The Thing : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is directed by John Carpenter (“Halloween”, and “The Prince of Darkness”).

John Carpenter, the legendary independent filmmaker who single-handedly gave birth to the classic horror/slasher film “Halloween” — and arguably the genre itself — went on to helm yet another horror masterpiece — “The Thing”.

Unfortunately for John, “The Thing”, has never quite received the attention it deserves. Many perceive John’s career as being a muddled one at best, comprised of a singular hit (Halloween), a handful of cult classics, and a multitude of flops (“Ghosts of Mars”, “Vampires”, “Memoirs of an Invisible Man”). It’s hard to fault everyone for being quick to judge Carpenter, given his misfire-ridden track record, because in many ways they’re right. Carpenter has contributed to, and directed his fair share of duds in his time, but to his credit, he’s also managed to create some underrated gems as well, and for whatever reason people continue to overlook them. “The Thing” is one such film, and it is no stranger to being ignored.

The film’s release was set two weeks after the opening of Spielberg’s “E.T.”, on June 25th, 1982 — the same day “Blade Runner” debuted. Given the unfortunate release date, and their sci-fi roots, audiences were divided, and ultimately favored the heart-warming Spielberg picture instead of the “darker sci-fi art pieces.” Merely attempting to turn a profit in the wake of “E.T.”’s record-breaking blockbuster success, neither “Blade Runner”, or “The Thing” ultimately stood a chance. It wouldn’t be until the advent of home video that the two sci-fi masterpieces would ever begin to amass the praise they deserved.

Befitting the classic horror remake, Universal has seen fit to release the Blu-ray edition of the ill-fated Carpenter film in time for the Halloween season. I myself have owned the film a number of times now — on VHS, DVD (twice), HD DVD, and now Blu-ray — and I can safely say that I’ve enjoyed every individual reissue, including this one. Universal continues to improve upon the feature set, or the video/audio presentations, and this Blu-ray is no exception. Sweetening the pot through the inclusion of a brand new lossless audio track — something “The Thing” has never received until now — Universal aims to please Carpenter fans everywhere. In truth, were it not for the all-new DTS HD: MA track on this Blu-ray, I might have been content to stick with my HD DVD (DD+) copy, but since I consider myself a die-hard fan of the film, the thought of passing up this Blu-ray, and its lossless soundtrack, was fleeting.

— The Bottom Line —

It’s sad that so few people have heard of “The Thing” that it’s almost criminal to think that such a masterwork has gone largely unnoticed for this long. Perhaps even fewer are aware that “The Thing” is actually a remake of “The Thing from another World” (1951), or that Carpenter himself is a huge fan of the original — look to “Halloween” for evidence of this, as kids watch the opening of the original on TV.

When John Carpenter set out to remake the original film, he brought an entirely new vision to the project, with the intention of re-invigorating his childhood favorite. In order to do so, he remained true to the original source material — a short story entitled Who Goes There?, from which both films have been adapted. Additionally, he brought more suspense, and more terror in order to create the paranoid, sci-fi thriller, we know and love. This isn’t just a decent Carpenter film, it’s one of his best.

The Godfather - The Coppola Restoration : Blu-ray Review

The Movies Themselves are directed by Francis Ford Coppola (”Apocalypse Now“, and “The Conversation“).

To summarize the three Godfather films is an incredibly daunting and potentially spoiler-filled task, one that I am opting to gracefully sidestep. However, for the sake of everyone out there that has no idea what The Godfather is about, I will attempt to give you a brief primer on each film.

— The Godfather —

A true American cinematic classic.

Ranked by the AFI as the #2 film of all time — second only to “Citizen Kane” — Francis Ford Coppola’s mafia masterwork has made an indelible mark upon the film making and viewing communities. It was Coppola’s introspective gaze and humanistic approach to the mafia and the Corleone family that made the film so iconic, memorable, and compelling.

If you didn’t know it already, The Godfather’s central focus is Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), the son of Mafia Don, Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando). Being the first of three films, Coppola establishes the framework for a beautiful, tragic familial tale, that centers intently on the Corleone family as they struggle to maintain power amongst turbulent, and violent times within the world of organized crime.

Unlike most mafia films, it isn’t over zealousness or greed that sets the plot into motion, rather, it is a strict adherence to principles that triggers unrest within the Corleone family, as well as the competing crime families. Specifically, Vito’s reluctance to push drugs, and provide security for the dealers ultimately gives way to an attempt on his life. He survives, but due to poor health and his recovery, is forced to allow his sons to lead the Corleone family. Sonny (James Caan), Michael, and Fredo (John Cazale) seek to re-establish rapport with their fellow crime families, each in their own way, while exacting revenge upon the traitors who made the assassination attempt on their father.

