Lord of the Flies (Criterion Collection) (1963)

`Lord of the Flies' has been made into a movie at least twice since the William Golding novel of the same name became a cult classic / must read volume for high school and college students in the late 1950s. The first version, which follows the novel very closely, was done in black and white by the noted director, Peter Brook in 1963. The second version was done in color by Harry Hook and released in 1990.

Like many remakes in the same language, one immediately wonders why bother, as the original Brook version is more than gripping enough to convey the message of the novel.

To highlight the differences between the two versions, let me outline the story shared by the two versions.

The scene is set when an airplane carrying school children crashes in the South Pacific, of the coast of a remote tropical island. Approximately 30 of the children, ages 6 to 13 make it to shore and gather on the beach to work out how they are to survive and assume that since they are far removed from their original destination and the island is small and uninhabited, there is a good chance it will take a long time, if ever, for grown-ups to find and rescue them. The first two principle characters are Ralph, one of the two or three oldest boys who we meet first, in the company of an intelligent, bespectacled, slightly overweight boy of the same age known as `Piggy'. The third main character is Jack, about as old and as fit as Ralph. Three minor named characters are Simon, who is prone to fainting and `seeing things' and Sam and Eric, a pair of twins.

An early vote sets up Ralph as the leader, with a few rules establishing a conch shell found by Ralph and Piggy in the first reel as the symbol of the right to speak to the gathering of boys. Jack immediately assumes the responsibility as leader of a `gang' (later to become a `tribe') of hunters who will also take responsibility for maintaining a signal fire which Ralph succeeds in lighting by using Piggy's eyeglass lens as a means of concentrating sunlight on a clump of tinder.

Jack's gang gets involved too much in hunting and allows the signal fire to go out just as an aircraft flies near the island. Soon, a story evolves about the presence of a monster on the island. This creates the pretext for Jack to split off from the group with his tribe and create a camp at a more defensible location. As this larger group becomes more and more primitive, they raid Ralph's camp and steal Piggy's specs since it is the only means they have for starting fires. To placate the monster, the head of a killed wild pig is cut from its carcass and stood on the top of a pole near the suspected monster's lair as an offering to the monster.

After a few days, Simon observes this pig's head and its very large collection of flies feasting on the festering flesh and imagines he hears the pigs head speak to him, hence, the source of the title. Simon is then killed when the hunters mistake him in the night for the monster.

When Ralph and Piggy walk to Jack's camp to recover Piggy's specs, Piggy is killed by another `accident' when Jack's tribe members pry a large boulder loose that falls on Piggy. Ralph and Jack fight, Ralph is driven off, and the whole tribe sets fire to the jungle to flush out Ralph and, presumably, kill him. Both stories end as Ralph runs to the beach to find himself at the feet of a very professionally uniformed member of his country's elite armed services.

Hook spices up the dialogue by making the boys much more hip with lots of swear words and references to contemporary popular shows such as Alf and Miss Piggy of the Muppets. Unfortunately, Hook loses the two most important elements of the whole story. In the beginning of the novel and, subtly, in the beginning of Brook's film, we see that the world is once more at war and the boys from several different schools are on a plane to Australia to find relative safety from the coming (nuclear?) conflict. Hook shows nothing of this, giving us simply a group of boys from the same military academy on a trip to goodness knows where. This totally looses the whole allegorical sense of the story where the conflict between the boys mirrors the war in the world at large, especially the sense of the last scene where the world (island) is destroyed by the conflict (fire).

The second major oversight in Hook's rendition is that there is never enough attention given to the significance of the pig's head, Simon's vision, and the sense of `The Lord of the Flies'. A less important point is that the origin of the monster myth is different in the two movies. Brook's film follows the book and has it be a misinterpretation of a billowing parachute from a fallen, dead pilot. Hook creates the myth out of the spasms of the downed plane's delirious pilot as he finds refuge in a cave and is rediscovered by Simon who believes he is a monster.

Both movies do a credible job of depicting the fall of nominally civilized boys into savagery and myth. The combat between Ralph and Jack near the end is straight out of Frazier's `The Golden Bough' on the myth of killing the king. Unfortunately, Hook's version seems as eviscerated as the pig carcass, as all the great allegorical of the original story are totally lost. And, as minimal as they were, I even think the boys' performances in Brook's version are better done, as their initial innocence in the face of this loss of civilization makes their transformation all the more interesting.

Brook's version is highly recommended.

It was a pleasure to see the original version of "Lord of the Flies" again. I'll be interested in seeing the DVD version as well, to see what additional material comes in that format. Having been one of the boys in the movie, I also appreciated seeing the reviews posted by other Amazon customers! I wonder if any of the other cast members have checked out this site...

I confess to liking the original version far more than the remake, but that's not surprising, I guess. I TRIED to keep an open mind when I saw the new version, but, alas, I failed. My recollections of running from the burning jungle, coughing, onto the beach at the end makes a black-and-white rendition seem more real to me.

Buy Lord of the Flies (Criterion Collection) (1963) Now

I was terribly excited to discover that one of my favorite classic films, the 1963 Peter Brooks "Lord of the Flies" was on dvd. I was even more excited when I saw it had been given a deluxe treatment by some studio called Criterion.

"Lord of the Flies" was the first dvd I bought and it introduced me to the phenomenal Criterion Collection. Every extra on this dvd is fantastic and interesting, there is no filler or meaningless praise. The commentary alone is worth the price of this dvd, it gives a magnificent insight into how this film was made: for instance, the film was one of the first independent productions ever produced. This is one of those rare commentaries that adds to your appreciation and understanding of the film, I rank it alongside "Seven Samurai" and "Grand Illusion" (also both Criterion dvds) commentaries as among the best I have heard.

The film itself looks abolutely fantastic, worlds better than any vhs or laserdisc edition I had previously seen; criterion's produced an amazing, clean image that will be striking on any video set up.

_Lord of the Flies_ is one of my favorite novels; Golding masterfully touched on many themes and concepts about society and managed to capture the essence of humanity in the boyish caricatures he created. For the most part those themes and ideas come across very faithfully in the film. As it is pointed out in the dvd's commentary; there is no screenwriting credit, because there was no script, the production team worked straight from the novel, using it as their sole source of the story. The result is a remarkably clear and coherent adapation of the original novel, brought to life with great faith and startling prowess for a first time filmmaker. Some technical limitations can still be seen in the final product, but they do little to detract from your enjoyment of the film.

In short: a fantastic, dark, and compelling story is brilliantly brought to life in such a stark manner that it feels to viewer at times like an unfolding documentary. Finally, to top it off, the film was given a royal treatment on dvd that perfectly complements and enhances the film itself; in all, very much worth the price of admission.

Read Best Reviews of Lord of the Flies (Criterion Collection) (1963) Here

This is a thinker's film. If you like movies to sweep you away in a safe adventurous fantasy, get something else. Enjoying this film is contingent upon thinking about it. Like the book, it provokes, and you, being the subject matter, may not like being addressed in such a way.

Whether ir not it lives up to the book is a whole other question. I think it is wonderful in its own right, and that it does a great job of bringing Golding's story to the screen. Whatever.

As a DVD, this Criterion Collection edition is practically unsurpassed. I buy very few DVDs because they are expensive and I see this new medium as an opportunity to build a truly great movie collection. One afternoon I was discussing with some friends what movies we would buy on DVD. I immediately suggested "The original 'Lord of the Flies'. But they won't release it. And if they do it will be a crappy transfer. And there won't be any extras." Oh, how wrong I was! The sound and picture transfers are incredible the film is better than I've ever seen it. And the extras are amazing! The commentary is completely satisfying from a filmmaker's point of view, and likewise a philosopher's interest. The story of the making of the film is worth the purchase in itself.

There's tons of stuff to watch and listen to. It's great. It's totally worth the price. I thought that "The Matrix" was a great value as a DVD (in terms of extras), but this matches it and means a lot more. "Buy it!", I say!

Want Lord of the Flies (Criterion Collection) (1963) Discount?

This movie is a very skillful presentation of William Golding's eponymous, timeless sociological horror story. A group of boys ranging from around 6 to, I would guesstimate, 14 or 15, are stranded on a desert island. Unfortunately for the boys, the general spirit of their story parts ways with the spirit of "Gilligan's Island" immediately, and they end up deteriorating into tribal, superstitious savages, rent with internecine strife, in a matter of (evidently) weeks.

