Mind Grapes For Sale

The International

2009-08-28T14:23:00.001-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Tom Tykwer (Heaven, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, Run Lola Run)

The film tells the story of a hard boiled Interpol Agent, Louis Salinger (Clive Owen) who is desperately trying to build a case against a villainous financial institution with the help of Manhattan Assistant District Attorney, Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts). Much to the dismay of our protagonists, the banks far-reaching influence and political connections allow them to thwart virtually any and all attempts at exposing them and bringing them to justice.

While the premise of the film sounded great to me on paper, the end result left me with mixed emotions. The photography, direction, score and performances are all great, and the action throughout is exciting — although it is in far shorter supply than the trailer would lead you to believe — but the film falls short of greatness. Where does the film falter, you ask? The story itself — there’s just not enough going on.

It’s not that The International is terribly confusing or convoluted, instead it’s as if the film’s thin narrative material collapses underneath the weight of the films grandiose architecture. In other words, we are led to believe that there is so much going on around us, a deeply entrenched evil force and an expansive conspiratorial web, and yet the threat never feels entirely real, or tangible. The end result of the illusory villain is that we don’t feel like there’s much to lose, and beyond that, we’re not sure exactly what’s at stake or if it even matters whether or not the heroes succeed. While I’m assuming this was the intent of the writer, to paint a picture of a cruel world, guided by an impenetrable network of greed and power, I feel like this is accomplished at the expense of making a genuinely exciting, and engaging film, and even still, I didn’t think the execution was all that great either. For example, I found the hit men in Michael Clayton to be far more menacing, and deadly than all of the banks henchmen, and I thought the conspiracy throughout that film unfolded in a much better fashion. Here, it’s excessively cerebral for no good reason, and altogether uninspired.

Fortunately, under the direction of Tom Tykwer and the cinematographic prowess of Frank Griebe, The International maintains a pleasing narrative flow from start to finish, and is chock full of immaculate shots that highlight and accentuate the various structures/vehicles/people that grace the film frame. Additionally, the performances from the entire cast are pitch perfect and at the same time, somewhat forgettable if only because they don’t leave a lasting impression on the viewer — Owen and Watts have both had better roles in the past. This was perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the film for me, and I find the script entirely responsible. If the two were given a bit more depth and range, they might have been able to explore the characters and we would have grown to see them as people instead of pawns moving in response to the on screen action. Tkywer has a real talent for invoking and creating an emotional connection within minutes (see his short film in Paris, Je T’aime) so I’m letting him off the hook here. I think he directed the story to the best of his ability and I believe the actors did their best, but still, it wasn’t enough to elevate this film beyond mediocrity — a tragic fate considering the outstanding photography.

In the end, The International bares a couple Tkywer signatures, but lacks the intense emotional core and kineticism that he’s known for. Considering this is his follow up to Perfume — a film that is so incredibly lush, bold and exciting — I was very disappointed to say the least. I can only hope that in the future Tkywer takes a step back and focuses his lens on a more personal story, after all that is what he does best.

Assault on Precinct 13 [1976]

2009-08-28T14:10:00.001-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by John Carpenter (”Halloween“, “The Thing“, “Starman“).

On his first night out as a newly appointed Highway Patrolman, Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) is tasked with watching over a soon-to-be-relocated Police Station, a task that would be — under most circumstances — an easy job. Unfortunately for him, and the employees of the station, their choice to play host and guardian to a speechless, frightened man makes all of them targets of a vicious gang, Street Thunder. Outnumbered and outgunned, their best hope for survival is to seek the help of the death row inmates currently residing in their holding cells.

Two years before John Carpenter introduced everyone to “The Shape” — aka Michael Myers — he shocked audiences with a raw, and aggressively exciting film, entitled Assault on Precinct 13. The film established and capitalizes on some of Carpenter’s strongest talents as a director — weaving a thoroughly engaging, relatable tale set within an isolated physical space — and it represents Carpenter at his finest, and most basic.

The film is a convincing and engaging survival story that maintains a suspenseful air throughout, and like Halloween, it remains just as effective and exciting today as it did years ago. Sure, the dialog exchanges can be a little hokey at times but it’s Carpenter through and through, and frankly I wouldn’t have it any other way. Contributing to the thriller aspect, the violence depicted in the film is frightening at times and feels very realistic. Take for example, the ice cream truck scene. It is one of the more memorable and cold-hearted scenes in the film, or any film for that matter. It is that way because there is no rhyme or reason behind the gang’s murderous actions, they simply want to incite fear and avenge their fallen friends. It’s this chaotic, loose motive that makes them such a formidable foe — they don’t care who they hurt and they don’t fear death. In this way you can draw a lot of parallels between Michael Myers and the gang depicted in this film. They are tireless, crafty, ruthless and altogether enigmatic. The characters that are targeted by each force aren’t sure why they’re marked for death, they just know they’re going to have to fight for their lives.

Whether you’re a Carpenter fan or not, you should add this film to your list of classic, must-see movies. It is one of the more unique suspense thrillers to have come out of the 70’s or any other decade, and it’s also one of Carpenter’s finest films. I can’t recommend it enough.

Starman

2009-08-12T01:47:00.001-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13)

Responding to the open invitation via the Voyager 2 space probe, a lone alien travels across space to study and experience Earth. However, upon entering our atmosphere, his craft is seen as a threat and is fired upon. Crashing into a remote area of Wisconsin, hundreds of miles off course, he assumes the identity of a widow’s deceased husband, and urges the confused and frightened woman to aid him in his journey to safety. Along the way, the strained relationship between the two of them slowly evolves into one of understanding, mutual curiosity and compassion. Unfortunately for both of them, their time together is ticking down. With law enforcement nipping at their heels, and an expiration date on the alien’s earthly body there’s precious little time to get to the starman back home before it’s too late.

In the pantheon of exceptional science fiction films, Starman barely makes the cut, but that doesn’t mean its not a great movie. It may not be as visually stunning as its bretheren, nor as heartfelt as some, but there is an undeniable charm and uniqueness that emanates from John Carpenter’s sci-fi love story. I hardly think that it’s a coincidence that John Carpenter’s followup to The Thing would sport a more mainstream and lovable alien narrative. After all, the 1982 remake/masterpiece The Thing was steamrolled by Spielberg’s blockbuster, E.T., upon release so it seems fitting that Carpenter would change up his game and try his hand at an alien love story.

To Carpenter’s credit, the film is bares little resemblance to Spielberg’s film, which is a good thing. Had it been too closely related, it would have been seen as a cheap knockoff. Instead, it weaves an entirely different story about love and benevolent extraterrestrial life. In truth though, this was ground that was covered by Tarkovsky’s Solaris — specifically, an alien reanimation/clone of a loved of that brings comforts to a widow — but Starman does so in a different context, and in a wholly John Carpenter fashion.

Starman may well be Carpenter’s most mainstream and decidedly accessible film in his cannon of work, but it is far from his most commercially viable — that credit goes to Halloween. Nonetheless, all of the usual Carpenter quirks are there, from the bizarre sound effects, to the simple, effective and memorable score — composed by Carpenter of course — all the way to his independent cinematographic styling.

While it’s been nearly twenty-five years since its initial release, the film still remains as a refreshing alternative to the in-your-face sci-fi of today, and the perfect supplement to the cheery, warm-and-fuzzy alien films of yesteryear. If you’re a Carpenter fan, you owe it to yourself to give this one a look.

The Ninth Gate

2009-08-06T19:13:00.006-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Roman Polanski (The Pianist, Rosemary’s Baby).

Dean Corso (Johnny Depp), a scandalous, rare book dealer is hired by Boris Balkan (Frank Langella) — an authority on demonic literature — to locate, evaluate and obtain the surviving copies of an ancient demonic text, entitled “The Nine Gates of the Shadow Kingdom.” Balkan maintains that the book has the power to summon the devil, but fears his book is a forgery and therefore Corso must determine which of the remaining copies are authentic, if any are at all. While the assignment proves to be far more perilous and difficult than he could have ever imagined, he remains fascinated by the mystery behind the texts, and will ultimately stop at nothing to unravel the secrets within the book’s illustrations.

I’m hesitant to admit that I had not seen a single Polanski film until the summer of 2005. In my defense, I don’t think that’s half as shocking as say, not seeing a Kubrick/Spielberg/Coppola film, but still I feel a bit ashamed that it took me as long as it did to see one. At any rate, my introduction to Polanski was Rosemary’s Baby, and it freaked me out big time. From the opening moments of the film, I was hypnotized. He knew precisely how to get the film crawling around inside of you, under your skin, in your brain. This is the mark of the most talented film directors, whether or not they can achieve that level of infiltration, and whether or not they can do it with ease and in a timely manner.

It’s been some time since I was first introduced to Polanski, and when it came time to review The Ninth Gate, I was a little wary. I’ve never heard anyone gush about the film, at least not like people do for The Pianist or Rosemary’s Baby. In fact, I can remember when the film was released in theaters — alongside other pre-2000 horror flicks — very few critics had anything constructive to say about it.

Well, as hypocritical as this may sound, I should have never listened to the critics. I should have gone with my gut instinct — enticed by the concept and theatrical trailers — and seen the movie. Alas, it would be ten years before I finally got around to seeing it, and what a great slow-burn thriller it is.

It might not be a “scary” movie, but it oozes dreadful, foreboding ambiance through the extraordinary score and the frightful situations that Corso finds himself in. The film is also very cerebral, as you might expect from a thriller that features a book dealer as the story’s protagonist, and where I can see many people rolling their eyes or yawning at the film’s lead character, I find the unusual protagonist choice to be both refreshing and ballsy. Surely, the film isn’t for everyone, and I’ve no doubt that’s why it was largely panned when first released, but I feel like this is the type of film that will only get better with age. Even now, ten years after its initial release, it holds up remarkably well and I can only imagine that it might age as gracefully as some of the rare books in Corso’s private collection.

If you haven’t seen the film yet and you’ve been looking for a reason to check it out, I can think of no better reason to do so. The film might not look as good as it could here on Blu-ray (see VQ below) but it boasts an excellent audio track and the story is nothing if not original and wholly intriguing.

Pushing Daisies: The Complete Second Season

2009-08-06T19:08:00.000-04:00

The Show Itself is created by Bryan Fuller.

In case you didn’t know already…

And now for Season 2…

The second and final season of ABC’s Pushing Daisies is every bit as good as the first and then some. Where the first season was nearly sliced in half due to the writers strike — and a bit too formulaic for my taste — the second got more screen time (13 episodes instead of 9) to explore the characters and their respective pasts, presents and futures. Also, since much of the narrative staging and groundwork was laid in the first season, the second needed only to focus on tying up loose ends and bringing the show to a satisfactory and complete close — which could not have been an easy task.

While many people were angered, distressed, depressed and downright confused when Pushing Daisies was canceled, I honestly don’t think the show needed or even warranted another season. I don’t mean to sound callous, I just happen to think that the show would have been stretched thin if it had gone on much longer. If anything, I think that the show would have benefited greatly from an even longer episode order, perhaps to the tune of twenty episodes or more for the second season. The reason being is that this season — while exceptional, and better than the first — is far from complete as it is now. The front half is perfectly paced and deep — prior to cancellation — and the second half is a bit haphazard, rushed and incomplete.

Again, to the credit of the creative team behind the show, it was an impossible task to tie off every narrative thread within the available time frame, and I think they did the absolute best they could given the circumstances. Still though, I was left wanting more. Some surprise characters — which I’ll refrain from mentioning — appear, never to be mentioned again, and the ultimate resolution/conclusion comes and goes without much ado, but barring all of these minor complaints I still couldn’t help but feel like the show ended on a perfect note even if there were more than a few plot holes that need filling in.

And as far as filling is concerned, there’s been talk about a Pushing Daisies comic that’s primed to satisfy the appetites of fans everywhere, and give the concept a fresh and boundless canvas to weave its morbidly delectable story. With any luck, the comic might actually attract a slew of new fans while also providing ample closure to the myriad of storylines floating around within the Pushing Daisies universe.

In the end, it’s terribly sad to lose such an inventive, original and entertaining show while other inferior, mindless crap pollutes the airwaves, but I also feel that it was the right choice, just not the right time. If only the show had been gifted with a couple more episodes, perhaps there wouldn’t be a need for a comic, or a movie or some other narrative extension, maybe the story could have been fully fleshed out and absolute. But there’s no sense in worrying about things we can’t change. The second season of Pushing Daisies might be missing a few ingredients, but its every bit as enjoyable and entertaining as I had hoped it might be and I’m extremely grateful — as all Pushing Daisies fans should be — that it was finished at all.

Henry Poole Is Here

2009-07-23T21:57:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Mark Pellington (The Mothman Prophecies, Arlington Road).

Henry Poole has all but subscribed to the past tense. After discovering that he has little time to live, he retreats to a quiet, unfurnished home in California to spend his remaining days in fear of a definite, but uncertain departure. However, fate has something else in store for Henry. His days of isolation and self loathing are cut short by curious neighbors that wish to welcome him to the community, and the appearance of a Christ-like façade on the side of his house attracts far more attention than he would like. Slowly but surely, Henry warms up to his new neighbors and friends, and manages to find a ray of hope in the face of his grim diagnosis.

It’s been many years since Mark Pellington has revisited to the art of feature filmmaking. His last directorial effort, The Mothman Prophecies, was — in my opinion — an outstanding horror/thriller film, and an exceptional visual treat, but it’s been a difficult road for him to get back in the game. After losing his wife, Jennifer Barrett-Pellington, who died abruptly in 2004, Pellington was overcome with grief and ultimately turned to alcohol, hoping to find comfort in feeling nothing. Soon enough — as he admits in the commentary found on this disc — his vice gave way to alcoholism.

Thankfully, Mark Pellington’s story has a good ending. Although his journey was a trying and painful one, he has been sober for two years, and he’s emerged hopeful and eager to take up narrative filmmaking once more. This time however, he wanted to do something different, to tell a story that wasn’t as dark, dreary or menacing as his previous films. He yearned to take on a film that was uplifting and genuinely moving, and perhaps one that reflected some of the things he had gone through. The answer was Albert Torres’ script, Stain, which would ultimately become the film we know, Henry Poole Is Here.

As you might imagine, there is an incredible amount of personal investment and attachment between Pellington and the subject matter at hand, and its this connection that allows the film to shine incredibly bright. Unlike much of the manufactured drama/romance that populates the Hollywood circuit, there is a genuine heart behind the film, and the love that courses throughout emanates from every possible outlet, whether it be the actors’ eyes, the dialog, or the tender, fluid motion of the shots that compose the film. In a way, its overwhelming, but not in a bad way. Moreover, watching the film is akin to being in reunited with dozens of old family members or friends all at once. You’re reminded just how wonderful life can be, and the horrors of the world simply melt away.

However, it’s important to know that the film isn’t all smiles either. Henry is jaded, defeated and bitter, but its his transformation and journey towards becoming hopeful that ultimately makes the film so powerful and endearing.

In a word, the film is therapeutic, and if I had to liken it to another film, I’d say that Garden State most closely resembles it thematically, and emotionally. I’m not sure whether or not other people would agree with that, but for me they are very closely related because of their comforting, and relatable stories.

In the end, even the most brazen cynic should come away from this film feeling the slightest bit elated because it’s not a film about religion or faith, it’s a film about hope; something that is hardwired within us, but often overshadowed by the grim realities of our world. Henry Poole Is Here stirred me in a way that few movies ever do. It served as yet another reminder that life is a truly remarkable gift, and regardless of your religious/spiritual disposition — or lack thereof — I’d wager that few people would argue against that. Granted, it might not be the same experience for everyone, but for those of you that are in need of a sincerely uplifting film, you need not look further than this one.

Baraka

2009-06-13T19:15:00.001-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed and lensed by Ron Fricke.
ba⋅ra⋅ka : bəˈrɑkə/ [buh-rah-kuh]
–noun Islam.
a spiritual power believed to be possessed by certain persons, objects, tombs, etc.
Origin: Ar barakah; cf. Heb bərākhāh blessing

A blessing. The breath of life. Raw spiritual power. All of these definitions can be found to describe the word Baraka, a word that perfectly encapsulates this breathtaking cinematic journey into the human spirit, showcasing both the divine connections between us, as well as our effect on the planet at large — for better or worse.

Ron Fricke’s masterpiece is the quintessential documentary/travelogue that captures our planet’s raw, unique beauty, while providing us with a unique perspective of human life via mind-blowing moving portraits of ritualistic practices around the world, ranging from funeral pyres to monotonous morning commutes. His vision is uncompromised, and unfailing — an unparalleled visual experiment that is unmatched in every sense. Devoid of dialog or narration, the film is purely cinematic; universally understood, and applicable because it relies on imagery alone to tell its story. Some might be deterred by that fact, but I can’t imagine the film any other way. Simply put, you’ve never seen a film quite like this one. It is meditative, hypnotic, emotionally charged, breathtaking and engaging all at once.

And as bold as it may sound, I’ve never seen a more beautiful film than Baraka. Every single image — whether static, moving or time-lapse — is expertly composed and teeming with grace, artistry and meaning. It’s as if the film is a love letter addressed to the inhabitants of earth, from an alien planet. The perspective is so unique, incisive and removed that it’s hard to imagine a human could have lensed such a magnificent piece of art. It deftly summarizes the human race and our collective effect on our surroundings, on history and ourselves.

