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

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Mr. Sardonicus & Brotherhood of Satan - BD Double Feature

Mr. Sardonicus & Brotherhood of Satan - BD Double FeatureI am a huge fan of William Castle.He was an A producer of B films. He comes through again in Mr. Sardonicus. It is a solid film with some good performances, most notably from Oscar Homolka. He is excellant as the servant. Brootherhood of Satan I felt was disjointed,and slow. Not a great film. For a Blu-Ray no extras for either film.TMr. Sardonicus & Brotherhood of Satan BD Double Feature [Blu-ray]hey should have had isolated scores,and comentary's. Scene selection, these movies were really bare bones.

These are two great low budget horror films that are unique, tell a great story, and are entertaining from start to finish. The remastering is superb and the detail is amazing. Mr. Sardonicus (1961) was one of William Castle's most original films, and you'll not want to take your eyes off the screen. Strother Martin's performance in The Botherhood of Satan as a coven leader is unforgettable. The nostalgia factor is huge especially if you can remember evenings at the drive-in theater in the 1960s.

Buy Mr. Sardonicus & Brotherhood of Satan - BD Double Feature Now

If you think that an old movie isn't worth making into a blue ray think again Dr.Sardonicus in black and white looks so crystal clear its amazing it looks better than when it was released.this movie is on the order of a hammer film,a little far fetched but it sucks you in anyhow the acting is top notch with some graet stars.

Read Best Reviews of Mr. Sardonicus & Brotherhood of Satan - BD Double Feature Here

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Alfred Hitchcock: The Classic Collection (2013)

Alfred Hitchcock: The Classic CollectionMany of the reviews are for a different Hitchcock package. This set has only 3 films: Rebecca, Notorious, Spellbound. And these 3 blu-rays are already just out individually at Sams Club. They are identical, have the same extras, and are only $9.98 each: why is Amazon charging so much when you can get them for about #30 at Sams Club, and get them NOW?

I flipped out when I saw this recently in a store, and knew immediately that it would be going home with me. NINE old and hard to find Hitchcock movies for TEN bucks?? HELL YEAH!

I just got it so I can't say anything yet about the quality of the discs except that my first peek at "The Lady Vanishes" proved that the sound and overall picture quality could have been a lot better. But come on, for ten bucks, you get what you pay for, am I right? And as someone in no position to pay for the lovely but very pricey Hitchcock collections in all the fancy packaging, I was more than pleased to shell out ten dollars for this hidden jewel.

Did I mention that it costs ten dollars???

There are three discs total, each with three movies on it and a special feature. I will come back and edit this review with details as I take my time enjoying the product!

DISC ONE:

"Blackmail" (1929) -Hitch's first sound film, but still "silent" as in there are title cards in place of spoken dialogue. The "sound" is music and effects. It's about a young engaged woman who is blackmailed by an artist.

"The Lady Vanishes" (1938) -One of Hitch's best, hands down. Far superior to Jodie Foster's recent pretender "Flightplan". It's about a young woman who befriends an older woman on a European train, only to fall asleep and wake up to find the woman replaced by someone else, and everyone around her insisting that nothing has changed. She must prove that her friend is missing and hidden somewhere on the train. The film starts a bit slow but winds up becoming a fast-paced, very suspenseful ride that still retains a clever dash of comedy.

"Rich and Strange" (1932) -I've actually never seen or even heard of this one! I can't wait to see it. Here's the description from the back of the packaging: "Fredy and Emily, a young married couple, decide to take a cruise around the world after they come into a sizeable inheritance. While on the cruise both Emily and Fredy become romantically involved with the wrong people, and end up broke. Forced to journey home on a cargo boat, the couple sadly realizes that the worst is yet to come."

EXTRAS: Three original trailers for Hitchcock classics "Dial M for Murder", "Rear Window" and "To Catch a Thief". Whoever compiled these obviously has a thing for Grace Kelly. These are nice, but I just wish they had included trailers for movies that actually appear in this set. Oh well. Did I mention that it costs ten dollars?

DISC TWO:

"Sabotage" (1936) -"Karl Verlok leads a secret life as a paid terrorist, which has lead [SIC] undercover agent Ted Spencer to move in next door to Verlok and his wife Sylvia. Feeling that something's up, Verlok sends Sylvia's younger brother to deliver something for him, only the young man doesn't know he's delivering a time-bomb. Based on Joseph Conrad's novel 'The Secret Agent.'" I've never seen this one either, but it sure sounds good!

"Secret Agent" (1936) -"An ever-windeing tale of deception: Secret Agent revolves around British novelist Edgar Brodie and secret agent Elsa Carrington. Their search for a ruthless murderer takes them to Switzerland, through the Alps and a train to Greece. Will a surprise air attack bring an end to their search and their lives? Based on a novel by W. Somerset Maugham."

"The 39 Steps" (1938) -Classic Hitchcock. One of many films he did that center around an unwitting person being drawn into a web of terror and suspense, and being the only one who can save the day. This is also based upon a novel, and it was one of Hitchcock's biggest early hits.

LATER EDIT: **The audio and picture quality on this movie are HORRIBLE. You will not be able to understand the dialogue in several sections, no matter how much you rewind, and the print is full of scratches. If this movie is one of the main reasons you buy the collection, just know that you WILL want to invest in a remastered copy, eventually.**

BONUS FEATURE: Rare radio appearance by Alfred Hitchcock! This feature is a radio broadcast that plays over a wonderful poster gallery of Hitchcock's film releases -including some international posters in German and French. If you're like me, you'll have to experience this extra at least twice! I spent the first time so enthralled by the posters that I forgot to listen to the broadcast! :-)

DISC THREE:

"Number 17" (1932) -I have another copy of this that my mom picked up in a dollar store, but I still haven't seen it! It's basically about a gang of jewel thieves pursued by Detective Gilbert, and involves a train sequence that preludes his future as a quinessential director of movies with pivotal scenes in trains. ;-)

"The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1934) -Hitch later remade this in the 50s with Doris Day and Jimmy Stewart. I didn't think the remake was one of his better films. But this is the original, and I can't wait to see it! One of the couple's friends is murdered, and before he dies, he whispers a vital clue to them that they must then solve, before it's too late!

"The Lodger" (1926) -"Quiet and secretive Jonathan Drew has just rented a room in a London boarding house. Coincidentally, his arrival overlaps with the brutal murders orchestrated by Jack the Ripper. The Lodger is the first movie to be designated as a true 'Hitchcock picture'. A gem for collectors."

**This was recently remade with Alfred Molina, Simon Baker and Hope Davis. Judging by the trailer, it's going to BLOW!**

BONUS FEATURE: "About Hitchcock"

One *major* drawback is that NONE of these discs have subtitles of any kind, not even English for the hearing impaired. So don't buy this present for a deaf friend, and if you have a deaf friend who is upset that they can't enjoy the movies with you, just write them a note explaining that it only cost you ten dollars.

Overall, however, this ENTIRE PACKAGE is "A gem for collectors"!! The big expensive Hitchcock collections have his better known and later films, which are all available individually as well. This one has early stuff only, most of which I personally have never seen anywhere else. If you're as die-hard a fan as I am, you'll want this in your collection even if you CAN afford the higher-end stuff. The only thing that would make it better would have been more trailers, more extras, and a booklet of some kind. Instead, all you get is the discs themselves. But the crazy thing is that I would have gladly paid $30 for this set, as is. And instead I got it for ten.

TEN!!!

Don't let this bargain pass you by!!

Buy Alfred Hitchcock: The Classic Collection (2013) Now

For VHS nostalgists, and those intimidated by the pricey Criterion boxed set that has replaced this (adding "The Lady Vanishes" and "The Thirty-Nine Steps" and subtracting "The Paradine Case"), this set is a prize to be sought out. Anchor Bay put out a good number of clamshell-cased classics in the suspense and horror genres (including letterboxed Argento titles and "Halloween") and they also did right by these Forties Hitchcock thrillers. Of course, these are the films Hitchcock made under the prying eyes of Selznick, and the relationship was sufficiently difficult that Hitch occasionally drifted away from the post-production, allowing Selznick to lave on extra dollops of music and occasionally even reshoot a smidgeon here and there. "Notorious" is the only one here free of Selznick's taint, but that is in large part because it is the only one of these projects to so completely fire Hithcock's imagination that he considered it absolutely vital to maintain his full vision. Regarded as a highwater mark by everyone from Truffaut to Ebert (and Hitchcock himself), its greatness is so pure and consuming as to reduce even these other terrific films almost to the status of filler. But let us not write them off. Though they are not the same Minerva-born products of Hitchcock's genius as "Notorious" and the Fifties-era masterworks, Selznick was not without his visionary qualities and the Gothic richness of their confections (Hitchcock's ingredients certainly preponderant) make for superb, intoxicating entertainment. Truffaut rightly hailed the 'very modern' qualities of "Rebecca" (the intercutting feels completely contemporary, the forward momentum of the camera through the enormous interiors clearly influenced Kubrick's "The Shining", and the opening sequence is as luminously fluid as any feverish dream of Cuaron). Joan Fontaine is far sexier here than in "Suspicion" (the original "New York Times" review memorably noted "Miss Fontaine has the most expressive spine--and shoulders!--we've bothered to notice this season"), and George Barnes' camerawork is similarly sinuous and expressive. The film's obsessional perversities, like those in "The Paradine Case", come through quite nicely. Alida Valli is the subject of some prime iconic shots in "The Paradine Case" (though the screenplay from Selznick's own hand is a bit disjointed, the camera-choreography clearly kept Hitchcock awake). "Spellbound", the one Hitchcock considered least successful of this bunch, was an enormous hit, and though Miklos Rozsa's sensational score may have been too much for what Hitch regarded as the requirements of the piece, it remains a landmark movie score and will certainly seduce the viewer. Bergman's Dr. Constance Peterson is one-dimensional compared to Alicia in "Notorious" but beguiling nonetheless, and watching the somewhat wan Gregory Peck fume at her mothering attentions provides comic counterpoint to its delirious bouts of pop-Freudian obsession and nightmare. This boxed set comprises a glorious waking dream in luminous black & white, a gorgeous riot of eroticism, fixation, ambiguity, terror, menace and romance rich and seductive enough to keep your nights filled through a long holiday week, and as soon as I have enough nights free I'll be "renting" my brother's set off him and subjecting my girlfriend to the whole lot. Grab it up if you can.