Any viewer out there who plans to see this movie should absolutely make an effort to read the book. You could possibly see the movie first, if you digest storylines more easily through movies than books. But whatever order you carry out the two activities in, you must see the movie AND read the book, if you want a full understanding of what the director was doing here.

Here are a few good things to notice. First of all, you should be aware that this film was shot mostly on the islet of Vieques, off the coast of Puerto Rico. It's hard to believe that this is true, because it's just so perfect -Vieques is the island where the U.S. Navy practices bombing these days, and protesters against war have been getting into all kinds of clashes with the authorities the past few months (spring and summer of 2001). Maybe "Lord of the Flies" was more prophetic than the director, actors and writers ever even realized.

A second thing to notice is the song that is constantly playing, throughout most of the movie. The song is "Kyrie Eleison." At first Jack's choir sings it, and then it sort of becomes general background music. If you happen not to be particularly into going to church, let me just clue you in that "kyrie eleison" is Greek for "Lord have mercy," which I think you'll agree is a chillingly apt refrain for this relentlessly dark movie.

A third good thing to notice is the little boy, who progressively loses his memory of his own identity, over the course of the film. At first, he automatically recites his full name, address and phone number to any stranger he meets, as he was apparently taught to do by his parents. Midway through the film, he can remember only his name, and part of his address. By the end, not to spoil the ending by giving too much away, he cannot even recollect his name. "How quickly," one envisions William Golding bemoaning, "we forget!"

But I'm just pointing out a few minor things to notice. The basic theme is obviously the clash between savagery and civilization, and the tendency for things to fall apart, for the center not to hold... George Washington himself used to say that the job of government has to do with Fear -instilling it in possible malefactors, in enemies of the state, even in respected members of the community, just to keep everyone in line. This movie makes you think about what might happen if that force were removed from society as a whole. If the function of art is to raise awareness of painful truths, as this movie does, then the individual must be sure to bring things other than art into their lives, in order to raise awareness of kinder truths which are no less valid, no less serious, and no less important for being kind. That's what I think anyway.

This is an interesting movie, and it will really make you think. Two thumbs up.

Save 30% Off

NEW C.r.a.z.y. - C.r.a.z.y. (blu-ray) (Blu-ray)

I had the pleasure of seeing this award-winning French Canadian film at the 2005 Toronto Film Fest. I would dearly like to see it again -even at the exorbitant price of $45 -but I have to refrain for the time being. The reason: the details don't specify whether or not this film has ENGLISH SUBTITLES, and I strongly suspect that it DOESN'T. (It's been my experience with Quebec DVD films in the past that if they don't specifically MENTION subtitles, there ARE no subtitles.) I've inquired about this to Amazon, but have not received the courtesy of a reply yet. So, much as I would like to recommend that you check out this amazing character-driven film right away, I can only suggest that you hold off for the time being, until the issue is cleared up. (Unless you SPEAK French, of course ... then go for it!)

* Update: Thanks to another Amazon user, I found out that the DVD was available from an alternate source for a lot less money and definitely DID have English subtitles. I strongly believe that it's the same version that Amazon is offering. Why they refuse to update the details is a mystery, but you can now consider it safe to purchase if you don't speak French.

I rarely review items on Amazon, but I just saw this film and believe it deserves far more attention than it is getting in the U.S. If you like movies about people, family, and relationships and don't like Hollywood's oversimplified characters and facile plots, this film is for you.

The story in a nutshell: lower middle class parents raise 5 sons in suburban Montreal from 1960 to the present. There are 2 main themes: the father's relationships with his sons, and the struggle of one of the sons to reconcile his identity with his parents' expectations.

While I was watching this film, I kept waiting for one of the usual missteps: a character simplified to keep the story moving, an action or phrase that isn't genuine, an actor briefly stepping out of character. It didn't happen! This 2 hour movie was flawless in how it portrayed this family and the times they lived in. But don't get the idea this is some french version of Forest Gump. This movie encapsulates a time and place by focusing on the individuals and letting their unique lives tell the story of the generation.

I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the superb acting from this cast you've probable never heard of (I sure hadn't). If this film was in english the actor playing the father would be a slamdunk for the best supporting actor Oscar. The portrayals of the mother, the eldest son as an adult, and all the sons as children were superb. Finally, I would call the lead character's performance a Tour de Force if it weren't for the fact that this somehow implies it was overdone. It wasn't it was just perfect!

A word of warning. These characters speak Quebecois. Don't expect your high school french or even your college french/english dictionary to let understand the dialogue without subtitles. This is a shame because the color imparted by language is part of the story, especially the French Canadian swear words based on the Catholic liturgy.

Go out of your way to see this film. It's a gem.

Buy NEW C.r.a.z.y. - C.r.a.z.y. (blu-ray) (Blu-ray) Now

It's already Canada's official entry at the Oscars and has been distributed in 50 countries. It also boasts one of the most enthusiastic ratings response on the IMDb () and it's just been made available on DVD on Amazon. See:

It's a coming-of-age story set in Quebec in the 60's, 70's and 80's in a suburban family of five boys. It's been variously acclaimed as the "Best Canadian Film ever" and the "Best Quebec Film of the past 20 years", which is not surprising as the best Canadian films are almost invariably from Québec.

I personally think it deserves all the accolades. On top of good acting, a gripping story, gut-wrenching situations, a wonderful recreation of the era, and a very real Québec atmosphere, it offers visual explosions of pure cinematic genius. It it doesn't get the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar let alone the nominationthere is something seriously wrong with America!

Read Best Reviews of NEW C.r.a.z.y. - C.r.a.z.y. (blu-ray) (Blu-ray) Here

C.R.A.Z.Y. is a rare film. Wonderful, comic, beautiful, poetic, tragic, and moreit effectively captures the cultural norms and social atmosphere of Montreal in the late 70s. More importantly, it tells the story of a suburban, working class family and their confrontation with the most formidable of challenges that could threaten any family's stability.

Brutally honest, morally visceral, and cleverly presented, C.R.A.Z.Y. will alter the meaning of the word, permanently, for anyone who is willing to accept that the most important foundations of family are love and acceptance.

Want NEW C.r.a.z.y. - C.r.a.z.y. (blu-ray) (Blu-ray) Discount?

This could be the best foreign film and for my money one of the best films at the 2005 Oscars.

My wife and I still talk about the film. It is a story about a Quebec family (French) with the focus on the coming of age/coming out story of one of 5 boys. Well done and sensitive, it follows the boy from birth to middle age providing a real insight into what it was like for this person discovering his homosexuality. While the story focuses on his relationship with his father, his mother's role is priceless and the music was exceptional.

A French Canadian masterpiece.

No (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy No (2013) Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Best Reviews of No (2013) Here

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

Want No (2013) Discount?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Save 25% Off

Thor (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D / Blu-ray / DVD / Digital Copy) (2011)

Thor is Marvel's best superhero movie yet. It is even better than the first Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk films. It is also the most visually stunning of any Marvel film, with gorgeous fantasy settings, great costumes, and spectacular special effects.

In the same way as Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight worked just as well as a crime drama as a superhero movie, Thor works just as well as a standalone fantasy film. Even if I had not known that I was watching a comic book movie, I would have been just as happy with the story. In fact, I would say that you don't actually need to be familiar with the characters or the comic mythology to enjoy the film.

The story is set half in Asgard, the realm of the gods, and half in our world, Earth. Thor, the son of the king of Asgard, the wise Odin, is a proud and arrogant king-in-waiting. He makes a foolish mistake that brings his world to the brink of war and his father exiles him to our world as punishment, and maybe to teach him how to be a better man. On Earth, Thor makes some new friends and even begins to fall in love with a pretty scientist. Meanwhile, in Asgard, his brother Loki begins to put into motion a plot that may threaten Thor's home.

Two things about the film really stood out to me. The first is the absolutely beautiful settings and solid world-building in the movie. Asgard looks amazing, with settings such as the Rainbow Bridge, a crystal structure with colored lights running through it, spanning a sea that flows into a massive waterfall, cascading down into the open cosmos. Also, great costuming really makes the gods stand out, and adds to the film's epic feel. The second thing was the character of Loki, the film's antagonist. Watching the trailers, I expected a greasy, honorless villain (someone like Wormtongue from the Lord of the Rings). Instead I got the story of a hero, told in reverse. Loki's story mirrors his brother Thor's, but where Thor starts out as an arrogant royal brat and through his time on Earth comes to realize what it means to be a hero, Loki begins the story as a mischievous but honorable man, and over the course of the film turns into a really bad guy. As Thor rises, he falls. And when his final plan is revealed at the end of the film, it totally fits his personality and everything you know about him. In other superhero films, we're used to seeing the bad guy go on some kind of mindless rampage at the end of the film. We saw it in The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, the Spider Man movies, the Fantastic Four...but not here. Loki acts like a man with a purpose. Actually he has two purposes, both very personal to him. One is to do commit a terrible act of destruction, partly out of self-loathing and partly out of a twisted sense of honor toward his father. And the other is simply to beat his brother, proving himself Thor's equal. He is easily the deepest villain of any of the Marvel films so far.

