5 comments about Hellraiser - Hellworld.

1. I thought "Bloodline" would go down as the least essential entry in the esteemed "Hellraiser" series. I was wrong; "Hellworld" isn't even up to the less than elegant standard of part 4. The problem here is not at the feet of director Rick Bota, who delivered the masterpiece "Deader" and the excellent "Hellseeker" prior to this one. It's the script, even more, it's the entire concept behind this film. It's another of the self-aware type of horror that was already proven to be useless with "Halloween: Resurrection". The story about internet Hellraiser games and revenge and hallucinogens, etc. etc. just doesn't work. The "Hellraiser" we have here is basically reduced to a teen thriller, and the only reason it's entertaining at all is because of Bota's deft hand and background in cinematography. Otherwise this would be unwatchable. Really.
   This appears to be the final film of the original series. Too bad it had to go out like this.



2. What is it with my favorite Horror franchises just majorly falling apart around their eighth (and usually final) entry? Michael Myers becomes a game show contestant in Resurrection, Freddy Krueger gets "real" in New Nightmare, Jason Voorhees buys a ticket-to-ride to the big apple and turns into a child in the process in Jason Takes Manhattan, and even Pinhead himself becomes a slasher-for-hire in Hellworld.
   
   I guess when Horror characters get long in the tooth, the powers that be just try too hard to come up with something new for them to do, but alienates the fans that put them there in the process. Such with Hellworld, Hellraiser's eighth (and last, until dreaded "remake" time) installment. Director Rick Bota back around 2003 was given the opportunity to make two new Hellraiser films back-to-back to add to the franchise and give Dimension Films something to add to their bad sequel catalog. Strangely though, both scripts he ended up with were never intended to be Hellraiser films in the first place, but stand-alone projects that only were altered to feature Pinhead and company in small, cameo-like roles. His first, Part 7:Deader seemed more Hellraiser-ish to other direct-to-video chapters like Part 5:Inferno & Part 6:Hellseeker. More based on one character's slow trip through madness, ending up in Pinhead's clutches towards the end. Not the case with Hellworld, for the first time all the rules are out the window, Pinhead's going for it in ways he's never done before...or really should have either.
   
   In it, there is a popular on-line videogame called "Hellworld" based upon the Lament Configuration (y'know..the box?) and it's guardians The Cenobites, with Pinhead being it's "Mario" of the bunch. In this movie everybody knows the Hellraiser legacy, however I'm pretty sure that unlike say New Nightmare or Blair Witch 2, they don't know of any of the actual movies based on them...whew! When one of a group of friends kills himself over too much playing of the game, the five surviving friends go their separate ways until two years later when they reunite due to a special invitation to a Hellworld themed house party. Once there they're host, always welcomed and enjoyed Lance Henriksen, takes to the group and shows them around his private collection of Hellworld rarities and oddities. And then strange things start to happen to each of them, making them question what is real and what is not, as if they were playing the game right then and there...and with Pinhead stalking them the whole way.
   
   That's right, "stalking" them. Pinhead's never been one to play Jason or Michael but he does so here. And even though his new techniques are somewhat explained by the film's end, you sort of wince when you see this once great character lose his originality. Gone are the chains/hooks of death replaced with knives and wooden stakes, and early on you question how did Doug Bradley let himself get stuck in a script like this. At least the visuals look nice, with a decent (yet cheap) amount of gore, nudity, and flash, but all the way feeling empty and foreign to the Hellraisers we've seen before. So by the credits roll, you feel the same way as you did when you probably saw Friday The 13th V:A New Beginning..hopefully that won't spoil it for you too much.
   
   So to a Hellraiser fan, it's a must once see film, but you won't stop watching at least four other chapters for it. Sure, you do get to see Pinhead more in this film compared to three chapters before it, but sometimes "less is more" is a phrase that isn't used often enough.
   (RedSabbath Rating:6.5/10)



3. I think I still have one Hellraiser to see, the one before this. I hope for my sake that by enduring this installment "Hellworld" I have witnessed the low end of the franchise. I'll keep it simple;
   
   * Too campy for scary or atmosphere, not campy enough for a Saturday Night Live feel.
   
   * Characters are shallow and are billed as hardcore gamers, but come across as being technological Luddites.
   
   * Story has holes you could drive a bus through, end result, you just don't care.
   
   * I'm a photographer and so am sensitive to camera work in a film, this had poor composition, amateurish and garish lighting and was uninspired in use of props and environments.
   
   * How many CDs does it take to hold the soundtrack on? Several, I'd guess as the songs changed every 30 seconds. Yet another splinter to remind you that you are wasting your time on this poor product.
   
   That's what I felt coming into this episode with no expectations. This is the "The Crow - Wicked Prayer" for the Hellraiser series. There is always a low point in everything and this like that Crow movie, very low from the high point of it's respective series. I suggest you avoid this movie. One star.



4. The should be re-titled "Hellraiser: Dumber". How could you make such a mess of a film? Avoid at all costs and don't murder 90 minutes off of your life.



5. "This place has nothing to do with the box," says Hellraiser enthusiast, Chelsea (Katheryn Winnick). The young blonde is referring to a strange Hellraiser party that she and her friends were invited to after solving an online version of the Lament Configuration (the Hellraiser puzzle box). Have I said the word "Hellraiser" enough times? Let me say it again: Hellraiser.
   
   I'm sorry. I'm repeating myself because I really wanted to watch a Hellraiser film, and just as Chelsea observes, this thing isn't even close. The movie and the party it's about are cheap, showy, and barely convincing. And, let me hammer it home, they have little to nothing to do with the franchise that Clive Barker made a name setting up.
   
   But I'm pragmatic, and I'm not some kind of Hellraiser junkie. I can enjoy a movie on its own terms, if that's what it deserves. So, ignoring for the moment that this pretty much bankrupts a once promising premise, if this isn't really about Hellraiser, what IS it about?
   
   Five friends who ARE Hellraiser junkies find themselves gathered at the funeral of a sixth, who apparently took the mythos too seriously, ending his life in a fit of role playing passion. Two years later, the five still dabble a bit (now Pinhead's box is web-based), and one day they all receive a special invitation to the aforementioned party. Once there, bloody and boring things begin to happen.
   
   One of the five is an inconsolable fellow named Jake, who is bitter and judgemental of the other four. He attends this erotic S&M party, but broods from room to room, scowling and refusing to have a good time. The other four enjoy the house and its oddities with stupid and over-acted enthusiasm. They are the kind of people who spray themselves in the face with a stranger's antique, collector's-edition Hellraiser perfume. Without even asking! They say the phrase, "It's just a game," around fifty or sixty times, and then they die right on cue. The deaths are a brief but welcome change of pace, because these haunted house nuts are, of course, asking for it.
   
   They're a lively bunch, though, especially the asthmatic Derrick (Khary Payton), who mugs and camps his way from line to line. When he's playing the online Hellword game, we mostly see his unconvincing smile and vacant, eager eyes. What glimpses we are given of the computer game don't make it look very interesting or well-made. That's the movie for you. And much like a computer game you spend two years of your life mastering, at the end of it you have to ask yourself if it was really worth your time.

5 comments about Hellboy (Director's Cut) [UMD for PSP].

