Grindhouse Presents, Death Proof - Extended and Unrated (Two-Disc Special Edition)

Description

A deranged stuntman stalks his victims from the safety of his killer car, but when he picks on the wrong group of badass babes, all bets are off in an adrenaline-pumping, high speed, white-knuckle automotive duel of epic proportions, where anything can happen.

Customer Reviews:

Great Fun.......2007-09-17

Death Proof is Quentin Tarantino's homage to the B movie genre form the late 60s, 70s and early 80s. Keep this in mind when you watch this film. Like the original low budget flicks, this film has very bad picture quality and sound, terrible editing, silly dialogue, revealing mistakes and bad acting. Of course, these characteristics were all accidental or due to a lack of talent in the original movies, whereas Tarantino has deliberately added these "mistakes" in order to recreate the feel of the old films. This might be a bit confusing or even annoying during the first half hour or so, because, unlike 30 years ago, this movie is not shown in a Grindhouse but a modern theater and you can't help but notice that the bad editing is deliberate and therefor misses the charm of the old B movies. Also, the fact that the film is set in 2007 but shot in a way that would be below standard even 30 years ago, slightly removes the charm it would have had, had it been set in the 70s. However, this changes about 30 min into the movie when cell phones, MP3 players and Japanese automobiles are replaced by muscle cars, references to cult classics and John Hughes movies, old school car chases, stunts and your typical Quentin Tarantino dialogues and soundtrack. The uncut European version could have done without some of the more boring conversations at the beginning of the film, though, but Kurt Russell more than makes up for this when he uses his old charm to talk Vanessa Ferlito into a lap dance and by the end of the film real life stunt woman Zoe Bell and Tracie Thoms will have you roaring with laughter as they seek to get even with Stuntman Mike. Although Death proof might not be quite as impressive as House of 1000 Corpses or The Devil's Rejects, it definitely is just as much fun.

Death Proof....but where's Planet Terror too!.......2007-09-17

I'm a fan of Tarantino and Rodriguez, but what I have to agree with most of the mediocre reviews about this is what is up with releasing this seperately from the other film, that makes absolutely no sense, or does it? Maybe to rake in the money the studio didn't get on it's theatrical release? Death Proof has a film is brilliantly shot with style, but as some of the reviews had eluded to earlier gets bogged down in boring chick chit-chat about nothing. I literally found myself zoning off and thinking of other things during those scenes. I don't mind a lot of dialogue if you have something to say. These girls didn't, but the movie is saved by the ominous scenes with actor, Kurt Russell. Still a movie worth seeing, but maybe wait until it drops in price or is released with the other grindhouse film, "Planet Terror".

Great idea and that's why it's more disappointing ..........2007-09-17

Kurt Russell is awesomely good, it seems like every time. When I saw Breakdown in 1996, I was amazed at his use of facial expression. He continues to surprise me as such a good actor because he's an easy actor to forget about when measuring who's good. Why is this? The only thing I can surmise is because he's in entertaining movies rather than Academy Award types of movies.

He does it again here, giving a screamingly good performance. I didnt' scream out loud in the theater, but I did on the inside, especially towards the end when he's physically struggling (no spoilers here).

So, it's just a shame that his top notch performance has to be put to shame in a movie that shows such promise when you hear what it's about.

My friend Tim said it well when the movie was over. He said 'Tarantino is writing the same dialogue he did in 1994 but it just doesn't work anymore.' My paraphrase of that is that it was never much good to begin with, but because it was new, and daring and provactive, he's hot stuff. But if you're just watching a movie and trying to enjoy it, is there anyone out there who really thinks talking about eating hamburgers in Amsterdam is all that good or interesting, even when the delivery is by a black man with an afro (or, is that supposed to make it cool). People are so quick to idolize, and certainly Tarantino has his worshippers.

He basically ruins his own good idea by writing a few scenes filled with women talking about having sex, with the occasional reference to other movies. And that's the movie, except for the only good parts, which feature Kurt Russel. And the parts he's featured in are really good!

It's cool that QT comes up with great ideas, even if he is greatly influenced by all these movies he's seen (I'm okay with that). But, to me, he damages his own knowing sense of good cinema with amateur, crude dialoge that, and this is the most important, doesn't make me more interested in either the story or the characters. All it does is allow me to get to know Quentin Tarantino better.

And it seems there's a place for that in cinema, making movies to say 'hello, here's who I am as a person' but I doubt it's when your trying to entertain a bunch of people you don't know.

I'll say this about 'Death Proof,' Tim and I talked about it way longer than we talked about 'Planet Terror.' And that's ironic because we liked Planet Terror better even though going into Grindhouse we were both most excited to see Death Proof.

This ironic ending to our Friday night was due to seeminly endless ponderings as to why such a good idea could end up so mediocre due to an amateurish, too personal, approach to filmmaking.

Though I'd Prefer Not, Even Seperated, "Grindhouse" is Still a Truly Thrilling and Unique Experience........2007-09-17

Yes it sucks they are releasing Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's films separately. And yes it sucks most of us will more than likely end up shelling out more dough for either the theatrical version of "Grindhouse," or some form of special edition package that, even if doesn't recombine the films the way they were in their glorious theatrical release, combines these two movies in some fashion - and gives us back the faux trailers, which were just as much a reason to see "Grindhouse" as either of the films themselves.

"Grindhouse" was an experience. That was the whole point of the project. Bigger than just seeing a double feature, the creators wanted their audience to experience the exploitation pictures of the 70s, many of which inspired them to become the directors they are today, in all their over-the-top glory.