The film is directed by Shakespearean actor Kenneth Branagh (Gilderoy Lockhart!), who handles the epic material perfectly. More than any Marvel film so far, this one focuses on the hero's journey. Even more than a comic book movie, this is a fantasy film about a hero. Expect father-son drama, palace intrigue in the realm of the gods, and an epic confrontation between two brothers who have been become very different people over the course of the story. There is also plenty of humor, with a few real laugh-out-loud moments. And there is a very sweet, almost cute romance woven into the story. It carries an innocent, young-love kind of feeling. It also takes the two characters, one a god more concerned with war and glory, the other a scientist more concerned with solving the mysteries of the universe, and brings them down to earth in their budding love for one another.

I would recommend Thor to any lover of fantasy films, as well as any fans of comic book movies such as Marvel's Avengers lineup. It is solid fantasy fun with a strong sense of the epic and the heroic. And when you see Thor finally wield his hammer and summon the lightning, you'll want to stand up and cheer.

I went to see this with our 9 year old son, honestly not expecting very much. While I have enjoyed Portman and Hopkins in a number of roles, I felt this would be just another comic book hero movie with a bad script, extremely predictable character development, and unoriginal attempts at humor.

I was wrong...

Not only did I AND our 9 year old boy enjoy THOR, our 13 year old daughter, 15 year old goddaughter, and two more of our daughter's friends enjoyed it...ALL 3 TIMES WE SAW IT!!!

That's right...I saw THOR with our kids 3 times. Granted, this is a bit over-killed, but we thoroughly enjoyed the movie every time and plan to purchase it on opening DVD release day. Here's why:

1. I felt it was age appropriate.

2. Was it violent, sure...was it gory, no.

3. It had clear lines of good and bad, treated well with a myriad of complexities that led people to their struggles...so it felt honest.

4. I thought it was a GREAT play into the Avengers movie that is on the way.

5. I felt Branagh did a wonderful job directing...they should consider allowing him to direct the Avengers.

Rent this one...buy it...whatever works for you. It's good entertainment with plenty of action, quick wit, and a sweet redemption in the end. No Oscars here, but a good film nonetheless...thumbs up!

Buy Thor (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D / Blu-ray / DVD / Digital Copy) (2011) Now

Comic book fans get a lot of flak for being nerds, dweebs and geeks; or at least they used to. Now comics are en vogue as millions of people attend geekfests like Comic Con; although whether that's to see the movie and television stars in attendance remains to be seen. Comic book characters are our mythology, they rival the super powered beings and gods of ancient Greek, Mesopotamian, and Viking mythology. We as humans have always felt this need to look up to higher powers to sort out our lives, believing that the fate of our race is better left in the hands of someone capable of bending the rules of physics. It's only natural then that eventually the worlds of comics and ancient mythology would collide as it does in the new Marvel movie Thor.

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is the arrogant first born son of King Odin (Anthony Hopkins) of Asgard, and the rightful heir to the throne. When Thor commits an act that could lead to war between Asgard and the Frostgiants, with whom they have a very shaky truce, Odin strips Thor of his powers and banishes him to Earth until he learns humility. On Earth Thor is found by astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her team (Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings) as they study atmospheric disturbances in New Mexico.

Thor is one of Marvel's lesser known properties, despite having been created by Stan Lee back in 1962. An integral character in Marvel's super powered team The Avengers, the movie version of the comic book was announced not long after the success of Iron Man as part of Marvel Studios attempt to bring The Avengers to the big screen. While Marvel has had great success with the first Iron Man movie and to a lesser extent Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk (which is the closest Marvel Studios has come to failure so far), Thor was a risky proposition with the greatest potential for failure. How does one meld the worlds of the mythical Asgard and Earth seamlessly into a movie that is part of a bigger picture with characters that are based solely in our realm?

Enter Kenneth Branagh. The success of Thor can largely be pinned on having a filmmaker with appropriate gravitas to ground the film. Branagh is a star of stage as well as film (for those of you unfamiliar with the name he played Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets). The presence of Branagh alone was somewhat curious considering he's known more for directing acclaimed works like Hamlet (1996) and Henry V (1989) and even as an Irishman the English consider him one of the leaders in Shakespearean theater. It's that knowledge of film and theater that really guides Thor as he borrows as much from Shakespeare's Henry V as he does from modern action films.

Also adding to the weight of Kenneth Branagh's credentials are a list of acclaimed and award winning actors and actresses such as Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, Rene Russo, and Idris Elba. Not only do they have the opportunity to ground the movie, but they also look like they're having fun. Part of why we enjoy this movie is because we can see that they enjoy the movie. No one ever really feels like they're hamming it up or sleepwalking through their scenes, you get the sense that aside from the emotions they convey for their characters concerning their predicaments they all want to be on this set and that feeling is infectious. Also Tom Hiddleston's Loki is a revelation at a time when I have to admit that Marvel Studio's previous villains have been lacking a certain je ne sais que. Hiddleston plays the character with a secret, and a glimmer behind the eyes that slowly unravels like a ripe onion throughout the film holding on to his deceit with the hope of another day. He's more complex than the previous villains that have come out of Marvel Studios, and I'm looking forward to his return in The Avengers.

The real linchpin for why this all works though is Chris Hemsworth. While having been around here and there in blink and you'll miss it parts, Hemsworth got his first big break in JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot in the pivotal role of George Kirk, father of James T. Kirk. While his place in geekdom had been set in a small yet important role, the question of whether he could pull off the Norse god turned Marvel superhero. In a lot of actor's hands this would have been a one note character bereft of emotion and humor. Hemsworth is a magnetic leading man, though, exuding charisma and confidence. His poise commands respect, and he effortlessly flows from emotion to emotion, arrogance to humility, with a comedic timing that leaves the audience in stitches but still doesn't undermine his character.

As with most, if not all comic book movies, this movie tries hard to give you a lot of plot in a short two hour span (I say short because it leaves you wanting more, the way a good action movie should). Naturally, some things are a little undercooked but don't ruin the movie. In the end, as much as I fell in love with Natalie Portman's character (as I do with almost any character she plays) the romantic connection between Thor and Foster didn't ring true because for most of the film he seemed somewhat disinterested only to find his infatuation with her later in the movie. Thor's progression from arrogant strongman to humble hero also seems to be slightly haphazard as it really feels as though it could have used more time to flesh out. Hemsworth does an admirable job making the audience feel each twist and turn of the character, but each twist and turn feels a little too abrupt to be genuine.

All in all though, this was an excellent film: a piece of escapist entertainment that embraces Shakespeare as much as it embraces modern blockbuster pop-art. On the scales of Marvel I'd rate this just slightly under Iron Man and far above Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk. The fact that they were able to get Thor right gives me hope for The First Avenger: Captain America and The Avengers. If you're a fan of comic book movies, Iron Man, or Marvel I highly recommend that you give this film a try. Not to mention, this is quite possibly the best use of 3D I recall since Avatar. Check it out!

4/5

For more review check out: jasoncwilkerson.blogspot.com

Read Best Reviews of Thor (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D / Blu-ray / DVD / Digital Copy) (2011) Here

Thor is a difficult comic hero to bring to the big screen, but director Kenneth Branagh (Hamlet) has pulled it off with ease. What helps though is that Chris Hemsworth is perfectly cast as Thor and Tom Hiddleston is as well cast as his evil brother Loki. Plus, unlike with Iron Man 2, you get plenty of action to please you as well.

Roger Ebert hated Thor and thinks that every Marvel film since Spider-Man 2, just hasn't been as good. However, Thor is the way it should be. What is a good comic adaption according to Ebert anyway, was Thor supposed use his powers to deliver pizza ? Was he supposed to spend half the movie pouring his heart out to Natalie Portman's answering machine as she just stands there listening looking annoyed ?

After Thor loses his powers when he comes to Earth, was he supposed to strut down the street with a smile on his face as the song "rain drops falling on my head" plays ? No! Thor works as a magical and macho fantasy and that's exactly what a Thor movie should be!

