The Year My Voice Broke (1987)

“The Year My Voice Broke” is one of those unknown, quintessential diamond-in-the-rough films that can’t seem to find its way into the DVD market, but breaths Criterion throughout the entire viewing. The daring, honest, and descriptive story of a young boy, his love for this older girl, and the tribulations of growing up in a small town are merely scratching the surface to what this film has to offer. It speaks, and pays homage, to those classic films from the late 40s, early 50s by creating a town with character, mythology, and individuality. One could argue that the town in which this film takes place is our fourth character, behind Danny, Freya, and Trevor – but perhaps this enthusiast is getting ahead of himself. Watching this import on a used VHS, the picture was grainy, the player made noise, and the sound was utterly destructive – yet the heart of this film oozed from the screen. The power of the characters, the detail of our story, and the truth in director/screenwriter John Duigan’s words went from having meaning in a 1987 film (that was supposed to take place in 1962) to creating a story that didn’t feel dated or old watching it today, at the end of 2009. That is the legacy of “The Year My Voice Broke”, the raw emotion harassed in this film continues to be relevant today – perhaps even more. As Hollywood uses every CGI possible to recreate the same effect, all one needs to do is look back at films that used the old-fashioned method…great actors, a daring script, and a background that could knock your socks off.

To applaud this film, one would need to pat the back of a very young, a very talented, Noah Taylor. Taking on not just an awkward role, he needed to show his anger, his teenage frustration, as well as his headiness for brains instead of brawn. Noah Taylor, known to me as Technical Support in “Vanilla Sky”, succeeded gracefully and with the power of most of our top paid American stars. His ability to show us his unconditional love for Freya, his quizzical hatred for Trevor, as well as his sleuthing skills proved that this kid was ready for anything. His co-workers inhabiting each scene worked with his dynamic and equally pushed their talents. Freya, played by Loene Coleman, a newbie to the screen, was enchanting as the love interest. While she wasn’t quite the level of Mr. Taylor, her ability to carry her scenes worked. She was the classical bad-girl-next-door with secrets. Her chemistry with Taylor kept me glued to the screen. The same can be said for Trevor, played by Ben Mendelsohn, who’s diabolical, nearly irritating, laugh created a character all his own. As the wildcard, we never knew what he was going to do next, and both our characters and our audience were scared of that. To demonstrate the intensity of these actors, watch closely the scene in which they spend the night in the “haunted” house near the railroad tracks. Each one has a motive, each actor/character delivers their emotion, and with each line the scene gets more and more powerful. I wasn’t expecting this with children so young.

With these three dominate characters; one may ask what else would be needed for an independent film to succeed? One more, the town. As mentioned before, the town that these three (and many others) reside is reminiscent of our American “Bedford Falls”. There are residents that have been their all their lives and secrets many of them keep to protect their town. Throughout the film, our characters are continually building their moments via smaller lives within the town. We learn about Danny’s passion for the black arts, that Trevor knows the police firsthand, and that Freya’s unknown secret keeps the town at bay. Without the closeness of this town, “The Year My Voice Broke” wouldn’t have worked. If filmed in a bigger city, the intimate feeling of a protective yet destructive town would have floundered. The town drunk would have been less poignant, Danny’s dad’s role would have felt less personal, and the idea of home being safe would have felt less comforting. The town had to be a character in this film. Duigan knew it, developed it, and built it strongly into his film.

This was a character driven film. Without Noah Taylor, Loene Coleman, or Ben Mendelsohn, this film would have failed. It is hard to imagine anyone else being able to carry these characters, or that an American reality would pack as much of a punch. It was impressive to see Australia in 1962, a place we don’t explore in cinema enough over past centuries. Director Duigan, if I haven’t already drooled over him enough, understood this film, wrote a genuine story, and built a cinematic triumph. Alas, this film has been forgotten, but look closely at the cinematography, the lavish landscapes, the devotion of our characters, the above mentioned town – these all could not have been accomplished without a passionate eye. I applaud Duigan for his talent and ability to transform this 1980s film into a universally emotional and exciting moment of cinema.

VIDEO: For a VHS film, there was everything you wanted. Grainy video, choppy sound, and possible missed frames. As a movie, “The Year My Voice Broke” was outstanding. As a near perfect film, our director as well as our cast, worked diligently to provide everything an award winning film should. From elaborate long shots to detailed characters, this is a film to discover and watch no matter which format is ends up. VHS is not the death of this movie.

VISUAL: Duigan’s cinematography is great. He gives us these sweeping shots of Australia showing us the vastness of the time, but then brings it in close to allow our story to come home. His camera shots are perfect, giving us just enough – and isn’t afraid to bring contrasts to the screen. His dark shots are the right tone (despite VHS) of being able to see the action as well as providing that sense of uncertainty.

SOUND: Using 1960s Australia music as well as Western influx (i.e. movies shows and music heard), he makes this more than just an AU film, but garnishing universal appeal. I didn’t feel like I was in this little town, but instead building upon my own past memories and experiences. That is a difficult thing to do with a VHS made in the 80s.

EXTRAS: The only failing part of this film. With any VHS, there is nothing. There were a couple of previews before hand for action films, not quite understanding how these fit with the rest of the film, but didn’t matter. It was bare-boned, thus my hastiness to say that “Criterion” may benefit by having this film in their collection.

Overall, I have said enough. I loved this movie. It was detailed, emotional, and beautiful. Everyone, from director to actors performed superbly. It was a rough couple of prior films, but “The Year My Voice Broke” provided that classic niche. It felt fresh and new, despite the age. I recommend this to everyone. Buy a VHS player and get a copy of this movie, you will not be disappointed.

Found in my "Videohound's Video Premieres" book, this was a light at the end of a very dark tunnel. I look forward to watching it again, when I am not surrounded by horrid cinema. It was fresh and exciting, thus getting a green highlight with blue stars. I will watch this again, and boy, could I suggest it to friends. Amazing!

Young Lady Chatterley (1977)

The world of cinema does come in threes. For the past two weeks, films have come through my viewing palettes that have befouled my overall excitement for cinema. In a standard rut, one hopes that these final two films will prove otherwise, but keeping my fingers crossed will not be helpful. From nurses in love and an Americanized Harvey Keitel, nothing could have prepared me for the upcoming triumph known as “Young Lady Chatterley”. Tagged as the first “X-rated movie to touch you where it counts … your heart”, one pleads with the DVD box to please allow some semblance of a story to push through the “romps” on the grass, but alas, my voice went unheard. This entry into the world of D.H. Lawrence’s classic story proves that the naughty bits do make a film, and the late 70s were not afraid to experiment. With lush backgrounds, deepened British accents, and the downtrodden theme of finding an unbridled love free of boredom, “Young Lady Chatterley” attempts to mask the honesty that it is a softcore erotica film. It attempts to say that with these other elements thrown into the mix, we are not just your normal late-night darkened viewing, but instead something of some class and/or cult standing. As a reviewer of this film, one must look at both elements to examine if this film accomplished what it set out to do. How was production value? Was there a determined story? How were our characters? Because it is softcore erotica, should it not be placed within these same rules? While others will argue “no”, “Young Lady Chatterley” is a film, and how does it rank among other films of this nature? Not to disappoint, but poorly.


