Ladyhawke (1985)

“Ladyhawke” is one of those water cooler conversation movies. It is always brought up as the film everyone has heard of, but rarely has been seen – and those that have seen it, worship the ground it steps on. Recently, “Ladyhawke” came across my player, and the opportunity to view this romantic fantasy was presented. Being an enormous fan of both “The Princess Bride”, “Willow”, and any of the reincarnations of “Robin Hood”, I was eager to add another title to the cannon. I wanted to be that guy that stood around the water cooler mentioning “Ladyhawke” to the utter confusion of my coworkers. Alas, my dreams were not that of Navarre or Isabeau, instead they were shattered as soon as the 2+ hours were completed. One can argue that this is a creative film; one could argue that the attraction between Hauer and Pfiffer was pure uncut chemistry, and one could argue that this is one of those forgotten classics that needs to be remembered. Disappointingly, that is not my reaction to this Richard Donner helmed behemoth. From a disastrous score (yep, jumping on that bandwagon) to cardboard acting to a underdeveloped plot, “Ladyhawke” failed to be anything more than just your average fantasy film.

As the anticipation of angry faces on this review is realized, let me stress my points. “Ladyhawke” had quite a bit of potential. The idea was in place, the actors may have been able to handle their respective roles (at least Broderick could), and the director was the director of “Superman”. How could this project fail? At the beginning, there are no problems. Our introduction to Phillipe aka “the Mouse” felt genuine and unique. His escape from prison gave us a deeper insight to his character, his abilities, and his child-like motives. The opening scene felt like it was going to set the tone for the remainder of the film, and for the brief 15-minutes of Phillipe’s escape, the level of enjoyment was up. Then, we are full-throttled into the world of Navarre, and our dynamic changes. This becomes less of a film about Phillipe, whom I was rooting for, but instead a substandard story about two star-crossed lovers that by magic cannot be together. Not only does our dynamic change (less Phillipe more quiet stares and gruff Hauer), but our story devolves into whatever Donner feels like throwing in on that day of shooting. Never are we introduced to magic within the world, but suddenly we are to believe that this mutation is plausible. There is realization that we are focusing on these two particular individuals, but we have no control group to experience the day-to-day of this world. Then, more intermediate characters are brought forward to build excitement, when honestly, the just build confusion. Question arise like was Cezar (Alfred Molina!) necessary, was John Wood as evil as predicted as the Bishop (need more!), and where does Imperius fit within everything. “Ladyhawke” felt like Donner wanted sweeping landscapes, star-crossed lovers, and an epic church battle, but cared nothing for what fell in between.

With a lacking structure, we are forced to plop ourselves down and watch Hauer and Pfiffer carry this film – which is the bigger tragedy of this film because neither understand their roles not provide us with any definition. Isabeau, the less developed of the two, begins with mere stares, being more mysterious then passionate, and then, as we get closer to the finale, Donner makes us question her love for Hauer – which undermines this entire film. It makes us think that this is not eternal love, but merely a difficult circumstance. Hauer, more muscle than mind, fights his way through every battle using a sword the size of Phillipe. He is the most grounded of our group, and seems to be fighting more for their love than Pfiffer, but one needs to question when this epic battle didn’t happen earlier. Why was Phillipe needed to spark this journey? If the love was that powerful, wouldn’t Hauer have tried to meet with Imperius prior, fought the Bishop himself, and perhaps won his love himself? This piece just didn’t fit – their characters wanted it, but why couldn’t they do it?

Finally, the music is horrible. Yes, the 80s were a time of synthesizers and imagination, but it just didn’t fit with this genre of film. No matter how you put it, the music ruins the scenes in which we feel like the guards are going to break out in dance or have huge sunglasses. Donner failed in the world of sound for this film, and merely for that – I can see why “Ladyhawke” hasn’t taken off further.

FILM: This film was flimsy. The story wasn’t structurally sound, the support (aka the actors) didn’t know who their characters were, and the only shine in this darkened tunnel was Matthew Broderick, who charmed his way out of every predicament possible. This is tough film to rewatch and even a tougher challenge to enjoy.

VISUAL: The special effects were pure 80s, one cannot fault highly for that. Yet this transfer was horrible. It was like a VHS copy onto DVD. Warner has not updated this disc since DVDs were first introduced, and that is sad.

