5 comments about Cobra.

1. Stallone lit up the screen with his then wife in this film over 20 years ago and yet today it still seems like a classic one to me, along the lines of Charles Bronson's "Mechanic" or Steve McQueen's "Bullitt", Cobra features a ruthless cop versus a ruthless ring of serial killing assasins who terrorize the streets. Soon they go after a lady who Sly's character has to protect and that is when Sly is soon on the run with her. Great chase scenes and shooting action flourish in this classic 1986 action film starring Sylvester Stallone and a really nice old car that unfortunately gets destroyed.



2. "Dirty Harry" started the genre of "the maverick cop willing to break a few rules and trample a few constitutional rights to get the job done" genre, and "Cobra" is the genre's logical endpoint. It's fitting that two of the principal actors in Dirty Harry also appear in Cobra (Andy Robinson and Reni Santoni). I believe that was no accident of casting.
   
   Cobra is reductivist in its storyline, with every character, every scene boiled down to the essentials. The troubled, violent cop. The maniac bad guy. The interesting weaponry. The violation of due process. The ethnic sidekick/partner. The damsel in distress. They're all here, performing their exact functions, no more, no less.



3. Cobra is a beast of a man. Highlights including the Cobra wrecking his car and the infamous hospital attack.



4. This movie was interesting and exciting. This movie was famous. Also this movie never stop hard action part. This movie character was very good action star and he was great. everyone knows that. I enjoyed it.



5. A friend of mine once stated that Cobra was "one of the greatest works of art ever committed to celluloid". He's dead now, so I feel okay saying that his comment was patently absurd. Cobra is, in fact, the greatest achievement in human history. More to the point, watching Cobra is like peering into the mind of God.
   Following all the movie's plot twists and turns is certainly a test of mental acuity, but under the delicate helmsmanship of director George Cosmatos, even a dullard can expect 87 minutes of uninterrrupted rapture. Based on Paula Gosling's criminally Nobel-overlooked novel "Fair Game", Cobra explores the fragile struggle between civilized society's need for a humane justice system versus its innate lust for exacting revenge. In an increasingly violent, hostile, and lonely world, where apocalyptic serial-killing cults are allowed to infiltrate our power structures (in this case, the police force), slaughter our pop icons in parking garages (Peter Cetera), and clink their axes together in abandoned warehouses, where do we draw the line between cruelty and justice? Where Cosmatos stands on this issue is purely speculative, as he tackles the films denouement with characteristic subtlety and restraint: Cobra impales the maniacal cult leader on a hook conveyor to be immolated in a roaring smelting furnace. It's an ending that will no doubt continue to inspire spirited discourse amongst filmgoers and ethicists for decades to come.
   At the center of all this wondrous mayhem is Sylvester Stallone as the hard-boiled "zombie squad" toiler Marion "Cobra" Cobretti. And, surprise surprise!, he is once again at the top of his craft. Here he revolutionizes thespianism with a brilliant new school of character development whereby the actor bypasses the diverse landscape of emotions one would expect from his/her character and instead tenaciously embraces a look of fatigue, angst, and confusion throughout the film's entirety. It's a talent only the likes of Burt Reynolds and a young Dolph Lundgren could ever hope to master.
   Need romance? Cobra has it in spades. The chemistry between Stallone and damsel-in-distress Brigitte Nielsen recalls classic Tracy-Hepburn and DeVito-Perlman. This is never more evident than in the infamous diner scene, in which Nielsen squirts a viscous lagoon of ketchup on her french fries before an exasperated Cobretti. This stunning use of condiments only hints at the unbearably thick sexual tension between the protagonists and always lights a fire in my shorts.
   The only sad note in this film : wardrobe director Tom Bronson's mind-boggling decision to saddle Cobra's partner Gonzalez (played by an unbelievably adequate Reni Santoni) with a tweed cap throughout most of the action. Yes, the dapper fez lends some street-cred and authenticity to the role, but it isn't until a shootout near the end of the film that the heaven that is this man's gossamer follicles are exposed! Shame on you, Mr. Bronson. Anything less than the unadulterated glory that is Mr. Santoni's vibrant plumage is a crime in my book!!!
   Aspiring filmmakers take heed: commit "Cobra" to memory...or take up bricklaying.

5 comments about The Illuminated Chakras - A Visionary Voyage into Your Inner World.

1. I really like this Dvd it has such Beautiful Illustrations. you can watch a different Chakra each day or the whole DVD . A Must buy ! for anyone who is interested in Chakras.



2. As someone who is fairly new to Chakra work, I found this DVD a fabulous bridge between reading a book and truly feeling or seeing whats going on energetically. I originally only rated this 4 stars as I thought the sound quality was poor but it turned out to be my DVD player. The 3-D visuals are a delight to watch over and over again. One great plus I enjoyed was the sparkling holographic image she showed of the brain near the end. Absolutely stunning. 5 Stars! If you get this DVD, definitely get her book "Wheels of Life" as well. It will keep you busy with energy work for years. "The Chakra Handbook" by Baginski is also fabulous! I wish I could form a Reiki club here in South Florida. It is probably much more effective to do energy work with others as the energy of the group expands exponentially.



3. imagine a 2 minute commercial on each chackra. I did not find it immediately useful as a long term meditation tool, and I don't know if I will watch it again. It did have entertaining scenes, and might be useful to expand views on chackras.



4. Dear Anodea: I just finished watching your ILLUMINATED CHAKRAS DVD and, I must say, it brought tears of happiness to my eyes. The material, your voice and the visuals are absolutely superb. Simply watching it is an empowering meditation. Thank you so much for sharing your "wisdom" with the rest of the world, and I just wanted you to know, that even though we've never met, I am very PROUD of what you're doing.
   
   My skin is still tingling with energy and my eyes are watery. I feel a sense of excitement, hope and unlimited potential. How inspiring! If this were a group, I would be asking: "where do I sign up?" (ha, ha, ha). :D This DVD is simply fantastic. Please do extend my congratulations to the amazing artists who collaborated with you to make it all marvelously possible.
   