Classical England would ask, "Doth a scenery make strong erotica?" While it seems the general reviewer of this film would agree, I had trouble seeing the production value or lush scenery in "Young Lady Chatterley". There wasn't anything that stood out, minimal sweeping wide shots, over-lighting throughout, and that soft camera filter that made the 70s what they are today were staples within this film. If anything, they were overused to the point of obscuring the actor's work. Leaning further towards the notion of softcore cinema than actual plot-induced cinema, we can look at our actors, to see what their production value was within this 1977 classic. Harlee McBride, our lead and lady-in-waiting, begins bored, with both life and obviously this role, but as soon as she steps on our twice-removed-once-loved-Chatterley estate, the love and life begin to pour out of her - literally! With everyone imaginable, she shares herself and takes into form an unrecognizable character. Was she married to Phillip? Was she just engaged? How did it go from Phillip to every person at the estate? The transition, like her character, just didn't fit. She lacked that sexual manipulation that was needed to make this film into something more than just the overabundance of love. There was no change in her or her character, we were handed nothing to begin with - and just expected to believe everything that occurred. Poor direction by Alan Roberts lead to disinterested characters. Not only with Harlee McBride, but also with everyone else. The burly young gardener, the maids, the obviously oblique servants, everyone invited to the finale cake party - just seemed disjointed from the rest of the film.

With no strong characters, a plot that left nothing to the imagination or hope, there really was nothing left of "Young Lady Chatterley". In fact, I am rather surprised that the Lawrence estate allowed the name to be used for this film. What did stand out, as the only creativity within a mile, was the surrounding story of the first Lady Chatterley and her first run in with the gardener. The character depth, the excitement of young love, and the passion that could not be surprisingly were all there for these brief sub-scenes. The connection between the original lovers vs. that of the new "Young" version, was surprisingly different. The first had purpose and meaning, while the other was just softcore dribble. The conversations between the first Lady Chatterley and the gardener seemed responsive and open for discussion, giving at least one purpose to this film - while the rest, well, was utterly disappointing.

VIDEO: The release of this DVD was not surprisingly sub-par compared to any newer restorations, other films (cult or otherwise) from the 70s get better treatment than this. From the use of softcore to destroy a classic tale, this Alan Roberts film failed on nearly every level.

VISUAL: Again, the 70s used quite a bit of techniques that continues to make this film feel like a 70s film. The ending was horribly filmed, and the use of a couple of special effects (of which I mean the rain shower), was laughable.

SOUND: Coincidentally, everything matched. The sound went par with the visuals, creating an ambiance of 70s that will never pull "Young Lady Chatterley" into anything but a late night film view.

EXTRAS: Surprisingly, they didn't skimp here. The a-typical cast biographies that work as a page view, the jump to a scene, the posters of this film, and the other films available via Monterey Video are just packed in enough to perhaps call this a "collectors" edition, but would rather not. Again, a plethora of extras with nowhere to go.

Overall, another milestone has been hit. The third bad film in a row provides me with an opportunity to watch my first adult classic, but let's me down entirely. The sub-stories was creative, but the rest of the film was meant for one sole purpose. "Young Lady Chatterley" may have been pioneering for the time, but over the decades, it has just been forgotten and replaced. There is a way to create a story like this and actually be artistic, but it was ignored in this film. This wasn't a cult classic, it was just cinematic garbage. The story didn't work, our characters were merely naked, and no development to anything was created. While others boast the lush scenery as being a positive mark on this film, it just wasted time. The soft-lens treatment of this film blurred away anything interesting from this film, and delivering another cinematic flop.

Found again in my "Videohound's Video Premiere's" book, this was strike number three for me. Next up, the sequel to this already horrid film, can I do it? Should I do it? Would anyone know if I cheated? Hrumpf, what to do... none the less, this is already getting a yellow highlight with black mark. I could not suggest it to friends nor would I watch it again. It was a big cinematic failure from the beginning. Oh well, sequel, here I come...

Young Nurses in Love (1986)

In the attempt to watch every movie ever made there will always be those speed bumps. During the attempt, they could arrive in any shape, genre, or format of film. One must always keep a strong eye out for those that may cause a snag, or a possible distrust in cinema, but you can’t catch them all. Occasionally, these films will fly well below the radar and deep within your homes. They may create a souring taste for cinema, but continue forward … remember, there is always a light at the end of the theater. Twice, in nearly a week, different films have been viewed, randomly, which caused a slight disgust. The first was the previously reviewed, utterly chaotic “The Young Americans” with Harvey Keitel – now, three days later, it is the low-budget direct to VHS cinematic exploit, “Young Nurses in Love”. A combination of “Grey’s Anatomy” (sans the medicine and overplayed music) and about a baker’s dozen shots of espresso, “YNiL” begins with the gumption of any 80s sex-romp, full of Cold War innuendo and half-dressed nurses, all the while never slowing down, never asking for forgiveness, and never requiring any part of the mind. It a film that is unknowingly intense due to the amount of jokes, characters, and frivolous story attempted to be packed into a mere 90-ish minutes. It is also a film that is excessively frugal with its budget, allowing our nurses’ humor to fall flat, be overwhelmingly repetitive, and never quite reaching the level of comic gold. With independent features like this, a viewer could be guaranteed one crass joke or impressive scene of genius, with “YNiL”, it never approached the thought. Sure, it was crass, it was vigorous, it was completely out there – but it was a parody, and it was in that idea that this entire film faltered.

“Young Nurses in Love” felt like a knock-off Troma film, without the Lloyd Kaufman touch. It had a raunchy plot; steal the livelihood of famous dead people so that the Russians can overtake the US of A. Agents from both sides are placed in a hospital where the nurses care more about the wealth of the doctor than the actual practice of medicine and the doctors are riddled with clichés from being drunk to providing false diagnosis. The remainder of the plot falls quickly into place, a storyline that we have seen over a dozen times in multiple films, the two agents *gasp* fall for each other. Introduce to the plot very angry and unsatisfied side-characters, and you basically have the entire film “YNiL”. As mentioned before, the immediate script is quite simple and could have provided a laugh or two, but due to the hyper nature of our characters and the inability for anyone in our cast to deliver a joke, it just fell short. This wasn’t a film with high expectations, but there was a hope for at least one gold nugget or two of genuine comedy, alas – it was never found. The two main characters, Alan Fisler and Jeanne Marie are horrible as our love-interest slash spies. They are so focused on making sure they deliver the correct lines that no development is ever produced, no chemistry is even studied, these two actors flop around like fish out of water and we are to consider this a soap-opera medical parody? Add into this mix another cliché take on the mafia and the introduction of Twin Falls, played by the infamous adult-film star Annie Sprinkles. These are all elements that could have worked, making this a cult classic – it had all the robotics to do so – but director Chuck Vincent couldn’t pull it together. “Young Nurses in Love” is embarrassing, not only to watch, but for those involved in the creation of this film.

Let’s recap. Our story was simple, yet horribly developed. Our characters were amateurs, caring nothing for development only delivery of lines and the fast paced nature of the film corrupted both of these already failing elements. Our music, perhaps the only excitement of this film, was quintessentially 1980s. With bands like Zen for Primates, Buzzard Luck, and Tiger Lily every moment was successfully synthesized, perfectly harmonized, and ironically upbeat. It kept my toes tapping and my nostalgic feel for a decade lost to rock and or roll. Yet, outside of the sound, this film failed. If it were a Troma film, perhaps Lloyd would have pushed it to the next level, but Vincent kept adding, and adding, and adding without any hope of development. I had strong hopes for this film, but none of them came true.

VIDEO: This was a VHS film that has never seen the DVD light of day – and I am glad it will not. I had some hopes for this film, wanting a good laugh and genuine creativity, but nothing arrived. The acting was atrocious and the direction was handled by a film school drop out.

VISUALS: It was a VHS, the graininess and sudden sound relapse was needed for an accurate viewing.

SOUND: My favorite part of this film, this film was made in the 80s and it will remain in the 80s. The music was one of the only elements of this downtrodden feature that kept my attention and toes a-tappin’.

