Showing posts with label ben stiller comedy movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ben stiller comedy movies. Show all posts

Burn After Reading (2008)

Burn After ReadingI just wanted to point out that every single complaint that the one-star reviews dole out are just icing on the cake as far as me totally loving this movie. The characters had no depth? The plot was too amorphous? THAT WAS THE POINT FOLKS. The characters are examples of typical character flaws that are variations on stupidity. You're supposed to enjoy their lives falling apart. I sure as hell did.

I am shocked at the amount of negative reviews here. This is a comedic masterpiece. I think the one star ratings are coming from simpletons that have no clue about truly subtle and intelligent humor. THE ABRUPT ENDING WAS PART OF THE POINT!

THE LACK OF A PLOT WAS PART OF THE POINT!

THE POINT OF THE MOVIE WAS HOW TRULY POINTLESS MOST THINGS ARE!

In their brilliance, the coens were MAKING A POINT BY MAKING A MOVIE WITH NO POINT!

This film is true genius and one of the funniest films I have ever seen. Clooney was a perverted mess and Pitt was genius as a mindless but fun good samaritan. If you know anything about comedy, you will love this film.

Buy Burn After Reading (2008) Now

After the true genius of No Country For Old Men, the Coen Brothers come back with a whole new dimension. Burn After Reading is a dark comedy about idiots faced with an intelligent and complex situation. Two Gym instructors Linda Litsky (Frances McDormand) and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) find a disc containing the memoirs of ex CIA agent Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich). They, being idiots think it's a disc containing top secret information and try to bribe Osbourne for money which would help pay for Linda's cosmetic surgery. Things don't go to plan as Osbourne has bigger things on his mind, his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with the paranoid Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).

This film is actually quite intelligent in its own right, the characters seem well defined and are played superbly. The characters were specifically written for the actor playing them and it really shows.

John Malkovich portrays the agent lost of all hope well, you become quite intimidated by both his intelligence and temper.

George Clooney as the paranoid individual who's having more affairs than you can wave a stick at doesn't falter. He's jumpy, but hey who wouldn't be if you were sleeping with three different women. This eratic behaviour becomes a bit tragic and leads to the death of one of the characters in the film.

Brad Pitt as the loveable and wannabe cunning idiot is fantastic, the facial expressions and general stereotypical dexterity of what we would expect a personal trainer to be really works. This becomes especially amusing when he enters into the bribing game with Malkovich and starts to enter into the character of cunning spy. It has to be seen to be believed.

Frances McDormands character is the real shining light of the whole film as she's the catalyst leading up to the films biggest events. She's a middle aged gym instructor paranoid over the look of her body. While trying to get plastic surgery, she's turned down by her insurance company and is the one that convinces Pitts character to bribe Cox. She's a woman on the edge of giving up on life and wants to take one last leap into the chance of a relationship, but is made even more nervous by her own body insecurities.

The Coens once again create a film that is both surreal and believable, the characters are shockingly brilliant. The scenario is a bit over the top but comes together perfectly. There is something that bothered me, however, and that's the fact that every character in the film seemed to be having an affair with someone else. I don't know, maybe that was the whole point that made the film work. For fans of the Coens this is definitely one that sits proudly in their film catalogue next to such greats as No Country For Old Men and The Big Lebowski. I would strongly recommend it to any film fan overall, it's definitely worth it just for the Brad Pitt & Clooney facial expressions. Be warned though as if you're easily offended by swearing, then you might as well take your pad and pen with you to start writing your complaints letter.

Read Best Reviews of Burn After Reading (2008) Here

Do you remember the first Blu-ray you ever bought? Mine was Burn After Reading on the same day that I purchased my first Blu-ray player. It's a title that receives very little recognition and it regularly features in sales. Why is that the case?

The movie is directed by the Coen brothers and stars Clooney, Pitt, McDormand, Malkovich and Swinton. What's not to like?

I'm hard to please when it comes to humor, but several Coen brothers films hit the spot. It's clever dialogue rather than slapstick physical humor, and some of it is unpredictable. I can't laugh when I see a joke coming from a mile away wearing a T-shirt with "This is funny, laugh now" written on it. I like to be surprised.

So what is surprising about Burn After Reading?

Harry Pfarrer (Clooney) has no redeeming features. He's married, but sees other women at every opportunity. He's having an affair with Katie Cox (Swinton). Harry is shallow, paranoid and somewhat stupid and Clooney plays the character with his usual charm and good humor.

If there is anyone dumber than Harry, it has to be Chad Feldheimer (Pitt), who works in a gym. Chad is a complete idiot in every way. His friend at the gym is Linda Litzke (McDormand), who is obsessed with undergoing cosmetic surgery to improve her appearance.

Osborne Cox (Malkovich) is married to Katie and works as an analyst for the CIA. Most of his sentences include at least one profanity and he's borderline alcoholic. The story begins with a meeting in which Osborne is told that he will be demoted, but instead of accepting the situation, he quits. Katie is not pleased, even though she's on the verge of leaving him for Harry.

There's not much of a plot. Chad acquires a CD containing the beginning of Osborne's memoir and believes it to be secrets of national importance. He thinks that Osborne is sure to give him a reward if he returns it and that leads to an amusing phone call. Linda decides that the Russians may be interested in the worthless CD and that they might reward her for the useless information.

Everybody seems to be sleeping with everyone else and what could go wrong does go wrong. This is not a serious story in any way.

There's a great cameo by J. K. Simmons who plays a CIA boss. He's utterly clueless about the significance of the events we witness because they are all meaningless. Watch his reaction at the end of the movie when he makes a decision about what further action to take.

Burn After Reading is a good way to spend an hour-and-a-half. No analysis is necessary. All of the characters have funny moments. Ignore the negative reviews and see it for yourself. You can pick it up for under $10 if you like it.

Overall score 4.5/5

Want Burn After Reading (2008) Discount?

Every once in awhile the Coens love to throw one at you just for fun. Burn After Reading is in many ways a "Double McGuffin," playing into a wide range of conspiracy theories and jaded views on life. A pair of misfits hope to extort a former CIA analyst when they stumble across a disc at a fitness club. I suppose in many ways this film is a satire of the political thrillers, set during the last days of the Bush administration when we were still living on colored alerts. The Coens draw on a wealth of talent, from John Malkovich as the disenchanted CIA analyst preparing to write a book of his experiences, to Francis McDormand who stumbles across a CD that contains much of the information he has garnered, to George Clooney as a two-timing federal marshall. Even Brad Pitt gives a stand out performance as McDormand's screwball accomplice. There are enough twists and turns to keep you guessing, but this movie is played mostly for laughs.

Save 28% Off

Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999)

Teaching Mrs. TingleI admit that I purchased this movie for the plain and simple fact that Dame Helen Mirren appears in it. I can also say with all honesty that I have never watched a single episode of Dawson's Creek or 7th Heaven. I am a huge fan of Mirren's versatile acting abilities. She is amazing in this film, but I won't gush on about her...

However, I was pleasantly pleased and surprised with this film and all of it's actors. It is a well written script by Scream's Kevin Williamson who also shows his ability to direct in his debut.

I also enjoyed several cameo appearances by faces that I haven't seen in a while. The principal is played by Michael McKean. You knew him as Lenny Koznowski, the nasal, nerdish pal of Andrew "Squiggy" Squigman on the hit TV series Laverne and Shirley. Molly Ringwald is Miss Banks, the administrative assistant in the school's office, Vivica A. Fox plays guidance counsellor, Miss Gold and Jeffrey Tambor as Coach "Spanky" Wenchell.

The movie moves at a quick pace and has many twists, turns and thrills! Highly recommended for a family fun movie night!

Happy Watching!

I wasn't sure what to expect when I first saw this movie awhile ago. Would it be a crazy teen romp complete with insane pranks on teachers and classmates alike? Or would it be a dramatic piece with lessons and morals to spare? The answer? A little bit of both.

While I won't say I loved this movie, I did love Katie Holmes'character transformation here. From serious, studious bookworm to adventurous and optimistic. Cool job with the acting and writing there. Others may praise Helen Mirren's portrayal of Mrs. Tingle as being the highlight but for me it was Katie who stole the show.

My only real problem with this movie is the ending. Too many issues are glossed over for a happy, neatly packaged conclusion. The kids may have hated Mrs. Tingle for she was no doubt a bitter old lady, but the kids did indeed have a stolen test paper. What was Mrs. Tingle to do? Ignore that completely? And the issue is basically forgotten by the end of the film as the three students walk away scot free. Let's not forget that they kidnapped Mrs. Tingle and shot her with an arrow before she ever took a shot at them. The movie seems to abandon all of this. This movie would've been much better with a more realistic ending.

Buy Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999) Now

In the wake of Columbine, this film, originally titled "Killing Mrs. Tingle", was changed to "Teaching Mrs. Tingle". I think it sounds more appropriate. To tell you the truth, this movie isn't as bad as has been written about it. Writer Kevin Williamson is on board as director as well on this film. Three students decide to take action against a nasty teacher(brilliantly played By Helen Mirren)who thinks they were cheating on a test(which they weren't)and now stands in their way of graduating. They go to her house and a series of incidents occur which now has the three students keeping Mrs. Tingle locked up in her house, with each one of them taking turns watching her. One by one, Mrs. Tingle begins to mess with their minds. Helen Mirren is exceptionally convincing and brilliant as the nasty teacher. She will have you hooked on her through the entire film. The other stars, Katie(Dawson's Creek)Holmes, Barry(7th Heaven)Watson, and newcomer Marissa Coughlan are all pretty good. Coughlan is especially delightful. Many bad things were said about this film because of Columbine and the violence in the movie, but there is no deaths. No nothing. I think a lot of people ripped into it because of what the original title was and because of Columbine. It's obvious that they never even saw the film or read the script. It's PG-13 after all. This isn't grand filmmaking, but it's entertaining to a certain degree nonetheless. Williamson has a nice eye for directing as well. The film was loosely based on Williamson's own bad teacher. And, I think, we've all had a Mrs. Tingle. Kind of a guilty pleasure.