SOUND: One must applaud the genius who decided that synthesizers were a key element to period fantasy films. I have never heard anything quite like this before, and I don’t think I will again. “Ladyhawke” is ruined, no matter what you say, due to the sound chosen to be our “Hero’s March”.

EXTRAS: Staying true to the idea that nothing has changed since DVDs were first introduced, the extras contained are bios of the actors (done in page format – not video), a diary of some of the key scenes (again page format), suggestions of other films, and finally, the quintessential trailer. Nothing else. I am not an audio commentary snob, but Donner’s words – even Hauer’s gruff voice would have added to this disc immensely.

Overall, not impressed. I began this film with hopes to discover a new fantasy to introduce to friends and be that guy around the water cooler. “Ladyhawke” is not that film. I believe it has been unjustly pushed into a cult category due to the popularity of its actors and possibly director. The acting is below par, the soundtrack is hilarious, and the story is as ramshackled as this disc. It is not a film to talk about, not a film to watch, nor a film to enjoy. This was a disappointment – I can applaud Matthew Broderick for not forcing me to throw the disc out after the first hour, but other than that it failed. “Ladyhawke” should be left in the darkened backlist of the local video store for years to come, only to be seen by some unsuspecting person hoping for the same quest I envisioned, but being disgusted again and again and again.

Found in my John Stanley "Creature Features" book, this is my second "L" film and sadness has struck me again. I was hoping for excitement, but all I found were unfilled plotholes. After much thought, I am going to give this film a pink mark - average due to Broderick, but almost a yellow due to the rest of the film. I cannot give it a bad mark because of Broderick, but if it weren't for him - urg, I would hate to considered how low this would go. Well, the "L"s will continue.

Lady Frankenstein (1971)

In yet another adaptation of the Frankenstein monster myth, director Mel Welles (with co-director Aureliano Luppi) takes our now infamous Halloween villain to a realm where free love is just as popular as monster creation. The backdrop to “Lady Frankenstein” is still the same – mad scientist Barron Frankenstein uses dead bodies to attempt reanimation, but in this re-imagine his daughter, Baroness Frankenstein returns home, after studying to be a doctor, and wishes to follow in her father’s footsteps. She is young, eager, and ready to explore all possible positions in the monster world. Yet, disaster strikes when her father’s creation escapes, killing Frankenstein as well as plenty of town folk. While the initial idea is to stop the monster, Baroness goes a secondary route in hoping to complete her father’s dreams by transforming the brain of her older husband in to the body of a young man named Tom. Love, both physically and emotionally, flies rampant throughout all phases of the Baroness’ plans – and even when fire, anger, and destruction surround our characters, it doesn’t stop the love that they have….literally.

“Lady Frankenstein” has the feel of a classic midnight movie. The scenes are dark, the characters are underdeveloped yet likeable, and the scares are minimal at best. One could also argue that this film has that raw ambition that several Italian horror films of the 70s seemed to latch onto and give audiences what they wanted, tons of flesh and large unrealistic plots. “Lady Frankenstein” was no exception. Do not even be fooled by the use of Joseph Cotton, who was nothing short of phenomenal in Orson Welles’ “Magnificent Ambersons”, he is the quintessential Frankenstein doctor, a few turns of a knob, a few stares at electricity, a menacing scream, and you have the character played not only by Cotton, but by most everyone who has attempted to fill these shoes. What makes this film stand beyond others, at least momentarily, is the chaos of Paul Whiteman’s portrayal of the creature and the creepy seduction of Baroness Frankenstein (played devilishly by Rosalba Neri) to nearly everything that walks. These two elements keep you glued to the screen as the full 90-ish minutes creep by. Will the monster get captured? What is Neri’s endgame? Can we get some angry villagers?

Do I suggest that you watch this film? Absolutely. Will you like it? That is a completely different question. “Lady Frankenstein” is for the classic horror viewer. Those interested in what Hollywood is churning out today will probably find this feature bland, scare-less, and choppy, but I challenge you to watch this at least once. It does demonstrate a small ounce of creativity in a story that has been told over and over and over again. Yep, the production is limited, the acting and voice work is pathetic, but there was something about this story that was entertaining. The implausible nature of the story was elevated, and the feeling of escapism – a good feeling for any cinematic journey – was explored, and I think that is what makes “Lady Frankenstein” viewable. Again – one will not find themselves arguing theories about Cotton and his relationship with Neri, nor will you question why Captain Harris cannot seem arrest Tom Lynch on any charges, or that questionable final scene of staying in a burning building instead of running all for love – nope, no detailed conversations will happen. But, the sheer enjoyment of this film will remain. I do recommend, but merely as a cult horror film teetering on nearly forgotten.