Read Best Reviews of Alfred Hitchcock: The Classic Collection (2013) Here

Surfing through Amazon, repetively and quite tediously, I see the awe-inspiring Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection. Now as a cheap college student who loves movies, I don't exactly have the cash for that kind of dedication. Perhaps later.

However, I came across this treasure. A nice collection of various early Hitchcock movies, along with some radio appearances.

I received the DVD collection for about $6. Wow! I've never gotten 3 discs for $6. In any caes, when I played some of the movies just to check, the quality isn't exactly top-knotch. But what do you expect from 6 bucks? At least it feels like I'm in the 1940s again, right? Overall, a great buy.

Want Alfred Hitchcock: The Classic Collection (2013) Discount?

This collection was a major disappointment. These three wonderful movies are the old digital images created for DVD. If you already have the DVDs, there is no point in buying this collection. The Blu-Ray transfer was not done new. The images are grainy and the contrast is flat.

My expectation for a Blu-Ray transfer of a classic film is that it will be state of the art, with clear, clean images and contrast that pops. None of these three films meet that criteria. Save your money. Perhaps Criterion will offer them in Blu-Ray later.

Save 50% Off

Monday, May 5, 2014

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965)

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying MachinesThis is an absolutely wonderful movie. I have watched it again and again. It seems to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, yet it was a very good old fashioned, innocent, and more professional humor than most other comedies. I think it is a work of art and should be added to DVD format. Being that much of my family is German, Gert Fröbe was my favorite character. A funny and warm resemblance of the Prussian gentleman of the time. All the national characters were funny too. Terry Thomas was wonderful and gave me plenty of laughs. The Frenchmen and the Italian (Emilio) were great too. You will just feel naturally happier after you watch this movie. Don't even hesitate to buy it!

Finally! The 20th Century-Fox 1965 roadshow extravaganza comes to DVD. The movie looks marvelous in what must be a transfer from a restored 70mm print. On my 16X9 HDTV in progressive scan the images are quite stunning for a film of this vintage. The Dolby Digital 5.0 remastering of the original 6-track magnetic soundtrack is also a joy to the ears. This is an old-fashioned entertainment for the entire family. Thanks to its presentation on this new DVD the movie is once again a grand experience. The extras are extensive for such a moderately priced DVD too. Director Ken Annakin provides an interesting commentary track and appears in a new featurette. Somebody at Fox definately loves this movie, one that is a childhood favorite of mine. I saw it in its original release, and also in a 1969 reissue as part of a double feature with Fox's "Planet of the Apes." "The Perfect Mates" the ads said, "Apes and Men." Studios just don't don't do things like that anymore. Anyway, this DVD is a joy!

Buy Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965) Now

Would you like to take a ride in my ornithopter? No? How about a quick jaunt in my aerial steam carriage? Maybe a lift in my oscillating monoplane? It's hard for many of us to imagine when airplanes were not the efficient, quick, safe, and somewhat affordable mode of transportation that they are today, but there was a time when the technology was still in the experimental stage, back in the early 20th century, and that's when the film Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines, or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours and 11 Minutes (1965)...whew! That's one heck of a title...

Directed by Ken Annakin, a British director who gained acclaim working on such Disney films like The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952), The Sword and the Rose (1953), and Swiss Family Robinson (1960), Those Magnificent Men (shortened for sanity's sake) stars Stuart Whitman (Call Him Mr. Shatter) and Sarah Miles (The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing). Also appearing are Robert Morley (The African Queen), Gert Fröbe (Goldfinger), Eric Sykes, Benny Hill, Yûjirô Ishihara (Japan's most popular film, TV, and recording star at the time), along with England's most recognizable gap-toothed character actor Terry-Thomas (his most famous roles involve him playing an upper-class British twit, as he does here).

The story is pretty straightforward here...basically, a rich (in both money and snobbery) English newspaper owner named Lord Rawnsley (played by Morley) happens upon an idea, one which would increase his paper's circulation greatly, of having an aeronautical race from London to Paris, with the winner to receive not only a large sum of dough, but the prestige of being the first man to accomplish such a daring feat. Applicants from all over the world begin appearing, most for the money, but some for the honor of their respective country. Orvil Newton (Whitman), arrives from America, Colonel Manfred von Holstein (Fröbe) from Germany, and so on and so on...and lest we forget native Englander Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Thomas), along with his less than able henchman Courtney (Sykes), a pair of bounders (Sir Percy being the bigger bounder of the two) who will stoop to almost any form of chicanery in order to win the race.

As far as grand, epic comedies go (the film runs roughly 138 minutes, but there is a lengthy intermission about halfway through, for those of you with the weak bladders), this isn't the best in my opinion, but it's certainly not the worst. My favorite has always been It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963), with others being Around the World in 80 Days (1956), The Great Race (1965), Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies, aka Monte Carlo or Bust (1969). As with any of these films, Those Magnificent Men... has a few separate storylines going on at the same time that tie themselves up by the end, the main one usually being a romantic plot, here being a tepid love triangle between Patricia Rawnsley (played by Miles), whose father is sponsoring the race, Orvil, and a local man named Richard Mays (played by James Fox, who, by the way was involved with Sarah Miles in real life, around the time of the making of this film). I had read somewhere that the makers of this film had originally hoped to get Dick Van Dyke for Whitman's role, but couldn't for whatever reason. Casting Whitman as the male lead was a serious boo boo, as Whitman is one of the most unfunny, uncharming, and unwatchable actors I've seen in a long time. Come to think of it, the entire movie isn't really all that funny, but it does give effort and it has a lot of charm. The working replicas of the old-timey planes are really wonderful, along with the various authentic vehicles displayed, i.e. motorcars, motorcycles, etc. The aeronautical shots were excellent as was the scenery, the Cliffs of Dover, the Eiffel Tower, etc. I was kind of disappointed Terry-Thomas didn't have a bigger part in the film, as his on screen time probably ran about 15 minutes total at most. He plays the pretentious, foppish English twit better than most any other actor I'm familiar with...Come to think of it, I thought there was an awful lot of comic talent appearing in this film, with so little of it actually used (I'm still stuck on the whole `casting of Whitman as the comedic male lead' thing). The rest of the fliers, from various countries (which country made extremely obvious by not only their clothing but manner of speech), fills out a good deal of time. The stereotypes presented (an uptight German lacking a sense of humor, an animated Italian who has like 15 children, an overly amorous Frenchman) are goofy caricatures of themselves, and, while probably not entirely funny, they probably wouldn't offend except for the most sensitive. The special effects in the film are pretty obvious, but the scenes to watch are the ones with planes actually flying. All in all, this is just good fun, and a really good-looking film that can be enjoyed by all.

The wide screen picture on this DVD looks really good, and the sound quality is superior. Special features include a full commentary by the director Ken Annakin (use the Force, ken, use the Force...a lame attempt at humor, to be sure), a theatrical Trailer, a TV spot, various still galleries featuring the actors, the planes, the visual effects, and storyboards. There is also a feature containing conversations with the director. I was surprised to see the amount of special features available here, and beware ye who enter the still galleries, the number of photos seems endless...

Cookieman108

Read Best Reviews of Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965) Here

As a child my dad took our whole family to see any movie that had to do with airplanes. This is one that I enjoyed then and it has aged very well. I think this is one that families today will enjoy as much as we did when it first came out. Even though it is forty years old it was done as a period piece then and the production values were good and the cast and music is great. The message is pretty light stuff and easy to take. Anyone that likes some of the older comedies like "The Great Race" or "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" will enjoy it. The rivalries between the countries competing in the air race and the battle of the sex's are often funny. Airplane enthusiasts will definitely love seeing these pre-WWI airplanes in action. I bought the VHS years ago and I am looking forward to my DVD arriving.

Want Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965) Discount?

1965 was the year of the big screen action race comedies with lots of stars, grand costumes, lavish sets and authentic classic vehicles. "The Great Race" a 1910 auto race from New York to Paris and the "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines" a 1910 International Aircraft race from London to Paris.

What makes this 1965 Action Comedy so Grand is the attention to detail by Director Ken Annakin who had 6 replica flying machines built by real aero engineers from the original blue prints and specifications. The accuracy of these replicants even proved the critical pilot weight limitations. They had to even substitute a female stunt pilot to fly the French mono wing because the original pilot was a very small man. Now available for the first time on a spectacular panoramic 2.20:1 Aspect ratio. (Anamorphic WideScreen DVD (automatically adjusts picture to viewing tv size) with Dolby Surround Sound.) NOTE: THIS IS A FANTASTIC MOVIE TO WATCH ON WIDESCREEN 16:9 HDTV!!!!!