Because the film was too long, too violent and released on Easter weekend, people just didn't get it, didn't want to see a couple of grainy, odd 70's exploitation style flicks (they weren't hits then either, and that's the whole point), it was rated `R' and largely off-limits to its target audience, or because the promos for the film so heavily focused on something as admittedly strange as a stripper with a machine gun leg - there are several theories - "Grindhouse" disappointed in theatres.

It is perhaps because of that we are now getting the films released separately and the experience has been, for the most part, broken up and abandoned. Gone are those terrific trailers, though they admittedly would have seemed out of place as individual special features on just one the films; and gone is the thrill of what was a three-plus-hour, down and dirty, drive in spectacular. Who knows if this decision was meant to recoup lost funds in order to release more versions down the road, or if the two films were always planned to live on their own after theaters, like any film that was part of a double feature during its theatrical release.

As I said, this is not the way I would prefer to relive "Grindhouse," and I sympathize with those who would bash these two DVDs because releasing them separately not only distorts and truncates the experience, but this decision feels like it will ultimately prove to be a cash-grab by the studio when, six months down the line, they decide to release another version. But the fact is, the "Grindhouse" films are still great and work well on their own. Just because they are no longer a double feature doesn't mean each doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do expertly well. And realistically, this type of separate release makes sense in that these really are two separate films, not one long one. But I loved "Grindhouse" in its entirety so much that I was looking forward to reliving the experience over and over, and I envisioned it becoming one of those staple movies the next generation watches behind their parents backs during sleep-overs and such.

Well, shoulda, woulda, coulda. That's not the way, at least for now, the films will be released. And my own hopes for the film's legacy are not what I am supposed to be reviewing.

Nearly as much as debating this releasing format, people have been debating which half of "Grindhouse" is the best - Tarantino's or Rodriguez's. I will admit right off that I found much more to savor, as I always do, in Tarantino's film, "Death Proof". Some have dismissed it as too talky or too boring or not the "slasher" film it was presented to be (though I don't recall being promised anything specific from the movie before its release). It is first and foremost a hot rod thriller ala "Vanishing Point". Cars, stunts, menacing characters - both evil and anti-heroes - and thrilling chases are the point of this vehicle. As usual Tarantino doesn't just mimic the films and filmmakers he idolizes, but he raises the bar and does all the old stuff in a new, interesting and many times in a shockingly audacious way. And the stunts in this flick are not only spectacular, but they are real; and I'll take that over CGI and camera trickery any day.

Which brings us to "Planet Terror."

Yes Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" is the flashier, showier, more action-packed entry here, and just because I'm in the "Death Proof" camp doesn't mean I didn't love what Rodriguz did with this zombie throwback. As both spectacle and parody, "Planet Terror" is big, loud and fun. It has a great cast, some surprising cameos, and tons of great lines. I think the problem I had with "Planet Terror" is that it was a zombie movie. Not because it is a zombie movie (I love zombie movies), but because there have been so many lately and a lot of them have already been presented in a hip, self-winking manor as if they were already sending up old-school, schlocky 70's zombie movies. Because of that, I always felt like I knew where "Planet Terror" was going and I was never that thrilled or gripped with suspense. The movie managed to have some big surprises here and there and plenty of individual great scenes and moments. I would never call it dull, or bad, uninteresting or anything other than expertly done - as I said, I liked this film too, it's just that by comparison, I think Tarantino offered up the more interesting film.

But, to each his own. The criticisms for films like this - and with the goals these guys have in mind, which is really to deliver a piece of hopped-up nostalgia - are relative and negligible. Too criticize "Planet Terror" for some of the things I did one could argue is missing the point. The whole reason for these movies is to honor and revisit the over-the-top junk that these films were. It that regard - and in terms pure entertainment and bang for the buck - these films both out do themselves. But, as they say, I likes what I likes and "Death Proof" was more my style. More ambitious and less obvious in its thrills, the movie builds a sense of dread and it gets that feeling of 70s cinema just right, from the opening shot and title cards, to its gasp-educing, thrillingly abrupt conclusion. Kurt Russel is flat-out fantastic and real-life Tarantino stunt-woman Zoe Bell is a discovery and revelation. As always with QT, this movie is dialog-heavy. I savor his stuff. If you don't, I can see why the movie may play like less than the sum of its parts for you. But I love juicy dialog as much as I love the blood and goo that spills and flies out of bodies in movies like "Planet Terror."

And that is the genius here.

By giving us both sides of the coin - two major types and examples of 70s exploitation cinema - "Grindhouse" delivered on both a promise and a concept. No two directors were more suited for the task, and it likely would have failed with any others at the helm. Now that QT and RR have laid the blueprint, I look forward to seeing what other genre-dabbling directors could do with similar material (like all the guys who contributed those terrific afore-motioned fake trailers - I would definitely pay to see full-film versions of "Machete," "Thanksgiving," and "Nazi Werewolves of the S.S."). Sadly, because the films are now split, some of you may not feel the same excitement (and if you didn't see it theatres, for now at least, you won't see any of these trailers).

But rest assured, even separated, if you pick up either "Death Proof" or "Planet Terror" - preferably both (and assuming you know what you are getting into and what these two visionary directors are trying to do) you are in for one hell of ride. For true film fans or just those in search of something daring, original, and way too entertaining, to miss these two films, or in the case of the fans boycotting their separation: to avoid buying these two films, is to miss out on a great film experience. Sure the real experience was better, but buying these separate is hardly a rip-off. First, both come in jam-packed, two-disc sets with all kinds of bells and whistles, including deleted scenes. And speaking of deleted scenes, since about a half an hour of each film had to be cut for the theatrical release, had they just released "Grindhouse" as we knew it, we would not be seeing the films in their intended entirety.