   Mike Angulo
   Life Coach
   [...]



5. This is a very short and concise video meant to summarize the very basic ideas surrounding the chakra system. It takes less than 30 minutes to watch, and is best used as a simple explanation or introduction to anyone who is not familiar with, or has ever heard of a chakra. This is in no way a meditation video, and is informational only. It would be a good video to loan to a friend who happened to ask "a shock...what?" or for instructors to give their students as introductory material. The imagery is very creative and vivid, and the music is pleasant and appropriate.

5 comments about Lord of the Flies - Criterion Collection.

1. We were handed paperback copies of Sir William Golding's novel in my seventh grade class back in 1973, and it was not until three years later when I saw the 1963 movie. The plot was about thirty or so British schoolboys, ages 6 to 13, whose plane crashes in the South Pacific Ocean and were the only survivors. They came ashore on a small uncharted, uninhabited tropical island where survival and the hopes of being rescued took precedence. While the pilot perished in the crash, there were no other adults and the boys were left to fend for themselves.
   
   The task was left to two of the oldest boys, Ralph and Jack. Ralph did his best to keep order with the younger boys where survival was the key by building shelters and gathering food. They would also build a fire as a signal to alert any passing ship or plane. While exploring the island and walking along the surf, Ralph and a fat, nearsighted boy, suffering from asthma, named Piggy stumbled upon a conch washed up on the shore. To Ralph the conch was an important symbol that whoever held onto it had the power to speak.
   
   During their isolation on the island, the boys managed to get along until Jack, a choirboy who initially proclaimed that the British people were the most civilized on earth, wanted to have fun and hunt since the island was inhabited by wild pigs. This led to a falling out between him and Ralph, and two separate factions ensued. Jack's group were mainly other choirboys who split away from the main group, settling on one part of the island where they would engage in savagery with painted faces and long hair. Aside from Piggy, Ralph's group included a boy named Simon, two twins named Sam'n'Eric and some of the smaller boys that were called "littleuns".
   The longer the two groups remained, hostilities between them grew more and more.
   
   Since no adults were present, one fear they faced was that of "the Beast". Jack's group was determined to hunt down the beast, and the nightly rituals was dancing around the fire and chanting, "Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!"
   
   The trauma was that of a weak Simon who happened to stumble upon one of these rituals and was killed by Jack's group. His bloodied body thrown into the sea. The traumas continued as Jack's attention turned toward Ralph's group. The need for Piggy's spectacles to start fires was one thing and finishing off Ralph was another. Piggy would later be killed by a boulder falling on top of him and the conch smashed into worthless pieces. Sam'n'Eric would be apprehended and forced into Jack's group. This led to the littleuns abandoning Ralph as well.
   
   Ralph, now alone, was in fear for his own life. Jack's goal now was to hunt him down and kill him, even if it meant smoking him out by burning the entire island. While Jack and his group were in pursuit, Ralph ran as fast as he could until he stumbled on the beach and would look up at a naval officer who happened to come ashore with a rescue party.
   
   The plot in the film came very close to that of the novel. There was a remake of "Lord of the Flies" in 1990 that, to me, did not make any impression. The plot was altered where American boys from a military school faced similar situations. As for the 1963 film, I find it a classic not one worth missing.



2. "We're Englishmen, and the English do everything right!" one of the choirboys says soon after finding themselves on the island. From then on, it's a steady degeneration into savagery. I saw Lord of the Flies (and read the Golding novel) when it first came out in the '60's, and it keeps getting better everytime I see it. There are just so many memorable images: "Piggy", the nerdy kid with the shattered glasses lens; flies buzzing around the hog's head impaled on a stick; the "Beast", etc. This is great story telling, and the kids' characters are so well delineated. Low budget and filmed entirely on location, the camera crew had to be very resourceful in overcoming obstactles. (Speaking of budgets... Criterion Editions does great work, but there's no reason to charge 40 bucks for this DVD. The transfer is excellent, but it's no better than an earlier issue on videotape put out by another outfit.) In special features, the filmakers discuss how they discovered an ingenious use of the zoom lens, a relatively new gadget at that time. (The effect is not the cheesy zoom in/zoom outs used ad nauseum on '70's TV shows.) An "indie" film of sorts, Lord of the Flies was filmed in black and white, but then, so were classics like On the Waterfront, To Kill a Mocking Bird and The Haunting. Technicolor film was very expensive, and you didn't want to leave too much of it on the cutting room floor. The '90's version is OK, but I think the film makers erred in making the kids military school students. The seed of violence has already been planted, and it's not so far a leap to savagery.



3. If you are looking for the definitive theatrical version of "Lord of the Flies", here it is. All essential thematic elements are included without laboring over miscellaneous detail. Sure, it could be longer to include every detail from the novel, but it loses nothing at its current length. I found it very useful as a follow up to classroom study, and my students adjusted well to the black and white presentation. You know it hits the mark when you need to pass out Kleenex, after Simon and Piggy's deaths, to a jaded bunch of ninth graders. Worth the investment!!



4. The point, I think, of making a novel into a movie is to take the text and replace it with a visual. In this case, and in most cases, all the awesome good bits of the text are butchered in the name of artisitc license. Well "boo" to that! I cringe when my students ask to see the movie after we read the book, because it's just not the same. Where's the part with Simon and the head? And what's the deal with the parachutist? Those are important elements of the text that are either glossed over, mangled, or removed completely. I object to such tinkering with greatness! The merit in such films is only to encourage students to write reviews or to compare/contrast. Any other use, such as a substitution for the text, is not reccomended. Rhetorical question: Why don't film makers create a real version of the text? Enough said. Just read the book.



5. This is an absorbing account of children living with no supervision.
   Based on William Golding's classic novel, a group of schoolboys are stranded on an island after their plane crashed. Two cliques soon form--one is a civilized group wanting to concentrate on finding shelter, food, and being rescued. The other is more savage, wanting merely to hunt wild pigs and have fun.
   These differing priorities soon clash and head toward calamity. This realistic depiction of children was virtually unheard of back in 1963, and it's even pretty rare nowadays. But kids left without any guidance, rules, or consequences? It's easy to say there would be some mischief and unwise decisions.
   Although I enjoyed the remake, I found this original version much more raw and engaging. The story is basically identical, with some minor exceptions. But I'm really starting to enjoy some B&W films, I hope I'm not getting old.
   Criterion comes through again.