This film is 138 minutes and has many extras which include very detailed information and the history regarding all the 1910 vintage aircraft used in the film.

With an All-star 1960's International cast; Stuart Whitman, Sarah Miles, James Fox, Robert Morley, Red Skelton, Gert Frobe, Jean-Pierre Cassal, Benny Hill, Alberto Sordi and Terry Thomas.

This is a magnificent movie and the ingenuity and comedy of 1910 flight is a delight to watch on the BIG SCREEN. Enjoy.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

M (The Criterion Collection) (1931)

MI'm sorry for those who already own the former 1999 Criterion DVD of M (including myself, of course....) but this one is a must-buy item.

After more than 7 decades since its making, Fritz Lang's M remains a poignantly modern film; a striking portrait of the contemporary human world as we live in.

Fritz Lang, who always regarded M as his best film and the one by which he would be remembered, used to call it "a documentary". It is one of the first films about serial killers, and already Lang goes beyond depicting the pathology of such criminal; what M examines is the pathology of our contemporary society of urbanization, mass politics, and mass media: it's also a film about a 20th century metropolis of mass society and mass media culture.

The former Criterion DVD edition of M was made of the best available material back then-a print restored from many different sources, re-establishing as close as possible, Lang's original release cut. It was also a good transfer for a standard, NTSC digital medium.

But what sometime happen in the world of film restoration is, some materials that have been considered to be lost are suddenly be re-discovered. This new edition of M is created (for the most parts, expect for one reel which was missing) from the original camera negative, and transferred to HD video master. The result is-more details, less scratches, finer grains, and more subtleties.

The earlier DVD was a bare one. This new edition presents Lang's portrayal of social pathology of the 30's also with an audio commentary by Anton Kaes and Eric Renteschler. Kaes's book about M published as part of BFI classics series had already revealed Lang's freighting vision, pointing out how much of M was based on real events and real details of Berlin, including some underground figures played by actual underground celebrities of Berlin. With audio commentary, his points can be more articulately appreciated.

The supplements on the second disc can be seen as a testimonies of how many filmmakers and critics regarded M as a their contemporary film, how much inspiration M has been provoking in film history. But they have seen the film in far less complete versions than we can do now; for M has constantly victim of censorships, banning, alternations and mutilations over the years. The DVD also includes that history, including the Nazis who banned the film using segments of it in a propaganda film accusing "decadent art".

Watching M again on this new DVD was again a real inspiration. Though it is an early sound film, with very limited resources compared to the modern sophisticated technologies...well, it testifies how much one can do with the medium of cinema.

Having seen most of director Fritz Lang's wonderful films noir, I finally decided to get a copy of his famous "M" from 1931. After seeing it I readily agree with previous reviewers who call this one of the true masterpieces of German cinema. And, as many film noir historians have written, "M" paved the way for the entire genre in terms of style and cinematography. Peter Lorre, despite playing a dispicable character, gave the performance of his career. Oh and in case you haven't seen the film, the movie's title refers to the letter that's used to identify Peter Lorre as the murderer when he tries to escape.

Peter Lorre plays a psychotic child murderer in Berlin who kills "because he can't help it". The police have looked everywhere for the elusive killer but can't find him. The crime leaders of Berlin are fed up, not because there's a child killer on the loose, but because his murders are causing the police to interfere with the underworld's business activities as they bring in and question virtually every criminal in sight. The crime leaders organize their own searching party and they finally catch up with the now terrified murderer after a relentless chase (which takes up a large portion of the film). Next the underworld leaders set up their own trial and the child killer trembles in fear as his life is in the hands of these mob leaders. I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say it's classic Fritz Lang.

I've seen some truly awful prints of "M" released on vhs but was very relieved to discover that Criterion had carefully restored the classic masterpiece. In short, you won't find a better print of "M" anywhere else! The image is sharp and clear and the sound quality is superb. I only wish many other classic films could get the same high-quality restoration. The bonus features are also wonderful and are furthur proof that the Criterion special edition of "M" is THE one to buy. Highly recommended!

Buy M (The Criterion Collection) (1931) Now

"M" has everything you could hope in a great film. The acting by Peter Lorre, Gustaf Gründgens, Otto Wernicke, and the rest of the cast all perfectly convey the different personalities in this complex story. The use of black & white and shadows is very moody and haunting. The use of sound is very important since it will tell you things the camera isn't showing. The camera work itself is amazing. I especially love the long shot in the beginning of the scene of the beggars are signing up to watch the streets where the camera moves back and forth, up and into a room through a window without a cut.

"M" offers so much for the viewer -thrills, suspense, humor, terror! I enjoy it more and more with every repeated viewing. Fritz Lang does more than just give ideas on insane criminals. He compares and contrasts the police and the underworld criminal systems. You learn about the "state-of-the-art " systems of that time. And the last words harken a most important message that unfortunately is still true today. Also, if you look deeper, you can even sense Lang's anti-Nazi sentiments.

It's a Criterion Collection DVD, so I had high expectations. I was disappointed with a lack of extras, but I happily noticed scenes that weren't on my VHS version. The picture was mostly clear with white lines rarely popping up. There were long passages of no sound at times, but it's possible it's supposed to be like that. (I no longer have my VHS version to compare.) The subtitles were clear and easy to read. There's interesting details on the film in the liner notes. And not like this would influence anyone's buying decisions, but I also loved the design on the case and the disc.

Read Best Reviews of M (The Criterion Collection) (1931) Here

Another reviewer here has covered the plot of the film and how good a film it is quite well, so I will concern myself with the merits of the DVD itself. The transfer is very good for a film that is nearly 70 years old. It is clear and reasonably free from defects. There is one small place in which the film appears to fold over on itself, but this lasts for only a moment. It is presented in 1.33:1 aspect ratio, the standard at the time the film was made. The soundtrack is mono and presented entirely trough the center channel. The dialog is easily heard and understandable (if you speak German) and the subtitles are well done. The whistling of the piece from Grieg's Peer Gynt suite is a bit high and tinny at times, but that merely adds to the jarring effect that it is meant to (and does) have on the viewer. This film is a masterpiece from the earliest era of sound motion pictures, and it holds up well to this day. The presentation is not perfect, but it is pleasing and given the age of this film, I don't know that it could be done any better.

Want M (The Criterion Collection) (1931) Discount?

When sound was first introduced into film, the natural response from filmmakers was to use it as much as they possibly could. For Fritz Lang, however, it was to be used sparingly, more like punctuation then narrative. The story of 'M' should be familiar to those who have seen Spike Lee's magnificant 'Summer Of Sam'. There's a killer on the streets, kidnapping and slaying young children, and the police and the underworld of criminals have both set their sights on him. The film doesn't really concern itself with the killer, although he does have a few striking scenes (especially at the film's end where he pitifully tries to plead his case before the kangeroo court of criminals before him) but more so with the dividing line between criminals and police. Both want the killer caught for different reasons. The police want him to end the murders, the crooks want him caught so the cops will ease off their nightly patrols. The film makes these comparisons strikingly clear. It is a powerful film about desperation and fear, justice and innocence. Peter Lorre is remarkable in the role of the killer, his bug-eyed face twisting and contorting with considerable creepiness. His ending monologue is one of the greatest moments in the history of film. Fritz Lang's direction is near-perfect and again his use of sound is breathtaking. The shrill whistling of a tune has never been so frightening before. For all those interested in seeing just how great a film can be, this is one of those must-have films in your collection.

Save 40% Off

Friday, February 7, 2014

300 Blu-ray SteelBook (2006)

300 Blu-ray SteelBookA more intense shot of testosterone you will not find in any film. Equal parts bravado, guts and glory, "300" is simply the most exciting film to come out this year or in several. Criticized for its violence and gore, fans of Miller's graphic novels will find that violence and gore to be as beautifully depicted on the screen as in the print version. A highly hyped CGI affair the cast could easily have been overcome by the sheer impressiveness of the physical production. To his credit director Zack Snyder is blessed with and uses a cast every bit equal to the challenge of competing with Miller's dark fantastic take of the Spartan's greatest story.

Gerard Butler (Phantom of the Opera, Dear Frankie, etc.) adds yet another impressive and wildly different character to his arsenal of screen roles. As Leonidas, King of Sparta, Butler is, from his pigtail to his muscled, sandled feet, every inch a king; a true leader of men. His passion and intensity is matched by a splendid performance by Lena Headey as his wife, Queen Gorgo. Though a dutiful wife and a woman in an age when being such was near equal to slave status, she is, in her way, as bold and fearless as her husband/King. Dominic West is properly evil and oily as the traitor Theron and he's as nasty and duplicitous a villain as one can hope for. Rodrigo Santoro as a larger-than-life Xerxes is both comical and fearfully creepy equal parts drag queen and wanna be god. Behind all the glitzy piercings and bling, he is little more than self-inflated egotistical child.

While there is blood and gore aplenty, the film also happens to be emotionally satisfying and I found myself with tears welling up in my eyes more than a few times, as well as wanting to raise my fist in the air along with the jacked-up Spartans! While a macho stoicism pervades their attitudes, there are, to be sure, signs of a greater humanity beneath those ripped abs of Sparta's army and plenty of heart.