Read Best Reviews of Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999) Here

This isn't a dreadful film, merely insipid. The plot is deeply flawed and implausible. It tries to be a number of genres and fails at each. It fails as a comedy, as a suspense thriller and as a horror movie. It almost succeeds as science fiction. The direction is uninspired and Katie Holmes, cute cherub face that she is, should be modeling teen clothing, not acting. The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 1 out of 10 is Helen Mirren. Her performance is fabulously nefarious and is (almost) worth suffering through the rest of it. Her ability to transmute from imperious to faux sympathetic to deviously manipulate and control her prey shows masterful range. Other than Marissa Coughlin's delightful Exorcist rendition, Mirren is the only reason to see this movie. A solid 3/10.

Want Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999) Discount?

Well, it seems the all mighty Kevin has stumbled. I loved the Scream films, and The Faculty, but this time something's gone wrong. It's not Helen Mirren's fault, because she holds this film up on her own it's just that what should be a dark and twisted story about pupils' hate for their teachers is in fact a rather dull farce. The characters are unbelievably one dimensional, especially for such a gifted writer as Williamson. The kids are holding their techer hostage, yet minutes later they're having sex in her house forgetting that they're most likely going to go to jail. I really wanted to like this film, but having got used to the best from Kevin, this just won't do. There's only a trailer on the disc, probably because the people involved were a little embarassed at being in it and so don't want to be reminded of that fact, but the sound is good at times it seems like it really is raining outside your own house during a pivotal scene between Mirren and Holmes. It's not an awful film by a long shot, but it could have been so much better.

Save 54% Off

Monster Brawl (2011)

Monster Brawl"Tonight the most anticipated extreme sporting event ever." 8 monsters, including Frankenstein and Cyclops, square off in a UFC type movie to determine who is the toughest monster of them all. There really is nothing to review here. The movie is pretty much a back story of the two fighters and then the fight. Think "Celebrety Deathmatch" meets "Bubba Ho-tep". This is kind of entertaining and a little funny but really nothing more then watching "Wrestlemania" with horror monsters. Since that is all this is there is really nothing more to say and since there is no real substance it is hard to review. I won't give it a grade but I will say that if you are a fun of cheesy monster movies and UFC then this is made for you.

All this movie is about are monsters fighting and killing each other in a ring. You get some announcers on the side making remarks about the fights but that is about it. There is nothing special about this movie. I like monster movies as much as the next person but this movie was more lame than entertaining. I understand it was made from a low budget but please be more creative. The only part I liked was the monsters make up. So if you want to watch an actual movie stay away from this so called movie. There is nothing special with visual, sound, or storyline. I give this movie a D.

Buy Monster Brawl (2011) Now

Coming at you live from atop the Hillside Necropolis arena it's MONSTER BRAWL, a fight to the finish featuring eight of the world's mightiest monsters who will face off in hand-to-hand combat to decide who is the baddest of them all! It's "The Fight of the Living Dead!" MONSTER BRAWL kicks off with all of the mayhem and madness of a major sporting event as set within the dark confines of a traditional Gothic Horror film, but what could have easily become an instant cult-classic has instead turned out to be a major disappointment for both Horror and wrestling fans alike. Writer/Director Jesse T. Cook simply isn't equipped with the proper skills or resources to pull this off, which is a real shame considering the film's potential. The basic plot and cliched characters are to be expected, but there is no excitement to be found in any of the fights, and even our ringside commentators Buzz Chambers (Dave Foley) and Sasquatch Sid Tucker (Art Hindle) appear to be feigning interest in the event. Cook provides a moody graveyard setting and serviceable make-up effects care of The Gore Brothers, however the only real praise belongs to the team at Phantom City Creative, who bring the look and feel of a major sporting event to life in their post-production title cards. Given the continued popularity of mixed martial arts and professional wrestling around the world, it is a surprise that this project was not picked up by a larger production company, who may have been able to transform MONSTER BRAWL into this decade's Celebrity Deathmatch.

-Carl Manes

I Like Horror Movies

Read Best Reviews of Monster Brawl (2011) Here

My buddy and I loved this movie. It is a mix between a wrestling pay per view event,and mortal kombat the video game with classic movie monsters. I have my fingers crossed for a sequel!!

Want Monster Brawl (2011) Discount?

OK. SO IF YOURE A WRESTLING AND HORROR FAN. THIS IS DEFINATELY THE MOVIE FOR YOU. ITS VERY INDI BUT ITS GORY, GREAT, AND THERES WRESTLING

Save 17% Off

Greenberg (2010)

GreenbergWhereas someone like Steven Spielberg has achieved success because his films can be enjoyed by virtually anyone, Noah Baumbach is a director who has polarized audiences with each of his films, and this one is no exception.

The film follows Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller), a 40-year-old man who has recently suffered a nervous breakdown and is now struggling to just "do nothing." He returns to L.A., where he had grown up and had a semi-successful rock band, and housesits for his brother, Phillip (Chris Messina), while he and his family are away on an extended vacation. Greenberg meets his brother's assistant, Florence (Greta Gerwig), and begins a halting, awkward romance with her. He reconnects with his old band mates -including Ivan (Rhys Ifans) -who are still bitter about a record deal that Roger ruined 15 years ago. Roger also attempts to date Beth (Jennifer Jason Leigh), an old girlfriend, but she rejects him.

The film is unconventional. I do disagree, however, that everyone in this film is unlikable. Greta Gerwig is excellent as Greenberg's love interest, as is Jennifer Jason Leigh, Noah Baumbach's wife. The film is out of the mainstream, but when looking at all of the junk coming out of Hollywood these days, that is a good thing.

If you liked films like "The Squid and the Whale" or some of Wes Anderson's work, and you are willing to go in with an open mind, I recommend this film.

This is a Noah Baumbach movie. People looking for a wacky, slapstick 'Night at the Museum' type kiddie movie should not go anywhere near this hard and piercing character film. Anyone who complains that this film "isn't funny enough" completely misses the point of both the film and the character. This is a film by adults, for adults.

Writer/Director Noah Baumbach's previous films are Kicking & Screaming Criterion Collection, The Squid and the Whale (Special Edition) and Margot at the Wedding. The tone and harsh reality of those films should give you a good idea of what to expect here. The film has a number of uncomfortable scenes but they aren't played in a broad and obvious way as many other films might have done. Greenberg seems very, very real. The laughs earned by the film come from a very perceptive observation of a character who seems lost wherever he goes.

What Ben Stiller does with this role is a revelation -he makes an audience sympathetic to a very unsympathetic character. If a character like Greenberg has even the slight possibility of finding love and happiness then there is truly hope for us all.

Ben Stiller hasn't shown acting chops like this in years and it's very refreshing to see him take on an adult role for a change.

'Greenberg' is easily one of the best films of 2010 and will find a place on many Top Ten lists. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Buy Greenberg (2010) Now

A "romantic comedy/drama" featuring depressed and unlikable people is a tough sell. That GREENBERG works to the degree it does is a testament to the good writing and outstanding acting...but it cannot completely overcome the essential problem embedded in its premise. That doesn't mean a movie about unlikable people is a bad idea, but expecting such a film to receive a warm, loving embrace by the audience is a bit of a stretch.

Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) a New York based carpenter who once had a shot at rock star glory, is recently out of a mental institution for severe depression. He's now in Hollywood, house-sitting for his brother and family, who are on extended vacation. House-sitting pretty much involves taking care of Mahler, the family German shepherd. And Roger is assisted in this minimal task by Florence (Greta Gerwig), the personal assistant of Roger's brother...she brings him groceries and essentially handles any small tasks Roger might have.

Thus, Roger is allowed to wallow in his self pity. He "engages" himself in the idea of constructing a doghouse for Mahler...and constantly insists that he's doing a great and noble and generous thing by building it. Yet, over the course of what feels like a few weeks, he only gets about halfway done. He is stuck in a malaise of self-hatred...which hatred he shares generously with those around him by being scornful and dismissive. Everyone is a fake or a phony. Everyone is worthy of derision. But when simply arising in the morning is a monumental task, I imagine it would be hard to care much for your fellow man.

Florence, a clearly intelligent young woman who is also adrift in a life going nowhere, would normally be the most depressing character in any other movie, but in comparison to Roger, she is practically sunshine and light. She also suffers from low self-esteem, which has her engaging in a series of one-night stands that leave her clearly unfulfilled and feeling even worse about herself. She and Roger drift into a "sort of" relationship. They come together briefly for a "date," then Roger says or does something awful and the bounce apart. Her friends tell her to leave him alone. His inner-voice makes him wonder why he treats her so badly. He clearly likes something about her (perhaps her openness to feeling, rather than his cutting-off of feeling), but then he acts as though he can't abide her. He's like the kid in elementary school who punches the girl he really likes, to show how immune to liking a girl he is.

Stiller also reaches out to his old bandmates, particularly Ivan (Rhys Ifans)...these men were once his friends, but years ago, with a record contract on the table, Greenberg apparently scuttled the whole deal and the band fell apart. This has bred enormous resentments between the men. Ivan, a good man struggling to hold his family together, seems genuinely interested in befriending Greenberg. He seems to feel responsible for providing some companionship, however strained, to this lost soul. But Greenberg can't stop picking away at the man, mocking his choice of a marriage partner and generally belittling him.

