's path once again leads him back to Dr. Novotny and his assistant, Jane DeVries (Capshaw) as they've developed a machine that would allow someone with Alex's talents to enter the dreams of others, and possibly help those plagued with reoccurring nightmares, specifically in the President (Albert) who is suffering from apocalyptic dreams that are beginning to affect his ability to do his job. Seemingly concerned with the President's well being, Bob Blair (Plummer), government head of Dr. Novotny's project and shadowy leader of an intelligence group even the CIA fears requests Dr. Novotny assist in relieving the President of these nightmares, but we soon learn he has other plans, plans of a sinister nature involving another, less stable psychic within the project by the name of Tommy Ray Glatman (David Patrick Kelly). Can Alex uncover the plot, help the President, and stay alive? Possibly, but the odds are certainly against him...

Given some of the films that came out in 1984 like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters, Amadeus, Footloose, Romancing the Stone, Starman, A Passage to India, and The Killing Fields, it's no surprise this `sleeper' got lost in the shuffle. I've always enjoyed it, and thought it deserved a bit more credit than it's gotten. Dennis Quaid is really good and charming as hell as the smart alecky Alex Gardner, a character who seems to be able to handle himself, yet exhibits a smidgen of naiveté which possibly stems from a core belief of decency, despite his ventures into gray areas, specifically using his skills to determine winners of horse races, earning him money to live. Max Von Sydow is also very good, although I feel as if I've seen him in similar roles so many times before, as a doctor involved in ground-breaking research, not being able to see the forces which conspire to use his research for their own, sinister means until it's too late. As far as Kate Capshaw, I have to admit I've never cared for her all that much as I found her character in Temple of Doom to be highly annoying and distracting. She's not bad here, even though she does suffer from a common malady of the 80's here in big-hairitis syndrome. Plummer is good as the conniving powerful government agent with a secret agenda, although I've seen this whole `evil government stealing research meant for the good of mankind for it's own corrupted means' theme about a thousand times before. Even so, he's perfectly suited for the part, oozing a smarmy, almost quiet charm that hides disturbing ulterior motives...I did like the aspect that his goals were driven mostly by his desire to protect what he thought needed protecting, even if he was misguided by his own sense of twisted patriotism.

The special effects, while seeming quite dated now, were actually very good for the time this film came out, especially the dream sequences of the President detailing post-apocalyptic visions of decimated cities and ruinous wastes. The stop motion work, while not really appreciated by many, is really pretty good and reminds me of those old Ray Harryhausen films I love so much. One thing that annoyed me the most about this release is what's missing due to a hack editing job on a few scenes, all within dream sequences, I suppose, to more aptly fit the movie's PG-13 rating. One scene involved Quaid and Capshaw and a romantic interlude on a train with some pretty steamy stuff, but here it's cut short, removing the nudity. A second edited scene had Quaid inside a mousy man's dream about his wife, which contained some nudity that was excised out of here, and finally another scene has to do with Quaid's character helping a little boy overcome a terrifying reoccurring nightmare about a monstrous snake man. The part removed had a bit of gore in it, but it certainly wasn't anything, in my opinion, that deserved to be removed.

It says the movie is available in full and widescreen anamorphic formats, but I only saw the widescreen format. The picture quality is pretty good, but the transfer print does suffer very minor age deterioration at some points, but it's hardly noticeable. The audio is much better, with Dolby Digital 2.0, new Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Audio available. Special features include an audio commentary track by producer Bruce Cohn Curtis, writer David Loughery, and special effects artist Craig Reardon that's pretty good, although dry at more than a few points. Also included are a behind the scenes special effects makeup test reel and a slide show. I really wanted to give this four stars, but given that's it missing parts from a few scenes, I have to go with three...

Cookieman108

I love this movie. It was one of the first PG-13 flicks to come out, so when I was a kid this was quite exciting. It had some action, some nudity and a snake-monster all rolled into a fun pseudo sci-fi package.

Imagine my disgust and horror upon discovering that the DVD of the film had been edited for content! Don't believe me? Compare it to the video or laser version. The comical sex dream scene at the beginning has been altered so that there are no breasts. There are also no children watching. This may not seem all that important to you, but I think that this silent trimming is quite insidious. The film is rated PG-13 after all, which means that parents should be cautious about showing it to younger kids. Why then must it be cut without telling us so on the package?

To sum it up, I love the movie, but I hate this version. Hooray for Hollywood.

Buy Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984) Now

I adore this movie for various reasons; the good script, lots of memorable scenes, and a great cast including the very inviting Capshaw and the very underused Kelly. To me it's not so much the movie's special effects, but the genius story that involves you and make you want to watch it from time to time. -Especially now that it's been letterboxed. However, as good looking as this DVD is, there are a couple of ridiculous cuts. -The kid cutting off the snakeman's head, now with less blood spurting than before. -This cut is rather pointless since there wasn't that much red stuff seen to begin with, and certainly not more than people are used to today. Even worse though, are the changes made to the Homer Simpson guy's dream sequence. -What was before a very amusing bedroom scene, now is shortened to an unfunny mess leaving those who know it uncut perplexed. It really makes no sense to cut this film, when it wasn't before. Who are they trying to protect ?. Just because it's out on DVD, doesn't necessarily mean it's now suddenly more available to folks with small children, does it ?. They've jammed the disc with lots of extra goodies, like a commentary track, but why go to that extent and still cut it ?. Did they plan it for the family market, or what ?. We, the true fans of the movie are left feeling somewhat cheated, and so in the end nobody really wins.

Read Best Reviews of Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984) Here

I am disgusted that companies can market a movie as a blu ray which implies enhanced sound and picture only to provide you with an unaltered straight from DVD transfer. While the sound was on par with standard DVD audio the picture was horrible. The movie had all the little white static-like spots in every frame as if you were watching a high school reel projector movie. It was VHS quality visuals. Nothing is touched up visually from the original movie. The green screen scenes are obvious. And with barely 5 minutes of extras, most of which are still photos, this can hardly be considered a "special edition" of anything.

Image Entertainment has made a name for themselves releasing IMAX and concert blu rays. Reviews of those discs have me scratching my head as to why they would release "Dreamscape" on blu ray at all when they enhance other films for the blu ray upgrade. It is apparent to me this movie came out to capitalize on the upcoming blu ray release of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" which shares some similar themes.

Do not buy this blu ray. You can purchase the "Special Edition" DVD release here on amazon.com for $6.99 or this movie shows up in the Walmart $5 bin from time to time. There is no difference in the quality of the DVD and blu ray releases except for the price. Someone should prevent these companies from releasing "fake" blu rays at once. And amazon.com should pull this release from their site before someone else makes the same mistake I did and purchases this "fake" blu ray.

Want Dreamscape (Special Edition) (1984) Discount?

Dreamscape is a fun, if undeniably underrated, thriller from the early 1980s. Dennis Quaid plays a psychic who is recruited into a secret, government-funded operation by Max Von Sydow. Under the direction of Von Sydow and colleague Kate Capshaw, Quaid learns how to enter other people's dreams. Amongst other things, this ability allows Quaid to romance the reluctant Capshaw and to help a small boy who is haunted by nightmares involving a demonic creature known as Snake Man (who, years later, remains one of screen history's scariest monsters). However, Quaid also discovers that the real force behind the project is Presidential advisor Christopher Plummer and Plummer has somewhat more sinister goals in mind for Quaid's newfound abilities. President Eddie Albert, it seems, is having nightmares of his own and there leading him to sign a disarmament pact with the Russians. While Plummer makes plan to send his own personal assassin (David Patrick Kelly) into the President's dreams, Quaid and Capshaw struggle to save the President's life.