I simply can’t recommend this film enough. It is easily one of the most profound and touching films/documentaries I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. And while I can go on and on about how fantastic it is, in the end, words are at a loss to describe how beautiful and surreal the viewing experience is. Baraka is an unforgettable emotional journey across the world, that instills hope, and awe, allowing us to see life’s wondrous gifts, and yet it also tells a cautionary tale of planetary disharmony through images of death, destruction and poverty. In the end though, as the film’s credits began to roll, I felt a swell of hope, awe and respect for all life on this planet come over me, and I even felt more connected to the world around me, as hokey as that may sound.

Where The Godfather is my favorite fictional film, Baraka is my new favorite non-fiction film. Both are timeless classics, and prime examples of filmmaking excellence, but Baraka in particular is an experience all its own. I don’t think the film will ever find itself as universally accepted as it is constructed, but I imagine that it will only continue to amass fans, garner more praise, and become more and more significant as time rolls on as the boundaries between cultures inevitably overlap and ultimately dissolve.

Lost: Season One

2009-06-10T22:14:00.003-04:00

The Show Itself is created by J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Carlton Cuse and Jack Bender.

— An Introduction to LOST —

If you’re a fan of modern television, chances are that you’ve been accosted numerous times by friends or family as they attempt to impress upon you their new favorite show, claiming ‘it’s the BEST show EVER’. Oftentimes, the shows they’re “hooked on” never ending being anything special. Whether the show’s writing is hokey, or the acting talent is sub par, the simple fact is that most network television shows never strive for greatness — whether due to budgetary concerns, or lackluster concepts. They are, for the most part, content with mediocrity and melodrama. This is not the case with this decade’s finest network television show, LOST.

The show is so incredibly fresh, engrossing and complex that it’s almost impossible to resist popping in the next disc, or firing up another episode on ABC’s site once you’ve started. Reminiscent of the serialized mystery broadcasts of the olden days, LOST deftly blends the genres of drama, adventure, fantasy, romance, and science fiction into an unbeatable concept that thrills and delights to no end. Whether its the show’s in-depth character drama/studies, the survivors every-day struggles on the island, or questions about the mysterious nature of their new-found home, LOST is unrelenting and unlike anything you’ve ever seen. If you haven’t seen it, I can’t think of a better excuse to get started now than with this latest Blu-ray release. It looks, and sounds as good as any TV show out there — if not better — and I truly believe it’s one of the only shows you’ll ever want to, or need to, watch more than once to fully appreciate the intricacies and mysterious happenings littered throughout the show. I simply can’t recommend this one enough.

— Season 1: Summary —

Oceanic Flight 815 crash lands on an island. Wildly off-course, and possibly thousands of miles from their final destination, the survivors have to learn to live together, or die alone as the chance of being rescued grows slimmer. However, they are quick to learn that the island isn’t quite deserted. An encounter with a polar bear, a sixteen-year-old distress call, and a locked, buried hatch suggest that there is much more to the island than they could have ever imagined.

— Parting Thoughts —

Overall, despite me talking trash about people extolling the virtues of various modern TV shows, I can’t help but recommend this series and perpetuate my own hypocrisy. I honestly believe that LOST is one of those shows that is so incredibly unique and engaging that you would have to try to dislike it. Sure, people have issues with unanswered questions here and there, but if you ask me, questions are what drive life, and TV programming is no exception.

The bottom line is that LOST is THE show to own, to see again and again, so that you can sift through the layers of mystery and character connections, and here for the first time on Blu-ray, you can’t do any better than this audio/visual presentation. It is stellar. This is quite simply a “must-own” in every sense.

Lost: Season Two

2009-06-10T22:11:00.002-04:00

The Show Itself is created by J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Carlton Cuse and Jack Bender.

— An Introduction to LOST —

— Season 2: Summary —

With the hatch blown open, the discovery and exploration of the island’s mysterious past begins to come to light. A scientific commune, named the Dharma initiative once occupied the island, and the sole overseer of the hatch station (named “The Swan”) aids the survivors in their quest to get off the island. Simultaneously, our friends come to learn that there are more survivors of the plane crash, but that they aren’t the only ones living on the island. No, there appear to be other inhabitants, or natives, the motives of which are unclear. It isn’t until the rescue of a widowed balloonist, named Henry Gale, that the survivors learn about the true nature of the island natives, and their far reaching influence.

— Parting Thoughts —

Here in the second season, the show really comes into its own. So much comes to light through the discovery of the Dharma initiative, and yet more questions about the nature of the island, and its inhabitants drive the viewer to burn through each episode, hungry for more.

The bottom line is that LOST is THE show to own, to see again and again, so that you can sift through the layers of mystery and character connections, and here first the first time on Blu-ray, you can’t do any better than this audio/visual presentation. It is stellar. This is quite simply a “must-own” in every sense.

Hot Rod

2009-06-10T22:07:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Akiva Schaffer.

As admirable as he is deluded, Rod Kimble lives out his days performing stunts in the hopes of becoming a legitimate stuntman, just like his deceased father. Of course, the only problem is that his stunts aren’t quite “dangerous” nor is he particularly skilled at what he does. However, all of this changes when Rod finds out that his step-father is gravely ill. He promptly sets out to raise money for an operation that will save the man, but he does this not out of love, but because he feels the need to kick his step-father’s ass and earn his respect.

These days its nearly impossible to navigate your respective social circles without hearing about The Lonely Island comedy troupe — Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer. The trio of comedians/musicians have taken SNL and subsequently the world by storm via their hilarious “digital shorts” — namely “Dick in a Box”, “Jizz in My Pants” and “I’m on a Boat” — and rightly so. The videos are expertly produced, directed and shot, and the songs themselves are insanely funny, and all-together catchy. However, despite their recent popularity boom, it seems as though their feature film debut, Hot Rod, is still relatively unknown, or well received.

In truth, I hadn’t seen the film until it came to me for review, and I did have some reservations about it. As i recall, I steered clear of the film in theaters because the marketing campaign pushed the Napoleon Dynamite angle a bit too much, and because I detest that film I mistakenly avoided it. Now, two years later, I can safely say that I made a grave error in having waited so long to see it. Bear in mind, it’s not that the film is incredibly funny or particularly well-crafted. No, for me it represents a return to comedic form that’s been lost for years. The form I’m referring to is the classic “stupid comedy” that Adam Sandler championed in the mid-to-late nineties. In the wake of comedic gems like Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore, it’s been years since someone has successfully revisited the formula, until now. Where other films have tried and failed, Hot Rod reigns supreme, bringing to the comedic forefront the perfect blend of ridiculousness and comedic performance/timing that makes it a worthy heir to the “Happy Madison” fare of yesteryear.

If you’re like me and you consider yourself a big fan of Sandler’s old films, be sure and give this film a chance. With the talented Lonely Island trio at the helm, the lovely Isla Fisher serving up ample eye candy, and the unstoppable Danny McBride doling out comedic brilliance, how can you go wrong?

Supernatural: The Complete Third Season

2009-06-10T22:05:00.000-04:00

The Show Itself is created by Eric Kripke.

Supernatural centers around two brothers who hunt down and dispatch mythic demons and ghouls with great relish and determination. Now in it’s third season, the brothers, Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) are faced with two pressing issues: 1) an open gateway to hell (one they opened in Season 2) needs to be closed, or else the demons that have sprung forth will continue to wreak havoc on innocent people 2) Dean must find a way to reclaim his soul from the devil (after selling it to save the life of his brother). Along the way, the two brothers team up with a variety of characters in order to do battle with the forces of darkness, and all things supernatural.

I can’t help but feel as though I’m at a loss having never seen the previous seasons of Supernatural prior to this review. Thankfully, there is a brief primer at the beginning of the season opener, but no amount of recap can supplement the experience of two entire seasons. As such, I was not invested in the characters, their plight or the consequences of their actions, in this season or others. Having a limited understanding of their origins was also a problem, but Supernatural doesn’t really strike me as an incredibly complex, dense storyline either. In that way, the show is entirely accessible for mass audiences, and should you want to pass the time, you would certainly find much to entertain your mind grapes here — just don’t expect to exercise them too much.

Still, Supernatural succeeds admirably in what is surely its principle goal, to be an entertaining, demonic slasher piece, but it never breaks any new ground either. In other words, it’s not a particularly novel show/concept. I wish I could say that I was more enthralled by it, but truth is, I wasn’t. As the season drew to a close, I found myself pushing forward not because of a burning interest, but more so because I wanted to get to the end and start writing the review.

While I may not be the show’s biggest fan, or advocate for that matter, I’d definitely be up for starting the series from the beginning, should the first two seasons ever make their way to Blu-ray. Perhaps then I will have the necessary framework and background to truly appreciate the show. Nonetheless, I still had fun watching it, and I have no doubt that fans and newcomers alike will be pleased to see it in HD.

Valkyrie

2009-06-10T22:03:00.002-04:00

The Movie Itself was directed by Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men) and penned by Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects, The Way of the Gun).

After thirteen long years apart, the creative forces that brought about one of the finest mystery/drama/thrillers in cinematic history — The Usual Suspects — decided to team up once again, setting their sights on the compelling true story of Operation Valkyrie. It was a story, that I was unfamiliar with — having never learned about it in High School or College — but upon reading the synopsis, I couldn’t imagine the film being anything less than stellar, especially when it was announced that Tom Cruise was set to play the lead part.

I suppose I should give those of you that aren’t familiar with the story a little background before jumping into the film. The operation, code named Valkyrie, was an ingenious plot devised by high ranking military officers within Hitler’s army that, if successful, would have seen Hitler assassinated and the Nazi regime dismantled. As we all know, the conspiracy did not succeed, but the story of their failure is an important one indeed, and the film does a fine job of breathing life into this little known story.

However, despite the film’s apparent attention to detail, taught pacing, and stellar performances I ultimately left the theater shrugging my shoulders. I did so not because I didn’t enjoy the movie — I did — but more because the film’s message isn’t fully realized. What’s the point? It’s obvious they wanted to end the Nazi rule, and kill Hitler, but to what end? To seize power themselves, or would they have been more noble and restored balance to the war torn country?

Beyond that, I also felt somewhat ambivalent to their struggle, and ultimately their fate. And, because the story is one of failure I wasn’t particularly moved or inspired, at least not as much as I was hoping.

Still though, I can’t help but think that the film, and their story, has been done to perfection. In other words, I can’t see anyone ever lensing this story better than Singer, and I can’t imagine anyone ever writing a better script than McQuarrie, and that, I think, is probably the most tragic aspect of all. The film is as good as it will ever be, but it’s not quite the tour-de-force it might have been if the conspirators had succeeded, nor is it the hit that Tom Cruise needed to reboot his image. Therefore, the film resides in cinematic purgatory, living amongst a rare breed of films that are at once expertly crafted and mediocre.

Licence to Kill : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-24T19:31:00.004-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by John Glen (For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights)

It seems like a happy coincidence that the film released alongside The Man With The Golden Gun, is yet another director's swan song. Much like Hamilton, John Glen had a longstanding relationship with the James Bond character, but Glen alone holds the record for directing the most Bond films, in addition to directing the most consecutive Bond films. He worked his way up the ranks, until he was bestowed the honor of directing his first Bond picture back in 1981, For Your Eyes Only. From there, he saw through the end of Roger Moore's tour of duty as 007, and he did the same with Timothy Dalton in 1989's, Licence to Kill.

So taking Glen's intimate knowledge of the character, and experience with the production of a Bond picture into consideration, how does his exit film compare to the rest of the lot, and was it an appropriate end note?

The answers to those questions are quite complex. Personally I don't find it to be as cut and dry as others make it out to be. The reason being that James Bond is -- and will forever be -- a character in a state of change. He will never be static. Both through marketing concerns, and the evolution of the political/espionage climate, his chances for stasis are slim to none. Therefore -- given his contemporary limitations/structure, he will always be a product of his time period -- for better or worse.

We're seeing the same sort of backlash now with Quantum of Solace that fell upon Licence to Kill. There were people that felt that Dalton didn't have that certain something that made the other Bonds tick, that he didn't possess the charisma or the likability of his predecessors. Many simply thought he was too vengeful. Too cold.

Beyond the issues with Dalton, fans and audiences alike also felt that the Bond's missions had taken a turn for the worse, that the stories were too grim and gritty. Many of which cried out for a change, a return to form. They would see their wishes come true, but it would be a long six years -- due to legal disputes over the ownership of the franchise -- before James Bond returned to the silver screen in Goldeneye. So, in a roundabout way, the critics of Dalton got their wish.

I belong to the school of thought that Timothy Dalton was dealt a poor hand. I also believe that Dalton made for an exceptional James Bond -- and that there would be no framework for Craig to weave his magic if it weren't for Dalton's work years prior. He was a very stoic Bond, but I think it was appropriate given the time period, and the narrative territory that the films were exploring. If anything is at fault, it would be the grittier subject matter, as the villains of Dalton's time moved away from diabolical world domination plots in favor of real-world, contemporary issues: illegal arms dealing, and drug trafficking. Still though, one could argue that trafficking and arms dealing have always been at home in the Bond franchise, and they'd be right, but I think for critics, it was less about the subject matter than it was the execution and the framing of the story. They simply thought it didn't fit quite right.

While I understand their objections, I don't think it takes away from the quality of the film, and I feel much the same way about Quantum of Solace. The films are a departure from tradition, but their vengeful cores make them so much more intense and compelling than the more casual entries throughout the Bond history. I mean, after all is said and done, this guy is supposed to be ruthless, isn't he? And his thirst for vengeance is a real character flaw that allows him to be more human than superhuman. Both Licence and Quantum got that right, but oddly enough, they remain as two of the more controversial Bond films for the same reason -- they bring Bond down to our level. And as we've seen then in 1989 and now twenty years later, the writers effectively polarized the viewership with their decision to showcase a truly aggressive Bond, with little to no reserve.

Still though, no matter what the creative forces do, there will always be fans, and there will always be critics, for no two Bond fans are ever alike, and few fans are as critical as a Bond fans.

That being said, I really like this film. It may not be my favorite, but it's far from the weakest film in the series.

The Man With The Golden Gun : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-24T18:03:00.002-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Guy Hamilton. (Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die)

Veteran director, Guy Hamilton left an indelible mark on the Bond franchise with his first directorial effort under the 007 banner, Goldfinger and it has long since been hailed as the seminal Bond film, by which all are supposed to be measured. While I don't fully agree -- I think other films have been equally influential -- that conversation will have to be reserved for Goldfinger's forthcoming review.

So how does Guy Hamilton's exit film stack up against the ones before it, and the Bond catalog as a whole? Does he go out with a whimper or a bang? Fans of this film -- like myself -- will be quick to answer that. Bang.

The film is about a golden gun toting assassin, of course it's going to be extravagant, exciting and every bit as entertaining as the previous entries -- perhaps even more so, depending on who you ask. If you're asking me, then I would most definitely agree. Watching this over again, it amazes me that someone like Hamilton, who has such a great handle on action/adventure/comedy could have ever turned in such a poor film, such as Battle of Britain. I gave him royal hell for his choices throughout that boring picture, but I have nothing but praise for him when it comes to the James Bond pictures. Maybe the character of James Bond, and the subject matter provokes him or inspires him in a way that war/drama don't. Perhaps he found Battle of Britain as droll and boring as I did, and slept all the while in his director's chair.

Whatever the reason, Hamilton's parting film continues to put a smile on my face. Whether it be the humorous Nick Nack, Bond's frivolous attitude -- that Moore perfected -- or the reappearance of the loudmouthed good ole' boy, Sheriff J.W. Pepper, there's seldom a quiet or dull moment.

Of course, I would be remiss I didn't pay respect to one of Bond's greatest adversaries, Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee). Simply put, he is "The Man." He is so because of his: a) Golden Gun b) world class assassin status c) charges a million dollars a kill and d) he only needs one bullet -- cause he never misses his target. If he isn't a badass I don't know who is.

Naturally though, when your balls are as big as his -- and you sport a third nipple -- things can get a bit boring, so Scaramanga does what any rich, cocky assassin might do if he were bored; he invites people to try and kill him at his island estate. Well, it isn't long before Scaramanga grows tired of killing easy marks and decides to liven things up by targeting the one person he believes will pose a real challenge: 007.

This isn't his primary objective -- as nearly every Bond villain has an ulterior motive -- but for me, it's the obsession with Bond, and the opposing lethality of both men that make this film so much fun to watch.

There are those that say the film is a bit too liberal with the comedic aspects -- that it doesn't take itself seriously enough -- but I believe that's one of the film's strongest attributes. The movie embodies an entirely different Bond image compared to Hamilton's earlier Goldfinger, but does that make it any less entertaining? No.

Unfaithful : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-24T02:11:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Adrian Lyne.

The quiet, suburban life led by Connie Sumner (Diane Lane) is destabilized when a chance encounter with a stranger, Paul Martel (Olivier Martinez) quickly develops into a romantic entanglement. Unbeknownst to her friends and family, Connie continues to indulge her fantasies, that is until her husband, Edward Sumner (Richard Gere) grows suspicious and sets out to uncover the truth.

While Unfaithful might sound very similar to Adrian Lyne’s other work — Fatal Attraction in particular — I believe it’s very much a film all its own, with a unique style and sensibility that always captivates me. Still, the film isn’t wholly original. It is a remake of a French film — one that I’ve never gotten around to see — and as Lyne states in the bonus materials, it is one of his favorite films. In fact, he told himself never to remake it, but later admits that he just couldn’t help himself.

Having never seen the original, I can’t speak to the quality of this film with respect to the preservation of the original film’s story and mood. However, I do think it’s pointless to approach a remake with the intent of making a carbon copy, and I’m sure that Lyne feels the same. And so, I would imagine that Unfaithful pays tribute, wherever possible, while simultaneously exploring new thoughts, feelings and images.