What is convincing about GREENBERG is that no one has a sudden flash of redemption. The script hews closely to what "real life" would be like...if these characters DO make any progress, it will be tentative and painfully slow. Most of the time, it's one step forward, two steps back. The best we can hope for is to see the dynamic shift to two steps forward and one step back.

This makes it very hard to warm up to the characters. They are fascinating and involving, but throughout viewing this, I was constantly telling myself, "These are awful people. I could care less what happens to them." This was particularly true for Greenberg. I felt sorry but frustrated for Florence...but Roger Greenberg needed a good smack upside the head.

That the movie is enjoyable at all is due to some sharp writing, including the use of the dog Mahler as the vehicle through which Roger and Florence can tentatively bond. Their concern for the dog gives them excuses to come together, even when angry at each other. Further, the excellent work from Stiller and Gerwig elevates the film. These two interesting actors give themselves completely over to their work, and it's very effective. Gerwig is not someone I've noticed before, but she is vulnerable and assured in her work. I'd like to see her now tackle a less trouble character; I suspect there's an effervescent personality there. And Stiller has always had a dark side, even in his most "family friendly" characters; but here he just gives himself over completely to that darkness. I hope like heck he isn't really like this...but he sure plays it convincingly. And Rhys Ifans gives another outstanding performance. He's quiet and contained, so that when his inevitable outpouring of feeling comes, the impact is all the greater.

I encourage adult movie-goers who enjoy tight writing and good acting to check out GREENBERG. If you're looking for a "happy" time at the movies, though...look elsewhere.

Read Best Reviews of Greenberg (2010) Here

Many people who watch Noah Baumbach's latest film Greenberg feel that the title character is so unlikable, that the film fails due to its protagonist's personality. In fact, Baumbach presents us with a challenge, much like he did with 2007's Margot at the Wedding. Greenberg is not likable. He is narcissistic, misanthropic, brutally honest, and cynical and unaware of anyone's feelings outside of his own, which are more important than yours by the way. He also hates on L.A culture to the point where I think he is drawn to it for the verbal ammunition it gives him.However, Baumbach manages to balance these traits with a humanization that is painfully acute and accurate, by showing us what it is like to be Greenberg. Many people are not going to want to know what it's like to be Greenberg. That's fine; because Baumbach did not make this film for everyone.

Something very interesting and smart that the director does is starting the film from Florence's (Greta Gerwig) perspective. Florence is Roger Greenberg's (Ben Stiller) brother's assistant. His brother and family are going away on vacation to Vietnam and Greenberg comes to his brother's house in L.A to stay after living in New York City and coming off of a recent stint in a mental hospital. While Greenberg is the main character, the film starts with Florence and we are shown in a brief period of time what her life is like. She has a best friend named Gina, she is a good and hard working assistant and she goes to a bar where she eventually has a one night stand which is clearly irregular and dissatisfying for her. She is awkward; certainly not someone who asserts herself around others. She is not meek though; she is just not quite sure of herself as an individual yet. By aligning us with Florence, an easily relatable character right from the beginning, Baumbach is able to balance her with Greenberg's own inadequacies and allows Florence to be more than just the "girl". She becomes a character in her own right, just as important to the story through Baumbach's use of her in the film's first scenes.

Once we are introduced to Greenberg, Florence only recieves a few more scenes to herself because after all, this is a story about Roger Greenberg first and foremost. However, the focus on her perspective is never lost, keeping the examination of her character in check throughout the film. Greenberg is a carpenter now, not what he planned for his life but he does the job. While in L.A though, he has decided to experimentally do nothing. He attempts to reconnect with his best friend Ivan (Rhys Ifans) who is going through a trial separation. Ivan's character parallels Greenberg in the many ways in which they differ. We learn that he and Ivan used to have a band called The Magic Marker with a couple of others, that they were offered a record deal and that Roger turned down without consulting the rest of the group drastically altering the lives of the other group members involuntarily. He did not want to sign with a major label because he felt they would become corporate slaves. The problem is that this was the only offer the band received leading to the band's brake up prompting Greenberg's move to New York shortly after. He and Ivan have never discussed any of this and while Ivan genuinely enjoys seeing Greenberg again, he also has a difficult time with it which we see through his increasing reluctance towards Greenberg every time they see each other. These scenes between the two of them are show so much about the passage of time (a major theme in the film) and display Greenberg's inability to look outside of his own world. Ivan wants a friend to talk to but all Roger can say is that he is happy that Ivan is splitting from his wife as he never liked them together in the first place. He cannot understand why Ivan is so upset about the speration even though Ivan is clearly distraught over the effect this will have on his son Victor.

One of the more fascinating things about Greenberg is the grudge he has about his own generation for not being the current generation and the absolute disdain he has for the current generation for simply existing. All he sees are kids that rely too much on technology and have lost a grip on the world. He sees kids who are lost and are incapable of asserting themselves as a culturally relevant and thoughtful crowd. Not to mention that his references go over their heads. One review of the film remarks on the climactic party scene in which he takes coke and rants about his disgust for the present youth. The review notes that the scene does not give the kids a chance, making them voiceless and stupid citing unfairness and offense that the youth of today are portrayed as such a hopeless bunch. This reviewer misses the point entirely. This film is not about presenting us with fair portrayals of youth culture. It is about getting into Greenberg's head and seeing people as he sees them. These kids are not meant to represent youth culture; they are meant to represent how Greenberg sees youth culture. The scene is a brilliant one, rife with tension in a situation that would not normally carry it.

Greenberg's relationship with Florence could be the most frustrating aspect of the film for some but also the most rewarding. Mainly because of the way he treats her. While his mind bounces back and forth as to whether or not he wants to be with this person even casually, he drags Florence through every single back and forth moment he has, instead of keeping it to himself. He then proceeds to blame Florence for his feelings, telling her that everything he is conflicted about is her fault. His mood changes drastically within individual scenes with her. Florence, in the meantime, likes him a lot but is conflicted about him both because of his behavior and also having just come out of a long relationship. She also excuses a lot fo his behaviour because she knows about his stay in the hospital. Her best friend Gina, does not want her with him because of the way he treats her. Having also read complaints that Florence ends up simply catering to Greenberg's needs and is a weak character, there is a scene to counter that claim between Florence and Gina as we hear why Florence refuses to lose interest in him. She explains her choices and Greenberg is humanized enough for us to see why Florence makes the decisions she does. In addition to this, Florence has a breaking point proving she is not a character that can be constantlyy trampled on. This displays in part why Florence is not a weak character but an individual making a personal choice for better or worse.

The scene where Florence tells a story could be the most awkward, tense and hateful moment of Greenberg's behavior. Without going too much into it, as those who have seen it will know exactly what this refers to, it really shows Roger's impatience with others and how short a string his dissatisfaction with a conversation has. It is probably the moment people will hate Greenberg that most; at least it was for me. As for my reaction, it was the one moment that I said out loud in the theater "Oh my God". An overreaction? Probably, but it was a really surprising turn to a scene that started out on such good terms.

Greenberg's rare but genuine attempts at reconnection contribute to his humanization. His most desperate attempt to reconnect comes from his efforts at striking up a friendship and possible relationship with Beth (Jennifer Jason Leigh), an ex-girlfriend who he is clearly still thinks about. She has been through so much, a husband, kids and an impending divorce, that for her the relationship does not even feel like it happened. Her indifference towards him perfectly captures his mourning and hatred towards time and the things it can blur, distance and effect in so many ways as if nothing ever even happened. He really does try with her but it does not work and the scene with the two of them in the restaurant is painful to watch (there are a lot of painful scenes in this) as he talks to her about moments and days between the two of them which she cannot recall and does not seem to care to attempt to.

This is without a doubt Ben Stiller's best performance; a role that he was born to play (picturing anyone else playing Roger is impossible). He is stripped of extravagance and is not afraid to make Greenberg as unlikable as the script portrays him and succeeds beautifully in all the moments that Baumbach gives him to deepen the character, get in his head and show us through his face the pain, awkwardness and trouble he has functioning in society. Greta Gerwig is a real find. This is her first foray into the mainstream after being a hugely relevant contributor to the mumblecore movement. Last year she memorably played best friend Megan in Ti West's The House of the Devil and she has a rich career ahead of her. She is just as interesting to watch as Stiller and both actors make us understand why their characters do the things they do largely contributing to the film's success We may not approve but we understand. The two also have a great deal of what many on screen pairs fail to these days; chemistry. On a final note concerning the performances, Rhys Ifans is so good in this that by the end I wanted an entire film dedicated to Ivan as it becomes so evident that his story is merely touched upon.

Baumbach's direction is at turns observational and subjective. There are times when he takes a step back to let us see what Greenberg's interactions are really like, objectively letting us observe the negative effect and impact he has on other people. This allows us to view his current place in the world and to fully see why his cold and hateful behavior is not accepted in most social circles. Baumbach performs a balancing act with this and scenes where we are subjectively let inside of Greenberg's mind and shown exactly what he goes through in a social situation and how he sees everyone else. The scene that perfectly captures this is the first party scene in which Ivan and Roger attend a birthday party for one of their friends' children. Baumbach inserts a montage with James Murphy of LCD Soundsystem's score pervading in the background, competing in the audio track with the dialogue taking place combined with quick non-linear cuts and portions of various conversations Greenberg has at the party. All of it equals an entirely overwhelming montage in the constant awkwardness of Greenberg's complete misfire in every encounter he has and the techniques that Baumbach employs through his use of editing and audio overload. He perfectly conveys Greenberg's subjective experience in social situations and through the effect this scene has on the viewer, we feel the way he feels involuntarily aligning us with the protagonist. The scene culminates in a stunning moment with an extended overhead shot of Greenberg alone but surrounded by children running around and adults stationed in stable conversation. He is lost, confused and unsuccessful in his attempt to function at this party through a combination of his own coldness towards others and his genuine discomfort with them.