EXTRAS: For this VHS, there was nothing. No previews. No afterwards. Nothing.

Overall, as if you couldn’t already tell, “Young Nurses in Love” provided only the slightest form of entertainment – and that was merely in the sound. Everything surrounding this film was low-budget, which isn’t bad if handled better, but the intensity of the script, the lack of development with the characters, and the painful stretch to try to make this into a feature length film just fell short. Chuck Vincent, our director, should have created a strong cultish film with these elements, but he couldn’t put the puzzle pieces together. If another production company had handled this, I think we may have had a winner – but instead we had a movie stuck in VHS-land forever. “Young Nurses in Love” also boasts an R-rating, which by 2009 standards, would have been a soft PG-13. There was nothing positive surrounding this film, and it will ultimately disappoint.

Found in my "Videohound Video Premiere" book, one can see why this film never saw the light of day. VHS is the perfect venue for this film, creating an atmosphere of essentially 80s. Only if very drunk, would this film be shown to friends. It was difficult to watch, and would difficult to endure again. That is why it is getting a yellow highlight with black mark - never to be watched again. Sorry Nurses, you could have done better.

The Young Americans (1993)

Films, no matter low-budget, high-budget, no-budget need to have one essential element to ensure that the time dedicated to the characters, emotions, and themes is not futile. That, singular strong moment, has to be story. Whether it is a horror film, a sci-fi film, or even a Bergman avant-garde film, there needs to be at least a small strain of story carrying the viewer from point A to point B, if that is missing – the entire structure of the film will collapse. Characters you can ignore, emotion can be faked, and the themes can be murky, but without that central story – your film will ultimately be found in the dollar bin at the nearest retail chop shop. Despite Harvey Keitel, Viggo Mortensen, Thandie Newton, and a slew of British accents – that is why “The Young Americans” failed. Absolutely it was a dark crime noir, a family retribution, and a love story, but the story in “The Young Americans” was so weak, that getting to the different point, the different scenes, felt rushed, unfamiliar, and murky. This jumbled, muddled mess of a film boasts cheapness from every angle, but due to the missing story – “The Young Americans” fails to be anything more than a random Harvey Keitel stumble at the store, or a cheap recommendation because you rented “Reservoir Dogs”.

With the sound of raves in the background, the viewer is pulled right into the youth of Britain circa mid-90s. Dance parties, gangs, and late nights plague the screen as groups of genuine unknowns get killed in the night. This should have been an indication of what the remainder of the film would be like, but I trudged onward – and definitely not upward. After the brutal killings, we are swooped into the world of Harvey Keitel, or anti-antagonist (seemingly blending together every cop cliché/genre) John Harris. Brought in to help with a murder, we soon learn that there is a secondary motive in play – something that has to do with a very young, an extremely overacted, Viggo Mortensen. As we jump from one frame to another, one initial drawback are the dark, character building scenes … literally, there is the concept of symbolic lighting to set the tone … but director Danny Cannon used so much darkness some scenes are blank on the screen. Missing more than a fourth of the film, we are forced to follow an unknown path between Keitel, Mortensen, love-interest Thandie Newton, and relative newbie Craig Kelly. It is his story that transfers the power from Keitel, but is equally as unappetizing. After the death of a family member, Kelly’s Christian decides to turn against the crew that did it, becoming a powerful tool for Keitel, but the whos, whats, wheres, whens, and whys are never answered – still giving us nothing but quick scenes, literally teleporting us from point A to point B, without reason or consequence.

As mentioned, the story is the ultimate failure of the film. There were actions made by our characters that did not seem to fit within the realm that Danny Cannon had created, but he continued to push through. Nothing was answered, situations were randomly created, and why was Viggo Mortensen’s character so underdeveloped, yet so vital to the story? Who knows. That question became the downtrodden central theme to this film, and a reason why “The Young Americans” will never see success. With our story a clustered mess, how did the rest fair beneath the control of Cannon? Not surprisingly, the British were believable and grounded. The minor characters, perhaps outside of Craig Kelly, felt like real police and the setting (due to extensive British TV watching) felt like Britain 1993, but the influx of the American presence just ruined the rest. Keitel could have been Steven Seagul or JCVD, he was not cunning, nothing brilliant, just an American cop-dislocated and fighting against the shadow of a drug dealer. The entire subplot with his ex-wife was nothing short of embarrassing. Used to build his character, it just felt more like a cheap trick instead of honest emotion. The same can be said with Viggo Mortensen, who with choppy editing by Danny Cannon, never quite developed past the notion of “creepy guy”. With a voice that sounded like a Lynch character, an unknown occupation, and a purpose to be in Britain (let’s not forget his peculiarity towards young men), Mortensen felt more like a placemat than a villain. On the other side of this film, Newton read her lines well, and Craig Kelly attempted to work around Cannon and David Hilton’s catastrophe of a script. It was obvious the actors were found, the script was heavily edited, and the final product was a rushed pile of poorly constructed LEGOs. One flick of your finger, it will all go crumbling down.

VIDEO: This is not a masterful piece of cinema. Don't expect it going in, I didn't - but it still turned out to be a jumbled mess. Nothing worked in this film, providing you with nearly two hours of inconsistent babble not worthy of the DVD it is printed on.

VISUALS: Hello darkness, my good friend. Be prepared for very dark scenes in which nothing is seen. It is an already darkened film with the themes and story, but to have ill-lighting just adds to the overall cheap nature of this film.

SOUND: Not bad, some decent music and a good score. The characters do not mumble, the English accents were understandable. This was a department where Danny Cannon didn't seem to miscalculate the finances.

EXTRAS: Nothing. This DVD is bare bones. With the option of jumping to a scene, it is as if this DVD was made to be a cheap option for those looking for more gritty Harvey Keitel.

Overall, in case it hasn’t been noticed, this was an abomination of a film. From the darkly lit scenes (you have to watch to believe how dark this film was), to the atrocious acting, to the story that went nowhere but somehow ended up at the final credits, “The Young Americans” was a direct to video release for a reason. Shot in 38 days, this film felt rushed and incomplete. Mortensen’s character is the one I struggle with the most, as the ending leads us to believe that this was supposed to be a different film than the one we began or watched. There were too many wild-cards (see Jack Doyle) that muddled the main story. It is a murky mess that is easily forgotten and should be avoided. Danny Cannon may have given us “CSI” and “Judge Dredd”, but this is an incompetent film that will appeal to nobody and fails miserably.

Found in my "Videohound's Video Premieres" book - this was my first "Y" in a stream of not-so-family-friendly films. I am still excited to see where this is going to take me despite this minor speed bump. Not a pleasant film night, and thus I will be awarding this film a yellow highlight with black line. Not to be recommended nor ever watched again. Such a disappointment.

Super Dimensional Fortress Macross (1982)

36 Episodes

It has been a long time since an updated review. Here is why. The name of the series, "Super Dimensional Fortress Macross", the year 1982, the unwilling participant - me. Randomly drawn one evening, and eventually finding a copy of this difficult to find complete original series, I first ventured into the first episode nearly a month ago. With nothing under my belt, no knowledge, limited anime experience, I began. It was traumatic, it was intense, it was hated - but eventually, I can successfully say to strangers on the street, I have completed the entire 36-episode original run of "Super Dimensional Fortress Macross". As they run, fear in their eyes, at least I know that this sense of completion is over. Onto more cinema, perhaps more anime, but will my life ever be the same again?