Want Thor (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D / Blu-ray / DVD / Digital Copy) (2011) Discount?

I bought my first Thor comic at age 6 or 7, way back in the 60's! I now have them all from "Journey Into Mystery #83" thru issue 500 or so. I even own some original Kirby art from "Thor". The movie surpassed my expectations!

Save 39% Off

Fast & Furious: 1-5 Bundle (2013)

This is a bundle of five "The Fast and the Furious" movies. Please note that this is not a box set, it is just the five movies sold together each movie comes in its own separate blu-ray case. Video/audio quality varies by disc, but is generally excellent; these discs also include a variety of special features that take you behind the scenes of the making of the movies.

The Fast and Furious films vary greatly in quality, but they are all entertaining. If you are into cars or the racing culture, then these movies are made for you. I'm not much of a car guy myself, but I enjoyed these films because of the car chases and stunts, which have become progressively more over-the-top but are always fun to watch. My favorite of the films is the most recent one, "Fast Five", which is less of a racing film and more of a heist movie.

In addition to the blu-ray disc, each movie also comes with a Digital Copy (compatible with iTunes) and an Ultraviolet copy which allows you to stream the film on various devices.

If you've never seen the Fast & Furious films, or if you're a fan but have yet to buy them, then this collection of five films on blu-ray is the perfect set for you and comes highly recommended.

Here are the links to the individual releases:

The Fast and the Furious (Blu-ray + Digital Copy + UltraViolet)

2 Fast 2 Furious (Blu-ray + Digital Copy + UltraViolet)

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (Blu-ray + Digital Copy + UltraViolet)

Fast & Furious (2009) (Blu-ray + Digital Copy + UltraViolet)

Fast Five (Blu-ray + Digital Copy + UltraViolet)

I'm a big fan of the movies but really and Van Diesel. And I also watch a lot of Ultra Violet and iTunes movies, so this is perfect for my home blue-ray, my iPad on the go and for the Nexus 7 for work. So basically you are getting three versions per movie, not bad. I ordered this bundle as of "Deal of the day" and got it for 37.00 bucks.

Buy Fast & Furious: 1-5 Bundle (2013) Now

This is a great item for all Fast and Furious fans out there. I watch these movies all day,everyday and it was definitely worth the money. I recommend this 1-5 bundle for all Fast and Furious fans.

Read Best Reviews of Fast & Furious: 1-5 Bundle (2013) Here

This set came exactly as was expected. Five movies, all in cases the same as you would purchase individually at retail. Only two criteria held these back from a five star rating. Firstly, the short film that took place in between Fast and the Furious and 2 Fast 2 Furious from the DVD Franchise Edition of the first two movies is, for no logical reason, excluded from the 2 Fast 2 Furious Blu-Ray unless I have completely missed something, along with the entire content of the bonus disk, though I understand that was exclusive to that collection. Not a huge deal since I know the entire storyline as I've been a fan since I was thirteen years old, but for my girlfriend who has JUST started watching the series I feel she missed out a little having me explain how Brian made it to Florida and where the Skyline came from instead of watching the short film as an introduction. My only other complaint was that the package came with all five movies taped together with packaging tape. For those who simply discard the cardboard sleeves surrounding the movie cases, no big deal. For me, annoying that the edges of my sleeves are peeled off. Great product, I got it for a steal as a deal of the day. Buy this if you're a FATF fan as there will be at least a seventh movie, so no comprehensive "the series is over, here's everything" collection will not appear for likely several more years.

Want Fast & Furious: 1-5 Bundle (2013) Discount?

My husband loves the Fast & Furious movies so I was really pleased when Amazon offered such a deal on the bundle for seasons 1 5. In fact, I purchased several set for gifts for other Fast and Furious movie fans in our family who don't live close enough to borrow my husband's set. Good Quality and Great pricing!

Save 58% Off

Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) (2005)

Few movies drive home a point as sharply as this one does. Yep, I will never, ever be mean or angry with a waiter or food preparer again.

"Waiting" is definitely one of those F*** Bomb a minute, gross out sexual humor sort of movies. But what makes it stand out from the majority of these usually brainless and nearly unwatchable movies is the sharply written script by first time writer/director Rob McKittrick. McKittrick knows his subject, as he was writing from personal experience. The characters are well fleshed out and recognizable, and the dialogue is quite funny and intelligent. The ensemble cast Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris, and Justin Long among them do a great job.

As others have already mentioned, "Waiting" is like "Office Space", in that it is a movie focused on one peculiar micro-culture of our modern society. Instead of Cubical-ville, the characters live in the world of those familiar chain restaurants with the ersatz instant "history" and "character" stuck to the walls, where the waiters gather at your table to sing "Happy Birthday". Think T.G.I.F. or Bubba Gump, more upscale than Denny's or Carrow's, less upscale than Macaroni Grill (the local one here has someone, usually the head waiter or a cute girl, sing "Happy Birthday" in Italian, as an aria).

And, I now appreciate so much more the budget steakhouses like Ponderosa/Bonanza that show you the cooks grilling the steaks right in front of the customers. Great idea, all restaurants should do that...

Yes, this movie is what happens after the "coming of age" movie, when the kids leave the comforts of home to figure out what to do with the rest of their lives. Have you noticed how the people in these sorts of jobs are usually young, usually turn over constantly? It's a way station in life, the entry point into the cold, hard, realities of our fiercely competitive society.

Be kind to them all, while they figure it out...

About one day in the life of a family-style restaurant, it's employees, and the horrors that happen within the kitchen to those that may or may not deserve it, I found this movie entertaining and like how the filmmakers said in the documentary, alot like Clerks, yet not nearly as clever. Ryan Reynolds plays the exact same character he's played in Van Wilder (and others) here and he's got it down to a sarcastic science. Apple computer lackey Justin Long does surprisngly well here too as the "hero" of the story who realizes this day that his life is slowly wasted there. Alot of other familiar faces spring up here too, and for the gross-out scenes, yes they will teach you not to anger your waiter until AFTER you've eaten. Mildly amusing while not a total gut-buster, gets a whole point for the plentiful bonus features and very inventive menus.

(RedSabbath Rating:8.0/10)

Buy Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) (2005) Now

I love this movie. A better tale of the trials & tribulations of working in the mid-grade restaurant industry has never been made. It's sophomoric humor but it's hilarious! Don't waste your time on the sequel though, it is the Khan to the original's Kirk.

Read Best Reviews of Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) (2005) Here

I saw this movie on comedy central, but they censored so much out of it, i decided to just spend $7 and buy it. Well worth it, this movie is hilarious. Not a family movie, but for people who have worked in a restaurant, it makes you laugh so hard.

Want Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) (2005) Discount?

I knew what I was getting into when I sat down to an evening with "Waiting." I knew it was from the school of moronic, gross out humor. But when a friend passed the DVD on to me, I respectfully emptied my head and put it on. I expected some sophomore pranks, some groaning one liners, and maybe a few chuckles--but I was completely blindsided by a mind-numbing boredom that set it from this film.

The setup was cute enough and the cast seemed appealing. Shenanigans is a great name for the establishment and there is certainly plenty of humorous material in the corporate world of restaurant flair (already impeccably handled in Office Space). But any hopes of a sly satire or a witty commentary on that world were soon abandoned. In fact, go watch Office Space again! The few brief moments in that film set in a similarly themed restaurant are funnier and have more to say than all 90 minutes of "Waiting."

So, as we are introduced to everyone through the eyes of a new employee played by a likable John Francis Daley I still had some hope. But then we are introduced to The Game, a sophomoric exercise where employees flash their privates. It was enough to make me smile, ONCE. But they beat this not-so-stellar joke to death almost immediately and proceeded to batter and kick and mutilate its unfunny carcass for the rest of the movie. I'm not kidding, eliminate this one clunker of an ongoing joke and "Waiting" probably would have been about 22 minutes! Now that would have been a real treat!

There is one scene near the end of the film when Daley blows up that I enjoyed. But one scene and a promising but unfufilled setup do not make up for the other 89 minutes I was waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh. Let me make this perfectly clear: In no way was I offended by the content of this film, I'm only bothered by its incapacity to engage me in any humorous way. KGHarris, 10/06.

Save 24% Off

It's a Wonderful Life Giftset (Blu-ray + Bell Ornament) (1946)

Rather than review the content of this almost universally beloved film, I'm just going to comment about the quality of the 2006 60th Anniversary Edition DVD itself. I've since written an updated review about a new edition of this title, now available in a "Two-Disc Collector's Set." Please find that review -which was posted on December 13, 2008. (Amazon has posted my 2006 review in both places -even though the "60th Anniversary Edition" DVD is DIFFERENT from the "Two-Disc Collector's Set". Read my write-up for the "Two-Disc Collector's Set" -again, it's DATED 2008 and too early to rank among the "most helpful" reviews -to better decide which product you prefer.)

