Reviews Written By: A1P2NBM3P3TS2Xprovided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
 | Sony BDP-S350 Blu-ray Player | |
 | "Mostly happy, but wish it had just one more feature" | 2009-09-04 |
| Generally I'm very happy with this player. I got it at a good price at Best Buy a few months ago. I don't even have a hi-def TV yet, and I can already see a difference in the picture with Blu-Ray discs on a regular TV.
I purchased the Blu-Ray of "Amadeus", and even when viewed on a regular TV through the BD player it looks FABULOUS! The remote is easy to navigate with, and the menu screens on the TV (via the player) are neither too complex nor overly-elaborate. I don't have the player hooked up to an Internet cable yet for all the firmware updates, Blu-Ray Live features, etc, but that's not really my thing anyway. I just want the movies I watch to look cool! The only drawback I see is that there is no frame-by-frame advance feature. I didn't see anything about that feature on any published or online literature for this model, so I just crossed my fingers and hoped for the best. No luck in that department, I guess. If you've read a lot of reviews of BD players, you've no doubt heard about various "start-up times", or how long it takes the player to read and start playing a Blu-Ray disc. Yes, it can often be slower than a standard DVD, but it isn't so long as to be a deal-breaker. Overall, I'm very happy with this player's performance -- even if it doesn't have frame advance. You can REALLY tell the difference between standard DVD and Blu-Ray discs even if you don't have a hi-def TV yet. Christmas is just around the corner. Think I'll buy me a plasma TV to go along with my S350. Bring some beer and you can come over and we'll watch some Blu-Ray movies! First up -- "Blade Runner" and "The Fall". And when and if "Jaws" ever comes out on Blu-Ray, be advised that I'm taking the phone off the hook when I watch it. | ||
 | Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation | |
 | "Comma comma comma comma comma Chameleon!" | 2009-08-29 |
| My stress level has actually decreased since getting this book.
FINALLY, someone understands my, pain! By the way, if you're running a little low on, commas and need a few thousand spares for emergencies, check out, the Wikipedia webpages. They have extra and unnecessary commas ALL OVER, the darn place. [I have included several samples here for your viewing and window-shopping pleasure!] | ||
 | 54 | |
 | "Interesting but by no means engrossing" | 2009-08-25 |
| It veers into melodrama more than a few times. Mike Meyers is cast against type and pulls it off wonderfully. He is perhaps the lone cast member emerges with his acting reputation intact.
I find the story of Studio 54 a fascinating one. It was the right club in the right city at the right time, and co-run by just the kind of guy (Rubell) who would never have been permitted in had he not owned the place. I wasn't expecting "54" to be a documentary, but it somehow disappoints on many levels. Phillippe and Campbell are pretty enough, but not particularly solid actors. They look and sound the same in every movie I've seen them in. The time spent on his pursuit of her and their brief relationship could have come out of any of a hundred movies, so it kind of bogs this one down. This movie seems to have been painted by the numbers. Perhaps it was a better film on paper (or before Miramax reportedly meddled with it), but the end result was more bland than glam. | ||
 | 54 | |
| "Interesting but by no means engrossing" | 2009-08-25 |
| It veers into melodrama more than a few times. Mike Meyers is cast against type and pulls it off wonderfully. He is perhaps the lone cast member who emerges with his acting reputation intact.
I find the story of Studio 54 a fascinating one. It was the right club in the right city at the right time, and co-run by just the kind of guy (Rubell) who would never have been permitted in had he not owned the place. I wasn't expecting "54" to be a documentary, but it somehow disappoints on many levels. Phillippe and Campbell are pretty enough, but not particularly solid actors. They look and sound the same in every movie I've seen them in. The time spent on his pursuit of her and their brief relationship could have come out of any of a hundred movies, so it kind of bogs this one down. This movie seems to have been painted by the numbers. Perhaps it was a better film on paper (or before Miramax reportedly meddled with it), but the end result was more bland than glam. | ||
 | Lost - The Complete First Season | |
 | "HIGHLY overrated high-concept soap opera. Agonizing to watch." | 2009-08-09 |
| I really wanted to like this show. My favorite series of the past few years ("The Shield" and "The Wire") had ended, and I wanted a new show to enjoy and get hooked on. I knew "Lost" was already several years old by that point, but I figured I could start from the beginning with the DVDs and get caught up quickly.