I don't know if that makes up for separating the two, but it is reason enough for fans of these films to rejoice. Face it. Had they released "Grindhouse" as we knew and loved it, we would still want to see the individual movies in their entirety, so most likely we would have wound up buying two products somewhere along the line anyway. I'm actually hoping somewhere down the line I do indeed get that chance. No I don't want to see three or four more DVD releases of the individual films, but I'll spend some money on these as they are, for what they are, and the entire "Grindhouse" someday.

Here's to hoping we get that chance.

Add More Chicks Talking.......2007-09-16

I sure hope this unrated cut has 45 more minutes of chicks sitting around talking because that would be awesome.

Average customer rating:

his best
Great Action Adventure
Great Film!!
Anti-American Propaganda From Start to Finish
Action and Depth with a Moral

Shooter (Widescreen Edition)
Starring: Mark Wahlberg , Michael Peña , Danny Glover , Kate Mara , and Elias Koteas
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Manufacturer: Paramount
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Action & Adventure | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

ASIN: B000Q6GUTI
Release Date: 2007-06-26

Amazon.com

A movie that would not have been out of place in the run of paranoid-political thrillers of the 1970s, Shooter works an entertaining variation on the assassination picture. Mark Wahlberg, carrying over good mojo from The Departed, slides neatly into the character of Bob Lee Swagger, master marksman. Swagger has retreated from his duty as an off-the-books hired gun for the military, having become disillusioned with his government (switching on his TV at his remote mountain cabin, he mutters, "Let's see what kind of lies they're trying to sell us today."). Ah, but the government needs Swagger to scope out the location of a rumored attempt on the life of the president, so a shadowy government operative (Danny Glover) begs Swagger to use his sniper's skills to out-fox the assassin. From there--well, spoilers are not fair, since the movie has a few legitimate shocks and a very nice wrong-man scenario about to unfold.

A novel by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Stephen Hunter gives the movie a logical spine, even if the premise itself is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Wahlberg gets support from Michael Pena, as a skeptical FBI agent; Kate Mara, as a trustworthy widow; and Ned Beatty, trailing along memories of Network, as a supremely cynical Senator. Along with the well-executed action sequences (the previously unreliable director Antoine Fuqua gets it in gear here), the movie includes a few potshots at the Bush administration. No, that doesn't put Shooter at the level of The Parallax View or All the President's Men, but it provides some tang along with the flying bullets. --Robert Horton

Beyond Shooter

More Sniper / Hit Man Movies on DVD
More DVDs with Mark Wahlberg
The Novel

Stills from Shooter (click for larger image)

Customer Reviews:

his best.......2007-09-14

I think this is wahlbergs best yet.Some people may not like the violence but other than that you can't flaw this movie. Good acting and directing and a story that didn't get boring. I am always for the underdog.

Great Action Adventure.......2007-09-13

Excellent storyline. Sadly, the political corruption is believeable. The characters were well portrayed and the story reminds us that sooner or later even if it's just one person, some one has to stand up and corruption has to be brought to light and justice served.

Great Film!!.......2007-09-12

Loved it! Action packed and full of suspense. Great chases and drama! A must see!

Anti-American Propaganda From Start to Finish.......2007-09-10

Anti-American propaganda so blatant it would make Michael Moore blush with shame, disguised as an action flick. Whoever thought this stuff would wash has a very, very low opinion of his audience. Just dreadful.

Action and Depth with a Moral.......2007-09-10

Without giving away any of the movie ~ This is the Italion Job meets Four Brothers. Not only is the movie action packed from snipers to explosions, into Federal Agents kidnapped for a coverup on an inocent Shooter ~ all the while a sadistic "puppet master" pulling strings in different departments. This Movie EASILY rivials any of the Bourne ;)

Average customer rating:

A Tale of Twin Obsessions
ONE OF THE BEST FILMS I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME.
Too long makes this film forgettable.
I expected more
Like the book, like the movie

Zodiac (Widescreen Edition)
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal , Robert Downey Jr. , Mark Ruffalo , Brian Cox , and Chloe Sevigny
Manufacturer: Paramount
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Drama | Genres | DVD | Video

Suspense | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

Mystery | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

DVDs Under $7.49 | Today's Deals in DVD | Special Features | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B000QUCNP4
Release Date: 2007-07-24

Amazon.com

Closer in spirit to a police procedural than a gory serial-killer flick, David Fincher's Zodiac provides a sleek, armrest-gripping re-invention of the crime film. It surveys the investigation of the Zodiac killings that terrorized the San Francisco Bay area in the late -60-early -70s; Zodiac not only killed people, but cultivated a Jack the Ripper aura by sending icky letters to the newspapers and daring readers to solve coded messages. But the film's focus isn't on the killer. We follow the reporters and detectives whose lives are taken over by the case, notably an addictive crime writer (a sartorially splendid Robert Downey Jr.), an awkward editorial cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhaal), and a hard-working cop (Mark Ruffalo). Fincher and his brilliant cinematographer Harris Savides are deft at capturing the period feel of the city, without laying on the seventies kitsch, and James Vanderbilt's script doles out its big moments to major and minor characters alike. Fincher's confidence is infectious; the movie glides through its myriad details with such dexterity that even the blind alleys and red herrings seem essential. The well-chosen cast includes unexpected people popping up all over: Anthony Edwards as a lunch-bucket homicide cop; Charles Fleischer as a mysterious suspect; Elias Koteas and Donal Logue as small-town policemen whose districts are hit by Zodiac; Chloe Sevigny as Gyllenhaal's sweet-natured wife; Brian Cox as the media-friendly lawyer Melvin Belli, so famous he once appeared on Star Trek; and the mighty John Carroll Lynch, as a supremely creepy suspect. The film is based on non-fiction books by Robert Graysmith (he's portrayed by Gyllenhaal), although Fincher and co. did extensive research on their own. The result is a propulsive whodunit without (thus far) an ending, but the uncertainty makes the film even more intriguing. --Robert Horton