I've owned nearly every version of this title in almost every format available on home video during the past 25 years. It's true that the CONTENT of this Viacom/Paramount DVD -including its special features -is identical to the Republic Pictures Home Video release more than 10 years ago.

However, this 60th Anniversary edition is spectacular for several different and extremely important reasons. (I'll address the criticisms some people have leveled about the sound on this 2006 DVD in a little bit, so stick with me.)

You don't have to be a technical expert to immediately notice the striking improvement of the picture AND sound in this 2006 edition. The print is crystal-clear and in my view, has more vividness and sharpness than ALL other previous releases of this title on home video.

Proof? I put my "old" THX-version DVD issued by Republic Pictures / Artisan Home Video (the former DVD gold standard for this title) -into my Sony multi-changer DVD player -and watched and listened to every frame of this film AND its special features. I stopped and started this "older" DVD in several spots -and stopped and started the new 2006 Paramount edition repeatedly -so I could compare quality almost "side-by-side."

Hands down -this 2006 version is fabulous. The spots and dirt have been wiped clean, the sharpness and contrast are arguably better than what film audiences saw 60 years ago. There are no ragged spots, no jumped frames and no lint, fiber or hair fragments along the edges or jumping across the screen. I believe the technicians at Paramount (which acquired Republic Pictures Home Video) -digitally cleaned EVERY frame of the last DVD release -so that the film now looks like a million dollars. It's almost too pristine, if there is such a thing. No jump cuts, no "jump ahead" sound breaks, no fogged-out scenes, nothing ragged -with the result being the cleanest and purest version of "It's A Wonderful Life" ever issued in home video history.

It gets better. English subtitles were available on older DVD versions of this title, but the 2006 version has a cleaner typeface, wiping out some of the confusing and unnecessary attributions of "who's saying what" that were disruptive to some hearing-impaired viewers. In this 2006 version, you'll get a mostly straight, line-by-line reading of what's being said -as it's being said.

Meanwhile, the DVD's special features -which include the same pair of documentaries produced in 1990 and 1991 -are identical in that they were shot on video tape hence there isn't much improvement in picture quality. However, subtitles that WERE NOT available for these special features -are NOW available in this 2006 edition. The only "extra" to the previous "gold standard" that remains unchanged -is the original 1946 trailer. Subtitles are not available and it has the same raggedness and dirt commonly seen with vintage trailers stored separately from the films they used to advertise.

I'm highly critical of re-issued DVDs that seem nothing more than an excuse to squeeze more dollars out of buyers for the same material with new packaging. But this 2006 Paramount DVD version of "It's A Wonderful Life" is the best to date. It is NOT in color. (I own a colorized version for younger people who can't stand black-and-white. Despite controversy surrounding colorization, know that the 2007 "Two-Disc Collector's Set" has the same 2006 60th Anniversary black-and-white edition you see here -plus a new "colorized" version. This version uses the same pristine print -but has the added bonus of boasting the best "color" hues ever seen for this film, using the latest image technology available. Despite my preference for black-and-white, the quality of this new colorized version is impressive.)

Meanwhile, let's address the criticisms about the sound on this new DVD. Go back a little bit. Much was made when Republic Pictures Home Video got the THX LucasFilm sound system seal of approval for "It's A Wonderful Life" during the 1990s. But it was still two-channel mono with negligible equalization of sound effects. In this 2006 DVD, you'll get consistent two-channel mono and decent sound equalization to minimize "booming" and over-modulated portions in the film. In the old versions, you had to turn down the volume a notch during the musical portions -and turn it back up when the dialogue came back. It's a nit-pick, but you really notice the difference if you're crazy enough to do a side-by-side comparison like I did.

As for the digital sound "pops" that perfectionists keep bringing up -they're right. They're even in the spots noted by another fine reviewer who listed time codes where you can find them. But in my view, unless you brace yourselves for them to arrive like a booming train -unless you purposely crank up your speakers to carry sound throughout your house -yeah, you "might" be annoyed if you demand the same perfection for a film made in 1946 as you would for a film made in 2006. Honestly, the disproportionate attention given to these digital "pops" is, in my view, giving fence-sitters the impression that they're supersonic cracks of lightning that will make people jump out of their seats. I didn't twitch at all. They almost "blended" into the 60-year-old soundtrack. Yes, I know they're digital defects, but do you remember the zillion "pops" scattered throughout dirty prints of "It's A Wonderful Life" with filthy optical soundtracks? The audio on this 2006 DVD still wins. You have EVERY RIGHT to demand perfection for your dollars. But as a person who's more fastidious than average -I don't believe most buyers will care about a few "pops" in a film that's this old. Combine the overall improvements with the relatively low cost of this DVD -and I still say this is the BEST experience of "It's A Wonderful Life" I've ever SEEN and HEARD on home video.

Finally, another reason to buy this DVD. It's old news to some, but it's not widely known that this version of "It's A Wonderful Life" can only be broadcast by NBC. It used to air a zillion times during the holidays on every TV station on earth. It was a quick way to get tired of even a super film you think you know by heart. But Viacom/Paramount now owns this version of "It's A Wonderful Life" outright and NBC has exclusive licensing rights to air it just once or twice after Thanksgiving. This is a good thing for future generations to appreciate.

So junk the old, buy this version and be happy. It may feel painful, but it's worth it. And no, I DON'T work for Amazon NOR for Paramount Home Video.

On November 4, 2006, I posted a review noting the side-by-side differences between the "60th Anniversary Edition of It's A Wonderful Life" vs. all other editions of this film released on home video during the past 25 years. I still stand by that review.

The "Two-Disc Collector's Set" is a different product. While it contains the same 60th Anniversary DVD in pristine black-and-white is ALSO includes a second DVD a colorized version of "It's A Wonderful Life" that boasts the best color hues I've seen to date!

If you're like me -and you prefer black-and-white films to stay black-and-white fine. But I bought this 2-disc set because I was curious about how FAR digital image technology has come since the controversial practice of colorizing black-and-white films began more than two decades ago. In short, the colorization here is spectacular.

-----

DISC ONE -There are NO differences between the first disc in this "Two-Disc Collector's Set" and the superbly restored black-and-white DVD released in 2006. Disc One is EXACTLY THE SAME as the 60th Anniversary Edition of "It's A Wonderful Life." It has the SAME special features, documentaries, trailers and improved subtitles. The three-to-four VERY MINOR digital sound pops that tekkies brought up in 2006 are still present but as I wrote then they WON'T be a big deal for most families watching a film like this made more than 60 years ago.

-----

DISC TWO -This disc has the same pristine movie in "COLOR." The results are stunning. Disc Two offers optional subtitles and NO extras and NO digital sound pops!

In my 2006 review of the 60th Anniversary Edition, I noted why I kept a "colorized" version of "It's A Wonderful Life" on video tape (Republic Pictures Home Video, 1989). Most youngsters prefer color. As they get older, they come around to appreciating the artistry of black-and-white. But early on, they still find it "boring."

I recommend fans AND critics of colorization to at least "preview" how much has changed since those chalky crayon efforts of the 1980s. A high-tech company founded in 2001 called Legend Films, which specializes in restoring, colorizing and adding digital special effects to NEW and OLD films was commissioned to colorize "It's A Wonderful Life" for this "Two-Disc Collector's Set."

While the results don't match the color of today's live action films, they're still remarkable. Given the titanic advances in digital special effects since 1989, I shouldn't have been surprised. It isn't Technicolor, but the skin tones and background colors are more lifelike, enabling "It's A Wonderful Life" to JUMP off the screen like never before. It looks brighter, cleaner and more beautiful. You can almost smell Donna Reed's hair and see the panic in her brown eyes when James Stewart hovers over her when they're on the phone in the scene just before they get married.

Think of well-preserved color movies made during the 1940s or 1950s that weren't in Technicolor, but shot on different color film stock that's still beautiful today. That's what the new colorized version of "It's A Wonderful Life" looks like. It's "vintage" color, not "contemporary" color. And unless you're a technician who understands things like fading or shifting colors, you might not be able to tell the difference between what's original or colorized. Why? Because most of us are conditioned to expect LESS technical sophistication from films made in 1946 vs. 2006.