For those unfamiliar with this series, you are not going to get a recap here. The length of this review, and my dedication to the cause will not allow it - but I will leave you with these not-so-random words. Songs. Love Triangle. Roy Focker. Protoculture. Cousin love. Robotech. Death. Rebuilding. Destruction. That get's most of the groundwork out of the way, now a more formal review. "Macross" (to keep it short) is a series well before its time. Despite the ups and downs of the series, the overall sentiment is defining and will continue to propel this series into further cult status. As a non-anime watcher, I was enthralled with the power of the story. The darkened themes, the obvious symbolism to modern culture, and our characters pushed me through each episode. It was emotional and intense as the battle for survival and culture of humanity came into each finely drawn frame. It was visually beautiful, the music was grandiose, and again, the characters did keep your attention - but - "Macross" is not for everyone. I would love to recommend this series to everyone, but the dry, tedious nature of some of the episodes just forbids me to be excited about repeat viewings. Again, "Macross" was, now that it is finally over, a powerful series that will always remain a staple in future anime viewings, but to view this again - one just couldn't enjoy Minmay's annoying attitude, Ichijo's inability to make a decision, and the lemming-ish way this series was filmed. "Macross" transformed 36-episodes into a defined "love-hate" relationship.

After defining what was enjoyed by this series, one needs to prepare themselves for what just doesn't work. We have all driven home after a tough day at work, blaring our favorite song, and allowing the rough edges to fade away - and in "Macross" that idea is developed through Minmay's voice. Alas, it is beaten over our heads, submerged in water endlessly, and flashed into our eyes again and again and again. Confused. Don't worry, just watch "Macross" and you will understand. I will be the first to say, that I hated Lynn Minmay. She was annoying, childish, and forced our favorite characters into situations that were just in place for drama. Don't hate me if I kept hoping for her to be finished off early in the series. The passion between Ichijo and another character was far superior, and more interesting to watch. Minmay's possible love interest with another family member only heightened this hatred. This was followed by the daily destruction of the cities within the Macross and further within the story. It seemed as if every day attacks would ravish the built city, and with an endless supply of resources suddenly they could easily rebuild? It was like watching "Fraggle Rock". Death of citizens and other soldiers that were outside of the story, again, seemed to be in no-short supply. These seemed like larger elements that should have been developed, or at least understood, despite the series released in 1982. For some scenes, it just felt like cheap animation. Finally, in the version that I watched, the ending credits which were done in Ichijo's photo album in live action - it just felt again, further cheapened and not well fit within the series. These are just three obvious issues with this series, while there were smaller problems (the length of 36-episodes felt extremely too long - and lack of character development), these stood out.

Overall, "Super Dimensional Fortress Macross" isn't perfect. I can see the value in the overall story, the power of the symbolism and idea of culture, but there were small issues within the episodes that I couldn't handle. Minmay was the downfall of this series to me. She was annoying and misleading - not the power character everyone has quoted her to be. Yet, despite the negative elements that rage through my mind, there were scenes, episodes, and moments that I just loved. The ending was as big as any summer-blockbuster and remains in my mind as I write my review. The progression of the story was fabulous as well. To see one small ship's discovery on Earth to the eventual decline of everything was impressive. I loved this series for that - and perhaps the slight religious undertones - but (now that I am thinking about it - maybe it is a good thing) there were just parts I hated. I would, against my will, suggest this to die-hard fans of anime. This shows the birth of something big, but just poorly executed. I think I am going to go as Global this year for Halloween - but "Macross" is a chapter in my life I do not want to repeat. Good, just not great.

Found in my "The Anime Movie Guide" by Helen McCarthy, I was impressed to watch this series, and I WILL watch the OAV's that followed, but I would be rather picky on whom I suggested this to. I would like to see the "Robotech" series to see how closely it followed, but outside of that - I am done. I don't think I could watch this series again - so in this book, it is getting a pink mark. Average, but nothing near another viewing.

La Haine (1995)

"La Haine" is a political film. "La Haine" is a humanistic film about the realities of ghetto life. "La Haine" is a film about France, specifically the turmoil surrounding rebellion, honesty, and sacrifice. "La Haine" will anger you. It will make you cringe in your seat. It will make you question the values within your own community. That is why this film swept in 1995 when it was released, why other directors have attempted to recycle the story, and why even today - 14 years later - it still remains a relevant film, not just about French society, but a dedicated relevance towards American society as well. Director Mathieu Kassovitz has pulled this story directly from the headlines, taking the injustice of the police and the corruption of the streets and transforming it into the lives of three multi-national boys hell-bent on initiating revenge for the sake of their fallen friend. It is a dark story that uses drugs and violence off the scene to build the suspense within. Filmed in a stark black and white, Kassovitz takes away the glory, wealth, and American-ized culture of project life (see Baltimore's "The Wire") and allows us to experience one day in the life of these boys and their discovery of a gun.

Like von Trier's "Dear Wendy", "La Haine" focuses on the gun, a rarity within the youth of the French projects, and builds this momentum that the unknown will eventually happen. This onset of violence, which has been haunting us throughout the film, a la "Mean Streets", finally comes face forward in our third act in a shock provoking scene that will rattle you each time "La Haine" visits your DVD player. Yet, this is just a small indication of what "La Haine" has to offer. Yes, it is a film about violence, it is a political film, and you better believe that it is a youth film, but there is something universal about this mid-90s film that continues to resonate with each viewing. For me, it rests powerfully on the actors. Vincent Cassel absolutely steals this film. From his opening dance, until the unique dilemma surrounding the skinhead, he proves throughout this film that he was passionate about the material. For those doubting the power of his ability, see his body language, emotion, and intensity behind his words - what Cassel does in this film is rare in today's Oscar-caliber films. I recently had the opportunity to watch his film, "Eyes Wide Shut" - again, another independent film in which he gave over 100% of his ability to bring to the screen a genuinely unique character. That is the ability of Vincent Cassell. Yet, in "La Haine", we have two other players that bring even more of a dynamic to this group. Hubert Kounde's performance of Hubert is jaw-dropping. There is this subtle level of intelligence that rounds out our group consisting of himself, the wild-card, and the jokester. Hubert shows that life in the ghettos of France are not just a status symbol, but instead merely abilities to get by. When selling drugs, the money doesn't go towards jewelery or cars, it goes back to his mother to pay the gas bill. In this scene alone, Hubert shows his humanity, while Kassovitz demonstrates the truth behind the scene. Said was equally as good, keeping up with the other two, but for myself, Hubert and Vinz were our stand out roles. They played against themselves so much, that the two of them became closer as the film progressed.

Watching Criterion's release of this film, it is impressive how much they put together for this double-disc set. The interview with Jodie Foster is a bit long, but interesting. She talks about her first impressions of the film, and her excitement about bringing "La Haine" to the US of A. While it showed a different side to Paris, the universality of the message Kassovitz was trying to bring to the screen; youth's anger towards leaders, corruption within the police, and unnecessary casualties of protest is still relevant here today. Albeit, the language is different - the message is the same. Kassovitz's audio commentary is a political one, occasionally discussing how the scene was created and the shortfalls of creating a independent film, he talks in length to his experiences within the ghetto, and the truth behind the police in France (as well as its leaders). He also interestingly enough, talks about his influences on this film, and throughout his career. Obviously, you can see the Scorsese references throughout (see "Taxi Driver"), but he talks in length about "Mean Streets", and how that film spoke to him more than any other big-budget Hollywood film he had seen. Included on the second disc are plenty of behind the scene moments as well as extended and deleted scenes that further demonstrate Kassovitz's ability, and how he transformed this color film, into a cinematic triumph.

VIDEO: "La Haine" is an instant classic. I recently watched it with a group of people, and it was very unnerving to them. In fact, I spoke to one about a week later, and the film still resonated within her mind. That demonstrates the power of Kassovitz's film. The message is clear, the storytelling is unique, and our characters are defined. These are all great ingredients to create a powerful film. I am happy Criterion has added this to their collection, and I look forward to reviewing more of Kassovitz's work.