Beyond Zodiac

The Zodiac (2005)
Curse of the Zodiac (2007)
The Novel

Stills from Zodiac (click for larger image)

Customer Reviews:

A Tale of Twin Obsessions.......2007-09-15

David Fincher invites his viewers on a nearly three hour journey into obsession in Zodiac. Two obsessions ,really, one the story of a person with a obsession for killing and the second of the police and journalists on an obsessive quest for the truth.

Zodiac is a departure from normal Fincher fare. The film is more a tight police procedural than a gory serial killer film. The story is the stuff of urban legend and needs no real explanation. The three principal leads in the film Jake Gyllenhaal as cartoonist Robert Graysmith, Mark Rufallo as Inspector David Toschi and Robert Downey, Jr. as reporter Paul Avery are excellent. The film offers insights into all of its characters great and small that are not usually found in films of this type. We go on an emotional ride with these people and begin to care about what the strain of the case is doing to them both professionally and personally.

Fincher has always been a director for creating atmosphere ans Zodiac is no different. Using cinematographer Harris Savides and production designer Donald Graham Burt he effectively recreates late 1960's/ early 1970's San Francisco without ever going over the top. Writer James Vanderbilt provides a complex screenplay that keeps you guessing throughout. There are more false leads and red herrings here for a film twice its length.

If there is a problem with this film it's that Paramount has decided to release a bare bones edition of the film but promises a new bonus filled Director's Edition early in 2008. Having this trailer on the film feels like a slap in the face to those of us who bought the early edition.

This is one of the better and more intelligent films of the year thus far and deserves a look. You may want to rent it now and wait for the special edition before purchasing it though.

ONE OF THE BEST FILMS I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME........2007-09-15

THIS FILM IS SO GOOD, I HAD TO GET THE BOOK BY ROBERT GRAYSMITH. THE BOOK IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE FILM. NAME CHANGES, STUFF LIKE THAT. I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THE ZODIAC ON THE A&E CHANNELL. IT WAS AN INTERESTING YET FRIGHTFUL TRUE STORY THAT HAPPENED IN THE LATE 60'S AND 70'S. IT REMINDS ME OF THE SON OF SAM, WHICH I KNOW MORE ABOUT BECAUSE I AM FROM AND STILL LIVE IN NYC, THAT HIT CLOSER TO HOME, BUT THE ZODIAC IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SCARY TO HEAR AND READ ABOUT. STEVE MCQUEEN'S BULLET, WAS BASED ON THE LEAD INSPECTOR, DAVE TOSCHI. MARK RUFFALO WHO PLAYS THE POLICE DET. IS FANTASTIC. HE HAS THE ITALIAN LOOK, THE CURLY HAIR, YES HIS HAIR IS REALLY THAT CURLY. I HEARD ABOUT THE ACTOR, BUT I THINK IT'S THE FIRST TIME I SAW HIM ACT. HE IS SO BELIEVEABLE. I READ IN THE BOOK HE ACTUALLY MET WITH DAVE TOSCHI TO PICK UP THE MANNERISMS AND THE CLOTHES DET. TOSCHI WORE. JAKE G. IS ALSO BELIEVEABLE. THE ACTORS BRING HEART AND SOUL TO THE ROLES. ROBERT DOWNEY JR. BLEW ME AWAY. THE CLOTHES IN THE FILM BRING ME BACK TO THE ERA. ROBERT IS SUCH A GOOD ACTOR. I THINK THIS FILM WILL BE A CLASSIC, LIKE JFK WITH KEVIN COSTNER. I RENTED IT, AND I HAD TO BUY THE DVD, THEN I GOT THE BOOK. I BOUGHT THEM ALL ON AMAZON. I HOPE THE FILM GETS NOMINATED FOR OSCARS, IT'S THAT GOOD. THERE ARE A FEW SCENES THAT ARE HARD TO WATCH, WHEN THE ZODIAC ATTACKS HIS VICTIMS AND KILLS SOME OF THEM. THIS FILM IS WORTH RENTING AND BUYING IT. IT'S KINDA LONG, ALMOST 3 HRS, BUT IT NEVER GETS BORING. YOU FOLLOW THE STORY FROM ONE OF THE MURDERS, TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS: JAKE G. RUFFALO, AND DOWNEY. ON THE DVD,COMING IN 2008, THERE WILL BE A EXTENDED VERSION OF THE FILM. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTARY, BEHIND THE SCENES. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT VERSION. I HOPE THIS REVIEW HELPS. THANK YOU

Too long makes this film forgettable........2007-09-14

Zodiac directed by David Fincher starts off really well even though the first 30 minutes are the most violent but as the film goes on, the characters become too cluttered and the progression is a bit slow and lackluster. I have always liked Fincher's films but this one doesn't flow well and since the San Franciso Police Department never found out the identity of the Zodiac killer, you kinda expected an ambivalent ending. The use of the song, Hurdy Gurdy Man by Donovan is played many times during the film, and that song is perfect and kept me watching this film the whole way through. There are some great performances by Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo but sadly even their acting can't save this so-so film.