We have come to the personal part of this review. Noah Baumbach is, for me, in the top tier of working directors and screenwriters not only in his own scripts but in his contribution to two Wes Anderson films. I adore every work of his because of his courage in the characters he writes and the way he challenges his audience to really dig deep into his examinations of upper middle class angst as he relentlessly enforces the validity of his characters' feelings. He knows that not everyone is going to relate to them and furthermore he knows that many are going to actively invalidate their plights through personal assertion. There is nothing wrong with this. Just because his characters can be difficult to relate to does not mean that they do not deserve to have their stories told. Films that are challenging in this regard are refreshing to me and much more interesting than the majority of work out there. He makes his characters ugly but valid and fully realized.

That is why I love Margot at the Wedding so much. Margot was refreshing for me personally because of how brutally unlikable she is. There is a difference between brutally unlikable and brutally uninteresting. In many writer's but more often studios' attempts to create easily marketable and relatable characters the result is many times a dull and redundant story. I am surprised by how many found Greenberg to be so completely intolerable considering that not only does the character grow by the end of the film but also because this film is so much more accessible in my opinion than Margot. Also, while Florence's actions might be questionable in her unwillingness to give up on Roger at times when you may want her to, she is very easily likable not to mention Ivan who is extremely easy to attach to.

I guess I am so deeply fond of it because Greenberg felt disturbingly relatable. Reviewers have referred to his character as a monster which is completely pushing the line. I find it interesting that people are much more inclined to accept the actions of characters that kill people in films before they can accept a character like Roger Greenberg. Greenberg is unlikable. He is stuck in a largely middle-aged conundrum; as Ivan (Rhys Ifans) talks about late in the film, he is incapable of embracing the fact that his life has not turned out as he planned, a problem which taken on its own should be relatable to many. His misanthropy and his disconnect from society and all of the things that make him so hateful to many others felt familiar to me in my own feelings, especially in his disconnect with the current generation which would be my own. Obviously my feelings are not nearly as generalized or unwavering as it is for him but I felt a connection with him to the point where by the end of the film I truly loved this character and outside of much of his treatment of Florence and Ivan, I cannot say his actions upset me all that much. I never approved of them but I was more fascinated by his actions than pissed off.

Greenberg's ability to openly show his disdain for everything, which is what turns so many people off from him, is an aspect I cannot relate to. However, in relation to my own thoughts at times, yes I do relate to some of the things he says. His experience in social situations feels eerily familiar. His concerns about middle aged life and the way he so fully feels the passage of time is something that I relate to in my youth which is just a little terrifying. Throughout the film all I kept thinking was that this film was not made for people my age; so why do I understand everything he is going through even if I do not relate to the way he goes about dealing with his issues. The film, which is alternately and much of the time simultaneously very funny and also very depressing felt relatable and true to me. While I am not at the age to fully understand that passage of time, opportunity and examination of self growth I felt a very strong connection making me one of the many that truly loved this film.

If everyone liked Greenberg the film would not be successful because that would mean that Baumbach had not stayed true to his title character. Greenberg will alienate some and unite others but through portraying a character fully and deeply on both the director's and the character's own terms whether or not people relate to it or sympathize with his plight enough to care about the film makes this a unique, brave and acutely observational character study that will be hated by many and cherished by many for years to come.

Want Greenberg (2010) Discount?

This was one of my favorite films of the year. Seeing all of the one star reviews here is so insulting. This is a good film! It got good reviews! Can a unlikable character provide this much hate that you are motivated to write brief scathing reviews on a website? Apparently! Sigh. My name is Greenberg and I show disdain towards you all.

Save 43% Off

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Lethal Weapon 2Okay, let me start by saying you're not going to get any reviews on any of these three movies from me. Anyone who lived through the late 80's and early 90's already know the action greatness of these films that launched Mel Gibson from just being known as "Mad Max". No, my review is solely based on the new "Warner Bros. Triple Feature" packaging of the first three movies in the Lethal Weapon series.

On November 7th 2006, Warner Bros released 23 DVD titles from their library with three films in each case with varied subjects like trilogies, westerns, star's films, animals, and others. But probably the best bang for your buck is this Lethal Weapon set (maybe, maybe the second would be the camp-horror classic "It's Alive" trilogy, which I'll be getting as well). Yes it's true, SOME of these titles will bother most videophiles because quite a few titles offered in these triple features are FULL FRAME only when originally they may have been released in Widescreen when first appeared on DVD (see the Free Willy, Poison Ivy, and 15 Minutes triple features for those disapointments). But not, I repeat NOT, the Lethal Weapon one. This one has all three films presented in Widescreen with the original 5.1 AND DTS audio tracks. To put it simply, you get all three films as they were originally released separately on DVD back in 2000: the Director Cut editions, nothing has been changed whatsoever.

I've read videophiles say, "Well then, since it's THREE movies on only TWO discs, the compression has to be weaker". Wrong. Here's the disc set-up: Lethal Weapon's One and Two are on ONE disc, but it's a DVD-18, otherwise known as "double-sided/dual-layered". Both these movies were released in 2000 as DVD-9's (one-sided/dual-layered). Meaning, it's the EXACT compression as originally, but now you just have to "flip" the disc over to get to the other movie. And the second disc is exactly the same as before, with the Lethal Weapon 3 disc artwork on label & as a DVD-9. So you see, the only thing you really lose in buying this over the 2000 box set is two DVD cases and three discs instead of what you get now, two. I'm pretty sure that's the compression/set-up for all the Triple Feature titles, but Warner chose to instead press the Full Frame side on some of these titles instead of the Widescreen. Why, I have no idea.

Also a plus is the price. At Wal-Mart, I paid only $9.00 dollars for the Lethal Weapon triple feature. Even if I found all three titles separately in the "bargin-bin", I'd still pay at least $15.00 dollars for them. This version is cheaper, but just as good. And the normal suggested retail price is still cheaper than buying them apart, so this really is the way to go.

Finally, alot of fans of the Lethal Weapon series also have claimed "Why not include Lethal Weapon 4?". Well, One: all these releases are under the "Triple Feature" title, not a "Quadruple" one, Two: this one also features "The Unrated Director's Cuts" when 4 was released as "Theatrical Rated R", and Three: alot of people just didn't like 4 to begin with (not me, I thought bringing in Jet-Li really added to the franchise). So that should explain that!

So, if you're on the fence about buying this new "Lethal Weapon Triple Feature", I say do it...but only if you don't own the single Director Cut discs already...because you won't get anything new here. And look at each other Triple Feature title's back cover to see if it's Widescreen or not, and could you live with the Full Frame version of the other titles at such a low cost. So: 3 stars for the entire "Warner Bros. Triple Feature" line, 5 stars for the "Lethal Weapon" title from it.

After recently purchasing a PlayStation3 primarily for its functionality as a Blu-ray high-definition movie disc player, I was really looking forward to seeing some of my all-time favorite films on the new format. I mean, Blu-ray has 50gb of storage capacity on one side of a disc, enough room to pack a pristine 1080p video print and uncompressed 7.1 PCM audio, not to mention loads of extras... Having said that, Warner Home Video really let me down with their first issue of 1989's "Lethal Weapon 2" on Blu-ray disc. This is exactly what I feared they would do. Rather than do the job right the first time out, consumers are being setup for an obvious double-dip on several titles, including the first two "Lethal Weapon" films.

I grew up watching a VHS of "Lethal Weapon 2" with my older brother. He and I both loved this movie and used to watch it constantly, so naturally over the years we hope and pray for vastly improved ways to watch this 18-year old favorite. This Blu-ray disc is NOT that vast improvement we've been waiting for. From the opening frame, what we get is an image so jagged and grainy that it tempted me to insert my "Lethal Weapon 2: Director's Cut" DVD and see if the 480p image upconverted to 1080p was any better. So I did that, and while the DVD did make the Blu-ray presentation look good, that's not saying much. While there's a lot more detail and color depth in the Blu-ray version, there is also the huge distraction of seeing jagged edges around everything and everyone on screen. Just look at the opening frame of the film, where it says "A Time Warner Communications..." etc, and look at the text. Skip into the film a few chapters where we see a fax printing out of a fax machine, and look at the jagged edges around the printed page, everything on Murtaugh's desk... The list of flaws is endless, because it goes on throughout the entire film. Did anyone actually watch this master before sending it off to the Blu-ray duplication factory? The biggest reason why I would consider upgrading my DVD library to Blu-ray is for film-like images and detail, and this is one title where the studio needs to mint a brand new master from the ground-up if we're ever to see a better presentation. I have two words for Warner Bros: Lowry Digital. See what they did for James Bond? Enough said. Incidentally, after watching the film, I did some searching online to find out if other's have complained about this problem. I found out the technical reason for this is that Warner simply took an existing 1080i master and put it through a process of "vertical filtering" to convert it to 1080p. They did the same thing with the first "Lethal Weapon" film, along with at least five other Blu-ray transfers created from 1080i masters, so I'd be cautious of which early Warner titles you pick up on Blu-ray.

For this initial wave of Blu-ray titles, Warner also decided to do nothing with the format's audio capabilities. Instead, we just get the same Dolby Digital 5.1 track with slightly more detail, but not enough of an improvement to really notice. Where's the Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed 5.1 PCM audio tracks? On top of that, where are the audio commentaries? Come on, "Lethal Weapon 2" is a modern classic, surely deserving an audio commentary with Richard Donner, Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, etc. Instead, we get a French language track. Lame.

The extras are equally as unspectacular as the picture and sound. I just don't get how some films are treated to 2-3 re-releases over 10 years, yet the "Lethal Weapon" franchise goes by hugely overlooked in the Special Edition department.

