jvincent1

Beautifully photographed, loaded with all sorts of little things which do much to contribute to the film's overall sense of everything big and small, and ever so slyly filled with humor, Kiarostami has created a great film here about people whom we see and don't see (We never see the "engineer's" crew, the man digging the deep ditch at the cemetery, the the supposedly dying old woman, the girl in the cave milking the cow for the engineer). I know this remote village is not Tehran but I see no false note in Kiarstami's depiction of his own people (He would certainly know better than any of us.) The film crew is from Tehran, and, as personified by the "engineer," neither of these two representatives of Iranian culture are remotely religious fanatics. They're folks like me and you. I'm aware the Mullahs control Iran, and strict adherence to Muslim law is their credo, but we don't feel it from the villagers or film crew. Perhaps, when a country feels the great weight of a mighty army roaming the lands of its next door neighbor, its leaders are forced to take extremist positions. When their leaders hear George W. Bush implying Iran might be next, they may believe a nuclear deterrent is all they have. Bush should watch this film and get some sense of, at least, what a sizable portion of Iran's population is like, and maybe he'll stop the tough talk, though I doubt it.

The older Kubrick grew, the more he tired of the limitations imposed by traditional story-telling, as the complexity of the structures of his last two films, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, clearly reveal. Had he lived, I'm of the opinion his films would have reflected a combination of his old, traditional eastern European values merged with some hybrid form of David Lynchian narrative structureless, creating a result I cannot even imagine. Debate on future Kubrick films, assuming he lived, would have been most interesting. But, this is not my point. It's those damn little digitalized images which intrude upon the orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut which have my attention, because, in the United States, those brief little computer-made creatures followed the film to DVD. I was determined to find a way to remove them, so I could enjoy Kubrick's final film in its purest form just like our brothers and sisters across the ocean. I'm sure most persons could care less, but there does exist a small number of film buffs willing to go a little farther in order to eliminate problems of this sort, because there are solutions out there, you just gotta find out what they are. DVD players and the DVDs also are manufactured to be compatible according to its region. The almighty powers of the DVD empire have divided the world into twelve regions, and, for example, since the U.S. is coded region 1, only DVD players manufactured for that region will play DVDs also with region 1 coding. How do you ascertain the region of a DVD? On the back side of most DVD cases, if you will look carefully towards the bottom of it, you will find an image of the globe, sometimes encased in a rectangular little box, others shaped like a global football, and in the middle of that little globe is a number, which in our case is always a number 1. It's not always easy to spot this small globe and number, but believe me, it's usually there. Now, if you were to come across a European DVD in its case, you'll find that same globe but the number in its middle will be a 2, rather than a 1. That's because most European DVD players and discs are manufactured for each other, and in Europe's case, that's region 2. Now, put a region 1 DVD (U.S.) into a European DVD player, and what happens? Nothing happens. You get no picture. The player and disc are very simply not compatible. Very often, when you're on a movie site, looking to buy or rent a foreign film that you've read about, etc., when examining the DVD's specifications, you'll reach a point where it warns you about region compatibility, or the possible lack thereof. Major foreign films, those that have gained a certain level of notoriety among film enthusiasts, very often are available in region 1 format. However, that's not the case for a far greater number of films from other countries. Surprisingly, certain American films are available only through some foreign distributor, in, say, a region 4 format for example. Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons can be purchased only as a region 6 DVD. David Lynch's Lost Highways, until recently, was available for purchase only as a region 2 disc, and this still is the only region in which you can obtain the film in its theater aspect ratio. In addition to this region compatibility problem, the DVDS of films from other countries often have video signals in the PAL format while many American televisions come only in the NTSC system, which basically means your colors will not match and, hence, lousy picture. I'm not very comfortable addressing the contradictions of mixing PAL and NTSC DVD other than to say, it will not work. With all these different regions for different foreign and domestic movies on DVD and PAL encoding for American DVD players designed to handle region 1, NTSC DVDs, is there a way to make it all work? Absolutely. With the region-free or multi-region or all region DVD player, all these problems promptly disappear, and any DVD will perform nicely in a DVD player of this nature. At a price no higher than a regular DVD player bought at the local chain electronics store. Don't look for a region free DVD player there, however. It only sells regular region 1 DVD players for those region 1 DVDs which it also sells. So, where do you go to buy one of these region-free players? The answer is on line. There are many, many sites which offer these type players. I don't know whether you can mention products or stores on here, so I will not do so, but you can email me and I'll refer you to the place where I bought mine, which has operated smoothly for about two years without any trouble, and many, many films have run through it over the course of that time. With this region-free DVD player, I purchased a region 2 version of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD, and watched the film without the insertion of those damned digital images in the orgy scene. It was a little thing, but it mattered to me, as do all the other foreign (and some domestic) films I've purchased and watched several times. With all this hoopla about the coming of high-definition DVD, a battle for supremacy between two competitors and the eventual winner an unknown for several years to come, you're better off with a much, much less expensive region-free player which will greatly expand the diversity of your collection. One other thing about the high-definition competition: the eventual loser will fade at about the same rate as VHS has to DVD, and its products are not compatible with those of its competitor and visa versa. I can be emailed at: jvincent1@bellsouth.net. By the way, I don't sell the things, I just promote the international bonding resulting from film.