Dreamscape is an entertaining film that, luckily, doesn't take itself all that seriously. The film itself is a hybrid of several different genres -part horror film, part political conspiracy thriller, part speculative science fiction, and part comedy and director Joseph Ruben manages to pull of an impressive balancing act by seemlessly integrating all of these elements into a cohesive whole that actually holds together pretty well. Ruben keeps the action moving nicely and brings a truly memorable flair to the film's dream sequences. As stated previously, the Snake Man (a creation that would simply be a cartoonish computer-generated image if the film were made today) is still truly frightening and the President's nightmares, with their images of nuclear devastation, still retain their power to disturb. Ruben also gets uniformly good performances from his cast with special praise going to David Patrick Kelly who creates one of the most memorably quirky and hateful film villians of the 1980s. All in all, Dreamscape is a blast from the past that is more than worth tracking down.

Save 45% Off

Francis Ford Coppola: 5-Film Collection (Apocalypse Now/Apocalypse Now Redux/One From the Heart/Tet

This four-disc Blu-Ray set offers the previously released Blu-Rays of "Apocalypse Now"/"Apocalypse Now Redux," "The Conversation" and "Tetro" along with the BD debut of Coppola's 1982 famed misfire "One From the Heart." The latter boasts a HD remastered (1.33 fullscreen) transfer with 5.1 DTS MA audio and fine supplements reprieved from the older DVD release, though there is some odd filtering in the transfer throughout (almost looks like you're watching the film through a net, especially if you look closely enough). Still recommended for Coppola enthusiasts, though the fact that the set only includes one new-to-Blu title and isn't comprehensive may restrict its appeal to most buffs (note that "Apocalypse Now" doesn't contain the special features from its three-disc Blu-Ray release either; just the single, "movie only" disc with both cuts of the movie).

What's there to say that hasn't already been said? Here's one of film's great directors, and I am proud to have these films in my collection.

Buy Francis Ford Coppola: 5-Film Collection (Apocalypse Now/Apocalypse Now Redux/One From the Heart/Tet Now

Matrix: 10th Anniversary (2012)

With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard.

Yes, it is it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first "Matrix" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!! At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better. It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before.

So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber believe it; it's true.

The Matrix is an excellent movie that combines science fiction, shoot-em-up action, and philosophical questions about the nature of Reality. If you are plugged in to a computer, and that computer presents you with a reality that is completely indistinguishable from your own, is it any less real?

This movie has exceptional special effects, beautiful cinematography, an excellent soundtrack, well-crafted dialogue, and respectable acting. Keanu Reeves may be a lousy actor, but I think that the Matrix is probably his best performance to date.

The Platinum Limited Edition isn't really worth the extra money unless you're an absolute, die-hard, take the red pill, freak. I wish I had known that before ordering this product. It comes in a box about as thick as an encyclopedia, and is fairly large, so it won't fit on the shelf with the rest of your DVDs. Opening it up, I was rather disappointed -most of the volume is filled with a cheap plastic tray that contains a celluloid clip of the film with a blown-up photo (decent, but nothing fantastic), a few postcard-sized stills from the movie, and a copy of the normal DVD in a normal case. Nothing fantastic. For this money, I was expecting a DVD with DTS sound, alternate angles, deleted scenes, etc., but just got the same old Matrix disc. A major drag.

Do yourself a favor. Buy the basic copy.

Buy Matrix: 10th Anniversary (2012) Now

(What is the Matrix). In 1977, George Lucas changed the landscape of cinematic Science Fiction forever with "Star Wars," taking the genre light years ahead of all that preceded it. Such a momentous advancement would not be seen again for over twenty years, when, in 1999, the Wachowski Brothers raised the bar again, taking the genre at warp speed to an unprecedented level with their astoundingly innovative film, "The Matrix." Co-directed, written and produced by Larry and Andy Wachowski, it is an allegory of salvation and redemption filled with symbolism and metaphor (the Biblical references alone should keep theology students debating this one for years to come); a thinking man's action film, accentuated with moments that are no less than profound. In a world of the future, things are literally not what they seem, where it's Man versus Machine, Reality versus Fantasy, and few who know the truth; among those who do, is Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), who has long awaited the arrival of "The One," who it has been prophesied will be the salvation of the world. Enter Neo (Keanu Reeves), a computer programmer with an innate sense of discrepancy as to the state of things around him; he has questions, most of which are still in the process of being formulated in his own mind. (What is the Matrix). Morpheus has answers. And when they meet, it's Alice down the rabbit hole, and Neo's life is changed forever. Reeves is perfectly cast as Neo, the enigmatic young man who may or may not be "The One," and it's one of the best roles of his career. He conveys a sense of removed, distracted urgency that defines his character, infusing him with both a strength and vulnerability that coalesces as the story progresses into determination and confidence. The underplayed, subtle character development (largely unacknowledged and under appreciated) is a nice piece of work by Reeves. As Morpheus, Fishburne is dynamic; he endows him with a quiet intensity that fairly roils beneath the surface, effectively restrained while leaving no doubt as to the character's power and purpose. You understand his resolution completely by his countenance alone; by the way he speaks and carries himself. It's a memorable performance by one of the truly gifted actors of our times. (What is the Matrix). Other notable performances include those by Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith), who brings a formidable, white-collar sinisterness to his character that is chilling; Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity), a strong, vital presence throughout the film; and Joe Pantoliano (Cypher), who is entirely convincing in his role of a Cyber-age Judas. Rounding out the terrific supporting cast are Gloria Foster (Oracle), Marcus Chong (Tank), Julian Arahanga (Apoc), Matt Doran (Mouse), Belinda McClory (Switch) and Ray Anthony Parker (Dozer). A visually stunning, thought provoking, captivating film, "The matrix" is a triumph of movie-making that assures the Wachowski's a permanent place in cinematic history. The special effects are cutting-edge, state-of-the-art; the choreography of the action sequences is top rate and delivered with a style and effectiveness worthy of comparison to John Woo's best; and, most importantly, the story itself is complex, intelligent, and deftly takes you into regions beyond the known. This is Science Fiction at it's best, but beyond that, it's a great movie that transcends genre or category; a landmark film that must be experienced more than once, for new meaning is gleaned with every viewing. Enhanced by a driving soundtrack that completes the package, highlighted by incredible action,outstanding performances and memorable scenes to numerous to mention, this is a movie that absolutely must not be missed. (What is the...).

Read Best Reviews of Matrix: 10th Anniversary (2012) Here

I bought Matrix a week age, but I have seen it 4 times already. Picture & sound quality are perfect ! If you have a good sound system, turn it up and you will feel yourself in the Matrix too ! The "Follow the White Rabbit" is excellent ! As well as the introduction to the Bullet-time technique. There is no multi-angle view on the DVD, but the movie itself is full of mult-angle views anyway. Unfortunately nobody can be told how good the Matrix DVD is, you have to see it for yourself !

Want Matrix: 10th Anniversary (2012) Discount?

amongst my whole entire collection of dvd's from A-Z, "the matrix-limited editon collector's set" is by far one of my most prized possessions in my arsenal, just the movie alone speaks for itself! but when you've got the actual soundtrack, movie stills, lobby cards, posters and a limited edition 8mm movie filmstrip to add to it....you're literally left speechless, it took awhile for this to arrive to me, but considering the fact that it's virtually impossible to find this item anywhere else, it was all worth the wait, definitely an add-on to your collection....and u could say...(depending on your taste)u could consider this to be the ICING on your cake...and with the sequal soon to come out in theatres, this will be an even HARDER item to find in the future....so don't let "NEO" down, get this classic action/thriller NOW!......5 stars!

Interview With a Vampire

"Libera me, Domine, de vitae aeterna" "Free me, Lord, from eternal life": If a movie begins with a choir and boy soprano singing these words, in a requiem's style and overlaying the camera's sweeping move over nightly San Francisco bay, zooming in on a Victorian building's top-floor window after having followed the life on the street below like a hunter follows its prey if a movie begins like this, you know you're not looking at your average flick, whatever its subject. (And if the first thing you catch is the Latin phrase's grammatical mistake, this is probably not your kind of movie to begin with).