Bottom-line: Don't buy it. I bought it, and I'm returning it. Hold out until Warner gets their act together, creates new 1080p masters from cleaner elements, and gives us a deluxe box set of all four films with new extras. They've proved they can do it with other films, so I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before Riggs & Murtaugh get their due respect on high-def disc.

Buy Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) Now

The previous reviewer is correct on all points, which prompted me to purchase this over the Director Cut Editions individually.

What makes it even better is the DTS audio tracks are full bitrate @1536Kb/s! Most, if not all, DTS DVD's are half-bit rate @768Kb/s (Saving Private Ryan, Jaws, Lord of the Rings Trilogy).

Getting three great films in one package, widescreen, and w/full bitrate DTS for $11 is a once in a life time deal.

Read Best Reviews of Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) Here

The tone is a bit lighter, but the "lethal" action continues unabated and non-stop as two of L.A.P.D.'s finest go after a South African consulate, dirty up to his neck in drugs and hiding behind diplomatic immunity in "Lethal Weapon 2," directed by Richard Donner and once again starring Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. Still crazy, but no longer suicidal, Riggs (Gibson) continues to hunt down the bad guys with partner Roger Murtaugh (Glover), and this time around they find their lives in danger when they get too close to the underhanded dealings of South African Arjen "Aryan" Rudd (Joss Ackland) and his band of thugs. Along the way, they're assigned to baby-sit an informant in a money laundering racket, Leo Getz (Joe Pesci); and Riggs at last finds someone, Rika Van Den Haas (Patsy Kensit), who helps ease the pain of his wife's death, while also discovering who was responsible for the automobile accident that took her life. As he did with the first "Lethal Weapon," Donner keeps it all moving along at a brisk pace, though he allows the intensity level to drop somewhat this time while infusing more humor. There's some "Stooges" on hand, and a bit that finds Murtaugh the target of some office gags after the debut of a television commercial, starring his daughter, Rianne (Traci Wolfe), for a product that takes him by surprise, but the real laughs come courtesy of Pesci, who's upbeat, manic characterization of Getz becomes a real scene stealer. Though serious at the core, this movie is more of a joy ride than the first, though there are moments of true menace and apprehension, as well as a sobering resolution involving one of the featured characters. Performance wise, Gibson is as charismatic as ever, by now settling comfortably into Riggs' skin while further exploring the more intricate details of the character's personality. Glover, too, manages to take Murtaugh to the next level, leaving no doubt as to who this guy is and what he's about, from his dedication to the job, to his even more stringent dedication to his family. And, most importantly, these two really click as a team, and Donner knows just how to bring out the best in them. What really raises the bar in this second installment, however, is the addition of Pesci, who makes Leo Getz a truly memorable character. Inserting him into the mix was a real stroke of genius, and Donner wisely uses him just enough to effectively lighten the mood and counteract the drama. The supporting cast includes Darlene Love (Trish), Derrick O'Connor (Adolph), Steve Kahan (Capt. Murphy), Mark Rolston (Hans) and Jenette Goldstein (Officer Meagan Shapiro). With snappy dialogue, plenty of action and some good guys to root for, "Lethal Weapon 2" is a thoroughly entertaining sequel that more than does justice to the original. Donner knows his territory, and his stars know their stuff and how to deliver it, and that's a "lethal" combination any way you look at it. And what's even more gratifying, is knowing that they didn't stop here; after all the action of the first two, you know there's another one waiting for you. At this point, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars; "Lethal Weapon 3" is available, and it's yours for the asking.

Want Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) Discount?

The summer of 1989 was loaded with blockbusters, yet there was only one movie that I really wanted to see more than any other. In a season that saw such blockbusters as a new Indiana Jones movie, the latest Star Trek picture and Timothy Dalton's second outing as 007, the movie that held the most excitement for me was LETHAL WEAPON 2. Not because of Mel Gibson or Danny Glover or a particular love of the original, but because the love interest came in the very lovely shape of the lead singer of one of my favorite 1980s bands (Eighth Wonder) Patsy Kensit.

Truth be told though, there's not much to Kensit's role here, she is there simply as window dressing in the part of a secretary at the South African consulate. The movie as a whole though is a great, fun ride and is easily my favorite of the franchise.

The plot of the movie involves drug smuggling that is being conducted by officials at the South African consulate. Back in the 1980s South Africa was largely an international pariah because of its policy of apartheid. This made it easy to target them as the villains and their position as diplomats provides them with the protective vbeil of diplomatic immunity. As lead villain Arjen Rudd (played wonderfully by British actor Joss Ackland) comments when confronting the Los Angeles police officers "you could not even give me a parking ticket."

Starting with a chase through the night streets of Los Angeles, the movie races from one action sequence to another rarely pausing for breath in what is a classic cop buddy movie. Both Gibson and Glover make a great team and the interplay between them provides for some really subtle humor.

Which brings us to Joe Pesci, whose humor is about as subtle as a sledgehammer in the role of witness Leo Getz "Whatever you want Leo Getz get it!?" Pesci is at times annoying and at other times loveable, but he is always funny. Obviously he was also a hit with the audience too as he would return in the third and fourth movie of the series.

As a bonus for Kensit fans like myself in the scene where Leo is cleaning Riggs house you can hear Eighth Wonder's biggest hit "I'm not Scared" playing in the background. It's a shame they did not have Kensit's character survive until the end as they had originally planned, but I understand that her death leads Riggs to take the dramatic action that he does.

This is my favorite cop movie (alongside "Beverly Hills Cop" and an entertaining way to spend 114 minutes or 118 minutes if you go with the directors cut.

Scenes included in the directors cut includes Leo using numbers to remember a suspects address and Murtaugh getting some bad news from an auto-repair man after Riggs drives his new station wagon up against a guardrail. Pretty standard stuff that I felt did not add anything particularly.

The directors cut also comes with a making of featurette, cast and crew bios and a theatrical trailer. Here's hoping that one day soon Warner will put out an ultimate edition. Director Richard Donner has already done a great commentary track on the original Suoerman movie and a commentary track here would be welcome also.

Recommended.

Save 3% Off

Baarìa (2009)

BaarìaBAARIA is another masterwork form the consummate film artist Giuseppe Tornatore. Tornatore is so highly regarded in Italy and Sicily that famous actors fight for the opportunity to work in one of his luminous films, agreeing to take minute walk on roles just to be near the director: Monica Belluci, Ángela Molina, Beppe Fiorello, Raoul Bova etc. This film deserves close attention form the viewer and in some ways it may be better to view the DVD's Interview with Giuseppe Tornatore BEFORE watching this film so that the writer/director's concept and technique is understood before the story unfolds.

Baarìa is Sicilian slang for Bagheria where Tornatore was born and this is an autobiographic epic of three generations in the Sicilian village where he was born. It begins in the 1920's where Giuseppe "Peppino" Torrenuova lives with his brother Nino and his parents in a hovel. They are so poor that Peppino's father advises him to become a shepherd in order to help support the family. Peppino progresses to taking a cow around the town to fill the milk buckets of the townspeople, struggles through school, progresses to young adulthood when he falls in love with Mannina and going against Mannina's family's dream of having their daughter marry money, the two elope in the home of Mannina! and it is here that the characters become the adults who carry the film. Of note, Tornatore elected to cast the main characters with little known Sicilian actors: Peppino is Francesco Scianna and Mannina is Margareth Madè both brilliant in their roles. From this point the time passes through historical references to Il Duce, the mafia, WW II and the coming of the Americans, but more important is Peppino's idealistic concept that his future lies in politics. He becomes a Communist, rises in the ranks, eventually even visiting Moscow to meet with Stalin, and returns to Baaria to help the people struggle for land reform and socialism, all the while he continues to have children with Mannina and follow his dreams of being a successful politician, a dream that is as fragile as it is unattainable.

The film flashes back and forth in time and has no linear story line: Tornatore is more interested in taking snippets of his memories of his past life growing up in Baaria than he is in keeping the audience clear about the characters who flash in and out of the story. His use of children is magical they seem more wise in their innocence that the adults. But take the movie for what it is a mélange of remembered moments in the writer/director's life and witness some of the most beautiful moments ever created for the screen, such as the eventual death of Peppino's father who passes his wisdom to his son, and Peppino's advice to this oldest son as the son takes the train to Rome: the son asks 'Why do people call us hotheaded?' to which Peppino answers 'Because we think we can embrace the Universe, but our arms are too short.' Peppino's wisdom he passes to his son is to follow his heart at all costs and there will he find satisfaction. This film is overflowing in such moments and watching it is like opening a treasure trunk full of dazzlingly memories. The musical score by the evergreen Ennio Morricone is absolutely one of his finest a score the composer created in conjunction with Tornatore.

There is a problem with the DVD that hopefully someone will solve: the English subtitles (the film is in Italian and Sicilian) are very difficult to read so bleached out are they over backgrounds of bright Sicilian light. It is a post-production flaw that needs to be corrected for non Italian speaking audiences, but even with that minor problem, this is one of the most touching and tender and emotionally satisfying films this viewer has ever seen. 10 stars! Grady Harp, October 11

With both a literal and a figurative nod to Federico Fellini, Italian auteur Giuseppe Tornatore has created "Baaria." A personal epic spanning five decades in the life of a typical Italian family, there is undeniable beauty and lyricism in Tornatore's vision. His beloved "Cinema Paradiso" was a striking blend of nostalgia, whimsy, fantasy and heartfelt drama that struck a chord with both viewers and critics. It won an Oscar, as well as a slew of other awards, and is widely considered a modern masterpiece. With "Baaria," he adheres closely to a similar formula but with decidedly mixed results. I had heard one of two things about "Baaria" prior to catching it on this presentation. Some said it was a masterpiece, some said it was an utter disaster. And in truth, I do believe the film to be divisive. I expected to fall in love with the movie, but I ended up admiring individual elements as opposed to embracing it in its entirety. Part of the film's unusual quality is that it seems both completely intimate to the filmmaker but more noticeably aloof to the viewer. In the film's construction, Tornatore advances through the years and presents some compelling moments without ever slowing down enough to let us actually become invested. This choice might be embraced by some, but the lack of emotional connection is what will create the film's strongest detractors.