It's good to know from reading the user comments here that others are out there who've seen this film (probably on DVD) and enjoyed it as much as me. I don't recall when or where I bought this movie, or what motivated me to do so, but I'm awfully glad I did. Normally, a film's director is the major force in attracting me to buy a film on DVD. Since I had never heard of Scott Sanders, it surely must have been the presence of so many good actors which influenced me to do so. However, if this man never makes another film, he still has made a significant contribution with this one. The actors execute Sander's tight, fast-paced script superbly, as the film flies by so quickly, I was disappointed it was over. Alec Baldwin as the Mafia-connected thief, Bruce Greenwood as his sarcastic sidekick, a black guy whose name I didn't know, who plays Greenwood's foil and sidekick #2, together form a formidable trio of robbers with great chemistry, and much, much sly humor. Pit them against pseudo-sophisticated gang leader Michael Jai White, carelessly arrogant of his bigotry against the "Eyetalians," his #2, a quietly smooth Andre Braugher, and their entourage of bungling underlings, then throw in the middle, laid-back detective Rebecca De Mornay and you have a great crew to execute all the controlled anarchy which ensues. Great acting all around from these fine people. But, it doesn't stop there. There are three or four more guys and gals, again whose names I didn't know, who make vital acting contributions in sizable roles. This is not a "funny, ha ha" type film, but its serious nature is always undermined by subtle comedic touches. If there is a serious weakness in the film, I didn't see it. Director Sanders wrote a great story, recruited a team of top-notch talent, mixed it all together and came out with one great film. I've put myself on notice to see if Scott Sanders shows his face again, but so far ... This film was made in 1998. He has plenty of time, but, c'mon now.

Is Citizen Kane a masterpiece? The results of the British Film Institute 2002 poll of major directors and critics found Kane to be rated the best film of all time, and Orson Welles the greatest director. Do the intelligentsia of film have the exclusive right to determine which film is or is not a masterpiece? Certainly not. However, the use of the term "masterpiece" is being thrown around so casually today as to render the word virtually meaningless. If you look at IMDb's user rating, you would find Citizen Kane ranked #23 and The Shawshank Redemption #2. This is a rating by us common folk, not people who have studied film or make their living from movies. Does this give rise to the contention that The Shawshank Redemption is a masterpiece also? One may argue the point, and if you read through the user comments, many, many people use the term to describe that movie. I'm sure if you read through the user comments for, say, Pulp Fiction, that ol' word "masterpiece" will be there again and again. Check out Forrest Gump. I haven't, but my money says you see that "m" word quite a few times there also. After all, it DID win six Academy Awards. If all these movies are considered masterpieces by enough people, does that make it so? I really don't know. I do have my opinion and the privilege to state it, everyone else like it or not. You may disagree with my view, but you shouldn't absorb it and react personally. A masterpiece in film is no different from any other art form. Painting, music, sculpture, literature; some works are great; others mediocre. Greatness must stand the test of time. It doesn't matter how many times you've seen that Dali, listened to Wagner, or read Shaw's play. Each time is the first time. There's a wondrous quality there which fascinates always. A sense of immortality. So, is The Shawshank Redemption a masterpiece on the same level as Citizen Kane? Not even close. Kane meets my criteria as do many others. In fact, in my opinion, Citizen Kane is not even Welles' best movie, so I must think highly of him as a filmmaker. Kubrick, Bunuel, Wilder, Ford, Fellini, Fassbinder, Lang, Ozu, Truffaut, Kurasawa, Hitchcock, Altman, maybe Goddard, maybe Herzog, look out for Tarr, Visconti, the list of great films by great filmmakers is long enough, but not so long that every GOOD film we see is a masterpiece. Let's collar that word and hold it in a safe place before it becomes completely superfluous. I'm sure Welles would approve.