Parallels and allegories are already being drawn between today's warring world climate, super power dominations and the world of ancient Greece and the Middle East. While this provides an interesting commentary, I heartily recommend leaving that baggage at home and appreciating "300" on its own and embracing its escapism.

Larry Fong's cinematography ensures that "300" is eye-poppingly glorious from start to finish a magnificent feast for the eyes while Tyler Bates's score is guaranteed to keep your adrenaline pumping as it matches frame-for-frame the visual intensity presented on the screen. While critics are divided on this one, audiences are flocking to it and cheering. For good reason, too: "300" is magnificent old-fashioned story telling wed to the very best 21st century filmmaking has to offer. See it!

Frank Miller adaptations are on a roll. First we got "Sin City," and now we have the story of three hundred Spartans who repelled a massive invasion.

And the adaptation of "300" is a stunning one -literally stunning, since it bombards the viewer with larger-than-life characters, smashing visuals and tight direction. It goes a bit too fast for its own good, but it's a truly epic film that takes the historical war movie to another level -all the more so because it actually happened.

As the introduction tells us, the Spartans were the ultimate warrior people. Babies were inspected for weakness or faults, and killed if they had any; as they were growing up, they were taught and toughened by a savage regimen. Their only true hope was to "die beautifully" for their land.

A Persian messenger arrives, telling King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) that the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) wants the Spartans to bow to him. Leonidas' response: shove the Persians into a pit. But before he can go to war, he must consult the corrupt priesthood of Ephors and their beautiful Oracle. She predicts that Sparta will fall and the gods forbid war at the approach of the Carneaian festival -courtesy of a hefty bribe from a Spartan traitor.

So Leonidas takes out three hundred of his best men, along with their nervy Arcadian allies, and begin trouncing the Persians. But they are being sabotaged, both by a hunchbacked outcast and by a treacherous councilor, whom Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) is battling. And so at Thermopylae, Leonidas prepares for a final battle against the monstrous Persian Army -knowing that their story of freedom will live on.

This is not a "sensitive" movie where you have any appreciation for the bad guys -it's a glorification of three hundred soldiers who died for their land and freedom. It just wouldn't work otherwise. It doesn't blindly adore the Spartans -we see their darker side in their "weed out the weak" policy -but it does appreciate them. They respect and care about each other, and Leonidas is as kind as he can be even to Ephialtes, the traitor.

And it's done in a manner appropriate to its comic book origins -grimy, bloody and epic, but with a stylized look that is almost like CGI. The battles are shockingly good, and full of fantasy-ish creations like the monstrous creatures or the silver-masked Immortals. Even a wall of corpses. But we also get some beautiful visuals as well -roiling seas, sunlit battlefields, Spartan cities, and the drugged Oracle in her white veil.

While the script gets a bit over-the-top at times, it's hard not to be moved by dialogue that can be darkly funny ("It's just an eye. The gods saw fit to grace me with a spare") or stirring ("He did not wish tribute, nor song, or monuments or poems of war and valor. His wish was simple: "Remember us." That was his hope, should any free soul come across that place, in all the countless centuries yet to be").

Butler and Headey are simply great as Leonidas and Gorgo -they're both strong, passionate and fearless, and they both do a great job in their separate storylines. But the movie is filled with good performances -David Wenham as the narrator, Dominic West as a disgusting traitor, Santoro as the decadent, arrogant god-king, and many others.

This version contains both the regular and high-def versions, and apparently contains a small wealth of extras -featurettes about the history of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans, photo galleries, info on the Spartan culture, commentary, deleted scenes, and info on Frank Miller (who, of course, wrote the original graphic novel). It's sort of the decorative icing on a cake -not necessary to enjoy the film, but it makes it just a bit better.

"300" is a unique, stirring, stunning movie that pushes the action-movie envelope, and gives a thrilling edge to a real-life story of overwhelming power. A brilliant movie.

Buy 300 Blu-ray SteelBook (2006) Now

As a guy, if this film doesn't get your blood churning and your testosterone pumped up to a deliriously critical level, well, you're either dead inside or you're a Tibetan monk with complete mastery over your cardiovascular and hormonal systems. 300 is a man's man's man's flick and is a muscular love poem which celebrates the ideals of honor, courage, sacrifice, and standing up for your beliefs. Righteous stuff.

Not being much of a history buff, the only famous last stands I can instantly come up with are the Battles of the Alamo, of the Little Big Horn, and of Thermopylae (I guess I could also throw in Game 7 between the Lakers and the Blazers, 2000). Of these, the legendary Battle of Thermopylae is the most dramatic and is the mother of all last stands. I first heard about the Battle of Thermopylae (480BC) and the 300 Spartans way back when I was in high school, and I thought it a nifty story from the very first. A few years ago, I read Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 and enjoyed it tremendously, not caring at all that he altered things here and there as he opted instead to focus on the story's artistry, its sense of grandeur, and its mythological aspects. The filmmakers, make no mistake, take their cue from Mr. Miller. Remnants of historical facts are still somewhat represented under the film's glossy veneer but with some tweaking. You just have to see past the somewhat ridiculous parade of grotesque LORD OF THE RINGS-like creatures which Xerxes and director Zack Snyder send out.

SPOILERS begin now:

The film itself begins with the voiceover detailing the austere Spartan credo as we watch a baby boy quickly transition thru several phases of maturation as he grows into a young man, all the while being instructed and severely tested in the extremely brutal and uncompromising warrior ways of his people. We see him confronting his final test and craftily passing it, thus officially entering the ranks of Spartan soldierhood. This young man is Leonidas, who will become the king of the Greek city-state, Sparta.

We pick up decades later as a Persian emissary pays a visit to King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and his proud, beautiful wife and Queen, Gorgo (Lena Headey). The Persian calls for Sparta's submission to Xerxes, the God-King of Persia. After some deliberation, Leonidas's response isn't as much couched in diplomacy as it's couched in a sandal which propels the haughty emissary into a deep pit. Then, against the wishes of a lecherous, inbred group of mystics (who, nevertheless, control the Oracle) and the wishy-washy Spartan council, Leonidas gathers the 300 most capable soldiers in Sparta and, armed with a clever strategic plan, marches away to take on the vast hordes of the Persian invasion. If you've read your Greek history, you know what happens next...

End SPOILERS.

300 is bold in its scope and relentless in its take-no-prisoners attitude. It is a sweeping and sumptuously stark visual feast and would've made Frank Frazetta cream on his canvas. If 300 is based on Frank Miller's work (and it is), then Miller's art has to have been influenced in some ways by the great Frazetta. The film is saturated in mostly monochromatic hues which lend luster and even more drama to the bold crimsons of the Spartans' cloaks and the frequent spatters of blood and guts. I'm not normally a fan of slo-mo sequences, but I have to admit that, this time, the slo-mo-abruptly-segueing-into-fluid-motion (yeah, I think that's the technical term) bits are nicely executed and result in more thrilling battle scenes. The sword/spear fights are so stylized anyway that, after a while, they resemble a form of ballet. But a manly ballet, with hair on it. And, I don't often mention music in relation to films, but composer Tyler Bates truly adds an extra dimension of thrills with his thundering, pulse-pounding score. For sure, I'm gonna own this soundtrack.

Gerard Butler comes into his own here. With his compelling and righteous performance, with towering machismo sweating out of his pores, he out-GLADIATORs Russell Crowe and, by comparison, reduces that silly ponce into a puddle of wussiness. No doubt, you and I'll be directly quoting from Leonidas in days to come: "This...is...SPARTA!" or "Tonight, we dine in Hell!" or (my favorite) "Give them nothing but take from them...everything!" As Leonidas, Butler displays all the innate qualities of leadership necessary to command an elite force like the Spartans, he's very convincing. Yet, his fierce and uncompromising temperament and his joy in battle are tempered by the obvious love and respect he holds for his wife. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, by his ideals and actions, he paved the way for the Greeks eventually routing the Persian masses.

Lena Headey as the beleaguered Queen proves to be a match for Leonidas as she attempts to fight tooth and nail on the homefront to get the council off its collective arses and muster reinforcements for her husband. As Gorgo, Headey works hard to be fierce, dedicated, intelligent, and realistic. The actress is successful as I never doubted for a sec that this resolute woman is a Spartan to the very core. Her main adversary is the virulent Theron (Dominic West), a politician who reeks of underhandedness while holding a certain resemblance to Harry Hamlin. Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro has a showy but crucial part as the towering and deep-voiced King Xerxes.

In the world of sword-and-sandal cinema, 300 quickly separates itself from the likes of TROY and ALEXANDER. I'd place it at the same excellent level as GLADIATOR. The story is unmatchable in its timelessness and resonance, the action is non-stop and visually compelling, the images are oh-so-memorable, and the lead characters are mezmerizing. And, from a mythological standpoint and in terms of cultural impact, the brave yet tragic 300 Spartans strike a chord as no other heroes do as they continue to be a testament to steadfast loyalty and courage in the face of overwhelming odds. "Go tell the Spartans..."