5 comments about Hellraiser.

1. I love horror, and finally saw Hellraiser last night. I had put it off for so many years because I thought it would be more sci-fi than horror, which I don't care for. After watching Bravo's scariest movie moments, I decided to take a chance and rent it. To my total surprise, I loved it! The story line was great, as was the acting, as were the scares. Shame on me for not seeing this years ago. I saw where so many future movies were influenced by this and was amazed. Someday, when someone puts out a list of things you must see to call yourself a fan of the horror genre, this had better on it. Not everyone will like it, but everyone should see it.



2. One of the greatest horror movies with the greatest villains; the Cenobites. Pinhead (Doug Bradley) leads the Cenobites to unsuspecting victims who opens the box which is also known as the Lament Configuration. The story about the box is detailed in Hellraiser: Bloodlines. If you "solve" the box, the cenobites bring pain in the lines of sharp hooks attached to chains. Some believe the box will bring them pleasure.
   
   * This was in a time period when horror movies were really horror movies aimed at scareing the audience with blood, gore, skin ripping, dismemberment, zombies, and evil characters.*
   
   In the first installment of this series, Andrew Robinson (the zodiac killer from Dirty Harry) is Larry Cotton who is the half brother of Frank Cotton (Sean Chapman). Frank opened the box and was thrown into a S&M Hell. He escapes and is chased by the Cenobites lead by Pinhead who was alerted to Frank's escape by Larry's daughter Kristy when she inadvernently opened the box. Thinking it was strange, played with it and was drawn into the boxes chimes and movements. She didn't realize that there was a price to pay if you opened (solved) the box. Anyway we are lead to Frank and Larry's new wife, Julia, having a fling and it rekindles when Frank returns as a fleshy zombie who needs the blood of others to return completely to human form (complete with skin, nerves, and muscles). Larry's daughter Kristy (Ashley Laurence), stumbles onto Frank and Julia's plan while "accidently" solving the box. Kristy runs into the Cenobites and makes a deal with Pinhead to sub Frank instead of taking her. Will Kristy get her wish? Will Julia and Frank succeed?
   
   Great special effects for the 80's and even for today. The movie is gory and while it's not as scary as it was when it first came out, it's still a great movie to watch. After Pinhead, my favorite Cenobite is Chatterer. Pinhead rules!
   
   Hellraiser 1,2,3 and 4 (Bloodlines) were good, then it just wasn't that appealing anymore.



3. Being new to the Hellraiser movies I recently watched this. Being a huge fan of Horror movies I have to say, this movie is in the top 3 of my favorite horror movies of all time. I highly recommend it.



4. I swear, new ground is so seldom broke in horror, but I guess the same can be said in any genre. The thing is that the horror genre NEEDS new ground CONSTANTLY - especially these days, we've gone with but - what? TWO groundbreaking horror films (THE EXORCIST and this film...) within 30 years? And it's so easy to get jaded when you're sane enough to keep from killing people 'cause you DON'T know it's not just a film...horror requires something groundbreaking AT LEAST once every decade, but I haven't seen or even heard of anything all that inventive since this film came out. Sure, there's been GOOD horror films, films of very high caliber, but nothing groundbreaking.
   Why am I saying all of this? I say all of this because this film deserves to be projected onto the masses by the biggest advertising firms hired by a much bigger company than Anchor Bay. I say this 'cause it's hard to imagine how the world came out of comas from watching the original FRANKENSTEIN (with Boris Karloff) and the world only paid mild attention to this gem.
   Sure this film's reputation has grown to mythic proportions (after all, it's almost a sort of mythical film in itself, right?), and the DVD has made a lot of profit since its release, but...I still feel this film has been shortchanged.
   What I like most about this film is how it manages to provide very convincing and very effective special effects along with a very complex system of character involvement. It seems like most everyone would say the bad guys are the "cenobites" (see front box cover art for an idea of what that term means if you haven't seen this film;), but the real bad guy in this film is the male leads' brother Frank. I actually thought he really loved Julia...hard to believe he even HAD a soul to tear apart...
   The plot itself is intriguing, yet a little bit simplistic. The last two scenes are quite interesting, but the scene prior to those two where Kirsty (sp?), the daughter of the male leads' character, gets rid of the cenobites was a little too tidy and went on for a tad bit longer than it should have, but I think the film would have been unsatisfying somehow had EVERYBODY died at the hands of the strange twist of events depicted in this film. The writer (Clive Barker) really had no other choice, IMO.



5. "Hellraiser", directed by Clive Barker, is an amazing sort of fantasy/monster-horror crossover movie that has the creativity and professionally written touch to both:
   A: Make its own set of rules, and B: Not only abide by them, but still prove to be a twisted movie!
   So, if you probably know the plot by now but haven't seen the movie, I'll convince you as to why this movie is so incredibly awesome:
   First off, "Hellraiser" is a movie that is able to pull off having quite a few characters. There's Julia and Frank, who, although are deemed the "protagonists" are in the end, obviously the villains. We have Kirsti, played by the gorgeous Ashley Laurence, the type of jailbait only Motorhead would sing about (I can't believe I just said that!), and Kirsti is also a protagonist, though, we can tell that she stays good and doesn't cross over to being an actual villian.
   And then we have the Cenobites! Pinhead, the sadomaschocistic (sp?) leader, Butterball as I call the heavy-set one, the Chatterer, one bad fella who proves it when he sticks his fingers down Kirsti's throat, and Fembot, as I call the Cenobite that's female with the pale face and shadowed eyes.
   
