Footnote (2012)

"Footnote" (107 min.) is a 2011 movie out of Israel. It brings the rather complicated but intruiging story of a father and son who both are scholars and researchers at the Talmud Department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As it happens, the son is actually more successful and the movie starts out with the son's acceptance speech upon getting elected into the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities. Remarkably, we don't actually see the son but instead the camera focuses the entire sequence (probably 3-4 min.) only on the father, who seemingly is shell-shocked and/or confused and/or resentful at the ever-growing successes of his son. Then, about 30 min. into the movie, the father gets the call from the Israeli Department of Education that he'd been waiting to get for 20 years: he's been chosen to receive the prestigious Israeli Prize. Happiness turns to potential disaster when the son gets called by the Israeli Prize Committee the very next day with the bombshell that due to a clerical error, it was he who had been chosen for the Israeli Prize, not his dad!

I don't want to spoil more from the plot, and the movie then really takes off and you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out. The movie offers an excellent character sturdy of both father and son, looking at it from both a generational perspective as well as a scholary difference in how each is doing research.

This movie was one of the 5 nominees for this year's Oscar for Best Foreign Movie (Iran's "A Separation" won the Oscar), and rightfully so. This is the complete antitode to Hollywood's mainstream fare such as "John Carter" or "Wrath of the Titans" in that it is an intellectually challenging movie. The lead performances of Shlomo Bar Aba as the father and Lior Ashkenazi as the son are nothing short of outstanding. I was pleasantly surprised to see how many people were in the theatre when I saw the movie this weekend here in Cincinnati, giving me hope thia may reach a wider audience. Meanwhile, "Footnote" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

FOOTNOTE is an appropriately titled sparklingly intelligent and entertaining film written and directed by Joseph Cedar. With a small cast and a focused story this little film form Israel is not only a pleasure to watch as a story performed as shared by brilliant actors, but it is also one of the most visually artistic and creative venture of cinematography to be on the small screen in a long time: the genius cinematographer is Yaron Scharf. Add to this a musical score that enhances every moment of the story courtesy of composer Amit Poznansky and the film simply succeeds on every level.

In a most ingenious way we are introduced to the two main characters father and son, both professors in the Talmud department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The film opens on the confused and somewhat unattached facial expression of the seated father Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar Aba) as he listens to his ebullient son Uriel Shkolnik (Lior Ashkenazi) being inducted into the prestigious Israeli academic union. Uriel's acceptance speech reflects his childhood when his father informed him upon questioning that he was a `teacher' an occupation the young Uriel found embarrassing at the time, but now honors his father for this guidance. After the ceremony we slowly discover that there is a long-standing rivalry between father and son. Uriel has an addictive dependency on the embrace and accolades that the establishment provides, while Eliezer is a stubborn purist with a fear and profound revulsion for what the establishment stands for, yet beneath his contempt lies a desperate thirst for some kind of recognition: his only clam to fame after long years of intensive research is that the man who published his findings mentions Eliezer in a footnote. When it comes times for the Israel Prize, Israel's most prestigious national award, to be awarded, a clerical error results in a telephone call informing Eliezer that he has won, while in reality the award was meant for his son Uriel. How this error is resolved open all manner of windows for examining family relationships, fame, pure academia, and forgiveness.

The film is an unqualified success. Lior Ashkenazi (so well remembered from `Walk on Water' and `Late Marriage' among others) gives a bravura performance and that of Shlomo Ben Aba balances it in quality. The supporting cast is strong. Joseph Cedar has produced a fine film very much enhanced by the brilliance of the cinematography that tells the story as much as the dialogue. Grady Harp, August 12

Buy Footnote (2012) Now

This bittersweet comedy from Israeli is set in the rarefied world of academia and is a fine, interesting movie about the bitter relationship between a father and a son who both happen to be Talmudic scholars working at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and how their rivalry finally overcomes their filial obligations.

Eliezer Shkolnik (a terrific performance by Shlomo Bar Aba) is the father, and he seems a personification of male old age grumpiness. He looks at the at the rest of his colleagues with an insufferable air of intellectual superiority, and believes he hasn't been recognized to the extent that he deserves, yet the movie hints he is a bit of a fraud himself, his main claim to academic fame is having been thanked in a footnote in a book by a famous Talmudic authority. The more successful Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi, who usually plays young macho men, but here plays a middle aged academic against type), is the son. The film lampoons him for being a lightweight scholar and for being too attracted to the media spotlight, yet he seems to be the more psychologically rounded of the two. The tense relationship between father and son finally comes to a bitter confrontation when the elder Shkolnik is mistakenly awarded an important academic prize that was meant for the son (I'm not going to reveal anything else about the plot).

I'm also obviously not going to reveal the ending but it seems underwhelming and unrealized, as if the director Joseph Cedar didn't knew how to end the movie. Thus, what was a fine film until then ends in a curiously unsatisfying way. Nevertheless, this is a fine movie with many great scenes. I especially liked two scenes: one is set in a small but packed conference room and ends when one academic shoves another to the wall. In the second scene, a very pretty female journalist goes to the home of the elder Shkolnik to interview him and manages to get him to say very nasty things about his son.

Read Best Reviews of Footnote (2012) Here

Footnote is an excellent film that portrays a bitter rivalry between a father and son in the world of competitive, backstabbing academia, a world in which winning prizes for research and being recognized and accepted by the academic community is everything. Some people have commented that the first twenty or so minutes of the minute move too slowly; but this is necessary for character development. The rest of the plot moves along at a very good pace; it's anything but boring. The casting was thoughtfully done and the acting is very convincing. The choreography and cinematography lack nothing; and the musical score enhances the film as well.

When the film starts, we are slowly but surely introduced to an Israeli father and son who are both passionate about Talmud research. Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar-Aba) is a bitter, autistic older man who has been nominated for the prestigious Israel prize sixteen years in a row but has never received it; by contrast his son Uriel (Lior Ashkenazi) knows how to work the circuit, keep his subordinates in line with him or else and enjoys the attention that comes with giving six much admired speeches all over Jerusalem in just one night! While Eliezer shows disdain for the community that he thinks recognizes people who are not so "scientific" in their research, deep inside him Eliezer cannot help but feel the human need to be appreciated, accepted and receive awards like his son receives. Eliezer's only real source of pride (and he is a remarkably proud man) is a footnote dedicated to him by his mentor in an opus on Talmudic Literature.

Eliezer has another reason to be sour, jealous and depressed. After nearly thirty years of daily research at The National Library, Eliezer was just about to publish a bold, groundbreaking thesis proving there was a different, European version of the Talmud in the Middle Ages--but just as he's about to publish his findings, the culmination of his life's work and the source of what would have been great pride, another researcher (Grossman, played by Micah Lewensohn) by pure chance just happens to stumble over the actual old European Talmud in Italy! Grossman, knowing he would steal Eliezer's thunder and crush him emotionally, publishes his own findings anyway and Eliezer is badly scarred.

Things only go from bad to worse when Eliezer gets a phone call that he has won The Israel Prize he wanted all his life. When Uriel is secretly told that the prize was actually meant for him and not his father, Uriel is stunned. Uriel fights with the prize committee, including Grossman who chairs the committee, so that his father can have the prize; but Grossman's hatred of Uriel's father surfaces and the solution to the problem will not be easy or immediately obvious. There are plot twists after that but you will be able to follow along.

Look also for excellent supporting performances by Alma Zack as Dikla Shkolnik; Daniel Markovich as Josh and Yuval Scharf as Noa, a journalist.

Footnote is a first-rate film that will appeal to anyone interested in family dynamics; the competitive and backstabbing world of academia; dramas with a slight touch of comedy and fans of the actors in the film.

Want Footnote (2012) Discount?

FOOTNOTE (HEHARAT SHULAIM in Hebrew) is an appropriately titled sparklingly intelligent and entertaining film written and directed by Joseph Cedar. With a small cast and a focused story this little film form Israel is not only a pleasure to watch as a story performed as shared by brilliant actors, but it is also one of the most visually artistic and creative venture of cinematography to be on the small screen in a long time: the genius cinematographer is Yaron Scharf. Add to this a musical score that enhances every moment of the story courtesy of composer Amit Poznansky and the film simply succeeds on every level.

In a most ingenious way we are introduced to the two main characters father and son, both professors in the Talmud department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The film opens on the confused and somewhat unattached facial expression of the seated father Eliezer Shkolnik (Shlomo Bar Aba) as he listens to his ebullient son Uriel Shkolnik (Lior Ashkenazi) being inducted into the prestigious Israeli academic union. Uriel's acceptance speech reflects his childhood when his father informed him upon questioning that he was a `teacher' an occupation the young Uriel found embarrassing at the time, but now honors his father for this guidance. After the ceremony we slowly discover that there is a long-standing rivalry between father and son. Uriel has an addictive dependency on the embrace and accolades that the establishment provides, while Eliezer is a stubborn purist with a fear and profound revulsion for what the establishment stands for, yet beneath his contempt lies a desperate thirst for some kind of recognition: his only clam to fame after long years of intensive research is that the man who published his findings mentions Eliezer in a footnote. When it comes times for the Israel Prize, Israel's most prestigious national award, to be awarded, a clerical error results in a telephone call informing Eliezer that he has won, while in reality the award was meant for his son Uriel. How this error is resolved open all manner of windows for examining family relationships, fame, pure academia, and forgiveness.