Much-discussed even before its release, due not least to Anne Rice's temporary withdrawal of support and her no less sensational subsequent 180-degree turn, Neil Jordan's adaptation of the "Vampire Chronicles"' first part, based on Rice's own screenplay, is a sumptuous production awash in luminous colors, magnificent period decor and costumes, rich fabrics, heavy crystal, elegant silverware and gallons of deeply scarlet blood, supremely photographed by Phillippe Rousselot, with a constant undercurrent of sensuality and seduction; an audiovisual orgy substantiated by one of recent film history's most ingenious scores (by Elliot Goldenthal). Although the book only gained notoriety after the publication of its sequel "The Vampire Lestat," followed in short order by the "Chronicles"' third installment, "The Queen of the Damned," by the time this movie was produced, Rice had acquired a large and loyal fan base, who would have been ready to tear it to shreds had it failed to meet their expectations. That this was not unanimously the case is in and of itself testimony to Neil Jordan's considerable achievement (only underscored by the botched 2002 realization of "Queen of the Damned"). Sure, some decry the plot changes vis-a-vis the novel and the fact that some of the protagonists (particularly Louis and Armand) look different from Rice's description. But others have embraced the movie wholeheartedly; praising it for remaining faithful to the fundamentalities of Rice's story and for its production values as such. I find myself firmly in the latter corner; indeed, in some respects I consider this one of the rare movies that are superior to their literary originals primarily because the story's two main characters, Louis and Lestat, gain considerably in stature and complexity compared to Rice's book.

While both film and novel are narrated by Louis (Brad Pitt), giving an interview to a reporter (Christian Slater) in the hope of achieving some minimal atonement for 200 years of sin and guilt, and while Lestat (Tom Cruise) appears on screen barely half the movie's running time, Lestat is much more of a central character than in Rice's novel; and vastly more interesting. For Anne Rice's Lestat only comes into his own in the "Chronicles"' second part, which is named for him and where we truly learn to appreciate him as the vampire world's aristocratic, arrogant, wicked, intelligent and unscrupulous "brat prince," who although completely lacking regret for any of his actions nevertheless shows occasional glimpses of caring, even if he would never admit thereto. *This*, however, is exactly the movie's Lestat; not the comparatively uninformed and, all things considered, even somewhat brutish creature of Rice's first novel. It is no small feat on Tom Cruise's part to have accomplished this; and in my mind his portrayal has completely eclipsed the character's original conception, which was reportedly based on Rutger Hauer's Captain Navarre in "Ladyhawke."

Similarly, while every bit as guilt-ridden as the character created by Anne Rice, Brad Pitt's Louis regains more inner strength and more quickly so than the narrator of Rice's book, rendering him more of an even foil for Lestat, and equally lending greater credibility to his initial selection as Lestat's companion, his actions to ensure his and Claudia's escape to Europe, and his later decision not to stay with Armand. (Indeed, Louis's and Armand's separation after the burning of the Theatre of the Vampires makes perfect sense in the movie's context; it would have undercut both characters', but especially Louis's credibility had they gone on to share years of companionship like in the book.)

Kirsten Dunst's Claudia was not only this movie's biggest discovery not surprisingly, in an interview included on the DVD Dunst calls this "the most prominent role" of her career so far she, too, embodies the novel's child vampire to absolute perfection; capturing her eternally childlike features as well as her Lolitaesque seductiveness and the ruthless killer hidden under her doll-like appearance. Doubtlessly furthest from the novel's character is Antonio Banderas's powerful and charismatic Armand: But while I do somewhat miss Rice's auburn-haired "Botticelli angel," I always had a problem imagining him as the leader of the Paris coven, in control even of the quicksilver-like Santiago (marvelously portrayed by Stephen Rea in one of his most overtly theatrical performances). Here, too, the movie if anything gives the story greater credibility; although it's admittedly hard to reconcile with parts of the "Chronicles"' later installments, particularly Armand's own biography.

In interviews, Neil Jordan and Brad Pitt particularly have mentioned the emotional strain that this movie put on all its participants; due its almost exclusively nightly shooting schedule, and even more so because of its incessant exploration of guilt, damnation and, literally, hell on earth. Anne Rice's vampires truly are the ultimate outsiders; no longer part of human society, they feed on it, can neither be harmed by sickness nor by methods the world has taken for granted ever since Bram Stoker's "Dracula" (which are in fact merely "the vulgar fictions of a demented Irishman," as Louis explains, simultaneously amused and contemptuous) and are thus, if not killed by fire and/or beheading, condemned to walk the earth forever, without any hope of redemption. It is primarily this element which has given Rice's novels their lasting appeal, and which is perfectly rendered in Jordan's adaptation. I'm still not sure I'd ever want to meet them in person, though ...

Also recommended:

Complete Vampire Chronicles (Interview with the Vampire, The Vampire Lestat, The Queen of the Damned, The Tale of the body Thief)

The Vampire Companion

Ladyhawke

Bram Stoker's Dracula (Collector's Edition)

Let me begin by saying that I have not read the book and am judging the movie solely on its own merits. "Interview with the Vampire" is a luscious, guilty pleasure of modern filmmaking, visually resplendent and with wonderful performances by all (including Christian Slater, Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea). It follows the adventures of Louis de Pont du Lac (Brad Pitt), a 200-year-old vampire hailing from Louisiana, as he recounts the story of his life (and unlife) to interviewer Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater). Along the way we meet his maker Lestat de Lioncourt (Tom Cruise), his "daughter" Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), and Armand (Antonio Banderas), leader of the Parisian vampires.

Tom Cruise, in my mind, perfectly portrays the elder vampire Lestat...beautiful, cunning, selfish, a seducer, many of the same qualities present in Armand, and possesses an excess of dark humour. Brad Pitt's Louis still clings to the last shreds of his humanity...his sense of right and wrong, the value of life, the horror of killing in order to survive (angstmaster Nick Knight from "Forever Knight" springs to mind). There is a lack of onscreen romantic tension between Cruise and Pitt...something that makes their relationship seem less immediate and binding. However, there is definitely a spark between Louis and Armand (Antonio Banderas), and it was easy to believe that Louis was tempted to stay as a companion to such an intelligent, beautiful vampire who could teach him the answers to his questions. Kirsten Dunst is phenomenal as Claudia, the vampire with the mind and desires of a woman eternally trapped in the body of a doll-child.

The visuals are lavish, moody, stunningly brilliant, especially the world of 1800's New Orleans with its brocades, silks, and elaborate dresses. The atmosphere is appropriately dark, with plenty of fog and menacing nighttime damp. Elliot Goldenthal's score is string-driven, pulsing, tense, and underscores the action perfectly, the crowning piece being "Libera Me".

Yes, this film is graphic at times, including two very graphic scenes involving mutilation, numerous "feedings," homoeroticism, and brief nudity, but "Interview with the Vampire" is an unconventional drama that probes the meaning of life, death, love, seduction, and regret. More than anything Anne Rice's vampires make us realize the conventions and trappings of humanity.

Buy Interview With a Vampire Now

5 stars out of 5 = Masterpiece

Elegant, sophisticated, beautifully scripted, acted, paced, & filmed, "Interview with the Vampire" is among my top five favorite Vampire movies. No other Vampire film, other than Gary Oldman's Oscar worthy performance in "Bram Stoker's Dracula," delves as deep in a character study of Vampires & how it would be like to be a Vampire from their point of view.

A broad 200 year perspective of the life of Brad Pitts Vampire character, "Louie," the reluctant Vampire who finally succumbs to his fate of feeding on human blood, & in his quest for enlightenment of what he is, he finds out, if anything, he is a Vampire.

The story of a surprisingly great performance of Tom Cruise's, "Lestat," who sees "the dark gift" as everything he could ever want, except companionship, what he wants the most, & realizes the least. Cruise steals the show in his glee for sucking the blood out of the living, & his indignation for turning "Louie" in to a Vampire that still has respect for human life, in a barrage of cold blooded murders, & ranting at "Louie" with black comedic hilarity, yet shocking indifference to life, to the point of sadomasochism . Also, a very young Kristen Dunst's, "Claudia", who also steals the show & matches Lestat bite for bite in the quest for blood, & the sport it brings. A hugely great & complicated performance for such a young girl!