Given the present sorry state of American cinema, I was somewhat cynical of a film as heralded as this one. After all, what had Guillermo del Toro done to enhance his reputation as a filmmaker other than Blade II, and Hellboy? I've seen better resumes from young directors. So, what do we get from him in Pan's Labrynth? A magical war movie set during the revolt against Spain's Generalisimo Franco. Guys, I'm still waiting for the day when CGI becomes so good that it can replace the need for a good story. That del Toro is a product of the CGI-dominated school of film-making is very evident here, as the truly wondrous special effects taking place below the earth seemingly have little to do with the world above. There, the evil Captain brutalizes, tortures and kills peasants by the dozens, and we get to watch every excruciating minute of it. I even wanted to cheer when he finally "got" his in the end; one shot to the head. And, how does the magical world below help bring about the demise of the captain? Oh, it doesn't. This fantastic world of visual horrors but mostly delights, is strictly for the benefit of poor little Ofelia (and, surprise, surprise, there's her mother, another victim of the captain). The inhabitants of this netherworld enable us to appreciate the value of old time effects such as make-up, but it's still effects, effects, effects. Except for topside, where its murder, torture, more murder (we even get to see the captain perform a little stitch job on the side of his mouth). The more I write, the worse this movie gets, so I'll end it here by saying if you want to see a filmmaker combine plot with imaginative special effects feast your eyes on a Terry Gilliam film, particularly his Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas. If only he could reign it in just a little.

I just read the comments of someone from August 30, 2004, who had reached the conclusion that John Wayne's character had stepped aside "for the better man," played by Jimmy Stewart. From my view, nothing could be farther from the truth. For all Ransom Stoddard's disdain for frontier violence, in the end, he was left with no choice but to pick-up a gun to finally silence Liberty Valance, something Valance knew better than to do with Wayne's Tom Doniphon. Call Stoddard the idealist and Doniphon the realist, but don't call him the better man. In 1946, John Ford directed My Darling Clementine, perfectly blending Wayne and Henry Fonda with his usual cast of characters to create a masterwork. Sixteen years later, he put Wayne together with Stewart (plus all the ol' gang) and made another peerless film. There was a time I didn't really "get" John Ford and John Wayne. One day, I awoke and now, the greatness of these two giants of the cinema is undeniable.

From what I've read, Brando and Kubrick disagreed on script contents, and Brando, being the heavyweight at the time, gave Kubrick the ol' heave-ho. Whatever Kubrick's version was to be, it had to be superior to the film's final product which can be summed: Love conquers all. All the characters are exaggerated almost to the point of absurdity. This is most likely the product of Brando's inexperience as a director. The film lacks any genuine sense of realism and so, there is no amount of intensity to Brando's (Rio) plight. When he's jailed, a day way from being hung, you know it's not going to happen. Great supporting actors of the Western genre such as Ben Johnson, Slim Pickens and Kathy Jurado are essentially wasted. What's good about it? The cinematography is excellent. Cowboys riding horses against the backdrop of the California coastline is an unusual setting, and camera man Charles Lang uses it to maximum effect. I read that the musical score is considered great, but I just didn't notice it. When you compare this Western to the works of John Ford, Howard Hawks, Anthony Mann, Sam Peckinpah, and Sergio Leone, it's just not in that class. Yes, it's a pretty good movie, but not in the same ballpark as the works of the aforementioned masters of the cowboy movie.