1. Ok....with Golden Army, um Hellboy II for those unaware, just under a month away from it's DVD release I thought it would be nice to go back and review the one that started it all. First I got to tell you I love Hellboy Comics and if you have never sat down to read one of these gems or a TPB (Trade Paperback...again for the unaware)...then you really are selling yourself short. You need to get past that whole comics are for kids hang up. Because while Hellboy comics are fun and the way most comics should be produced, but arent (hint hint Marvel and DC)...they are most assured not your child's fair. Anyway....back to the movie. First off How can a movie be anything less then great when you mix Demons, Nazis, Chic's in flames, Monsters, End of the world, and for a lack of a better word...a very proper english talking and walking fish stick. I won't bored you with some long drawn out review discussing camera angles and lighting....there are those reviews here keep scrolling. I'm here to tell you without spoiling the plot...if you haven't seen it....then buy it. Do you like scary movies with a touch of humor? Do you find yourself after watching a "Super-Hero" flick that was good, BUT you found it lacking...too many unanswered questions?? Or a Superhero flick that felt like you were watching an hour and a half toy ad??....Well, get ready for something completely different! You will enjoy Hellboy...it is an Amusement Ride for your brain. A well thought out movie with very good character development, and on top of that excellent acting. The movie doesn't leave you lacking, the special effects are A+ and you don't have to wait 30 to 45 minutes into the movie before you ever see the main character. Anyway....Rent it, Buy it, Download it.....just take the time to see it. You won't regret it.



2. Hellboy (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray]ADD HELLBOY TO YOUR BLU-RAY COLLECTION. GOOD FUN, GREAT ACTION, RON PERLMAN AND EXCELLENT ACTION. ALL THAT BOYS AND GIRLS AND IT LOOKS INCREDIBLE ON BLU-RAY TO BOOT.



3. This is a good upgrade from the standard dvd. Includes some great material on the details of the makeup as well as other info.



4. This has a lot of oddball parts to it, but overall it's very good fun and a good way of spending a quiet evening in. There's some great lines and a lot of very entertaining visuals, with some good action too. Great!



5. Hellboy (Director's Cut) is one rollercoaster ride and an unexpectedly good movie. Ron Perlman is great as the lead character and the images of the Cthulhu creatures are very realistic. This 3 disc special edition contains a new film cut of 13 minutes of footage not seen in the original version.
   Hellboy is a creature brought into our world by the Nazi's. He is raised by a scientist and now works for a secret government agency that takes down paranormal activity. His love interest is a young lady (played by Selma Blair) who is a firestarter. All hell breaks loose when Rasputin (the man that brought Hellboy into our world) returns to capture Hellboy and open a rift that will unlease the Apocalypse on an unexpecting world.
   Special Features are massive.
   Disc one: New movie cut; Commentary and Video Intruduction by Guillermo Del Toro; Composer Commentary with Isolated Score; DVD Comics that branch with the film; Set visits and Factoids; Storyboard Track; DVD-ROM features
   Disc two: Video Introduction by Selma Blair; 3 deleted scenes; 2 and a half hour in-depth look at the making of the movie; Charater Bios; Motion Board-A-Matics; Animatics; Multi-Angle Storyboard Comparisons; Galleries; Trailers and TV Spots; Filmographies; Posters; Weblink to Hellboy Merchandise.
   Disc 3: Video Introduction by Ron Perlman; Cast Video Commentary; Production Workshops; Makeup and Lighting Tests; Comic-Con 2002; Quick Guide to understanding Comics; Director's Notebook; Photo Galleries; Pre-Production Art; Conceptual Art Galleries; Comic Book Artists Pin-Ups
   The Hellboy collection also contains a booklet on an excerpt from the Diary of Gregory Rasputin.

5 comments about Luis Bunuel's Robinson Crusoe (1952).

1. Sadly, disappointment is the only word for Bunuel's lifeless and seemingly endless 'Robinson Crusoe,' which is less minimalist than it is totally disinterested, for the most part a radio reading of the novel with accompanying and not very impressive pictures. Most of the film tells you what the castaway has done rather than shows you until Friday and the cannibals arrive. It briefly perks up here, dealing well with Crusoe's patronising relationship with Friday and their initial distrust, but it's still just skirting the moderately interesting rather than the genuinely engaging. Daniel O'Herlihy's one note performance is a liability too - there's not much to this Crusoe, and certainly not enough to spend 90 minutes with him.
   
   True, the film was made under immensely difficult conditions, but my problem was that only the limitations were visible - in the restored 90-minute version I saw there was precious little imagination or ability either, which I found particularly surprising from Bunuel: a flat and lifeless b-movie programmer was the last thing I would have expected from him. This felt more like one of Louis Heyward's worst efforts, only without the sporadic entertainment value. Only the fate of Crusoe's dog and the sound of its bark as he left the island really resonated.
   
   Aside from a surprisingly inept dream sequence and a brief theological discussion, there's little to show that this is a Bunuel film (at times its perilously close to Ed Wood's print the first take approach, being shot almost entirely in bland tight medium shots), marking it as a failure as a Bunuel film, a literary adaptation and an adventure. A shame.
   
   The VCi R1 DVD is an impressive package, offering both Spanish and English language tracks and a long audio interview with O'Herlihy.



2. I'm not sure why this DVD has received lackluster reviews, but I suspect it's due to disappointment from fans of Bunuel's more surreal masterpieces at the two ends of his career (his collaborations with Dali c. 1930, and the last 9 or 10 films of his old age). Still, people shouldn't dismiss Robinson Crusoe. It has much in common stylistically with other movies of his Mexican period, notably Los Olvidados (1950) and Nazarin (1959) but especially his adaptation of Wuthering Heights made just before Robinson Crusoe. There's a directness and simplicity to these films that is deceiving -- and, like I said, disappointing to fans of Bunuel's more flamboyant stuff. I wouldn't call Robinson Crusoe a masterpiece along the lines of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie or Belle de Jour, but it's interesting and entertaining. (For several interesting reviews, check out the ones on IMDb. On this page, I think "Laughing Gravy" and M. Lucas have hit the nail on the head.)
   
   If you're not a Bunuel fan, then the movie stands on its own pretty well -- mainly because of its surprising faithfulness to Defoe's novel. Huge chunks of Defoe's prose are preserved intact as narration, which I never found annoying. This DVD would make a wonderful teaching aid for high school English classes. (In fact, Bunuel would probably have found it amusing that one of his films can be found in the Family Entertainment section of many video stores.) And O'Herlihy, who has to carry the movie single-handedly for about half the running time, is quite good. His Oscar nomination was well-deserved.
   
   As others have said, VCI's presentation is very nice. There are several minor instances of "ghosting" (mild blurriness caused by the transfer to DVD). Considering that the original negative no longer exists and that Pathe Color was a cheap alternative to Technicolor, I'd say they've done as good a job on the restoration as they could. The long audio interview with the late Dan O'Herlihy is a solid extra.
   
   In summation, I'd say that, if you're interested in this title, it's worth a purchase, especially at it's reasonable listing price. (Even if you end up hating it, you can always donate your copy to a school.) O'Herlihy's performance and the script's faithfulness to the source make this movie respectable entertainment; the presence of Bunuel as director adds an extra layer for viewers searching for "more." And VCI serves everything up with class.



3. VCI Entertainment presents "ROBINSON CRUSOE" (1952) (90 mins/Color) --- (Dolby digitally remastered) --- Robinson Crusoe (1952) is a film by director Luis Buñuel --- The film is based on the novel Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe --- It was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor (Dan O'Herlihy) --- I'm told that Dan O'Herlihy, an admirer of Luis Bunuel, was responsible for getting Bunuel hired for this American film even though the producers had no idea who Bunuel was --- O'Herlihy gives a passionate performance in this interesting and lush production, and the story had long appealed to Bunuel --- This film is far more involving than one has any right to expect --- As it works on both the literal and symbolic levels, and can be viewed as a straightforward adventure story, an exploration of loneliness and culture clash, or both.
   