"Interview with the Vampire" is a thinking man's horror film, one that reaches down deep, not just to bring you cheap scares & shallow predictable characters, but a rich tapestry of what it means to be a Vampire, & all the consequences that goes with it.

Read Best Reviews of Interview With a Vampire Here

I haven't cared very much for Anne Rice's recent books, but her earlier work was outstanding. I loved "Interview" in particular, so I was really looking forward to this movie. There is always a risk in adapting such a vivid and powerful-not to mention beloved-book into a film. Director Neil Jordan and his collaborators have succeeded marvelously, though. This is an exciting, engaging film; remarkably faithful to Rice's original text.

The story opens in present day San Francisco. Louis (Brad Pitt), a 200 year-old vampire, is telling his life story to an interviewer (Christian Slater), who is shocked by his supernatural revelation. "I am flesh and blood," Louis tells him, "but not human."

His story takes us back to late 18th century New Orleans where Louis first encountered the Vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise). Desiring a companion, and in love with his beautiful looks, Lestat gives Louis the "Dark Gift"-that is, he makes him into a vampire. They live together for many years, roaming the streets at night, united by their common quest for blood.

Eventually, though, Lestat fears that Louis is going to leave him. Desperate, he makes a vampire of Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), a beautiful young child, knowing the Louis would never leave the girl. Thus they are bonded together as "one big, happy family." As it turns out, though, they are not so happy after all.

The story takes the vampires to Paris, where they finally encounter some more of their own kind. The coven of vampires is led by the stunningly handsome Armand (Antonio Banderas) who quickly falls in love with Louis. Louis is enamored of him as well, but he will never leave little Claudia, something Armand realizes.

The film ends back in the present in a departure from Rice's book. The new twist is exciting, though, and sets up the story for an inevitable sequel. It hasn't been made yet, but if it ever is, I'm looking forward to it.

The big question, of course, is, how is Tom Cruise as Lestat? In one word: brilliant. This is one of his best performances ever, heightened by the fact that he is playing a role so different from his typical screen persona. Cruise has always been an underrated actor, but hopefully that will start to change after people see him here. He is terrific.

The rest of the performances are also quite good. Brad Pitt does very well as the tortured, guilt-ridden Louis. Antonio Banderas is extraordinary as the seductive, young master of darkness. His is the most convincing portrayal of a vampire, filled with power and charisma.

Neil Jordan's direction is top-notch. Visually, "Vampire" is stunning, helped considerably by Dante Ferretti's superb production design. Anyone who has read the book-and anyone who has not-is sure to enjoy this haunting, erotic treat.

Want Interview With a Vampire Discount?

First off as a film, I would give it 4 1/2 stars.

If you own the standard DVD save your money. Almost no difference in picture quality.

Mother's Boys (1994)

Jamie Lee Curtis and Peter Gallagher are excellent in this forgotten thriller about a divorced mother and father who fight over the right to see their two boys. Jamie Lee Curtis plays the mother who comes back into the boys lives after three yrs away and tries to get them back and destroy her exhusbands new life with his girlfriend. Jamie Lee is pretty good at being crazy in this flick and it is surely one of her best acting roles. The movie has numerous chilling momments that are brillantly filmed. Crystal clear picture makes for an enjoyable movie for all B movie thriller fans. Get this movie ASAP! It probably is not available to rent anymore so pick up a cheap used one like I did--you will not regret it! Enjoy!!!!!

I am a fan of Peter Gallagher which why I purchased this movie. I liked the movie and was very surprised how well this was done. You really don't anticipate (at least I didn't) the ending. Jamie Lee Curtis was perfect for the role of the ex-wife. I enjoyed this movie. I liked the dream effects and the preminisions. This is truly a cliffhanger. Overall the acting was a bit above average. I recommend this movie if you like Romantic Adventure Mysteries.....

Buy Mother's Boys (1994) Now

Indeed, it is a predictable premise...only instead of the psychotic ex lover, it's the psychotic soon to be ex-wife...out to get "her family" back.

Jamie Lee Curtis is chillingly convincing as Jude, the maniac woman who left her family three years previous. Now she's back, and she'll do anything to keep her family.

This is probably the only movie of Jamie's besides True Lies that I like she does psychopath extremely well.

The other adult characters in the movie, with the exception of Jude's mother, (played by Vanessa Redgrave, with a pretty good resemblance to Jamie btw...) are imbeciles, but Jamie makes it all worth while. She's that good...she's sick, and she convinced me-whether she's trying to molest her 12 year old son or get the family dog run over by a car, she's got what it takes to make us believe it and make us all want her dead.

Peter Gallagher was better in While You Were Sleeping at least he was supposed to be comatose there.

It's a little cheezy, it's kind of cliche, it's fairly pretictable but it isn't a total waste. And be sure to let the closing credits play the theme song, "The Longest Night" is beautifully haunting and will make your hair stand up.

Read Best Reviews of Mother's Boys (1994) Here

This is a very good Suspense/Thriller about a mother played by Jamie Lee Curtis who abandoned her family and now she wants custody and access to her sons. Ms. Curtis gives a sensual and yet chilling performance in this movie as the Sociopathic mother who will not stop at anything to achieve this goal. Ms. Curtis' Father is Tony Curts who is Hungarian just like my Father was and I must say they do make beautiful daughters from that country. This movie ROCKS and so does Ms. Curtis who is now a Baroness in Real Life.

Want Mother's Boys (1994) Discount?

Jamie Lee Curtis is a much better actress than most people have ever realized. Typically cast as the terrified young ingenue who could really screen, e.g., HALLOWEEN, Curtis takes a turn as the woman from hell in this underrated chiller. She joins a list of notables in this genre: Jessica Walter in PLAY MISTY FOR ME; Patsy Kensit in HELL'S GATE; Kathleen Turner in BODY HEAT; Glenn Close in FATAL ATTRACTION; Rebecca DeMornay in HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE, to name just a few. And Jamie's right up there with them.

Jamie plays a mother who abandons her family twice, once for 3 months and then for three years. All of a sudden, she's back and she wants her family. However, hubby Peter Gallagher has fallen in love with assistant principal Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and is going to divorce Jamie Lee. Jamie's mama, played low key and convincingly by the still lovely Vanessa Redgrave, also thinks the divorce is for the best, harboring a surprising secret to justify this. Of course, Jamie does everything within her power to get hubby and boys back, including poisoning the oldest son's (Luke Edwards, an excellent performance) feelings towards his new mother.

There are some disturbing scenes involving incestuous overtones between Curtis and Edwards that are handled tastefully, and there are three scenes that will pull you out of your chairs!

Curtis exudes a sensuality and evil never seen in her prior to this. With "Freaky Friday" and memories of this gem, Curtis will someday get the Oscar and praise she deserves!

Save 50% Off

Dark Knight (2009)

What has been said about the Dark Knight cannot be elaborated on so I won't. The film is muscling its way into my #1 favorite comic movie adaptation of all time.

The reason for my review is in hopes of saving you some money. This double disc Special Edition doesn't deliver the price you pay for it. There isn't even deleted scenes!!! I would save your very hard earned dollars and buy the single disc version and wait for the inevitable ULTIMATE re-release that will come later on down the road.

But nonetheless, a great film you will not be dissapointed; I just wish the studio would have given a better Special Edition release than what we have here. So enjoy!