As always, Tornatore's film is a beautiful physical specimen. The technical aspects of art direction and cinematography enhance the movie's appeal, and it really looks crisp and clean. Taking place in a small Sicilian hamlet called Bagheria (of which the title Baaria is a nickname), the bulk of the film deals with a small boy who advances through his life to old age within the narrative. Not only do we see his world and family, but we see the political structure of the country change around him. I enjoyed much of this perspective as there were subtle lessons in history sprinkled throughout the piece. Certain moments have a pleasant sweetness, some are more tough. It's as if we are catching random glimpses of the characters as time progresses. And in truth, I really liked the idea of the film. However, if I'm being completely honest--the device, while interesting, is also what caused me to disconnect from the story. Just when something of interest happens, you move on. Nothing has time to resonate. How can you watch someone's life story and still not particularly know them or care about them? That is ultimately how I felt with "Baaria."

And yet, I still can't completely discount Tornatore's conception. It's big, bold and adventurous. Sure, it veers to the fantastical once too often--but here is a filmmaker with a specific point of view. It wasn't wholly successful for me, but it didn't lack in ambition (which so many films do). The movie itself ranks at about 3 1/2 stars for my taste. But the DVD features are enough to make me round up and should be appreciated by Tornatore fans. He is front and center in a commentary track, in behind the scenes footage, in an interview, and at the film's premiere. In addition, some deleted scenes are also present. Clearly, this was a personal and important project for the director. I just wish that I had felt the same passion as he has for the work. KGHarris, 10/11.

Buy Baarìa (2009) Now

I have spent quite a lot of time trying to find the Sicilian version of this movie in the U.S. and when I finally watched the America release in "Italian" I found that the movie had a lot of Sicilian. Sicilian being my first language it was music to my ears. Sicilians are a unique and passionate people. Our language is so expressive and truly musical. I only wish there were more movies that were made in our native language. I'm guessing that this was released and marked as Italian because Americans will not notice the different languages...One scene in particular, when Peppino is running to school in the very beginning the teacher is yelling for him to hurry he shouts, "Sperugiate" (please excuse the spelling), but that is Sicilian. It happens many times in the film and appropriately (Sicilian being the conversational/familiar language used with friends and family, while Italian is spoken formal settings). Growing up in a Sicilian family we speak Sicilian at home and with our relations and neighbors, but with other Italians or when conducting serious business we speak in proper Italian. Anyway, I hope the people who watch this film experience the same satisfaction and feel the same nostalgia that I did when watching this film. Some of the nostalgia comes from my own experiences as my parents sent me Sicily as a child several times to spend summers there and some of the nostalgia stems from the verbal history my grandparents imparted on us.

Read Best Reviews of Baarìa (2009) Here

takes place right after WWII in a small town in Sicily. How a young boy had to suffer all his adult life because of his political beliefs, and poor family. a great movie

Want Baarìa (2009) Discount?

Bellisima filme! Gorgeous film, beautiful scenery and wonderful acting. This movie comes from the same director as Cinema Paradiso. Cinema Paradiso was my first introduction to foreign films. I was 12 years old when I first saw that wonderful film. I HIGHLY recommend this Italian gem.

Save 11% Off

Maid in Manhattan (2002)

Maid in ManhattanI was writing another book review when this movie came on TV. When I saw Jennifer Lopez, I started watching and was hooked from the first scene with her little son. I just finished it and must say I truly enjoyed the time spent watching this "feel-good" movie. It was just what the doctor ordered after a two-day stint with the flu. This certainly went well with my recuperative fare of tea and toast. ... lol ...

In this movie, Lopez plays--you guessed it!--a maid who works in a top-flight hotel in Manhattan.

Maid in Manhattan is a breezy romantic comedy where a rich, handsome, aspiring politician, played by Ralph Fiennes, falls for the maid. Drawn initially by her beauty, he soon comes to know her as an independent, honest woman ... a struggling single mother who puts her ten-year-old son above all else. Tyler Posey does a fine acting job as her son.

Yes, this movie has "shades of Cinderella," like many romance novels and movies, but it has differences in every twist and turn that conspire to keep this unlikely couple apart. At first, because Lopez is dressed in a guest's clothing, Fiennes thinks she is a socialite herself; complications caused by that error lead to many hilarious situations, yet even more heart-wrenching ones.

The sentimentality and romantic warmth of the movie are due to good performances by Lopez and Fiennes, but the supporting actors bring this movie to life. You will be amused by Natasha Richardson and Amy Sedaris in the roles of callow socialites, Bob Hoskins as a dignified butler, and you'll love to hate Stanley Tucci as Fiennes's aggravating campaign manager.

So how does the politician react when he learns his love interest is a maid? How does she take it? You guessed that they eventually get back together--don't they in all Cinderella stories?--but what happens before that transpires? And how does the maid's son react to all this? Does he even like Fiennes's character?

I promise you lots of laughs as you watch this movie and learn the answers to those questions and more. For your enhanced viewing pleasure, I suggest you see Maid in Manhattan with your best girl ... or guy.

Reviewed by: Betty Dravis, 2008

Author of: 1106 Grand Boulevard

The Toonies Invade Silicon Valley

Millennium Babe: The Prophecy

"Maid in Manhattan" is the latest in what I presume will be a very long line of frothy J.Lo vehicles. Is it a great movie? Nope. Is it a good movie? Eh, kinda. Actuallty, it's pretty much a decent Saturday night date movie: no more, no less.

The plot concerns the romantic entanglements of a maid (Lopez) working in an upscale New York hotel. She dreams of someday becoming a manager, which evidently no maid has ever done (that's America!). One day while cleaning out a suite, she is persuaded by a friend to try on the designer clothes of a wealthy guest. While wearing them she is spotted by a famous politician, also staying at the hotel. He assumes she's rich, she doesn't correct him, and we're off on the old "mistaken identity" plotline.

I would say the screenplay for this movie is just slightly above average, with the characters slightly more fleshed out than we've come to expect from the Hollywood romances of today. The role of Lopez' gifted son in particular is both unusually well written and well played.

The one true bright spot here is Ralph "Call me Rafe" Fiennes, playing the politician. He is just great in anything. This is a different kind of role for him: no tortured souls, no misery, just lightweight romance. He pulls it off very nicely.

All in all, I would give this movie about a Bor a B ( I incline towards a straight B when remembering Fiennes). I didn't exactly laugh, but I did smile. (Which is more than I can say for "The Wedding Planner".)

Buy Maid in Manhattan (2002) Now

J'Lo's latest offering, the romantic comedy "Maid In Manhattan," is yet another addition to the long-standing "chick" romantic comedy genre. Overall, it's perfectly harmless if not exactly original. In all, it's a nice flick to check-out on a Friday night if nothing else good is on.

THE STORY:

Marissa Ventura (J'Lo) is a single-mother who works as a maid in one of Manhattan's top hotels. A hard working, intelligent woman she is up for promotion and is a sure lock in to "represent" all the working class women of the travel industry when she makes a pretty big faux pas at the behest of a co-worker, she tries on the posh outfit of a socialite guest and is happened upon by a Senatorial candidate staying at the hotel, Chris Marshall (Ralph Fiennes). From there the by-the-numbers storybook romance takes place.

THE ANALYSIS:

Overall, this is a perfectly harmless and sweet love story cookie cut from the same mold like all others in the genre. There are a handful of touching scenes with the couple and Marissa's son Tyler (Tyler Posey) provides a lot of the best scenes in the film. The interaction between the main characters and between Marissa and her co-workers, particularly the butler and security guard, are superb. In all, this is a nice picture to see.

THE VERDICT:

Overall, this probably won't qualify as a "must-see" but it definitely ranks as a "good viewing choice." Overall, this flick will probably work best for, young couples on a date, younger crowds on an outing or of course, J'Lo fans. In all, you probably won't be (too) disappointed if you see it but then again if you choose to pass on it, you won't exactly really miss much either.

Recommended

Read Best Reviews of Maid in Manhattan (2002) Here

Somewhere about a year ago, a studio exec. and an agent decided to make a deal. Christmas was coming and it was time to expel an uninspired formula retread from the womb of mediocrity to satfisfy the lowest common denominator of cinema goers.

The result is Maid In Manhattan.

All the standard, tired plot elements, set pieces, and cliche scenes are present. It has the smart alec kid who's wisdom surpasses the years of the adults around him, the pushy sidekick maid, the hooker (maid) with a heart of gold, the non-conformist prince charming; the obligitory makeover scene where the heroine is trying on different evening gowns, getting her make-up and hair done, and being loaned expensive jewelry all set up as a montage playing to a contemporary pop song a-la Pretty Woman, Heavenly Kid, Princess Diaries, and Doris Day, etc. etc.

It's a shame that dumbing down a story can have such rewarding results.

Want Maid in Manhattan (2002) Discount?

Hugh Grant co-stars in this feel good romantic comedy with....err, sorry wrong movie. Perhaps that's the point. Maid in Manhattan is a fine feel good romantic comedy from director Wayne Wang. It's pretty much a variation on a theme without much originality. The plot isn't bad nor are the performances it's just a bit too familiar. Still, it is an enjoyable light feature even without Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant.