Read Best Reviews of 300 Blu-ray SteelBook (2006) Here

Ah, to be male in Ancient Greece: "300" is a testosterone-driven fantasy in which all men are fearless warriors, driven by the need for battle and bloodshed. War is depicted as gloriously as any geek loner-type could hope for, with every soldier being the epitome of strength, courage, and physical brute force. Emotional bonding, sensitivity, and compassion don't even come into play; these men were trained to be ruthless killing machines, all in the name of preserving the glory of Sparta. This would no doubt be a ridiculous film if the story were presented in a straightforward, mainstream way. But straightforward and mainstream, "300" is not; this is pure, hard-driving escapism, from the frenetic battle sequences to the elaborate special effects to the over the top performances. In this sense, it's absolutely brilliant.

And it gets even better. Every shot, every setting, and every event is accentuated by a look so stylized that it's practically a living duplicate of Frank Miller's original graphic novel. This was achieved through computer-generated imagery, which was responsible for creating most of the film's locations. Bluescreen technology--also utilized for another incredible Miller adaptation, 2005's "Sin City"--made for a majority of the sets, leaving very little for the actors to actually work with. I can only imagine the effort that went into post-production, the endless hours of crafting landscapes, characters, and special effects all with the click of a mouse. The work paid off; the end product is an effectively heightened reinterpretation of reality, a kind of living illustration that transcends any sense of time or place. It's the perfect look for war story of this caliber, something so grandiose and overplayed that you can't get enough.

The plot is fairly simple: it's a retelling of the 480 BC Battle of Thermopylae, in which the Spartans fought against the Persians. King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and his army of a mere 300 soldiers are ready to defend their land against the evil King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). This is despite the fact that 1) they don't have the blessing of the gods to go to war, and 2) they will fight against an army of over one million. But this matters not; Spartan males are trained to be warriors at a very early age, essentially the day that they're born (only the largest, strongest newborns are spared; the small, sickly ones are unceremoniously thrown off of a cliff). They are taught the fine art of combat. They are made to take all kinds of physical pain, including lashings. They are conditioned to never retreat, even when facing insurmountable odds. Leonidas successfully survived such rigorous training (his first major battle was against a monstrous wolf with glowing eyes), as did the rest of his men. Now, they are ready for battle.

And after taking position near a beachfront cliff, the Spartans engage in ferocious battle with the Persians. Never on film has war been so much fun to watch. This is probably because each sequence was beautifully photographed; even graphic shots of stabbings, amputations, and decapitations are so artfully constructed that it's hard to accept them as deplorable. The bodies of Persian soldiers are used to construct a blockade of surprising strength. Blood spatters from gaping wounds in dark, unrealistic globules, effectively looking more like spots of ink. There's a moment when arrows fly through the air in numbers so vast, they block the light of the sun. Nearly every shot is drawn out, often going in slow motion to show how carefully choreographed the gratuitous violence is.

The Spartans also fight against the Immortals, an army of ghastly yet fantastical creatures with an appetite for destruction. They were appropriately crafted as one-dimensional barbarians, made more effective because of their appearances; they wear long black robes, and their pale, monstrous faces are hidden behind Tragedy-style silver masks. Where they came from is anyone's guess. I suppose it doesn't really matter, especially since they pave the way for a number of other ghoulish creatures that would give the creations of Clive Barker a run for their money. They--and every aspect of the film, for that matter--make it obvious that the real emphasis is on style instead of story, which under different circumstances would make for a miserable experience. But in this case, it works quite well; while a definite story is being told, it would be of little significance were it not for the special effects.

This isn't to say that the story of "300" is bad. Quite the opposite: despite being simplistic, the story is quite strong, especially when a couple of subplots are factored in. Back in Sparta, Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), is up against a corrupt Senate, already bought out by the Persians in order to ensure Sparta's stability. The arrogant and treacherous Theron (Dominic West) is clearly not ready to handle a woman of such strength, especially since she fully supports Leonidas and Sparta's involvement in the war. Because she intends to plead to the Council for the deployment of more soldiers, Theron challenges her authority by exclaiming that her words will fall on deaf ears.

Another subplot involves Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), a hunchbacked, hideously deformed Spartan who begs to join with Leonidas and fight against the Persians. Leonidas appreciates his passion, but refuses to let him fight; he's unable to lift his shield, and this would only create a weak spot in their defense system. Feeling rejected, Ephialtes personally appeals to Xerxes, who promises a wealth of power, money, and pleasure in exchange for loyalty. This scene takes place in Xerxes' den, in which a throng of misshapen creatures engages in an orgy. Before "300," I never would have believed that any film could include such a scene, or at least a scene that would work in any way, shape, or form. I was wrong; it was a fascinating scene, forcing the viewer to reassess what is beautiful and what is ugly.

The film is narrated by Dilios (David Wenham), a Spartan soldier with a hard-edged masculinity that shines through despite a deceptively soft voice. He recalls Leonidas, Sparta, and the Battle of Thermopylae with eloquence; when considering the heavy-handedness of war, this is no small task. Yet he always gives a perfect delivery, and that only strengthens the appeal of "300." This is in a world all its own, a world dominated by battle cries, sword fights, and bare-chested men that are ripped like bodybuilders. It's all thanks to Frank Miller, whose creative vision has allowed for a truly unique theatrical experience. If he creates another graphic novel, I can't wait for it to be adapted for the big screen.

Want 300 Blu-ray SteelBook (2006) Discount?

Before going to see "300" this afternoon I watched the 1962 film "The 300 Spartans." I have a strong affection for the marching music in the film and the shot of Leonidas leading the Spartan phalanx for the last time, plus an enduring sense of injustice at the Persians dispatching the last Spartans by wave after wave of cartoon arrows. I had read Frank Miller's "300" when it was first published in five issues so I knew what to expect. This film is not history: it is art. Granted, we are talking post-modern art, but that still counts as art in a world where computers are as important as cameras when making a movie.

The Battle of Thermopylae was fought in 480 B.C. The Persian army of Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is invading Greece with the largest army the world has ever seen. With the Spartan army prohibited from marching north because of a religious festival, King Leonidas (Gerald Butler in fine form) heads for the natural bottleneck on the main road between Locris and Thessaly with the 300 men of his bodyguard. After three days of battle the Spartans were betrayed by a man named Ephialtes who showed the Persians a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines. While the rest of the Greek soldiers retreated, the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians were slaughtered to the last man. Simonides composed a famous epigram that was engraved as an epitaph on a commemorative stone placed on top of the burial mound of the Spartans at Thermopylae: "Go, stranger, and tell the Spartans, That we lie here in obedience to their laws."

Miller was inspired by historical events but was not constrained by it in telling his story. In his version Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan) is no longer a poor shepherd but a deformed figure who was born to parents who fled Sparta rather than leave their infant on a rock to die, adding elements of pathos and irony hitherto unseen with regards to the character. Nor is this movie the attempt to faithfully bring Miller's art to life that we saw with "Sin City," which is perfectly fine with me. Besides, director Zack Snyder's film reminded me more of lots of other films, from "Gladiator" to "Hero," more than it did "Sin City." I want to say that what we saw of this type of modern filmmaking in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" has been refined, but that would be quite an ironic comment to make about such a gory and gritty film. Ultimately, the movie is rather impressionistic in nature, emphasizing graphic images over everything else, which brings us back around again to the idea that "300" is art and not history.

I was quite pleased the overall "300" met my expectations. During the first part of the battle Snyder ("Dawn of the Dead") resorts to the rapid series of cuts that I have come to deplore in contemporary action films because I can never tell what is happening. I understand that a battle is a sea of chaos, but if I cannot tell what is going on I become distracted. I want to see what is happening in order for the scenes to become memorable to me. Fortunately the rest of the movie takes full advantage of slow motion technique we see in the trailers and television spots for the film. In fact, "300" makes better use of slow motion than any film I can remember, mainly because the point is not to prolong the suspense (e.g., the end of the fight in "Rocky II"), but to let you see what is happening (e.g., River's fight scenes in "Serenity"). Think of watching big hits in football in slow motion replay and you get a sense of how Snyder is able to strategically slow down the action to see not only the power but also the grace of the violence.

Looks are everything in this film, so the Spartans fight bare-chested, the better for their muscles to ripple, while the Persians might be the most overdressed warriors in cinematic history (although I admit that I have to wonder where the Spartans were hiding their helmets on the long trip from Sparta to the Hot Gates). "300" is a film that glories in visual excess as the army of Xerxes becomes a computer generated million man march and the pass at Thermopylae exists between towering pillars of rock. This may or may not be the most computer generated figures on the screen at one time in the history of the world, but I have to believe "300" offers the biggest piles of corpses we have ever seen. As if quantity was not enough to overwhelm the Spartans, Leonidas and his men are confronted by a towering Xerxes and a host of monstrous men and animals. The net result may well be the best comic book movie to date, despite the fact the hero is a historical figure and not a superhero.

This adaptation plays up a subplot regarding what is happening back at Sparta while Leonidas and his body guard face annihilation as Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to play politics with Theron (Dominic West), who complains about the legitimacy of the king's actions rather than deal with the reality of a Persian army coming to crush Greece. But it is hard to care about such machinations in the face of the historical record and the fact that the drama is happening at Thermopylae and not back in Sparta. There are notes sounded about saving Greece from the Persians and civilization from the evils of Asian mysticism, but the legacy of the Spartans has nothing to do with their role in the development of democracy. Almost two millennium before the Alamo there was this story of a group of warriors that sacrifice their lives in a battle so that their people could win the war. The story of the 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae is that of the first great last stand.