   Special footnote, Robinson Crusoe is a novel by Daniel Defoe, first published in 1719 and sometimes regarded as the first novel in English --- The book is a fictional autobiography of the title character, an English castaway who spends 28 years on a remote tropical island, encountering natives, captives, and mutineers before being rescued --- This device, presenting an account of supposedly factual events, is known as a "false document" and gives a realistic frame story.
   
   Under Luis Buñuel (Director / Screenwriter), Oscar Dancigers (Producer), Henry Ehrlich (Producer), Daniel Defoe (Book Author), Philip Roll (Screenwriter), Alex Phillips (Cinematographer), Anthony Collins (Composer (Music Score), Carlos Savage (Editor), Alberto Valenzuela (Editor), Edward FitzGerald (Set Designer) - - - - Irish actor O'Herlihy's well-shaded Oscar-nominated performance never allows the first hour to pall - only with the entrance of Friday is it less absorbing --- Shot in Mexico during the director's long self-imposed exile there, The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe contains quite a few Buñel touches. Most of all, it subverts Defoe's Christian message by showing Crusoe wavering in his faith in religion, Western civilization and colonialism --- A film in which an actor is alone on screen for 60 of the 90 minutes' running time would seem a foolhardy venture, but Buñel overcomes most of the difficulties in this adaptation of Daniel Defoe's classic
   
   the cast includes:
   Dan O'Herlihy ... Robinson Crusoe (as Daniel O'Herlihy)
   Jaime Fernández ... Friday
   Felipe de Alba ... Captain Oberzo
   Chel López ... Bosun
   José Chávez ... Pirate
   Emilio Garibay ... Leaders of the Mutiny
   
   SPECIAL BONUS FEATURES:
   1. Audio Interview with Dan O'Herlihy
   2. Bios
   3. Filmographies
   4. Photo and Poster Gallery
   5. Restoration Demonstration
   6. Trailers
   
   Great job by VCI Entertaiment --- looking forward to more Nostalgic Collections --- order your copy now from Amazon or VCI Entertainment where there are plenty of copies available on DVD, stay tuned once again for top notch releases --- where they are experts in releasing long forgotten films and treasures to the collector.
   
   Total Time: 90 mins on DVD ~ VCI Entertainment ~ (9/14/2004)



4. I had never heard of this movie until my boyfriend mentioned that he loved it as a young boy. So I went searching...and gold old Amazon had it! It was a great surprise to my boyfriend. He watched it immediately and loved it.



5. Adapting a book to a film is a difficult task. Not only must you get the characters right, but a director, or screenwriter, must drive deep within the mindset of the author. There are inside, as well as outside elements that must be considered. What was going through the character's mind? What was the time period like? What level of realism can we bring to the silver screen while still packing the theater seats? All of these are challenges that everyone associated with the film must grasp before committing to a project - which is why it is so rare to discover someone claiming the film was better than the book. It just is rare to discover the two in a blissful marriage. That is why there was hesitation with Bunuel's 1952 adaptation of Daniel Defoe's literary classic. Knowing what was going to be coming in the future, "That Obscure Object of Desire" or "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" or even "The Milky Way", one could safely wager your entire salary on this early film. I wanted amateur, I wanted independent, I wanted to see where Bunuel found his inspiration - but alas, none could be found with this bomb of an adaptation. Perhaps it was the blacklisted screenwriter Hugo Butler, or Bunuel's lack of excitement, but not even Dan O'Herlihy, in his man grown voice, could save this disastrous film.
   
   Let's begin with some background. We are all familiar with the truth that Bunuel's was in exile from Spain, living in an unfamiliar world, facing the tough face of McCarthyism around every angle. So, why not make a film about a man, in essence, dealing with similar feelings. It is not uncommon for directors to take projects that they feel a connection towards, so Bunuel grabbed at the opportunity. Coupled with the fact that Bunuel had both the honor of making his first film in English as well as color, "Robinson Crusoe" should have been a staple in modern cinema. It could have ranked up there next to any of Godard's work - but it didn't. It garnished one Oscar nominee (for best actor), and then couldn't even find distribution for DVD until recently. Why such difficulty for such a pioneering film for Bunuel? This isn't a fantastic film. This is poorly directed, jokingly acted, and horribly misleading to anyone enjoying the works of Defoe. O'Herlihy is impossible as Crusoe, never giving us anything to believe or trust. As the island slowly becomes a luxury destination instead of a place of abandonment, as our hopes of seeing any decent cinema from this pathetic epic disappears as well. Bunuel did happen to place a couple of great scenes in this film, but they are scattered few and far between. Needless to say, in the cannon of Bunuel films, "Robinson Crusoe" ranks near the bottom.
   
   Our story itself is the main root of the issues. From the beginning crash, the cheapish cinematography demonstrating the power of the sea (possibly made by school children), all the way to the "grand" finale, one never feels that sense of danger - or chaos. Taking this film away from the story, meeting Crusoe for the first time, Bunuel gives us nothing. There are no scenes in which Crusoe has to learn, where he has to survive - in the first twenty minutes he is found sleeping in a tree then immediately building a well fortified hut around a cave - within forty minute he has bread and some random length of time has passed. Butler's adaptation fails because there is no sense of danger - I never felt worried that Crusoe was going to survive - because he never went without. Sure, there were scenes of sickness and hunger - but they were just never that impending. Perhaps it was the close tight shots that plagued the opening of this film, or the bland colors - but the initial puzzle pieces never fit.
   
   Since our story suffered, it seemed inevitable that our characters would as well. Never looking weak, never getting skinny, never finding anything except his deepened voice - Crusoe seemed more concerned about not being a man than staying alive (i.e. see the excessive beard growth). How could a man trying to survive in the wilderness, scream out to the mountains? More focus on Crusoe, his life, his personality, would have strengthened these dampening scenes. That said, Bunuel did attempt on a couple of occasions to spruce up what he could to the lackluster story. The scene in which Crusoe gets drunk (as there is an endless supply of booze on the island) and thinks that he sees his friends is phenomenal. It was brilliant to have the camera as tight as it was, hearing the ghostly voices speak to him, then, just as the cup falls - it all ends - and we are thrust back into the truth of the island. Wow. It was just as breathtaking again - but there aren't many of these gems in which Bunuel can demonstrate his talent. Instead, it felt like he worked for Disney on this project. Even the introduction of Friday seemed cheapened by the fact that within ten minutes he was speaking English or being shackled. I realize that it was the time, but if I were trapped on an island for that many years, would I make the only other living person a slave? Keeping his close as to not lose that sense of friendship is one thing; racism is a whole new bag.
   
   As we approached the unexciting ending, I couldn't help but question Bunuel's motive for this film. The similarities between his life and that of Crusoe's are good, but why couldn't Bunuel put his own touch onto this story. It needed something to stimulate the audience, but outside of O'Herlihy's voice - very little could have kept my eyes open. Also, the transfer on this particular DVD is horrible. Popping sounds on the left of me, missing frames to the left. It was a feeble attempt to bring this film to the masses, and obviously not a favorite among others or this would have seen the royal treatment.
   
   Overall, "The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe" is a very disappointing film. The acting is laughable, the story feels like a kiddy ride at Disney (coupled with all the food that you can eat), and the cinematography is amateurish. This is not a Bunuel film to place on the mantelpiece and discuss over a bottle of wine. This failed on many levels and embarrassed the late Defoe immensely. For a story that has been done time and time again (you can even see it weekly on "Lost"), there was just a lacking element of danger, chaos, and survival. As mentioned before, there was no built sensation that Crusoe was never going to make it (whether you knew the story or not), it just seemed like this island has all the luxuries he wanted. I cannot suggest or recommend this film to Bunuel viewers - it just seems like the black sheep in his film repertoire.
   