FILM: Worth one good viewing. Going into it without high expectations results in an original retelling of a tired tale. Nothing worth repeating, nothing worth re-watching.

VISUAL: As if you just dusted it off after discovering it at your favorite unique video store (on VHS of course!)

SOUND: Classic Italian horror.

EXTRAS: Nothing except chapters, which was surprising to see. This is as bare bones as it gets. Enjoy the film, but an audio would have been nice.

Found in John Stanley's "Creature Features", this is my second L-in this book. I am impressed. My first was a rewatch, and this being my first original, I thought that it was par for the course. I look forward to the next four to see what I have been missing in the 70s and 80s when it comes to creatures, horror, and cinema. I am going to give this one a pink mark. I don't think I will watch it again, but it was a blast the first time.

Great American Re-watch #2: Labyrinth (1986)

My second re-watch, and it couldn't have been a better #2. This time, I had the opportunity to watch this film, the amazing "Labyrinth" via Blu-Ray disc, and the picture - coupled with sound - was amazing. One could see the technological advances from the clunky VHS to this edition, not that I am knocking the VHS - but this was outstanding. All of the Bowie parts could be seen, and the background color only enhanced the Henson experience.

This time I focused on special features and audio commentary. Three special features opened the world of this film in ways that take a simple puppet story into a dramatic, and cult background. The words from creator Brian Froud allowed us to see the ability that Henson had firsthand, as well as the steps of creativity to Terry Jones to final product.

I was glad to watch this film again, still being proud that it stands up after each viewing. The music gets better, the imagination grows, and the power that is known as Jim Henson never dies. Watching "Where the Wild Things Are" this weekend, one couldn't help but see the connections between this and Jonzes' finished product. His influences are obviously Henson.

Originally watched on February 2, 2009. I look forward to the next rewatch and what other L-films that this "Creature Feature" book will bring.

Read My Lips (1991)

After erasing my thoughts nearly twenty-seven times, there is a feeling that I can now conquer this review for the complex French drama, “Read My Lips”. Having written over five hundred reviews, I have never found myself at such a loss of words as I did with director Jacques Audiard’s subtle, yet inspirational love story. Thought was poured over what was loved and hated about this film, and while the “loves” overpowered, it was the elements that were hated that sparked further debate within my mind. “Read My Lips” is a drama. To be more precise, is a character driven drama which fuses social uncertainty with crime lords with the doldrums of everyday office work. Here is where this review begins to crumble, it is all of these items – but it is more…much, much more. As a viewer, you are pulled in instantly by Emmanuelle Devos’ portrayal of this fragile woman named Carla, whose strength is lost to the males in her office as well as her hearing difficulty. Audiard introduces us harshly to her world by removing sound from the screen whenever she is not wearing her aid, causing an immediate unrest, not only from the characters within the film, but to those watching. Without sound, the world is left open to any possibility, and that is frightening.

As we watch this difficult and unsettling woman setting into her life, we are then uprooted and given the opportunity to meet Paul (played exquisitely by Vincent Cassel), a slicked-back hair, mustache-wearing lanky man who was just released from prison, homeless, jobless, and forced by his parole officer to get a job. This is how Carla and Paul meet. There is that moment of instant, unsettling attraction. The one where we think she loves him, but he is dark (and here is where it gets even more fun) – and where we think he loves her, but she is dark. The constant role reversal creates the tone of the unknown. Who, as viewers, are we to feel the most sympathy for? Paul sleeps in the office, Carla helps him; Carla looses a contract to a rival co-worker, Paul helps her; Carla’s ability to read people’s lips comes in handy for a make-shift idea for Paul. The continual jumps back and forth keep you on your chair, waiting for the possibility of some light to shine through this dark cave. It never does. Audiard cannot just allow this story to take place, he continually introduces us to more characters; one just as seedy as the next. Even our rock, our solid foundation with the parole officer is in question when his wife goes missing – a subplot to this film that at first angered me, but upon further debate was a staple finale for this film. Yet none of this could have happened if it weren’t for our characters. Devos’ solemn and homely look is breathtaking, as she changes her image for Paul; the truth of her beauty is discovered. Paul, the wildcard in the film, continues to seemingly use and abuse the friendship for his final endgame. Then, just as we assume one, Carla takes on one last shape.