Save 56% Off

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Sin Nombre

Sin NombreSin Nombre (Cary Fukunaga, 2009)

It was early in the year when some critics (most notably Turner Classic Movies daytime host Ben Mankiewicz) started proclaiming Sin Nombre the best film of 2009. (I just checked Huffington Post for his year-end list, and yes, it's still at the top of the list.) And Sin Nombre, the first feature-length film from Cary Fukunaga, is a very good film, but the best of 2009?

The story focuses on two teenagers, Honduran Sayra (Never on Sunday's Paulina Gaitan, a Mexican actress) who comes to Mexico to be reunited with her father, and Mexican gang member Willy (Provocacion's Edgar Flores, a Honduran actor--see what they did there?--in his second film role). Sayra and her father want to hop a train to America to start a new life, while Willy and his friend Smiley (Kristian Ferrer, recently of Days of Grace) are just trying to get along gettin' along as members of the infamous Mara Salvatrucha. Or they are until an incident of shocking violence leads Willy to reconsider his place in the world.

The film's trailers, and many of the reviews, focus on the train journey, which is a bit disingenuous (and something of a spoiler), since the train journey occupies, at most, the final third of the film. Sayra and Willy's stories don't come together until then, which gives the first part of the film something of a disjointed feel. Not bad, mind you, just disjointed, as the movie ping-pongs back and forth between them. It's all very well-done, very solid filmmaking with a compelling pair of stories and a lot of heart, but I can't help comparing it to Cidade de Deus, which did much the same thing with a much smaller budget and a stable of amateurs. Again, it's not that Sin Nombre is a bad movie in any way. In fact, it's a very good movie. It's just not Cidade de Deus, though it comes close. *** ½

First time director Cary Fukunaga rode the rails himself in preparation to tell this heartbreaking story of a family on their way to the United States by hitching on top of a dangerous train. The narrative flows between the life of Mexican gangster Willi, whose secretive relationship with a city girl puts a rift between him and his "homies," and an introduction to Sayra, whose father has just been deported from the U.S., and plans to take her back with him to the family he has in New Jersey. A series of tragedies bring them together and force them to go on the run from Willi's former gang. The pacing is intense, and yet in the editing there is ample exploration of the setting, of the atmosphere and flavor, and a very strong sense of the wide variety in the geography and local culture encountered on the trek from the southern border of Mexico to Texas. It is beautifully shot, and brilliantly cast. The lead actor in the role of Willy (Edgar Flores) does such a remarkable job that it is hard to imagine he is playing a part -even more astonishing given that this was his very first role in film. Paulina Gaytan as Sayra is equally convincing and compelling. This is a very impressive debut film -and I have every expectation that we will continue to see excellent work from director Cary Fukunaga in the future. Highly recommended.

Buy Sin Nombre Now

A lot of gangster movies are romanticized or just over the top. This was not one of them. A simple, wonderful, and horrifying gangster movie about the issues going on in Mexico and South America. Watch it watch it watch it.

Read Best Reviews of Sin Nombre Here

What a powerful story. A window inside the lives of people who are trying to make a better life for themselves, and of those who have no respect for life at all. Tender moments take over, and love and bonding defeats a harsh and dangerouse world. Unforgettable acting performaces!

Want Sin Nombre Discount?

I was interested in purchasing this movie due to the fact that I had seen previews at a theater and it looked quite captivating. When it was released in video, I tried renting it for 2 months and it was never available so I just assumed that it was a popular movie. I decided to purchase it and the movie was different than what I had expected. It was a love story but moreso it had a twist that was quite a realistic plot about gang life of the MS-13 El Salvadoran gang and the gang culture and about what happens when you try to leave the gang. It also depicts the illegal immigrant way of life and the dangers encompassing their escape to the U.S. The story ending was very sad, almost depressing, but it leaves the viewer with the hope and anticipating that the young lady will be able to start a new life of freedom and opportunity.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

A Royal Affair (2012)

A Royal Affair"A Royal Affaire" (2012 release from Denmark; 137 min.) brings the true story of Caroline Mathilda (played by Alicia Vikander), the English teenage princess who married King Christian VII of Denmark (played by Mikkel Følsgaard) in the early 1770s. Caroline's dreams of a fairy tale-like marriage are soon destroyed when it turns out that the King is utterly insane. After the royal couple's first child is born, Caroline becomes attracted to, and eventually becomes romantically involved with, the King's personal physician, Struensee (played by Mads Mikkelsen). As it happens, Struensee's role is much larger than just being the King's physician, as he has substantial influence over the King's political actions as well. Soon Struensee and Caroline are using the King as a pawn to advance their political ideas of freedom of speech and other such "radical" ideas. To tell you more of the plot would ruin your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Several comments: first and foremost, kudos to the producers who worked with a budget of 46 million Danish Krone (about US$ 8 million, mere peanuts in Hollywood terms) and bring us a grand scale historical drama, the likes of which we don't get to see made very often in Europe. The overall feeling of the movie is quite epic as a result. Second, also kudos to Mads Mikkelsen for his portrayal of the German physician Struensee, it is quite the tour-de-force.

This movie premiered at the 2012 Berlin Film Festival, to great acclaim, and rightfully so. I saw this movie on a recent home visit to Belgium, and the particular theatre and screening where I saw this was well attended. I think this movie has some legs, and it will be interesting to see hw it will do in the US market as well. Meanwhile, if you like historical dramas or are simply in the mood for a quality foreign movie, "A Royal Affair" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

This is a Danish, Swedish and Czech co production about the life of god old mad King Christian VII of Denmark. Set in the Eighteenth Century when he needs a bride and a suitable wife is found in the English court in the form of Welsh, Caroline Mathilde played beautifully by Alicia Vikander (`Anna Kerenina'). When she arrives at court it doesn't take too long to realise that her betrothed is a bit of a cad. He has beastly table manners, rude as I don't know what and is as much fun in bed as a randy cockroach so love was never going to blossom. But she manages to give him an heir anyway.

Meantime's the somewhat eccentric King goes on a tour, or progress, of Europe where he finds himself in dire need of a physician. Enter Dr. Johan Freidrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen `Casino Royale') who is by all accounts a silver tongued charmer. But apart from that appendage he also has dangerous ideas in the new thinking department yes he is part of the enlightenment movement that is sweeping across Europe. Ideas expounded and fuelled by the writings of Rousseau and Voltaire has meant a new imagination has taken hold and Queen Caroline is in for a bit of enlightening herself. So when the King decides she is too serious and that with the help of a physician she may improve her temper, Dr Struensee jumps at the chance like a school boy up for a game of conkers. What ensues is passion in the bedroom at court and intrigue that will set them on a collision course with all vested interests in Denmark.

This is a sumptuous production that gets right into the very fabric of the times and is as visually rewarding as entertaining from a plot perspective. The acting is effortless in its execution, so much so that you are swept along with the entire thing. This is a film where you just lap it up. The cinematography is just brilliant and everything seems understated by what is actually unfolding on the screen. Director Nikolaj Arcel (`The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' 2009) has taken a truly unique script and made something remarkable and all the more so because of the collaboration involved. It is in Danish, English, German and French with good sub titles even though they are all in white which causes a few problems but I managed fairly well and in no way irritating enough to detract from what is a great film experience truly exceptional.

Buy A Royal Affair (2012) Now

Yet again another fantastic film from Denmark with over two hours of absorbing drama. Period dramas from the 18th Century are not my favourite pieces but this certainly held me captive.

The little known story of King Christian of Denmark who is a little insane and his marriage to his English queen who succumbs to his German physician Straunsee is wonderfully told with excellent attention to period detail.

The film is mostly in Danish with English subtitles although there a couple of scenes in English at the beginning of the film.

Viewers of recent Danish TV drama acquisitions will recognise a number of faces in this film including Søren Malling (Torben Friis Borgen / Jan Meyer The Killing), Søren Spanning (PM Lars Hesselboe Borgen / Kornerup The Killing), Bent Mejding (Mayor Poul Bremer The Killing) as well as David Dencik and Mikkel Boe Følsgaard who have both appeared in Those Who Kill. The star of the piece Mads Mikkelsen plays his role as the German physician very well. Mads can also be seen in Danish series Unit One out on DVD in Jnuary 2013.

If you like Danish films or have an interest in European history then this is ideal for you. Well worth a rewatch.

It is also interesting to see how different the role of Christiansborg Palace has become from the 18th Century to the 21st Century Borgen as we see it today with PM Birgitte Nyborg.