   Grade: * ½ out of ***** (one star for that drunk scene with friends - it gave me hope)

5 comments about Resident Evil (Special Edition).

1. This movie is based on a horror/survival videogame by Capcom. Now I got that out of the way, Resident Evil is a pretty good zombie movie, successfully adapted from the game by Paul W.S. Anderson. This film is everything House of the Dead wanted to be but couldn't. The zombies move at a decent pace as does the movie and there are plenty of "BOO!" moments, but nothing too scary. Gorehounds will be happy and Zombaholics will have fun playing guess the reference, such as the elevator scene which recalls the original Dawn of the Dead. The acting is good as far as zombie movies go and the cinematography is great. A must have for any zombie fan.



2. While the movie is loosley based on the resident evil games it still manages to stay true to its the games roots. just the simple things like the underground research facility, raccoon city, the arklay mountains and even the licker from the games will have the fans saying oh yeah i remember those. Im keepin this review short so for those of you who have no idea about the games, heres the pros and cons. pros: plenty of people getting killed here so this film will satisfy your barbaric needs, offers other neat sequences of action other than killing zombies, and the main monster is very well planned out. cons: the loud headbanging music really doesnt go with the resident evil genra, milla jovovichs red dress really is out of place here, the characters all have paper thin individuality. Its a good movie, just a few misteaks made but definatley worth watching.



3. First of, I am not a gamer, and am not familiar with the game. This was the first time I watched this Blu-Ray. Equipment used to watch, is Panasonic 42" Plasma, BD30K Blu-Ray player and Onkyo 605.
   
   The story was engaging in that it was futuristic, and had some cool effects (although over computerized). I am rating it 3 stars, for the story and overall acting/movie. The PQ and AQ were above average, but not demo, with the picture a bit soft in parts. If you're a fan of the genre, give it a rent.



4. Ravenous zombies - what more could you ask for on Halloween? RESIDENT EVIL is chock full of monsters, blood, gore, and actually cool, creative decapitations. Based on a popular computer game (which I have never played), RESIDENT EVIL is an entertaining monster flick for a cozy evening at home.
   
   RESIDENT EVIL opens with a bang: something has gone seriously wrong in a secret, underground research facility. (Isn't that always the case?) Red Queen, the computer that runs the complex, has gone mad, killing everyone in the place, and initiating a complete lock-down of the facility. The only people on the outside who might know what is going on have no memory. A crack military team is sent in to determine what happened. But things go horribly wrong...
   
   As zombie movies go, RESIDENT EVIL is pretty fun. It launches the viewer on a wild ride, rarely pausing for breath. The special effects are pretty well done, and as stated earlier, there are some pretty original decapitations using lasers. The plot is pretty loose and full of holes, but I really didn't care; I was having too much fun. The acting is typical for a monster flick, but then again, you don't watch a monster movie for the acting.
   
   If you enjoy this sort of thing, you will really like RESIDENT EVIL. My husband and I did, and it was just the thing for Halloween. But seriously, couldn't the Umbrella Corporation, who owns the research facility, see this coming? I mean, they named their master computer Red Queen. It was in the cards. Eventually, the Red Queen was obviously going to say "Off with their heads!"
   
   NOTE: This is a THREE-STAR review. There was a problem after posting. When the review was restored by Amazon, the number of stars was different.



5. Paul Anderson's "Resident Evil" was released in 2002 and is based on the video game of the same name. I don't play video games so this review is based solely on the film.
   
   Since its release I never gave the film any thought, but the red film poster/dvd cover with Milla Jovovich in a ripped red dress somehow snuck into my subconscious over the years. Then I caught a 15-minute snippet of the film while channel surfing recently (not knowing it was "Resident Evil"). The part I saw was near the beginning where Milla mysteriously wakes up in a shower in a mansion. She obviously doesn't know who she is or where she's at and wanders around the mansion trying to figure things out when -- BAM! -- a team of commandos storm the mansion and take her via secret subway to a vast underground research/development complex called The Hive, which belongs to The Umbrella Corporation.
   
   That's all I saw. I didn't have time to watch anymore but I decided right there to pick up the dvd. The set-up is truly intriguing and, in ways, brilliant.
   
   [PLOT SPOILER! Don't read the next two paragraphs unless you want to know the basic plot] After viewing the dvd I discovered that a biological "accident" causes the supercomputer that runs The Hive to shut down the entire facility and gas the 500 workers to death. The mansion is a secret emergency entrance and the commandos are sent by the Umbrella Corporation to go down and find out what caused the supercomputer (called the Red Queen) to shut down the facility and kill the people.
   
   It turns out that a virus has turned the 500 Umbrella employees into hideous flesh-eating zombies (I know this sounds totally absurd but the way it's explained in the film is somehow believable). Milla and the commando team slowly discover this. Meahwhile the Red Queen has trapped them in the Hive with the zombies and other undead creatures. Can they get out alive? [END SPOILER].
   
   POSITIVES:
   
   -- As already noted, the opening is truly intriguing, successfully capturing the viewer's attention.
   
   -- The slow revelation of the mystery is superb, including who Milla really is.
   
   -- Milla herself is stunning. The entire film she runs around in a red dress with a slit up the side. Her face and expressions are magnificent.
   
   -- The story itself and the delivery (sets, etc.) ring of brilliance. This is sci-fi of the highest order.
   
   -- The film features a cool eerie score highlighted by some rocking nu-metal acts.
   
   NEGATIVES:
   
   -- Although "Resident Evil" is original in many ways it's sometimes reminiscent of other films like "Aliens" and "Dawn of the Dead." Hence, some things are predictable; for instance, anyone who gets bitten by a zombie is gonna eventually turn into one.
   
   -- To be expected, the mystery build-up in the first hour is better than the last half hour, which is action-filled. Why? Mindless action with numerous quick edits somehow always becomes boring. Wouldn't it be great if a sci-fi/horror film like this ended in a truly unconventional blow-your-mind way (e.g. the original "Planet of the Apes")? But the final sequence makes up for it, sort of. Besides, since the film is based on a video game the zombie/human slaughter comes with the territory.
   
   The film runs 95 minutes before the credits roll.
   
   PERSONAL GRADE: A-

5 comments about Strangers on a Train (Two-Disc Special Edition).

1. The dvd is in excellent condition. Fast delivery - it arrived before the due date. Ecstatic about this purchase. Thanks for the great service.



2. STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, starring Farley Granger, is a top-notch suspense thriller of the old school. The plot setup may seem formulaic, but this was made in a time when (for the most part) only the best formulas were used. A seemingly accidental meeting occurs on a train between a famous tennis champion and his deranged fan who happens to know a little too much about his personal life. During the course of their conversations murder comes up and soon blackmail and manipulation ensue. The plot builds with suspense at every possible twist and turn. The characters are intriguing and never dull. One of the things I like best about it (and like all of Hitchcock's greats) it warrants repeated viewings. You'll want to watch it more than once.
   
   I would also recommend Alfred Hitchcock's 1948 little known film ROPE. It also stars Farley Granger in an almost opposite role as well as the great Jimmy Stewart.