The film is an unqualified success. Lior Ashkenazi (so well remembered from `Walk on Water' and `Late Marriage' among others) gives a bravura performance and that of Shlomo Ben Aba balances it in quality. The supporting cast is strong. Joseph Cedar has produced a fine film very much enhanced by the brilliance of the cinematography that tells the story as much as the dialogue. In Hebrew with English subtitles. Grady Harp, August 12

Save 29% Off

The Organizer (Criterion Collection) (1963)

At the end of the 19th century, in Turin, Italy, textile factory workers are sweating out 14 hour days. From the very young to older family members are employed here, and sometimes it looks like the whole town is here. Overly tired and sleepy by days end, one worker carelessly is maimed by machinery. Next day, the workers plan to talk to the manager about the long hours, but they get nowhere.

A few are selected to lead the group and their first attempt is to work one hour less at days end by cutting off the steam to the machinery. Then they think about beginning their day one hour later. When a professor Dr. Sangrillia, comes to town, it is with his expertise that encourages a strike. They plan some benefits to hold themselves during the strike, like stealing coal. Meanwhile, we get the company's reaction to the strike.

This movie, it's Italian name I Campagni, is a grainy black and white filmed in 1963, a docudrama effect with a slight comedic edge. It is a sight to see when a trainload of scabs (unemployed men from another town) engage in physical battle with the strikers. Born in 1915, Mario Monicelli is known as one of Italy's finest directors, King of Italian comedy, directed numerous movies, written screenplay, and is an actor. He is known to have a role in the 2003 Under the Tuscan Sun. Not on DVD yet, the video subtitles are not perfected, and at times difficult to read. 130 minutes. There is a certain look to this film that clearly depicts the era. Try this! ........Rizzo

Italy in 1900 was at a stage similar to the United States in 1820. The industrial revolution was beginning. Textile and garment making factories were springing up. Desperate, poor peasants were moving from the fields to factories. This film depicts what this experience was like through the eyes of a boy of about 12. His father has died. He must go out to work to support the family. Without any preachiness, the film has the viewer enter a world where child labor is allowed, where there is no social safety net (no welfare, no unemployment compensation, no survivor's benefits, no sick pay, no medical insurance, no disability benefits). If you don't work, you starve. It's a world where there is no concept of an 8-hour day -from 12 year old boy to old man, workers toil from sunrise to sundown, maybe 12 or 14 hours a day, six days a week. And near the end of that long day, workers in the textile factory are very tired. Without any safety laws, the machines are dangerous and tired workers can get their hands caught on the looms and be maimed. Working hard will not get one a better future (not mentioned in the film as Italians would know this -there were no public schools, no way for a worker to get a mortgage to buy a tiny dwelling). Theirs will only be a life of drudgery.

What was unusual about Italy is who tried to help the workers. The union organizers were not workers but young upper middle class men, most of whom had been educated in France or England. They came back and thought Italy (newly unified) backwards, and in particular, that the peasants and workers were oppressed with no realistic chance of improvement unless they organized. Marcello Mastroianni portrays an idealistic young man, with no experience of the reality of grinding poverty, but who truly wants to help the workers. Although he is from a vastly higher social class, the workers do recognize his honesty and his true concern. There is no happy ending, and the film is brutally honest. There is no whitewashing of what life was like (including a humorous but touching scene where the organizer must hide from the police and the daughter of a worker hides him in her room -she is a prostitute and stoutly defends her choice to do something that will make her enough money to escape from grinding poverty unmaimed). But one does see that the workers, having organized, have won something -a sense of respect for themselves and the realization that if they act together they may be able to improve their future.

Buy The Organizer (Criterion Collection) (1963) Now

I Compagni is memorable. When we consider why films move us, affect our lives, indeed, create us to some extent, we think of films such as this. This is not just an artistic triumph for all its filmmakers, but also a moving document of humanity. We take measure of Mastroianni not by his range of performance but by his deep involvement. Like France's Charles Aznavour has his heart in his song, Marcello Mastroianni is fully engaged in his performance. As Professor Sinigaglia in I Compagni, Mastroianni is at his best form. The source of his intensity is not his surface emotion, but the depths of his soul.

Read Best Reviews of The Organizer (Criterion Collection) (1963) Here

When there is discussion of the oeuvre of an Italian filmmaker, it is easy to mention the names of legendary directors Federico Fellini, Michelangelo Antonioni, Vittorio De Sica, Luchino Visconti and Mario Monicelli.

Mario Monicelli is known in Italy as one of the masters of Commedia all'Italiana (Comedy Italian style) and received Oscar nominations for his screenwriting for "The Organizer" (1963) and "Casanova '70' (1965). As well as a Grand Prize of the Festival nomination at the Cannes Film Festival ("Guardie e ladri", 1951) and Palme d'Or nominations for "For Love and Gold" (1966), "Vogliamo i colonnelli" (1973), "An Average Little Man" (1977) and "Le due vite di Mattia Pascal" (1985).

And while he is known outside of Italy for his comedy films such as "I soliti ignoti" ("Big Deal on Madonna Street") and collaborating with talents such as Toto, Vittorio Gassman and Marcello Mastroianni, Mastroianni also directed films that contained humor, but were tragic or futile. One of the most important films Monicelli is known for is "La grande guerra" ("The Great War", 1959), which he was nominated for an Academy Award and considered as his top masterpiece, and also directing "i compagni" ("The Organizer", 1963) and "The Girl with the Pistol" (1968). Both films, he would also receive Academy Award nominations. Fitting films for a Marxist who accepted reality and its failures.

In his lifetime, he won 27 awards worldwide and won an Honorable Mention at the 44th Berlin International Film Festival and a Golden Lion for Career at the 1991 Venice Film Festival. His final film was in 2006 in which the filmmaker directed "The Roses of the Desert" at the age of 91.

A man full who lived life to the fullest, unfortunately his final years with prostate cancer would become too much of a burden on the filmmaker that he committed suicide in 2010 at the age of 95.

While many people are familiar with Monicelli's comedy films such as "Big Deal on Madonna Street", which was released by the Criterion Collection back in 2001. Criterion Collection will be releasing "i Compagni" ("The Organizer"), one of his more serious films ala "tragicomedy" for the first time on Blu-ray and will also be released on DVD in April 2012.

VIDEO:

"The Organizer" is presented in 1080p High Definition (1:85:1 aspect ratio). The whites and grays are well-contrast and black levels are very deep. For the most part, I detected no film damage or any white specks, artifacts or banding issues. The quality of the film is very good, doesn't look soft and viewers should be pleased.

According to the Criterion Collection, this new high-definition transfer was created on a Spirit Datacine from a new 35 mm print. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, scratches, splices, warps, jitter and flicker were manually removed using MTI's DRS system and Pixel Farm's PFClean, while Image Systems DVNR was used for small dirt, grain and noise reduction.

AUDIO & SUBTITLES:

"The Organizer" is presented in LPCM 1.0 monaural Italian with optional English subtitles. Dialogue is crystal clear and I detected no pops or hiss during my viewing of this film.

According to the Criterion Collection, the original stereo soundtrack was remastered at 24-bit from a 35 mm optical soundtrack positive. Clicks, thumps, hiss and hum were manually removed using Pro Tools HD. Crackle was attenuated using Audio Cube's integrated workstation.

SPECIAL FEATURES:

"The Organizer The Criterion Collection #610' on Blu-ray comes with the following special features:

Mario Monicelli (10:53) Featuring an interview with director Mario Monicelli recorded by the Criterion Collection in 2006. Monicelli talks about Commedia all'Italiana and his career.

Theatrical trailer -Theatrical trailer for "The Organizer".

EXTRAS:

"The Organizer The Criterion Collection #610' comes with a 4-page (dual sided) fold-out leaflet, featuring the essay "Description of a Struggle" by J. Hoberman.

JUDGMENT CALL:

I simply adore the films by Mario Monicelli and when it comes to "The Organizer", it's rather fascinating because when it comes to films about workers going on strike, in many modern films, the outcome has always been in the employees favor and always positive outcome of how labor laws were changed.

But not so much the case in cinema past, especially films from Europe.

From Sergei Eisenstein's 1925 film "Stachka" (Strike) that showcased Eisenstein's theme of collectivism versus individualism and showcasing how employees work themselves to death while owners and management are wealthy and could care less about their employees, Eisenstein's film was grounded in Lenin belief that, "The strength of the working class is organization. Without organization of the masses, the proletarian is nothing. Organized it is everything. Being organized means unity of action, unity of practical activity".