Personally, I’ve always been a fan of Lyne’s work — from Jacob’s Ladder, to Fatal Attraction — and Unfaithful is no exception. Each film is extremely personal, both in the composition/focus of the narrative, as well as the directing/cinematography. In many ways, I believe Unfaithful is the epitome of this “personal touch.” Take for example the extreme closeups littered throughout the film that heighten the sexual tension, or the lyrical editing that folds time with ease. Even still, some of the most powerful moments in the film come when nothing is said at all. Lyne proves here that he has mastered the absence of dialog — something that is often overlooked. All of these elements, when combined with the ever-potent score, by maestro Jan A. P. Kaczmarek, and top-notch performances from Diane Lane and Richard Gere, lead Unfaithful to achieve an operatic dynamism that grips you and leaves you breathless. It might not be for everyone, but I love it just the same.

Step Into Liquid : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-24T02:10:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Dana Brown, son of the ever-popular Bruce Brown (Endless Summer, Endless Summer 2).

I imagine that for Dana Brown, there was little doubt in his mind about where he would end up, and what he would ultimately do with his life. Growing up in the Brown household, young Dana was surrounded with miscellaneous pieces of film equipment, and more than a few surfboards. And so, the passions of the father, became the passions of the son, and the stage was ultimately set for Dana Brown to follow in his father’s footsteps years later, by crafting his very own surf movie, Step Into Liquid.

While I’ve never seen Endless Summer or Endless Summer 2, I’m well aware of their significance in the surf community. In many ways, they opened the world’s eyes to the wonder of surfing, thus introducing and enthralling generations of surfers to come. Where many filmmakers cite Citizen Kane as being the most influential film for commercial cinema, or cinema in general, perhaps we can draw a similar comparison to Endless Summer given its widespread effect on surfers everywhere.

Now, back to Liquid. Dana Brown’s film is a very beautiful piece, with the proper balance between talking heads, narration and wondrous shots of the ocean, waves and surfers in action. Shot all throughout the world, across a number of locales, and featuring dozens of the most respected surfers of our time, Step Into Liquid is arguably one of the most comprehensive surf films to date, but thankfully, the film never feels dense or bloated. Dana’s playful narration, and the kind-hearted interviewees work to entertain, and as a result, the eighty-eight minute running time seems to fly by in an instant.

The breathtaking visuals are married with a truly splendid audio experience, making this film one of the most entertaining and earnest documentaries I’ve seen in a great long while. It is truly magnificent to behold; a beautiful love letter to his father, and the surfing community at large.

Sunrise Earth - Seaside Collection : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-24T02:09:00.000-04:00

The Collection is produced and aired under the Discovery HD Theater banner.

If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Don’t get me wrong. Each of these hour-long sunrise segments are gorgeous in their own right, but they don’t make for a great reviewing marathon. Unfortunately, that just comes with the territory of being a reviewer. I could have spread out the discs, yes. But if I had, you would have had to wait longer for this review, right?

At any rate, this collection does come recommended, but there’s a catch. I don’t believe that everyone will go nuts over this release, and it doesn’t represent demo-worthy material in any way. As such, group viewings like you might have for Planet Earth aren’t going to be popular here. What we’re given is far more ambient, and meditative (with the exception being the heinous sea lion episode). Perfectly suited to run in the background as a tranquil supplement to your morning routine. If I were so inclined to automate my home theater system, I could see this disc being the perfect way to wake up every morning. Alas, I’m not even remotely motivated to do such a thing, nor am I interested in burning through my projector’s lamp hours to make it all possible.

When all is said and done, Discovery has assembled a worthwhile seaside collection — minus the dreaded “Sunrise Seal Colony” episode — and Image Entertainment has done a good job bringing the collection to Blu-ray.

The Hills Have Eyes 2 : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-24T01:59:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by relative new-comer Martin Weisz.

Having seen the first film in Spain, with a Spanish Dub track and no English subtitles, I really didn’t understand much of what the characters were saying, but I definitely understood everything that was going on. This film is no different. The motivations for the characters are as transparent as the executives’ motivations are for pushing this sequel through the grind. However, as predictable as the film might be, and as poor as the film is with regard to cinematic value, I can’t help but think that it does it’s job fairly well, and that it delivers on its promises to fright and entertain.

Ok, so the film won’t be remembered in a decade or so, and it’s by no means a progressive horror film. It recycles nearly every single horror convention and scare tactic, but at the very least, the death scenes are fairly original and gruesome.

It’s safe to assume that if you didn’t like the first film, you are not going to find anything of value this time around. On the other hand, if you thought the previous installment was “the bestest scary movie since ‘The Ring 2′” well you might just have to give this one your undivided attention.

If you’re like me, and you get a kick out of horror films — no matter how cheesy they are — then you will likely find something redeeming in this flick. If nothing else, you can simply gawk at the lovely Jessica Stroup, or revel in the predictable carnage that is oh-so-much fun to behold. You just need to be in the mood for it.

One thing is for sure. The “Hills Have Eyes” series never fails to disgust.

Australia : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-23T23:51:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself was directed by Baz Luhrmann (of Moulin Rouge!, and Romeo + Juliet fame).

Social-elite Sarah Ashley departs from her lavish mansion in England for a struggling cattle ranch in the Australian outback. The plot of land, which is named Faraway Downs, is co-owned by she and her husband, and she would like nothing more than to sell the lame investment, and bring her husband back with her to England. Upon arrival she is greeted with her escort to Faraway Downs, a man everyone in the town of Darwin refers to as “The Drover” (played by Hugh Jackman), a cattle herder by trade. As you might expect, they couldn’t be more different from one another, and as far as romance films are concerned, that makes for the perfect chemistry. When they finally reach the ranch we learn that Mrs. Ashley’s husband has been murdered by a local Aborigine, named King George, or so they are told by the ranch hand, Neil Fletcher. It isn’t until a young Aboriginal boy visits Mrs. Ashley in the night, that she becomes suspicious of Neil Fletcher. It would seem that he has been smuggling cattle from the Faraway Downs ranch, onto a local cattle tycoon’s property, who is in direct competition with Faraway Downs for a military beef contract, one of the country’s most profitable exports.

After a tense confrontation with Fletcher, Sarah fires him, and decides that she will compete with the Carney Cattle Company (Fletcher’s true employer) for the military beef contract that Carney and company are hellbent on getting. With help from Drover, and the other ranch hands — including the young boy, Nullah — Sarah blazes a trail across the outback in order to beat her saboteurs to the wharf, and their much anticipated paycheck.

This is only a fraction of the film’s story, so you needn’t worry about us spoiling it for you. As you might have guessed, the film, which spans 165 minutes, is nothing short of epic, with each of the principal characters, Sarah, Drover and Nullah getting ample screen time. With long-winded films, there is always the chance that they will fail miserably, but thankfully that’s not the case here. In all honesty, I can’t imagine the film being much shorter than it is now. Surely there are a couple minutes that could be axed, particularly from the somewhat hokey first 45 minutes (which struck me as being very City Slicker-ish). However, its easy to see that great care went into balancing the love story between the two leads, and the story about their adopted Aboriginal “half-blood” son, Nullah.

The film is built upon a patchwork of themes — racism, love, war, greed — and in order to accommodate all of these, it’s scope is justifiably epic. Naturally, because the film covers so much ground, in a relatively short amount of time — yes, even with nearly three hours at its disposal — its easy to understand why many people lost interest, or left the theater liking bits and pieces, but not the sum total of all the parts. In a way, I can align with both the critics and the fans. There are parts, mainly in the beginning, where I wasn’t as invested in the story, as I felt I should be. Like I said earlier, the beginning feels very much like City Slickers, which is a strange film to reference, but there are most definitely undeniable parallels. It’s not exactly comedic in the same way, but its more about the inexperienced riders having to rise to the challenge of herding, long before they’re ready — and they are very much the rag-tag group.

It wasn’t until I got to the stampede sequence that the movie commanded my full attention, and from then on, I was glued to the screen. That scene, and many others throughout are supremely magical and poignant, and I think that is ultimately what makes this film both unique and compelling. I imagine that it was Luhrmann’s intent to capture everything he found to be beautiful and disturbing about his homeland, and to use these three distinct characters and their perspectives to tell the story. For all intents and purposes, he does so with ease, so long as you are willing to give in to the story.

Encounters at the End of the World : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-23T23:50:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Werner Herzog and is photographed by Peter Zeitlinger.

Werner Herzog is a true visionary. His approach to the subject matter at hand, whether he’s directing a feature film or a documentary, is anything but conventional. At the outset of his latest film, Herzog explains that he wasn’t going to Antarctica to make a film about Penguins. He was far more interested in documenting and exploring the lives of the people that live and work on the desolate continent. Specifically, he wanted to learn who these people were, and what they dream about. If that sounds bizarre, you’re right. It does. But that’s what makes Herzog such a compelling and inquisitive individual. Personally, I find him to be incredibly engaging, and oftentimes profound. And if his reputation or fanbase is any indication, there are many others that feel the same way. In addition to his many directing credits, his acting roles are never less than memorable, and they are always unique. Of course, you’d expect nothing less from a man that’s equally powerful, irrespective of his position behind or in front of the camera.

Quite simply, he commands your attention, through his labored and relaxed tone, and his insightful comments and questions. And as a result, you’re essentially glued to the screen for the entire running time of the film. Encounters at the End of the World is no exception. In truth, I find it to be his best work to date. Having always been fascinated with Antarctica, and the work that is being done by the scientists down there, it would seem that this documentary was specifically tailored for me. Clearly, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I believe that its a worthwhile film to watch, even if you have little interest in the subject matter.

I say that because the film won’t play out the way you’re expecting it to. Where most people expect documentaries to be droll and formulaic, Encounters goes against the grain. It is a haunting, inquisitive documentary that will leave you feeling enlightened and inspired. The photography is fantastic, and the characters/situations you meet along the way are all worthy of your time. Be sure to check this one out.

Quantum of Solace : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-23T23:45:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is the 22nd film in the “James Bond 007” franchise of motion pictures. It is the follow up to the immensely successful Casino Royale, and is directed by Marc Forster (Stranger Than Fiction, Monster’s Ball, Finding Neverland).

Picking up minutes after the finale of Casino Royale, James Bond successfully escapes with his only remaining lead, Mr. White. However, the trail goes cold when, in the midst of questioning, a mole within MI6 dispatches with Mr. White. Soon after, in an attempt to uncover potential leads, intelligence officers at MI6 discover a link between Le Chiffre and a notable environmentalist, Dominic Greene. Bond is instructed to investigate, and determine whether there is a connection between the two.

There is much to be seen, and much to be loved here in this explosive, and hard-boiled followup to Casino Royale. If Casino was the action-packed, tongue-in-cheek James Bond we all know and love, then Quantum of Solace is the brooding, cold-blooded dark side of Bond we seldom see.

My expectations following Casino Royale were monumental to say the least, so you can imagine my surprise when I walked out of the theater only to realize that Quantum hadn’t just met them, it blew them away. In a word, I thought it was perfect, and while many believe Quantum of Solace to be an inferior sequel — if only slightly — I can’t help but disagree. I not only think Quantum holds its own in comparison to Casino, but I think that in some ways Quantum actually bests Casino Royale, both in style and in mood — much thanks to Marc Forster and crew for that one — which boosts the film into the upper echelon of “Bond” films. I know that isn’t the case for every Bond fan out there, but that’s just me. I believe that since no two Bond films are exactly alike, the same can be said of the James Bond fans. That being said, I can’t help but feel as though the many critics of the film missed the point.

From the opening moments of the film, I knew Quantum was different from everything that had come before it. The stillness, and the quiet. The graceful helicopter shot towards the cliff. Extreme closeups, accompanied by the sounds of steady breathing and distant engines roaring. All of these things are borderline uncharacteristic of Bond films, and yet I felt more in tune with the world of James Bond than ever before. And in an instant, almost as if we’re shifting with Bond’s focus, we are thrust into the middle of a high-speed chase, the intensity of which is undeniable. This is but one of the moments that makes Quantum unique, compelling, powerful and poetic — my favorite being the Opera sequence midway through.

Quantum’s one and only complication is that it relies on Casino Royale for the narrative groundwork. Now of course, that no longer presents a problem to the viewer if you’ve seen Casino, but if you haven’t seen Casino Royale, next to nothing will make sense here. If you’re hoping to pick this up and you haven’t watched Casino yet, you’d be well advised to give it a watch beforehand. Still, Quantum never feels like an afterthought, or a half-baked sequel. In fact, this film suggests that the exact opposite is true. It’s as if these films are a part of a far greater whole — singular threads in a massive web of conspiracy and terrorism. In that sense, it might just be the first Bond “sequel” ever made. I say that because while there were certain narrative arcs that recurred throughout the franchise — SPECTRE and their heinous plots — this film builds upon its predecessor while also bringing a real sense of closure to James Bond’s first assignment. Beyond that of course, it provides Bond time enough to unravel the plot that led Vesper to her watery grave, and ample room to exact his revenge.

In the end, I can’t help but feel as though these latest Bond films, through all of the advancements in stylization and characterization, bring us ever closer to understanding James Bond as opposed to merely watching him in action. While some viewers and fans might be opposed to this, in favor of mindless entertainment, I couldn’t be happier with the way things are unfolding in the world of James Bond, and I honestly believe that if Ian Fleming were alive today, he’d feel the same.

Thunderball : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-23T23:39:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Terence Young (Dr. No, From Russia With Love).

After the financial and critical success of the previous films in the series — Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger — it was decided that Thunderball would be bigger and better in every way, and within the opening minutes of the film, the transition towards a smash-bang intro is made abundantly clear — and would remain a staple of the series from then on. Complete with a fight to the death at a funeral, and a dramatic airborne escape from the baddies via jet pack — an actual working prototype, by the way — the high-wire prologue ignites the fuse on an explosive, and extremely well paced Bond adventure.

As you watch the film, it becomes clear that the filmmakers have perfected the science of producing a James Bond film, but Thunderball is unique because it represents one of the first Bond films to boast a truly spectacular Bond moment. I’m referring of course to the massive underwater climax of the film, which to this day remains as one of the most memorable sequences in Bond history — which earned them an Oscar for visual effects. The complexity of the shoot, and the scale of the production was so far ahead of its time, that you simply can’t help but get swept up into the grandiose battle — even if it does look slightly date. And yet, another reason why it remains a remarkable achievement in the Bond franchise, and in Hollywood at large is that no one has come close to topping it. Part of that is due to production constraints and budgetary concerns, and perhaps self restraint out of respect for the film, but more importantly there are very few films that use water as heavily as Thunderball. It’s said that nearly a third of the film — which is a huge portion — takes place underwater, which if you can imagine was an incredible feat for a production in the mid-sixties.

However impressive that sequence may be, it is only a small piece of the greater whole, and Thunderball is a great movie. At the top of my favorite aspects of the film lies Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi) who, along with Auric Goldfinger, epitomizes the ever-present Bond villain. There are dozens of reasons of why they stand head and shoulders above the villains that have come and gone, but I think that no one element is greater than their hospitable nature. This might sound strange, because the idea of a hospitable villain goes against the archetype, but this only makes them stronger characters and far more complex villains. Additionally, they are afforded more screen time — because they aren’t limited to a single confrontation in the film’s climax — and so they are solidified as competent adversaries, which is integral to the success longevity of the story. Without this balance, there is no power struggle on screen, no peril and I find that this is an oft-made mistake in run-of-the-mill action films. The villain is a shell, a caricature with an all-too-transparent motive, and the end result is that the audience is never fully engaged. They simply won’t care. Thankfully, Ian Fleming happened to be a genius when it came to this interplay between the hero and his opponent, staging the confrontations as if it were a play, or a game of chess. That is what makes these early Bond films so engrossing and endearing, and yet I find that particular aspect of these films is often overlooked and seldom put it into words.

Naturally though, villains aren’t the only thing that make these films worthwhile. We all know why we’re compelled to return for each installment; because the films excite us, and entertain us. They provide us an opportunity to forgo the mundane actions and troubling thoughts of our daily lives and partake in a spectacular film event. And now, perhaps more than ever, escapism is on the rise, and I can think of no better prescription for melancholy spirits than a two-hour jaunt with the world’s most famous super-spy, James Bond.

Dr. No : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-23T23:34:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Terence Young (From Russia With Love, Thunderball).

The first film of the James Bond franchise sees the young super-spy traveling to Jamaica to investigate the death of a fellow MI6 agent, John Strangways. Upon arrival, Bond begins inquiries into the fallen agent’s work on the island, and his recent activities. With a growing body of evidence, Bond suspects that Strangways was killed because he had information on a mysterious individual, known only as Dr. No, who lives on a secluded island nearby. With the help of a CIA operative, Felix Leiter and a island boatman, Quarrel, Bond sets out to infiltrate Dr. No’s heavily guarded island and determine the significance behind the radiation emanating from it.

The film’s reputation precedes it. You know the name, you know the number, and if you consider yourself a James Bond fan, chances are that you’ve seen Dr. No at least a bazillion times. Ok, so maybe not that many, but you own it and you have nothing but the utmost respect for the film because without it, the franchise we all love would have never happened. Quite simply, it is the blueprint from which all other Bond films have been struck.

So what was it that made the film so special? Why was it — or is it still — revolutionary? In all honesty, the film does feel old, especially when you compare it to the more recent action fare of today, but there’s something intrinsically compelling about the tried and true Bond formula that keeps us coming back for more. Sure, Ursula Andress helps — as she represents the epitome of the Bond girl image, something that she unknowingly cultivated — but it’s more than just her and it’s bigger than Sean Connery. It is the winning combination of espionage, action, cars, martinis, women, and tongue-in-cheek humor that have immortalized the James Bond moniker, and it is so potent that it continues to pack theaters the world over. As we all know, the formula has been tweaked, modified and revamped in the years between, but for the most part it remains the same. Perhaps that’s one of my favorite things about Dr. No. Despite its age, it represents the Bond formula in its purest state, uncompromised and free of additives. It’s more than just a Bond film, it is the definitive Bond film.