I expected more.......2007-09-09

After years of pondering the Zodiac murders, I thought that this movie was going to bring all the pieces together by placing the final piece into the puzzle. So I was really disappointed that the final piece still leads to the person the law and writers always thought it was....But with no true ending. But it's a good movie.

Like the book, like the movie.......2007-09-09

If you have problems with Graysmith you'll have them with the film - very close to the book and a fine set piece for the era. Definitely worth your time.

Average customer rating:

A weak modernized remake of Rear Window for teens
A Spooky Blend
Disturbia: Disturbingly Excellent
Suprisingly good
Disturbia

Disturbia (Widescreen Edition)
Starring: Shia LaBeouf , Sarah Roemer , Carrie-Anne Moss , David Morse , and Aaron Yoo
Director: D.J. Caruso
Manufacturer: Dreamworks Video
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Drama | Genres | DVD | Video

Suspense | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

Mystery | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

DVDs Under $7.49 | Today's Deals in DVD | Special Features | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B000RO6K9E
Release Date: 2007-08-07

Amazon.com

Alfred Hitchcock fans may experience déjà vu upon exposure to this voyeuristic thriller. That's because director DJ Caruso (The Salton Sea) and co-writer Carl Ellsworth (Red Eye) use Rear Window as a jumping-off point before cherry-picking from more recent scare fare, like The Blair Witch Project. In the prologue, 17-year-old Kale (Shia LaBeouf, Holes) loses his beloved father to a car crash. A year passes, and he's still on edge. When a teacher makes a careless remark about his dad, Kale punches him out, and is sentenced to house arrest. After his mom (Carrie-Anne Moss, Memento) takes away his Xbox and iTunes privileges, the suburban slacker spies on his neighbors to pass the time. In the process, he develops a crush on Ashley (Sarah Roemer, The Grudge 2), the hot girl next door, and becomes convinced that another, the soft-spoken Mr. Turner (David Morse, The Green Mile), is a serial killer. With the help of the flirtatious Ashley, practical joke-playing pal Ronnie (Aaron Yoo), and an array of high-tech gadgets, like cell-phone cameras and digital camcorders, Kale sets out to solve a major case without leaving his yard (a feat that would prove more challenging for a less affluent sleuth). In the end, it's pretty familiar stuff, but there are plenty of scares once Turner realizes he's being watched, and rising star LaBeouf, who next appears in Michael Bay's Transformers, makes for an engaging leading man--despite his character's propensity for slugging Spanish instructors. --Kathleen C. Fennessy

Beyond Disturbia

Why We Love Shia LaBeouf
The Soundtrack
Rear Window

Stills from Disturbia (click for larger image)

Customer Reviews:

A weak modernized remake of Rear Window for teens.......2007-09-15

As everybody knows by now, Disturbia was pretty much a modernized remake of Hitchcocks 'Rear Window" for the teen scene.

For all practical purposes nothing of substance happens for the first 50 minutes of the this film, thus suspense is never really built like in Hitchcock's work.

When things start to happen, it does so in a largely irritating manner due to the two (2) criminal sins too many film makers commit today........

1) Keeping the story going by having everybody do the dumbest actions possible.

2) Ignore the laws of physics and reality.

MILD SPOILER ALERT BELOW...............................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If you are watching a murderer thru binoculars from across the street and the very moment you set them down, you turn and find that killer standing in your 2nd floor bedroom then somehow that killer is either magical or owns a molecular transporter.
All thru this movie, the killer appears and dissapears instantaneously near our main characters even if they just saw the killer 100 yards away only 2 seconds earlier.

I suppose this was done to "surprise" the audience, but it comes across quite silly.

The young actors were actually very good and they could have done more with this movie........ it ends up just being a watered down teen flick that borrows heavily from a classic but misses the formula for what made the original Hitchcock film so good.

A Spooky Blend.......2007-09-14

I couldn't help comparing Disturbia with the Burbs and Rear Window.

There is some great humor in Disturbia along with the horror and creepiness.

With several scenes that are hard to shake from your thoughts late at night when you can't sleep and the house starts to make noises, Disturbia delivers on the suspense and thrills.

I appreciated the restraint it showed in language, gore and sex. There are some elements that parents will want to check into if they are concerned about their kids seeing Disturbia, but it's not a teen gross out movie.

Disturbia: Disturbingly Excellent.......2007-09-14

This movie was a chiller, from beginning to end! Excellent Friday night movie!

Suprisingly good.......2007-09-12

The first half of "Disturbia" is rather bland....Kale (Shia LaBeouf) is placed under house arrest for popping his teacher and he begins a three-month "incarceration" by watching videos and looking pretty bored. But after he picks up his binoculars and begins scouting the neighbors, things accelerate. Loosely based on Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window", "Disturbia" is an update with gizmos. One cannot imagine this film working on any level unless everyone had a cellphone. "Disturbia" is aimed at a younger crowd but an appealing performance by LaBeouf helps it to a satisfying conclusion.

Disturbia.......2007-09-09

This movie is one of those you just can't look away from when watching. It keeps you right there as if you are there. It's a great movie, must see. I highly recommend this one.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Two-Disc Special Edition) (Harry Potter 3)

Average customer rating:

Alfonso Cuaron's genius works with Harry Potter
All packaging correct, but wrong movie
As Awesome as Ever
Great !
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly...