We fast forward to 1963 and similar to "Strike", Monicelli's film is set during the turn-of-the-twentieth century Turin. As Eisenstein's film preached Leninism, Monicelli believed in Marxism, which literally is a society in which burgeois or idealism do not exist.

In today's world, specifically here in the West, the idea of long work hours, employment of children and literally no breaks can not be fathomed. But yet this mentality still continues in other countries. The reality for some countries today and how things were back then is that people accept their working condition and the fear of the harsh realities of not making any income is enough for one not to stand up and become defiant towards their management. As a collective, not many are willing to do public protests, strike back in the media nor are they in a position financially to do so.

This is the reality today.

And back then, a lot of these individuals had no means to strike back, especially as a collective through media or political means. In Eisenstein's "Strike", the reality of the employees and their organized strike was violence. Violence towards the management, violence towards any other employees who were not able to hold out from the strike and were willing to return to their jobs. And unfortunately, all that is left is tragedy.

Fortunately, Monicelli's "The Organizer" is a film that showcases Monicelli's belief that the reality is what it is, and the employees of Turin need to realize that going on strike may have hurt the management but in the long run, the reality is they have the means to outlast the workers, because they have the money to survive.

And another juxtaposition with Eisenstein's "Strike" is that the people were ready to fight and die for what they believe in. This was the Leninism perspective of working as a collective. Monicelli's "The Organizer" featured a collective that was held on a string, courtesy of Professor Sinigaglia, but it was evident that these workers have families, children that depend on them and while some maybe able to fight, the outcome is much more different, despite their being a tragedy.

Another key difference is the inclusion of comedy. Eisenstein's "Strike" was primarily focused on the strike itself and the differences of lifestyle with the factory workers and the wealthy and how the financial impact was hurting families.

In Monicelli's "The Organizer", times are tough but yet there is humor. May it be a man who tries to flirt with a young woman, the stocky long-time employee Pautasso during his lunch break as he holds a huge circular bread to chow down on, or may it be a young boy who is not afraid to talk back to his elders (and also admonishing his younger brother who is attending school but would rather be an employee at the factory) or the local prostitute who tries to entice Professor Sinigaglia.

There are many of these moments that help the viewer get closer to various characters and see that despite how difficult the times are, they try to make the best of it.

So, for me, "The Organizer" has always been a fascinating film as it is an intriguing juxtaposition when compared to Eisenstein's film. Both have similarities but yet are very different.

Actor Marcelo Mastroianni is often seen playing a suave, charismatic character that always gets the lady and come to think of it, I suppose nothing has changed as the Professor also manages to find a woman but in different circumstances. But Mastroianni does a good job playing Professor Sinigaglia and being the spoken leader for the workers.

But as Marcelo Mastroianni is the lead actor, what I enjoyed most of the film are the workers who attract the viewers through their feebleness, their humor or directive. Renato Salvatori, Gabriella Gieorgelli, Folco Lullu, Bernard Blier, Raffaella Carra and many more, its the supporting cast of the film that makes "The Organizer" come to life. The performances are honest and humorous but also feel realistic and natural, and because of that, it does add to the engaging storyline.

As for the Blu-ray release, the video quality of "The Organizer" is fantastic and the interview with Mario Monicelli included on this Blu-ray was also enjoyable to watch, considering it was shot during a time when he was in good health and a few years before he died. Although I wish there were more special features included, especially audio commentary, I'm still grateful that this interview with Monicelli was included on this Blu-ray release.

Overall, "The Organizer" has always been one of my favorite Monicelli films and I can only hope that with this release, it will pave the way for more Monicelli films such as "La Grande Guerra" ("The Great War"), "The Girl With the Pistol" or "L'armata Brancaleone" ("For Love and Gold") to receive a video release.

"The Organizer" is highly recommended!

Want The Organizer (Criterion Collection) (1963) Discount?

I saw this film when it originally opened in the early 60's. It literally changed my life and my identity. The professor, masterfully underplayed by Mastroianni, moves alone from town to town wherever there are poor exploited factory workers struggling against the brutal working conditions of early industrial Italy, quietly speaking to and organizing and then electrifying his audience into taking action to better their lot. All alone, he is utterly cut off from them because of his education and life experiences, he speaks to no one before returning to sleep in his hovel at night. Awakening to repeat the same routine the next day, and the next... Why does he continue with this lonely, unpaid, and unpraised existence day after day? Not because he covets the praises of the crowd, although he does get his share of that before moving on to the next town to repeat his "performance". But simply because it is the "right thing to do", according to his own conscience. His motivation is purely internal. He is the absolute "inner-directed man". He has stood as the model of how a human being should be ever since I first saw this remarkable film. You must see this!

Save 33% Off

Coco Before Chanel (2009)

I'm a guy. Okay. Let's get that out of the bag right now. I'm not overly fond of what I wear. Blue jeans and a t-shirt suit me just fine for most occasions. So when my wife wanted me to watch a foreign film about some gal named "Chanel" who was a famous clothes designer, I felt like I was in for an early bedtime (I can easily fall asleep during boring films).

So we slipped the DVD in and proceeded to watch what I assumed would be an incredibly monotonous film about a lady making clothing. I could hear my wife already: "Oooh. Isn't that beautiful." Or "Look how well she hemmed that pinafore" (whatever the hell a pinafore is ...and can you hem it? I still don't know).

But, much to my surprise, the film was more a myopic on the early life of Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel. Hence the name Coco BEFORE Chanel. Duh. Guess I should've paid better attention to the title.

There's certainly information and dress-wear visuals throughout, but the movie is more honed toward what made Coco who she would become later in life. Audrey Tautou plays the prime role of Coco and does so with grace, beauty, and a unique gruffness and individuality that struck me as incredibly honest (I did not enjoy her performance in The Da Vinci Code, so this was a nice change). She really carried the entire film and made every scene extremely watchable.

But the screenplay by writer/director Anne Fontaine was what helped keep this film together. Like I said at the beginning of my review, I felt that if it had expressly focused on clothing and the making of clothing, I would've been sawing some serious Zs before 30 minutes into the film. But I wasn't. Similar in concept to The Devil Wears Prada (which I also enjoyed mostly because of Meryl Streeps stellar performance), the film never lingers overly long on things that simply don't matter at that point in Coco's life. It is her lovers, her fiery desire to do something with her life, and her heartbreaks that made her who she would become, not the clothes (those were developing and came later).

So if you're like me, and don't know Chanel from Shinola, you still might give this one a try. Your wife will probably love it, and you'll score some points with her for watching it. Just don't give her the credit cards after finishing it. I just looked online at the cost of Chanel wear and ...well ...you don't wanna know.

If you are looking for a fashion history with lots of dresses a la project runway, this is not your movie. It is a moving portrait of the very early life and influences on Coco Chanel. The film is beautifully shot, scored, acted, and subtitled. As other reviewers have noted for the CD sountrack,the music is fabulous, and the movie is visually gorgeous. The acting is superb. Audrey Tautou is another great french beauty and star; I'm sure I will not be the first to compare her to Katherine Deneuve.

This movie unflinchingly shows the young women of the time for whom love with marriage was rarely an option as they were simply chattel forced to marry well by birth, become nuns, sleep their way to wealth and security as mistresses and courteseans, or have nothing as prostitutes. The only single working women other than prostitutes and a few writers were on the stage, in convents,or providing clothes for wealthy women. The film follows the young Coco through her world as a abandoned child in a catholic orphanage and then a mistress/houseguest of a vastly wealthy nobleman. It touches on her good luck in timing to get her accounts away from her lover in time to save her fledgling business.

We see how the lifestyles and even the health of wealthy and frivolous women were drastically changed by the comfort and function of her designs and her eye for beauty. This picture is a period piece that builds slowly, is very French and assumes you already know a bit about Chanel. It is at times quite subtle leaving a lot of the plot obvious but not presented onscreen. It would companion well with a more detailed documentary like "Chanel Chanel" with Chanel and Lagerfield, but it does present an excellent picture of "Coco's" youth and is a good picture on its own. The whole picture is beautifully acted eye candy and the dessert at the end is lovely as we are given a show of Chanel looks throughout her life. I did not give it five stars only because at times I think it was a bit too subtle as those not familiar with the period could watch the film and not fully understand the dramatic changes in the lives of women led by the dramatic changes in fashion they were witnessing.