-----

Yes, colorization does alter an artist's "original vision." But the technology behind it has improved tremendously in 20 years. What this means to the future of colorizing black-and-white films, including "untouchable" classics is a subject for another day.

The solution for tekkies? Buy this "Two-Disc Collector's Set," put colorized Disc Two into your player and simply turn down the color on your TV! You'll now have the cleanest SOUND and PICTURE of "It's A Wonderful Life" ever better than it was for audiences in 1946! Moreover, it'll be easier to get your kids to watch the colorized version before "they graduate" to the black-and-white original. I hope this helps.

Buy It's a Wonderful Life Giftset (Blu-ray + Bell Ornament) (1946) Now

If you are reading this review you likely already know and love this movie. For me, it is the epitome of holiday movies with great acting along with a terrific script and tight direction. If you have never seen it in some ways I envy you just buy it and enjoy!

As I was growing up this film was shown repeatedly on television as it had lapsed into the public domain. Somehow, it was retrieved from public domain with some legal wrangling and though at first I thought of that as a bad thing the quality of the film has benefited now that there is money to be made on this old classic. The initial DVDs available for this film from the public domain era were very poor quality and only recently were better scans completed. That process has been taken to "the nth degree" for the blu-ray release.

For this review I did watch the first few minutes of the Republic Pictures DVD version which last time I checked into this was the best transfer available. I recall when first seeing it that it was far superior to other versions and light-years ahead of the worn prints that used to be shown on TV. I played it on an upscaling player (actually my Sony Blu-Ray player). I then put in the Blu-Ray version and I was blown away at the improvement. The quality is really striking with facial detail and readable text, for example, on the bottles in Mr. Gower's Pharmacy. The print is totally clean and is as others have pointed out shown in the correct aspect ratio in which it was made. This means there are black bars at the sides on a wide-screen TV and this is normal and how it should be. To fill a wide screen TV would mean either stretching things so that the thin James Stewart starts to look more like Alfred Hitchcock or cutting off the top and bottom of the picture. Either of those options would go a long way toward destroying this classic. Sound quality is also excellent and clean.

As I write this I am watching the colorized version which I feel is less impressive. While colorization has come a long way and looks less like paint-by-numbers than it used to it is still obviously added color and just distracting for us purists that love the original B&W. That said, I wonder if the colorized version will be something that might make this film more accessible to kids (though I am planning on showing the original to my 5 and 7 year old kids!)

All in all, this is a fantastic buy and is a must-have for those that love this film and have a blu-ray player. I highly recommend it.

Read Best Reviews of It's a Wonderful Life Giftset (Blu-ray + Bell Ornament) (1946) Here

Buyers beware....This supposedly "new" 60th Anniversary Edition of "It's a Wonderful Life" is THE EXACT SAME DISC AS THE PREVIOUSLY RELEASED VERSION FROM REPUBLIC PICTURES / ARTISAN!!!! The only differencne is that the new version is from the Scrooges at Paramount DVD and they've added new cover art (whoop-de-doo).

In addition, the "new" disc has the same bonus features and the same B&W transfer as the older edition. Paramount desperately needs to GIVE THIS FILM A REAL SPECIAL EDITON and stop suckering consumers into buying a product they already own!!!!!

By the way, there is NO COLORIZED VERSION on the 60th Anniversary DVD or the older release. Amazon has mistakenly listed this title as "color" and misled several reviewers to say that there actually was a colorized print on the disc. THIS IS WRONG!

Want It's a Wonderful Life Giftset (Blu-ray + Bell Ornament) (1946) Discount?

A beautifully crafted film that proved to be the apex of triple Oscar-winner (1934, 1936, 1938) Frank Capra's distinguished career, and the epitome of his cycle of works celebrating the "common man". Mr. Deeds found himself suddenly wealthy, Mr. Smith went to Washington as a Senator, and John Doe became the focus of a socio-political movement; but "Life"'s George Bailey never distinguishes himself outside of his small hometown of Bedford Falls --his brother Harry is the one who becomes a war hero, and his friend Sam Wainwright is the one who achieves financial success. George's triumph is simply his personal integrity, his code of ethics, and his strength of character --his goodness, if you will --during the unexciting course of his ordinary, mundane existence. In this respect, George is more an Everyman than any other Capra protagonist, inviting strong audience identification and response.

In one of the most exquisite performances ever given in an American film, James Stewart is superb as George. It's not an easy role to play because so much screen time is spent focusing on George's subtle reactions to the world around him. One incredible moment comes at the train station when George slowly begins to absorb the news of his brother's recent marriage and new career opportunity, and how his brother's fortune will destroy his own hopes of leaving Bedford Falls and the family business. Stewart's face is extraordinary in this scene, as surprised realization fades into quiet disappointment and finally, gentle graciousness and acceptance. Stewart's tour de force is given strong support by a superb cast of Capra stalwarts, including Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell, H. B. Warner, and the phenomenal Beulah Bondi (as George's mother). And Donna Reed, in one of her first romantic leading roles after a number of years playing supporting ingenues and bits, is excellent in the warm but unglamorous role of George's loving wife, Mary.

The Republic Home Video DVD is definitely the edition of this classic to own. Like the LaserDisc before it, the DVD offers a crystal clear, beautifully restored film-to-video transfer which will amaze and delight anyone who is familiar only with the horrible multi-generational VHS cassettes, or the awful colorized version, that were commonly screened back in the late 1970's and 1980's. There are some nice bonus features on the DVD, including a "making of" documentary and the theatrical trailer. This is one DVD that you'll never regret adding to your home theatre collection!

Trivia note: If you're a fan of this movie, try finding a copy of film historian David Thomson's 1985 novel "Suspects" which continues George's story and relates the characters from this movie to many others (did you know that Donna Reed's "Mary Bailey" is actually the sister of Gene Tierney's "Laura"?!, etc.) ... great fun!

Save 27% Off

Life of Pi (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy) (2012)

Wow, this has been an exciting fall for literary adaptations! I read Yann Martel's Life of Pi a decade ago and thought it was fantastic storytelling. I cheered when it won the Man Booker Prize. So, I was quite excited to attend an advance screening recently with several members of my book group. I remembered the novel quite well in broad strokes, but not the fine detail. I didn't refresh my memory before watching the film, but was curious enough to reread Life of Pi in its entirety before writing this review. The film is very true to the novel in spirit and tone, but there are small changes, additions (generally positive), and elisions (some noteworthy).

The film opens similarly to the novel. The idea is the same, but the execution is slightly different. Different mediums require different storytelling tools. For instance, I believe most film-goers will readily recognize The Writer (portrayed by actor Rafe Spall, who replaced a distractingly famous Toby Maguire) as a stand-in for author Martel. In the novel, it is Martel himself, in direct address to readers, who fulfills this role, effectively blurring the line between fact and fiction. It is established that this story is being related to The Writer by an older Pi. From there, readers are introduced to a young Piscine Molitor Patel and the world he inhabits. It's a charmed childhood, being raised at the Pondicherry Zoo amongst a loving family and exotic animals--an Indian "We Bought a Zoo." These scenes are as lush and colorful as any Bollywood musical.

I've discussed this novel with other readers countless times over the years. It's beloved by many, but truly hated by a vocal minority. I've never understood the vitriol, personally. Martel writes beautifully and accessibly. His story is fast-paced and yet deeply rooted in character. And it explores the boundless subject of faith through an extraordinary tale--a "story to make you believe in God." But one complaint I've heard from readers is frustration over (or lack of interest in) Pi's religious explorations early in the novel. The young man is a practicing Hindu, Christian, and Muslim. Martel never belabored the point, but those readers will be gratified to see that director Ang Lee has streamlined the beginning of the tale to move more swiftly to the meat of the story.

And that comes about when Pi's family packs up their lives, their animals, and moves the whole kit and caboodle to Canada by ship. Well, that's the plan. Something goes wrong in rough seas outside of Manila. The ship goes down in a haunting scene, and now the stage is set. Sixteen-year-old Pi is shipwrecked in a lifeboat with a zebra, an orangutan, a hyena, and a 450-pound adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. It's survival of the fittest on the high seas, and things get Darwinian fast. Soon enough, it's Pi and Richard Parker in it together.

When I first heard the premise of this novel, somehow I thought Richard Parker would be some kind of cute, anthropomorphized tiger, and oversized puddy tat. He was not. He was a terrifying predator, and he stayed a terrifying predator, throughout Pi's ordeal. This was much the same in the movie (although not quite to the degree as in the novel, a change commented upon by Martel in the Hollywood Reporter). Richard Parker was scary in the book, but he was terrifying on the screen. I flinched as he snarled and lunged in 3D.