   OK, so obviously all the characters are dazzling, but what makes this movie even better is how there's so many twists! When Frank opens the puzzle box, he is supposedly dead, but when a mover cuts his hand on a nail and spills blood on the floor, Frank gets resurrected as a deformed corpse...hey, that's the supernatural for ya.
   Frank and Julia used to be lovers, and the only way for Julia to restore Frank to his fully human form is to bring people to their attic and kill 'em, then their blood will spill so Frank can absorb it and become fully human.
   This is also all the responsibility of the puzzle box that contains Pinhead and the Gang, and that comes into play about an hour in. Kirsti, now the only protagonist that's still good, opens the box, and, yes, does set Pinhead and the Wild Ones free. If there's another thing to know about "Hellraiser", is that it's a movie with GREAT monsters! Pinhead can even control chains all with his head, baby!
   
   But the ingenious factor of "Hellraiser" is how sadistic it becomes. How far Julia is willing to go to give Frank rebirth? How many people must she kill to have her lover return from being but a bloody corpse? What's gonna happen to Kirsti, the innocent heroine, throughout all of this? And what are Pinhead and the Cenobites gonna do?
   The answers lie within the movie. Within these 90 minutes of sex and violence lie true intellect, so many props go to Clive Barker. The good guys, the bad guys, the monsters, the sublime sort of pain each character seems to be in (as Robert Englund said on the 100 Scariest Movie Moments countdown), the gore, the plot, EVERYTHING about Hellraiser that I thought was good, was GOOD! This is a movie that, if you rent it for the weekend, you WILL watch it twice!
   And since that was the case with me, "Hellraiser" now holds a high and mighty spot on my "Horror Movies To Buy" list. WATCH THIS! If you like fantasy horror, if you like scary movies with good monsters, if you wanna watch a movie with lots of depth, twists and style, "Hellraiser" will make your night! Thanks for the time, and peace.

5 comments about Monster.

1. A riveting depiction of the life of Aileen Wuornos, the serial killing hooker in Florida who carried out a vigilante mission, of sorts, on her clients. The beautiful Charlize Theron is almost unrecognizable, but superbly acted as Aileen, as is Christina Ricci in the role of Selby, her lesbian lover.
   
   Anyone familiar with the actual case will appreciate the back story of Aileen's early life which is properly presented in this film. The viewer may feel an amount of sympathy when she begins her vengence; you've heard the expression "some people just need killin'," and that certainly applies in that sad instance. But Ms. Wuornos, unsuccessful in a quest for a "normal" job as she tries to maintain a comfortable lifestyle for herself and Selby, descends into the dark world of sequential murder on a regular basis in order to survive.
   
   Not for the easily offended, this movie both shocks and assails the senses, but grips the viewer completely.



2. Excellent movie about the real life actions of one of the few female serial killers. Very non-exploitative considering it's subject is a pair of lesbian lovers, one of which is an violent murderer. The characters are real, you can feel pity for them and their hard lives, but you also feel the very deserving sense of disgust that they earn for themselves. This reality is brought to the characters by the amazing acting of both Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci, with the infamous transformation of Theron who gain 20 lbs, wore fake teeth, and went sans makeup, bringing the "monster" of the film to life. If your interested in serial killers, true crime movies, or dramas dealing with ill-fated romances, then this is the movie for you...



3. Depressing movie, the kind you don't watch over and over.
   
   That said, VIOLENCE is the IMMORAL use of physical, or psychological,
   force. Neither a victim, nor a victimizer be. It was not a violent
   act when David slew Goliath.
   
   To call Aileen a "serial killer", is to say a "serial killer" is
   somebody who kills more than one person, but not at the same time.
   But I think when most people hear the phrase "serial killer" they
   think of a monster, rather than somebody like Aileen, who comes
   across as a victim who finally decides to protect herself by fighting
   back. When sheep are being slaughtered, shall not a lamb choose to
   roar? Does anybody seriously believe that the guys she killed did not
   deserve to die? When David slew Goliath, it was not a violent act.
   
   A "serial killer" in my opinion is somebody who enjoys killing.
   Aileen did what she thought (felt) she had to do in order to save
   herself from being preyed upon by monsters.
   
   In comparison what US soldiers are doing in the middle east makes
   no logical sense: Are they not "serial killers"? And what do you
   call them who committed atrocities at "Abu Ghraib" prison?
   "Abusive"? And do they not endorse genocide who put "support the
   troops" bumper stickers on their vehicles? What is a "serial
   killer"?
   
   Bloodshed is abhorrent. A firefighter does not want to get burned,
   but he allows the heat to touch him in order to save life. Sometimes,
   somebody has to be "the vampire slayer", to get rid of the monsters.
   Can you discern between the prey and the predators? Oscar Schindler
   did so, during WW2, when he was surrounded by Nazis.
   
   David slew Goliath, and eunuchs threw Jezebel out of a window.
   
   
   The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked
   and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
   Psalm 11:5, KJV.



4. Blood and Rain
   Blood for the Masses
   
   Monster
   Based on a true story.
   
   Written and Directed by Patty Jenkins
   Starring Charlize Theron as Eileen Wuornos
   Christine Ricci
   
   Revewed By
   B.L.Morgan
   
   Rating: 5 out of 5
   
   The first statement I have to say about Monster is that I did not enjoy watching this excellent movie. Monster is harsh and grim and almost painful viewing. It is also a true story. That in itself is what makes this important picture hard to look at.
   
   Life can be terribly harsh and the world was not kind to Eileen Wuornos.
   
   Brutally abused as a child and cast out at a young age into an uncaring world she turned to a life of highway prostitution. Her life became a cycle of drug and alcohol abuse and selling her body to guys who frequently beat her because that's what got them off. She accepted it all and didn't care until she fell in love with another woman.
   
   Charlize Theron's portrait of a woman who will do anything, including murder, to keep her one chance at love alive is gut wrenching. She became this damaged woman. Theron won The Best Actress Academy Award for her role in Monster. She deserved it. Eileen Wuornos cannot and should not be forgiven for the crimes she committed but this movie does make you understand the hows and whys of what happened in her life.
   
   Monster was graphic and tense and emotionally draining. It was a highly uncomfortable one hour and forty-nine minutes that I spent watching this film. I will never watch Monster again but I'm glad I did see it the one time.