Buy Coco Before Chanel (2009) Now

Coco Chanel lied habitually about her life; she didn't like it, so she made up a better one. Anne Fontaine has created one possible version of Coco's formative years, settling on a girl who is perpetually observing, who grows up into a woman who surprises herself with her influence. Audrey Tautou is almost determined to be grim, an anti-Amelie, in her portrayal of this haunted, driven woman. Benoit Poelvoorde is astonishing as Etienne Balsan, one of the men she uses and is used by -and ultimately develops a friendship with. He is bawdy, raucous, jaded ... and falls in love with Coco when it's too late. His scenes with her when he realizes his mistake are mesmerizing. "Does that bother you?" she asks, about her leaving for Paris with Arthur Capel, and he simply replies, "Affreusement (frightfully)." Watch how Poelvoorde turns him from a cad into her friend. And Alessandro Nivola did one of the wildest, dumbest things when he agreed to learn French for this role. It's not clear whether he should be commended or committed. Commended, I suppose, because his accent stays pretty good -and it was a good decision not to cast an English actor precisely because of the accent. It's Nivola's English accent that is a little dodgy here and there. I can't think what to make of his characterization. On the one hand, Coco is attracted to restraint, and presumably he had that personally. On the other, the effect is somewhat that his foreign lines are too studied for him to deliver naturally. Nevertheless an interesting performance from him.

Emmanuelle Devos is always good, and she's great here as a composite of two people in Coco's life at this time. Likewise Marie Gillain as another composite of her sister/aunt.

Coco and her sister were abandoned by their father, raised in an orphanage, and according to the conventions of the time, destined for little but prostitution or the life of a mistress. The movie depicts a silent girl who above all becomes a keen observer of the textures of her world: the nuns' habits, the excesses of women's dress of the period. This point is somewhat overdone by the end of the film, but nevertheless makes the point that she developed her sense of style by paying close attention to everything she saw; in some sense she sensed also that she needed to see more in order for that to develop. Her sense of style, her sense of restraint, became her armor against the pains of her existence, but not even it can protect her at a pivotal moment with Arthur.

At the end, a time-warping retrospective of her work in a re-creation of her famous salon in Paris reminds us that, with little in the way of resources, she made a lasting impression on the world. I found the substance of the movie far more dramatic than I would have thought; impressive performances make it a movie you must see.

Read Best Reviews of Coco Before Chanel (2009) Here

I'll be VERY brief already amazing reviews here.

Please-please don't fogret that the movie is called "Coco BEFORE Chanel".

It's about her childhood and youth and HOW she became Chanel, not about fashion in general...although you can see already how great she will become, how she's changing women's fashion in the beginning of the century simple hats,stunning glorious elegant dresses, no corsets,sailor shirts,mans pants,short hair & coveted little black dress and why...

She's just starting out and the movie is showing you HOW that's the point!!!

P.S.A great movie to see after this one is "Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky" not available yet,it was shown in Cannes and you can see the trailer on Youtube( the book is FINALLY available in States, I bought my copy of Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky in London in 2002.Buy the book for now you won't be able to put it down!!! I read it in 2 days. )

Want Coco Before Chanel (2009) Discount?

Audrey Tautou is again fabulous onscreen as the tough as nails independent Coco Chanel. the movie follows her life right up to the point where she decides to actually become a fashion designer.

The sets look terrific and the acting throughout is superb. The ridiculous addition of a fictitious character who plays Coco's sister (in the extars you learn she's an amalgam of Coco's aunt and one of her sisters) to show Coco's gentle side was just plain silly. Given how dramatic Coco's life was it just seems as if the screenwriter and director fell back on some Hollywood tradition of thinking the actual true story of famous people's lives are not enough. The funny thing is this comes out of France of all places.

The extras feature lengthy interviews with the cast and crew. The version I had were the hearing impaired ones that had the various stage movements (i.e., [door closes], [footsteps heard], etc.) along with the subtitles.

Save 44% Off

LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace Blu-ray & Standard DVD Combo Pack with Young Han Solo Minifigure

Brief as it is, this short is full of charm and humor, good for multiple viewings, and well worth the money, especially given the extra animated shorts included among the special features. The gags are all over the place and obey no continuity rules, so approach expecting lighthearted, all ages, non-canon fun and hope, like me, that there are more of these already in the planning stage--if not in active development.

Missed this a few months ago when it was on Cartoon Network, so had to pick it up for my 2 and 5 year old. We love all of the Lego video games, so this was a big hit. The main part of the story involves some padawans that Yoda leaves with C3-P0 (not a good idea) who get into trouble and end up on Tatooine. Even though it is only 22 minutes long, there are many inside jokes that older fans will appreciate (Vader cameo appearance). It comes with both the Blu-ray and DVD versions which is nice. Definitely recommend for fans of Star Wars who have Padawans of their own!

Buy LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace Blu-ray & Standard DVD Combo Pack with Young Han Solo Minifigure Now

I purchased this movie and really enjoyed it. There are many people complaining about the length of the film. My only guess is that they do not pay attention to the special features section. The first thing I did was watch the special features. There are no making of documentaries or anything like that, but there are loads of animated and stop action shorts that are very entertaining and humorous and push the length of the movie comparable to that of a feature film. Once done with the special features, I watched the main film and that was just icing on the cake.

Read Best Reviews of LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace Blu-ray & Standard DVD Combo Pack with Young Han Solo Minifigure Here

This little movie is great for kids and grownups. Lots of little laughs all the way through. If you've ever watched any of the little lego movies online or on demand through Comcast where Star Wars makes little 2-3 minute movies to watch this is like hitting the motherload.

To us, it's worth the price. And, my little girl who is 6 has watched it 5-6 times already. So cute. I love that she loves lego, and Star Wars.

One thing that came out of this is a building session after. Very creative. We all tried to make our own little Star Wars lego scene and I thought it was a good family bonding time.

Want LEGO Star Wars: The Padawan Menace Blu-ray & Standard DVD Combo Pack with Young Han Solo Minifigure Discount?

This little video is funny but only lasts 22 minutes I didn't notice that on the back of the box or I wouldn't have spent my money for one short episode and a second 3 minute review. Not worth the cost and quite a shame they didn't do a real movie or several short episodes. Disappointing.

Cleopatra (50th Anniversary Limited Edition 2-Disc + Book) (1963)

It is likely that the US edition of CLEOPATRA on Blu Ray will be identical in most respects to the "All Region" edition released in the UK last year. (I'm guessing that this will apply to the bonus features as well.)

Assuming that the US edition mirrors what's available in the UK, viewers are in for a terrific experience. This particular transfer yields what is quite simply the most spectacular Blu Ray I have ever seen. More than any other studio, Fox has lavished a great deal of time and money on preserving its widescreen films of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Nowhere is the success of that campaign more evident than on CLEOPATRA.

I would note that, as part of the restoration process on its widescreen epics, Fox has struck new 35mm and 70mm film prints. Here in New York, and elsewhere, these prints have been screened theatrically in retrospectives of various sorts. As wonderful as the new CLEOPATRA Blu Ray is, I can only hope that everybody with an interest in this movie will one day have a chance to see it in 70mm on a giant screen. If you have that opportunity, it is not to be missed. It's an experience you'll remember for a long, long time.

Cleopatra may be the most opulent motion picture of all time and is a testament to Elizabeth Taylor and the other actors and artisans from this pre-computer generated image era. It was a high point for the magnificence of Todd-AO 70mm and the unique richness of De Luxe Color all beautifully and faithfully transferred by 20th Century Fox to this new Blu-ray edition. I saw Cleopatra in its first run and recognized it's short-comings possibly caused by the severe cuts made to Joseph Mankiewicz's original vision to release Cleopatra, it is said, as two films telling the Caesar story in one film and the Anthony story in the second. One can only imagine how much of the story and character development got left on the cutting room floor. Cleopatra's legacy has moved far beyond earning the label as the most expensive film ever made due to waste and mismanagement that nearly caused the demise of Fox Studios. There are "extras" on the Blu-ray version that expose many of such myths. I invite you to see this Cleopatra a beautiful example of what Blu-ray can do for home viewing and the potential for visually jaw-dropping moments that show the art of motion pictures. This Cleopatra is perhaps more relevant than ever today with efforts to depict (at least Hollywood-style) a well-rounded view of one of the most famous female characters in history, as portrayed by Elizabeth Taylor, an icon of her times. I purchased my Blu-ray copy of Cleopatra in February, 2012 from amazon.co.uk after finding out it would play on U.S. players. This spectacular Blu-ray version of Cleopatra will soon be available to purchase in the U.S. Highly recommended to all film buffs.

Buy Cleopatra (50th Anniversary Limited Edition 2-Disc + Book) (1963) Now

Like other reviewers here, I've purchased the Blu-ray which has been widely-available in the United Kingdom and Australia for many, many months. I've no idea why it's taken so long to be released in the States, but for those who've been reluctant to import, it will be well worth the wait.

Quite simply this is the best CLEOPATRA has ever looked on home video and that is no small feat considering that the title also received raves 10 years ago when it debuted on standard-definition DVD. Restored from original 70mm Todd-AO elements, the High Definition picture brings out all the hidden detailing in sets and costumes, and Alex North's haunting score glistens in full DTS Master audio.