— The Godfather: Part II —

Following in the wake of the successes of “The Godfather” (having won three Oscars for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actor - Marlon Brando) expectations for “The Godfather: Part II” were remarkably high. Could Coppola match, or perhaps top his previous work?

The answer is yes. Not only did Coppola succeed in delivering a stellar sequel, he did so by expanding on the story of Michael Corleone through the delicate interweaving of flashbacks. The non-linear narrative served as a means to chronicle the life of his father, Vito Corleone, effectively mirroring both Vito’s and Michael’s rise to power, and their struggles to maintain order throughout their organizations, family, and communities at large.

“The Godfather: Part II” excels by all accounts. It not only strengthens the viewer’s bond with Michael, but it also manages to shed light on points of contention between the two Dons, in addition to their many parallel experiences. This choice by Coppola and Puzo allows for a remarkable amount of depth to be instilled within The Godfather universe, not to mention Michael’s character. All of this works in tandem to give the viewer far greater insight into Michael’s mind — a feat that would not have been achieved as easily through a linear narrative.

“The Godfather: Part II” remains as one of the greatest films sequels of all time in addition to being one of the greatest films of all time as well, which is no small accomplishment.

— The Godfather: Part III —

Often dubbed the “black sheep” of the Godfather saga, the third installment has met with a substantial amount of criticism, and for the life of me, I can’t fully understand why.

Perhaps it’s because no one likes to see an epic tale come to an end, or maybe everyone thinks they could have done it better. Either way, while the film isn’t necessarily Oscar-caliber like the first two installments, I still wouldn’t change a thing. The reason? Much like the film’s tagline suggests, destiny is unavoidable, and I believe the same can be said for the progression of the saga’s narrative. From the moment Michael became the new Don, his fate was sealed.

Throughout the third and final chapter of the story, Michael works tirelessly to achieve his life-long dream of legitimizing his family’s business, in an attempt to live a life free from crime and fear — a dream that slipped through his fingers the moment his father was nearly murdered. Suffice it to say, Michael Corleone’s desire to atone for his sins, are too little too late, and whether or not he ultimately dies at the hands of his enemies, or peacefully in his sleep, it’s readily apparent that there will be no salvation for him.

I thoroughly enjoyed the way that Coppola deftly tied off the Michael Corleone story, and I personally believe that the resulting film is both a powerful bookend to the series, as well as a somber, tragic Shakespearean-like tale of a man who yearns for redemption, but receives very little in return. Because of this alone, I think that The Godfather: Part III is far better than most people are willing to acknowledge.

— Overall —

As you might have guessed from the synopses above, the story of the Corleone family is so epic, and detailed that it barely fits within the cumulative running times of the three films. Even then, much is left to the imagination with regard to the goings-on throughout the gaps in time between the three films — though Mark Winegardner’s recent novels (The Godfather’s Return, and The Godfather’s Revenge) do a rather commendable job stringing the three films together, should you be so inclined to read them.

What I find most impressive about “The Godfather”, is it’s profound legacy, and its extensive influence on the “Gangster Film” genre. Were it not for “The Godfather”, there’s little chance that the genre would have ever shed it’s pulpy roots and grown to become one of the most respected film genres the world over.

Each film transcended genre-based limitations in nearly every way, which ultimately redefined the way we came to expect crime dramas to perform. Because of this, they have been accurately referred to as “timeless classics.” But really, they’re more than just timeless classics. Many films have defied time, but only a select few have defined a generation of films as well – “The Godfather” is one of them.

— The Bottom Line —

If you’ve yet to see any of the “The Godfather” films, consider this latest restorative effort an offer you simply can’t refuse. If you’ve previously owned the films, and you’re wondering whether or not it’s worth upgrading, the answer is a definitive yes.

RENT : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is directed by Chris Columbus. The story centers on a group of friends living the Bohemian lifestyle in New York City in the eighties. Told from a variety of perspectives, the ensemble musical covers a lot of ground, predominantly pertaining to the AIDS epidemic, gay/lesbian relationships, and drug abuse. What might sound like a startlingly grim narrative, is in actuality a very moving and inspiring piece of musical art that presents difficult subject matter in a readily approachable way — a loving way. Never are the characters defined by their plight or their sexual preference, in fact they transcend the societal boundaries effortlessly to the point where even the most conservative viewers should be able to thoroughly enjoy the film. To be clear, there are no gratuitous scenes of drug use or sex scenes — that is not what this film is about. The film is about love. Time and again, we are reminded of this, whether through song and dance, or the resonant relationships/friendships depicted on screen. Love, in every form… in every way.

I’ll have to admit that it wasn’t until I watched the feature-length documentary “No Day But Today” that my appreciation of the film, and its message really came together. I, unlike most people, had no prior knowledge of the musical, with the exception being that I was aware of its existence, and it’s acclaim. Nor was I aware of the tragic back story of the play’s creator/writer/composer, Jonathan Larson. So tragic is this story, that you might think it was a work of fiction itself.