Irrespective of the reasons behind our fascination with the most famous MI6 agent, there is one simple truth. Dr. No is the first of its kind, and for that reason alone it is worth a watch. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s damn close, and as a Bond fan, it is most definitely considered required viewing. If you’ve managed to go without seeing the film until now, do yourself a favor and add this one to your collection. See for yourself how James Bond came to be the legendary icon he is today.

For Your Eyes Only : Blu-ray Review

2009-03-23T23:31:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by John Glen (Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, License to Kill).

Following on the heels of one of the more “out of this world” Bond films — Moonraker — the decision was made early on that James Bond’s twelfth outing would need to be far more grounded in reality, and so the creative forces behind cinema’s most recognizable character went back to the basics: minimal gadgetry, earthly locales and more serious James Bond. The result was For Your Eyes Only, a film that is hardly “edgy” — especially when considering the most recent entries — but still maintains a more sedate tone than Moore’s previous entries, and in the end, all of the ingredients make for a pleasing, entertaining and fulfilling James Bond experience.

Growing up, my brother and I watched this film repeatedly — along with The Man With The Golden Gun — and the same goes for many of Roger Moore’s films. I think at a young age, we simply found them more entertaining than the rest. His comedic delivery resonated with us, and we were more concerned with that than whether or not the plot made sense. These days, that’s not the case, and as I return to childhood favorites, I’m wary of what I might find. Worried that they won’t measure up to the fond memories I have tucked away. As you can imagine from this intro, it’s been more than a few years since I’ve seen this film, and so when finally I sat down to review it, I was equal parts excited and nervous.

Thankfully, it was every bit the film that I remembered from my youth. The action still enthralled and entertained. The women more gorgeous than I remember. And the underwater sequences still captivating. On the one hand though, the movie hasn’t aged quite as gracefully as the other Bond films, due to the intense eighties vibe that emanates from the contemporary soundtrack, but it doesn’t really detract from the film. In some ways I think it makes the film slightly more entertaining.

Beyond my sentiments, the film marks two milestones: the authorship of a screenplay by Michael G. Wilson, and the directorial mantle being passed to John Glen. Fans of the Bond films should instantly recognize Wilson’s name. The step-son of long time producer Albert “Cubby” Broccoli, who began producing on Moonraker, was given the opportunity to write for the film, and his efforts continued through to the end of John Glen’s directorial run, which leads me to the second milestone. Having helmed five Bond films in total, John Glen holds the record for the most Bond films under his belt, as well as the most consecutive Bond films — he carried the franchise from 1981 to 1989. Where I happen to like nearly all of Glen’s 007 pictures, many fans believe that he delivered some of the weaker films in the collection, directly following For Your Eyes Only. And while I don’t agree with that statement, this review is hardly the appropriate place to come to his defense. At a later time, when the other films make their way to Blu-ray, perhaps I’ll go into more detail.

At any rate, For Your Eyes Only is definitely one of Roger Moore’s best pictures, and as such it should comes as little surprise that it still maintains its allure to this day.

The Sum of All Fears : Blu-ray Review

2009-02-25T01:39:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Phil Alden Robinson.

In 2002, the action-hero genre was in need of a serious kick in the ass. All of the heroes of the past had either cashed their last check, accepted their final mission, or hung their hats. Those that remained, were but a former shell of themselves. Comic book adaptation had yet to become Hollywood’s new cash-cow. And so it was that in the summer/fall of 2002, the future of action heroes everywhere rested on the success — or failure — of the 20th James Bond film, the remake of The Bourne Identity, and the Jack Ryan reboot, “The Sum of All Fears.”

Ok, so maybe it wasn’t nearly as dramatic as I’m making it out to be, but I was surely excited to see all three of the films for a number of reasons. Of course, as we all know, only two of these franchises are alive and kicking at the moment. I’m referring to Jason Bourne and James Bond — with the latter ultimately being reborn (Casino Royale, 2006) in the stylistic vein of Bourne. Who would have ever guessed that the mild-mannered and contemplative Damon would ever be capable of being a viable action star, let alone single-handedly reinvent the genre? I’ll be honest, I wasn’t convinced until I saw it for myself. And then I was a believer.

What I find odd about the situation is that it ultimately came down between the Jack Ryan reboot, and the re-imagining of the lesser known, Jason Bourne. Stranger still, both lead characters were the hottest ticket in Hollywood, and as everyone knows they also happen to be best friends. So, why didn’t both actors succeed in their respective action/thriller vehicles? Was there only room for one of them to excel, or was it just bad luck?

Keeping in mind that the films had an extremely narrow gap in gross domestic revenue — with Bourne raking in an extra three million over Ryan — it would seem that both films performed quite well. On top of that, both of the films were fresh starts for the characters.

Beyond the numbers, and beyond the similarities, there are a number of reasons why “The Sum of All Fears” was Ben Affleck’s final outing as the CIA-Analyst, Jack Ryan — not to mention Jack Ryan’s last appearance on-screen since. In my opinion the first mistake was the abandonment of the hardened and more experienced Jack Ryan in exchange for the rookie who’s trying-to-do-right and make a name for himself.

That formula worked quite well in “The Hunt for Red October“, but that’s because that film was the first in the series, and because Alec Baldwin was far more tenacious, and believable — not to mention entertaining — than Affleck. Here, the chemistry is all wrong. Nothing is clicks, none of the characters make a lasting impression, and the villains in the story — while extremely ruthless — lack depth, among other things.

Many of the objections I have with the changes were a direct result of Harrison Ford’s lack of interest in reprising the role. Because of this, the original script had to be radically revised and from there, the decision was made to reinvent the series — Jack Ryan’s origin story, so to speak.

The second mistake was passing the torch from Noyce to Robinson. While this decision might have very well been out of the hands of the executives at Paramount, it was an unforgivable loss because of the great work, effort and vision Noyce had brought to the world of Jack Ryan. Even still, to Robinson’s credit, he does a commendable job, and while I have many objections to the film, I still find it to be entertaining. The film has its moments, but the film falls short because of Affleck’s portrayal of Ryan, which leads me to my next point.

The last major mistake was the casting of Ben Affleck. Now, I realize that there are a lot of Affleck fans out there, but you have to agree that action is not his strong suit. I think he’s an extremely capable and creative actor/director/writer, but I draw the line at his action films. Simply put, if you dropped Jason Bourne in a cage with Jack Ryan, there would be no contest — Bourne would tear him to pieces with a neck-tie. And when all is said and done, I think that’s one of the main reasons that the Jack Ryan mantle has been retired for the time being. There isn’t an audience for Jack Ryan these days, at least not if Jack Ryan is going to be as helpless and naive as Affleck was forced to portray him. To be clear, I think it was a poor casting choice, and that Ben was a victim of circumstance in a cinematic climate change where the old heroes were no longer “cool.”

Throughout all of these Jack Ryan reviews — assuming you’ve been keeping up with them — I’ve returned time and again to the question: when is another Jack Ryan film going to be released? Only now, after having reviewed all of them has the answer become clear to me. Sadly, I have to admit that the future doesn’t look bright, at least not the immediate future anyway. Audiences worldwide are starved for action, and far less drama/suspense, but beyond that it comes down to style, and the cinematic grammar that is constantly in flux.

I’m confident that Jack Ryan will make another appearance when we’ve all gotten tired of the hyper-action and ultra-stylized films of today — after all, cinema style is cyclical — but until that happens, the stoic and altruistic hero of the mid-nineties will remain indefinitely in stasis. I just hope that whenever they decide to revisit Clancy’s every-man hero that the executives discard this soulless misfire and start fresh. But more importantly I trust that they will stay true to what made Jack Ryan such an iconic and resonant character in the first place.

Clear and Present Danger : Blu-ray Review

2009-02-24T01:37:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Phillip Noyce.

As the much-anticipated followup to Patriot Games, Phillip Noyce and crew set out to tackle a far greater foe — the abuse of executive power in the government. Clear and Present Danger is a far more detailed narrative canvas that revisits the epic sensibility found in the Hunt for Red October, while also exploring the limits of the story’s — now familiar — hero, Jack Ryan. When the story begins, all seems to be going rather well for Jack. His family has recovered from the traumatic events of the previous film, and he’s returned to the CIA, continuing his work as an analyst. Of course, it isn’t long before Jack’s new-found equilibrium is disrupted. Upon the sudden illness of his close friend, and boss, Admiral James Greer, Jack is appointed the new Deputy Director of Intelligence of the CIA. He is wary of accepting the responsibility, but obliges nonetheless in order to help ease the mind of his ailing friend.

Shortly after taking his new job, Jack finds himself deeply entrenched in a political/military game to wage a secret war against the drug cartels in Colombia. The worst part is that he’s being kept out of the loop, and groomed for the eventual scapegoat if the covert operations go wrong. Naturally, Jack has a way of sniffing out the truth, and so he quickly sets out to unravel the conspiracy with the intention of disclosing it and clearing his name.

It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of the “David and Goliath” narrative. In particular here, as Phillip Noyce so eloquently puts it, the film is about “the last honest man in Washington” and I must say that it makes for supremely compelling drama. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s my favorite film of this sub-genre — or even micro-genre — but it’s most definitely one of many favorites. If you’re like me and you tend to gravitate towards films involving political intrigue, conspiracy, greed, abuse of power, and of course, the one man that’s willing to fight the system, I highly recommend you check out this film. It is very different in many ways from the other Clancy films, and much of that comes from the incredibly epic scope of the conspiracy/covert operation.

While it might sound cheesy, when I watch films like these, by the end I can’t help but feel pride swell up inside of me — to see good triumph over insurmountable power, odds and corruption. For that reason, among many others, this film comes highly recommended from me. It is also the last great Jack Ryan film, and it’s sad to think that its been over 14 years since a good Jack Ryan film has been released. I’m still holding out hope that either Ford or Baldwin will eventually reprise the role of Jack Ryan and effectively reboot the series. It’s entirely necessary after the less-than-mediocre reboot, The Sum of All Fears.

Patriot Games : Blu-ray Review

2009-01-30T01:32:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Philip Noyce.

Eschewing the epic, politico-action narrative, Patriot Games — the sequel to The Hunt for Red October — favors the personal and intimate side of the hero, Jack Ryan. In a word, the film is about vengeance. We’re introduced to a far older and more experienced Jack Ryan — one that’s since left the CIA. As luck would have it Jack finds himself walking directly into an assassination attempt on the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the hands of a radical arm of the Provisional IRA. Naturally, the good-ole-boy that he is, Jack snaps into hero mode and manages to foil the attempt. Unfortunately for Jack and his family, one of the assassins lost his younger brother in the firefight, and he’s none-too-keen on letting Jack live his life in peace. It is this vendetta that provides the backbone for the film, and it does so, quite well.

Patriot Games has long since been my favorite of the Jack Ryan films. I suppose it has something to do with the fact that it was the first one I saw. Then again, it could be that it is one of the more exciting films in the bunch because of the tense vengeful core. Or, maybe it’s because it feels the most visceral and edgy because it is the sole Jack Ryan film to bear the “R” rating. Whatever the reason, I simply love this film. It isn’t without flaws but it is one of the most entertaining films in the collection, alongside The Hunt for Red October.

While McTiernan expertly crafted the action in The Hunt for Red October, Noyce allows the story to revolve and fully envelop Jack Ryan. As a result, the viewer is treated to a far more comprehensive understanding of Clancy’s every-man hero. Compared with The Hunt for Red October, Jack Ryan is no longer a mere narrative device. Through Noyce’s careful direction and Harrison’s performance, Jack Ryan takes on an entirely new level of realism. He’s completely human, heroic, moral, and badass. Of course, the vengeful currents that course throughout the film are universal, and that is yet another reason why the film succeeds on many levels. We all care for our families, and we all seek to defend them from danger, regardless of the form. Here, it just so happens that Ryan’s moral fortitude leads him to trade the life of one man for another — an undeniably gray area — and in effect jeopardize the lives of his wife, daughter and himself. It’s a tricky predicament, no doubt, and the ensuing drama makes for one of the best revenge flicks of recent memory.

The Hunt for Red October : Blu-ray Review

2009-01-28T01:31:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by John McTiernan.

It wasn’t long ago that John McTiernan’s name actually meant something in Hollywood — and I do mean that with the utmost respect. He’s responsible for some of my favorite action films of all time: Die Hard, Predator, Die Hard: with a Vengeance, and The Hunt for Red October. Obviously, the latter will be the focus of this review, but I wanted to meditate a second on this accomplished director, and his diverse body of work.

His resume is slim, but packed with instant classics, as well as a few misfires: Rollerball, Basic, Last Action Hero. Despite his failings, he is arguably one of the best action directors of all time. Some may level criticisms at his style, claiming that it is dated and predominantly 80’s, but with one look at Die Hard or his other films, and I’m sure you’ll agree that the same film could pass for a recent release — fashion and the age of the actors aside. In other words, it’s not nearly as dated as other 80’s hits.

For the most part, I believe his films continue to thrive due to his neutral, and objective approach to lensing the story. There isn’t an abundance of elaborate camera movements, or a hyper-stylized veneer to the picture. It’s merely action captured on celluloid. Only, with McTiernan’s films, the action is always superb. This is what helped set him apart from his peers and this is why his films continue to accrue new fans to this day.

The Hunt for Red October is no exception. As the first of the Jack Ryan films, it benefits from having a blank slate, and as such, the film had the unique opportunity to set the tone for the franchise. Sadly, this was Alec Baldwin’s first and final outing as the CIA analyst, but he handles the role well. He might lack the hardened stare of Harrison’s jaded Ryan, but when we see the young Alec Baldwin at the turn of the decade — and subsequently the beginning of his film career — it’s hard to imagine a better fit for the role. Baldwin brings a genuine sense of wonderment and intrigue to the role, which appears lost on the older/later incarnations of the character. All in all, Baldwin’s Jack Ryan is entirely believable, capable and quite simply a thrill to behold. And of course, let’s not forget the ever-captivating Sean Connery in an unforgettable role as Captain Marko Ramius.

It’s a shame that Baldwin hasn’t returned to the role, but then again, there’s no shortage of Jack Ryan novels, and Baldwin seems to be regaining much deserved respect with the raging success of 30 Rock. Perhaps in time, we’ll see Baldwin — and even McTiernan — revisiting the Jack Ryan series. I’d be more than curious to see how it turns out.

Battle of Britain : Blu-ray Review

2009-01-27T01:29:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Guy Hamilton.

I wasn’t sure why the name Guy Hamilton seemed so familiar, but it did. As the main titles ran across the screen I had this intense feeling of regret for not being able to place the name. It wasn’t until I hit up IMDB that I gave myself a swift slap across the forehead. Hamilton helmed four James Bond films — three of my favorites: Goldfinger, Diamonds are Forever, and The Man with the Golden Gun.

Alas this discovery didn’t quell the sour feeling in my stomach after having endured a painful recreation of the Battle of Britain for a total of 132 minutes. How could one of my favorite Bond directors have gone so wrong, and delivered such a pithy war film?

In truth, I’m not sure there is ever a good answer to that question. Sometimes, good directors go wrong… or they just make poor decisions.

“Battle of Britain” is one such decision. It is easily the worst WWII film I’ve ever had the displeasure of viewing. Seriously. Nowhere in the entirely all-too-bloated running time was there anything remotely redeeming — the exception being Laurence Olivier, Robert Shaw and Michael Caine’s performances. Unfortunately for us, all of them are underused and under served given the lackluster script material. As you might expect, the film crumbles under the drive to split the screen time up evenly amongst the big name actors that populate the narrative. The result is a mishmash of worthless side-stories and trivial character development — none of which makes for a pleasurable or engaging film viewing experience.

In the film’s defense, it is a touch old, given its 1969 release date, but that doesn’t excuse it entirely. It’s not hard to envision the story of the Battle of Britain being a compelling drama, perhaps in the form of a far more focused, modern remake.

So little was made of the fact that London was the underdog — the biggest mishap of the film by far — and the aviators that littered the skies were so pompous and cavalier you would have never guessed that the situations presented in the film were as grave as they were in real life. In other words, there was no sense of danger, whatsoever, and in a war film, that’s a recipe for disaster no matter how you slice it.

Taking all of the film’s misfires and mistakes, I can’t help but give this film a very generous “1.5 Star rating” for the film. The reason? The exceptional cast. Without this, I can’t imagine anyone would still be talking about the film today, aside from how dull it truly is.

Pushing Daisies - Season One : Blu-ray Review

2008-12-18T01:28:00.000-05:00

The Show Itself is created by Bryan Fuller.

Ned has an incredible ability — he can reanimate dead things. However, the gift is bittersweet because if he happens to touch the reanimate once again, it goes back to being dead… forever. Worse still, if he reanimates something for longer than a minute, it stays alive, but something else nearby dies. Lonely and afraid of his power, Ned finds comfort in baking pies — after all he can take dead fruit and freshen it up, right? — and opens his own restaurant. It isn’t long after that a Private Investigator learns about Ned’s surreal ability and convinces Ned to work with him to solve murder mysteries, and subsequently share the cash reward. All is well and good until Ned is confronted with the corpse of his long-lost childhood love, and first kiss. Unable to bring himself to put her back to rest, he keeps her alive, and thus sets into motion the most complicated and perilous relationship that’s ever been. Together, they’ll have to work to keep her reanimation quiet — lest Ned’s secret gets out — and solve a slew of murders along the way.