However, this show stinks so bad, I am having a hard time getting the smell out of my DVD player. This show is overwrought melodrama, and is full of manufactured tension and forced dialogue and situations. The premise is fine (and even interesting), but the dozens of little moments used to fill the time between plot developments are ridiculously melodramatic. The show doesn't have to be realistic, but there needs to be some verisimilitude -- the actions, dialogue, etc of the characters need to be grounded in reality and naturalism (even in a surreal or fantastical context) or else it looks cartoonish. Watching this show has helped me become a master at physical multi-tasking: I can now yawn and roll my eyes at the same time. I never saw the show until August of 2009. My boss recommended it to me (we were both huge fans of "The Shield" and "The Big Bang Theory", so I was willing to accept his recommendation). I rented Season 1 of "Lost" from Netflix and somehow managed to watch almost the entire season without wanting to slit my wrists from boredom or having my eyes roll permanently into the back of their sockets. It wasn't easy to get through the season, that's for sure. It was quite the endurance contest. The most notable reaction I had to this show (other than intellectual agony) was when I ran, and I mean RAN, to my computer to delete the rest of the season's discs from my Netflix queue. The premise was interesting, but that's where the fun ended. I accept the fact that this is a network television show, and for that reason this show will feature an inordinate number of attractive young actors playing stock characters and that there will be an ethnically diverse cast of characters that somehow feels "forced" (Handsome young male lead? Check. Add a few impossibly beautiful young women? Check. Black guy? Check. Asian characters? Check. Chubby comic relief? Check. Dangerous rebel? Check. ....You get the point). If it seems like the network had a checklist for the stock characters and ethnicities they wanted represented so as to widen the show's appeal, well it did. That's how network TV works. That's how network execs think. Next ingredient: make it eerie but not too complicated. Don't make it cerebral, but make it LOOK and FEEL like it is cerebral. Make the post-plane crash behavior as unrealistic as possible. The survivors are at first without a decent supply of food, water, shelter, adequate medical care, etc, but they go about their business like calm sheep, only pausing to stare in wonder whenever they hear a strange animal growl or trees moving. Even then, they only react when the camera pans to them. It's kind of a "rolling acknowledgement" - each one of them on the beach hears the sounds at the same time, but their reactions are in "staggered time". Apparently it is important on a television drama for the camera to capture the startled reactions of each and every character, no matter how much time it takes, whenever something startling occurs. It looks so hokey and cliche and REHEARSED that you'd swear Steven Spielberg himself had shot it. By the way, the plane wreckage and debris looked totally unrealistic. It looked like the debris was simply placed on the beach. I didn't see any tell-tale signs of a large object having a violent crash landing and/or coming to a stop. A plane crash (even just a downed fuselage and two engines) leaves a HECK of a lot more physical damage to the surrounding area than what we see in "Lost". But that would be expensive to design and would spoil the beauty of the scenery. Maybe I'm nitpicking. Maybe my expectations are too high. But details and verisimilitude are important. If the network wants me to invest a significant amount of time in that show, then they should invest more time and effort into paying attention to details. A cool premise will carry a show only so far. The premise and plot don't have to be absolutely realistic, but the everyday elements of the natural world (Laws of Physics, patterns of human behavior in desperate situations, etc) should be grounded in reality, even within the context of a fantasy show. Otherwise, this might as well be "Gilligan's Island" or a Saturday morning cartoon. I said that already, but it bears repeating. By the way, at the beginning of the pilot episode where Matthew Fox's character "Jack" awakens in a field of tall grass that completely surrounds him, how did he know which way to run? How did the dog get out of the carrier he was presumably in? Isn't it convenient that their luggage arrived with them and intact when the rest of the plane was essentially blown to bits? How come a grown man got sucked into the engine but nothing else nearby of considerably lighter weight even rustled in the suction breeze? And why does J.J. Abrams seem to think that using one of the most overused cliches in drama (having a young pregnant woman go into labor or have labor pains at the most inopportune moment) does NOT look downright silly? He did it here, and he did it again in his "Star Trek" movie. It's old and tired and it should be beneath him. But apparently it's not. Maybe the pregnancy has a dramatic payoff later in the season, maybe it doesn't. That's not the point. The point is that it is an overused cliche and stock character to suffer through while we're waiting to see IF there is a payoff. Maybe some of these questions get addressed YEARS later in future seasons, but those are bad elements to hinge a plot line on. It's like asking someone to listen to a singer's 11 terrible CD's because the last track on the 12th one is supposed to be good enough to make up for the rest. I just don't get it. I don't see how so many people are so enamored of this show. It is a cool premise executed in the laziest way imaginable. If "Lost" was the first and only dramatic series I'd ever seen, I'd probably think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But the bar has been set very high recently by shows like "The Wire", for example, and now any other show that doesn't even attempt to match it for quality just looks all the worse for not trying. Not that "Lost" and "The Wire" are the same type of show. That's for damn sure. But "The Wire" has shown how great episodic drama can be. It is character-driven, not gimmick-driven. "Lost" is, first and foremost, gimmick-driven. Americans love "gimmick TV". No surprise that this show has become successful. Even the fans who complain that the show moves too slowly and that nothing really ever happens still rave about the show as if it were the best thing ever on TV. They give it an unconditional pass. That's too bad. I somehow made it almost all the way through Season One of this show. I was hoping to enjoy it, but I just couldn't see past