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Two-Disc Special Edition) (Harry Potter 3)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe , Richard Griffiths , Pam Ferris , Fiona Shaw , and Harry Melling
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Manufacturer: Warner Home Video
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Action & Adventure | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Kids & Family | Genres | DVD | Video

Adventure | Kids & Family | Genres | DVD | Video

10-12 Years | Kids & Family | Genres | DVD | Video

Adapted from Books | Kids & Family | Genres | DVD | Video

Family Films | Kids & Family | Genres | DVD | Video

Fantasy | Kids & Family | Genres | DVD | Video

DVDs Under $7.49 | Today's Deals in DVD | Special Features | DVD | Video

( H ) | Titles | Features | DVD | Video

Special Editions | Fully Loaded DVDs | Features | DVD | Video

Two-Disc Special Editions | Fully Loaded DVDs | Features | DVD | Video

Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban | Top 30 | Specialty Stores | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B00005JMAH
Release Date: 2004-11-23

Amazon.com

Some movie-loving wizards must have cast a magic spell on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, because it's another grand slam for the Harry Potter franchise. Demonstrating remarkable versatility after the arthouse success of Y Tu Mamá También, director Alfonso Cuarón proves a perfect choice to guide Harry, Hermione, and Ron into treacherous puberty as the now 13-year-old students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry face a new and daunting challenge: Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped from Azkaban prison, and for reasons yet unknown (unless, of course, you've read J.K. Rowling's book, considered by many to be the best in the series), he's after Harry in a bid for revenge. This dark and dangerous mystery drives the action while Harry (the fast-growing Daniel Radcliffe) and his third-year Hogwarts classmates discover the flying hippogriff Buckbeak (a marvelous CGI creature), the benevolent but enigmatic Professor Lupin (David Thewlis), horrifying black-robed Dementors, sneaky Peter Pettigrew (Timothy Spall), and the wonderful advantage of having a Time-Turner just when you need one. The familiar Hogwarts staff returns in fine form (including the delightful Michael Gambon, replacing the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and Emma Thompson as the goggle-eyed Sybil Trelawney), and even Julie Christie joins this prestigious production for a brief but welcome cameo. Technically dazzling, fast-paced, and chock-full of Rowling's boundless imagination (loyally adapted by ace screenwriter Steve Kloves), The Prisoner of Azkaban is a Potter-movie classic. --Jeff Shannon

Description

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry, Ron and Hermione, now teenagers, return for their third year at Hogwarts, where they are forced to face escaped prisoner, Sirius Black, who poses a great threat to Harry. Harry and his friends spend their third year learning how to handle a half-horse half-eagle Hippogriff, repel shape-shifting Boggarts and master the art of Divination. They also visit the wizarding village of Hogsmeade and the Shrieking Shack, which is considered the most haunted building in Britain. In addition to these new experiences, Harry must overcome the threats of the soul-sucking Dementors, outsmart a dangerous werewolf and finally deal with the truth about Sirius Black and his relationship to Harry and his parents. With his best friends, Harry masters advanced magic, crosses the barriers of time and changes the course of more than one life. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron and based on J.K. Rowling 's third book, this wondrous spellbinder soars with laughs, and the kind of breathless surprise only found in a Harry Potter adventure.

DVD Features:
3D Animated Menus
Challenges:Three great interactive challenges! Test your memory with "Magic You May Have Missed", help Crookshanks "Catch Scabbers", and go on an unexpected quest with Sir Cadogan.
DVD ROM Features:Wizard Trading Cards.Hogwarts Timeline.
Deleted Scenes:A selection of mystifying exclusive never-before-seen footage
Featurette:Conjuring a Scene - an in-depth look at the making of key scenes from the filmMeet the animal trainers from the movie in Care of Magical Creatures.
Interviews:Raucous interviews with the cast lead by Johnny Vaughan and the Shrunken HeadCreating the Vision - a revealing interview with J.K. Rowling and the filmmakers.
Other:Self-guided iPIX tours into Honeydukes and Professor Lupin's Defense Against the Dark Arts classroom. Choir Practice - sing-along with the Hogwarts choir.Hogwarts Portrait Gallery - get a closer look at the various portraits lining the walls of Hogwarts castle. Electronic Arts game preview.
Theatrical Trailer:Harry Potter 1, Harry Potter 2, Harry Potter 3

Customer Reviews:

Alfonso Cuaron's genius works with Harry Potter.......2007-09-06

I enjoyed the first two Harry Potter movies that Chris Columbus directed, but this movie blew those two out of the water completely. Director Alfonso Cuaron transformed the entire series with this movie, making it darker, more artistic, and overall a better movie-watching experience than the other Potter films. A lot of fans are annoyed because of all the differences between the movie and the book, but I think the changes were done in a manner that truly makes Prisoner of Azkaban the best film out of the 5 we've seen so far.

All packaging correct, but wrong movie.......2007-09-05

I purchased the first 4 Harry Potter movies, of which this was one. My review would be positive with one huge exception. The movie that actually appeared when I pressed was The Polar Express. The product arrived quickly. The packaging was in excellent condition. And for my part, my payment was prompt. It's just too bad that quality control missed this one.

As Awesome as Ever.......2007-08-28

This is a replacement DVD for one that was lost several years ago. I had forgotten how good this movie is. Definitely a classis to have in the DVD library.

Great !.......2007-08-27

This 3rd movie is a great addition to the collection ! I wasn't a huge fan but made me consider buying the other released movies soon !