With a show like “Pushing Daisies” it’s easy to see how its greatest strengths could very easily double as its weaknesses. That is the unfortunate price everyone pays in the creative community for making something bold, daring and wholly original — you invariably polarize your target audience. In the case of this particular broadcast-TV diamond-in-the-rough, audiences were not only polarized, but many viewers — like myself — simply never got around to watching the show during its premiere run. To make matters worse, the writer’s strike came along and mucked everything up, capping its first season at a mere nine episodes. Worse still, when the show returned for its second season, the viewership simply wasn’t there — at least not like before. It seemed like there was no way the show could catch a break despite its resounding critical acclaim and hopelessly devoted fan-base. Then, confirming the fears of the cast, crew and fans everywhere, the plug was pulled forever, a fate which no lonely pie maker could possibly reverse.

While I’ve only seen the first season of the show, I can honestly say that I’m going to miss the show a lot. The little romantic-comedy/murder investigation procedural had a tone and a vision all its own, unmatched on TV or film. It wasn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, mind you, but it certainly represented a welcome respite from the hyper-realistic and documentary-style television series that seem to be everywhere on TV. Where shows like CSI and Law & Order are more concerned with justice and doing things “by the books” this show was interested in the surreal, and oftentimes hilarious consequences of reanimating the deceased in order to solve a murder case. You’d have to be dense not to see the potential in such a novel concept, and thanks to its original core, the show deftly set itself apart from everything on TV.

However, as I said before, it’s easy to see how the show’s strength also became its weakness. Because of the show’s irreverent and humorous approach to death it scared off a lot of mainstream viewers for one reason or another. Many people don’t like to give death any thought at all, and despite the show’s earnest attempts to make light of death, that’s still not good enough for those people. Even still, I imagine there were others that took opposition the moral ambiguity of Ned and his willingness to reanimate the dead for profit, irrespective of the fact that their killers were being brought to justice. I for one don’t get offended by much, and certainly not the reanimation of fictional characters — real people, now that’s another story — but by the end of the first season, I must admit that I was getting a little tired of the formulaic nature of the murder-investigation-solution narrative device. Granted, the show was conceived as a procedural show, wrapped around a romantic-comedy core, so I suppose there’s little point in debating the components of the show, but even still, I just feel like the creative team was selling the show short. I would have liked to see a couple episodes that didn’t revolve around a murder case. Also, I wasn’t a huge fan of the little-Ned introductions once I was familiar with Ned’s abilities and limitations. I realize that it was a choice to use the parallel narratives, and for the most part it works well, but I can see this narrative technique growing tired in the second season — assuming they continued to utilize it.

Minor criticisms aside, I can’t recommend this series enough to everyone. It’s terrible that the show has been canceled — especially when there are so many uninspired shows that need to be cut anyway — but it doesn’t change the fact that this first season is a sight-to-be-seen sensory overload, and a wondrous fairytale murder-mystery show that never fails to delight and entertain.

I can only hope that the second season maintains the same light-hearted, irreverent tone that made me fall head-over-heels for this season. If so, I can’t wait to get my hands on the inevitable Blu-ray release.

Dumb and Dumber : Blu-ray Review

2008-12-16T01:27:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by the Farrelly brothers, Peter and Bobby (“Kingpin,” “There’s Something About Mary,” “The Heartbreak Kid“)

Am I wrong to give this film a 5-Star Rating for the film itself? No. I don’t think so. I wrestled with myself for all of five seconds, wavering between 4.5 and 5 for this film, and ultimately I’ve decided to stick with my gut, and what I believe to be true — at least for me.

Many will agree, and many will object — and that’s fine — but I whole-heartedly believe that “Dumb and Dumber” is the finest comedy to have ever graced the silver screen. Is it lewd, crude, and inappropriate? Absolutely. It’s the epitome of slap-stick, low-brow, laugh-out-loud humor, but beyond that it boasts — what I think to be — the best comedic performance by Jim Carrey, in addition to the surprisingly hilarious turn by the incredibly talented, Jeff Daniels. Say what you want about the comedic duos and buddy pictures that have come and gone — this one stands alone as the best of them.

Never before has a comedic script been so deceptively witty while being so crude. On the surface, “Dumb and Dumber” appears to be just another 90’s slapstick comedy. But there is so much more hilarity beneath the fart jokes and the immature banter. As I continue to grow with the film, I frequently find myself coming back to it, laughing just as hard as I did in theaters, discovering a new comedic element — thanks to the beautifully nuanced comedic delivery by Daniels or the over-the-top idiocy of Carrey’s “Lloyd.” It’s easy to miss the subtle and masterful comedic writing amidst the gut-busting laughs the film provides, and as such, a second/third/fourth viewing is highly recommended.

For these reasons, and many others, I believe that “Dumb and Dumber” is one of the best examples of comedic film ever committed to film. As you might imagine, I could go on forever about this film, but I won’t because my words will do little to entertain, and inform. All of that is best left to a viewing of this now-classic picture.

Youth Without Youth : Blu-ray Review

2008-12-06T01:23:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Francis Ford Coppola, of “The Godfather” fame, and based off the short story — of the same title — by Mircea Eliade.

An old professor, Dominic Matei (Tim Roth), is struck by lightning and is miraculously given a new lease on life. Restored to his youthful self, he seeks to understand the nature of his condition, and ultimately complete his book on the origins of speech — known as the proto-language. It’s no easy task, but a chance encounter with a woman — who resembles his lost love — could hold the keys to unraveling the mysteries of life, and the origin of man.

I don’t know about you, but there’s just something about metaphysical subject material that enthralls me, especially when it is presented in film. Perhaps it’s because the film medium is far more expressive and boundless than text, and as such, it can convey complex abstract thoughts far easier — not to mention, make them more entertaining. Even still, I’d venture to guess that I in the minority here as box-office returns for metaphysical epics such as “Youth Without Youth” and “The Fountain” — to name a few — represent a general consumer indifference to the philosophical narrative.

If I had to guess, I would say that the main difference between myself and the average movie-goer is that I’m more patient, and far more interested in the exploratory nature of these most delicate, and personal films. I’d much rather see directors take a chance on a labor of love and fail, than to turn churn out a mainstream piece of crap.

Of course, not everyone can appreciate these types of films. They are largely inaccessible because they only appeal to those with open minds — which seems to be something of rarity these days — and they demand your full attention, which doesn’t bode well for film-goer that’s accustomed to mind-numbing action flicks. Nor are these films intended for the raucous crowd that’s compelled to give their own uninvited commentary in the middle of a packed theater.

If you are willing to give this film your undivided attention, and you are even mildly interested in the metaphysical realm of science/philosophy, then this film will likely become a new favorite of yours.

Aside from the metaphysical roots, the film also boasts a very potent, romantic core — not just between the two lovers in the film, but comparisons could also be drawn to Man’s passion for knowledge, his quest for meaning, the origins of time, our love of science and our pursuit to understand the unknown. Needless to say, Coppola and Eliade heartily romanticize the scientific and philosophical elements of the story and the result is intoxicating, and occasionally dizzying — perhaps even requiring a second or third viewing to digest all of the theories throughout. All of it is done to great effect though, as the lead character is obsessed with his life’s work — the pursuit of the “proto-language” — and the visual/narrative techniques employed throughout help to strengthen our understanding of his dedication.

Beyond that, it is also a cautionary tale about the advancement of science to the point of extinction or — on the flip side — evolution. Could it be that all we’ve come to know and understand, and subsequently create, might destroy us? Or could it be that all of these forces around us will coalesce and bring about the next great leap in human evolution?

These are but a few of the questions that the film posits, or that you might derive from it on your own. If any of that sounds boring or dull, you should probably skip this one. However, if you find yourself genuinely intrigued by what you’ve read thus far, I urge you to give this film a rent at the very least. Personally, I found the film incredibly engaging and rewarding, and while I can’t envision it garnering mass appeal, I still heartily recommend it to anyone that’s interested.

Priceless : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-24T01:15:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is written by Benoît Graffin, Pierre Salvadori and directed by Pierre Salvadori.

In my mind, there are few women that possess such unrivaled beauty and class — not to mention screen presence — than the lovely Audrey Tautou. Because of this genuine charm it’s no wonder she was the top pick for Salvadori’s romantic comedy, “Priceless.”

This might seem off base, but I actually hate the name for the genre: Romantic Comedy. I think that it sells many films short. It seems like there’s a more appropriate genre that has yet to be named, one that’s a better fit. Then again, there’s no doubting the components of this film. It contains both romance and comedy in equal parts, and is most definitely not dramatic, at least not in the traditional sense. Even still, there’s an ingredient that eludes me — something that I can’t readily identify. Perhaps it’s that the film is refreshing, different and so far removed from the Hollywood Rom-Com formula that it almost feels like new.

Whatever the reason, this film is a breath of fresh air amidst the Hollywood sappy-dreck that’s churned out every year. A lot of the strengths of the film are owed to its foreign roots. With this comes a a great foreign cast, a fresh perspective on love, and a pristine, unique script that doesn’t read as though it’s been script-doctored to all hell. The result is a surprisingly endearing and unexpected comedy that explores the world of “gold digging” and a budding romance between two unlikely candidates: a bartender and a gold digger.

Worth noting is the genuinely humorous comedic effort of the leading man, Gad Elmaleh. Equal parts slapstick and deadpan, Elmaleh continuously made me laugh and smile throughout the film. I can only imagine that his extremely expressive face, and comedic timing was cultivated over the years through interaction with his father, a mime. He was as perfectly cast to represent the hopeless romantic, Jean, as he was paired with the lovely Tautou.

If you fancy foreign films, Audrey Tautou, or just happen to love French films in general, this is definitely worth picking up. It may not reinvent the rom-com wheel, but it definitely has a fresh take on it.

The Proposition : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-22T01:14:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is written by Nick Cave and directed by John Hillcoat.

When I picked up my copy of “The Proposition” it wasn’t because I had to have it. To be honest, I didn’t know much about it at all. It was simply there on the shelf, at the time when I was feeling like I wanted to do a blind buy. At fifteen bucks, I thought it to be a great price, and well worth the risk.

Just to be safe though, I gave a quick read over the front and back of the case. I had never heard of John Hillcoat before, but I didn’t pay that much attention. All great directors have to start somewhere. Then I noticed the great cast. That too seemed really intriguing. Lastly, it didn’t hurt that the film was penned by Nick Cave, a musician whom I am very much starting to warm to ever since my introduction to his work in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”

I walked out of the store fairly certain that I had made a good purchase.

As it was, it wasn’t until a couple days ago that I found myself popping the disc in for the first time. Immediately I was drawn into the film through the stark contrast of the opening titles and the opening sequence. At once the film was so peaceful and haunting, and yet the viewer is abruptly flung into the middle of a tin-shed that’s getting shot to pieces. This is gonna be good, I thought. I was right.

Through and through, whether it’s the brilliant cinematography, the engrossing dialogue, or the solid performances, “The Proposition” strikes its very own path into the heart of the Outback. Its uniqueness being derived from the absence of Australian Western competition, but more importantly its aim to differentiate its locales and characters from all things spaghetti-western.

Among other things, “The Proposition” is also a beautifully lensed film, and I can’t think of any other films that have managed to capture the unforgiving landscape in such a loving and artful way.

Alas, I don’t think that “The Proposition” is all gravy. As much as I enjoyed the scenes between Ray Winstone and Emily Watson, I felt that their storyline only took away from the epic tale of the three brothers, and ultimately slowed down the narrative a bit too much. Of course, as you’ll come to find out, the two of them are indispensable — as they are heavily involved in the film’s climax — but I can’t help but feel that more could have been done to trim their story, and explore Charlie’s dilemma at greater length.

Complaints aside, I do hold this film in very high esteem, but I don’t think that it’s the best Western I’ve ever seen — there are far too many other films to compete with. At any rate, the film brings a lot to the table, both visually and in its narrative, and if you fancy yourself a fan of Western films — or Nick Cave for that matter — you should most definitely give this one a look. It’s well worth the money.

Paris Je T'aime : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-22T01:11:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is a collective love story about the city of love. Told through a series of short films envisioned by world renowned directors — featuring an all-star cast — this film succeeds in wooing Parisians and foreigners alike, opening their hearts and minds to the charm of titular city.

Shot all throughout Paris, each film was given a section of the city in which to stage their short, two shooting days to get it done, and up to six minutes of running time with which to tell their story. It was no small task, but the filmmakers rose to the occasion — some relishing the challenge — and the collective effort is nothing short of a stunning success. While not every film will warm your heart, or leave a lasting impression, the overall experience surely will.

With that in mind, we thought it might be best if we addressed each individual short, rather than trying to summarize the film at large. Because each short is so different and unique, this seemed to us like the most appropriate course of action. And so, you’ll find impressions for each of the eighteen films below:

“Montmartre”
Written and Directed by: Bruno Podalydès
This film bears the burden of opening the collective film, which is not an easy thing to do, but it succeeds fairly well. It isn’t the strongest entry, but it does serve as a nice, light-hearted introduction to the film, and it was a good choice to stick this towards the front. “Quais de Seine”
Written by: Paul Mayeda Berges & Gurinder Chadha — Directed by: Gurinder Chadha
Next up is the short from the Gurinder Chadha, who is best known for her film, “Bend It Like Beckham.” While I’m not a huge fan of her work, you can’t deny that Gurinder is exceptional at delivering heart warming moments, and this film is no different. Much like the previous story, the love story takes place between two strangers: a young Muslim girl, and your typical “nice guy.” It’s not wildly inventive, but it does manage to squeeze in a decent message within a small time frame. “Le Marais”
Written and Directed by: Gus Van Sant

Undoubtedly, Van Sant is best known for his academy award winning film, “Good Will Hunting.” His quiet, introspective, and non-disruptive style garners him as many fans, as it does polarize them. This film will probably suffer a similar fate with most audiences. It is extremely nonchalant, and subdued — with much of the story rising out of the characters’ failure to communicate. I found it to be quite good, and a bit surprising as well. Van Sant fans will be pleased, but likely find themselves begging for more.

“Tuileries”
Written and Directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers need no introduction. They’ve been at it for years, delivering some of the most disturbingly-funny and raucous cult comedies the world has ever seen, and most recently they’ve tapped into their dark side with the suspense-thriller, “No Country For Old Men.” While I’m a huge fan of their serious work, I think the brother’s true calling is comedy, and this is precisely the type of film they’ve given us here. A lowly, mum tourist — played perfectly by Steve Buscemi — is unfortunate enough to cross the path of an unstable couple in the subway. What ensues is sure to put a smile on your face, but bear in mind, it is pretty light on the “love story” aspect. Even still, this is easily one of my favorite films in the bunch.

“Loin du 16ème”
Written and Directed by: Walter Salles & Daniela Thomas

Best known for directing “The Motorcycle Diaries,” Salles has a style all his own. I was really looking forward to this film, but my expectations were dashed rather quickly. It’s not that the film is bad, it’s just sorta ‘blah.’ Salles goes to great length to establish a convincing feeling of fatigue, through color/editing choices and while he succeeds, the film seems to drag a bit, even though it’s only six minutes. By the time the film is over, my friend and I just looked at each other and shrugged. Everything had been good/great up until this point, so it’s unfortunate that this misses the mark. Even still, it may be a weak link, but it’s still a competent entry on its own.

“Porte de Choisy”
Written by:Christopher Doyle, Gabrielle Keng, Rain Li — Directed by: Christopher Doyle

Doyle hasn’t directed nearly as many films as he’s shot — this being his second directorial effort — but he has a very interesting perspective that comes through vividly here. In what is arguably one of the more surreal films in this collective effort, Doyle crafts a love story between a Salon owner in Chinatown and a door-to-door hair product salesman. As I said before, this film is very surreal and bizarre, but it is charming and funny as a result. I can see a lot of people scratching their heads, or rolling their eyes after this one is over, but I enjoyed it a lot.

“Bastille”
Written and Directed by: Isabel Coixet

This is the first of the sad love stories, and it is also one of the most effective. Coixet manages to craft a very potent and resonant tale of rekindled love in the face of terminal cancer. While I was very moved by this piece, many people object to the film, arguing that the husband only took care of his dying wife — whom he had planned to leave prior to her diagnosis — out of obligation, and not love. However, if they actually pay attention, they would know that their love was lost, and then found once more. At any rate, this is definitely one of the best films, and a personal favorite of mine.

“Place des Victoires”
Written and Directed by: Nobuhiro Suwa

Following directly in tow of Coixet’s sad tale, is yet another film about love lost, only this time it is about a Mother’s love for a recently deceased son. Suwa’s film stars the lovely and incredibly talented Juliette Binoche as the grieving mother. We’re not told how the son died, but it’s not really important. The focus here is the mother’s inability to let go of her son, and move on with her life. Through a surreal/imaginary visit by a cowboy (Willem Dafoe) — who leads her to her son — she is able to say goodbye, and obtain closure. This film is a real treat. It’s very sad, but extremely well done.

“Tour Eiffel”
Written and Directed by: Sylvain Chomet

After a couple sad films, you’re probably going to welcome this jovial and uplifting tale of love with open arms, and rightfully so. This is quite possibly the best film out of the whole lot. It is wholly original, imaginative, uplifting, and a lot of fun to behold. Told from the perspective of a child, he recounts how the story of how his parents met and fell in love. I won’t spoil anything for you because it’s a lot more fun to watch it for yourself, but trust me when I say that this one will leave you feeling light-hearted with a smile on your face. It’s that good.