Audiard knows he has amazing actors capturing his characters. Cassel and Devos could just play cards the entire time and I would still be sitting at the end of my chair. The story, probably the weakest part of this film, is at first random. The interwoven stories seem unconnected at first, but Audiard lets them connect bit by bit. Again, the entire parole officer segment was tangent, but that final scene just solidified the ends to the means. Not attempting to sound vague, but this complex (yet utterly simple) story is difficult to explain. There is plenty happening, but it is up to you to connect the pieces. A favorite scene is when Carla is attempting to discover where some money is being held. That use of sound and scene was brilliant. It was tense, it was dramatic, and it was like watching a who-dun-it mystery unfold before your eyes.

FILM: Watch this movie again and again. At first I hated what “Read My Lips” brought to the screen, but after letting it mull in my mind for a couple of days, it proved to be something that had lasting ability. The cast, the story (again, the weakest part), and the sound proved to be a complete jolt to the senses, proving that recycled stories can be told with unique and original twists.

VISUAL: Watching this film upconverted in my Blu player, there were scenes that really stood out. The darks were never quite that dark and the brief introduction to light hurt my eyes as it would the characters. This film would benefit with a stronger release, where the color palate was upgraded and perhaps stronger translation, but from a DVD standpoint, this was perfect.

SOUND: Audiard’s use of sound is one reason to watch this film. Carla condition of being hearing impaired is pushed onto the audience, and the slight sounds that occur in the background give thought to what else may be happening that is beyond our sight. Amazing work by Audiard to bring her focus into fruition.

EXTRAS: Nothing. Which is alright here – I would have loved a commentary or the actors speaking of their roles, but instead we are handed just a couple of trailers. I liked the bare-bones of this film because it allowed me to make my own assumptions and win my own debates over what I just witnessed. For “Read My Lips” it worked.

Overall, I initially though this was a mediocre French film that I could easily forget about when it was over – I was proved wrong. “Read My Lips” opens the floor for discussion, not just with the characters, but the situations. One will find themselves rooting for Carla in one scene, and Paul in the next. When a discovery is made in Paul’s apartment by Carla, I found myself deeply angry. Audiard brought true emotion to the screen with his characters and development, and what he was lacking in plot – the actors were able to carry. I can easily suggest this film to anyone, but be prepared; this isn’t a one time viewing film. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

The final entry in the "Reel Views" book, I am surprised to find myself giving this film a green highlight with blue mark. I will watch this film again - suggest it to friends - and rediscover what I have missed. Man, this really surprised me tonight.

Ransom (1996)

“Ransom” is one of those films that defined the late 90s. With large budgets, larger than life sets, bigger stars, and predictable situations, “Ransom” demonstrates that overabundant Hollywood escapism. There was no worry that a Mel Gibson movie would flop – there was no concern that ticket prices would drive audiences away – there was no worries about putting $80 million dollars on the table because this had everything late-90s cinema goers wanted to see with their popcorn and soda. This movie was melodramatic; this gave audiences an evil guy that was loved in “Forrest Gump”, and it kept us cool for nearly two hours. It had everything. This was a time of taking risks and pushing big names into theaters – now, well, (and one could argue “thankfully”) that recycled magic has gone. A film like this could not exist today. The “safe” nature of this film would be pushed aside for quirky camera footage, younger actors, and less tears with more violence. Audiences have changed, and while I have grown up beyond the “Ransom” excitement, I was feeling this love/hate relationship with this film.