Ralph Fiennes is unexpectately warm and a pleasant surprise in this romantic comedy. The film is about as predictable as its twin Two Weeks Notice and still enjoyable despite the apparent connect the dots plot. There are a number of nice comedic touches and Wang continues to demonstrate both talent and a rare comedic flair as a director. It's a pity that the material wasn't better.

Maid in Manhattan is a nice, enjoyable romantic romp and a perfect way to spend a Friday evening in front of the T.V. It's a pity that Wang and the other performers weren't a bit more ambitious.

Save 25% Off

Spaceballs (1987)

SpaceballsI love the film so it was a no-brainer to get it for the store, and my slight disappointment is offset with showing what a high storage capacity can do for this product.

The package comes with both the BD and the standard def discs and included are all of the special features we know from the 2005 release. So what's changed? Nothing except for the languages: Dubbed in DTS for six languages (including Castilian, German, Italian and French) and Mono or Dolby for three others, and subtitled in nine languages (incl. Danish, Swedish and Norwegian). None of the supplements have been upgraded but that DTS always sounds awesome during the main feature. The picture has not been cleaned up from the transfer so there is plenty of artifact, hair and random film discolorations. I enjoyed watching some of the same special features again, including the John Candy memorial and the Mel Brooks conversation. The ludiricous speed is just as lame as before.

The menu is a killer if your player is not tuned up (or older). It becomes painful when trying to watch those flubs sequences as there is no play all option. It is Spaceballs, it is Mel Brooks so it makes it a worthwhile purchase if you did not already upgrade a few years ago to that special edition DVD (especially with both included here). I would normally rate this lower but there is so much here I had to go up one.

Spaceballs is perhaps the best Sci-fi spoof of all time. It has already been mentioned that it spoofs Star Wars, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, but it really spoofs nearly every big Sci-fi movie ever. Star Wars, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey ("...they've gone to plaid!") and many more. Some of the best sequences are the "ludicruous speed" scene, the "instant video" scene, and the whole Yogurt part. Mel Brooks plays the spoof of Star Wars' Yoda who is the guardian of the Schwartz and is also heavily into Spaceballs Merchandising, including the Spaceballs flamethrower. ("The kids love this one.") Rick Moranis, of course, is the Darth Vader spoof, and I have to congradulate the casting department, because Rick Moranis and Darth Vader have to be as close to being polar opposites as you can come. Although I have heard it called unfunny and lame by others, I think it is a very funny movie and deserves to be watched not only by Sci-fi fans, but by anybody looking for a good laugh.

Buy Spaceballs (1987) Now

Spaceballs is one of my all time favorite films and I eagerly awaited it's bluray release and even put in my preorder months in advance. Now that the bluray is here it is still one of my all time favorite films but i must admit the transfer is not demo material.

The transfer itself is solid and without any unnecessary tampering (digital noise reduction, edge enhancement, etc) and it is the best this film will probably ever look on home video however the film itself will never wow anyone with detail.

On the audio side we get a 5.1ch track that does it's job as well as the source material allows... just like the video it's not demo material but it's still a solid track. Also included is the original dolby stereo track along with a rather large collection of languages (and subtitles as well)

The bonus features are the same as the previous DVD edition, I haven't really dug into all of them but in Fox bluray tradition features that need a play all option (in this case the film flubs) don't get that much needed option.

The included DVD is the older flipper disc with the 4:3 pan&scan on one side and the non-anamorphic 1.85:1 version on the other.

Read Best Reviews of Spaceballs (1987) Here

The movie itself is pure Mel Brooks. I really enjoy how Mel brings hilarious havoc to the sci-fi genre, spoofing movies from Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers to Star Trek and Star Wars. I am surprised that MPAA had originally given this movie a PG rating instead of a PG-13 rating since the movie is heavy on adult humor, language, and sexual innuendos not exactly what I would call a flick for the whole family. Enough about the movie; this review is about the newly released Collector's Edition (CE), especially the bonus material.

The Dolby 5.1 sound quality has been enhanced compared to the original 2000 DVD release, but I will need to confirm this. I'm glad MGM offers a DTS track on disc 1. I have not yet compared Mel's commentary on the CE to the original release. I did make some limited comparisons of the picture quality: The colors are more vibrant (perhaps too much on the red?) and the picture is clearer to my eyes; the skin tones look correct to me. Since the video presentation is not THX quality, you will see some specks and film blemishes. The aspect ratio on the CE (1.85:1 for 16x9) is the same as the original 2000 release, but on my Sony monitor (4:3) the CE widescreen version is "slightly" zoomed in more than the 2000 widescreen released version.

I am disappointed in the Special Features. Why? For one reason, it does not include Rick Moranis. He is mentioned but is not interviewed at all how can Mel not include Dark Helmet! In addition, you will not find any behind-the-scenes coverage (other than still photos) such as those found on the 2000 DVD release. Mel did not include any deleted scenes or bloopers (no, the film flubs don't count). However, there is a well-produced 29 minute documentary that includes the other main actors and crew members. You will learn that the actors and crew members had more laughs making this movie than the audience had watching it. If this is true, Mel should have included some of those comical moments in the Special Features. Also missing on this CE is a featurette about special-effects. The conversation between Mel and co-writer Thomas Meehan is rather boring, but the tribute to comical genius John Candy is commendable, touching, and about time.

The CE is a 2-disc DVD set. It is a shame that MGM and Mel could not/would not include more about this classic comedy. Overall I give the CE version a 3/5. The movie gets 4/5!

Want Spaceballs (1987) Discount?

Following the multi-million-dollar success that George Lucas enjoyed with his original "Star Wars" trilogy of films released in 1977, 1980 and 1983, comedic actor/writer/director Mel Brooks was inspired to create one of his most outlandish films in 1987 entitled "Spaceballs". The film begins on the dark planet of Spaceball, which no longer has a breathable atmosphere. There, President Skroob (Mel Brooks) wants to steal another planet's atmosphere and transport it back to planet Spaceball, so he orders Colonel Sandurz (George Wyner) and Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis spoofing "Darth Vader") to take a giant military spaceship (much much larger than any of Lucas' spaceships, except for the Deathstar) to planet Druidia to kidnap Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga spoofing "Princess Leia") and hold her for ransom. On planet Druidia, Princess Vespa is scheduled to marry the very boring Prince Valium (JM J. Bullock) as arranged by her father, King Roland (Dick Van Patten). However, when Princes Vespa has cold feet, she runs from the Druidic church with her android, Dot Matrix (voice of Joan Rivers spoofing "C3PO"), and takes off from planet Druidia in what was to be her honeymoon spaceship. In space, she is encountered by the giant Spaceball ship, but is rescued by the trader/smuggler Lone Starr (Bill Pullman spoofing "Han Solo") and his sidekick Barfolemew 'Barf' (John Candy, 1950-1994, spoofing "Chewbacca") in a space-worthy Winnebago RV. As with the constant love-hate relationship that Princess Leia and Han Solo had in Lucas' "Star Wars" trilogy, so too do Princess Vespa and Lone Starr have a similar relationship. Along the way though, Lone Starr finds out from a mysterious Yoda-like character named Yogurt (Mel Brooks again) that he's really a prince and sets out to rescue Princess Vespa who had eventually been captured by Dark Helmet. It is from Yogurt that we hear those immortal words, "May the schwartz be with you," spoofing Lucas' creation of the Force in "Star Wars".

With hilarious one-liners, a classic Mel Brooks storyline, good actors and reasonable special effects, "Spaceballs" is a truly funny comedic sci-fi spoof. Rick Moranis' portrayal of Dark Helmet is one of the funniest roles, especially since he can't always keep his visor open. Also funny are George Wyner and Joan Rivers. Overall, I rate "Spaceballs" with 4 out of 5 stars and highly recommend it to anyone that enjoys a great spoof by Mel Brooks, sci-fi and a good laugh. Even product merchandising isn't free of being spoofed by Mel Brooks in this hilarious film.

Save 46% Off

The Little Shop Of Horrors (1960)

The Little Shop Of HorrorsUnfortunately, Little Shop of Horrors and every other Roger Corman Filmgroup production lapsed into public domain years ago and have generally been available on VHS and DVD only in poor-quality editions ranging from merely bad to atrocious. (The only Filmgroup features to get a decent official or semi-official release so far are Bucket of Blood, Beast from Haunted Cave, and Night Tide.) After researching every DVD version of Little Shop of Horrors available (there are at least eight!) I played a hunch and went with GoodTimes to replace my VHS copy, and I'm very pleasantly surprised at the overall excellent quality of the source print. When I saw the "preserved using the best available elements" line at the beginning of this disc I thought 'yeah, right,' but I have to admit that this is the brightest, cleanest, sharpest (if not exactly razor-sharp) print of this film I've ever seen. The black level, contrast, gray values, and shadow/highlight detail are fine, and physical damage is limited only to some very light speckling and blemishing (!!). On the downside, the transfer itself seems to be somehow deficient (low bit rate?), causing areas of flat white or smoothly gradated grays in the image to exhibit some very faint but noticeable pixelation or banding, especially during the opening credit sequence (areas of flat color seem to be DVD's Achilles Heel). The casual viewer probably won't notice this phenomenon unless it's pointed out, but it's there. That said, the superior quality of the source print more than makes up for this one barely noticeable flaw; this is still most likely the best edition yet available of this classic 'sick humor' gem and well worth the bargain price. It definitely blows away every TV print and cheapjack PD video version I've ever eyeballed. Grab this before it goes out of print.