Christopher Nolan has a vision. And whether you agree with it or not, he undeniably completes it in "The Dark Knight"--a vicious, engrossing, overwhelming, intelligent eventfilm that re-defines 'comic-book-flicks'. In Nolan's grim, dark-depiction of Gotham-City (the crime-ridden hell protected by legendary superhero Batman), the director strives to make everything real (something he began in the well-received "Batman Begins"). He makes it plausible, possible. And yet there's more to it: just as 'Begins' was a dissection of myth, the nature of symbols and heroes, 'Knight' is the escalation of that notion. It's a biblicalconfrontation of 'good-and-evil', yet as 'good-and-evil' really exist: a conflict of ideals, something that can't be purely-defined but that is relative to a viewpoint. In Nolan's world, the line of villainy and heroism isn't crossed... it's non-existent. The bad-guys don't see themselves as bad-guys, and as such something so unnervingly-real comes across it might fly past some people's minds (no insult to anybody, it's just common that people don't look deep into 'popcorn-flicks'): the battle is a complete ambiguity.

The film runs at nearly 2.5-hours, yet never ceases to lose interest or momentum. It doesn't waste a scene or moment; every event is utilized and necessary. 'The Dark Knight' tells a story worth telling and it takes the proper amount of time to tell it. Action-sequences are frantic, old-school, eye-grabbing stunts (vastly superior to 'Begins') and in their chaotic intensity we see that they serve purpose to the story, yet more interesting are not played for pure entertainment-value: we are meant to watch, petrified, simply hoping that the outcome will go the hero's way. Attention is never lost because we are immersed in a breathtaking, almost completely-unpredictable story (it packs many a shock), that makes us think and more importantly gains our emotional-investment. We come to care for the characters, because they are believable, developed, and personified fully.

Everyone has great-chemistry together. Maggie Gyllenhal is a more mature Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes. Morgan Freeman provides his authoritative presence to the role of badgadget-inventor/Wayne-Enterprise CEO Lucius Fox, and under anyone else's portrayal, the part would be less-memorable. Gary Oldman underplays his world-wearied lawman with such honest-nobility, you never feel for a second any of its forced-acting. The irreplaceable Michael Caine makes a gentle, reassuring, father-like presence as Alfred, and the movie would surely fail without his strong-presence and interjected-moments of light-humor.

And while everyone (rightfully) pours the praise unto Bale and Ledger, I think most are glancing-over Knight's breakout-performance. As Harvey Dent, Aaron Eckhart does more than hold himself in the company of such a renowned-cast. He makes his presence known, whether he's playing on the easy-going charisma of Gotham's 'White-Knight' or the broken and damaged, twisted-soul of Two-Face. He achieves a full-impact with the tragedy that comes unto his character, and so closely connects with Dent, that he makes his pain tangible for us: we sympathize even as we become terrified. He captures both facets of each personality flawlessly.

Now, some people cite that 'Knight' has a potential fatal-flaw in the supposedly woodenacting of Christian Bale. Admittedly, his development is not as grand as in 'Begins' (yet that film gave us such a good psychoanalysis of Wayne, we hardly need more), yet what Bale pulls off is admirable. Wayne is not an eccentric personality. He is a disillusioned man who can hardly find any joy in having no family, giving up his love-interest and spending his life fighting a battle that may never end. He's dark and conflicted, and Bale plays up on that brooding-mood by making Wayne look as though a thousand dark-things were on his mind. He's not wooden...he's a humorless, quiet individual. Even when Wayne is acting as a frivolous playboy for the public, every now and then Bale offers us a powerful glance that reminds us its all a façade; that deep down, something more disturbed irks him. Occasionally he offers a broken-smile when exchanging banter with Alfred, letting us know that beyond the dour depression of the Caped-Crusader lies a damaged human-being. It is only in the guise of a growling masked-man, that he can unleash his true, ferocious personality.

Finally, who could forget Heath Ledger. Now, when he was first-announced for the part, I was (along with many other people) asking myself: "Why?". Mr. Ledger had proved with 'Brokeback Mountain' he could deliver a potent performance. But he hadn't before. It is only, after seeing this film, that I know the answer to 'why?': I see the significance of his loss.

When Heath appears in this movie, he is completely unrecognizable. His voice is distinctly-altered; a near-whiny, pedophile-like tone that sends shivers down the spine. His face is completely splattered with makeup that renders him both freakishly-nightmarish and strangely-funny. And when you see him, you don't think it's him. In this, his final performance, Ledger proved he was a chameleon. His two iconic performances in this, and 'Brokeback', could not be more different. I am convinced he could have been anything in his career. He commits so intensely to character that the line of actor/portrayal dies. His every tick and gesture only further-enhances his character. Heath never hams the role up or goes for something cheap: he delivers a fully-immersed display of psychotic madness...or do we just label him that to feel safer? The movie writes the character brilliantly; blending terrifying truth into his every social-accusation, and making us question why we laugh at his sick-jokes.

'The Dark Knight' has had an incredible-amount of hype running for it, from the get-go, mounting ever-higher, until Heath Ledger's too-soon death. And the finished-product does more than exceed all of the near-impossible expectations placed on it. It becomes something much richer than a super-hero-franchise-saga. Christopher Nolan has opened a new door in cinema: allowing action-flicks to become more serious, capable of intelligence. He has transformed this into a piece of artwork, full of beauty, terror, moral-conundrums. This movie has changed things...forever.

There's no going back. 10/10

Buy Dark Knight (2009) Now

Ok, the movie is a 5 star, this is a little info on the case and bat pod if anyone is curious about it size. We have it at work and I have already seen it. It is actually VERY small, the case and the bat pod. The bat pod is maybe 4"-5" long, and the case is just a bit larger then the blu rays. I was expecting a bat pod the size of the one available at in the toys at most stores which is 10"-12" long.

AT $50+ dollars, I would get the Bluray 2 disc and the $20 12" bat pod, which s a much better bat pod and value in my opinion.

Read Best Reviews of Dark Knight (2009) Here

First of all, this is a GREAT film, not just a great Batman film.

Others have compared Christopher Nolan's two Batman films to the Tim Burton Batman films, so I won't repeat their observations. Let me simply say that everything about this movie, from the script to the casting to the CGI to the acting and ultimately the directing is superb.

Now to Plato. The meta-message of The Dark Knight is a meditation on the nature of good and evil, the veneer of civilization, the virtues of principle and the necessity and the danger of bending principle in emergencies, the differences between evil for gain or power and evil for mere destruction and chaos, and the tension between public duty and private loyalty. Finally there is the question of the place for facts and the place for "sacred" myth.

(Caution: this review refers to specific scenes and characters.)

The mafia in Gotham is evil for gain and power. They want money and they want influence. They also want order. When the manager of the bank objects to the robbery he complains that the usual rules and courtesies among criminals are being violated. The corrupt police officers are evil for gain as well. They too need general acceptance of rules and procedures.

The Joker is evil for evil's sake. He sows chaos and disorder and wants to expose the thin veneer of civilization. He seeks only to unmask what he sees as contradiction and hypocrisy in human nature and to demonstrate that so-called good citizens are really evil underneath.

Scarecrow, who was featured in Batman Begins and has a minor role in the drug bust scene in The Dark Knight, is a deranged psychiatrist whose evil comes from desire for power over others as he uncovers the weaknesses in the minds of others.

The Mayor is out for power but does not resort to evil. Police Lieutenant James Gordon represents incorruptible good. This is ultimately stressed when Gordon must make a choice between public duty and personal relationship. Batman faces that same dilemma when he must decide whether to rescue Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes. Likewise, the passengers in the ferries must choose between what they are told will be personal survival and the deaths of others, in another of The Joker's nefarious experiments. When the Wayne Industries accountant is about to reveal the identity of Batman, The Joker announces that the accountant must die, and citizens try to assassinate him. Personal safety trumps adherence to the good sometimes, but not all times.

Batman seems weaker than The Joker because he adheres to rules. The Biblical injunction, "Justice, justice shall you pursue," has been understood as demanding that justice be pursued justly. Evil, especially evil for its own sake, makes no such demand. We see this every time terrorists deliberately target innocents and hide themselves behind children knowing that those in pursuit will not purposely aim at innocent bystanders. This gives evil a huge temporary advantage.