“Parc Monceau”
Written and Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón

In a relatively short span of time, Cuarón has made an incredible name for himself in the film community, with his realistic, documentary-esque style and exceptional direction setting him apart from the competition. A member of the “holy trinity” (my words not his — consisting of Del Toro, Cuarón, and Iñárritu) his most recent films represent some of the finest cinematic works of recent memory — you need only watch “Children of Men” to see why he’s held in such high regard. All of that considered, my expectations were ridiculously high when it came time for Parc Monceau. Shot in his oft-utilized steadycam rig, the film is composed of one single shot. Unfortunately, while the techniques and style are all exquisite the story doesn’t achieve much depth. Granted, it is extremely difficult to do much in six minutes alone, but it is infinitely harder to work towards a cohesive/interesting story in a single, six minute shot. Regardless, the film works. The story is meant to be somewhat deceptive, prompting the viewer to arrive at an incorrect assumption about the relationship between the two lead characters. The performances are good, and the cinematography is great, but ultimately the film doesn’t hold up quite as well as I’d hoped upon multiple viewings. Ultimately, the film just lacks substance, and as such it doesn’t quite hold its own against the other stories on either side of it. It’s still good though, so don’t skip over it. Who knows, you might end up loving it, right?

“Quartier des Enfants Rouges”
Written and Directed by: Olivier Assayas

This story revolves around an American actress (Maggie Gyllenhaal) in Paris, and her brief encounter with her drug dealer. When she’s unable to break a bill with the drug dealer, she shares a quick drink with him at a nearby bar. The two exchange numbers, with the dealer being invited to the film shoot that night. I won’t give it all away, but this isn’t exactly my favorite entry either. I feel like Gyllenhaal was a bit underserved, and that the ultimate message is a little too depressing. The film’s tone is very laid back and natural, so the ending is fitting, but it’s not redeeming enough, for me anyway. This was another one of the films where I just kinda shrugged my shoulders. It’s pleasing to watch, and Gyllenhaal does well with what she’s given, but in the end, the resolution is a bit too predictable — despite the attempts to make it appear otherwise.

“Place des Fêtes”
Written and Directed by: Oliver Schmitz

If there is one film that wins the “tear jerker” award, it’s this one. I’m not going to let on about the story, because it will spoil the film. I will say that this is another one of my favorites. It gets me every time, and I’ve seen all of the films four times now. Unfortunately, because I can’t speak to the specifics of the film, there isn’t a whole lot to say except that you will probably find this one to be very sad and quite moving. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

“Pigalle”
Written and Directed by: Richard LaGravenese

Featuring the indomitable screen presence, Bob Hoskins and the electric Fanny Ardant, LaGravenese’s short is very memorable. Beyond that, it is also ultimately sweet and touching, but it does take a little while to get up to speed. The story is a bit cryptic at first. You won’t be sure of the characters, or their motivations until the end of the film, but it all pays off in the end. It’s not one of my favorites, but it is very good nonetheless.

“Quartier de la Madeleine”
Written and Directed by: Vincenzo Natali

Without a doubt, this is the most surreal entry in the entire film. Envisioned and brought to the screen by Vincenzo Natali — best known for “Cube” — this film is sure to delight, and possibly even fright some of the more timid viewers. It’s all in good fun though, and the events that transpire are often comical, despite the grave nature of the situation. The story follows a backpacker who stumbles upon a vampiress feeding on her prey. What ensues is the unpredictable love story between a human and a vampire. It’s shot with the intent of emulating the look and feel of an old horror movie, but contains some modern twists on the genre. It’s a delightful short, and it is arguably one of the most creative segments contained within the whole.

“Père-Lachaise”
Written and Directed by: Wes Craven

In what seemed to me, an odd turn for Craven, this film is a departure from his trademark genre: horror. In fact, it would seem far more plausible that the previous film — a vampire love story — would have been his creation, but I assure you, there is no mix up. At any rate, Craven turns in a rather nice dramatic piece, proving that he is not the one-trick-pony I had pegged him to be. Filling out the short are the superb actors, Rufus Sewell and Emily Mortimer who play a bickering couple touring a famous graveyard. It isn’t until an unlikely guest gives our man, Rufus some much needed advice that he’s ready to be the man she’s longing for. I really enjoyed this film, and I feel as though Craven should put more effort into dramatic filmmaking. He does a great job here.

“Faubourg Saint-Denis”
Written and Directed by: Tom Tykwer

Tykwer is quickly becoming one of my new favorite directors. Through his incredibly unique narrative style — evident in “Run Lola Run,” “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer” — he crafts a wholly distinct and memorable piece of art. No two are the same, but traces of his style can easily be gleaned from his body of work. Here we’re treated to his beloved rapid fire storytelling technique, which makes for an incredibly effective and affecting story, all in a mere six minutes. Featuring the oh-so-gorgeous, and incredibly talented Natalie Portman, this story paints a picture of a relationship between a sightless Parisian, and a struggling actress. It is easily the strongest narrative piece in the set, and it is also the most creative. Through Tykwer’s brilliant approach to the editing and shooting of the film — all done in two days, mind you — we feel as though we know these people so intimately, and as a result, the film resonates long after the final frame. This is my favorite film. No question.

“Quartier Latin”
Written by: Gena Rowlands — Directed by: Gérard Depardieu

After the hyperactive narrative of Tykwer’s film, Quartier Latin takes it down more than a few notches — to a small, leisurely crawl. We pick up with the character leads as they meet up for a drink, and discuss their pending divorce. Each of them have moved on, and have a new love in their life. However, through their conversation and subsequent banter they come to find that they still love each other. In spite of their rekindled feelings, they both know it won’t work out — that their love still remains, but that it has changed form — and agree to proceed with the divorce. The film is one of my favorites because of its delicate, and authentic performances, in addition to its bittersweet ending.

“14th arrondissement”
Written by: Alexander Payne & Nadine Eïd — Directed by: Alexander Payne

I must admit. I’m not that big of a fan of Payne’s body of work. I find that his bittersweet comedies rely a bit too much of the bitter element, and as a result they tend to depress me more than they make me laugh — especially “Sideways.” Even still, I have a lot of respect for his style, and his craft, and invariably I will continue to see his films, hoping that I’ll one day love one of them. This film in particular is one of my favorites of his. It has some depressing dialogue — as is characteristic of his writing — but overall, the message is an uplifting one, and it makes for the perfect bookend to the series of shorts. In just a few minutes, he manages to craft a tale of a foreigner that falls in love with the city itself — which no other film attempts to do here. I like it because it captures the essence of belonging so effectively — that perhaps this lonely woman has finally found a place to call home. All of the feelings he associates with this realization are summarized so poetically in the final moments of the short, that there is no denying his feelings for Paris. He genuinely loves it.

— Final Thoughts —

Whether you’ve traveled to Paris, or you’ve been living there for years, you’ll likely rediscover your love for the city as the film showcases the beauty and uniqueness of its people, locales, attractions and of course, the various romantic tales that take place everyday within the city.

It might not be for everyone, but we’re strongly urging you to give it a shot. With so many talented directors and actors/actresses, you’re bound to find something you love about this movie, and with any luck, Paris as well.

Step Brothers : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-21T01:50:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is written by Adam McKay, Will Ferrell, and directed by Adam McKay, of “Anchorman“, “Talladega Nights” and fame.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t get enough of the collaboration between Ferrell and McKay. Like most McKay fans, my love for the director began with the now-classic comedy flick, Anchorman. Later, I found myself laughing quite hard at Talladega Nights, but not nearly as much as I’d hoped — though I was very excited to see John C. Reilly join the crew. My friends and I couldn’t help but wonder what the next film would be about — would it be another “RB” (Ron Burgundy/Ricky Bobby) flick, thus making a trilogy of films?

We were thoroughly excited, and surprised to see that the latest epic from the dynamic trio was slated to be about reluctantly-united stepbrothers who hated each others guts. The premise, and the cast seemed too good to be true, and the vulgarity present throughout the “red band” trailer was oh-so-amazing. Childish, sure. Irreverent? Absolutely. But, hey, that’s exactly how I like my comedies, so sue me.

In my mind, there’s no doubting it. This is hands down, Will Ferrell’s best film since Anchorman. And for John C. Reilly, he’s absolutely on fire in this movie, so much so that it’s almost hard to picture him in his more serious, indie roles.

With so many memorable scenes and lines, you will have no shortage of quoting material for years to come.

In my opinion, this ranks up there with the best of the best, Dumb and Dumber, and that’s not a statement I throw around very often. This film has instant classic written all over it.

The Recruit : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-18T01:09:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Roger Donaldson, of “The Bank Job“, and “Cocktail” fame.

I love Al Pacino, but in the past few years, he’s seldom had a film that was decent, let alone entertaining. He’s delivered some of the most awe-inspiring performances in his time, but as of late, he seems to be slipping. As far as I’m concerned, the last great film he performed in was Christopher Nolan’s remake, “Insomnia.” Of course, he was also exceptional in the acclaimed, and emotionally-charged HBO mini-series, “Angels In America” but we’re talking feature films here, not TV. In the years between “Insomnia” and the present, he’s been attached to such misfires as “Gigli“, “Two For The Money“, and “88 Minutes.” To his credit though, all of the directors responsible for these films have made far better movies, and it’s also very difficult to know whether or not a film will be a success from the script alone. I suppose he’s just been out of luck, and unlike his character in “The Recruit“, he’s not quite the “scary judge of talent” as he once used to be.

Thankfully, “The Recruit” is actually one of the more enjoyable films of Al’s in the past six years. It features the then-rising-superstar Colin Farrell, fresh off the publicity train from his first Spielberg gig, “Minority Report“, who had a great deal of momentum heading into this film — though his career has also been dodgy in the years past.

The strengths of Donaldson’s film were lost on me the first go-around, and it wasn’t until this second viewing that I actually came to appreciate much of his work. Even still, the film isn’t as inventive or original as it could be, and much of the twist-turn narrative will seem oddly familiar because it is awfully derivative of the espionage-thrillers that have come before it. What separates the film from its predecessors is its depiction of an otherwise undisclosed process, the training of CIA agents. This alone makes the film worthwhile fiction for anyone that’s ever been interested in how the process might unfold. We can only imagine how much of what we see is true to form — though the special features on the disc corroborate some aspects, and discount others — but most of it is interesting, if not effectively glamorized.

In the end, you will likely find yourself frequently one step ahead of the narrative, but you’ll likely still have a fun time watching all of the double-crossing unfold. I just wish the film’s script had been given more care, with stronger dialogue/characters and a more rewarding finish.

It’s definitely not the best film around, but you could do worse. You could be subjected to “Gigli.”

Gangs of New York : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-14T01:02:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Martin Scorsese, of “The Departed“, “Goodfellas” and “Taxi Driver” fame.

I enjoy “Gangs of New York” but I certainly don’t love it, and I’m far from decreeing that it’s one of Scorsese’s best films. In truth, I think it’s actually one of his lesser films, but it still manages to present a unique and compelling story, with first-class acting talent that makes the epic-running time all the more tolerable.

Back when the film came out, I made the mistake of catching it at the last available screening on opening night. It wasn’t necessarily by choice. I had to wait for one of my friends to get out of work since I had promised to wait and see it with him.

When the film’s title finally hit the screen, and the lights went up, we filed out of our seats half asleep. It was obvious that we had made a mistake, and we knew that we’d have to see it again before we were to determine if we truly enjoyed the film, or not. At the same time though, we were certain of one thing, and that was Daniel Day Lewis. He lit the screen up, and delivered one of the most memorable film characters we’d ever seen. It’s funny how that’s almost common place for Day Lewis these days, but it’s a testament to his craft and skill.

When I finally got around to seeing the film again, I made sure to see it much earlier in the day, armed with an attentive mind. Much to my surprise however, I didn’t get nearly as much out of the second viewing as I had previously hoped. Many of my initial impressions still remained. Too long. Too ambiguous. Not memorable enough — despite the earnest efforts of the cast/crew.

Like I said before, I like the film, but I don’t love it like some fans do. As for why, I just think that an epic running time should support an epic story, and I don’t think the story is as epic as they would have you believe. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else could come along and shoot the same story, and have the film clock in under 120 minutes in length. It’s heretical to suggest such a thing, I am aware, but I’m just stating my opinion. If the pacing issues were addressed, and needless scenes were removed, a more succinct and compelling picture would surface.

Regardless of my criticisms, the film retains a huge following, and also my admiration. The scope of the film is grand, and the origins of the New York gangs compelling — if only a tad slow.

A Christmas Story : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-08T01:01:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Bob Clark, of “Black Christmas” and “Baby Geniuses” fame.

I’ve always been a fan of “A Christmas Story.” It’s one of those films that you simply can’t avoid, no matter how hard you try. In many ways, I suspect that’s part of the reason why the fan-base finds it so endearing, and memorable. It will forever be inextricably linked to the Christmas holiday, whether we like it or not.

Fortunately, I find the movie to be entertaining, but I am aware that there is an equally powerful group of dissenters who despise the movie. While I can’t say I agree with them, I partially understand where they are coming from. Clark’s film isn’t your typical “feel good” Christmas flick. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s not really a “feel good” film at all. Much of this can be attributed to the satirical and downbeat source material, and through the adaptation of the memoirs of Jean Shepherd — In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash — much of the biting sarcasm, and unpleasantness of the holidays is ever-present in the film. As you might expect, this inevitably turns away much of the “happy-go-lucky” crowd that simply wants to snuggle up by the fire, and sip their non-alcoholic eggnog. No, this movie appeals to the dysfunction in all of us, and for this reason it shatters everyone’s expectations for a cuddly family Christmas flick.

Come to think of it, I recall thinking the movie wasn’t quite what I had expected when my Grandmother sat down to watch the film with me for the first time. I vividly remember a number of scenes that disturbed me. The foremost was the “frozen flagpole” scene, which genuinely freaked me out, as well as my younger brother. Also, the film was morally ambiguous in a lot of ways — not that I understood what that meant back then, but I certainly felt it. I was confused by a number of things, but to this day, the main thing that still eludes me is Ralphie’s borderline-unhealthy-obsession with acquiring a gun. Real or fake, the quest for a gun strikes me as slightly suspect, especially when there is no purpose or need for having it, outside of hunting — and obviously he wasn’t planning on hunting anything with a BB gun. I know, I know, it’s the very crux of the film — childhood obsession — but perhaps that’s one of the reasons why so many families opt out of the annual “Christmas Story” viewing whenever it hits the airwaves, or is viewed on your home video format of choice — hopefully by reading this review, yours is Blu-ray.

Despite my reservations about certain aspects of the film, and regardless of how you may or may not feel about the film, I believe everyone should be willing to agree that it is unique. It’s ability to separate itself from the typical fun-filled, sugarcoated sap-fests has given it unsurpassed longevity in the home video market, and in the minds of consumers everywhere. It may forever polarize or delight audiences, but if for no other reason, it will be remembered just as long.

While “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” still takes the #1 spot as my all-time-favorite Christmas film, “A Christmas Story” follows in closely behind in second place. It may not be everyone’s favorite, but it suits me just fine, and unlike most holiday films, it only seems to get better with age.

Southland Tales : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-08T00:59:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is written and directed by Richard Kelly, of “Donnie Darko” fame.

I’ll be the first to admit it. I did not fully understand this movie, even to this day. But, while many people relish the chance to rip a movie to shreds, I usually find myself trying to find the good in every film, no matter how low the score on IMDb, Metacritic, or the awful-metric, Rotten Tomatoes.

In the case of Richard Kelly’s Sophomore effort, “Southland Tales,” the film has been critically lambasted, and thoroughly maligned by nearly every critic/filmmaker-wannabe, and entirely misunderstood by the legions of teens and adults alike who cherish Kelly’s breakthrough flick, “Donnie Darko” and were expecting a comparable film. In many ways, I think that’s where most of the film’s opposition stems from to this day — heightened expectations.

I too love “Donnie Darko,” but I also loathe the director’s cut of the very same film. How is that possible, you ask? Well, it’s simple really. Through the implementation of a series of bizarre editing choices, song changes, and some all-too-obvious passages from Roberta Sparrow’s book, “The Philosophy of Time Travel“, nearly all of the mystery and wonder that filled the original cut was lost. In a few words, I thought the “Director’s Cut” of “Donnie Darko” was a complete failure, and in many ways, my expectations for Kelly’s second film were crushed.

Had I not seen the piss-poor version of “Donnie Darko,” I don’t think I would have been prepared for the apocalyptic-musical-comedic-epic, that is “Southland Tales.” And clearly, not many people were ready for it either, else it would have fared far better at Cannes, and international box offices worldwide.

So what is it about the film that makes is so confusing, so inaccessible, or downright unlikeable that it would prompt audiences at Cannes to “boo” and “hiss” at the original cut of the film? Well, to be perfectly honest, I’m not entirely sure. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, in retrospect, and having never seen the 160 minute cut of the film, I suppose I’m not inclined to speak to the effectiveness — or lack thereof — of the Cannes screening.

However, I do know that it’s imperative to approach the film with as open a mind, as you can spare. In addition, you should most definitely head into the film expecting a dark-comedy of sorts, with psychedelic musical interludes, metaphysical discussion, time travel, religious stigmata, and apocalyptic overtones on the side. If that sounds like a lot to handle, you’re probably right.

This is ultimately the fatal flaw of the film, but strangely enough, it’s one that I admire it for. Layers, upon layers of narrative material are stacked upon one another, to the point where the film begins to buckle under it’s own philosophy, character arcs, and dense storyline, and in many ways you’ll feel this very moment, when your brain reaches critical mass, and your disbelief can be suspended no more.