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly..........2007-08-26

My favorite BOOK of the series and my LEAST favorite movie of the series so far. I know movies can't always follow the books they're based on EXACTLY-- however, this movie left out some pretty important stuff. Not only that, but things were added to the movie that were not in the book. So here's the good, the bad and the ugly about "Prisoner of Azkaban"...
First-- the good: It's not a bad movie. The acting's good overall. There's a lot of action and a good storyline with a couple of twists and turns toward the end. The scenery is beautiful and you see a lot more of the grounds surrounding Hogwarts than in previous movies...and there's a beautiful scene of Harry's ride on the hippogriff. If you've not read the books but you've seen movies 1 and 2 (or at least know the Harry Potter basics), I think you'll enjoy yourself even if you don't know what the heck is going on all the time. (It IS the third of a series so you DO need to know something of the first two to really know what's going on.)
Now-- the bad: If you really liked the first 2 movies, there are some major changes in this one that are hard to get used to. First, many of the sets are completely different. Now Hagrid's hut is far away from the castle across a long bridge and down a steep hill... and the Whomping Willow (that nearly destroyed the Weasleys' car in movie 2) is out in the forest-- not near the school. (These sets are also used in movies 4 and 5.) Also, many of the faces of other students you're used to seeing in the background (like Susan Bones, Lee Jordan, Oliver Wood) have been replaced by new unfamiliar actors-- some with speaking parts but you can't identify them with characters in the book. (Neville, Dean, and Sean are there, but there's a strange unidentified boy running around with Draco.) Then there's Dumbledore... When Mr. Harris died, they understandably had to find a relacement. But Mr. Gambon plays a much different Dumbledore than Mr. Harris did. He's not bad-- just different. He looks different, dresses differently, moves around quicker and just doesn't have that powerful calm presence that is associated with the character and which Mr. Harris achieved so well. Also, it's a little weird that Professor Flitwick, who was portrayed in the last movies as an old grey haired wizard, is now much younger with short black hair and a moustache! Some people enjoyed the "new look" of the movie... others (including myself) didn't.
Okay-- now for the ugly: For those who've read and enjoyed Book 3, I think you'll be anywhere from 'somewhat' to 'severely' disappointed. There are (of course) a lot of nitpicky things I could mention (like Lupin's moustache, or dementors flying instead of floating above the ground, etc.), but there are some major problems. First, there are things that are not in the book but came right out of the director's head:
1. Talking shrunken heads (with Jamaican accents for some reason) that seem to be everywhere.
2. Tom, who tends the Leaky Cauldron and is described as stooped and toothless in the book, is now bald with a hump and a limp and acts like some freakish Igor in an old Frankenstein movie.
3. Then there's the infamous first seconds of the movie where Harry is using his wand to practice magic at the Dursley's-- which I don't have to tell anyone who's familiar with the books OR the previous movies is a BIG no-no! Considering the penalty Harry receives in Book 5 for using his wand outside of school... well, let's just say that a little research would have gone a long way.
4. Then there's the "Fat Lady"... It isn't the film time that was wasted having the Fat Lady refuse the students entrance to the Gryffindor common room until she could break a wine glass with her voice that's the problem... it's the fact that the SECRET entrance to Gryffindor Tower is (according to Cuaron) right off the main staircase where everyone can see it!!
5. And even though the hippogriff in the movie is as it's described in the book, the other important magical beast towards the end of the movie is absolutely NOTHING like JKR described him (and it would have been a lot scarier if he he had been)!
And now it gets REAL ugly: Without giving away the ending or twists in the story-- key important bits of information that are revealed in Book 3 are left out! For instance, the Marauder's Map is given to Harry, but its origin and inventors are never mentioned. Sirius Black escapes from Azkaban, but how he was able to do it is never revealed. No mention is made of what James Potter (Harry's dad) and his friends were doing while at Hogwarts or why. The reason for the Shrieking Shack and the Whomping Willow is never explained. Why Harry's patronus manifests as a stag is also never explained (even though it does appear as such in the movie). Such information would have given this movie more depth and is one of the reasons the book is so popular. It gave a peek into the life of Harry's dad and broadened Harry's world a little. Without James Potter and his friends doing what they did all those years ago, all the events in Book 3 never would have happened and Harry's third year at Hogwarts would have been as boring as my 8th grade year in Junior High. Why none of this was included is beyond me. Had it been, it would have been a much better movie.
**My recommendations: If you want depth and explanation and a good background story that ties everything together... get the book and read it. If you just want a good action/adventure movie that you can watch with the kids and not be completely bored out of your mind... get the DVD.
**Parental note: This movie is rated PG for violence (monsters and ghouly dementors and such) and may be a bit too scary for the little ones.

Average customer rating:

Great Flick
unless your a film student...
This film sucks
Overly bloody, logically holed, inferior sequel
Some good ideas... but otherwise a simple rehash of the first film.

28 Weeks Later (Widescreen Edition)
Starring: Robert Carlyle , Rose Byrne , Jeremy Renner , Amanda Walker , and Shahid Ahmed
Director: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Manufacturer: 20th Century Fox
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Horror | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Science Fiction & Fantasy | Genres | DVD | Video

ASIN: B000TJBN80
Release Date: 2007-10-09

Description

28 WEEKS LATER is sequel to the successful 28 Days Later.

The film pick up six months after the Rage virus has spread throughout the city of London. The United States Army has restored order and is repopulating the quarantined city, when a carrier of the Rage virus enters London and unknowingly re-ignites the spread of the deadly infection, wreaking havoc on the entire population. The virus is not yet dead, and this time it's more dangerous than ever!!