3. Strangers On A Train, the 1951 black and white film by Alfred Hitchcock, is a damned good movie- with many of the requisite Hitchcockian flourishes, but it is not a great film, despite many great aspects about it. The reason for this devolves down to one basic fact- it's merely a melodrama, not a true drama. Melodrama always depends upon the propulsion of the plot by the characters within doing the dumbest possible things to get to the next scene. Melodrama thrives on the lowest common denominator. This, of course, does not lessen the enjoyability of the melodrama- be it Hollywood film, soap opera, pro wrestling, etc., but it does remove the work sufficiently from the realistic so that it shows its artifice too much, and therefore never fully involves an engaged viewer.
   Strangers On A Train includes many recurring Hitchcockian themes- the wrongly accused man, doubles, guilt, assumptions, and, yes, homosexuality. This was a film that came out only a few years after Hitchcock's homosexually themed Rope, in 1948, and even has one of that film's stars- Farley Granger, in this film's lead role. Again, he is a weakling character controlled by a cunning, psychopathic character with definite homosexual leanings; only this time Granger does not play a homosexual character. The film was based upon the first published novel of Patricia Highsmith, whose later Ripley novels earned her the nickname Mistress Of Suspense, in counterpoint to Hitchcock's moniker as Master Of Suspense. The film was adapted for Hitchcock by Whitfield Cook, then handed over to crime novelist Raymond Chandler, who wanted to change many elements. Hitchcock resisted, then gave the final job of adding dialogue to Czenzi Ormonde, and an uncredited Ben Hecht. It's a good screenplay, but, as with many Hitchcock films, it's almost all surface. The depth in most Hitchcock films comes from the actors and their subtleties, not the written words. In this sense Hitchcock's reputation as the ultimate puppetmaster is well earned. Depth was the reason the film was made and actors hired, or else Hitchcock would likely have been satisfied with his storyboards published as early graphic novels.... I suspect that the reason that this film has been ignored, in favor of lesser Hitchcockian fare like Suspicion, To Catch A Thief, or The Man Who Knew Too Much, is because none of the stars in it were superstars. The above mentioned were all good solid works, but they lacked the depth this film does, on however a superficially `deep' level, in contrast to similar films coming out from Europe at the same time. But, it certainly is a very good film, by any measure, with some deeper subtexts than the script alone entails. If only Hitchcock had been more at home in probing deeper into motivations, and grounding some of his films in reality more, he could have moved past being a mere technical genius, and graced the realm of high art more often than he did, that realm where the European directors did not fear to tread, where high art and mass appeal were not seen as mutually opposing forces. Strangers On A Train is almost a definitive, or archetypal, Hitchcock film in that it has all his film canon's glories and flaws. It is not film noir, nor is it really a thriller, as commonly thought of. We know what is going on at all times, so the suspense is not a whodunit? but a willthevillainsucceed? And it is a darkly comic one at that. Humor is used to gloss over many failures in life, and this film proves that statement true. When you watch Strangers On A Train you will wince, chuckle, smile, shake your head, be frustrated and relaxed, and if that is not the sign of a work of art that does more right than wrong, there are always new Hollywood releases to watch and wince to. And that's a fact not to smile nor chuckle over.



4. 'Strangers on a Train', in my opinion, is the quintessential Hitchcock film-perfect acting, music, visuals and pacing. It is also one of the first films where I found myself rooting for the bad guy (and dreading his truly creepy mother and their even weirder relationship). Even the opening scene, where Hitchcock puts the focus on the two main characters shoes, is poignant and clever. I've also often wondered how he was able to shoot the final scene on the merry-go-round, it is simply pure movie magic. Highly recommended to any film fan.



5. I'm going to yell SPOILERS right off the bat, just in case anyone deems my breakdown of this film to be ruining the surprise for anyone.
   
   I want to say that when I first saw this movie I really loved it; in fact it was my favorite Hitchcock film at the time. I thought that it was suspenseful and chilling and hit all the right notes. Sadly, I was so enthralled with the film that I decided to seek out the novel, written by Patricia Highsmith. Once I read the novel my opinion of the film was drastically altered and I had to watch the film yet again. The second viewing was far inferior to the first, for I realized that Hitchcock had not presented an accurate and respectful representation of Highsmith's novel.
   
   Now I have raised kain with regard to film adaptations before (see my ranting on the film `Less than Zero' and `American Psycho' for starters) and I have mentioned before that a director can take liberties with a novel as long as they stay true to the intentions of the author. Once you shift the focus too much (`Less than Zero' is probably the strongest example of a director getting everything wrong) you lose the authors vision. Many could look at this statement and say "then why did you give a film like `The Shining' such a high rating?" Well, the answer (as I mentioned in my review of the film) is that Kubrick created his very own vision, while still staying true to King's vision. Sure, he altered events, at times even drastically, but there is no denying that it was King's source material.
   
   That brings me to `Strangers on a Train'. There are many alterations made within this film, liberties taken that drastically shift the intentions of Highsmith's vastly superior novel. Some of the changes are subtle and seemingly `no big deal', but in the big picture they become a very big deal.
   
   The first change I noticed came in the form of Guy's occupation. In the novel he is an architect, but in the film he is a tennis player. He is famous, widely known and successful. In the novel he is just starting to spread his wings. It may seem like nothing big really, and in the beginning Hitchcock handles it well (he may have used a celebrity status to make it easier to fall into conversation with Bruno) but as the film progresses some of the major plot points, that made more sense when Guy was `not so well known', seem to get jumbled. The fact that Bruno blackmails Guy into following through with their `plan' is much more believable when you consider Guy's situation within the novel. He is dependant on the divorce and his wife's separation from his name and so her murder is much more necessary and the fear of losing everything he's been working so hard for, including his newfound relationship, takes on a person all its own. His celebrity status in the film dampens this a bit because there is really no fear of failure; he seems impenetrable really.
   
   The next change was much more noticeable to those who have read the novel, and that is the `relationship' between Guy and Bruno. In the novel it is very obvious that Bruno is in love with Guy, and his actions, as disturbing as they are, are really a way for him to get near to him. It's reminiscent of the way Tom Ripley attached himself to Dickey Greenleaf in `The Talented Mr. Ripley'; using savagery as a sense of companionship. Hitchcock did try and incorporate this into the film but censorship laws prohibited this and forced Hitchcock to make alterations to his film that left this facet of the story out completely. This is sad, because this seemingly small detail adds so many layers to the story.
   
   The biggest and most noticeable change was (here's the big SPOILER) the decision to have Guy back out of his end of the bargain. In the novel Guy attempts to go through with the murder, but here he completely backs out. That change alters the entire ending of the film, throwing Bruno and Guy into a battle of wits as they turn on one another. The novel's handling of their relationship is far more gratifying than the one Hitchcock concocted. I should have know that Hitchcock would not have wanted to keep Highsmith's original ending, for it just does not feel like something the master of suspense would want to do, but I wish he had, for his talent would have really done something special with Highsmith's intelligent conclusion.
   
   Okay, so this is my critique of the films construction.
   
   But there is more.
   
   The acting is, for the most part, very good and so it does elevate the film for me. In fact, the only sore spot in my opinion was Farley Granger who played Guy. I felt that he was a little too stiff for the part and lacked any real emotional impact. Robert Walker was flawless as Bruno, and I hear that his performance is even greater in the uncut version for he is allowed to devour the character to a fuller degree. Ruth Roman and Kasey Rogers have great scene stealing turns here as the two women in Guy's life, and Marion Lorne adds a few layers to Bruno's character as she eats up her portrayal of Bruno's mother.
   
   Sadly, the film does not live up to its source material. The fact remains that as a thriller and as a Hitchcock film it is actually really good, but when you compare it to Highsmith's novel (which I can't help but do now that I have read it) it falls short.

5 comments about The Color Purple.

1. i could not believe that i was able to get the collectors edition for such a steal. i've always wanted a copy of the color purple but i have yet to find it in stores. thanks amazon!



2. I have always enjoyed this movie from the first time I saw it to this very day. I have wanted to buy this movie for years and either could not locate a retailer in my area that had it in stock or they wanted just entirely too much for it. The price was most definetly right for a penny pinching mother like myself. I would recomend to anyone to use amazon.com for thier next movie purchase.



3. My movie was delivered in a timely fashion and packaged as promised. I appreciate the care and would use this provider again.