As I said before though, I actually admire the film in many ways. While it certainly confuses more than it informs — fans of Darko should be familiar — and there isn’t really an engaging plot to make the film worthwhile for the masses, I can’t help but find something endearing about this utter mess of a film. Maybe it’s the overarching satire of all things American that I find amusing, because it’s pointed and funny at the same time. Or perhaps my sentiment is due in large part to the grand scope of the film, which I personally find enthralling.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, most will be quick to label this film an epic failure, but for better or worse, I’m just gonna go ahead and stick with “epic” or better yet, “misunderstood epic.” I believe the film deserves nothing less.

Black Christmas [1974] : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-06T00:56:00.000-05:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Bob Clark, of “A Christmas Story” fame, and written by Roy Moore.

Like so many people, I thoroughly enjoyed John Carpenter’s “Halloween.” And like many fans of the film, I was under the impression that Carpenter’s film was the first of its kind — the very genesis of the “Slasher” film sub-genre.

It wasn’t until college that I learned about the film, “Black Christmas” through my pop-literature professor. As it so happened, Halloween was quickly approaching, and the professor decided to hold a lecture about “mastering the unseen.” Many examples of classic horror were cited for their effectiveness in implementing the “unseen” technique. By this, I mean of course the deliberate use of shadows, literal and metaphorical, to prevent the audience from seeing — or understanding — the horror stimulus too much. The theory was that if you, or the audience, were to fully behold the element driving the horror scenes, that they would in effect no longer ensnare you. In many ways, this can be directly applied to the common understanding of fear — that we fear what we do not understand.

Prompting a debate about the effective usage of these techniques and methods in film, our professor asked us to create a list of films we thought adhered to these principles. Naturally, I was quick to mention “Halloween” among others, and as we went around, the list on the board was fleshed out. After all was said and done, we had a substantial collection of films, but we were informed that there was one remaining film that we failed to mention, one that was the true forgotten master of the unseen. That film, we were told, was “Black Christmas.”

Having never heard of the film until that point, I was greatly enthralled by the possibility of watching the forgotten classic, and understanding further why it had gone overlooked by so many horror fans, for so long.

As it turned out, I had a great deal of trouble tracking down the film on DVD, as no copies had been released at that time — at least none that I could find through traditional means. It wasn’t until 2006 that I finally got my hands on the (then new) special edition of “Black Christmas” and I was able to see for myself first hand why this horror classic was so iconic, and revolutionary.

Predating all slasher films, “Black Christmas” essentially defined the sub-genre through the heavy usage of the subjective/P.O.V. camera, isolation narrative techniques, realistic scenarios, and grisly, disturbing — though never gratuitous or exploitative — murder sequences. Arguably, one of the most effect film techniques that was employed, and popularized by the film was indeed the killer’s P.O.V. camera. It’s hard to imagine now — since P.O.V. has been used in films to the point of viewer desensitization — but up until this film, the technique was used very sparingly, and never to such degree. Shot through an almost dizzying wide-angle lens, with an unsteady movement it effectively creates a bridge between the viewer and the killer, which succeeded in unsettling many people. Aside from this subjective view, we are given little else to associate with the killer. His identity remains a mystery, even after the film has concluded. Short of a few quick glimpses of legs, hands and silhouettes — and one very haunting image of the killer’s eye — the audience is given very little photographic evidence of what the killer looks like. This, combined with the aesthetic choices made by Clark, make this one of the greatest slasher/thrillers ever made — a veritable trendsetting film.

While “Black Christmas” might not have pioneered the down-beat, unresolved ending, it definitely popularized it, as is evidenced by the films that followed in its wake, recycling the formula.

What’s interesting to note is that Clark himself isn’t happy with being labeled the forefather of the “Slasher Film.” In his commentary, he informs that he’s always seen the film as more of a thriller than anything else, and that his goal was to show as little of the killer, and the death scenes as possible. As a result, we’re left with a film that succeeds in its aspirations to be a unique thriller, but also inadvertently ended up giving birth to an entire sub-genre through its fresh approach to a tired horror genre.

Also worthy of note is the fact that Clark was said to have been approached by Carpenter, and asked whether or not he planned to make a sequel to “Black Christmas.” Clark informed him that he had kicked the idea around but decided against it, but instead offered Carpenter a hypothetical storyline — had he gone through with it, it would have taken place the following Fall, picking up with the escape of the killer from a mental institution, and it would feature the title “Halloween.” Obviously, this idea struck Carpenter, and so the seed was planted for the 1978’s semi-spiritual-successor, “Halloween.”

If you haven’t seen “Black Christmas” you’re truly missing out. There’s a reason why this film has such a loyal and dedicated fan base. It is sad that it wasn’t released in time for Halloween — as it would have made a great addition to horror-movie-marathons the world over, but it will surely be available in time for the Christmas holiday, providing everyone with the chance to have a frightfully “Black (and Blu) Christmas.”

The Invincible Iron Man : Blu-ray Review

2008-11-01T00:52:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Patrick Archibald and Jay Oliva.

When setting out to create an origin story for a monumental comic book character, such as Tony Stark/Iron Man, I can only imagine how daunting the task might be. You’ve got years, and hundreds, if not thousands of comics worth of material to pick from. A mediocre introduction will not suffice, as it will disappoint the fans, and a lackluster jump-start will be lost on everyone but the most die-hard followers.

Unfortunately, the latter is the case with “The Invincible Iron Man.” Now, first and foremost, I want to make it abundantly clear that I have no exposure to Tony Stark, or Iron Man outside of the live-action blockbuster released this year. As a result, I can only picture Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Terrence Howard as James Rhodes. And the incredibly detailed, and magnificent Mark III suit as it was envisioned for the most recent film.

As if to further raise the bar, I’ve been told by many an Iron Man fan, that Jon Favreau’s depiction of the title character has been the most faithful, and entertaining to date — an argument that I can’t help put purport given my disposition towards the film, and my belief that it was the greatest comic book film until The Dark Knight hit theaters. In a few words, “Iron Man” is a masterpiece.

So where does that leave “The Invincible Iron Man?” It’s not awful, it’s really awful. From the moment the opening credits lifted, and the animation filled the screen, I caught myself tensing up — as if to brace for impact. It was a good thing I did, because to be quite frank, the film that unfolds is an extremely bumpy ride.

Chock full of poor animation, emotionless voice acting, and a lackluster/unbelievable story make for one of the most forgettable origin stories I’ve ever seen. I’d like to think that some Iron Man fans will find something worthwhile here, but I’m not sure it’s possible. Quite literally, I don’t think it’s possible for the filmmakers to have made a worse movie. Not only is Tony Stark’s sarcastic line delivery, and smarmy nature butchered or left out, but he appears to have the emotional depth of a sheet of paper. It’s that bad. The romance sub-plot is tired and worthless. The camaraderie between Rhodey and Stark is non-existent or stale. Oh, and the father/son relationship is bogus and unnecessarily enigmatic. As for the nemesis, “The Mandarin” and his elemental goons, they’re as worthless as can be, and equally out of place in the origin story for Iron Man.

As I said before, I was hoping to find something worthwhile, but alas, I did not. As far as origin stories go, this is one of the most laughable, and uninspiring attempts I’ve ever experienced. I hate to put it so bluntly, but if I were to pull some punches, I wouldn’t be truthful.

Simply put, this is one to avoid. If you’re in the mood for a quality Iron Man origin story, look no further than Jon Favreau’s comic book masterpiece, “Iron Man.”

JFK : Blu-ray Review

2008-10-30T00:49:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Oliver Stone and based off true events surrounding the Louisiana District Attorney, Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) who became obsessed with uncovering the truth with regard to the JFK assassination conspiracy.

I can distinctly remember the first time I popped in the DVD copy of “JFK“ back in 2002. I remember reading a plethora of mixed reviews online, and when I turned to my friends to see what they thought of it, none of them had ever seen it. At the time, I was going through an Oliver Stone phase, and as I recall, I was apprehensive about “JFK” because it was said to take place predominantly after the assassination. Judging it superficially, from the looks of the DVD/VHS cover, I had always assumed that Kevin Costner played JFK, and so you can imagine my confusion when I came to find out that Costner played Louisiana’s District Attorney, Jim Garrison — a man, who seemed to me, so far removed from the events that took place in Dallas, that it must be one of those films that is only loosely based on true events, or maybe it just wasn’t any good.

These were the conclusions that I came to before watching the film.

After the film, however, was a different story entirely.

I felt that my eyes had been opened for the first time. I could hardly contain myself. At any opportunity I had, I would try and convince people to watch the film, and I would do my best to relay the fact that JFK was not killed by a lone gunman, nor was Lee Harvey Oswald a shooter. I was certain of this. The film had told me so. It was based on a true story after all, right?

Well, yes and no. Oliver Stone took a number of creative liberties in bringing Jim Garrison’s story to the silver screen, but he also presents a wealth of facts as well. Unfortunately, for many people, they are far too quick to dismiss the film because of the dense narrative, and the ever-present question of what is truly factual amidst the fiction.

For me, it wasn’t until the following year, in November 2003 — the fortieth anniversary of JFK’s assassination — that my interest was renewed in the JFK conspiracy, thanks to the re-airing of the History Channel’s Special, “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” by Nigel Turner. The compelling series delves deeply into the dense conspiracy materials/stories and eye-witness accounts of the events that transpired, before, during and long after the assassination took place. The program was able to corroborate many of the things detailed in the texts of which Stone’s film was based, and it was also able to introduce far more incriminating evidence that leaves little doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunmen, or that he was even involved in the assassination at all.

Now, while much of that might seem tangential or arbitrary given the fact that we’re reviewing “JFK: The Director’s Cut“, and not any of the aforementioned sources, I feel that it’s important to understand that this film isn’t — at least in my opinion — based primarily on fiction, despite what others might tell you.

For those of you sitting there wondering why I’m not going into a lot of depth with regard to the film material, I’ve opted not to, in favor of preserving the twists and turns in the film’s narrative/true events for first time readers/viewers. Personally, I feel that’s necessary, after all, the does a far greater job stringing the events together anyway.

There’s simply no doubt about it, “JFK” is a controversial film. It has polarized audiences since its release in 1991, but it continues to enthrall audiences the world over, and I think it remains as one of the most important American films ever made, if not one of the most important of all time. Many people would argue against that, and that’s fine, it’s simply my opinion.

Say what you will about the factual basis, and feel free to debate about what is presented in the film, because that’s the intended effect, and it is precisely what the film is trying to get you to do. Question the facts. Seek your own truth.

Obviously, not everyone will be a believer — let alone a fan of the film — nor will everyone care to see the assassination for what it might have been. And truthfully, I can’t really blame them. It’s scary to think that our President, can be killed at any moment, by anyone, perhaps even by the very people he’s chosen to empower. And lastly, to borrow from Michael Corleone and The Godfather, “If anything in life is certain, if history has taught anything, it’s that anyone can be killed.”

If nothing else, “JFK” is proof of that.

Day Watch : Blu-ray Review

2008-10-16T00:38:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is the sequel to “Night Watch“. Written and Directed by Timur Bekmambetov, and again, adapted from the novel by Sergei Lukyanenko.

Following in tow of the extremely successful “Night Watch”, the sequel picks up with Anton after an undetermined amount of time. Embittered and jaded, having lost his son to the forces of darkness, he tries to maintain his job as a night watchman, and train his new apprentice Svetlana (Mariya Poroshina). He longs for the chance to reconnect with his son, and bring him back to the forces of light, but Anton becomes endangered when he’s named as the key suspect in the murder of a Dark Other.

If the accusation holds true, and the truce was broken, Zavulon (Viktor Verzhbitsky) will retain every right in excising vengeance upon Anton, as well as reigniting the age-old conflict between the Forces of Light and Dark. All of which essentially amounts to the world being destroyed and bathed in darkness.

Where “Night Watch” was a bit muddled, “Day Watch” is an utter mess of a film. Barely contained within it’s all-too-bloated running time are a myriad of plot points, obscure character motivations, confusing sub-plots, and cryptic dialog. As the film progressed, I lost what little interest I had in the resolution of the story, so much so that when the finale took place, I was left shaking my head.

Without giving too much away, it’s the “chalk of fate” that destroys the film’s potential. It is a coveted item by both sides, for with it, you can change your past or future. As you might imagine, given Anton’s past decisions, and how they’ve effected everything that’s come to pass, it’s not hard to guess how this saga will come to a close when/if the chalk is in his hands.

Overall, I was greatly disappointed with the end of the second film. It’s hard not to see it as anything other than a cop-out, especially after having invested time in the long and enigmatic films. It should come as little surprise that I have little interest in seeing the third installment, should it ever be released. Even still, I can’t help but feel as though I’ve missed the point of these films altogether — which is hard for me to admit since I pride myself on my foreign film exposure, and understanding. Are there any fans out there who can help put these films in perspective?

Night Watch : Blu-ray Review

2008-10-14T00:36:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is written and directed by Timur Bekmambetov (”Wanted“), and adapted from the novel by Sergei Lukyanenko.

As an enforcer of the Night Watch, “Anton Gorodetsky” (Konstantin Khabensky) has a rather interesting occupation. Charged with the task of policing and maintaining order of the dark “others” — vampires — that inhabit Russia, Anton has his work cut out for him. It’s not an easy job, especially when tensions begin to mount between the two — “light” and “dark” — factions surrounding an age old prophecy that foretells the arrival of a “Great Other” who will choose evil, over good — subsequently tipping the delicate balance between “Light” and “Dark.”

Armed with a special — UV? — flashlight and a slew of sixth-sense abilities, Anton must work in tandem with the forces of light to fight against the age-old prophecy, and hopefully reverse it, by securing the young boy, and keeping him out of the clutches of the “Dark Others.” Should he fail, the world will be plunged into darkness forever.

Having gone into this movie with extremely high expectations — thanks to Timur’s latest mind-blowing experience, “Wanted” — I was anticipating a visceral, twisted, action-romp. What I came away with though, was an overwhelming feeling of disappointment. It’s clear to me now that Timur’s sensibility as a director has come a long way since he set out to make this “Russian Horror Trilogy.”

The overall message here is a bit too muddled, or perhaps much of it is lost in translation to foreign audiences (as people on IMDb have suggested). Whatever the reason, “Night Watch” never truly grips the viewer, or even fully entertains them. Oftentimes, it seems that the film is having an identity crisis, and is unsure whether or not it’s supposed to play out like a horror film, an action film, or a drama. Now, I’m all for genre-bending, but the resulting film is so mixed up and ambiguous, that there is little to latch onto as a viewer. As a result, with little to no foundation, the events that transpire serve as little else aside from eye candy.

Personally, I saw very few similarities between Timur’s latest action-masterpiece (Wanted), and his famed bloody Russian fairytale (Night Watch). I realize it might be unfair of me to draw such comparisons, but taking into consideration the fact that Timur himself said that “Wanted” took the place of “Twilight Watch” (the tentative third installment in the series), I no longer feel like I’m comparing apples to oranges.

Of course, the film isn’t bad, per se, it’s just that it fails to move, or engage you on any particular level. Even still, I think it’s worth a rent if you’re curious to see Timur’s previous work.

The Thing : Blu-ray Review

2008-09-20T01:58:00.000-04:00

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

2008-09-17T01:40:00.000-04:00

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

2008-09-09T00:28:00.000-04:00

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

2008-09-08T00:24:00.000-04:00

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

2008-09-08T00:22:00.000-04:00

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.

Paprika : Blu-ray Review

2008-08-28T00:21:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed and written by Satoshi Kon, and based off the story — of the same name — by author Yasutaka Tsutsui.

“Paprika” tells the fantastic tale of a not-so-distant future where scientists have cracked the mind in a way that enables them to tap into a subject’s dreams — via the “DC mini” headset — and subsequently record their dreams for further analysis and interpretation. Having been designed for purely therapeutic purposes, there is little reason to think anything bad could possibly come of the innovative technology — that and the tech is still heavily guarded and tested by its creators. It isn’t until one of their engineers and a DC mini unit goes missing that the company behind the technology discovers how frighteningly powerful their creation truly is.

Satoshi Kon’s anime masterpiece effortlessly blends the real and the surreal in a dizzying and captivating way that words alone can not do justice to the material presented here. This is a film that needs to be seen in order to fully appreciate everything that Kon and Tsutsui have been able to imagine and bring to print, and subsequently to the screen.

Few anime films have gripped me as much as they dazzle and inspire like “Paprika”. This has been my first exposure to Satoshi Kon’s work, and I can assure you it won’t be my last. I won’t pretend to be a die-hard anime fan. I’m not. But I do thoroughly enjoy animated films in any fashion, and anime is no exception.

This film manages to instill such a great feeling of wonderment that you can’t help but eat up everything — imagery or not — that’s being thrown at you simultaneously. This film was just such a treat to behold, I can’t recommend it enough.

If you’re a fan of animated films, or even high quality films in general, you must give this film a look. There’s little chance that it won’t blow you away, one way or another.

The Eye [2008] : Blu-ray Review

2008-08-02T00:19:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by David Moreau and Xavier Palud. “The Eye” 2008 remake centers around “Sydney Wells” (Jessica Alba) and the aftermath of her most recent operation to restore her sight. By all medical accounts, the corneal transplant was a success. However, Sydney’s re acclimation to the world of the seeing isn’t going quite as smoothly as she might have hoped. Plagued with visions of dark figures and prophetic nightmares, Sydney is convinced something is wrong with her newly acquired eyes, and seeks to uncover the source of her donor.