all the weaknesses and laziness in the directing, writing, logic, and production design. This show was a soap opera gone "high-concept", that's all. When a soap opera aspires to be greater than it is, when it tries to reach the heights of great drama or a great thriller, it usually just comes off looking silly. That's "Lost" in a nutshell. I have no desire to see any future seasons and I can't recommend this show to any of my friends who insist on a minimum standard of literary or narrative excellence. This show has often been compared to "Lord of the Flies". Hardly. "LOTF" explored man's dark and primitive nature. "Lost" is too superficial to tackle that theme with any seriousness. The show is abysmally bad. Did you know that the idea for this show was dreamed up by a network exec at ABC? He thought the premise would make for a cool series, so he hired various folks to write it for him. The series was greenlit on the basis of the concept alone. Too bad the so-called "creative talent" behind the show couldn't make it work any better than they did. This show was about as big a mistake as a trouble married couple deciding to have a baby to "save their marriage". The ONLY thing Season 1 is good for is as a drinking game. Every time you see a scene where someone in either the foreground or background is folding clothes from a piece of luggage, drink a shot. Actually, it might even help you enjoy the show more. I'd probably have to be drunk to watch more of this crapfest anyway. This show in some ways disappoints me the same way the Star Wars prequel "The Phantom Menace" did. As in "Phantom Menace", "Lost" doesn't have nearly enough plot to sustain its running time. As a result, the show's flaws take center stage when there is nothing else interesting going on on-screen. Watching this show, you can never forget you are listening to scripted dialogue. There is almost nothing natural about their conversations. Every word sounds like it is being spoken for dramatic effect. .... You know what? It makes my head hurt to even discuss this show. I'm still not sure if I genuinely hate the show or if I merely resent the writers and directors for being so lazy and for paying so little attention to the small moments. This show is FULL of small moments. When they are weak and silly, it paints the whole show with that brush. This show might have worked better as a 2-hour TV movie. It would have been narratively tighter and more effective, maybe like one of the better "Twilight Zone" episodes. But it is stretched too thin and can't sustain itself on a moment-to-moment basis without resorting to trying to squeeze a high amount dramatic tension from very minor events. It just looks silly. What a waste of a good premise. Funny thing is, this first season won an Emmy for Best Dramatic Series and then in subsequent seasons was criticized for being slow and boring. I thought Season One was about as slow and boring as a show could get. I can't really imagine how unbearable the subsequent seasons must have been. Like anyone else, I've been either disinterested in or disappointed by any number of shows over the years. In those cases, I'd just shrug my shoulders and never tune into them again. But "Lost" is the first show I've absolutely resented for being as poor as it is, and I will NEVER understand why people are/were so fascinated by it. ************************* I hear they are making "Lost" action figures now. You wind them up, set them down, and they sit there for three seasons before doing anything. | ||
 | Alien Agenda : Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us | |
| "Intriguing subject and well-researched" | 2009-07-10 |
| Whether you believe in UFOs or not, you have to give some thought to the statistics. Given the volume of UFO reports throughout modern history, the extensive field work, the thousands upon thousands of supposed sightings and events, the number of trained debunkers who have converted and become believers, and the testimony of such a great number of credible eyewitnesses, statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that ALL of them are bogus, hoaxes, or terrestrial in origin. That said, Marrs' book covers a lot of ground in a great many aspects of Ufology, from alien bases on the moon to government cover-ups to multiple eyewitness accounts to abduction stories and everything in between. The section on remote viewing is particularly fascinating. Just because we live in a modern, high-tech, scientifically sophisticated society doesn't mean we know everything. Throughout history, mankind presumed it was living in its "modern" era. At one point we were convinced the Earth was flat. Turns out we were wrong. But we KNEW it!! WE KNEW IT!! We were SO SURE we had been right!! Imagine what else we will find that we have been wrong about as time marches on. Why is the thought of a species visiting another planet so outlandish? We've been sending probes to other planets for decades. We've conquered scientific frontiers that would have been considered unthinkable just 50 years ago. Imagine what a civilization just a mere 300 years more advanced than ours could be capable of! 300 years is NOTHING - a fraction of a blink of Time's evolutionary eye. How about a civilization 1000 years more advanced? 10,000 years? A million years? Again, a blink of an eye on the universal perspective. I don't believe for one minute that everything in Marrs' book is or can be true. And he probably doesn't either. But it doesn't all have to be true. Just part of it is enough. The book looks to be very meticulously researched and footnoted, but I haven't taken the time to fact-check his facts. Nor could I, in most cases. But it makes one stand in awe of the sheer volume of it all. We all believe in traffic accidents but most of us have never seen one as it happened. We can't be looking in all directions at once in the hopes of catching an event as it happens. We can't make an uninterrupted search of every square mile of the skies at the same time at all times. Most of us will never see a UFO. They may come and go all day long but most of us will never see them. It's a big sky. So don't use the "well, I'VE never seen one" argument when it comes to UFOs. It's the wrong argument. Are there things our governments don't want us to know (and not just about UFOs)? ABSO-DAMN-LUTELY!! Social Order is a relatively fragile yet combustible phenomenon. It is not in anyone's best interests to see the public go berserk. Whether you believe the government is withholding UFO info from us is not the point. The point is that they CAN and DO withhold all kinds of info from us in the interest of maintaining a certain status quo and societal balance, not to mention to preserve a