The movie itself still entertains tremendously today, a funny, goofy (dare I say charming?) horror-comedy that basically plays like a stage farce (most of the action takes place on one or two sets). The story is essentially a remake of Bucket of Blood with a change in locale and a few fresh twists. This time Jonathan Haze portrays everyschlep Seymour Krelboine, who lives with his alcoholic hypochondriac mother (she listens to KSIK radio) and works at Mushnick's skid row flower shop. Seymour (temporarily) finds fame, fortune, and romance by nurturing (and eventually murdering for) an exotic talking cannibalistic plant. Mel Welles, in his finest hour (literally), steals nearly every scene with his droll portrayal of perpetually exasperated Gravis Mushnick, and Jackie Joseph (Andy Griffith Show, Who's Minding the Mint) seems born to play pretty, ditzy Audrey. Corman regulars adding to the fun include Dick Miller (Walter Paisley in Bucket of Blood) as Fouch, a flower-eating client, John Shaner as a sadistic dentist, and 14th-billed Jack Nicholson (featured prominently on most tape and disc box art) as his masochistic patient. Shot on a shoestring in just three days (at least all the interiors), Little Shop holds up better than many big-budget comedies of the day (anyone watched Story of Mankind lately?). Much credit must be given to Charles B. Griffith, unsung hero/architect of the AIP/Allied Artists/Corman style. His list of credits reads like Corman's greatest hits: It Conquered the World, Attack of the Crab Monsters, The Undead, Not of This Earth, Teenage Doll, Bucket of Blood, Beast from Haunted Cave, Wild Angels, Death Race 2000, etc. Griffith's clever, witty screenplay is a model of late-50s sick humor, working in a dead-on Dragnet parody, some wonderful malapropisms and bits of wordplay, lotsa Yiddish humor, and a handful of his patented icky-creepy moments. (Griffith also voiced the plant, Audrey Jr., played a few walk-ons, and directed some second unit scenes, all uncredited.) Fred Katz's memorable score is alternately goofy and spy-jazzy, and, unlike some of Roger Corman's other attempts at comedy (e.g. Creature from the Haunted Sea), I find his touch just right here, ably supporting Griffith's verbal bits with complementary editing patterns (check Sgt. Joe Fink and Det. Frank Stoolie's hilarious introductory scene). Lighter in tone and a bit broader and more farcical than Bucket of Blood (which I personally prefer), Little Shop, judged on its own terms, is still fresh and engaging, though the low budget is obvious at times. I'm not sure how fans of the Broadway show or movie musical will react to the original (I admit to being a purist myself), but if they share a taste for low budget horror or 50s-style sick humor they'll probably find it an offbeat treat.

Roger Corman's Original 1960 version of "The Little Shop Of Horrors" is considered by many as a true cult classic comedy of B-Movies,even the most respected of film critics.Unfortunately depending on the tastes and opinions of film fans that were used to seeing this legendary film comedy through the public domain since there was a lack of copyright in the titles,(same thing had happen to "Night Of The Living Dead") and for many years since the dawn of the videocassette and late late movie shows,those versions were vastly inferior and often poor-looking in terms of presentation and contrast.Now the great folks at Legend Films have finally put out a brand-new definitive and excellent restored presentation of this cult hit on DVD in both the original black & white version as well as the disc's main presentation of showcasing a brand-new restored digitally colorized version too.As with previous selected Legend releases of classic horror/B-movies in their DVD series,the disc features a well-done and at times hilarious commentary by MST3K's Mike Nelson and the great thing is that you can listen to the track on both versions of the film,giving the b&w version sort of a MST3K-flavor to it (I love how he refers to the opening Filmgroup logo as little Reese Cups !).Despite packaging claims that is the first time the film has been colorized,it's actually the second colorized incarnation of the film.First colorized on videocassette in the very late '80's with lousy and at times amateur results,this Legend version completely blows away the first attempt and looks like it was actually filmed in color,but of course this films' legendary budgetary constraints prevented from actually filming it in color.Of course lets not forget that the film features a very very young Jack Nicholson,in his fourth film role,in a memorable role as a crazy dentist patient.I must say,this Legend version of "Little Shop" is probably the most superior and sharpest looking out of all the previous versions of the film that you're possibly going to see and no wonder it was transferred from an excellent 35mm print of the film ! Other extras,besides the Nelson commentary,round out the package including both restored color/unrestored b&w trailers to "Little Shop",and the following colorized trailers for "Plan 9 From Outer Space","House On Haunted Hill","Carnival Of Souls",and "Reefer Madness".Plus a gallery of nine man-eating plants,if any kids are planning to do a school project on man-eating plants,this could actually be a fun reference guide,and also a very short clip called "Man Eating Plants" which is actually the president of Legend Films Barry Sandrew vigorously eating vegetable plants such as celery (always eat your vegetables folks !).Well-done packaging,excellent eye-catching menus and a sparkling transfer of both versions will definitely please any film buff,both Hollywood and B-Movie fans alike ! This is by far one of the first best DVD releases of 2006 and is highly recommended for old and new fans alike instead of those who only prefer the 1986 spectacular Frank Oz musical remake with Rick Moranis and Steve Martin.Highly recommended !

UPDATE 11/24/06:

Just Recently,Buena Vista Home Entertainment in association with Roger Corman have finally released an "authorized" DVD release of "Little Shop Of Horrors" as well as a nicely restored original black & white version of Nicholson's debut film "The Cry Baby Killer".Unfortunately,the recent disc's presentation of "Little Shop" is in fact the ORIGINAL colorized version,slightly mentioned above,that was first produced and eventually released to video in 1987 by Color Systems Technology.The source print used for the color version (other than the fact that the quality was directly copied off a video master for the DVD) is surprisingly in quite good condition,but it really truly is one of the worst examples of 1980's colorization technology I've ever seen and will probably be the last.The colors are often the same as certain objects (ie: the outside of Mushnick's Shop and the greens for the flowers,etc.),tons of continuity errors (ie: clothing,signs,etc.) and does anybody wish to care seeing Audrey Jr. looking like a talking watermelon plant? Reportedly,that color version was authorized by none other than Corman himself and it's easy to see why many directors above his stature hate and disregard colorization.Nicholson/Corman fans alike aren't going to be impressed with that bust of a release and it's very easy to see why the '87 colorized version was out of circulation for many years.Easier said than done,the newly restored Legend Films release is by far,hands down,the real winner due to the technology,version options,and bonus materials !

Buy The Little Shop Of Horrors (1960) Now

I had origanlly seen this movie on a late night horror movie host and loved it having already seen the musical version. I bought the DVD expecting DVD quality. The transfer to DVD is bad. It's proably one of the worse ones I own. It's a little choppy, very grainy and somewhat blurry. There's also a spotlight effect once in awhile that I don't remember being there before (where the egdes of the movie are a little darker then the center). If you look carefully you can see waves going though the picture during the first part of chapter 2. The sound is a little muffled. I rate the transfer at 2 (I'm sure there's a worse one) and only gave it a 3 becasue of the movie it's self.

Read Best Reviews of The Little Shop Of Horrors (1960) Here

This is the original that started it all, in 1960 which the film was shot for only two days. It's an good film, with a lot of grainy feel to it in black and white.

This version is about the bumbling Seymour who was almost out the door by his boss, Mr. Mushnick, for his incompetence. Seymour finds an unusual plant and Mushnick told Seymour if the plant turns out to be ok and fed, Seymour gets to stay at his job. Seymour names this plant, Audrey Jr., after his coworker, Audrey, who he loves. Before long, Seymour finds out that this plants wants nothing other than blood and human flesh...and ends up bringing dead people to the plant that were accidently killed. The cops were trying to find out what happened to the missing people (they were already eaten by the plant), and Mr. Mushnick stumbled on Seymour's secret. Mr. Mushnick offered a robber in the shop to the plant to save his life. The cops find out that Seymour is the one who killed the people when the pods of the plant opened up, showing the faces of those that were eaten, and there was a junkyard chase after Seymour. When Seymour goes back to the shop, he was mad at the plant, and intending to cut the weeds to kill it, he jumped in and the plant ate him. When the others came back to the shop, they found Seymour's face in one of the pods, then the movie ends.

There are some funny parts, and some silliness in other scenes (like the tramp that Seymour ran into, and their conversation is humorous!), plus you can find a young Jack Nicholson as the pain-loving dental patient.

This movie reminds me a little bit of the 1920s or 1930s films by the way some of the acting and the grainy image has portrayed in this 1960 movie, but overall, it is a good movie to watch.

Want The Little Shop Of Horrors (1960) Discount?

I recently watched the musical remake of Little Shop of Horrors and enjoyed it immensely, and my curiosity about the genesis of that film lead me to its progenitor. I hadn't realised that Roger Corman's original was intended as a comedy--I'd thought that it was a cheapie horror film with camp humor arising from its unintended absurdity. This is absolutely not the case, and I was very pleasantly surprised. The absurdity of Little Shop, and there is plenty, is all fully intended. At times it is almost as if the Monty Python troupe is doing a black-and-white horror spoof, it is so good. I find it impossible to say whether the musical remake or the original is "better"--they are simply different, and each amusing in its own way. I prefered Rick Moranis's Seymour to that of Jonathan Haze, but Jackie Joseph's Audrey had funnier lines and was less pathetic than Ellen Greene's. But what really surprised me was that the comic touches I had thought were signatures of the Saturday Night Live/Second City crowd were all in the original: the sadistic dentist and his masochistic patient; "Pain" magazine, "Feed me!", and more. Futhermore, the original had some more absurd characters that didn't make it into the remake, including a parody of the detectives from Dragnet and Seymour's mother, a hypochondriac whose home cooking is all flavoured with medicine! Although the sound and picture quality of the version I watched was poor, it was worth sitting through if you enjoyed the more recent version. Also worthy of note was the spiky, xylophone-timpani-and-baritone-saxophone-laden score by Fred Katz.

Save 48% Off