Yet sometimes the good must bend and even break the rules. Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during a critical interval during the Civil War. Batman asks Lucius Fox to preside over such a broken rule to locate and catch The Joker. When and how can we know when good can break rules to catch evil? Batman answers by creating a mechanism to restore the rules as soon as the crisis is over.

Alfred Pennyworth indirectly poses the question, "Knowing that evil, if attacked, will double its efforts and create even more destruction, is it really wise to go after evil?" The bad guys cause huge destruction after Batman and Gordon squeeze the mafia, creating enormous conflict and guilt in Batman. But without disturbing the hornet's nest, evil would prevail anyway. So the battle must be joined in any event.

Harvey Dent is extremely complex. He berates Gordon for compromising his police unit by accepting some corrupt officers to his staff. Gordon answers by claiming that sometimes those who know corruption can be the most effective in fighting it. Dent is identified as the "White Knight" whose public persona will rally the public against evil. But Dent himself participates in an untruthful diversion to help trap The Joker. Even he compromises good for the sake of fighting evil.

When Rachel and Dent are being held in danger Batman and Gordon each race to save them. Batman declares he is going to save Rachel but is tricked into going to Dent's location. Rachel dies and Dent is severely injured. In a brilliant make-up creation the right side of Dent's face remains normal and the left side is severely and dramatically changed. He has physically transformed from a White Knight into his derisive nickname, "Two Face." Reminiscent of Jekyll and Hyde, Dent's nature is now permanently divided.

The death of Rachel has destroyed Dent's belief in good and has dissolved his commitment to the public's welfare. Now he only thinks of his own personal pain and loss. But he is not a creature of pure evil. His hurt and grudge turn him into a near nihilist. The lucky coin with two heads has been transformed. One side is now ruined and becomes for him the oracle of ethics. Life and death depend solely on chance; solely on the flip of a coin.

Furious at Gordon for the actions of the corrupt police officers in Gordon's unit who betrayed Rachel, Dent finds Gordon's wife and children. Recognizing that Gordon's young son is dearest to him, Dent demands that Gordon reassure the son as Dent flips his coin to decide the boy's fate.

Batman, for whom good and evil, life and death, are not decided by chance, intervenes. In their fight Dent and Batman both plunge to the ground from a height. Batman survives and tells Gordon that the myth of Dent's goodness must become the rallying point for the city. Dent remains the White Knight, while Batman allows himself to become The Dark Knight, spurned by the public, identified wrongly but necessarily as the source of evil, who can then secretly work for the good. Only Gordon and his son know the true story behind this myth. Gotham thus gets the hero it deserves.

The Joker is captured but his fate is left hanging, literally and figuratively. We do not even know for certain whether Dent died, or unconscious, has survived his fall. All we know for sure is that the complexity of fighting evil and the compromises permitted for good are unsolved. Civilization continues but only barely. The Joker has destroyed Rachel, transformed Dent, and caused everlasting turmoil and doubt within Batman.

The need to resort to myth over facts after arguing previously for the absolute value of Truth, ends Plato's Republic, with the famous story of the myth of the cave. We too are left in the dark, in the company of The Dark Knight, at the end of this superb film.

We can only wonder what the sequel might have been, with The Joker and Two Face challenging Batman, had Heath Ledger survived.

Speaking of Heath Ledger I want to mention a few things about his performance as The Joker. There is a small pantheon of presentations of psychiatrically deranged individuals in film. Among the best are Olivia Thailand in Snake Pit, Gregory Peck in Spellbound, Jack Nickelson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, and Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. Ledger's perhaps surpasses them all.

For those with a psychiatric or medical background like myself, the use of his slight head tics and the seemingly random movement of his tongue suggest that The Joker has been in a psychiatric institution and medicated with drugs that left him with a case of tardive dyskinesia, a rare but serious and irreversible movement disorder that can be a side effect of certain psychotropic medications. This touch, which I believe was meticulously and masterfully added to the portrayal by Ledger, makes The Joker both more convincing and more dangerous.

I am told that Ledger immersed himself in The Joker's state of mind before and during the filming. It is not unknown for an actor to have difficulty extricating himself from such a wrenching and demanding role. Joaquin Phoenix and Faye Dunaway have each spoken about this as they worked to emerge from Johnny Cash and Joan Crawford. If this was so for Ledger then The Joker got an undeserved bitter laugh while we have only tears.

Addendum July 23, 2008: One of The Joker's henchmen must have gotten into my spell checker to change Olivia De Havilland into Olivia Thailand. Sorry for that.

I want to expand on one point distinguishing Batman from Dent. When The Joker reveals the locations of Rachel and Dent, Gordon asks Batman which location he is going to. Batman says Rachel's but I believe he is aware of The Joker's double crosses and switches, and knowingly goes to Dent's location. That Batman expresses no surprise at finding Dent rather than Rachel confirms this view. Bruce Wayne would have rescued Rachel but Batman, a true hero, puts his public duty above his private preferences.

After Rachel is killed Dent loses his sense of public duty and loses faith in goodness. Batman, equally in love with Rachel and equally convinced she will marry him, retains his public duty and goodness, though he is burdened with grief and guilt. Perhaps a White Knight cannot endure crushing disappointment. Perhaps only a Dark Knight, who has already experienced the crushing loss of viewing the murders of his father and mother, and holding himself responsible for that tragedy, can make his way through darkness without losing his way.

A final note, in response to a commenter who took issue with my portrayal of Gordon as incorruptibly good, I agree that Gordon made pragmatic choices, and refer to them in the essay. But as a person he is beyond bribery and never loses sight of his duty to the citizenry. So how about personally incorruptible but one who made some seemingly necessary but ultimately unwise alliances.

Want Dark Knight (2009) Discount?

This is just some information regarding the Bat Pod. Please be aware, the Bat Pod and the display stand are 100% plastic. The Bat Pod is also not removable.

In my opinion, they are not worth the extra money.

Get the film, but don't splurge on this plastic toy.

3:10 to Yuma (Criterion Collection) (1957)

'3:10 To Yuma' is a stark monochrome Western that has been praised for its suspense and high moral tone. Van Heflin, in a darker variant on his role in 'Shane', plays a character who picks up where most Westerns leave off. The genre is usually concerned with taming wild loners or men with pasts. rewarding them with the joys of civilisation. Heflin has seen what civilisation really means. He lives on a drought-dry farm with a wife and two children he often fails to feed. The grind of fruitless labour has worn them all down, and Heflin's identity as a man, having been once the greatest shot in these parts, is now undermined by humiliation in front of his family by outlaws stealing his cattle and horses, or forced to beg money from indifferent acquaintances. His wife can't understand that his inability to 'be' a 'man' is the result of the civilisation she represents.

What's a poor honest farmer to do when he sees murderers and thieves throwing money around, drinking their fill, bedding beautiful strangers, and generally living the whooping-it-up life? Glenn Ford is the not-completely-irredeemable leader of a gang of devoted sadists so feared throughout the region that no lawman dares touch him. Such men are usually let down by their sexual desire, and when he leaves his gang to schmooze a barmaid, he is captured by the locals. Knowing that they will be no match for the manpower or ruthlessness of the gang when they return to rescue Ford, the sheriff plans a decoy, which will need two foolishly brave men to take the bandit to the train station at Contention City. The initally reluctant Heflin accepts the job when a farm-saving reward of $200 is offered.

In many ways, 'Yuma' works against the conventions of the Western as it seeks, like the hero to avoid action and the inevitable climactic shoot-out for as long as possible. The film's centre-piece is a lengthy, stagy sequence in a hotel room in which Heflin holds Ford prisoner potential ponderousness is offset by the terrific acting of the two aging actors, one goading and testing the other, tempting with crooked offers that are all too tempting; the other struggling manfully to resist. At first, Heflin's taking the job is strictly economical he needs the money. Then it becomes ethical, a stand against socially disruptive forces threatening the community. It is also a test of the masculinity that has long been buried by family duties. Finally, it is an existential struggle, with Ford as the man Heflin could easily become (and perhaps once was?), and his men as the instruments of inexorable Fate the farmer must face and outwit on his own, stripped of support, just as Man must eventually face Death.