sense of perceived "national identity" and image. It would be foolish for the government to tell us everything because, in all truth, we couldn't handle it. But we are right and duty-bound to ask questions. That's about the only thing we can do to keep things in check. You don't have to believe in UFOs. But you probably have to believe that it is POSSIBLE there are UFOs. That's the important first step. Once you've taken that step you have opened your mind to having a rational dialogue on the topic. Be a THINKING PERSON. I don't care if you are the most educated know-it-all in the world. You don't know as much as you think you do and you CERTAINLY don't know everything. Remember the know-it-all arrogance we all had as teenagers? We thought we knew everything and when we grew older we realized we didn't. Well, don't stop growing up. You still don't know everything. You probably really only know what you have been taught or what you have been taught to take on faith. That's the difference between Belief and Truth. Many of the things we "know" are really just things we believe. The truth may be something else entirely. Okay, enough sermonizing. "50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong", as the album title states. There is no statistical chance that EACH AND EVERY ONE of the accounts detailed in this book (or the endless list of others from across the globe and across the centuries) can be chalked up to "swamp gas", "cloud reflections", or "fanciful hoaxing". You can't ignore the sheer numbers. Read the book. But you should never make up your mind about anything while your mind is closed. You have to open it first. | ||
 | Alien Agenda | |
| "Intriguing subject and well-researched" | 2009-07-10 |
| Whether you believe in UFOs or not, you have to give some thought to the statistics. Given the volume of UFO reports throughout modern history, the extensive field work, the thousands upon thousands of supposed sightings and events, the number of trained debunkers who have converted and become believers, and the testimony of such a great number of credible eyewitnesses, statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that ALL of them are bogus, hoaxes, or terrestrial in origin.
That said, Marrs' book covers a lot of ground in a great many aspects of Ufology, from alien bases on the moon to government cover-ups to multiple eyewitness accounts to abduction stories and everything in between. The section on remote viewing is particularly fascinating. Just because we live in a modern, high-tech, scientifically sophisticated society doesn't mean we know everything. Throughout history, mankind presumed it was living in its "modern" era. At one point we were convinced the Earth was flat. Turns out we were wrong. But we KNEW it!! WE KNEW IT!! We were SO SURE we had been right!! Imagine what else we will find that we have been wrong about as time marches on. Why is the thought of a species visiting another planet so outlandish? We've been sending probes to other planets for decades. We've conquered scientific frontiers that would have been considered unthinkable just 50 years ago. Imagine what a civilization just a mere 300 years more advanced than ours could be capable of! 300 years is NOTHING - a fraction of a blink of Time's evolutionary eye. How about a civilization 1000 years more advanced? 10,000 years? A million years? Again, a blink of an eye on the universal perspective. I don't believe for one minute that everything in Marrs' book is or can be true. And he probably doesn't either. But it doesn't all have to be true. Just part of it is enough. The book looks to be very meticulously researched and footnoted, but I haven't taken the time to fact-check his facts. Nor could I, in most cases. But it makes one stand in awe of the sheer volume of it all. We all believe in traffic accidents but most of us have never seen one as it happened. We can't be looking in all directions at once in the hopes of catching an event as it happens. We can't make an uninterrupted search of every square mile of the skies at the same time at all times. Most of us will never see a UFO. They may come and go all day long but most of us will never see them. It's a big sky. So don't use the "well, I'VE never seen one" argument when it comes to UFOs. It's the wrong argument. Are there things our governments don't want us to know (and not just about UFOs)? ABSO-DAMN-LUTELY!! Social Order is a relatively fragile yet combustible phenomenon. It is not in anyone's best interests to see the public go berserk. Whether you believe the government is withholding UFO info from us is not the point. The point is that they CAN and DO withhold all kinds of info from us in the interest of maintaining a certain status quo and societal balance, not to mention to preserve a sense of perceived "national identity" and image. It would be foolish for the government to tell us everything because, in all truth, we couldn't handle it. But we are right and duty-bound to ask questions. That's about the only thing we can do to keep things in check. You don't have to believe in UFOs. But you probably have to believe that it is POSSIBLE there are UFOs. That's the important first step. Once you've taken that step you have opened your mind to having a rational dialogue on the topic. Be a THINKING PERSON. I don't care if you are the most educated know-it-all in the world. You don't know as much as you think you do and you CERTAINLY don't know everything. Remember the know-it-all arrogance we all had as teenagers? We thought we knew everything and when we grew older we realized we didn't. Well, don't stop growing up. You still don't know everything. You probably really only know what you have been taught or what you have been taught to take on faith. That's the difference between Belief and Truth. Many of the things we "know" are really just things we believe. The truth may be something else entirely. Okay, enough sermonizing. "50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong", as the album title states. There is no statistical chance that EACH AND EVERY ONE of the accounts detailed in this book (or the endless list of others from across the globe and across the centuries) can be chalked up to "swamp gas", "cloud reflections", or "fanciful hoaxing". You can't ignore the sheer numbers. Read the book. But you should never make up your mind about anything while your mind is closed. You have to open it first. | ||
 | Hello Down There | |
| "Fun, if slight, movie" | 2009-07-09 |
| I think I was 7 or 8 when I saw this on TV in the early 70's. The underwater "Green Onion" house was a cool to me then as any Bond villain's extravagant lair was to me when I got older and started watching Bond films.