VISUAL: The stark black and white made this film. In color, I don't believe it would have had the same effect. Kassovitz's use of camera angles and close up shots (as well as a couple of non-interrupted shots) take "La Haine" from your normal narrative to a complex story about revenge and anger.

SOUND: In his audio commentary, he talks about how sound may have detracted from the message. I couldn't agree more. His tactful use of slight music (Bob Marley and local/Western rap music) only assisted in creating the visuals of the ghetto. It was crisp, audible, and powerful. Criterion has transferred well with this film.

EXTRAS: Criterion packs them in. As discussed above, the audio commentary, Jodie Foster interview, the deleted scenes, and discussion on why "La Haine" was made round this film into a cultural story, instead of just a Hollywood movie. There is quite a bit you can learn about this film, but also the social structure of France - which again, takes this film from being just a normal non-New Wave film to an opportunity to make a change in society.

Overall, I love "La Haine", but be forewarned. This is not a "sit-down-on-a-Saturday-with-some-friends-and-a-beer" film. This is a thought-provoking slice of international cinema that demonstrates amazing actors in their craft, a film with a message, and a director who had little to work with, but used what he had with artistic talent. "La Haine" will remain with you long after the short credits roll, the shock of the ending will make you jump again and again (no matter the amount of times seen), and the discussion to follow remains a pivotal part to this film. I cannot watch this film back to back, but when I come across a need to experience cinema as it should be created, "La Haine" will be the first to come to mind. Impressive.

I think the review above already tells you what I am going to give this film. A green mark with blue stars, I will watch this film again - I will give it to friends as gifts, and show it whenever possible. This is a near-perfect film, that should never be forgotten or ignored. Found in my Halliwell's book, this is my final "H" and I am now forcing myself to watch an anime series that has been looming in the back of my shelf for too long. I can't wait until my next entry, and I look forward to what the next book brings! "H" has been good, let's see what happens next.

Hail the Conquering Hero (1944)

Preston Sturges' little film, "Sullivan's Travels" has been a favorite of mine for a very long time. Since my discover of it through the Criterion collection, I have been impressed with the comic mind of Sturges and his ability to use dark modern issues as a backdrop for something that audiences could laugh at. In "Sullivan's Travels" it was the story of a Hollywood director trying to become a hobo to learn about life. While it seems dismal, it provided quite a bit of laughs with an ending that not only solidifies Sturges' ability, but also creates brain candy for hours afterwards. Thus, it was no surprise that when "Hail the Conquering Hero" arrived to view - that same excitement for Sturges' overcame me. I was ready for laughter coupled with a sensitive discussion about an ageless topic. Alas, what was viewed, was a cute movie that felt longer than necessary, a comic film with repetitive jokes, and a satire on patriotism that merely scratched the surface to what could have been another ageless film. Instead, "Hail the Conquering Hero" felt dated, lacked the push to make it pioneering, and honestly, felt safe. This was a rushed Sturges film, despite the Oscar nomination, and like Eddie Braken's speech at the end, needed to have a stronger voice of truth. Too many missed elements coupled with repeat jokes caused "Hail the Conquering Hero" to miss it's mark and remain a "cute" movie.

The concept is an easy one. You probably have seen it a dozen times before in other films; the son of a war hero is discharged from the army for chronic hay fever, and refuses to go home to face his mother. Enter a band of surly, obvious Army-type figures who influence him into going home looking like a decorated war hero. Hilarity attempts to ensue as the town welcomes him with open arms with such grandiose statements as a parade in his honor, the burning of his mother's mortgage, and the eventual nomination for mayor. As much as Eddie Bracken tries to avoid the applause, he gets further thrust into it. This is a moment where Sturges doesn't quite live up to his comedic hype. There are moments where the scenes are very funny, but Sturges overuses the same jokes again and again that it eventually infects the rest of the film. What should have been witty jokes to move the pace, instead become so repetitive that the nearly hour and half feels like two-plus hours behind the wheel of this vehicle. Braken gives the stationary look of shock throughout, Sgt. Heppelfinger gives the same stern look, and moments of comedy are replaced with awkward settings that should have been funny, but instead failed. Scenes which are reminiscent of this failure are; Braken's arrival home - the entire set up for his grand arrival was funny at first, but as the scene pathetically continued - it just felt claustrophobic and stagnate. This could be said again for the scene where he is about to be nominated for mayor. What should have been funny wasn't - and I think it is because Sturges couldn't control the scenes. Too much in too little time provided minimal laughs.

While I claim that our characters were feeling a bit stale, I do argue that they were the strongest element in this film. There were secondary characters that Sturges gave a small string of screen time, and they stole each second. Look out for the priest who burns the mortgage, hilarious; look for the southern Mayor who owns the Chair factory; again - hilarious. I could even laugh again at the Army man who had this fascination with people's mothers. Yet, our major characters couldn't quite reach this level. While the characters were disappointing, the scene structure was obtrusive by Sturges, the actual story was relatively exciting. I loved this concept, the themes of battles not only happening on the front lines, but also at home was impressive. The constant reminders that WAR BONDS were for sale was a small jab at the Government by Sturges, and the universal mind of the soldier who also turned out to be the Braken's guardian angels was delicious. Sturges had a strong mapped film, one just wonders if he was happy with the final product. Again, there were smart elements and there were mediocre moments, all together just making a "cute" one-time viewing movie.

VIDEO: Released in the Preston Sturges box set, this was a mediocre outing for a man who can confidently create better. Our sub-characters are a great reason to watch this film, while Braken finds his stride within the first two-minutes and continues on that course throughout. The pacing and overall scene development within the town were meant to build laughter, but with me - it just built tension and claustrophobia. Not the elements needed for a Preston Sturges film.

VISUAL: The transfer seemed good, with little to no fuzzy elements or missing frames. Nothing elaborate to talk about here - it was your standard release of a smaller Sturges film.

SOUND: Matches well with the visuals. Again, the train scenes and music moments worked, when characters were outside you could hear them inside, which provided excellent depth. With a box set, it carried decent film as well as visuals.

EXTRAS: Just watching the individual disc, there was nothing except for an option for the language. The special features must have been on another disc - my loss.

Overall, Sturges again entertained, but he did not impress. This was a "cute" film that just felt too long at certain scenes and at others it felt like missed opportunity. This could have been a stronger satire on patriotism, but jokes fell flat. Sub-characters took control and created a strong town, but the ones that were leading us felt stale from the beginning. I was looking forward to this film due to my admiration towards Sturges, but "Hail the Conquering Hero" didn't live up to the hype. "Sullivan's Travels" continues to be my favorite as I continue to view more from this infamous director's cannon. I was happy to see that the screenplay was Oscar nominated, but not surprised that it didn't win. Good, not great - "cute" - not classic.

Found in my Halliwell's book, I am nearly coming to the end of another book. This was a great outing with the "H"s in this book, alot of unknown films found and watched, with plenty more to grow on. Alas, with this feature - I will not be watching it again. I liked the concept, but it failed on delivery. I am going to give this a pink mark. Decent, would mention it to friends, but I would not watch it again solo.

Hackers (1995)

I remember watching Hackers on television and possibly on video when I was younger and being somewhat impressed. Not from the actual film itself, but from the fact that Hollywood would take the sidekicks of every other "action" film and give them their own film. It was refreshing, even if the overall feature did not settle well. It showed that Hollywood was willing to take a step forward in the world of creativity, and for a few films it brooded well. Now in 2005, I watch this film again, and am completely devastated by the results. Now, when I watch this film, I see clichéd characters, an uninvolved plot, complete disregard for the law, and extremely cheap computer graphics, which heavily stamped a date on this feature. Is this what hacking is all about? Is hacking about fighting evil hackers with virus', about growing out-dated over time, and about finding that one Goth girl that has a boyfriend and making her your own? That is what Hackers demonstrated to me, so why shouldn't I believe it?