4. One of those movies that touches a person differently with each viewing, `The Color Purple' may be a perfect film. It's hard to take, sometimes overly dramatic (this may be uplifting and inspiring in the end, but getting there is a rough journey) but Steven Spielberg almost takes a Ron Howard approach to his filmmaking and creates a film that is dramatic yet heartwarming, with enough elements of purity that make the heavy-handed delivery seem as smooth as butter. Now I have not read Alice Walker's novel, but I really want to now, so I can't say if the film is as faithful as it should have been; but judging the film on its own merit there is no fault I can find, no fault at all.
   
   The film tells the tragic story of Celie Johnson, a young woman abused by her father (birthing him two children) and sold to an older man who wants a woman to help him around the house (he has a slew of children and no wife). Celie takes the place of her younger sister, whom her father is not done abusing, Celie is sold into a life of torment and abuse at the hands of the unhappy Albert (or Mister). The film spans over forty years as Celie grows up reclusive and bitter only to have her spirits and her eyes opened when the boisterous and soulful Shug Avery comes into her life. Shug, one time lover to Albert, has some troubles of her own, but her way of dealing with them far outshine the way Celie has dealt with hers, and she helps Celie to come into her own and take back the life she should have had to begin with.
   
   This is such a beautifully constructed story of oppression, not just by the hands of white men as is so often depicted, but `The Color Purple' paints a disturbing portrait of abuse and oppression within one's own family. Celie is oppressed by her father and then Albert. Albert is oppressed by his own father and his feelings for Shug. Shug is oppressed by the disapproval of her parents and her feelings for Albert and even Celie. The young and defiant Sofia is oppressed by her own actions, which result in her oppression at the hands of those around her, from her husband to her eventual masters. There is a tragic circle of abuse and control that is only broken when these individuals start to think and act for themselves, segregating themselves from the hands of their oppressors and becoming their own person.
   
   This film is aiding by some of the most moving and effective performances I've seen committed to film. Danny Glover is emotionally scaring as Albert, a man confused and embittered by his own conflictions. Adolph Caesar is menacing as Albert's domineering father, and his character helps us to understand Albert, a man who is very hard to understand on his own. Margaret Avery and Oprah Winfrey (both of whom were Oscar nominated) give amazing performances. Oprah is at one moment in-you-face with her abrasive attitude, the next minute concealed and broken. These two variations of character help her build this woman from the ground up. Margaret Avery is beyond fantastic as Shug. The way she effortlessly wraps herself around Celie and dominates her thinking and actions is heart-reaching.
   
   This movie belongs to Whoopi Goldberg though. Yes, Whoopi delivers what may be one of the greatest female performances of all time. She never breaks her characters emotional state, delivering to us a woman who has been conditioned by her surroundings. She is reclusive and unsteady, feeble and alone. She walks hunched and fearful; she speaks soft and unsure. She is afraid to smile. She is afraid to converse. She is afraid to be herself, but when her fire is ignited and her inner person is unleashed she is finally freed from her cage and given the chance to break away from those holding her down. Her final confrontation scene at the dinner table is one of the most earth shattering scenes in my movie watching history. To think that this was her debut performance (as it was Oprah Winfrey's). It pains me when I think of the fact that she LOST the Oscar (I can't believe this went 0/11 at the Oscars).
   
   In the end I highly recommend this movie to any and everyone. This is a truly emotional film that connects with the audience on a deep and personal level. This is not a film about racism. This is a film about oppression, and each and every one of us has been oppressed at one point in our lives. We have not all been oppressed to this extent, but we can all gain strength from Celie's story and can all appreciate her struggle and eventual triumph.



5. This movie has so many different aspects in it that I wanted to
   study it. I have seen it on tv, but there is so many deep messages
   in it that I wanted to study it. It is consumed with American culture-
   especially from the black perspective. Several times I have discussed
   things in the movie with my black friends.

5 comments about The Limey.

1. The movie had a unique visual style and was often beautiful to watch, though I found the constant editing, which made for somewhat avant-garde cinematography, kind of jarring and unsettling, even off-putting at times. At other times, I found the concentrated attention required to follow so many sound overlays and picture splices to be almost meditative! Were the story a little more interesting, perhaps I'd have thought more of the technique.
   
   OK, it was something new and deserving of recognition, but flashy editing can't be the entire reason for greatness in a film. In terms of plot, this wasn't a terribly exciting movie. Something in the anti-hero's quest for revenge (which was in fact the whole story) left me less than satisfied. Peter Fonda's character was often more likeable and sympathetic than Terence Stamp's. After Stamp has offed a countless number of other guys in his pursuit, he finally gets to ask Fonda the real circumstances surrounding his daughter's death and there is some irony in the answer he receives.. this is the story in a nutshell. While Stamp's character was half-interesting, it was difficult to care a great deal about his revenge, not having seen the injustice perpetuated on his daughter. Furthermore, Fonda being a more or less amiable guy made it hard to really sympathize with the whole revenge mission.
   
   There were some interesting minor characters in the movie which helped move things along. Fonda's bodyguard added a few more volts, as did the pool-playing street assassin and his semi-retarded partner.
   
   Had the story created more interest (in Stamp's revenge?), I'd probably have better appreciated this experiment in editing, which was original, though seeming to delay the story at times, rather than enhancing it. This review may not give the impression, but overall it was a decent movie and I don't regret having seen it. I just don't think Soderbergh's 'stir-fry', or collage-style, editing techniques made it a 5 star movie.



2. Terrence Stamp is taking a plane back to England after some dirty business in Los Angeles. While on the plane, he thinks back, not only on what he has just done, but on his life and the choices he has made (and perhaps should have).
   His memories are unreliable, as memories will be, and you are left to sort through them.
   What some might mistake for continuity errors are actually faulty memories. Characters appear in different clothes, say things differently each time certain scenes are replayed. Sometimes he hears only what he wants to hear. Later, he often realizes that he missed something crucial in what was being said. At times he replays all the possibilities of what he could have done (see his first encounter with Peter Fonda), and in others he is imagining what must have transpired beyond the limits of his observation.
   Much has been made of the editing and non-linear story line as being nothing but gimmicks. But in this case, these are not tricks, but instead are essential devices for understanding his character and his actions.
   Beautifully filmed and solidly acted, The Limey plays out like a dream, flows like a poem, and leaves the viewer with the task of deciding what is what.
   Ostensibly a revenge film, The Limey is more of a character study and a meditation on who is really to blame when things go this wrong.
   This film is not for careless diversionary viewing. It takes a little time and work, but (in this reviewer's mind) it's well worth the effort.



3. The Limey is an action movie that transcends the genre because of excellent acting, photography, and direction.
   
   The story has been covered many times by other reviewers. My comment is that the ending is enigmatic, which adds to the movie's appeal. The characters are deftly, but sparsely written and portrayed.
   
   The color combinations, the lighting, and the extensive use of close-ups speak to the quality of the photography. The care that went into the shooting of many scenes in this movie is better than many art house movies. This movie is eye-candy much as the neo-noir Wild Things is.
   
   Finally, the direction is excellent. The quality of the jump-cut editing, the inclusion of fantasy scenes to head fake the watcher, and the excellence with both broad panoramas (the trip up to Big Sur is fantastic) and close-ups (e.g., Wilson on the jet from London to LA) are done again render this near art house quality.
   
   To be clear, this is a thriller/action movie. There are lots of bad people in it and they suffer bad outcomes; sometimes visible, sometimes left imagined. If you like action movies and want to see one by someone who understands the craft of making movies, see The Limey.