This movie truly represents a unique time in 60's movie history when pretty much every film featured a group of young kids trying to form a rock band, though what passed for "rock" was more like "beach pop". Richard Dreyfuss is in this one. Turns out "Jaws" wasn't the first film to feature him in the ocean with sharks! The transfer on this DVD is very crisp, clean, and bright. No bonus features to speak of. The film strains to fill out its 90-minute running time, but there still is no real "ending". The Navy sends divers down to investigate the strange sounds and goings-on at the underwater house, but the film ends as soon as the divers hit the water. It may not have been a necessary plot point, but it did add some production value to the film -- the footage of the Navy divers parachuting out of an airplane in their scuba suits was kind of fun to watch. Janet Leigh co-stars. I never realized how much she and daughter Jamie Lee Curtis looked like each other until now. If for no other reason, watch this movie to see Richard Dreyfuss fake-play the bass guitar like a Rock God wanna-be. | ||
 | Cabin Boy | |
| "Painful to sit through." | 2009-07-07 |
| Given the choice between watching this again and being waterboarded, I think I'd have to choose the latter.
I like Chris Elliot. I loved Dave Letterman's brief cameo. I hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. A horror movie that isn't scary is just dull, but a comedy that isn't funny is squirm-inducingly painful. "Cabin Boy" is just plain awful. | ||
 | I Got No Kick Against Modern Jazz | |
| "I was sold on it from the first track" | 2009-06-21 |
| The George Benson cover of "The Long and Winding Road" that opens this CD was enough to land this CD in my "favorites" bin forever. I dare say that it is even better than the original version. David Benoit's cover of "Here There and Everywhere" helps you understand why McCartney (or was it Lennon) called this his favorite Beatles song. Arturo Sandoval layers "Blackbird" with jazz horns and adds some real fire to the song. EVERYONE I've played this CD for just loves it. Not too many of us own the darn thing, apparently, but everybody who has heard it loves it. I'm torn between sharing it with the world and keeping it to myself as a private indulgence. I want everyone to hear it but I like the privileged feeling of being an exclusive fan. Can't have it both ways, can I? | ||
 | Fujifilm Finepix J10 8.2MP Digital Camera with 3x Optical Zoom (Brushed Silver) | |
| "Great for the money, though battery drains quickly" | 2009-06-12 |
| Great camera for the money. I have no problems with the features or performance. My only complaint is that the battery life isn't as long as I'd like it to be. Twice I've taken it to parties just to see the battery die within 3 hours or so. I wish this was the kind of camera that operated on AAA batteries or other easily/cheaply replaceable batteries that I could carry as spares. But other than that, I'm happy with the product. The viewscreen is smaller than some other similar cameras, but the camera itself is pretty tiny too. Even in its case it won't take up too much room in your pocket, which is good. | ||
 | Rodgers & Hammerstein's South Pacific | |
| "Glad I rented instead of buying" | 2009-06-10 |
| The songs are out of order, Glenn Close is CLEARLY too old for the role of Nellie Forbush, the direction is uninspired, and Robert Pastorelli fails to take full advantage of comic aspects of the Luther Billis character. But the scenery looks nice. "There is Nothing Like A Dame" is cheapened by re-assigning some vocal parts and having the sailors sing to camera. Singing to camera should be used very sparingly, if at all. When used too much it reeks of amateurism and lack of proper musical staging. But the scenery looks nice. | ||
 | Rodgers & Hammerstein's South Pacific | |
| "Glad I rented instead of buying" | 2009-06-10 |
| The songs are out of order, Glenn Close is CLEARLY too old for the role of Nellie Forbush, the direction is uninspired, and Robert Pastorelli fails to take full advantage of comic aspects of the Luther Billis character. But the scenery looks nice. "There is Nothing Like A Dame" is cheapened by re-assigning some vocal parts and having the sailors sing to camera. Singing to camera should be used very sparingly, if at all. When used too much it reeks of amateurism and lack of proper musical staging. But the scenery looks nice. | ||
 | Saving Private Ryan | |
| "Excellent film. Powerful. Keep your hands off it, Spielberg. Leave it alone." | 2009-04-28 |
| I first saw this in the theatres and have vivid memories of the elderly gentlemen (probably WWII vets) and their reactions to the film, certain scenes in particular. Powerful movie. How much you want to bet that Spielberg gets a wild hair up his posterior soon and decides to re-release this film with all the guns digitally erased and replaced with walkie-talkies? I'm only half-kidding. | ||
 | Saving Private Ryan (D-Day 60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) | |
| "Excellent film. Powerful. Keep your hands off it, Spielberg. Leave it alone." | 2009-04-28 |
| I first saw this in the theatres and have vivid memories of the elderly gentlemen (probably WWII vets) and their reactions to the film, certain scenes in particular. Powerful movie. How much you want to bet that Spielberg gets a wild hair up his posterior soon and decides to re-release this film with all the guns digitally erased and replaced with walkie-talkies? I'm only half-kidding. | ||