Director Ian Softley really went outside of his tent when creating this film. Going from the feature Backbeat, about music's cultural icons, to this just doesn't … well … compute. He had this great opportunity to bring an unknown culture into a mainstream light, but instead he teeny-bopped it out of reality. He transforms these unsociable, outcast geniuses into superheroes, armed with nothing more than keyboards, high libidos, teen music, and an overabundance of clichés. If I were a member of the hacker community I would be outraged about this film. It is like making a movie about Superman wearing a Batman costume, two different cultures were intertwining incorrectly and nobody was there to stop it. We needed The Matrix, but all we got was American Pie. To help remedy this situation, we needed three distinct changes. We needed stronger actors to accompany their characters, a tighter story that dove deeper into the hacker culture, and we needed stronger CGI, which wouldn't date this early 90s film.

Jonny Lee Miller was decent, Angelina carried her own, Jesse Bradford was wasted, but overall the most hurtful part of these characters was that they never quite "gelled" together. I never quite saw these main characters working together after this. I never saw them remaining friends or pursuing their computer degrees further. We opened with only enough information for us to feel sympathy for Miller and literally left with no care in the world what would happen to these characters after the credit sequence. This is not strong film-making. I like to end films with a sensation that life outside the camera will continue in a linear course, but with Hackers that sensation never erupted. I think some of this has to do with Matthew Lillard who just floundered his performance (almost to the clichéd "T") and decayed nearly every scene he was involved with. The only attribute he was able to succeed with was annoying, and I don't think that is what Softley was shooting for. These characters were painful to watch and thankfully were able to rebound after this film, sans Matthew Lillard.

The story. Without detailing too much, the story was unoriginal. It felt as if we took a general action film, erased the main heroes, and instead substituted this band of hipster hackers as our heroines. Which means, a very clichéd story equipped with our very own over-acting villain, "The Plague". What was his role in this film outside of telling Penn Jillette what to do, and sleeping with Lorraine Bracco? His spoken words were hideous and painful to the ear, coupled with his one-dimensional character really left us with a villain that never quite covered the "evil" ground. Neither him nor Bracco felt "evil". Instead, from the moment we met them we knew what would be their fate. There was nothing that Softley could have done to avoid this … outside of making better casting decisions, a stronger story, and a decent climax.

Finally, I would like to say that this film felt like the mid-90s. No matter how you look at it, the choice for graphics in this film completely dates the picture. If you think you are going to gather up your computer friends for a rousing night of micro-brews and this feature, you will find yourself definitely alone by the end of the evening. Softley's use of random letters, images, and computer-enhanced something-or-others, didn't even feel like computers. I remember playing computer games back in the 80s that made more sense than this. I felt cheapened after seeing these terminally poor graphics and wondered if this film was used to push computer companies into a better era. Either way, Softley's CGI use in this film was hysterically bad, causing a ripple of cheapness to cascade through this film.

Overall, I wasn't happy with my future viewing of this film. Perhaps I should have left this film go in the 90s, but watching it today I felt cheap and robbed. Softley's inaccurate portrayal of this hacker culture only brewed a deeper dislike of Hollywood and their ability to capitalize on this unknown world. The cast was atrocious (Matthew Lillard), the story can be seen in dozens of other action-genre films, and the central focus of this film, the computer graphics, were apparently designed by Wal-Mart. Hackers is a disgraceful mess of a film that should be locked in the film vault never to be released again.

Found in my Halliwell's book, I originally watched this film on August 6th, 2005. I have no interest in watching this film again - as I remember, it has not stood up well against time. It has a yellow highlight with black mark - never to be watched again. Sorry, Nintendo Generation.

H.M. Pulham, Esq (1941)

Throughout this project of watching nearly every movie ever made, or at least in every attempt possible, I am beginning to discover which films speak to me. There are those that entertain, those that mentally challenge, and those that transform your cinematic experience all together, but for me, the type of film that excites me these days are the delicate semi-biographical pre-1950s story. With a cautious blend of “Citizen Kane” and “Magnificent Ambersons” with that of the modern “Mad Men”, the barely watched film, “H.M. Pulham, Esq.” finally arrived at the doorstep. Unbeknownst that this film would be reminiscent of such films, I began with the unknown. Available only via Warner’s print-on-demand DVD Vault, there was a level of uncertainty as to why this had never been released, or would the print be so destroyed the experience would be lost (see review of “The Lady and the Monster”). To my surprise, it wasn’t – and this two hour epic (“epic” is correct; due to the emotion, landscape, and themes of this film) quickly filled the cannon that was once overpopulated by Orson Welles. With dry characters like Harry Pulham and Kay Motford countered with the exciting Marvin Myles and Bill King as well as the quintessential sledding scene (needed in every semi-biographical film), “H.M. Pulham, Esq.” pulled ahead in the ranks as I settled down for an amazing feature. It was shocking, intelligent, slow, predictable, and a bit pioneering for the date – and I loved every minute of it.

“H.M. Pulham, Esq.” tells the story of a man, Harry Pulham (played simply by Robert Young) as he randomly gets a call from a Harvard friend requesting that he write a bit of a biography for the upcoming reunion. Coincidentally, he gets a call the same day from an old flame, and Harry uses the entire day to give us the “It’s a Wonderful Life” flashback scenario where we learn about his life, and current consequences. As we travel back and forth, we fall in love with a core of four characters, Harry (of course), Marvin Myles the sassy co-worker, Bill King the obnoxious lady-killer, and Kay everyone’s safe bet. It is these four characters that take us from New York to the country, from love to hate, and from passion to comfort. As Harry continues to look back onto his life, he begins to question his decisions, and the world of possibilities available.

“H.M. Pulham, Esq.” would not have worked had it not been for these four characters. It is a driven character drama, thus without our actors taking full opportunity, it would have transformed into this two-hour snooze-fest, but instead they embraced, and allowed us to get to know each one individually, as well as a whole. Robert Young’s Harry is probably the easiest to swallow, because is portrays him as this unguided everyman, lured by the life of NYC, but focused on family and dedication. His friends pull him in every direction, but he is grounded must make the decision between love and comfort. Each one of our characters builds upon this story, and where it succeeds the most is that director King Vidor (you know, the one that gave us the Kansas scenes in “Wizard of Oz” as well as “War and Peace”) isn't afraid to push the limits. Or, at least the limits allowed in 1941. Again, I cannot stress that this is a fictional biography story that melds well within the folds of society. Vidor has succeeded greatly in this little feature because he has taken the great elements of "Magnificent Ambersons" and "It's A Wonderful Life" and plopped them into this unknown feature. Yes, at times it is long - and you better believe that there are moments that date this film - but in the end, it will warm your heart, but also make you look within your own life.

"H.M. Pulham, Esq" feels like a universal film. It is one of those movies that goes great with snow outside and a warm glass of cider. It shows a side of cinema that we forget about when we think of classic cinema. During this project, I have watched two films that stood beyond the norm - that Hollywood seemed to snub - and fell in love with both of them. One was the film I have repeated throughout this review, "The Magnificent Ambersons", and the second is this little film. Again, it is a simple film that presses a message relevant in 1941 or 2009, the idea of choices and consequences.