The one thing I criticise is the placement of the film's Entr'acte. Just like the earlier DVD presentation, it has been placed at the end of Disc 1, when it should ideally be on the second disc before launching into the final portion of the film. Whether or not this will be corrected on the American Blu-ray release I've yet to discover* hopefully it has, but it's a very minor quibble on what is an otherwise comprehensive package.

The fascinating feature-length documentary "Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood", the vintage featurette "The Fourth Star of Cleopatra", and audio commentary with the brothers Mankiewicz, Martin Landau and Jack Brodsky are all ported over from the original DVD release.

New extras commissioned for this Blu-ray release include "Cleopatra's Missing Footage" (a brief look at the search, which continues to this day, for the elusive material culled from the shoot); "Cleopatra Through the Ages: A Cultural History" (just as the title implies), and "The Cleopatra Papers: A Private Correspondence" (an interactive gallery of letters and internal documents which chart the making of the movie). "Fox Legacy with Tom Rothman" is a 30-minute look at the film's stormy production but simply re-covers what was told in greater depth in the "Film That Changed Hollywood" documentary.

Run don't walk to grab your copy of this Hollywood classic. It's like discovering CLEOPATRA for the very first time, all over again.

*Update I've since read that the Entr'acte has been re-positioned in its correct place at the start of Disc 2.

Read Best Reviews of Cleopatra (50th Anniversary Limited Edition 2-Disc + Book) (1963) Here

I did a side by side comparison of the UK all region and the new US version. Here are a few of the improvements.

The CLARITY in the US version is like looking through a plate glass window. Not just in selected scenes, but through the entire movie. You'll know in the first 30 seconds of the pop up menu as it roams through a few scans until you hit the play button.

Example#1 the blue dress that Liz is wearing on the barge as she stands under a canopy, now shows the PATTERN of the dress better than before.

Example#2 the slaves that carry Liz down off the black sphinx had SILVER colored paint that looked like lighting bolts got COLOR CORRECTED and now show the true color of GOLD lightning bolts that MATCH the GOLD BRACELETS, that match the GOLD throne Liz sits on that match the gold dress THAT LIZ WEARS. All previous disks don't have it right with the silver color.

Example #3 On the barge that meet Marc Anthony, at the banquet, Liz shows up wearing a sheer white gown on all the old disks.The new US disk now color corrected, shows the there is a lovely pale pink of the most delicate shade and the white sheer is actually a overlay kind of see through cape?( Sorry I do not know what it is called in fashion lingo.

Example#4 in a battle scene, where the roman legions make what is called "the turtle" formation ( Men on the inside, shields and spears on the outside) You see amazing clarity on the designs on the shields. And this is in a scene filmed IN LOW LIGHT!

Example#5 in the entry into Rome The African dancers have straw fringes on their arms and legs. The GREEN color now pops in new clarity, To be fair the old disks showed some color ,but not like this.

ODD? because of this new clarity, I noticed that there are TWO white pyramids in the background. You see the first after the semi nude lady dances. then a group of females appears with gold colored wings and behind that is the pyramid with the pigeons getting released. After Liz bows to Cesar, the camera cuts to a background shout of the arch of Titus? look quick and notice TWO of the identical pyramids. To me this suggests that something was cut from the entrance procession. because you never see the second pyramid enter and you see BOTH at EACH SIDE of the arch. Hummmmmmmmmmmm makes me wonder what else was cut from the procession. Was it not enough time?

PS: I'm writing this from memory so if there are a few misstatements I invite corrections. Just don't be so G.D. haughty in your comments. Oh, and don't bother pointing out grammar or spelling.

Want Cleopatra (50th Anniversary Limited Edition 2-Disc + Book) (1963) Discount?

First let us clear up about the length. According to International Movie Data Base (IMDB.com) this movie existed in three lengths. There was the original length 5 hours and 20 minutes. That was the director's cut and only survived the premiere run. Then there was the theatrical release length the version reviewed here. Apparently to enable more showings per day and possibly to supply drive-ins, there was a shorter version yet.

Roddy MacDowell made the comment in print that eliminating 82 minutes from the movie shortened his role a great deal. I think the cuts focused the movie on the loves of Cleopatra and avoided the immensely complicated politics of the time. For that reason, I've always found the end of the movie (the disgrace of Antony, leading up to his suicide) jumbled.

Second no movie deserves HD more than this. The movie was made before digital scenery was invented, so all of the immense Alexandria sets are really there. The costuming is glorious, and the huge moments (such as the entry into Rome) do not disappoint. (For connoisseurs, compare that with the closing scene of Star Wars Phantom Menace.) The bigger the screen the better. The choreography provided for slave dancers is still of the Cecil B. and not Agnes DeMille variety.

The script was being written as they filmed. That created the immense problem of portions of the script being bloated and unwieldy.

This becomes obvious when you realize that the acting styles of the stars don't jibe at all. Elizabeth Taylor, when she isn't burdened with pseudo-monumental monologues, does a good job. It is professional acting at its best, and if it doesn't move us, I believe the fault lies with the script itself. Richard Burton at the mature peak of his Shakespearean powers gives a detailed account of Antony, but he allows himself to chew scenery at times. In contrast to Ms. Taylor, this contrast is awkward and becomes almost hammy. Rex Harrison is restrained and brilliant. More than one critic said that the movie became must less interesting after intermission (Caesar dies just before that PAUSE.) Hume Cronyn, Roddy MacDowell, Martin Landau, and all the other actors give great performances that might have been even greater with the extra 80+ minutes in place.

Joseph Mankiewicz always wanted to restore the full length for video release. VHS would not have worked. At the time it was "pan and scan" instead of letter-box, and you are lucky to have the actors even on screen. In an argument between Cleopatra and Antony, the width of the image was so large that only noses and mouths appear.

Apparently the missing footage hasn't been found. This review is based on the DVD, but I look forward to the Blu-Ray edition with great anticipation. It may not be 382 minutes long, but it is still the last, truly great spectacular movie, made before it became cheaper and easier to accomplish the impossible. (Now if only we can find the full-length Cleopatra.)

Save 29% Off

Deep Impact (1998)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy Deep Impact (1998) Now

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

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

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

Read Best Reviews of Deep Impact (1998) Here

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

Want Deep Impact (1998) Discount?

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

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

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

Save 40% Off

Hamlet (1996)

Part of the genius of Branagh's interpretation of Hamlet is in the use of the techniques of the cinema to enhance the production. Branagh has not condensed the acts like some mass market soup, as was done in Olivier's 1948 Oscar-winning production, or in, say, Zeffirelli's 1989 Hamlet lite starring Mel Gibson (both excellent, though, within their scope), but has kept every word while directing our understanding so that even those only casually familiar with the play might follow the intent and purpose with discernment. Recall that for Shakespeare--the ultimate actor's playwright who wrote with precious few stage directions--interpretation was left to the direction and the actors, an open invitation that Branagh rightly accepts.

The use of flashback scenes of things implied, such as the amorous union of Ophelia and her Lord Hamlet abed, or of a vast expanse of snow darkened with distant soldiers to represent the threat of Fortinbras' army from without, and especially the vivid remembrance in the mind's eye of the new king's dastardly deed of murder most foul, helps us all to more keenly appreciate just what it is that torments Hamlet's soul. I also liked the intense closeups. How they would have bemused and delighted an Elizabethan audience.

Branagh's ambitious Hamlet is also one of the most accessible and entertaining, yet without the faintest hint of any dumbing down or abbreviation. A play is to divert, to entertain, to allow us to identify with others whose trials and tribulations are so like our own. And so first the playwright seeks to engage his audience, and only then, by happenstance and indirection, to inspire and to inform. Shakespeare did this unconsciously, we might say. He wrote for the popular audience of his time, a broad audience, it should be noted, that included kings and queens as well as knaves and beggars, and he reached them, one and all. We are much removed from those times, and yet, this play, this singular achievement in theatre, still has the power to transcend mere entertainment, to fuse poetry and story, as well as the high and the low, and speak once again to a new audience twenty generations removed.

Branagh himself is a wonderful Hamlet, perhaps a bit of a ham at times (as I think was Shakespeare's intent), a prince who is the friend of itinerant players. He also lacks somewhat in stature (as we conceive our great heroes); nonetheless his interpretation of the great prince's torment and his singular obsession to avenge his father's murder speaks strongly to us all. Branagh, more than any other Hamlet, makes us understand the distracted, anguished and tortured prince, and guides us to not only an appreciation of his actions, wild and crazy as they sometimes are, but to an identification and an understanding of why (the eternal query) Hamlet is so long in assuming the name of action. In Branagh's production, this old quibble with Hamlet's character dissolves itself into a dew, and we realize that he was acting strongly, purposely all the while. He had to know the truth without doubt so that he might act in concert with it.