 | Saving Private Ryan | |
| "Excellent film. Powerful. Keep your hands off it, Spielberg. Leave it alone." | 2009-04-28 |
| I first saw this in the theatres and have vivid memories of the elderly gentlemen (probably WWII vets) and their reactions to the film, certain scenes in particular. Powerful movie. How much you want to bet that Spielberg gets a wild hair up his posterior soon and decides to re-release this film with all the guns digitally erased and replaced with walkie-talkies? I'm only half-kidding. | ||
 | Saving Private Ryan | |
| "Excellent film. Powerful. Keep your hands off it, Spielberg. Leave it alone." | 2009-04-28 |
| I first saw this in the theatres and have vivid memories of the elderly gentlemen (probably WWII vets) and their reactions to the film, certain scenes in particular. Powerful movie. How much you want to bet that Spielberg gets a wild hair up his posterior soon and decides to re-release this film with all the guns digitally erased and replaced with walkie-talkies? I'm only half-kidding. | ||
 | Just Shoot Me - Seasons One and Two | |
| "Funny show worth buying" | 2008-12-17 |
| Great show! While not every episode was an out-of-the-park home run, there was more than enough clever humor to make the entire first season enjoyable. I attended a taping of an episode in 1997 (the episode was "La Cage"). It was a good time for all -- George Segal entertained us with his banjo playing and singing during breaks between set-ups. The cast seemed to be having a great time and so did we. I encourage you guys to buy this DVD set and enjoy the first two seasons. If you haven't noticed, the sitcom seems to be a rapidly dying art form. Nowadays there exists only a fraction of the number that ran on TV just a decade ago. Enjoy them while they last. What else are you gonna do? Buy DVDs of reality shows? Those should get boring in no time flat. | ||
![Feast (Unrated) [HD DVD]](product_images/4925000/4925191_thumb.jpg) | Feast (Unrated) [HD DVD] | |
| ""Feast" not quite filling" | 2008-02-24 |
| For all the hype I heard about this film and all the relentless nagging from a friend for me to rent this, I was rather underwhelmed by the whole film. Neither funny enough nor scary enough to live up to its "horror-comedy" billing, "Feast" came off (to me) as too much in the Tarantino-wanna-be category ---- too much emphasis on trying to be stylish, clever, and or funny, and not enough emphasis on compelling storytelling.
I doubt seriously I will even bother to check out the two sequels (currently in post-production as I write this). | ||
 | Manhunter | |
| "The original and best version FINALLY on DVD!" | 2008-02-04 |
| Now we finally have the DVD release of the proper version of this film. In recent years we've seen two DVD releases containing a total of 3 different cuts of this film. But none of them contained the original theatrical version (the one released on VHS and laserdisc oh so many years ago). This one, the MGM release, is the "definitive version" that most of the fans have been screaming for for a long time. I can't believe it took this long. I was delighted when the other versions were released on DVD because they had some bonus goodies included with them, but my delight faded as soon as I discovered the film was cut differently from the version I had seen so many times on VHS and Laserdisc and had grown to love. The other DVD versions are missing parts of scenes, have alternate versions of some scenes, are missing dialogue, and have added scenes that interrupt the flow of the movie. At least one of the other versions includes a coda at the end where William Peterson's character pays a visit to the family that would have been the Tooth Fairy's next victims. Being so familiar with the original theatrical cut, I found that coda to be unnecessary and and even a bit clunky. This new MGM release has no bonus features at all. And you know what? I don't care. I didn't buy it for the bonus goodies, I bought it for the FILM! And with all due respect to Sir Anthony Hopkins and his take on the Hannibal Lector character (which grew more over-the-top with each sequel/rehash), Brian Cox's portrayal of Lector is shrewder and more believable. His Hannibal is far more understated than Hopkins', and it works better for the character and the film. Hopkins' portrayal seems "too Hollywood" by comparison. But as another reviewer so rightly pointed out, "Manhunter" is a crime drama and "Silence of the Lambs" is closer to being a horror film. Brian Cox's Hannibal wouldn't be as effective in "Lambs" and Hopkins' Hannibal would be FAR too much in "Manhunter". So I guess it really is like comparing apples and oranges. But you don't have to choose one over the other. You really should like them both. "Manhunter" is gritty, "Lambs" is eerie. But you need to have one definitive version of "Manhunter" to hold up high and cherish, and this version is it. | ||
 | Miami Vice (HD-DVD Rated + Unrated DVD Combo) | |
| "Very different from the Director's Cut/Theatrical version" | 2008-01-16 |
| Be aware that there are two versions of this film on DVD. The Director's Cut is the version I THINK was in the theatres, and this version is slightly different.