VIDEO: With solid characters, a delicate story, and this emotion that just oozes throughout the scenes (my favorites were the subtle football story and the snowy banks rollick). I am surprised that this film doesn't have more of a following.

VISUALS: This is my first experience with the Warner print-on-demand Vault, and I must admit - I was impressed. Obviously, it is a created DVD, but the features and the transfer was amazing. It was no Criterion, but Warner impressed.

SOUND: Again, the transfer used was great. The language was audible, the effects were not lost, and the background noises were impressive. This was a strong DVD.

EXTRAS: Alas, the lacking part of this DVD. There was nothing except an extremely long preview for this film. It was good to have, and honestly I wasn't expecting anything with this release - so I can't fault Warner too hard.

Overall, I may sound repetitive with this, but I loved with this film had to offer. Perhaps it was my mood for the evening, or the sense of nostalgia for this style of film, but this film took me back to a simple cinematic experience. There was booze, talk of sex, and infidelity all within the two hours, which surprised me greatly. The actors did their parts with great effort, and each point went to the next. There was a purpose behind each person's actions, and it was developed. Not just dropped to the floor. King Vidor did a fantastic job behind the camera giving us lush landscapes and power driven characters. If you don't mind spending some money for this film, I would suggest a viewing. It was impressive.

I found this in my Halliwell's 2006 book under the "H" listings. So far, I have seen some great older films, which was a goal to this project. Laurel and Hardy, Pulham, Vinz, what is next? I am happily giving this film a green highlight with blue stars. I will watch this film again, I will show this film to friends, and be in an utter state of "awe" for the entire two hours. Three more "H"s - here I come!

Habeas Corpus (1928)

Tonight, it was proven – comedy never dies. Nearly 81 years ago a comedy duo by the name of Laurel and Hardy broke through the sound barrier (quite literally) to bring humor, a dazzling array of both slapstick and intelligent, to the masses. Could today’s audiences still laugh at what simple jokes these two men brought to the screen? With a group of friends we put that theory to the ground, and surprisingly our level of entertainment combined with humor was not disappointed. After aging gracefully over eight decades, Laurel and Hardy continue to combine random, interesting scenarios with engaging, well-planned humor. Add to this the fact that “Habeas Corpus” was their first sound film; i.e. sound effects not speaking – yet continued to make our audience laugh hysterically. Their ability to take small gestures, and expand them into laugh-out-loud situations, using merely their facial expressions and their body language would put some modern comedians to shame. Yet, their style didn’t seem dated. In one scene in “Habeas Corpus”, our duo watches as a man puts his ashes from his cigarette into his pocket. Each time he does this, the camera pans to Laurel and Hardy, as they make these exclusive expressions of confusion. Through just their eyes, they are able to convey this level of humor which had our virgin Laurel and Hardy group in stitches.

For 20 minutes, this short film kept us entertained. The level of the humor, the fact that what they were doing seemed original for the time made us question what modern comedians are doing today. Laurel and Hardy are still present in today’s group of comedians. See John Candy or Chris Farley within Hardy, or even Rowan Atkinson’s work influenced from Laurel. These guys were at the top of their game in the late 20s and beyond, and what makes this impressive is that they have not fallen from their trade. “Habeas Corpus” is a prime example of this. Their first sound film, it pits the two as guys who need to dig up a body for a scientist for money. As they attempt to get the body, everything imaginable occurs. The body is second nature to actually getting to the grave site. Everything they do, from jumping up poles, to continually trying to get over a troublesome wall, to fighting Laurel’s fears of turtles. Everything will make you laugh out loud, like it was 1928.

FILM: After 80+ years this film still stands on its two feet. These two were the Kings of Comedy for the time, and after watching this – one could question if they truly were ever dethroned.

VISUAL: This was a VHS transfer. It seemed cleaner in the filmed parts than the word-cards that came up, which were at times unaligned. Albeit a VHS, it still looked good for the age.

SOUND: Rumor has it that the actual sound for this film ultimately lost via the studio many many years ago, but whatever they chose to put on this VHS worked. Sure, it didn’t quite sound authentic (not sure the “boing” noise when they were trying to jump over the wall was time-sensitive), but I could hear the music behind and it set the tone for each scene.

EXTRAS: Film, and nothing but the film – so help me VHS.

Overall, I loved this short. This reviewer could have watched another hour and half of Laurel and Hardy’s shenanigans with this mad scientist, but twenty minutes was perfect. It left you wanting more and a strong desire to have multiple repeat viewings. It ended on such a high note that the laughter filled the room with a group of friends. This was a delight – a pure joy to experience. A modern day “Tom and Jerry” for a more intelligent and mature audience.

Found in my "Halliwells" book, this was an impressive film. I don't think I have been this excited about a movie for a long time. I am glad to offer this film in my VHS collection, and cannot wait to show others the sheer force of what this comedy duo can do. It is no question, it is getting a green mark with blue stars. I will watch this again - with Jen, with my neices, and with everyone who cares about cinema.

H.M.S. Defiant (1962)

As a bookseller, there are always customers that are on the hunt for the newest (or oldest) nautical adventures. In a world dominated by Jack Aubrey and Horatio Hornblower, it is easy to forget the others that forge the same path. Luckily, there is a little film out there entitled "H.M.S. Defiant" (or "Damn the Defiant" for those non-Brits out there) which dismally explores the world of pre-union sea faring days. With horrid living standards, spoiled food, and tensions leading to rebellious shipmates, "H.M.S. Defiant" is not only a film that de-sugars the myth of living on a naval ship, but also keeps the audience in such close quarters that the claustrophobia oozes right from the screen into your living room. It is a powerful film that takes you below deck and plants you deep within the world, giving you the details of a mutiny, the engaging warfare that takes place, and the destructive nature of both a good captain and a violent one. This isn't a film for everyone, the underdeveloped pre-story forces you to try to understand why these men were being rounded up and why this mutiny would need to happen - but it doesn't take long. Outside of Alec Guinness and Dirk Bogarde (who both are fabulous respectively), the rest of our cast is rather thin and at times, too cliche. Yet, "H.M.S. Defiant" stands proud, it isn't the most remarkable sea-faring film out there - but it keeps pace well, giving us a equal helping of action and emotion.

To this viewer, "H.M.S. Defiant" worked because of Guinness and Bogarde's repertoire towards each other as well as to the other crew. The counter nature of both of these men, one the reliant, steadfast, determined iconic Captain, the other a violent-ridden, order defiant, angry Lieutenant keeps you glued to the screen, pending whatever their next move may be. Director Lewis Gilbert realizes the power of these actors and chooses to use everything on the ship as his cache of weapons between them; from Guinness' child, to French ships, to the constant unknown threat of a mutiny, nothing is spared as either Guinness or Bogarde debate nautical semantics. Every action pushes these two characters apart, from disagreeing on destination to how to discipline the crew. Which further demonstrates Gilbert's ability behind the camera, not only do you have these two strong actors creating their own tension above and below the ship, but then he builds sympathy for the crew. He does this by providing us with little information, by making us impartial to the actions - but away of the consequences. Take for example that first scene where the shipmate holds his fists up to the Lieutenant, an action that would typically require six-dozen lashes. In that one scene alone, we are witness to the evil of Bogarde, the strong yet sympathetic Guinness, and the mere chaos of the crew. Within this scene, the taste of this ship is experienced, and yet we are only slightly prepared for what is going to occur in the upcoming scenes.