5. 
   Monster
   
   Although not entirely accurate in this DVD's representation of Aileen Wournos, at least according to her final confession, it is a well-crafted movie; exciting, and always pushing the envelope. I liked it, and would recommend it to anyone interested in the sad life of Aileen Wournos. It is well-worth watching.

5 comments about Prick Up Your Ears.

1. Joe Orton was the, "bit of rough", Leicester lad who became the voice of edgy, sexual charged playwriting in the 60's, exactly the kind of representaions peole were seeking at the time.
   The film depicts his life and rise to fame beautifully, exploring his sexually charged adoloscence,his early admission to RADA, his emerging and confident sexuality and meeting with Halliwell, throught to his final success and the destruction of his realtionship with Halliwell which led to their deaths; Halliwell battered Joe to death with a hammer before overdosing himself on a barbiturate cocktail (bizarrely Halliwell died first). The casting is perfect and the lead actors are immensley evocative and emotive. There is a delicious cameo by Julie Walters as Orton's Mum, too afraid to answer the door to a theatre offical seeking Joe because she has left her teeth upstairs. Frances Barber is excellent and loyal as Joe's Sister, Vanessa Redgrave is slightly cold and bitchy as his agent, particularly with women. An excellent depiction of Joe's high octane, interesting and sadly short life, I was only sorry that the "Morrocan Holiday" scene did not feature a representaion of the comic actor Kenneth Williams(of "Carry On" fame), a dear freind of Joe's who often holidayed with Joe and Halliwell. Not an easy film but a very good and beautifully depicted one.
   Fnas of Joe may wish to know that Leicester City Council have now marked the council house he grew up in with a blue plaque, it is situated off Saffron Lane, an estate of houses bulit in the 1930's.



2. . . . . well, maybe not lovers but more like two men who
   shared a sexual history. When Ken hammered Joe to death,
   it was hardly an act of love, but it was certainly an
   act of history.
   
   Unravelling the history of Ken and Joe is what Prick Up
   Your Ears is about. Joe was playwright Joe Orton. Ken
   was first his mentor, then his lover and finally-when
   Joe's fame exceeded his-his depressed and angry drudge.
   Prick Up Your Ears doesn't unravel the history of this
   relationship so much as it caresses its surface,
   playing with issues of wit and style. The play is
   attractive, even funny, but it never hellps us to
   understand what kept this unlikely pair together
   for 16 years.
   
   The movie rises above the level of morbid peep
   show only by standing on the shoulders of three
   great performances. Alfred Molina as the tormented
   Ken and Gary Oldman as the sociable and heartless
   Joe keep the somewhat superficial screenplay together.
   Julie Walters (Educating Rita) as Joe's crazed kin
   almost steals the show.
   
   In the end, Orton's inability to recognize the value
   that Ken had added to his life and Ken's refusal to
   live without that recognition leads the grisly murder-
   suicide with which the film begins.



3. I've been a huge fan of both Gary Oldman and Alfred Molina for years and I think they are both outstanding in this biography of the late British playwright Joe Orton.
   
   Although most people think of Oldman from films like AIR FORCE ONE or the Harry Potter films and Molina from SPIDER-MAN 2, they are both some of the most dependable and most talented actors in films today.
   PRICK UP YOUR EARS would be worth seeing for either one of these actors, but both of them make this an excellent film.
   
   I would recommend it to anyone who likes them but I would also warn anyone about the film's openness about their characters' homosexuality. If you have a problem seeing men kissing, then you might want to take a pass (or just turn your head). I don't know. I wouldn't trick anyone into watching this movie without letting them know that the main characters are gay--and one of them loves to pick up strange men in London public bathrooms (called "cottages").
   
   But this is a good movie with great performances. If you see and like this film, I would also recommend CARRINGTON with Jonathan Pryce and Emma Thompson.



4. "PRICK UP YOUR EARS"
   
   What a Way to Go
   
   Amos Lassen and Literary Pride
   
   
   "Prick Up Your Ears" is a gem of a movie. It tells the true story of English playwright Joe Orton and his homosexual relationship with his talented but not so successful partner, Kenneth Halliwell. It is a solid drama and most amazing is that it is twenty years old.
   Joe Orton was a daring and rebellious writer. Told through flashbacks, Orton's literary agent, played wonderful by the incomparable Vanessa Redgrave, relates her memories and reads entries from Orton's diary, beginning and ending with his horrible murder.
   Born into the lower class, Orton (Gary Oldman) teamed up with an ambitious writer, Halliwell (Alfred Molina) at the Royal Academy of Drama in England,. They collaborated for years and when Orton broke out on his own, fame bit him on the neck. His plays include "loot" and "What the Butler Saw" and the charmed the critics and the public with his black comedies. At the same time he was living in a homosexual relationship which, back then, was illegal. He was also extremely sexually adventurous. The competition between he and hi s lover heightened and Halliwell dejected, feeling rejected, and very jealous hammered Orton to death in 1967 and took his own life immediately afterwards.
   It was not only success de t talent that brought Orton fame. His personal charisma and luck also helped. The two men, who seemed to be talented equally were split apart when one of the pair became an award winning playwright and the other had no luck whatsoever.
   Orton's death in 1976 caused quite a stir not only by the way he dies but by the fact that the nature of his relationship with Halliwell was revealed to the public.
   It was Halliwell that seduced Orton when they were students and it was Halliwell who was more imaginative but a bit disturbed. After the two had begun their relationship each spent half a year in prison for defacing library books and while there Orton`s agent discovered his talent and guided him to success while Halliwell stayed behind in the shadows of his lover.
   The acting in the movie is far above anything else dealing with homosexuality at the period in which it was made. In many cases, it is far above what we see today. The script is brilliant and it is very sad that the movie did not get the exposure it deserved. At times it is very raw and the death of Orton is shocking as we watch it from beginning to end. As is typical of so many British movies, it is literate and beautifully acted and photographed. Were it to be re-released today, I am sure it would find its rightful audiences and acting prizes would be handed out to the entire cast.