This version opens with the nightclub scene instead of the go-fast boat sequence (which is not in this version at all). For the rest of the first half of the film it is essentially identical to the Director's Cut. In the second half, in this version there are additional scenes on the transport ship, a longer build-up to the now-extended sequence at the trailer park, and the drug sting and shootout is longer too. There is an additional sequence with Tubbs' girlfriend Trudy getting nabbed by Yero's thugs, more footage in the hospital, and a different scene where Yero informs Montoya of Isabella's relationship with Crockett. I've seen the Director's Cut several times and bought this previously-viewed DVD not knowing there was a different cut of the film. Naturally, it was a bit disconcerting watching the second half of this one. One side of my brain is watching and sort of enjoying the new take on it, and the other half of my brain is contemplating whether or not to buy the Director's Cut DVD too, because that was the movie I wanted to buy from the get-go. You get more bonus features with the Director's Cut. This one, however, is a bare-bones edition. Be sure to take note before purchasing. Be careful discerning between the cover box artwork on each DVD. The picture in the Amazon listing may or may not stay accurate as time moves forward, so keep alert. | ||
 | Miami Vice (Unrated Director's Cut) | |
| "Very different from the Director's Cut/Theatrical version" | 2008-01-16 |
| Be aware that there are two versions of this film on DVD. The Director's Cut is the version I THINK was in the theatres, and this version is slightly different.
This version opens with the nightclub scene instead of the go-fast boat sequence (which is not in this version at all). For the rest of the first half of the film it is essentially identical to the Director's Cut. In the second half, in this version there are additional scenes on the transport ship, a longer build-up to the now-extended sequence at the trailer park, and the drug sting and shootout is longer too. There is an additional sequence with Tubbs' girlfriend Trudy getting nabbed by Yero's thugs, more footage in the hospital, and a different scene where Yero informs Montoya of Isabella's relationship with Crockett. I've seen the Director's Cut several times and bought this previously-viewed DVD not knowing there was a different cut of the film. Naturally, it was a bit disconcerting watching the second half of this one. One side of my brain is watching and sort of enjoying the new take on it, and the other half of my brain is contemplating whether or not to buy the Director's Cut DVD too, because that was the movie I wanted to buy from the get-go. You get more bonus features with the Director's Cut. This one, however, is a bare-bones edition. Be sure to take note before purchasing. Be careful discerning between the cover box artwork on each DVD. The picture in the Amazon listing may or may not stay accurate as time moves forward, so keep alert. | ||
 | Blazing Saddles (30th Anniversary Special Edition) | |
| "Fun movie, but DVD content is misrepresented" | 2008-01-12 |
| Funny movie. Either you love it or you hate it. Not much in between. But be aware that the content listing on the back of the DVD cover misrepresents one feature.
One of the DVD's Special Features is listed as "Screen Specific Commentary by Mel Brooks". A screen-specific commentary is one where the speaker delivers anecdotes or production stories about the particular moment or scene currently on the screen. The speaker watches and describes the movie in real-time. The actual commentary by Brooks is an interesting one but is definitely not a screen-specific commentary. It is a series of production stories unrelated to the action on-screen and cuts off just past the midway point in the film. In short, it is a pre-recorded 55 minute commentary added as an additional audio track. DVD afficionados who have listened to screen-specific commentaries before will be disappointed by the misrepresented feature here. The commentary itself may be somewhat interesting, but it is falsely advertised on the DVD's back cover. | ||
 | Blazing Saddles | |
| "Fun movie, but DVD content is misrepresented" | 2008-01-12 |
| Funny movie. Either you love it or you hate it. Not much in between. But be aware that the content listing on the back of the DVD cover misrepresents one feature.
One of the DVD's Special Features is listed as "Screen Specific Commentary by Mel Brooks". A screen-specific commentary is one where the speaker delivers anecdotes or production stories about the particular moment or scene currently on the screen. The speaker watches and describes the movie in real-time. The actual commentary by Brooks is an interesting one but is definitely not a screen-specific commentary. It is a series of production stories unrelated to the action on-screen and cuts off just past the midway point in the film. In short, it is a pre-recorded 55 minute commentary added as an additional audio track. DVD afficionados who have listened to screen-specific commentaries before will be disappointed by the misrepresented feature here. The commentary itself may be somewhat interesting, but it is falsely advertised on the DVD's back cover. | ||
 | Blazing Saddles - Special Edition | |
| "Fun movie, but DVD content is misrepresented" | 2008-01-12 |
| Funny movie. Either you love it or you hate it. Not much in between. But be aware that the content listing on the back of the DVD cover misrepresents one feature.