In 1996, when this film was being released, I was first being introduced to cinema. I was going to theater at any opportunity, I was being pulled into these less-than spectacular situations, and people like Gibson, Sinise, Russo, and Howard were idols because of what they could accomplish on screen. But like any child, I was pulled into the glamour, the hype, and the glitz, while in retrospect, the basics were being missed. Watching “Ransom”, now thirteen years later, it just doesn’t seem like the type of film that deserved wide release. Watching this film today, it felt more like a superimposed made-for-TV movie than a blockbuster. To begin, director Ron Howard was out of his element with this film. “Apollo 13”, “Blackdraft”, “Splash”, even “Willow” seems to be more nature based dramas, so to feel him helming this violence-based drama, it just felt staged and unfocused. In the director commentary, Howard discusses how he attempted to use POV shots to convey the story and develop his characters, and while the idea was present, the execution just felt phony. The juggle between Gibson and Russo’s perspective at times felt dizzy to the viewer. Yes, the details around a kidnapped child have that effect; it creates havoc for the viewer – ultimately missing stronger themes throughout. That isn’t to say Howard didn’t have some powerful shots with his cinematographer, overall “Ransom” just missed the strength behind the camera. Then, as if to overcompensate for this, Howard allows his actors to overpower the screen with their over-the-top characters. Gibson, a wealthy airline tycoon, goes from passive father to vengeful cynic (a la “Payback”) in a mere instant, allowing – sadly - more drama to unfold between Russo and Sinise.

Who was the central focus of this film? This is an excellent question for Mr. Howard as well as the cast. Is Gibson the main character? Is his child the main character or merely the developing plot? Is the wooden Delroy Lindo a major player, or is Sinise just trying to keep up with Gibson’s anger? Valid questions that, alas, cannot be answered by this film. “Ransom” attempts to bring too many twists and turns into an already filled suitcase, and the end result is catastrophe. If this would have merely been a story about Gibson reacting to the capture of his son, and Sinise never being revealed until the end, then “Ransom” would have successfully accomplished with what it set out to do. The pivotal ending would have been more controlled and dramatic, that this would have made this normal film stand proud. Instead, Howard incorporates two “family” dramas together, the Gibson family, and the jumbled undeveloped Sinise family whom includes Lili Taylor, Liev Schriber, Evan Handler, and Donnie Wahlberg. Again, this would work well on paper if we would have the opportunity to see via each perspective, but we do not even within the two hours. Therefore it becomes further unfocused, and disruptive to the central conflict.

Finally, the last twenty minutes were mere fluff. Not to give away plot, but it felt like it was placed there for those wishing Gibson would provide some much needed action to the screen. Nothing that developed, nothing that revealed, nothing that enhanced, merely staged action for a drunk with Hollywood money audience. It was shameful.

FILM: One viewing. That is all you need with “Ransom”. Your knowledge of the plot, what happens, and the overdramatic ways of all the actors/characters can only take one viewing, before it just becomes dull. This is not a repeat film. As mentioned, due to the high profile of the actors, this just seemed out of everyone’s league – from the director to the cast – and the bombardment of plot holes (aka Jackie Brown) ensures further sales in the dollar bin.

VISUAL: Another lacking department. This film (watched Special Edition DVD) felt like an old VHS with blurred images, grainy background, and dark exteriors. The transfer was extremely poor, hoping that one day a HD release of this film will happen, but again – what is the point?

SOUND: Composer Howard Shore wrote and recorded a full score, which was rejected by director Ron Howard and replaced with a new one by James Horner. Enough said.

EXTRAS: Decent extras on this disc. A “What Would You Do” segment that discusses the power of Ron Howard’s ability behind the camera. Another one that takes us behind the scenes to see what it was like doing the dramatic points as well as the humor of the cast. An international trailer. Finally, director commentary by Mr. Howard himself. This is interesting and provides some technical detail, but Howard leaves gaps between information allowing us to basically watch the movie again. Not good.

Overall, I disliked “Ransom”. When I first began this review, I was in a love/hate relationship, but as I wrote I found more issues with this film. The lack of development between minor characters, the entire Jackie Brown subplot was embarrassing, and the scene in which Russo visits the church just wasted my time. The transitions between scenes and plots were lacking, which I blame directly on Howard’s inability to control what was happening. He had a strong focus, but the execution is where it faultered. I do not see myself watching this film ever again – and ultimately will smile when seen on late night TV or in the dollar bin – that was the feel of “Ransom”.

In the end, this was found in my "Reel Views" book and gets the yellow highlight with black mark. Not a way to go with a Ron Howard film, but I would die happy if I never saw this film again. This was a major dissapointment.