5. DVD arrived in goodly time and in great quality... the movie itself wasn't as good as I had remembered it, but the service was A-1.

5 comments about Men At Work.

1. Simply you just need to ADD Men At Work to your dvd Collection...'tis Fresh,Inventive,A pleasant,Knockabout Comedy.



2. This is just a plain fun movie, a small insight into what it may be like for some sanitation workers, and why my trash cans are always all over the place when I get home. Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez are garbage men who, by string of coincedences, get linked into a murder in more ways than one, all through trying to clean up trash.
   
   Sure this movie is a bit far streached at times, and makes two relatively clever characters go from funny to dumb all throughout (Why not just call the cops asap when you find a body????) Also, no cops were involved at the end either, as near as I could tell...why, loose ends.
   
   However, this is chauked full of one liners, ongoing gags, and the two bike policemen on a merry-go-round, worth the price of the movie alone. Pick this up for cheap, enjoy it a lot.



3. This is a purposely offbeat movie with some great humor and I've found that it's one of those films that you'll want to go back and revisit. Emilio Estevez and Charlie Sheen are really good together (their banter is especially strong in the first half of the movie) but I've found, as others have done, that it's actually Keith David who steals the show. This would have probably got 5 stars from me except that the second half of the film just isn't quite as original or comedic as the first half - the story starts getting more action-orientated and the ending is a little on the cheesy side. Still, you've got to love the idea of lead characters as garbagemen and the charm with which Estevez and Sheen do it.



4. I still enjoy Men at Work. I enjoyed it when I was a little kid, and I enjoy it still as a slacker/dreamer 20 somethin'...good movie to sit back with after a day at work, relax a little bit, rest your feet, and gulp a beverage, masticate some good local pizza with extra cheese and hot peppers.



5. Great movie. A true comedy done right, I would recommend this movie to any fan of the Late 80's early 90's. Very Very Funny.

5 comments about A Perfect Murder.

1. Michael Douglas is so convincing as a cold, calculating criminal/big business man, who hatches a scheme to do away with his cheating wife. Since the other man in the picture is also quite deviant, the plot gets complicated and things don't work out as planned. The result is an intelligent thriller that will draw you into the intrigue and keep you guessing as to what will happen next. Definitely the kind of movie that can be enjoyed again and again. Absolutely not a good choice for younger viewers though.



2. The stock review on this movie told me that it was a loose remake of the Alfred Hitchcock Classic "Dial M For Murder." The promo also told me that it had a clever script and unexpected plot twists. So what do I spend my time doing as I watch the movie? Waiting to be caught off-guard by plot twists, and waiting to be impressed with a clever script. Well, I waited in vain. The better promo would have been; "This is an ok movie that stands on its own as a tense thiller." Had they said this, it would deserve ... um ... 4 stars.
   
   This feeble remake presents nothing clever, nothing surprising and does not come close to the mastery of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece.
   Sheesh, this movie might as well have put up a subtitle that said "the Grace Kelly wannabe will grasp the meat-thermometer to 'unexpectedly' kill her attacker."
   As for us being "surprised" that the attacker was not the playboy guy, I knew it wasn't the moment the almost-masked guy slipped into the parking garage and the cameraman hid his face from us. duh!
   As for the clever script, Michael Douglas basically tells his wife that he's going to kill her. Gee, is that tension? No, it's just annoying to watch and wonder just how stupid this blond wife is supposed to be.
   As for the movie being clever? Not when they claim that it's a remake of a Hitchcock masterpiece. Also, the plotting husband gives an unconvincing reason as to why the playboy can't just go kill her in the bathroom. The viewer feels like shouting "it's because this is a remake of a film where the wife is on the phone when she is attacked!" I feel like also quoting the fictional-fictional Jack Slater (in Arnold's Last Action Hero) saying his expected and corny line of "big mistake."
   
   A big reason why "Dial M For Murder" remains a masterpiece, is that Hitchcock limited himself to basically one set, with very few exceptions. Even his cameo was masterfully slipped into that expensive "flat" (in the picture on the wall). (He did the same self-challenge in Rear Window and Lifeboat.) The 1954 wonder-work (Dial M For Murder) has a tight script and mesmerizing camera work which endure to this high-tech day as one of the best of the best by the best, and not easily "remade" by this ok film.



3. great cast and plot. wonder if this really has happened? wish I lived in the apartment that gwynth/michael had in the movie.



4. I am in the midst of replacing some of my favorite movies on VHS to DVD. This one ranks toward the top. The movie is in great shape and was delivered promptly.



5. A Perfect Murder is a great suspense but I still feel like something's lacking from this cat and mouse game. Gwyneth Paltrow saves this film from sinking, she is fabulous, seductive, and connvincing as an unfaithful wife. Michael Douglas tends to over-act here and Viggo Mortensen is a nice piece of eye candy. I like this film but I wasn't jumping for joy, decide for yourself.

5 comments about The House of Mirth.

1. House of Mirth was actually number one on my Christmas list of must-read books last year. I'd heard so much about the movie, I forced myself to abstain from watching it until I finished this sure-to-be intensely satisfying book. I'm sure it's because I'm not used to Edith Wharton's writing style, but I think she may've been alergic to action. There's plenty of self-examination from our heroine, Lily Bart, and her seemingly endless commentary on society and her place in it. Thankfully, we're spared much of that in the film. The film brings up many interesting points that I'm sure the book discussed, had I cared at the time. Is Lily Bart a martyr for accomplished, well-to-do ladies of her circle? Does she surrender too soon? Does her weakness say more about her or society? It really is rather a disturbing look at societal politics and how quickly the upper echelons of society could eliminate or alienate rivals by rumor, slander or even the hint of impropriety. As much as I initially loathed Lily Bart and her ineptitude, I really should sympathize because she's not a survivalist in the skilled, strong work-ethic sort of way. She wasn't bred for that. We get early on that even she knows she's doomed to failure. She's given several opportunities to get back in the game, but shuns them out of pride or loyalty to her friends. Gillian Anderson is exceptional in the film because she understands Lily Bart is an uncomplicated woman. She wants to be a part of high society but won't step on anyone to get there or take the easy way out. She knows Lily's imperfections but she'd explain that they're necessary if she's to fight for her place in the world. That's all she knows. I do love the entire cast in this film, especially Dan Aykroyd as Gus Trenor. Some people dislike the casting of Aykroyd and I too think his presence is rather jarring. I'm waiting for him to whip out his proton pack. But his odd, slimy salesman presense was a brilliant choice as we instinctively don't want him anywhere near Lily. I'm rather partial to this film for restoring the bitter disappointment I felt for the book. I really find it more interesting to watch Lily's star gradually diminish without needing a constant commentary from the heroine. We only need to see how she reacts. She isn't able to share her inmost feelings and I think her silent, self-struggle, is what makes the audience wish they could help her or be her confidant.