One of the DVD's Special Features is listed as "Screen Specific Commentary by Mel Brooks". A screen-specific commentary is one where the speaker delivers anecdotes or production stories about the particular moment or scene currently on the screen. The speaker watches and describes the movie in real-time. The actual commentary by Brooks is an interesting one but is definitely not a screen-specific commentary. It is a series of production stories unrelated to the action on-screen and cuts off just past the midway point in the film. In short, it is a pre-recorded 55 minute commentary added as an additional audio track. DVD afficionados who have listened to screen-specific commentaries before will be disappointed by the misrepresented feature here. The commentary itself may be somewhat interesting, but it is falsely advertised on the DVD's back cover. | ||
 | Blazing Saddles | |
| "Fun movie, but DVD content is misrepresented" | 2008-01-12 |
| Funny movie. Either you love it or you hate it. Not much in between. But be aware that the content listing on the back of the DVD cover misrepresents one feature.
One of the DVD's Special Features is listed as "Screen Specific Commentary by Mel Brooks". A screen-specific commentary is one where the speaker delivers anecdotes or production stories about the particular moment or scene currently on the screen. The speaker watches and describes the movie in real-time. The actual commentary by Brooks is an interesting one but is definitely not a screen-specific commentary. It is a series of production stories unrelated to the action on-screen and cuts off just past the midway point in the film. In short, it is a pre-recorded 55 minute commentary added as an additional audio track. DVD afficionados who have listened to screen-specific commentaries before will be disappointed by the misrepresented feature here. The commentary itself may be somewhat interesting, but it is falsely advertised on the DVD's back cover. | ||
 | Blazing Saddles | |
| "Fun movie, but DVD content is misrepresented" | 2008-01-12 |
| Funny movie. Either you love it or you hate it. Not much in between. But be aware that the content listing on the back of the DVD cover misrepresents one feature.
One of the DVD's Special Features is listed as "Screen Specific Commentary by Mel Brooks". A screen-specific commentary is one where the speaker delivers anecdotes or production stories about the particular moment or scene currently on the screen. The speaker watches and describes the movie in real-time. The actual commentary by Brooks is an interesting one but is definitely not a screen-specific commentary. It is a series of production stories unrelated to the action on-screen and cuts off just past the midway point in the film. In short, it is a pre-recorded 55 minute commentary added as an additional audio track. DVD afficionados who have listened to screen-specific commentaries before will be disappointed by the misrepresented feature here. The commentary itself may be somewhat interesting, but it is falsely advertised on the DVD's back cover. | ||
 | Jude Cole - A View from 3rd Street | |
| "Not only is it a great album..." | 2008-01-04 |
| ....but it is one of the best-mixed albums I've ever heard. All the vocal and instrument tracks are crisp, sharp, and perfectly balanced. You simply MUST hear this album through a good set of headphones. A really solid album. No bland filler tracks anywhere -- all the songs are, at worst, very good. You can't go wrong with this one. | ||
 | Looker | |
| "LOOKER -- Crichton's future is once again too plausible" | 2007-04-01 |
| Though it doesn't stand up as well as I hoped it would after 20+ years, it still retains some of the fun elements that captivated me when I saw it as a teenager. And I'm not just talking about Laurie Partridge in the altogether.... Many of Crichton's novels and movies seem to be close kin to each other -- "Jurassic Park" isn't too far removed from "Westworld", and "Looker" even has a shade or two in common with "Runaway". Despite the overlapping premises, Crichton has a compellingly interesting way of portraying developing technologies as a weapon best left out of the hands of Corporate America, and Criminal America too, for that matter. The developing technology in "Looker" might have seemed a bit absurdly fantastical in the film's day, but it sure looks reasonable now given the nature of the corporate segment the ill-used technology appeals to. Or perhaps I am just more cynical now than I was when the film came out. As thrillers go this film is tame by today's standards but was sufficiently intruiguing back in the early 1980s. But everyone should have a few Michael Crichton films in their DVD libraries, and at the low price offered here I recommend you add this one. Also get: "Westworld" "The Great Train Robbery" "Coma" (from the Robin Cook novel but directed by Crichton) "Runaway" "Jurassic Park" (from Crichton's novel) and "The Andromeda Strain" (also from a Crichton novel) | ||
 | Diggstown | |
| "Like "The Sting" except more exciting" | 2007-04-01 |
| This film gets everything right: excitement, humor, characters, and an extremely satisfying ending. I never get tired of watching this movie. If the Spike channel ran this film as often as TNT ran "The Shawshank Redemption" then we'd have another classic on our hands. | ||
| © 2009 GoSale.com (S2) |