From here, both novel and film take on an episodic or picaresque quality. The film is delightfully dream-like from its opening frames. (An early scene of the swimming pool from which Pi derives his name enchanted me!) But as the days at sea pass, and the ribs of both animals become plainly visible, the film shifts from dream-like to hallucinatory. Episodes and encounters become increasingly extraordinary. Sitting in the audience, I could clearly discern who had read the novel and who had not by the gasps and exclamations. (Among my friends, the film was enjoyed equally by those who had read the book and those who had not.)

Yes, there are episodes that are missing from the film, one of which is quite notable. Fans may miss it. And, yet, I can understand the choices made. Cuts were judicious. As noted earlier there are a few small shifts and changes. But this is a very faithful adaptation of Martel's novel, and I suspect it will please most fans of the original. What is lost is more than made up for by how Ang Lee has brought Martel's fantastic vision to life.

The cinematography and design of this film is exquisitely beautiful. I'm not a huge fan of 3D technology, but once in a while it seems to really augment a film. Such is the case here--all the better to experience a small boat on the vast ocean. And while we're on the subject of technology, the CGI work on the tiger is seamless. None of us could detect where the real tiger ended and the computer-generated beast began. I have heard that young Suraj Sharma never once filmed with the live animal. For safety, their scenes were filmed separately. And I don't know how much footage was of a real cat. All I can say is that the illusion is extraordinarily believable. That a first-time actor could give such a convincing performance playing opposite an imaginary tiger is doubly impressive. The success of the film lies firmly on Sharma's moving portrayal of 16-year-old Pi, but the supporting performances were equally strong. It was Spall's response to Pi's story at the end of the film that actually gave me chills.

I've been circumspect about revealing specifics of the plot. I'll leave all the surprises of Pi's voyage intact for those new to the tale. And readers of the novel can see for themselves what made the cut. About the ending... Those who have read the novel know what to expect. Now film-goers can join the debate we've been having for the past decade. In the end, it truly is all about faith. Which story do you prefer?

This may be the hardest movie review I've ever written, somehow words don't

express it quite right ...

To begin, I saw Life of Pi in 3-D. A week later I went back and saw it again,

because I don't foresee having another chance. I expect the color and detail

will remain gorgeous in 2-D, and I definitely intend to buy the disc.

However the 3-D in this movie is spectacular. The tiger, Richard Parker, is

at the top of the list, but in fact the entire movie benefits tremendously

from 3-D. If you liked Avatar, you probably liked the marvelous animals.

And I'm sure in some scenes, Richard Parker is CGI'd to some extent. But

Life of Pi has a real earthly animal to work with, and you can argue there

is no animal on earth more beautiful or fierce than a tiger. That's part

of the genius of this movie, and I'm sure one reason James Cameron liked

it so much.

That brings me to another point about this movie, its suitability for kids.

Hopefully by now you understand the tiger is not a cuddly pet. Its very much

a wild animal, just like you can see in nature videos. Except in this movie

the tiger is a lot closer. He wants to eat Pi. Pi can't always see the tiger.

The audience knows the tiger is going to try something, but that just makes it

all the more nerve-wracking. Or exciting, depending on the person watching.

This movie made me jump several times, and I was often clutching the arms of

my chair. Its pretty intense in places. More so the second time I saw it.

I kid you not.

"Tiger, tiger, burning bright

In the darkness of the night"

William Blake

"Tell me what you see"

Pi

Regarding the story, I will say the movie starts out to establish what kind

of a kid Pi was when he was growing up in India. This helps us know Pi as a

multi-dimensional character. But the beauty of this part of the movie is

the kind you can see every day, not the visionary beauty that comes later.

Maybe it takes more effort to see it, because its a little too much like our

own lives when we were kids. Growing up can seem mundane. But sometimes

it can also be dangerous. Or heartbreaking.

Once the movie shifts to the ocean, its very easy to believe that now we

have our arms around the story. But Life of Pi is one of those movies where

we don't really know the story at all, until the last word of dialog has

been spoken. There's more than one story here, and most of what makes you

think, after its over, comes at the very end. You have to pay attention to

pick it all up. On disc, you may want to re-play a few seconds at the end

of the movie.

Its worth it. If you like to think about a movie, if you have a vivid memory

for beauty, then Life of Pi is one of the easiest movies to recommend. Its the

second masterpiece of 2012.

Buy Life of Pi (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy) (2012) Now

One might watch the trailer and groan at the prospect of another "The Black Stallion," but I have good news: this is not the same. Yes, both involve a ship sinking with one human survivor, and both have the survivor interact with animals while waiting for rescue. There is a key difference, though, that expands drastically with the final minutes of the film. In "The Black Stallion," the animal is a horse, something humans communicate with around the world. In Life of Pi, the tiger gives us something completely different. A natural enemy, very willing to devour. I'll get to the important meaning later.

As is evident from the dramatic trailer, the cinematography is overwhelmingly beautiful. In all honesty, you don't see the half of it in the trailer. While at first, it didn't seem likely to work in 3D, I've put that view aside. It's the best live-action 3D I've ever seen! One of the best scenes (for the full emotional effect), is seeing the ship go down as if you were right there. In fact, more than one scene were so effective in this way that I was physically breathless. A few times during the film, Pi encounters rough storms, and this is where another beauty comes through. The camera captures the movement of Pi and his boat so well, it boggles me. While other movies have moved from cut to cut in moments, giving the impression of a storm, these cuts last much longer and show a lot more. It's as if filmed on location, with no misguiding.

Something you should know before you watch is that Life of Pi breaks into the topic of religion quite a bit at the beginning. Pi follows several religions. First, Hindu, then Catholicism, and Muslim, all at once. After the incident, it doesn't come up much, apart from a few overtones, but it's important to be aware going in.

This is a film for slightly older audiences (13+) for the reasons of the ship's intense sinking, and for the complicated concepts of the film.

To warn you, this last paragraph is a bit *SPOILER* oriented. Near the end of the movie, Pi tells another story, showing what the tiger represents. Suffice it to say that there is more meaning to this than surviving on an island with a horse and winning a race with him later on. I won't spoil any more, though.

In conclusion, this is a beautiful movie about survival and perseverance, in the midst of harsh, beautiful nature.

Read Best Reviews of Life of Pi (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy) (2012) Here

Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" is a masterpiece with some of the most beautiful and unforgettable images ever displayed on film. Not only did it give me an experience of the wonder in being alive while moving me to tears, but its story also encompassed a human life from childhood to mature age while dealing with pain and guilt that are part of the human experience.

Ang Lee isn't thought of as an Asian auteur in the class of Wong Kar-wai, Zhang Yimou or Lee Chang-dong. He's actually more of a commercial director than a personal artist, but what he does in transferring the "Life of Pi" from novel to screen is miraculous. Perhaps no director has ever captured the beauty and fear of the power of life, and when you look deep into the eyes of the tiger "Richard Parker", you see what Marlowe saw in Kurtz's eyes in Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness": a power so vast it dwarfs you with an awareness of your mortality, showing you your insignificance beside the powers of all life. What Ang Lee does here in this film will, I believe, remain his tour-de-force, and is a work of art I will come to many times in the future.

The acting is wonderful, primarily Irrfan Khan, one of India's greatest actors who plays the adult Pi. Khan provides an entire acting course just in the way he uses his face, displaying a smile in the film's climax that rivals the Mona Lisa's in its ambiguity. You see the world of pain, guilt, joy and sadness in his delicate expression.

The film is supremely spiritual in every frame, yet, if one is paying attention, it winds up as somewhat of a Trojan Horse in what it ultimate reveals about religion. I'm trying hard not to provide a spoiler here, but there are five words spoken by the adult Pi at the end of the film that viewers seem to miss that spell it out. But moving away from its theme, no film I have ever seen in my life comes close to "Life of Pi" in relating the sheer force of nature (making you experience the beauty and terror in the soul of a tiger) and the cosmic beauty of our world, both inner and outer. Using 3-D more brilliantly (and essentially) than any film to date, this film burned into my mind incredible visual sights impossible to find anywhere else, showing me beauty I will remember the rest of my life.

Highly recommended, and one that truly deserves to be seen in 3-D.

Want Life of Pi (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy) (2012) Discount?