2. I just finished the dvd after having read the book a few weeks ago, and I'm sorry to say that my high hopes were disappointed. You would think that a novel worth adapting to film would be worth adapting with some sense of fidelity to the original...unless you have learned better by now. (I have not.)
   
   My first frustration with this version was when I realized that the script had collapsed, into one very incoherent character, the heroine's greatest (blindest, even!) defender *and* one of her greatest detractors. Was this a misguided attempt to economize? In the novel, Gerty Farish is a crucial foil not only for Lily Bart's beauty but also for her taste for luxury, her selfishness, and her charm--perhaps someone decided that, with her unrequited longing for Selden and her bad complexion, Gerty would drag down the film's aesthetic standards. In the novel, however, this is essential: she is shabby, yes, she is exhaustively principled and self-effacing, but she also shows us that the extreme poverty that leads to such squalid ruin in the heroine *can* be compatible with some kind of respectable and useful existence. This all sounds like a load of moralizing, but what works about the novel is that it doesn't try to privilege this good-doing over what is undeniably more interesting; you could say that it is Gerty who manages to survive the course of the plot, but you would also have to admit that the life of Gerty Farish would never merit any kind of novelistic treatment. I have harped on this for too long, but to half-eliminate and half-combine what is probably the fourth- or fifth-most important character in the book with, of all people, Grace Stepney, is, to say the least, problematic.
   
   My other main gripe with this adaptation was that I missed a sense of Lily Bart's tragic habit of doing the wrong thing, against her better conscience, until it was just too late. This was what sustained, through the better part of the book, a sense of ineluctable doom. If a pervasive sense of ineluctable doom doesn't sound like a good idea for a movie, then someone ought to rethink making movies out of stories that [spoiler, if you are still with me] end in suicide, even if the suicide is staged with a bottle of red liquid dripping artistically from the heroine's loosening fingers.
   
   If you're looking for Edith Wharton, needless to say, you'll do better to read the book. If you're trying to save yourself the trouble of reading Edith Wharton for a class--shame on you!--you'll probably get more out of wikipedia than from this movie.



3. I loved the book, and didn't mind the rewriting of the storyline. But this was just a badly made film. The acting was terrible, for one. As much as I like Gillian Anderson, I felt she was out of her depth for the role. Everyone else (with the exception of Laura Linney) seemed to be "faking" it. The worst part was the transitions between scenes, which were too long, and usually without dialogue or music. I'm not looking for an action-packed film, but the transitions really added nothing to the flow or emotion of the film. There were some good moments, and the costumes were beautiful, but otherwise, I'm waiting for someone else to make a film adaptation of Edith Wharton's wonderful book.



4. The melancholic tale of rapacious Lily Bart, that was so meticulously and brilliantly written by Edith Wharton, deserves to be depicted onscreen with the same fluidity, subtleties and emotive presence as the novel, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that director Terence Davies truly accomplished this. Having read the novel a couple of weeks before, I was so anxious to see the movie adaptation that could do it justice and in my opinion, it sure did.
   
   What Davies concocted in this small-budgeted movie that somehow looks extravangant and lush is the dreamlike atmosphere, with shades of ethereal lighting, that poses a stark contrast to the realism and a sense of brutality in the movie. It seems realistic in a way, as people have mentioned, by the lack of background music that may all but decimate the essence of the words said by the characters. The stillness of a scene without music whatsoever, pulls the audience in and makes the conversations more private and true.
   
   I'm actually very happy that Davies had decided to retain the 'stilted', formal dialogue that Edith wrote, which makes the similarities between the novel and the movie more tangible. Most of the actors seem to be at ease with the dialogue, and I can only sing songs of adulation to Gillian Anderson. I'm not very familiar with her and the supporting cast's work, and the faintest memory of Gillian in X-Files that I have is when I was barely in elementary school.
   
   Gillian is absolutely resplendent as Lily Bart, and the fact that her translucent azure eyes emoting a paroxysm of different emotions within seconds astound me. Her downward spiral towards penury is executed wonderfully; her trembled voice and breaths and her fatigued expression just express pure debility. She does an absolutely brilliant performance that deserves a universal recognition.
   
   As Lawrence Selden, the handsome Eric Stoltz portrays him with such sophisticated charm, at times boyishly, and flirtatious air that it's no wonder that Lily, Grace Stepney and Bertha Dorset are vying for him. In the second part of the movie, Stoltz proves to be a remarkably effective actor in doing dramatic scenes, especially his final scene where he strips off Lawrence's righteous facade and pours his heart out that all but shows the vulnerability and despondency of a crestfallen man. Only stone-hearted people are not affected by this particularly sad scene.
   
   I also have to mention that Gillian and Stoltz elicit amazing sparks and chemistry from each other, which makes their attraction very credible and justified. They react off each other perfectly just with clandestine glances, smiles and even behind cigarette smokes. Their intimate scenes are titilating and private, under Davies' claustrophobic frame, that makes me feel as if their rendezvous is not meant to be seen by the audience.
   
   Other standout performances for me are Anthony LaPaglia as Sim Rosedale and Laura Linney as the vulturous Bertha Dorset, whose malicious intentions lie behind her placid smiles.
   