The film's mise-en-scene is suitably austere, the black-and-white cinematography emphasising sharp contrasts, the alienating outlines of buildings and landscapes, and the vulnerable men and women who walk through them sometimes watching 'Yuma' is like leafing slowly through an album of stark 19th century photographs taken of the West. The 'city' in which the film is mostly played out initially seems like a ghost town, and a surreal funeral sequence interrupting, or accentuating, the tension, gives a quality of dream. Delmer Daves' direction is not self-effacing every shot is meticulously, often heavily composed, character patterns structured in frames creating a sense of constriction and claustrophobia that serves to turn the plot's screws. What saves the film from being just another superfical 'High Noon' 'allegory' is the sudden bursts of violence rupturing the tense silence, and the ultimate refusal to wholeheartedly embrace doom-and-gloom existentialism.

When speaking of the great Westerns such as SHANE, THE SEARCHERS and HIGH NOON, 3:10 TO YUMA should definitely be mentioned. All of these films came out in the 50's, but 3:10 has somehow been forgotten.

Van Heflin plays a farmer suffering from a drought. He is a quiet, seemingly passive man who becomes a reluctant hero. Heflin agrees to hold criminal Glenn Ford in a hotel room for $200 just long enough for the train to Yuma to leave at 3:10. Ford's gang, however, learns about the situation and plans to take action. The characters and performances by Ford and Heflin make the film work. Heflin is outwardly reluctant to take this job, but his strength lies within. The struggle within him is evident: Here's a family man who can save his farm or do what he knows is right. Ford, the criminal, is alluring, almost charming. He's a con artist and a cold-blooded killer, but you can't help liking him just a little. Sure, he's a criminal, but not your typical stereotyped Western bad guy. The suspense and tension waiting for the train rival that of HIGH NOON (just without the clock!). Even if you don't like Westerns, you'll like 3:10 TO YUMA.

Buy 3:10 to Yuma (Criterion Collection) (1957) Now

Firstly the four stars are for this wonderful film and the performances of it's cast.

On the flipside I am extremely disappointed at what purports to be a "special edition" I can't for the life of me see what the addition of a trailer and a teaser trailer for the remake makes this so "special". Where are the commentaries, documentaries or featurettes? C'mon guys this is what DVD is all about. Vanilla release are a shameful waste of a brilliant versatile format.It's a disgrace. This is false advertising at its worst and shame on Sony for trying to squeeze a few last bucks out of this version before the remake hits the shelves. Those behind this "special edition" should themselves be put on the 3.10 to Yuma.

If you don't own the movie already then you may wish to buy because I would'nt hold out much hope for an Ultimate edition (they might add a photo gallery!)If you're looking for something extra here well there is always that controversial new cover art!

Read Best Reviews of 3:10 to Yuma (Criterion Collection) (1957) Here

3:10 to Yuma is an interesting blend of Western and Suspense, but more captivating still is its methodical examination of fleeting morals, blind justice, and the charismatic villain at the heart of the conflict.

Notorious outlaw Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) and his gang rob a stagecoach transporting significant funds of one Mr. Butterfield (Robert Emhardt) and end up killing the driver in the process. Farmer Dan Evans (Van Heflin) and his son are witness to the tragic events but are unable to help, save for notifying the authorities. When Dan returns home and his son explains the day's harrowing event, his wife appears disappointed by his apparent lack of courage, though his family's safety was foremost in his mind. When Dan is forced to go into town to borrow money for his farm's upkeep, he discovers that Ben Wade has stayed behind and the desperate farmer agrees to help apprehend the nefarious criminal. Upon Wade's capture, Butterfield employs Dan to guard the outlaw until 3:10 when the train to Yuma will arrive and take him to prison. But when Wade's gang arrives in town to free their leader, Dan will find that honor and dedication may only lead to an early grave.

While 3:10 to Yuma may appear to be an action film, it is actually an intricate examination of character, both hero and villain, set against a suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse in the old West. Van Heflin's protagonist represents the forces of good and parallels the difficulties present that don't always allow justice to prevail at least not at first anyway. Honor and pride play an important role in Dan's decisions, as his wife's initial chagrin instigates his desire to bring Wade to justice. His belief in this subjective moral is so determinate that he even protects Wade from certain death just to attempt to deliver him to the law's judgement.

As unique and interestingly obstinate as Dan's demeanor is, the villain of the film actually overshadows him in charisma and stage presence. Glenn Ford's portrayal of outlaw Ben Wade is one of the finest character studies in cinema, as he approaches the role with a full palette of emotions and intentions, complete with a similar belief in honor and morals that deceptively shifts as the film progresses. The opening scene finds Wade nonchalantly killing one of his own men when held hostage, and such dispassionate violence would lead one to believe the vilest of villains stands before him. However, the narrative follows Wade just as much as Evans and we discover he stays behind in the town of Bisbee to woo the young bartender Emmy (Felicia Farr). His presence is so captivating in fact that not only does he get the girl, but she seems completely unfazed to learn that he is the notorious Ben Wade. When the outlaw is captured by Evans, their witty back-and-forth banter often reveals Wade to be the more entertaining of the two and most often it's hard not to root for the bad guy. The final confrontation with Wade's gang cements what we'd been expecting all along the line between heroes and villains is a thin one, at least in this engaging battle of wits and integrity.

Though the plot is light on action, the story is heavy on suspense as Dan attempts to carry out his suicidal mission. Mind games replace gunplay and while the film's running time doesn't outstay its welcome, those expecting a nonstop shootout extravaganza may leave unsatisfied, while the film connoisseur will be delighted by the intricate character study. Reminiscent of deliberately paced suspenseful westerns like John Sturges' Bad Day at Black Rock and of course Fred Zinnemann's High Noon, 3:10 to Yuma deserves a place of its own in classic cinema for its daring antagonist and intent focus on the composition of heroism and the trials and tribulations it requires.

Joel Massie

Want 3:10 to Yuma (Criterion Collection) (1957) Discount?

Now this is a great western! This original is far superior to the remake in so many ways. But the main factor has got to be the realism.

Right in the beginning there is a stagecoach robbery. This one didn't have a 200lb. gatling gun that was mowing down any bandits dumb enough to get in its path.

Other things done better--the hero's wife and kids had more respect for him. In the newer version they basically treat ole Dan Evans like a loser, which doesn't seem to fit with the timeframe.

The romance between the head outlaw, Ben Wade, and the beautiful bartender was much better developed.

In this original, Dan doesn't go from crippled wimp to fearless hero. He was already a tough man, so his refusal to take any bribes from Wade was so much more believable.

Then of course there is the ending. This one is just as intense and 10 times more believable.

I didn't think the remake was horrible, but this is so much better. I am glad I've seen them both, and I recommend giving them a look.