A 2001 novel of the same name by Yann Martel is the basis for "Life of Pi" and it has been called unfilmable. The movie has been in the works since 2003, but the nature of the film has caused many to think that it would never be possible. See, most of the film involves a boy in a lifeboat with an adult Bengal Tiger. The movie also involves many other challenging things to portray, including a massive shipwreck, an island of meerkats and a strong religious overtone that manages to be fair to all religions. Suraj Sharma plays Pi Patel, a boy becoming a man who challenges all conventional thinking as he leads his life. Curious about religion and religions, he prides himself in knowing not just one god, but all gods. Not to mention, despite its obvious carnivorous nature, he has faith that a Bengal Tiger named Richard Parker has a soul and can be befriended.

"Life of Pi" has many levels and as visually stimulating as it is, it is also mentally stimulating and beautiful in its intent. I'm not completely sure it achieved all that it intended but the gist of its message comes across loud and clear. Life is a gift and the days ahead are not guaranteed. Faith is vital in living a rewarding life and in knowing how life is not only to be lived, but to be cherished for each and every moment. I'm pretty sure that was the gist.

Above all, "Life of Pi" is not just a well-filmed movie, but a gloriously well filmed film. The quality levels of the filming are unprecedented and its 3D makes all 3D that has been done prior look like the second and third-rate stuff that it is. The effects used to bring the tiger Richard Parker to life are awe-inspiring. Your eyes widen, as they should, when Parker strikes and when he nears. There has certainly never before been a movie that gives you the impression of what it would be like to be and live in the proximity of such a beast.

"Life of Pi" comes off a little heavy-handed at time and I have to admit that I assumed there would be more to it, but the amount there is to it is in the eye of the beholder. You can look at the movie and say that it wasn't about much, or you can look at the movie and say that it was about everything, because it is. The performances are outstanding, including the Tiger, and the film is without question, one of the best of 2012.

Save 56% Off

Contempt (Le Mépris) (1963)

This is,without a doubt, one of the best films ever made by Godard and his cinematographer, Raoul Coutard.

The Criterion Collection transfer is impeccable sharp focus, well-balanced primary colors, great sound.

The Blue-ray disc (not from Criterion but Lionsgate's Studio Canal label) is a major disappointment on just about every level especially with the color levels. There appears to be a yellowish cast to everything. No hard reds, blues, yellows or greens.

Skin tones are dull and gray. It seems to have been made from completely different elements, with no reference to the original intent, or even the Coutard approved transfer.

At least it was not panned and scanned, about the only thing in it's favor.

If you have the Criterion version already keep it.

The "up grade" to Blu-Ray is NOT an improvement.

One of Brigitte Bardot's few high brow films is an amazing modern Space Age parable of the Homer's "Odyssey" in which innocuous writer Michel Piccoli allows sleazy creep producer Jack Palance (his best film, hands down) have his way with wife BB...she feels nothing but contempt for Piccoli for his apathy... I'm with her...the screenplay to the proposed film is supposed to be about the death of romance between Ulysses and Penelope in Homer's "Odyssey", but life imitates art when the romance between BB and Piccoli rots away due to Piccoli's wimpy attitude toward Palance's lecherous advances towards his wife...then again, Palance clearly reperesents commerce......

This is a superior film to "Breathless", IMHO, .. the film is total eye candy, if not due to the awesome BB, then by the gorgeous locations...

Godard really deserves more credit, he's a consummate filmmaker......Breathless, Alphaville, First Name Carmen, Band of Outsiders...

Buy Contempt (Le Mépris) (1963) Now

Camille: "Then you love me totally."

Paul: "I love you totally, tenderly, tragically."

Such is the story of Camille and Paul, whose lives we watch slowly unravel in tender tragedy. This is a movie to be watched and to be felt; to be understood by the part of you that has struggled to change an unchangeable love or the part of you that has felt the urge to desecrate your own life simply out of restless need to feel something new or understand something raw.

To begin with, Godard takes insoluble feelings of love/hate/restlessness/desire/contempt and weaves it under a thin layer of lives, which as you watch, cannot be seen directly but is clearly felt. He foregoes standard cinematic technique/storytelling criteria as he drops changing color filters over Bardot's introductory nude scene and compares the raging emotions of man against the widescapes of the still ocean and skies (as is seen in particularly breathtaking shots rotating around Greek statues with eyes painted in bright red against a backdrop of bluish white skies and a tortuous finale to which Godard himself yells "Silence!" and cuts to the motionless sea).

On top of this, the musical score done by Georges Delerue has been called the most beautiful score ever heard. It is repeated throughout the movie and it comes and goes unpredictably, like the asthmatic attacks that life often unveils at times not necessarily warranted. Altogether, this movie is an honest replication of feelings that course through all of us during the best of times and the worst of times.

Read Best Reviews of Contempt (Le Mépris) (1963) Here

"Contempt"(1963) is directed by Jean-Luc Godard. The film is interesting in that it encircles a given second in time when Camille Javal (Brigette Bardot) looses her love for Paul Javal (Michel Piccoli), unlike most films that would follow a linear progression from love to contempt. When Paul realizes his error it is too late and from then on he is constantly seen out of sync with Camille.

As with many of Godard's films this one is also about a film within a film, or a film about film. Fritz Lang (Metropolis, M) acts the part of a director late in his life who is forced to compromise himself to commercial film in order to make a living. Jeremy Prokosch (Jack Palance) is the American producer who is only concerned with making money and showing off his female actors assets just as Godard was asked by his producers with respect to Bardot. The movie Fritz Lang is making is an adaptation of Homer's Odyssey that Paul is hired to rework so as to make it more commercially viable. The classical characters of Penelope, Odysseus and Poseidon parallel Camille, Paul, and Jeremy. Paul seems to understand and relate his predicament with Camille to Penelope interpreting that Camille has lost her love for him because she believes that he has tried to leave her, just as Odysseus left Penelope for many years to journey the world because he was possibly trying to avoid her. Whether this is true or not, Paul only half heartedly tries to regain her love for him which only serves to further widen the rift between them. Camille never really comes out and says why she has lost her love for him and we are left trying to put the pieces together wondering if this is merely a lover's game or not. There is a curious balance between Paul's interest in her, and his indifference to her, that inevitably seems to push her away from him. Maybe she is just too young for him, or he is not stimulated intellectually by her, we don't know, but she is instinctively repelled by this indifference which crystalized at that moment, that second, when Paul seemed to push Camille to ride alone with Jeremy on the short drive to his house.

This is the French release of the film which is multilingual with English subtitles, as opposed to the American or Italian releases which were dubbed. This is also the full 103 minute version, whereas the Italian version was cut down to 82 minutes. The restored print looks very good overall with only a few blemishes. The blu-ray disc is in 1080p with CinemaScope 2.35:1. The DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 may sound a bit brash to some ears but this is evidently how the film has always sounded, and I merely had the volume adjusted down a bit from where I normally watch a film. There are many special features, such as an introduction by Colin MacCabe, and a couple of documentaries about the film: "Once Upon a Time There Was...Contempt", and "Contempt...Tenderly". There is also a conversation with Fritz Lang, and in "The Dinosaur and the Baby" a discussion between Fritz Lang, and Jean-Luc Godard, as well as a booklet with an essay by Ginette Vincendeau.

Want Contempt (Le Mépris) (1963) Discount?

What a great movie that is and i saw it 20 times. This is a great transfer with the original movie opening (credits) for me this is the perfect movie ever made, Brigitte Bardot is rather gorgeous and plays Camille in a very passive way, the movie is full of rich colourRed Blue and White, a very intelligent movie and i like the movie inside the movie, A great Cast too Michel Piccoli playing Brigitte husband, Fritz lanf playing himself as the great Film director and Jack Palance playing the american producer . The movie was shot in Capri and the music is simply

haunting. For me this is the perfect movie, and it feeds all my senses, great photography by Raoul Coutard, stunning Location and a very stunning Brigitte Bardot who can prove that she was rather a good actress.THE EXTRAS ARE AMAZING TOO, A VERY RARE DOCUMENTARY MADE ABOUT BB "PAPARAZZI" SHOWING A PURSUED Brigitte. and a couple of interesting interviews of Fritz Lang and Jean Luc Goddard. IF YOU MUST BUY A GODDARD MOVIE THIS IS THE ONE TO ADD TO YOUR COLLECTION. SIMPLY INTELLIGENT AND THE OPENING SCENE Of BB AND Piccoli (when she asked him if she likes her body and ...) is a very arty nude scene added by goddard to please the american producer.One of BB BEST MOVIE ALONG WITH THE TRUTH (Made by Clouzot).I LOVE IT !!!

Save 20% Off