Read Best Reviews of A Royal Affair (2012) Here

A ROYAL AFFAIR at first looks like its going to be a film that focuses on the marriage between Caroline Mathilde and the Danish King Christian VII, but the film is not really about this arranged marriage so much as it is about the friendship that develops between the Danish king and a small town German physician, Johann Streunsee, who Christian meets while on a European tour. Virtually everyone in the Danish court treats the king as if he were suffering from some form of mental illness, but whether they really believe he is mentally ill or whether this is merely a convenience that allows them to ignore his political will and exert their own, is never altogether clear. Whatever it is that the king lacks, however, is filled perfectly by the German doctor who seems to be the only person who has ever made any attempt to get to know him. The two get along wonderfully. With Streunsee as a companion and tutor, Christian becomes far more sociable and far more confident in his own opinions and thus far more effective as a king. This friendship is by far the most interesting and moving relationship in the film. So when the doctor begins an affair with the King's beautiful wife, Mathilde (who remains only a partially developed character here), we are intrigued but this relationship, the royal affair, remains relatively secret to all but a few while Struensee and Christian together transform Denmark into an Enlightened country (or at least come very near to doing so). However, since this is the 1760's, the Danish nobility feels threatened by Struensee's authority/power which they righfully perceive to be undermining their own authority/power, so they decide to retaliate to save themselves and the country (or at least their version of it) before its too late. "The Royal Affair" is just the scandal they need to turn the people (and perhaps Christian himself) against the "dangerous foreigner" Struensee. Its an excellent and true story but it is based on two separate sources (one that focuses on the doctor's story and the other that focuses on the queen's) and the film never completely resolves its twin interests and this results is some narrative confusion: The film is framed as the queen's story (beginning and ending with the writing and delivery of her memoirs to her children) but the bulk of the film is dedicated to the doctor's story (and we are much more invested in his story than we are in hers by films end as he is the more remarkable character played by the more remarkable actor). Viewers will likely forgive the film this minor flaw as its such a sumptuous and intriguing Enlightenment ride. And I suspect the thing that will linger in the viewer's mind days after the film is over is not the affair (which was fairly generic) but the relationship between the lonely king and his remarkable friend.

Must-See Danish Cinema:

Carl Dreyer, Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), Vampyr (1932)

Lars Von Trier, Breaking the Waves (1997), Melancholia (2012)

Thomas Vinterberg, The Celebration (1998)

Susanne Bier, In a Better World (2010) *Best Foreign Language Film Oscar Winner

Want A Royal Affair (2012) Discount?

A Royal Affair is a fabulous dramatization of a true story about Caroline Mathilde, a younger sister of King George III of England who was wed to the unstable King Christian of Denmark at the ages of 15 and 17 respectively. If this sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, then you know where this story is headed.

The young Queen quickly finds out that she has married a bit of a whack-job, but endears herself to Denmark by quickly providing a royal heir.

Her loony King Christian then announces that he is leaving for an extended tour of Europe, to which she replies the Danish equivalent of "So? What do I care?". Oh, did I forget to mention that this film is in Danish with English subtitles? They would actually have been speaking German in the Danish Court of the time, but it's a Danish film so let's not quibble about that.

Christian brings back a certain German Dr. Johann Struensee with him from his Grand Tour, who as well as befriending and acting as a calming influence on the young King, brings some radical notions to Denmark like smallpox vaccination, freedom for serfs and the abolition of torture. He is able to use the King's power to drag Denmark into the "modern era" of The Enlightenment. This film takes place around the time of the American and French Revolutions to give some context.

Dr. Struensee finds a kindred spirit for his progressive ideas in the young Queen and, well, let's just say that the history books seem to agree that her second child, a daughter, was fathered by the good doctor!

If you enjoy a gorgeous, slow political romance then this is your film. Just make sure you see it with someone who is also into that kind of film. The Squire (my husband) was OK with this one but only just! :)

Save 17% Off

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Doubt (2008)

DoubtAfter reading all of the reviews for the film, DOUBT, I am amazed at how many people did not comprehend the complexity of this film. To really understand this film, the viewer must note the small, quiet details of this story. For example, examine the scene in which Sister Aloysius is eating with the other nuns in the school cafeteria. Notice that she is not eating but instead is taking some medicine (probably aspirin) and drinking only water. She does not comment on how she is feeling like most people would do. Instead she is carefully monitoring the entire cafeteria full of rowdy students, while helping the blind nun sitting next to her clean off her sleeves and conversing with Sister James about the welfare of a student.

Most people think that unselfishness and goodness should be wreathed in benevolent smiles and warm hugs. But I invite everyone to look below the surface of the behavior of all of the major characters in this story: Sister Aloysius, Sister James, Father Flynn, and Mrs. Miller. Where in this film does Sister Aloysius place her own welfare above anyone else in the school? It is so easy to characterized her as a "witch" or a "harpy," but I urge you to reconsider the entire situation regarding the young boy Donald Miller. Unlike a public school, a private school does not have to accept just anyone. Since Sister Aloysius is the school's principal, she probably was instrumental in allowing Donald to attend her school. She reveals that she had anticipated trouble in integrating her school by telling Sister James that she thought she would have to talk to several parents about their children. She knows her people: working class Irish and Italian folks who clearly were not going to relish their children attending school with a black student. (If you do not believe me then you should watch the South Chicago and Boston segments of "Eyes on the Prize".) Sister Aloysius's school was not under any court order to integrate like many public schools were in the 1960's and 1970's. When she wonders about the placement of Donald in the Christmas pageant, she is not trying to denigrate him; she is trying to protect the child. She is aware of the racist sentiments of her parents and students. She is a realist-not a racist. She never once shows any prejudice towards Donald or his mother. When Mrs. Miller tells her that she is interrupting work to visit the school, Sister Aloysius immediately realizes the difficulty that a working class parent has in leaving their job during the day in order to attend a school conference. Most bosses in 1960's-and even today are not supportive of a parent's need to take off work sometimes. Further, she closely watches the other students' interactions with Father Flynn. The most damning evidence she has is the way in which William London shows such repugnance at Father's Flynn's gesture of clasping his wrist. When the William jerks away, Father Flynn personally ridicules the child in front of his school mates. Yes, Sister Aloysius is abrupt, intimidating, and harsh with her students, but she does not personally insult them in front of their friends like Father Flynn does. Later, Father Flynn is regaling his fellow priests with a story about "a fat girl" or "her fat mother." He is being unkind and curiously hostile in his attitude toward women. Think about how damaging to a young girl's psyche it would be to be called fat by a popular authority like a priest-especially in the 1960's before anyone began to question the morals and hypocrisy of SOME of the priests in the Catholic Church. Pay attention to what Father Flynn really does and says. He knows that Donald is being severly punished by his father. Why doesn't he visit with Donald's parents? According to Mrs. Miller, he never talks to her personally, which is strange since Father Flynn is taking such a personal interest in this student.

There is little ambiguity to this play if you are used to observing the behavior of people as a part of your job. Nurses, teachers, police officers, EMS workers, forensic investigators, lawyers, counselors, and so on are all students of human behavior. As a person spends their life working in one of these fields, an instinct for what is "normal" and "abnormal" behavior develops. Sister Aloysius says that "she knows people"-and I believe her. She tells Sister James about another priest that she worked with in the past that had to be removed. She has witnessed evil up close, and it has certainly marked her as it marks anyone who comes into contact with it.

Watch the film again and notice where Donald Miller is sitting in the classroom and where Sister Aloysius finds the ballpoint pen. Is it possible that the pen came from Father Flynn? Maybe? True there is mainly circumstantial evidence against Father Flynn, but if you really want to know the truth of this story re-examine William London's reactions throughout the film and how Father Flynn ingratiates himself with the young boys at the school. Notice how quickly he gives up Donald Miller to save himself. He could have protected the boy by refusing to talk to her. He could have told her that the conversation was confidential between a priest and the confessor. He is Sister Aloysius's boss. In the 1960's no one questioned a priest, so why does he reveal this vulnerability? Like she asks Father Flynn, "Why do you care?" Sister Aloysius is a dragon or a gatekeeper or protector of her kingdom. It is an exhausting and thankless role that only some people have the personal courage and true empathy to undertake. Protectors must be fierce in the face of evil-especially intelligently manipulative and ingratiating evil like a pedophile. At the end when she confesses that she has "doubts", she is like any weary warrior wondering why she fights so persistently to protect the weak and the innocent in a universe in which God allows evil to flourish and prosper. Finally, as I watched this film I was reminded of one of my favorite poems that so clearly echoes this film's message:

Those Winter Sundays

BY ROBERT E. HAYDEN

Sundays too my father got up early

and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

then with cracked hands that ached

from labor in the weekday weather made

banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I'd wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.

When the rooms were warm, he'd call,

and slowly I would rise and dress,

fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,

who had driven out the cold

and polished my good shoes as well.

What did I know, what did I know

of love's austere and lonely offices?

Through Sister Aloysius and Sister James, John Patrick Shanley reveals that true love is selfless and dwells in the smallest details of life.

***This review contains PLOT SPOILERS, and is intended for those who either don't mind them, or who have already seen the film. I tried to compose a review without PLOT SPOILERS but found that I could not adequately convey that which was haunting and praiseworthy about the film. This fine film is built on a foundation of uncertainty, doubt, suspense and surprise. If you haven't seen it yet, and want to enjoy it as much as I did, don't spoil the experience -just go ahead and rent/buy it without reading further.***

I found this a magnificent film; it has haunted me fairly intensely since we saw it last night. The performances are magnificent, as you would expect from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. The direction and pacing suited the storyline extremely well. The film is intense and somewhat claustrophobic, with dire events playing out in a close community andwithin an enclosed space. This accentuates both the isolation and the lack of privacy of Meryl Streep's character as she must confront an awful situation, largely alone.

As it develops, the film pulls you this way and that, leading you first toward one conclusion, then to another, back and forth until by the end the terrible truth cannot be denied, despite it having been a purely circumstantial case. The film ends with the fulfillment of a great act of heroism, which is then quickly undermined, leaving the abiding faith of the protagonist deeply shaken. Because the protagonist is at first so unlikable, it takes time for the viewer to appreciate her virtues and ultimately her heroism, which renders the film's faith-shaking denouement all the more tragically felt.