4. but I just didn't like this movie. I am a fan of Soderburgh..Traffic was a great movie, Erin Brokovich, Out of Sight, etc...but this movie just didn't do a whole lot for me. Honestly the best thing about this movie was the always wonderful Terrence Stamp. Peter Fonda was a joke, and the very underrated Luis Guzman wasn't given enough to do.
   
   I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't. My husband rented this from Netflix after reading an article stating this was one of the top ten movies for guys...my husband is a man's man...and he didn't like this movie either.
   
   Nope, I think it tried to be too much, it wanted to be an action movie, why through in the convoluted storytelling. It wanted to be a film noir, why through in the cheesy actions sequences. Lots of fine actors, but this film is overrated..period.
   
   Watch Momento for a better story, better directing, and better acting.



5. After watching "The Limey" I was in awe of what I had beheld. This movie was dynamic and mute simultaneously. The genre of this film is a neo-noir, in other words a modern version of those crime/mysteries films made back in the golden days of cinema. These old school movies were black and white, "noir" is French for "black", hence the term film noir.
   
   A thousand apologies for the deviation on my cinema history lesson, I will return to the review at hand. I have to say that I am on the fence with Steve Soderbergh's work. Some of his movies are great; I loved the remake of Solaris in 2002, "Out of Sight" and "Traffic". Consequently, I hated all of the "Ocean" films and "Full Frontal". So I wasn't sure what to except from "The Limey". In the end, I feel Soderbergh hit the nail on the head. The acting, editing, cinematography, acting and story were stellar.
   
   The plot is simplistic; Terence Stamp plays a British ex-con who has traveled to Los Angeles to "investigate" the murder of his estranged daughter Jenny. In the process, he hooks up with some of his daughter's friends (played well by Lesley Ann Warren and Luis Guzman) in order to solve the conundrum of his Jenny's death in a very conspiratorial fashion. Jenny was involved with a ritzy music producer (played smoothly by Peter Fonda), who appears to have his hand in her death.
   
   What I thought was sort of neat about this film is the use of flashbacks. The movie "Poor Cow" was used in order to provide flashback's to Terence Stamp's character. "Poor Cow" featured Stamp at a much younger age and worked well with "The Limey". I don't think I have ever seen this technique used in a movie before. As for the editing, I found it amazing. It might annoy some viewers; it is somewhat non-liner in fashion. The editing sort of displaces some scenes in the continuity of the film and/or foreshadows events. There is also a distressed emphasis of dialogue with the editing. Characters will be in one setting and then switch to another, while the dialogue is still going. There might even be a scene where the dialogue is going and none of the characters are speaking. It reminded me somewhat of the movie "Memento".
   
   I have heard some criticism of Terence Stamp's character in this movie. That he displayed neither emotion nor it didn't seem plausible that he would be that intense about finding who did or didn't kill his daughter. Also it seemed odd that Jenny's friends would aid her father that Jenny herself was never totally copasetic with. I believe the retort to that theory is that both Jenny's friends and father are aiding one and other out of restitution for their lack of involvement in what happened to Jenny. Perhaps, from their perception, they could have done more to prevent Jenny's ominous outcome. As for the end of the movie, I had to sit and really think about it. Perhaps I am being a bit too quixotic, but once I processed and digested this film, I felt very gratified with the conclusion.
   
   I suppose I can understand why someone might not like this movie. It isn't a shoot out revenge film and there isn't non-stop action in it. Nevertheless if one is able to get submerged in the story, they might find that this 90 minute or so movie goes by quickly. I also found the soundtrack amazing and I ordered it as soon as the movie ended. The score was done by Cliff Martinez, who has scored many of Soderbergh's films, including the hypnotic score to Solaris (2002).
   
   My only regret about "The Limey" is that I hadn't seen it sooner.

5 comments about The Silence of the Lambs (Widescreen Special Edition).

1. I purchased the Criterion Edition for one reason only, that being the commentary provided by the director, writers and actors in the movie, which for some strange unfathomable reason, is not on any other edition.
   
   It was worth the wait to purchase and view this DVD, it being denied the full 5-star rating because it does NOT include a sub-title track so that one can listen to the commentary and follow the dialogue on-screen. This is a personal foible of mine, but may not be relevant to other purchasers.
   
   Otherwise a superlative product, which I recommend highly to anybody.



2. This is my favorite movie ever. With Jodie Foster as the vulnerable Clarice Starling, and Anthony Hopkins as the deadly Hannibal Lector it is not something you can afford to miss. Best movie by far, I am in love.



3. I cannot believe that Yahoo users have voted this movie as the No.1 horror movie of all time and I wonder how after all these years many people are still lauding this movie. Maybe 5 or 10 minutes into the movie where they pull out the insect from the mouth of a corpse and I realised I was going to watch one of the most ridiculous movies ever and it sure lived up to that reputation.
   
   How many of the detectives out there in real life searching for serial killers (many of them who are still at large) are visiting disillusioned and demented psychopaths rotting in prison cells for advice on how to nab them? That is what this movie is all about. I really want to know how many students, teachers of psychology thought about the whole meeting a psychopath to get clues to the whereabouts of a serial killer thing. I particularly wanted their opinions on the conversations the two had. Particularly that incredible line this movie is famous for when Jodie says "He said he could smell my c**t." Maybe they were laughing at it all. Actually after I heard this line all I wanted to do was run out of the cinema but stayed back just to watch the remaining garbage. Jodie is a very talented actress and Anthony Hopkins one of the very best there is but I wonder what was going on in her mind as she said that obnoxious line in the movie. Don't tell me it was for the Oscar. Oh God! then please, please give it to her. Yeah, that's what they did. Besides that line the sessions between Jodie and Hannibal are preposterous filled with questions and answers that have no relation to the questions.
   
   In the unnecessarily prolonged climax scene where Jodie kills the killer (who is wearing night vision glasses) in total darkness was just outrageously ridiculous. Was it for this that Jodie went to consult the psychopath and speak that horrible line?
   
   But the way this movie generated a great-movie fervor and zeal is probably a success story for marketing. The super cast (Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster), the attractive movie poster and all the hype lead it all the way up to the Oscars where it netted the coveted ones, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Director and Best Picture.
   
   Both Anthony Hopkins and Jodie won oscars for their roles but if you really want to see their true potential check out The Bounty for Anthony Hopkins and Contact, Flight Plan for Jodie to just name a few of the many good movies where Jodie and Anthony had more meaningful and purposeful roles.
   
   Doesn't Amazon have a zero star rating if not a negative rating?



4. I'm surprised that most of the negative reviews on the Silence of the Lambs aim mostly at how boring and overdone of a film it is. I may give it a one star, but only because I think the way movies have become is heinous. Cinematically, this movie is very well done. It may not be like other horror movies and that's what makes it so effective. It doesn't use cheap thrills, or excess of guts and gore. It has all the atmosphere and psychological scare I've seen in a long time. There really isn't that many shocking scenes in the movie, but when it decides to go out on a limb--it's downright disturbing. The images stay in your head for awhile, and that's part of why I hate this movie.
   
   Some people won't be as affected by this as I am, but I don't like watching movies I simply can't enjoy. If there's nothing about the movie I want to remember, then it's simply not worth seeing. People are beautiful in my eyes, and when they're mutilated in disgusting ways-- there are no words for the anger inside for the people who inflict this pain. The movie makes a point to personalize the victims and, even the people you don't know very much about, you still know they are good people being treated the worst injustices in the world. Over the years, villains from any movie become this icon to society and I don't understand how people can look up to somebody they would hate and fear if they ever encountered somebody of the like, in real life.
   