Raise the Red Lantern (1991)

"Raise the Red Lantern" took me three nights to watch, not because it was a dull story, but because my ocular senses had to recover from the glory of each of the scenes. What may have been lacking in story depth, made up for in visuals as this story of a concubine in China desperately adjusts to a life she was not eager to step into. Handed limited options, Songlian (the fourth mistress) is handed the keys to an elaborate castle, one full of red lanterns, foot massages, lavish food, and a maid to wait on her hand and foot. Alas, not all is as perfect as it may seem, with three other mistresses under one roof (coupled with a scored maid) - the events get dramatic, mistresses pine for time with the "Master", and the hardships of living in this culture become clear as "Raise the Red Lantern" couples history, fiction, and amazing visuals to weave an important story to the screen. Admittedly, I was skeptical at first - a two hour film that deals with an archaic tradition that may focus more on the dramatics than an actual compelling story, but I was wrong. "Raise the Red Lantern" proves itself Oscar-worthy (alas, overshadowed by the "Mediterraneo" win) and coincidentally extremely passionate and watchable nearly 17 since it's release.

Boasting big sets, amazing decor, and a taboo subject, "Raise the Red Lantern" pulls the viewer in with its stark realism, the elaborate nature of women in China in the 1920, and a score that is both haunting and refreshing. The smallest of scenes will pull you further into the film than imagined, and the subtle-ness of evil in contrast to women vying for the attention of one man is done in such a way that the emotions of sympathy, anger, frustration, and jealousy will boil up within. This is a movie that doesn't speak often, but says quite a bit through imagery and small actions. There is one scene in particular that was filmed gorgeously by director Yimou Zhang, which involves the discovery and subsequent downfall of Songlian's way of life. The long shot followed by her transformation was invigorating to say the least. Coupled with the stark beauty of winter, there is no question as to why this film has been lauded by critics and viewers alike. There is something unique about the way Zhang creates a sense of claustrophobia by keeping us in two-three rooms, yet each scene is fresh and new - that sense of stale surroundings is never present. This is a beautiful film, yes, but the acting is like more icing on the cake. Li Gong does a impressive job as Songlian, as we see her from the early excitement/nervousness about this change in her life, to seeing what tricks need to be pulled, to that question of sanity. This makes you revert back to the beginning of the film to wonder if something else had been missed. Your perception of Songlian will revert backwards as you attempt to see who she really is. Has she found a life, or merely unable to cope with the realities of the surroundings? Given the power of Songlian, it is tough to see anyone else stealing her glory, but Yan'er nearly does. Watch this subtle performance - as the maid scorned by another lover - she nearly steals every scene. Between these two, it is a delicate balance.

With the beauty of the scenes and the acting, it is nearly a perfect film, but what pulls me back from applauding every minute of this film is the overall story behind "Raise the Red Lantern". There were just these moments where Zhang used the scenery to fill time, where the story itself was merely an hour and twenty minutes of physical story, but the eloquence of the background allowed for more. Don't get me wrong, the story is important - but perhaps not two-hours worthy.

FILM: The film itself is breathtaking. Watch this with someone or alone on a snowy night. It challenges the mind and opens your heart to a part of history that needs to be discussed. I was reminded of our modern issues with polygamy, and how this Chinese tradition echos that ideal.

VISUAL: MGM's release of this film (up converting on my Blu player) is immaculate. If this ever finds a true Blu release, it will easily be added to the collection. The reds are solid, the whites of the snow are delicate, and the long shots of the Master's villa nearly transforms you from the couch to the screen. It is easy to get lost in "Raise the Red Lantern" purely by the cinematography. The 2.35 widescreen is amazing, no matter which size screen you are working with.

SOUND: Brilliant as well. The bold oriental sounds permeate through the visuals, giving two of our senses a crisp dose of intensity. The Chinese/Mandarin language with the English subtitles work to create the language, without leaving big gaps or being too overbearing. It nearly felt like a 5.1 surround, but it isn't specified. If it were 2.0, it was impressive.

EXTRAS: Lacking. The only downturn to this film. There is nothing that builds the character of the film - i.e. how it was made, director or cast feelings, etc., etc. - I think the only thing we have it a preview. Rather sad considering the immaculate nature of this film.

Overall, I was very pleased with this film. "Raise the Red Lantern" is one of those films that you shouldn't judge by the cover. It seems like another drab historical film, but in the end it is nothing but rewards to both the senses and the mind. Despite the lacking features, I am excited about adding this film to the collection, and look forward to the other films Yimou Zhang has released.

I am back - after a month of watching horror films (for a contest - not for this review site - we will get there sooner or later) and I am impressed with my first outing. I am going to give this film a green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to add this to my collection and watch again. This is a film that will grow over time and impress any that choose to venture into the unknown.