“The Eye” is borne of the Asian — Hong Kong to be exact — horror film industry, and suffers the terrible fate of being yet another film in a long line of recent foreign horror transplants/remakes. The original, Gin Gwai [2002] wasn’t particularly stunning or scary — at least I didn’t think so — back when it debuted in 2002. In fact, the only reason I picked it up was due to the recent success of the Hollywood remake of The Ring [2002], and I was hoping for more quality remakes in the future.

As it stands, despite an enticing horror premise, The Eye — even it’s foreign predecessor — lacks any/all necessary emotional weight and realism that’s necessary to deliver bone-chilling scares and create a lasting horror masterpiece. For the majority of the running time, the film tends to plod along predictably towards the eventual, and explosive climax that was spoiled in the advertising campaign. Much to the viewer’s dismay, there are few pay-offs, and admittedly even fewer good frights to be had.

However, I will say that on a more positive note that I enjoyed the portrayal of “Sydney Wells”, even if Alba plays her a touch too “Plain Jane.” The character struck me as being the most realistic element in the film up until the moment she regained her sight — which happens rather early in the film. Of course, I’m not saying that Alba turns in an oscar-worthy performance in any way, but it appears as though both she and the filmmakers put a decent amount of work into highlighting “Sydney’s” strengths and limitations as a member of the visually impaired community.

Personally, I wasn’t frightened or thrilled by The Eye, but that’s not to say the film has got it all wrong. It just never managed to get under my skin, despite its earnest attempts.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium: Blu-ray Review

2008-07-17T00:02:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is written by — and serves as the directorial debut for — Zach Helm. Prior to dreaming up “Magorium“, Helm penned the script for “Stranger Than Fiction“, a film that also deals with the magical. It’s very clear that Helm is drawn to, or intrigued by the surreal, or even magical-realistic elements in film, taking into account his prior works.

“Magorium” details the final chapter in the life of “Mr. Edward Magorium“, an avid shoe wearer and toy store owner. From the onset of the film, Helm primes us for the ultimate departure of the titular character, an arch that was aptly cut from the films theatrical trailer — that instead focuses on the “feel-good” moments of the film. “Mr. Magorium” knows that his time here on earth is limited, and that he has even less time before his “departure” to groom his heir, “Molly Mahoney” (Natalie Portman) and get his estate in order, with help from a by-the-books accountant (Jason Bateman). The problem that “Mr. Magorium” hadn’t forseen is that “Molly” isn’t terribly keen on inheriting the Wonder Emporium, instead favoring her life-long dream of becoming a composer. All the while, the store itself begins to rebel and fight back — it is magical after all — in protest of “Mr. Magorium’s” ultimate departure.

Amidst the magical hijinks and chaos, “Mr. Magorium” seeks to teach “Molly” that perhaps the greatest magic of all is within us, and that we need only believe in ourselves in order to fully realize our potential, as well as our dreams.

Regrettably, “Magorium” isn’t nearly as cheery as it was advertised, nor as insightful or meaningful as Helm’s previous endeavor, “Stranger Than Fiction.” “Magorium” also differs greatly from “Stranger Than Fiction“, both in resonance and in quality. Each film wrestles with the acceptance of death, and benevolence but where “Magorium” differs is the film’s target audience — children. Billed as a Thanksgiving holiday film, “Magorium” should have been a shoe in for the family audiences — instead grossing $32.1 million domestically — but critics disliked it and most families opted to see “happier films” after catching word of the “sad” ending.

To be fair, “Magorium” makes an earnest attempt at being a heartfelt piece of cinema, and in many ways it succeeds. The main problem is that a lot of the potential emotional gravity is lost due to the whimsical nature of the film. However, I believe that this is Helm’s intention, or perhaps his message to the audience — that we should be able to accept and make light of our death. It’s impossible to know whether or not this was Helm’s true message, but given the parallels between this and his previous script, it doesn’t seem far off to me.

Ultimately, I think it’s sad that more people haven’t seen this movie, and that even fewer had any emotional connection to the story, or the characters. It’s not a master-work by any means, and despite Stranger Than Fiction being the better of the two, I still find something rather redeeming in this film. I realize that I might belong to a distinct minority, but I’m fine with that, and I wish that more people would have given this movie a chance.

A Bridge Too Far: Blu-ray Review

2008-07-10T00:05:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Academy Award winning director, Richard Attenborough (of Ghandi-directing fame). The film’s cast is filled to the brim with A-list actors, including Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Laurence Olivier, Robert Redford, Gene Hackman, James Caan, and Anthony Hopkins.

The film’s screenplay is adapted from the book by Cornelius Ryan, and it shares the same name. Given the film’s literary roots, and the old stature of the film, it doesn’t play at all like the war films that we’ve all come accustomed to. Instead, it ambles along — sometimes all-too-leisurely — whilst bombs, bullets and bodies fly through the air. I’d like to say that this works to the film’s advantage — providing us a rare glimpse at something new — but more often than not, it tends to hurt the progression of the film’s narrative, and it does little to engage the audience. As a result, by the time the film’s bloated 176 minute running time expires, the viewer will lack any sort of compassion, whatsoever, for anyone on screen that the film will seem — in retrospect — as meaningless as the botched offensive, Operation Market Garden.

I myself, am a huge fan of “epic” films. In fact, I typically relish the excitement of discovering a film with a running time far beyond the 90-120 minute norm. When done right, films with an above average running time can soar far beyond the likes of their shorter-running brethren. Given a longer span of time, and more room to breathe, most films flourish. Far more story-lines can be introduced/explored and characters fleshed out, among other things (ex: The Departed, Heat, The Godfather, Titanic).

On the flip-side, when done wrong, the results can be catastrophic. Thankfully though, A Bridge Too Far, is no train wreck, and despite its lofty ambitions and bloated running time, there are a number of redeeming scenes, shots and performances that salvage this film. Ultimately though, the film strikes me as being overly dull, and I believe that this stems mostly from the film’s production value, age and source material — though I can’t be entirely sure having never read the book from which the movie spawned.

In the end, with such superb talent at Attenborough’s disposal, it is a pity that the resultant film flounders and bores more than it entertains or excites. Therefore, what could have been a fantastic and exhilarating movie, ends up earning nothing more than a slightly below average rating of 2 1/2 stars.

Galapagos : Blu-ray Review

2008-07-09T00:04:00.000-04:00

The Series Itself is another beautifully-shot nature-doc from BBC and 2 Entertain — the folks who brought us the groundbreaking and awe-inspiring Planet Earth series. Where Planet Earth is far more epic in its scale/purpose, Galapagos instead focuses intently on the titular islands. Within the opening seconds alone, it’s easy to see why these islands are deserving of their very own series. From the perpetual creation and ultimate destruction of the islands, to the unique forms of life that inhabit the land, Galapagos is a land all its own, and it is nothing short of incredible.

This three-part series does a fantastic job capturing the flora and fauna of the various islands, in addition to educating the viewer with respect to the island’s history. Perhaps of greatest interest is the second episode that chronicles the discoveries of the young Charles Darwin through his explorations of the alien-like territory — ultimately leading him to write his masterwork, “The Origin of Species.”

Galapagos reaches spectacular visual highs and does a very good job of keeping the viewer enthralled throughout the three-part series. If you’re a fan of Planet Earth, this should definitely make its way into your Blu-ray collection, or at the very least, your Netflix queue.

Layer Cake : Blu-ray Review

2008-06-13T00:01:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is the directorial debut from Matthew Vaughn, and it fits snuggly into the same vein as Vaughn’s previous producing-only works, Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Immediately from the start, Layer Cake aims to differentiate itself from any drug dealing/organized crime film that’s been borne of the London film scene in the past decade. Our hero, or perhaps an anti-hero — given his trade and disposition — is looking to get out of the drug business despite his competency and success. Where the film differs, is the way in which it portrays the London-based drug scene. Everything is ultra-chic, sterile, and at many times, beautiful — compare this to say, Traffic or American Gangster, and you’ll see precisely what I mean.

Too often it’s greed or ambition (ala Scarface) that leads to the demise of the protagonists in movies such as these, and thankfully Layer Cake decides instead to imbue the lead character with this insight. However, despite his foreknowledge, the leading man, Mr. X (Daniel Craig, Casino Royale) agrees to undertake two final tasks before popping off for good — neither of which ultimately go quite as smoothly as planned.

With one million pills of Ecstasy up for grabs, Mr. X is ordered by his superior, Jimmy Price (Kenneth Cranham, Hot Fuzz) to not only negotiate the sale of the stolen pills, but also to locate the daughter of a fellow friend and crime lord, Eddie Temple (Michael Gambon, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). As you might expect, the original owner of the pills — a Serbian drug lord — isn’t tickled with the prospect of losing his investment, and he dispatches a killer to retrieve the pills and the heads of any involved parties. As if things weren’t complicated enough for our beloved Mr. X at this point, simply tack on a series of double-crosses and betrayals and you’ve got yourself a delectable recipe for your very own “Layer Cake”, where everyone wants a piece, and they’re willing to do nearly anything to get it.

I was thoroughly impressed when I finally got a chance to sit down to watching Layer Cake, back in early 2006. It has since become one of my all-time favorite British films, even outmatching Vaughn and Guy Ritchie’s masterworks, Snatch and Lock Stock. Many would argue against that, but I truly feel that Layer Cake masters the balance of style and substance. Vaughn himself admits in the supplied Q&A that he aspired to make a film with a grander, more beautiful view of London and its surrounding areas — his main inspiration (visually anyway) being Michael Mann’s crime epic, Heat. I had always felt that Mann did a fantastic job encapsulating Los Angeles in a unique and stunning fashion, and as confirmed by Vaughn, he too shares the same sentiment. Another area where Layer Cake differs from it’s spiritual predecessors is its narrative origins. Originally written as a novel by J.J. Connolly, and here adapted for the screen by the very same author, the story unfolds as smoothly and deftly as the seamless transitions on the screen. To be sure, Vaughn revisits many of the devices (both visual and editing) that he may have gleaned from Ritchie, but it’s in my humble opinion that Vaughn has refined all of them to the point of perfection, and in many ways the film benefits from a certain sense of maturity that is lacking in Vaughn’s previous works.

All of these things, combined with a stellar cast, and a major breakthrough role for Craig — that undoubtedly secured him his “00″ status — ultimately give this film the edge over the countless gangster thriller entries of recent memory. For that reason alone, you should give Layer Cake a rent, but there is so much more — as you’ll see below — that should warrant a “blind buy”, assuming you’re into movies such as this.

The Replacement Killers : Blu-ray Disc Review

2008-06-08T23:58:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself centers around hitman, John Lee (Chow Yun-Fat) who is contractually obligated to a ruthless Chinese kingpin, Terence Wei (Kenneth Tsang), for a maximum of three “hits” of Wei’s choosing. Upon the death of Mr. Wei’s son, at the hands of a vengeful cop (Michael Rooker), he tasks John with the disposal of the cop’s very own son.

Fortunately for the son and his family, John’s temperament is equal parts hitman and monk — favoring the latter when it comes to whacking innocent children (go figure, right?). Understandably, John’s betrayal is not taken lightly by his-now-former employer, and his family in China soon becomes Wei’s next target. To make matters worse, Wei’s influence throughout the city is far-reaching, which makes John’s impromptu flight to China all the more difficult. Enlisting the help of a tough-as-nails — and gorgeous — document forger, Meg Coburn (Mira Sorvino), he grows ever closer to his goal of reaching his family in China before a terrible fate befalls them. However, when John’s “replacements” arrive on the scene, he must ultimately make a choice to save the boy from the new hired guns, or protect the lives of his loved ones instead.

The film is directed by Antoine Fuqua (”Training Day“, “Shooter“) and serves both as his directorial debut and actor, Chow Yun-Fat’s debut in Hollywood. Yun-Fat is a veritable Hong Kong film god for his stylistic-shooter films, many of his best under the direction of legendary action director John Woo. Needless to say, expectations were staggeringly high for Chow Yun-Fat’s first Hollywood movie, and in many ways Yun-Fat delivers — doing what he does best — but it’s the script that ultimately sells the film short. Granted, this was Yun-Fat’s first English speaking role, and as they go on to mention in the brief “behind-the-scenes” featurette, much of the original script had to be re-written because he wasn’t capable of delivering his lines fluently in English. Therefore, his character was re-tooled into more of the “strong silent type” which ultimately affects the film’s ability to resonate beyond the typical shoot-em-up actioner.

I get the sense that this “extended edition” was created with the explicit intent of improving our connections with both John and Meg. Sadly, though, it truly amounts to nothing more than a couple of mediocre deleted/extended scenes that do little in helping to flesh out the otherwise hollow characters. Sorvino and Yun-Fat do the absolute best they can with the material given to them, but at the end of the day, the film is precisely what you should expect from it — a whole lot of bullets and balletic gun play that is performed by Hong Kong’s greatest film asset, Chow Yun-Fat. The Killer or Hard Boiled it is not, but The Replacement Killers still musters enough gusto to make a name for itself, and earn a place in history as one of the better Hollywood actioners, even if it doesn’t possesses the heart and soul it so desperately seeks and preaches.

Casino Royale : Blu-ray Disc Review

2008-05-25T23:56:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed by Martin Campbell, and based on the first Bond novel of the same title, “Casino Royale.” The year was 2002, and like many Bond fans, I was eagerly awaiting the release of the twentieth film in the series, Die Another Day. Unfortunately, I was utterly devastated by the film – and I’m certain I’m not alone in that regard. In short, I thought it was clunky, laughable and altogether boring. A complete and utter mess that might have been made with good intentions, but ultimately did more to tarnish the otherwise near-perfect Bond legacy.

It was clear that something had to change. Bond was no longer the suave, ruthless, super spy of the cold war times. He had been reduced to a shell of his former self, distilled to the point that people no longer took him seriously. And just when it seemed like Bond might have had his final outing, opting to pass the super-spy/assassin torch to Jason Bourne, an incredible thing happened. The new bond film, Bond’s twenty-first outing, would also ironically be his first — Casino Royale.

Armed with a new Bond — played by Daniel Craig — Casino Royale is the complete and utter antithesis to its predecessor. Helmed by Martin Campbell, the director who managed to resuscitate the Bond franchise years earlier — with the 1995 hit, “Goldeneye” – the film is cold, ruthless, explosive, but most importantly, it is fresh.

The story focuses on Bond’s first mission to prevent Le Chiffre, a ruthless terrorist financier, from replenishing his ill-gotten gains in a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro. Simultaneously, Bond begins to warm to the treasury official, Vesper Lynd, who’s tasked with overseeing the proceedings – along with Bond’s personal stake in the game – at Casino Royale. As the film progresses, Bond’s judgment is evermore clouded by his new found love for Vesper, and as a result he may not only compromise the mission, but his life and hers as well.

Hands down, this is the best Bond film in years, and Daniel Craig is entirely deserving of his recently achieved “00” status. I expect we’ll see Craig tied to many more Bond films in the future, and I anticipate the sequel, Quantum of Solace – despite its horrendous title – will be just as revolutionary, if not better.

Rocky Balboa : Blu-ray Disc Review

2008-05-21T23:55:00.000-04:00

The Movie Itself is directed/written by Sylvester Stallone, who in many ways has become synonymous with his title character, Rocky. Originally, when Stallone announced his intentions to resurrect his two most iconic heroes – Rocky and Rambo – for one final outing to bookend the respective series, I was extremely worried. Would modern audiences welcome their return with open arms? Would there even be an audience for these films anymore? Did Stallone have what it took to don the Rocky/Rambo attire? Sly definitely thought so, and he stood firmly behind his decision, claiming that people in our post-9/11 world were in dire need of classic heroes to raise our morale and remind us of the strength and perseverance of the human spirit.

Simply put, Stallone was right. Rocky Balboa was the first of the bookend-flicks, being released in 2006, and it not only stands firmly on its own two feet, it is genuinely stirring and wholly reminiscent of the first installment that debuted thirty years earlier. The film is so effective at reminding us why we fell in love with Rocky in the first place, that it has even been compared to its Oscar winning predecessor, with many people saying it’s equal to the original. Personally, I belong to this school of thought, and in truth if you’re a lover of all things Rocky, I’d venture to say you’d be hard pressed not to find something of worth in this final outing.

The beauty of the narrative is that we not only follow Rocky’s character on a personal quest to prove himself once again, but it should become clear that Stallone too is attempting to woo the masses with his beloved underdog story/character with the intention to prove that he too has what it takes, and that it truly isn’t over till it’s over.

The film opens with a very dark and foreboding tone. Rocky, is still coping with the loss of his wife — having lost her to cancer four years prior — and in many ways he is disconnected from himself and those around him. Also, his attempts to bond with his son are in vain, largely due to his son’s own feelings of inadequacy and lack of self-image. It isn’t until Rocky run’s into an old acquaintance, Marie – a bit-character from the first film who Rocky walks home – that he begins to form new and meaningful connections that help pave the way for his ascension to the Rocky we all know and love.

In many ways, Rocky Balboa is a neo-genesis story that simultaneously pays tribute to the original, while also exploring new emotions and facets of the now thirty year old character. Unfortunately, the promotional trailers for the film would have you believe that the computer generated fight provides the spark to catalyze the return of Rocky. In truth it is the profound loss and rage that lies buried deep within Rocky that ultimately drives him to purge it all, and finally overcome the demons he’s been wrestling with for four years.

In many ways, this film is the perfect end to a much beloved franchise, but beyond that I believe that it also manages to reach new emotional highs and lows that have never quite been reached in any of the previous films. In fact, it just might be my favorite in the series as it seems far more resonant than its predecessors because more is at stake for the title character. Naturally, Rocky Balboa is as much Rocky’s journey to prove his own self worth, as it is Stallone’s, and ultimately both achieve what they set out to do – to prove to us that it most definitely isn’t over ‘till it’s over.