I was also very much impressed with Derek Jacobi's Claudius. One recalls that Jacobi played Hamlet in the only other full cinematic production of the play that I know of, produced in 1980 by the BBC with Claire Bloom as Gertrude; and he was an excellent Hamlet, although perhaps like Branagh something less than a massive presence. His Claudius combines second son ambition with a Machiavellian heart, whose words go up but whose thoughts remind below, as is the way of villains everywhere.

Kate Winslet is a remarkable Ophelia, lending an unusual strength to the role (strength of character is part of what Kate Winslet brings to any role), but with the poor, sweet girl's vulnerability intact. She does the mad scene with Claudius as well as I have seen it done, and of course her personal charisma and beauty embellishes the production.

Richard Briers as Polonius, proves that that officious fool is indeed that, and yet something more so that we can see why he was a counselor to the king. The famous speech he gives to Laertes as his son departs for France, is really ancient wisdom even though it comes from a fool.

Julie Christie was a delight as the besmirched and wretched queen. In the bedroom scene with Hamlet she becomes transparent to not only her son, but to us all, and we feel that the camera is reaching into her soul. She is outstanding.

The bit players had their time upon the stage and did middling well to very good. I liked Charlton Heston's player king (although I think he and John Gielgud might have switched roles to good effect) and Billy Crystal's gravedigger was finely etched. Only Jack Lemon's Marcellus really disappointed, but I think that was mainly because he was so poorly cast in such a role. Not once was he able to flash the Jack Lemon grin that we have come to know so well.

The idea of doing a Shakespearean play with nineteenth century dress in the late twentieth century worked wonderfully well, but I know not why. Perhaps the place and dress are just enough removed from our lives that they are somewhat strange but recognizable in a pleasing way. And perhaps it is just another tribute to the timeless nature of Shakespeare's play. The mirrors in the great hall added to the effect of a vast and indifferent castle environment, and in the scene with Ophelia and Laertes returned tended to magnify the focus.

There is so much more to say about this wonderful cinematic production. It is, all things considered, one of the best Hamlets ever done. Perhaps it is the best. See it, by all means, see it for yourself.

--Dennis Littrell, author of "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!"

There is a moment at the start of this film when Hamlet, until then holding himself rigidly erect through sheer force of will, seizes a moment of privacy and literally deflates with exhaustion and despair. In itself, this perfect gesture would mark Branagh's portrayal a masterful work. But what follows raises his performance to the sublime: He embarks on the "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, /Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew..." soliloquy not with Burton's anger, Olivier's melancholy or Gibson's bitterness, but with an exhalation that embodies the emotion most genuine given the circumstances: overwhelming grief. This is a perfect note, and what follows shows an understanding of the play's mental and emotional landscape that puts other portrayals to shame.

I have seen many performances of Hamlet, but I have never seen one as perfectly pitched as this. Branagh's Hamlet is strong, resourceful, thoughtful and restrained. Branagh purposely rejects the psychological poses that other actors find so hard to resist. After all, Hamlet and Richard III are the two Shakespearean plays that afford actors the most range. It's hard playing the Dane on a leash when one can go wild with existential abandon and not only dodge the charge of overacting, but actually attribute such excess to the character. There are few meatier roles in the repertoire that simultaneously offer the actor such depth on the one hand and such leeway on the other.

For me, such moderation exemplifies Branagh's devotion to Shakespeare. It must have been tempting for a man of his talents to show off. But to forego such gestures, to offer in its stead restraint, is to put service before self.

For, of course, Hamlet is restrained. His very life depends on it. His whole course of action is based on it. His safety revolves around it. Hold off the will to strike, restrain the impulse for vengeance, apportion each action in only the most miserly measure. The walls have ears, conspiracies abound and death lurks around every corner. In such an environment, is it plausible that a man of Hamlet's intelligence would show his hand by indulging in excess? A restrained performance feels right because a restrained course of action is the only course possible for our hero.

This does not stop Hamlet from making bold gestures. But such gestures must always be made under cover, and here again, Branagh shows his creative mettle. The Player King scene provides a counterpoint. Branagh lets go here and shows his excitement when the occasion demands it. Likewise, his graveyard response to Ophelia's death: the cover of madness conflates with reality because Hamlet's act cannot be sustained forever. Branagh knows exactly when to allow the cracks to show.

Those used to earlier works may find Branagh's version overly long and laboured. Many directors have cut out scenes and soliloquies in a misguided attempt to "tighten up" the production. Branagh makes what I believe is the right decision: to leave them all in because every scene, every soliloquy adds texture and is indispensable to the whole.

The best Hamlet I have seen.

Buy Hamlet (1996) Now

Phenominal acting by Kenneth Branagh makes this film both entertaining and a fine addition to anyone's library, be they a Shakespeare afficionado or simply looking to enjoy a good film. This is a refreshing switch from the stereotypically stale rap such a wonderful playwright is encumbered with. While it does take some time to watch, this is not necessarily a bad thing. As a result, there are always new things to discover with susequent viewings. Admittedly, the language itself is a barrier at first. For me, it is much more difficult to comprehend without the text before me. But, once realization dawns, I would say it is well worth the wait. Currently, my favorite part is when Hamlet tells his uncle to go to hell on the first tape. The delivery is subtle enough to elude most on the first pass, myself included. While this is not a line unique to this film, as the text exists in others, it is a high point for me. Kenneth Branagh makes the film, though. Accolades are also due equally noteworthy actor Charleton Heston for a brief but inspiring appearance. I am eagerly awaiting this title to emerge on DVD, as I hope many others are too. Perhaps a public outcry would prompt the distributor to arrange its (hopefully forthcoming) release.

Read Best Reviews of Hamlet (1996) Here

Yes, finally Warner Bros. has confirmed that this film will be issued on DVD sometime in 2006 for its tenth anniversary. Rumors of legal problems delaying the release (some stated even by WB themselves) were apparently just that -rumors. [Or, whatever it may have been, they can't talk about.]

The DVD is expected to have Branagh's "full cooperation".

Check here for more details:

Want Hamlet (1996) Discount?

This is one monumental piece of filmmaking. To the dectractors, for whom it was probably too long for their MTV attention spans, I can only say, go back to Britney Spears and save your comments for something you know something about. I'm sorry, but these responses really get me ticked in this instance. This is the "full" text, as written. Every word is a gem. Every scene is necessary for a full apprecition and understanding of Shakespeare's scope and genius. I didn't detect a dull moment or a lapse in directorial love and care for the duration of the film. Even Robin Williams, who I find annoying of late, was perfectly cast. The cameos, supporting roles, and stars all shone equally. This film is a triumph on Branagh's part, even better than his masterful Henry V. He's followed in Olivier's footsteps and even superseded him in many respects. I didn't for a moment doubt any of his choices, either as actor or director. For me, this is the definitive Shakespeare recording of the modern era. Enough said.

Save 37% Off

Gnomeo & Juliet (Gnoméo & Juliette) (2011) (2011)

A wonderful movie that my children loved going to. While maybe not the best animated movie of all times it was cute and explored a story line that was new....not just the villain and the super hero story line. It kept you interested and did not cause me to look at my watch to see "how much longer."

SPOILER ALERT:

For those who are disappointed that it did not hold true to Romeo and Juliet dieing...seriously...do we really need little kids to attach to a character who then in the ends commits suicide and "the love of her life" kills himself. Can't we leave the harshness out of a children's movie and let them laugh and be children.

I was not looking forward to watching this movie, My wife saw it for 8.99 new from a seller and BAM two days later it was in my mailbox!!

I almost threw it away and hope she would forget about ordering......however right when I walked in the door, "did my movie come!?!?!"

As you could guess an hour later I was watching it and to mu surprise this was not a bad little movie. not a great Disney classic but I have seen much worse as of late, very cute movie and would be great for any family or for any couple that like a little goofy in there romance.

I would actually watch this movie again and recommend for others to as well.

Buy Gnomeo & Juliet (Gnoméo & Juliette) (2011) (2011) Now

As parents to a six-year-old girl, my husband and I are constantly on the look-out for tolerable kid-friendly shows that we can take her to (at the movies). I say tolerable because quality is often lacking in many of these films and then there's the issue of PG vs. G ratings. Well, when we heard Gnomeo and Juliet was being screened at our local cinema, we decided to give it a try, and to our surprise, our picky 6-year-old loved it!

I have to say that this movie is mainly for young children. It is full of color, which will appeal to most kids, and there are adorable garden gnomes running around. My husband fell asleep within fifteen minutes (to be fair, he had had a long day at work), but my daughter's attention was riveted to the screen from the beginning till the end. Me? I enjoyed the music (thanks to Elton John who obligingly helped with the soundtrack featuring his classic hits his partner David Furnish was a producer on this film). I also sort of enjoyed the silly premise instead of the doomed star-crossed Romeo and Juliet, we have warring garden gnomes, the Reds and the Blues, and two impish and totally cute gnomes, Juliet (a Red, voiced by Emily Blunt) and Gnomeo (a Blue, voiced by James McAvoy) who flirt and later fall for each other despite their differences.