While I applaud Gilbert's use of all of these elements to give us a stronger, more human element to this craft - the "H.M.S. Defiant" isn't a perfect film. There are trouble spots. One happens to be the lack of development between these smaller shipmate characters. Yes, the Bogarde's violence does allow us to build sympathy towards them - but that is all. The random aside about the doctor being a drunk is evidence that not much thought went into creating whole characters. The anger towards Bogarde by a singular shipmate, blinded by anything else, was not only thick foreshadowing (who didn't see that coming), but again, was this man's only characteristic. The faux-gentleman lawyer, who suddenly had a plethora of knowledge about the law, was another stunning example. Characters, instead of given names, were handed abilities to carry the story. It was as if Gilbert was determined to have Guinness and Bogarde as our only defined characters, yet still have emotion behind this inevitable mutiny. There was no need to pull the story into more than two hours, but definitions were needed to solidify the "Defiant". Also, while the battle scenes were intense, the editing of each battle was sloppy. During the battles, one couldn't help but rewind to see who was where and fighting whom. Was Gilbert testing the nature of chaos battles on the sea, or just haphazard with his direction. Gilbert could manage some moments admirably, others - seemed to falter to the wayside.

FILM: This was a great movie to watch late at night and to demonstrate the power of both Guinness and Bogarde. This wasn't a big movie, but they both put so much emotion into their roles, that it became this classic tale of good versus evil. Gilbert told his story well, despite some major flaws.

VISUAL: The battle scenes were blurry, but I think that was due to budgetary restraints. The transfer to this DVD was surprisingly well. The colors (in short supply) did come through and those long shots of the ships were impressive to see. The built claustrophobia was an added benefit to this film.

SOUND: Decent. Nothing to write home about. The cannons were loud, but not quite surround. The battle scenes were lacking in the swashbuckling.

EXTRAS: Again, nothing much - but for a DVD of this era, what could you do? Some nostalgic previews (retro one could say) with some actor bios in the page format, and rounding it out the ever popular trailer. Again, nothing much - but better than most.

Overall, I enjoyed the experience of "H.M.S. Defiant" though I doubt I would watch again. If I had anyone ask me what film (outside of "Star Wars") they could watch Guinness perform, I would say either "Great Expectations" or this. He, coupled with Bogarde was intensely satisfying. While I hated the missed opportunity to develop the minor characters, these two primed actors carried this film. The action was strong, the emotion was high, and those darn whippings were tough - but it just wasn't enough to make this anything but a standard film. I liked what I saw, but I don't think I could enjoy it again.

My first in my Halliwell's book for the "H" category. I know that this wasn't my regular length. But with a sub-average film, there wasn't much to complain about. I wish there were more special features in some of these films to add to a discussion. Alas, I don't think I will be adding this to my collection, good, but not great. I am giving this a pink mark for bringing more Guinness to the screen - but that was all! Here come two more "H" tonight!

Ladykillers (1988)

Imagine what TV was like back in the late 80s. Can you? My mind races to horrid sets, bad acting, and amateur dialogue ... yet, there was always a level of creativity. Television, especially made-for-television films pushed the envelope for what they could do, what they could say, and while the stories were full of one-line cliches and overproduced images, the stories had some heart to them. In today's cinema, this is what is lacking. We have great special effects, tremendous actors delivering great lines, but the stories feel and are quite bland. Not the case for the 80s. Recently, I had the opportunity to watch a forgotten 80s gem (which is only discovered on VHS or late night TV) that demonstrates this great dynamic shift. It has some great creativity, but utterly lacks in all other categories. "Ladykillers" uses the talent of Marilu Henner (from TVs "Evening Shade") as a cop determined to find the killer of male strippers as well as make sure that her secret relationship stays together. Can you have said that with a straight face? Not me, and that is my entire argument there - creativity! Combining male strippers, cop love, a cool weapon, and a villain that uses merely 70s glasses and a bad wig - and you have all the elements of "Ladykillers" that makes it memorable, despite the obvious lacking sets, acting, and dialogue. Can you look past the bad to see where the good blossoms?

Let me restate that this isn't a film that needs to be watched over and over again - the story could become tedious, the acting is so bad, and the music obviously dates this film, but for the 91-minutes that I watched of this film, I have to admit - I was pulled in. To begin, Marilu Henner sinfully pulls off the difficult cop determined to solve the case as well as keep her relationship together. Her flip-flop nature of trying to be this sex-symbol and a hard-nosed cop, just doesn't work - but in several scenes, you believe her. She makes this role simply unbelievable that you are tricked into believing that she could fill this part. Coupled with the fact that her relationship is with the quintessential newbie cop, Cavanaugh (no first name), aptly played by Thomas Calabro from "Melrose Place" fame, you know within the first minutes this is going to be a full-fledged layer cake. Cavanaugh, who is known for his muscles more than his brain, uses this male stripper case to boost his career within the force, which he oddly finds out is his passion in life, to be a male dancer. Again, I can't state this enough, where else are you going to find stories like this? Our actors are bad, but they keep you glued to the screen because you have no idea what is going to happen next. This isn't your A to B to C story, it has absurdest depth, which can confuse even the novice of film watchers. Adding to this already deflowered chemistry, is a band of 80s-hair male strippers, crazy women (literally), and a rag-tag group of police (quite literally the entire squad) whose sole case is to solve this one. These are the layers, and they only get better from minute to minute.

"Ladykillers" is also memorable for the killer and weapon. A unique choice which we are introduced to in the second scene, the weapon seems like it would only scratch your skin, but be forewarned, these razors are lethal. The weapon is interesting, and genuinely spooky, but what takes the cake it the killer. Using merely a wig and a pair of glasses, our cinematography for this film used every bit of light imaginable to freak out the audience. While there was not real threat, there were some well staged scenes throughout with this killer. Whether it was in the clubs or just looking behind our police friends, there was quite a bit of thought that went into this anti-hero. Not to sound like a "Ladykillers"-nerd, there was another great layer to this film. "Ladykillers" introduces this premise of a prostitute turned housewife late in the game, but it adds this undercoat of dirt that a typical made-for-TV film wouldn't even touch. The grand finale is a darkened ride into a world that wasn't otherwise that spooky. "Ladykillers" obviously gained momentum as the minutes passed, and for that I applaud this film.

FILM: Not great, but not bad. I was happy with the finished product, and with the level of creativity - but it oozes 80s, be forewarned.

VISUAL: 80s, VHS, but great cinematography when it came to the villain. There was just something extra creepy about their portrayal of this killer that remains with you long after this film ends.

SOUND: Classic 80s boom-box dancing and singing. Synthesizers galore.

EXTRAS: There was a preview for a hilarious looking Loni Anderson made-for-TV after-school-special-like program. Something about how Loni was a prostitute, but didn't want her daughter to be one, yet the inevitable occurs. I do remember seeing a Paul Sorvino - could it be that bad?

Overall, I was happy with the final product. I wish there was a DVD, but the VHS transfer did make it seem more ... authentic? Though, I should warn, not everything was a glorious as I portray it. There were horrible elements to this film. Cavanaugh being one of them. The lady that owned the strip club being another. The running scene with Marilu Henner was painstakingly bad, but it was the basis for this story - how the creativity flowed when the story needed to come together. The producers knew that they wouldn't have tons of money for everything, so they put their money where it counted, and it worked. The bad guy was spooky, the weapon (despite the science) was frightening, and the actors did fit their parts. Know what you are getting into when you watch this, but I was expecting the worse, and found something watchable. Be prepared - but enjoy!

The last "L" in my "Creature Features" book. This has been an interesting ride - one that I could do again...slowly. I am jumping into a Halliwell's book next - so wish me luck. Shorts, old movies, ones I had to get from the Warner Vault. I am ready! For "Ladykillers", I am going to give it a respectable pink mark. I won't watch it again if I get to it in a book - maybe - it is a tough call. I liked what I saw, but could I watch it again and again. That, is going to take more time than I have tonight to consider.