Having worked tirelessly — living the Bohemian lifestyle he depicts in “RENT” — for years composing and writing his masterwork, Jonathan Larson was precisely where he imagined himself being the night before he passed away. Everything was moving according to plan, with the play set to premiere the following day. He had accomplished everything he had set out to do, which was to re-invigorate the Broadway musical scene through the integration of pop/rock music, swooning ballads, and uplifting gospel tracks. Beyond that, he managed to write a compelling dramatic story about love and loss that paid tribute to people afflicted with AIDS — subsequently humanizing them for the masses that found it easier to turn a blind eye than to lend a helping hand.

In spite of Jonathan’s tragic passing, there is a certain bittersweet resonance that stems from his untimely death, strengthening his every written and lyrical word, that there is no day but today, and that it is of the utmost importance to live a life of love and joy. This is the legacy we leave behind, and for Jonathan Larson, he succeeded marvelously. He managed to touch the lives of so many audience members worldwide — regardless of the venue, be it on Broadway or on film — and his legacy will live on for many years to come.

Shall We Dance : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself was directed by Peter Chelsom and is a remake of the 1996 film, “Shall We Dansu?”. Chelsom directs the story of a middle-aged business man who lives a pleasant life, but is unhappy nonetheless. It isn’t until he secretly enrolls in a ballroom dance class that “John Clark” (played by Richard Gere) begins to snap out of his cubicle-coma, and becomes full of life and happiness once more.

I distinctly remember scoffing at the theatrical trailers for this film, as I was not a fan of Gere’s previous dance/musical, “Chicago”, and I was sure this film would be nothing more than a sappy love triangle dance flick — something I was not willing to endure at the time.

Now, four years after the film’s theatrical run, imagine my surprise when the film ended and I not only liked the film… I actually loved it. The reason? The film has heart, and plenty of it to go around.

Having gone into this film with the lowest of expectations, I have to say, I am thoroughly impressed with the ease at which I was drawn into the film’s narrative and spirit. I’m not a fan of dancing movies in general — couldn’t care less for “Dirty Dancing” or the plethora of spiritual knock-offs — but here there’s something truly arresting about the way the film unfolds. Perhaps it was the opening narration from Gere’s character, a very somber introduction to the world of his character “John Clark”, or maybe it was his desire to fill a gap in his life, when he still had so much, that I managed to connect with. Whatever the reason, it worked, and I bought into the film entirely.

“Shall We Dance” is the cutesy dance movie that you’re afraid to watch — out of fear that it will be yet another “chick flick” — but one that has a far greater message than any of the film’s marketing materials would have led you to believe. Not only does it succeed in weaving a compelling drama, and it does so subtly with minimal usage of melodramatic narrative arcs or devices. Also worth noting, there are a number of insightful remarks about the meaning of life/love/marriage throughout that caught me by surprise, and subsequently made me re-frame my own notions of marriage, and love.

I can’t guarantee that others will be as profoundly moved by the subtle messages littered throughout the dialog, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that if you’re willing to give this film a chance I’m sure you will find something redeeming, whether it’s the film’s message, the dancing, or the comedy. There is something here for everyone.

Overall, the movie itself receives a “4 Star Rating“.

The Ruins : Blu-ray Review

The Movie Itself is directed by Carter Smith. Penned by novelist and screenwriter, Scott Smith (“A Simple Plan”), the story centers on a group of teens that happen upon an ancient, dilapidated ruins. Tourism quickly gives way to survival horror, and startling sequences of gore as the secrets of the ruins come to light.

I had every intention of seeing “The Ruins” in theaters when it debuted earlier this summer. Up until that point I had heard nothing but good things about the novel, and being a fan of Scott Smith’s previous script/novel “A Simple Plan”, I had every reason to expect that this film would be a compelling, horrifying, twisted mess for the principal characters.

Twisted mess? Absolutely. Compelling… not so much. As for the horror elements, I found that the film was more disturbing than horrifying, and that the film’s gore sequences often teetered on the edge of becoming “torture porn.”

The inherent flaw in the film is that everything moves along far too quickly. The obvious downside to this pacing error is that we never really get attached to, or get to know, the characters before they are thrust into their terrible predicament. As a result, once people start dying, or getting gravely injured, we can’t empathize with them whatsoever. It merely becomes a spectacle film, one that hinges on your tolerance for blood, gore, and makeshift amputations. If any of that sounds terrifying to you, chances are that you’ll enjoy the film more than I did.

To the filmmaker’s credit though, it is a beautifully shot film, and since I’ve never read the novel, I have no frame of reference, and no concept of how the adaptation differs. All I know is that it was far less memorable, or compelling than Scott Smith’s previous (Oscar nominated) work.