Save 30% Off

Total Recall (1990)

I have to take umbrage at the person who made rude comments about how all the martians mutants with their foam latex appliances looked fake and lowered the quality of the film. I am part of the team that made all those crummy appliances. You can find my name in the credits under Rob Bottin. Actually I agree with you and I also think the scene where everyone decompresses and their eyes pop out on stalks then pop back in again when air pressure returns was totally preposterous. Total Recall was one of the last big films where effects were still done with rubber and mechanical animatronics pulled with cables. Many people thought the fat lady head slice gag was done with computers but it was a fiberglass head enlarged many times by soaking a silicone casting of the head in kerosene. The head was sliced with a special saw and a special array of slide bearings rigged with cables were pulled to open the slices. Makeup artists spent hours between shots filling up the gaps in the slices with wax so you could not detect them until the head was pulled apart. We were very proud of that effect and got applause from the crew when they saw it for the first time. Other effects did not go so well. Johnny Cab (Bob Picardo) was supposed to be very animated. His mouth was designed to open wide and form shapes but the servos would not work properly so in the film you see him mostly just bounce his jaw up and down with some minor lip movement. The guy in charge of repairing Johnny Cab stayed up four sleepless days and when it still didn't work was yelled at and mercilessly berated by the FX supervisor and later that day almost died of a bleeding stomach. On the good side Bennie the mutant cab driver has a mutant arm that is a beautiful thing to watch unfold and easily missed if you are not paying attention. You probably won't hear these uglier stories on the supplemental disc but if you are a fan of Total Recall and like to hear interesting background stories, this is certainly the version of the disc you should buy. Paul Verhoven with his deep German accent and extreme personality combined with Arnolds thick Austrian accent and ego should make for one of the most incomprehensible commentaries in the history of DVDs. Just kidding. Both are dynamic guys and present the material in an interesting fashion.

Total Recall is about a miner named Quaid (Arnold Schwartzennegger at the very peak of his career) who seemingly has a beautiful wife (Sharon Stone)and a nice home. He has a fascination with Mars that disturbs his wife to distraction. One day he decides to take a simulated vacation from Rekall where memories are implanted in your brain to make you feel you have been on an extended vacation. What Rekall does not know is Quaid is not who he appears to be or who he thinks he is. Something goes wrong when Rekall unknowingly plants Quaid's own real memories of being a secret agent on Mars into his brain. Quaids brain is temporarily fried and he has to quickly rediscover his true identity before a team of counteragents kill him for what he knows.

Total Recall was originaly intended to keep the audience guessing about what was real and what was only imagined. However this was dropped with the exception of one memorable scene. From what I could observe on the set I think Paul Verhoven realized the effects had taken over the movie and there was no point in making this a psychological action thriller. So he resigned himself to play it as a straight up Arnold vehicle packed with slam bang effects and some wicked Verhoven humor. This was too bad because I think many people feel it could have been a much more of a movie than what it was. Instead this is wild mindless action, violence taken to excess and effects for pure escapism purposes . If this is your cup of tea, than Total Recall may be the thrill ride you are looking for.

I Love Total Recall as a movie hence the reason I've bought it for a 3rd time, after VHS and DVD. I must say I was very disappointed with this transfer, why when films can be cleaned up prior to transfer do they make us buy such a crap transfer!? I mean I bought the Rambo1 Blu Ray from Lionsgate/ Studio Canal which is now 25 years and that is a superb transfer, even the French HD of Basic Instinct is a Cracking transfer by Studio Canal, In Comparison Total Recall is a let down, and to be honest when we fork out our hard earned cash for movies we love on HD formats we expect a marked improvement, why should we make excuses that this film is old, what 1990 is old! When film companys that do spend the money get results, have you seen the Bond Remasters on DVD, some of these are over 40 years old and look better then ever (cant wait for the blu rays of them!) Overall Buy this if you must have it, but be prepared for a let down visually!

Buy Total Recall (1990) Now

"Total Recall" is, quite simply, one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best action flicks and quite obviously, one of the ones that helped build his super star status at the time of its release. When this outstanding Sci-Fi action/thriller was released, it was right in the middle of Arnold Schwarzenegger's run of films where he could seemingly do no wrong. After watching the "Imagining Total Recall" documentary, it's even more surprising to find out that the original director wasn't Paul Verhoeven and the original Douglas Quaid wasn't to be Arny but Patrick Swayze; now that would've been an almost entirely different movie. Despite the exceptional script, I doubt Patrick Swayze would've garnered the attention that Arnold did for this memorable flick.

One of the most interesting aspects behind the script of this film is the overall theme behind it, was it "real" or was it Douglas Quaid's Total Rekall experience? Another highly interesting aspect of this film is its supposed sequel which may have been scrapped for Arnold Schwarzenegger's bid for and election as the Governor of Kalifornia! If you pull up the Cast and Crew Information under the Special Features section and click on Arnold's screen, you'll see a listing for Total Recall 2 (2002), something that obviously hasn't happened but who knows what will happen in the future!

Credit goes to Arnold for his performance in this film, which was an exceptional display in that his acting skills were only getting better and better; granted, he's not the best actor in the industry, but for his type of movies, he was at the top when this film was released. Sharon Stone puts on a wonderful performance in this film and this film can most certainly be directly attributed to being the one that led to her super stardom and being cast for some of her bigger roles. Ronny Cox also does another superior job of being the villain in this movie, a role he has always done well in. For Star Trek Voyager fans, it's interesting to note that Robert Picardo does the voiceover for the Johnny Cab.

"Total Recall" is just another in a long list of outstanding and somewhat gory action flicks for director Paul Verhoeven. In this genre, he can most certainly be counted among the best directors to ever take up the mantle. Phillip K. Dick, the author of the short story "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale," the story that "Total Recall" is based upon, also wrote the story that "Blade Runner" was based upon and many more; just showing what a talent this writer has been.

The Premise:

Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) wakes up to find himself lying next to Lori (Sharon Stone), who he believes to have been his loving wife for the last eight years. Quaid expresses that he wishes to go to Mars but Lori doesn't want anything to do with it. As Quaid is coming home from work, he sees an advertisement for Total Rekall where he can take a virtual vacation and decides to try it. Not long after his virtual vacation begins, this action flick takes off on a breathtaking wild ride that doesn't slow down until the credits start rolling...

I highly recommend this film to any and all who're interested in seeing one of the best Sci-Fi action movies ever made. One note of caution though, this film is not for the young, faint of heart or weak of stomach as is the norm with a Paul Verhoeven film. To achieve the film he's looking for, he doesn't spare the gore at all! {ssintrepid}

Special Features:

-Audio Commentary with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Director Paul Verhoeven

-"Imagining Total Recall" Documentary

-Rekall's Virtual Vacations

-"Visions of Mars" Featurette (This is especially interesting considering we have a rover on Mars right now)

-Visual Storyboard Comparisons

-Conceptual Art

-Photo Gallery

-Production Notes

-Theatrical Trailers and TV Spots

-Cast and Crew Information

Read Best Reviews of Total Recall (1990) Here

I'm not a big video geek, and before when I saw people complaining about a horrible dvd transfer, I chalked it up to little details I couldn't see. *This* I could see. I liked _Total Recall_ the first time I saw it, and it is still a good movie. However the film quality on this DVD is really grainy and the color was off -like they mastered it from a five year old video that had seen wind and weather. Just get the video.

Want Total Recall (1990) Discount?

I got a BD player a year after they came out while the format war was still going on and I read reviews of the discs. They always said that this one was not too great but acceptable. Some how, some people rate The Terminator (first 2) discs as poor when they are not. Total Recall is by far THE worst BD disc ever!

This one gets the same type of review as Robocop from the reviewers. It is no wonder why these discs are $10 or less! This is a very poor representation of Blu-Ray or even HD. I am good at spotting resolutions with my eye and I can tell that this is not an HD master. It has to be a 480I give or take a few lines!

This is nothing more than an upconverted picture, but upconverted DVD's look much better in most cases. From the moment the credits roll, there is severe crushing, noise and low resolution. The picture quality is so bad that it looks like analog cable with a damaged cord THAT bad! The noise (it can't be mere film grain alone) is so horrible that the film grain has noise that moves and changes colors!

The colors were bland and there was NOTHING HD about the picture in any way. There was no 3D effect when looking at the picture. No facial details. No stitching in the clothing nothing. The sound was weak as well since it was in DTS-HD, not Master Audio. Hey, it was one of the early BD titles.

Instead of steady re-releasing Terminators, they need to remaster this! I avoided it out of fear of the reviews, but the reviewers were too soft on this one. Do not get it if you are looking for HD picture.

On another note, it was weird (I know) to see so many tube TV's 100 years into the future. Even 2001: A Space Odessy predicted flat screens.

Save 21% Off