The casting is a sort of coup really given the famous names featured here there's Jim Cummings, Patrick Stewart, Dolly Parton, Ozzy Osbourne, and many more! The movie is a kaleidoscope of color and at times this can get a tad overwhelming but the children appeared to love it, so my verdict awesome entertainment for the kiddie set!

Read Best Reviews of Gnomeo & Juliet (Gnoméo & Juliette) (2011) (2011) Here

I went to the drive-in to see this movie last night with my 9YO child (at their suggestion) and I would latter find out that was their second time seeing this movie.

5 minutes into this movie I was saying to myself, "this is going to be a LONG 90 minutes and I hope it goes by quickly".

About 15 minutes into the movie, everything started to come together and I found myself very interested.

Then, what felt like the blink of an eye, the movie was over and I found myself yearning for more.

I loved it and I'm typically a critical person. I'm going to purchase it once it comes out.

If you have any expectations of this movie you're going to be disappointed. It's a "G" rated movie with a very simple story line. Considering and stating that, I think all age groups could appreciate this movie.

I found it to be cute and adorable and a tear-jerker at some points.

If you liked Curious George, I think you would like this?

Want Gnomeo & Juliet (Gnoméo & Juliette) (2011) (2011) Discount?

Took my granddaughter to see this with zero expectation of enjoying it, (SPOILER) but when I saw Jason Statham as the bully and the great Death Race scene, I perked up. A lot of other movie references and great Elton John music (Elton Johns gnome cracked me up) made this the best Shakespeare movie since Shakespeare In Love. A lot of the humor will go right over kids heads, but they'll love the colorful characters and music.

Judas Kiss Blu-ray

For me, Judas Kiss (which I saw at the Frameline Film Festival in San Francisco this past June)represents a huge leap in indie gay film making. After years of coming out stories (who have their place, but are clichéd riddled these days), it was fun to see a movie where no one was suicidal about being gay, was not being beat up because they're gay or just worried they could be gay. It also differs from the others in this genre with its lush cinematography and impressive use of CGI effects (and on such a low-budget I know these movies work with). In this film, screenwriter Carlos Pedraza (the web series Star Trek: Phase II) and director J.T. Tepnapa (the funny short Masturbation: Putting the Fun into Self-Loving and the web series Star Trek: Hidden Frontier) takes a simple idea -what if you could go back in time and change your pastand spins a tale about the paths we choose when we're young, and how (at the time) we never think about the consequences of our actions. From that idea, the movie then borrows equal parts The Twilight Zone and a dash of A Christmas Carol and takes us on a journey that while familiar, it is never boring. Charlie David has never been better, giving a wonderful performance of a man in search of redemption for the sins of his past. Then there is Richard Harmon who shines as the troubled young man in search of life outside the reach of his damaged father (he also gave a creepy and memorable performance in AMC's The Killing this past spring). Harmon is brilliantly watchable in what should be a breakout performance. Meanwhile, Belgium singer/actor Timo Descamps as the evil Big Man on Campus is equally as good, along with the talented Julia Morizawa. Then there's Sean Paul Lockhart as the Ghost of Christmas Past. Well known for his gay adult films as Brent Corrigan, Lockhart proves he can act. He's likable, charming and vulnerable, but confident in what he wants. Like Harmon, this could be a game changer for the him.

"Judas Kiss" is a rather creative and ambitious story about destiny and second chances. The main character is "Zachary", a 30-something failed movie director (David's character) who reluctantly agrees to help judge a film school scholarship competition at his old alma mater. Being housed in a dorm room for the festival makes this even more of a journey for Zachary, since it reminds him of all the promise and potential he showed back then, which he sold out by making some bad decisions then and since. At a gay bar near campus, he meets a student (played by Richard Harmon) with whom he spends the night. It's not until the next day, meeting the filmmakers, that he realizes the young man is one of the contestants. Even stranger: the young man's name is Danny Reyes, which is Zachary's real name, and the film he presenting is actually one that Zachary made when he went to the school. A mysterious older man clues him in that he is somehow being given a second chance to perhaps change his life, by helping the younger version of him make better choices than he made when he was in his shoes.

Supporting, fully developed and relatable characters include Shane (Timo Descamps) a singer/artist into "vampire" videos who is the spoiled son of one of the school's richest benefactors, and his filming assistant Chris (Sean Paul Lockhart), and the film has a nice, original soundtrack that adds to the film, which is low budget but done remarkably well considering I did chuckle a bit that it looks like they used an old disco ball to generate some cheap "special effects" in a couple of scenes). Usually, the words "Starring Charlie David" aren't much of a draw for me, but he is actually quite good in this role, much deeper than the usual "hot guy" he plays and has considerable depth and emotion. Harmon is also excellent in his role.

Not rated, but would likely be an R due to sexual content. ... Watch it through the end credits, as the entire cast sings a song that can't be missed! DVD has extensive extras, including commentary, a "making of" feature, deleted scenes and a music video by Descamps (who apparently is a big teen idol in Belgium). May not be for everyone, but I thought it was a great effort. Five stars out of five.

Buy Judas Kiss Blu-ray Now

This film, Judas Kiss, was absolutely amazing, and everyone leaving the film festival theater where I recently saw it was touched by it and its message of regret, redemption, and hope for the future. Judas Kiss has a little bit of something for everyone, but most especially, it is a story that every viewer can relate to... reflection upon one's own life, regret over decisions made, and what you might have done differently if you could. In this innovative film, the character of Zach actually does get a chance to change some things in his younger life. But will his younger self, in that "all-knowing-invincible arrogance" of teenage youth, listen to his older self, and take a different path that will change both of their futures? That indeed is the question in this charmer of a film.

The film has a professional and compelling soundtrack, lighting, photography, and editing, I was blown away by its message of regret, redemption, and the possibility of change. Charlie David, Sean Lockhart, Timo Descamps, Julia Morizawa, and the rest of the cast truly give stellar performances, beyond what is often expected in independent films.

Viewers will be transported to this quirky, mystical intersection of time and space, and experience similar emotions as the characters on screen. Viewers will ponder how they, too, could change their own life, and, indeed, change their own future. Beginning right then and there. I know this for a fact because everyone at the film festival where it played did just that. Everyone was thinking about it. To me, that is the success of this smart and bright indie film from director/writer J.T. Tepnapa and producer/writer Carlos Pedraza (who were amazing in the Question and Answer session held afterward).

Be aware, Judas Kiss is an edgy film, and there are several graphic and emotional scenes that are intentionally made to evoke some emotional response from the viewers. That being said, all is done tastefully and artistically, and viewers will be glad that they saw this little gem of a film.

I can't wait for it to be available on DVD -it will definitely be a stocking stuffer for many of my friends -gay, straight, bi, and whatever.

Read Best Reviews of Judas Kiss Blu-ray Here

I was expecting a lot from this movie, since, well, the tam-tam was huge, the cast was good, and yes, I was really interesting in see how they would interact with each other, who will be with whom and so on.

Charlie David was perfect for his role, a man disappointed with his present life and in no mood to walk through the memory line to be a judge in a college movie festival, the same college and the same movie festival crowning him 15 years ago and now completely forgetting who he is.

Richard Harmon is so "haunting" that is no wonder all the cute boys want to sleep with him (and most manage to). He has an attitude but he seems to deserve it also. He is beautiful, probably even too beautiful and he has got talent, probably even too much. He wants to be someone, but he wants also to escape from his past. And, in the end, he prefers when men take advantage of him, manipulate him, betray him... for him it's how the ways are, how he is expecting to be treated.

That is the reason why he seems to prefer Shane to Chris, even if, actually, he is playing with both of them (and on the side also with Zach).

Sean Paul Lockhart in the role of Chris is probably, with Harmon, the best discovery of this movie. The right dose of enticing young boy, the right dose of shyness, he is the safety against the allure of Shane. I think I understood who Chris is in Danny's future, or maybe it's what I want to believe for them. He played the "innocent/naive/nerd" boyfriend in comparison to Timo Descamps's "aloof/cold/socialite" one, and maybe that made me smile, considering all. But he was cute, and that was what the director wanted, he wanted him to represent the peanut butter in comparison to Timo's dark chocolate. I think he was good in being so.

All in all a good movie, low budget but you barely notice it, and some of the camera shot are almost paintings so good they are. And, I was almost forgetting... good sex scene too, saying all it has to be said without showing gratuituos naked bodies.

Want Judas Kiss Blu-ray Discount?

JUDAS KISS is a polished little film that successfully mixes gay issues with science fiction. Written (with Carlos Pedraza) and directed by young J.T. Tepnapa it manages to take a dream idea and by incorporating the use of sci-fi create a story with which almost everyone can relate. It introduces some fresh talent and allows some seasoned actors to keep the quality of the film on keel.