I tend to rebel against most film clichés, but one that I am known to eat up -and did again in this film -is the counterpoise of an unlikable protagonist and a seductive villain. In this film, the hero is indeed deeply flawed, and while the actions of the villain are unforgivable, he is also possessed of some good intentions, or at least has convinced himself that he is.

The premise of the film is that two nuns suspect a priest in their church/school of being a child molester. They and the viewer have nothing concrete to go on, only circumstantial evidence and intuition. One of them is grabs the first opportunity to believe "proof" that her suspicions are ill-founded, whereas the other continues to believe in his guilt, and pursues him relentlessly and fearlessly until that guilt is implicitly admitted.

The film toys with the viewer a great deal, dropping suggestions of guilt, then quickly supplying exculpatory explanations. How the viewer reacts to all this may be influenced by knowledge of the breadth of this problem as it is now known to have existed in the American Catholic church over this time period. With this in mind, the viewer may be predisposed to see guilt in every circumstantial clue. But I was influenced by other things as well including the film Capturing the Friedmans, in which a family was basically railroaded on trumped-up charges of child molestation. Awareness of these conflicting potential story directions makes the viewer feel guilty, and cynical, for seeing depravity in what might actually be pure acts of kindness. One scene in which Hoffman hugs the student, who has just had his books spilled, could have been a model of Christian comfort were it not for the viewer's eyes probing for every evidence of impropriety. Absent hard proof of anything, it comes down to what we each read into what little we do see, and we feel the uneasy basis on which to make a judgment.

If there's one Hollywood cliché that really bugs me, it's the stereotype of the hypocritical sanctimonious religious blowhard, pointing the finger of accusation at everyone else while engaging in private indiscretions or even crimes. Hollywood has beaten that one to death, and I found this film refreshing in its alternative portrayal. Here the ramrod-straight religious conservative is actually the sincere, idealistic one, whereas the one who seems superficially more reasonable, pluralistic and tolerant who is actually up to no good. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is the one who thinks it's perfectly fine if Frosty the Snowman appears in the Christmas pageant, or if students have access to ballpoint pens, in contrast with Meryl Streep's uncompromisingly rigid ways. It's his comforting demeanor that causes Amy Adams's character to drop her suspicions, and even to turn on Meryl Streep for her intolerance, which proved later to be exactly the wrong call.

Interestingly, people are at their least convincing in this film when they are making their own cases in oral conversation. I was convinced of Phillip Hoffman's character's innocence until his conversation with Amy Adams in which he sounded like a creepy NAMBLA spokesman, trying to redefine "love" to suit a private twisted purpose. And again, later in the film, even when no one has caught him doing anything, he destroys his credibility by the way that he tries to constrain Meryl Streep's avenues for checking on his past behavior. Nor does Meryl Streep do herself many favors by the way she presents herself early; she leads the viewer to deem her a heartless tyrant before later revealing her inner compassion through action. But each builds a more positive case for themselves with actions in other scenes or at least, so it seems.

The film is morally complex in that it shows a series of suppositions and intuitions leading to the accusation of a terrible crime, all in the absence of clear evidence. The easiest type of film to make would be one in which it was all a big misunderstanding, and the lesson is not to jump to rash conclusions. But in this case, the suppositions turn out to be right, raising the far more complex case of how to morally conduct oneself when one lacks clear information and the consequences of being wrong are terrible. No jury could have convicted Hoffman's character on such flimsy evidence, but Streep's character lacked the luxury of legal certainty in moving to protect a child.

The final confrontation between Hoffman and Streep is a powerful moment, in which Streep's character, a woman who has devoted her life to unquestioning service of the church, declares her loyalty to a higher moral sense she in effect declares that she will do what she believes is right, to protect a child, regardless of how the church judges her and indeed regardless of how God judges her. She doesn't put it as directly as this in the film, but more artfully, and the effect is more moving than I am relaying here.

In the final scene, when Streep's character expresses deep doubt while clutching her cross, she doesn't say what she doubts: Hoffman's guilt? Her own actions? The actions of a church that basically just kicked him a level upstairs, free to prey? Her own fundamental religious faith? Whichever she means, she has plenty to doubt at that moment her certainty of her moral rectitude has given way to a dumbfounding confusion in which her church and faith have failed to uphold the most fundamental principles of a moral society.

It's so easy to imagine a lesser film being made from this material how easy it would have been to craft a ham-fisted, preachy film, or one in which all religious people are portrayed as hypocrites, or a broadside attack on Catholicism, or any of a number of other lousy ideas. Instead, Doubt is a riveting, emotionally buffeting, engrossing, moving film of great moral complexity and subtlety.

Buy Doubt (2008) Now

See this movie only if you enjoy a film where the acting and writing is way above average, and only if you are in the mood for a film that will induce thought. This is not a movie to settle down with if you just want to be entertained for the evening. It's basically a quiet character study about conflicting people (although it does get fairly tense and emotional at times).

I grew up in the 1970's and went to Catholic school; it was a decade after this film's time period but not much had changed, believe me. I was used to all the trappings of the church and of nuns and priests. I was not an altar boy but I was exposed to the traditions and experiences that are seen in this film. I would imagine that someone who is not familiar with these things at all might find some aspects of this movie to be almost foreign in certain ways. But a viewer need not be familiar with Catholicism (or even with the Bronx in 1964) to appreciate this movie.

The four principles give outstanding performances, particularly Meryl Streep and Viola Davis (Davis has just one major scene, and she is excellent in it). Streep owns the movie as the conflicted and multifaceted Sister Aloysius; this is probably the most relentless and stubborn woman in cinema since Nurse Ratched in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" in 1975 (played by Oscar-winner Louise Fletcher). I was fascinated with this character, and torn over how I felt about her. She can be considered a heroine and also a villain at the same time. It's hard to explain. She can be strict, unfair, caring, funny, impatient, and cold. And it's no surprise that this would be another (her sixteenth) Oscar nomination for Meryl Streep. She never stops creating authentic characters. In "Doubt", her mannerisms, body language, accent, and expressions were all spot-on.

The film is sometimes ambiguous, particularly the final scene. Some things are left to the audience to wrestle with and to interpret. I enjoyed that the story becomes much more than a mystery, that it becomes more about a person's choices and judgments and decisions. Kudos to playwright and director John Patrick Shanley for making this powerful film.

Read Best Reviews of Doubt (2008) Here

In my opinion, this is one of the best films made in recent years. And, even though it is set in the Roman Catholic church, it is not really "about" the Roman Catholic church. This was simply a setting that allowed the writer/director to explore themes that we all deal with when trying to do the right thing in life. How do we know what we think we know? What constitutes guilt? What if your intuitions about people are often correct, even though you don't always know how you know? And what if you're wrong about someone? How do you even know? While this film is about doubt, it is just as much about the question of certainty. What makes us sure that we are doing the right thing? How do we determine these things? I have watched this film with several different people, and it's amazing how positive everyone is that they know what has happened in the film, even though they have different ideas about what has actually happened. It reveals a lot about individuals and how they deal with presuppositions and circumstantial evidence.

Then, on top of these amazingly well orchestrated themes, this film is beautiful to look at. The cinematography is excellent. The acting is superb. The costumes are spot on. The environments are perfect.

And there is effective use of metaphor in the film, particularly with imagery itself: the wind playing a key role, along with images of the fall (literally, the season, figuratively, the biblical concept). Pay attention to when the wind blows, etc. And what is moved by the literal wind, as other things are moved by the winds of doubt and fear, etc.

Anyway. Just amazing in every way. While it was well received, this film has nowhere near the recognition it deserves.

Want Doubt (2008) Discount?

Having seen the film before reading Amazon.com's summary, I respectfully suggest that Kathleen C. Fennessy go back and watch this movie again.

It's certainly true that Sister Aloysius doesn't like this priest and his progressive ways, but she isn't setting out to destroy him because of that. She is setting out to stop an abusive priest taking advantage of an isolated, lonely boy. How do we know that? The film tells us so in an earlier scene involving another student. We see that student walking away from the school and wiping his nose with a handkerchief. He stops across the street, looks back at the school building, laughs and lights a cigarette. Just after, we see an exchange between Sister Aloysius and Sister James, wherein the young and innocent Sister James (who by the way did not go to Sister Aloysius with this matter because Father Flynn was being attentive to Donald, but because Donald had returned from a visit with Father Flynn upset, disoriented and with alcohol on his breath) just cannot believe Sister Aloysius' outrageous allegation that the student she had just sent home with the bloodly nose probably induced the nosebleed purposely just to get out of school early. Yet we watched that student as he left school and we know that what Sister Aloysius said about him isn't outrageous. It's true. So later, when Sister James does not want to believe Sister Aloysius' conclusions about the priest, we know they are true. And the doubts expressed by Sister Aloysius at the end of the film are not about the priest. They are about a church she had invested her life in, that has looked the other way when children were in peril, and put a predator in yet another place where he could go after more children.

Just had to add my two cents here, as I think Ms. Fennessy's summary is completely off-target.

As for the film itself, this is an actor's showcase that contains three riveting sequences, two between the school principal and the priest, and one between the principal and the mother of the young victim. Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman are arresting, as is Viola Davis, the boy's mother. The story itself is rich with an uncliched take on a difficult, much analyzed and discussed problem. The film is an intense character study and should not be missed.

Save 66% Off