   People somehow don't understand that when some sick people see movies like this, they become copy cats of Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill. I despise the movie industry nowadays because it contributes to our already violent society, and it's always trying to outdo itself with the latest technology, the newest and scariest tacttics, and it's all for the sake of making some big bucks. I can't laugh at anything about this movie because there's nothing hilarious about six beautiful young and talented women being imprisoned in a well, skinned, and dumped at a river.
   
   Movies like this, no matter how well made, are full of crap.



5. This review will discuss the merits of the now rare and out of print Criterion Collection version of the film. One of the questions a viewer needs to ask him or herself is whether or not the added expense of a rare edition can be justified.
   
   The Criterion dics presents the film in a letter boxed widescreen aspect ratio of 1.85:1 which appears to be the correct shooting format used by cinematographer Tak Fujimoto. The sound is standard 2.0 Dolby Surround. This is a fairly new film and the Criterion transfer appears to be reference quality. I have heard that there is an inexpensive collector's edition by MGM that presents the transfer as a widescreen anamorphic with a 5.1 surround mix. For pure picture quality either way you go is probably fine.
   
   There is really no reason to discuss the plotting of the film. It is well recognized that the acting by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins as the two leads is amazing. Both went on to win Academy Awards for their work. The Ted Talley screenplay was also give the Oscar for iis adaptation of the Thomas Harris source material.
   
   The biggest feature of the Criterion Edition is a commentary track featuring director Jonathan Demme, actors Foster and Hopkins, screenwriter Talley and FBI agent John Douglas. As far as I can tell this is the only edition that offers a commentary track. The track is informative and is a good listen. The Criterion Disc features seven deleted scenes taken from a workprint (timecode is included). Most of these scenes are unnecessary but two reveal a dropped plotline that is rather interesting. The rest of the film extras include storyboard galleries and a storyboard to film comparison of the Memphis jail break.
   
   Two rather interesting features are pure textual. There is a lengthy series of excerpts from the FBI Field Classification Manual on Sexual Homicide prepared by John Douglas ans a feature called Voices of Death which is a series of quotes by convicted seriel killers prepared by Michael Newsom from his book. All in all these features compose a great deal of material on the criminal mind and should not be skipped.
   
   The Criterion Disc is well suited to fans of the film or to those with an interest in the subject matter. It is also well worth seeking out for the Criterion completist.

5 comments about Wrongfully Accused.

1. Since "The Fugitive" is one of my all-time favorites, this takeoff on it was a lot of fun for me to watch. Hey, sometimes it's best to laugh at ourselves and the things we like. For much of it, this movie was laugh-out-loud funny.
   
   It helped not only to know "The Fugitive" story well but also "North By Northwest," "Casablanca" "Titantic," "Star Wars" and many, many other films, both classic and modern-day. The more familiar you are with movies, the more of these "inside" jokes are going to make you laugh. Being a movie buff, a lot of these gags connected and made me really have a good time watching this Leslie Nielsen farce.
   
   Be warned, parents: this is not a family comedy. There are tons of sexual innuendos, so typical of today's comedies....but overall, this is really funny stuff and highly recommended if you watched a lot films in your lifetime.



2. Love this movie, enjoyed it until the end of the movie.



3. Absolutely hilarious take off on 'The
   Fugative', 'Braveheart' and 'America's
   Most Wanted', with timely cameos by
   many, But the late Richard Crenna
   (Summer Rental ***.5's/Rambo[nehead]
   movies) steals the show. A PITY he
   didn't get to work with his alter
   ego, Tommy Lee Jones! Best Nielsen
   spoof yet! But don't miss 'Spy Hard'
   or '2001: A Space Travesty'!!!!!!!!!



4. IF YOU ENJOY LESLIE NIELSEN FILMS...YOU WILL LOVE THIS ONE...LOTS OF LAUGHS, ETC.



5. The movie was very funny, but the tape was damaged at the end. We had seen it before, but we wanted a copy for home.

5 comments about Black Cat: Box Set.

1. Black Cat is just plan WOW! It's just fun, very fast pace, never a dull second! The animation is breath taking I loved it! The charathers are funny and likeable and Creed whoa hehe he can give people chills.
   The Dub cast Funimation put together was amazing. Thanks Black Cat for making me just Love Anime more and more! ^_^



2. I got to say it was a great series, plot, art, voice acting just awesome, no real extras, but alittle to fast on the episodes ploting.Funimation does it again by picking another great series and great actors for the series. It is great don't get me wrong but the series ended to fast for me. I think they could of done at least 4-8 more episodes for the right closure of the series. But that's how most of the anime is now and then, they just get a short time to make the series. So I'm not to mad about it. This is a awesome series and anime and the manga is great too.
   Well when you watch the first episodes you just get hooked it was just man I couldn't stop watchng it. I just got this series a week ago and watched the whole series in one day. On my only day off man. I couldn't stop watching it. I didn't even go shoot pool and drink with my friends like I do on my day off. Man was they mad dude. :P.
   
   Anyways Train is not like Samurai X ok. If Everybody wanted to say someone was copying someone. Everyone has a idea of
   
   1) A girl and guy meets, boy and girl don't like each other, later boy and girl slowly fall in love.
   
   2) Boy and girl long time friends and find out they was in love.
   
   3) Boy and girl meet and girl falls in love with boy, Boy doesn't like girl but later realize he loves her more than he know.
   
   4) Boy and girl fall in love and have to fight to stay together.
   
   5) Boy and girl fall in love, girl dies or boy dies, then wants revenge or saver on one self.
   
   Ok you get it now right. Many series have the idea but the ploting of how and what happens in the time of all this is what makes it great. I was glad to see Saya for a short time in the series. It was sad to see what happened to her. But understand this is not like samurai X just because it go's a different way of the idea. She is always with him in his mind and heart so you start to feel the pain more with him through out the series. It makes you understand truely what was happening to him and how he felt, even if he never said anything you can tell. As well the idea of what she did in the time she was with him. Even after she is gone. It is alittle sad only on that. Nothing else really is sad in this series to me. I fell in love with everyone in this series and it was sad to see it end. I'm glad to see the anime of a manga set which is not yet complete to come alive. So check it out and it's not Kenshin dude, you just don't know what your talking about dude. Train weird name but he is so kwel man alot of the characters was so kwel, but he was just the best man. I like the name Black Cat too. ;p later
   
   THIS IS WELL WORTH TO WATCH AND THE MONEY, BUT I WOULD BUY IT SOME WHERE ELSE TO. SORRY AMAZON BUT I DO BUY MANGA FROM YOU. ;P



3. Black Cat came as a huge surprise for me! I had just finished watching Deathnote and was in search of something new when I stumbled upon this... I figured I'd give it a try and boy was I glad I did... The storyline has several great plot turns and the humor is top notch! Overall one of the best series I've ever seen!



4. Black cat was quite a surprise. I certainly wasn't expecting to thoroughly enjoy it from beginning to end. My criticism of anime is sometimes a bit severe. It feels as though I'm picking through the trash to find a really great series much of the time. Well, I definitely found a keeper in Black cat. The main characters were all awesome. There was always something exciting going on. I doubt many, if any, will be disappointed with this purchase. This is a great price too.



5. The series starts off with loads of action and is basically revolving around main character, Train and his exploits with the Chronos organization that he works for. Throw in a couple characters (Sven, Renslet) that he comes to know and care for and an additional one that he likes but not really in that way. Things only get that much more interesting. It's great to see Funimation and Gonzo come up with this excellent anime series.
   
   Also of note is the character Eve as she is central to this story and comes into their lives after an accident happens. She grows to be a major addition to this cast of ecentric characters that also include other sweepers and numbers (numbered characters of the Chronos organization that Train is a part of).
   
   Great start, middle and ending as well. It really makes for an all around, well rounded, hilarious yet touching series that should be watched as soon as you have the chance.