   The only complaint I have about this movie is that some scenes can only be understood by the rarefied few, albeit those who have read the novel. One scene in particular is the entertainment at the Brys where they held a tableux vivants and Lily was Watteau's Summer. It seems to come out of nowhere in the movie without explanation whatsoever. Such problems occur, unfortunately, because of the meagre amount of budget.
   
   Nonetheless, The House of Mirth is an extraordinary adaptation and it lingers on with me long after I finished watching it that I had to watch it again on the same day. And both times, I couldn't help but cry and feel extremely moved by the movie. This is the movie to see if you enjoy the aesthetics of great cinema and leisurely-paced movie that is deep and wreathing with emotional turmoil.



5. HOUSE OF MIRTH (2000) is a period piece based on the Edith Wharton novel that portrays the early 20th century social caste of New York's elite. Gillian Anderson brings depth to Lily Bart's character as she navigates the protocols and expectations of society that are steeped within her own personal vices. Eric Stolz, Laura Linney, Dan Aykroyd, Anthony LaPaglia, and Elizabeth McGovern also display fine performances, portraying characters that provide a cohesive backdrop for Lily Bart. Caught between gambling debts and naivete, Bart (Anderson) finds herself in a maelstrom of life-altering events, which preclude her from being with the man she truly loves.

5 comments about Hamlet.

1. I was thinking for quite some time about the incongruity of using Shakespearan english in the modern context. The problem is:
   
   1) In modern NY, no one speaks like that. This is known, accepted. So the moment we hear them use Shakespeare's original language, full naturalism, no matter how strictly attempted, cannot be fully achieved. You cannot suck the audience in completely.
   
   2) Shakespeare is nothing without the language. You can't just take the plot, change the lines around, simplify them: without the twists and turns, the wordplay and the thick meanings, a filming of merely the plot will amount to utilising the skeleton of any old folk tale.
   
   I believe that the modern relatively deadpan acting method is contrary to the inherent theatricality of Shakespeare's language. Therefore, if it needs to be filmed in a modern context, it must necessarily be
   
   1) over-the-top, and theatrical, and outrageous, like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" or
   
   2) it must be done by exceptionally gifted and experienced actors already steeped in Shakespeare who can recite the soliloquys even while comatose and can import all their experience, all their gravitas, all their past successes into a medium that is essentially new to Shakespeare. All films of Shakespeare so far have been "filmed plays" with theatrical acting, or over-the-top attempts like R+J or like this one -
   
   Hamlet (2000) is a noble attempt, and some parts really work, but in the end it's a somewhat lethargic, uncertain prod, overall. Laertes does well, and Shepard's ghost is convincingly restrained.
   
   Bill Murray and Ethan Hawke, sorry to say, are all at sea. The complexity of Hamlet is completely gone. Yes, Hamlet is melancholy. Yes, he is young and foolish, at times, but also noble and innocent. But he is divided, pulled and pushed by forces within and without, feelings in him are awakened after a grisly murder of his own father that were alien to him before - and every word of the soliloquys is painstakingly written and meant to support that. Every small nuance is meant to be acted, to be played, to be demonstrated to the discerning viewer - here, it's about 80% gone. Gibson played him as a raving lunatic, a Mad Max of Elsinore, but there was still a lot in there. Unfortunately, there's very little here.
   
   Murray had apparently never done Shakespeare before, and it shows - he's reciting it, not acting it. It was very painful to watch him Laertes' farewell scene. Julia Stiles isn't given much, as if sometimes she seems on the verge of saying something, but doesn't. Venora and MacLachlan play their parts well - Venora with gusto and MacLachlan a little too passive at times.
   
   I would still recommend this to those who'd like to check out what can be done with it in the modern setting - it is an interesting effort, a good amount of thought has gone into it and some of it comes of very well. But this isn't a definitive Hamlet by any means, and no way in hell should it be the FIRST Hamlet a person watches.



2. I've seen at least 4 different productions of Hamlet and this is definitely the worst. The artistic choices aren't bad, but the actors in this version have no idea how to read Shakespeare. The dialogue sounds stilted and gets in the way of everything this production is trying to accomplish. Since it's all of the actors, I have to put most of the blame on the director. As both an actor and a student who's spent 2 years studying Shakespeare generally and Hamlet in particular, I can assure you that this version isn't worth your time.



3. Um...I don't even know WHAT to say. I just finished watching this monstrous perversion (then again, I saw the Branagh version recently; and not by accident, I am a "Hamlet" fiend). Maybe the low rating has something to do with that.
   
   Bad acting--which doesn't do justice to the timeless script--ruins it all. Answering machines? Gimme a break.
   
   Branagh can beat Hawke up with an envenomed foil any day.



4. The idea of setting Shakespeare's masterpiece in modern-day New York proves to be a good one. The film's ominous tone and dark quality give the story a very ominous tone. Sadly, the film is nearly ruined by the acting. Most of the performers in this piece do nothing but recite the lines, failing to put emotional "umph" behind the characters, making this film nearly undramatic.
   Ethan Hawke is a great actor, but doesn't have what it takes to play the Prince of Denmark. Kyle MacLachlan tries as Claudius, but isn't very convincing. Most of Ophelia's lines are mostly cut from the play, so Julia Stiles has little to do, but she's descent when she has the chance. And Bill Murray has NO place in a Shakespeare film. In terms of acting, the two stand-out performances are by Liev Schreiber, who's performance as Laertes is more tender than in recent portrayals; and Sam Shepard gives a very powerful performance as the Ghost of Hamlet's father.
   Overall, this version of "Hamlet" is a disappointment due to some lackluster performances by what should have been a first-rate cast. It's hard to know who to recommend this film to. I'd say skip this version of "Hamlet," and check out either Branagh's four-hour masterpiece, or Zeffirelli's film starring Mel Gibson.
   Movie/DVD Grade: C



5. Great video. I used it in the classroom and showed several clips to coincide with the text. The casting director made some great choices and the director stays true to Shakespeare's story as he would want it told. The "To be or not to be" soliloquy is done beautifully--very introspective and spoken as Hamlet walks through a Blockbuster. There are a few things taken out of order, but only done for cinematic effect.