Zachary Well (Charlie David) is a failed filmmaker who despite a promising career in college left school to respond to the magnet of Hollywood: fifteen years later his life now is in and out of rehab and waiting tables because his dream of fame in la-la-land didn't happen. Zach's friend Topher (Troy Fischnaller) is successful and when an emergency trip arises he asks Zach to replace him as a judge for the filmmaking class at Zach's old college. With great trepidation Zach goes back to his alma mater, is housed in the freshman dorm, visits the local gay bar and has an encounter with a student one Danny Reyes (Richard Harmon). The next day as Zach is preparing for the judging he discovers the name of his previous night's encounter and cannot believe that Danny Reyes hnot only has Zach's previous name but also is a contestant in the film contest with a film by the same name that Zach had written and made 15 years ago. Other characters enter the scene Chris (Sean Paul Lockhart) who is Danny's paramour but who Danny is rejecting in favor of Shane (Timo Descamps) whose parents are wealthy and are supporting the film contest; Abbey (Julia Morizawa) who is Danny's assistant; and Danny's father (Vince Valensuela). The bizarre aspect of this is that Danny Reyes not only possess Zach's name but also Danny's life and associations mirror Zach's when he was in college. Characters form the past and imaginary situations occur and Zach sees in Danny the opportunity to make the result of the film contest different and thus alter the destiny of Danny Reyes.

The story makes sense as a campus story but the interesting aspect of the film is the clever way in which elements of science fiction (via camera work and music and Trompe l'oeil) bring the story to a level of reconsidering the past and seeing where different actions could have possibly resulted in a more successful present. It works and bodes well for the career of JT Tepnada. Grady Harp, November 11

Remember Me (2010)

It's hard to escape spoilers these days and while I tried, eventually one caught up with me. Knowing something about the ending and reading the mixed reviews I found myself interested in seeing if Robert Pattinson could act but wondering if this is the right vehicle and whether I wanted to see it. Then I came across an interview with the screenwriter. I pretty much knew the ending before I saw the movie and in a strange way it made the watching even more meaningful since the ending isn't as important as how the film gets there and what it says along the way.

I was plesantly surprised that even tho RP was in nearly every scene I didn't feel this was a vehicle for him but rather a character and relationship study. I expected him to be much more brooding and dark based on what I'd read. I'd like to see him stretch and tackle a variety of roles; I was plesantly surprised at his performance here. Somehow his leading man persona blended into the ensemble more than I expected and gave coherence to the movie. The relationship between Tyler (RP) and his younger sister was particulaly touching. I give RP a lot of credit being able to step into his character and let the assorted relationships surrounding him shine.

This movie will resonate with anyone who's lost someone unexpectely and how we each find ways to go on and live our lives. I found it a study of real people in "real" situations. The plot was somewhat predictable. How the unfolding was handled kept me interested. Being an exNYer, the city and surroundings resonated with me regardless of the ending and clued me into where the movie was going in several places.

Remembering back to my early 20s, it was a very hard time even without loss, for the first time being without structure and trying to find my path in life, not easy in the best of times. Watching so many different people finding ways to cope with senseless loss created a focus on the importance of living and loving every day.

I really appreciated the sensitive handling of the ending. The minimalist way of dealing with the horror had a lot of impact for me. Unexpected tragedy can be part of life. The clues are there all thru the movie. I mostly was haunted by the actual ending and how it tied to the beginning. How healing can come even from great saddness when life is lived with love.

I love this movie because instead of focusing on the the last hours of a person's life and allowing that end to define them, this story takes a flawed and real character and uses his journey to find himself to make us appreciate the untold story of everyone whose life ended before they'd gotten to a discernable finish line.

My husband asked me what the movie was about, and I told him that I couldn't tell him what it was about without making him miss the point. The movie is about the ending, without being about the ending because it forces us to get to know the character and take a journey with him. Tyler's life wasn't about the end of the movie, it was about all the moments that got him there. Seeing the movie without any preconceived notions, we are all in the same position that he is in, not understanding that tomorrow isn't promised. This movie is about potential, lost.

See the movie without seeing the reviews. It's worth it. You can't appreciate the journey if you're already focused on the destination. Carpe Diem.

Buy Remember Me (2010) Now

I saw this movie over the weekend. I can tell you, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I've already seen it a couple more times...the more I see it...the more I love it. It is more than a love story...and not easy to explain...except to say I found there wasn't one bad scene in the movie..it all kept you so engrossed in the story. You go thru the whole range of emotions during this film...and the ending will surprise you and stsy with you long after you leave the theater. Love passionately and live loudly every moment of your life.

Read Best Reviews of Remember Me (2010) Here

Brilliantly acted and grossly misunderstood, 'Remember Me' is neither a romance nor romantic drama,but rather a drama of life, love, and loss; a drama of families touched by grief and struggling with, sometimes strangled by, coping and hoping. 'Heartwarming and heartbreaking' as the main actor, Robert Pattinson, describes the film, there is love, anger, rejection, humour, and so many other conflicting and confusing emotions in the life and lives of a family, of an individual. Get to know the main characters through this intense slice of life, and feel the impact of loss to comprehend what was stolen, thousands of times over.

Want Remember Me (2010) Discount?

*Definite, major spoilers*

I hate tear-jerkers. I hate romances. I hate movies about people who have troubled pasts. I hate character deaths. I hate portrayals of drunken cops who take the law a little too far and people with anger management issues. So even though I like Robert Pattinson and Emilie de Ravin, I figured I would come out hating this movie. Only I didn't, and to say I didn't is a major understatement. I will say that only three movies have made me tear up, and this is one of them. It's funny because no matter how hard I try to "type" it -Is it "just" a tear-jerker? Is it "just" another typical romance, albeit with a twist ending?--I can't. And you know, I really don't care anymore. I think any movie that can make you feel the way this movie made me feel stands on its own. Because okay, I have about 40+ DVDS in my personal collection. I can pop in any one of them and watch it and feel almost nothing. I enjoy what I'm watching, sure, but after it's over I can go back and wash the dishes or feed my dog or whatever, and never think about it again that day, or any day, really, until I'm ready to watch it again.

But Remember Me? People talk a lot about the ending, and yeah, I suppose that's what makes it so unforgettable. And I also suppose that's what turns some people off: they see it as exploitation. Personally I think that's ridiculous -if you really wanted to argue the point further, you'd have to consider all war movies and portrayals of natural disasters exploitive. Maybe it hits a little hard only 9 years later, when so many families are still grieving and we get televised reminders every year. But to anyone who considers the ending out of place with the whole film -"But they've just fallen in love!" you might say. "What's the point of showing this? And why THIS? Exploitation!" Well, I'm not a screenwriter, but I thought I could see "why this:" Nobody ever said this was a romantic comedy. There's no rule saying that every movie has to follow the formula romance. It doesn't work out that way statistically, anyway. People die. They die in national tragedies. 911 was sudden and I'm sure none of the people in those buildings expected to die when they woke up that morning.

The thing is, life isn't automatically tied up in a neat little package when we die. In many cases victims of tragedies are young. They have emotional problems. They've recently fallen in love. If you didn't see the ending coming, well, you're not really supposed to, are you? The only real clue is that it's set in 2001, and I barely pay attention to dates on the screen, anyway. It's sudden because 911 was sudden. The romantic plot doesn't lead up to the ending because that's how it is in reality for many couples separated by death. I can't see it as exploitation because it's so very real, it's so very possible, and it's so very meaningful. If Tyler had died any other way, would the film have had the same impact? No, I don't think so. Because when you focus on this particular tragedy, and one particular character who is involved in it, that character beecomes a symbol for other lives lost. You end up not only feeling tremendously for the character of Tyler, but in watching grief in the aftermath of his death played out on-screen, the entire weight of the tragedy hits you all over again.

I was in 4th grade when 911 happened. At the time I had no clue what it all meant or what I was supposed to feel. It is only in the past two or three years or so, in watching a documentary about the event (Possibly called Flight 93? I'm not sure of the exact name.) and watching video tributes to the 911 victims that any of it really hit home for me. This was real. This happened in our country less than ten years ago and it's still affecting us. And finally I watched Remember Me... Besides the realistic acting and the sympathetic and complex characters, and yes, the execution of the plot as a whole, I found the title nearly perfect as well: "Remember Me." Not "Remember 911." Because if you forget that every tragedy has a deeply personal aspect, you're missing something important. So in summary, I say it's not an exploitation, but a tribute. And it's a great movie to boot, so you really can't go wrong. I wouldn't watch it if you're feeling depressed, though: I literally cried for about a half-hour afterward and before I watched it I felt perfectly normal. But like I said: any movie that can grab you like that is definitely worth watching.

Save 11% Off