Customer Reviews:

Great Flick.......2007-09-17

I thought that this was a great movie, intense and gory! The bloody scenes weren't scary but the possibility of this happening is what scares you the most. Seeing society decimated in both this movie and the prequel is frightening. The thought of being one of the only survivors of a rage virus is thought provoking. Can't wait for the third installment. Worth seeing.

unless your a film student..........2007-09-16

You won't appreciate how great this movie was shot and how rich they are. I was stunned how great this movie was. It is Very different than the 1st. Cause this deals with a generation rebuilding and then shows what happens with chaos. How easily our government would turn on us (and I believe in a situation like this they would) and it was interesting to say the least.

So what's my complaints?

Spoilers (don't read if you don't wanna know)

1. Its annoying how fast the father gets turned and I find it hard to believe he would follow them but not successfully eat them.

2.I'm bummed that the military officer died
3.I wanted a little more closure for an ending. Unless they make 28 months later but that would be good only if they come up with a REALLY good story.

Anyways the pros outweigh the cons so therefor I give this 5 stars. Go see a first class horror film done right.

This film sucks.......2007-09-16

This film sucks. I (or you) could create better horror with a bottle of ketsup and an 8mm handcam.

Overly bloody, logically holed, inferior sequel.......2007-09-14

Surprised at the number of good reviews this is getting here.

"I wish Roger Ebert was still writing reviews because he would most definitely decry the "idiot plot" moment of "28 Weeks Later." It comes when Don (Robert Carlyle) decides to plant a wet kiss on his obviously exposed-to-infection wife, despite having seen the Zombies first-hand and knowing full-well how the infection travels and how it has pretty much decimated the population of Britain. I watched this at the Westlake Village Promenade today at 4:50pm with a crowd of mostly teenage guys and even a lot of them were shocked at how ridiculous this was." - Bryce Zabel, moviesmackdown

Big budget blood drenched sequel could have been so much better. Another ridiculous moment comes when they start firebombing part of the city--gee, why not just nuke all of London, if infrastructure destruction is not a problem, then you could be certain of extermination? Then the city is gassed, why didn't they do that in the first place? Well they have a big budget this time and lots of huge fiery explosions are obligatory I guess.

Another thing, the camera shakes WAY too much. What's going on? When the boy sees his father through the door, the camera moves very fast and next thing you know the rage has spread inside the quarantined building. What happened? Only by going slow-motion through this sequence can one see he breaks through a heavy locked steel door by simply banging on it. 300 people are trapped inside but one skinny infected gets in no problemo. The boy sure must be a good sprinter cause he gets from the door to walking over people 40 ft away in .5 seconds. And you know exactly what is going to happen when the rage hits a large crowd of people because it is described in detail in the first film (the airport story). I submit to you, a predictable scene does not make for a scary one no matter how much blood, screaming and unsteady camerawork you throw in.

The original had lots of slow parts with interesting dialog and scenery that made one think and give a breather between the scary parts. This movie just got on the bandwagon of all the bad ultra-bloody films that have come out since the original--Hostel, Saw, Hills Have Eyes, etc and, not to be outdone, is scene after scene of murder and mayhem. The one interesting idea in this one, that some can be immune, is not really developed except to spread the virus to show, you got it, more blood and gore.

The music throughout is THE EXACT SAME as in the original, they couldn't even get original music?? (Maybe they spent too much on those explosions)

Overall this was a big disappointment for me.

Some good ideas... but otherwise a simple rehash of the first film........2007-09-10

Well...

It was with a lot of anticipation that I went to see 28 WEEKS LATER - specially because I believe the first film, 28 DAYS LATER, was a genuine new look at the beloved Zombie genre.

But I got a little disappointed with this sequel because it does not offer much. The synopsis looks promising: weeks later, the original infected people on the UK dies... and the country is declared safe. So it is up to the British living abroad to come home and start again. And we meet this guy who has two kids (who were abroad on a school trip).

Suddenly, they find his wife (who apparently got attacked and died on the prologue). But she is fine... because she is immune to the disease. But she does has the virus... and it is only a matter of time until the whole thing starts again.

The problem with 28 WEEKS LATER is that the audience does not bond with any character. There is nobody there for the audience to empathize with. I feel some lack of focus in those characters... and the whole film becomes a escapist time-passing.

It was exactly the huge investment in characters that made the first film so good. But here... It's all missing.

That is not to say that there are not great moments. The intro (when the guy loses his wife) is well paced... the scene where the helicopter decapitates (oh, yes!!!) a group of infected is fabulous... and the best sequence is when the survivors drive away from the military dodging poison gas clouds on the streets of London.

But that's it.

Also... this film contradicts one interesting element presented in the first film. I remember (on 28 DAYS LATER) one character saying the infection had reached other countries. That does not seem to be what we see here. I got a little confused.

Still it is worth a look.

Average customer rating:

Good movie with an unexpected ending
Great at first, then spiraled downward
If you loved the book, skip the film!
Ridiculous movie
Original And, Despite The Ending, I Found It Fascinating

Perfume - The Story Of A Murderer
Starring: Ben Whishaw , Francesc Albiol , Gonzalo Cunill , Roger Salvany , and Andrés Herrera
Director: Tom Tykwer
Manufacturer: Dreamworks Video
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

General | Drama | Genres | DVD | Video

General | Mystery & Suspense | Genres | DVD | Video

DVDs Under $9.99 | Today's Deals in DVD | Special Features | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B000QUCNOK
Release Date: 2007-07-24

Amazon.com

Based on Patrick Suskind's novel about a serial killer who hunts victims with his superhuman sense of smell, Perfume: Story of a Murderer is a florid, grisly portrayal of this historical drama set in 18th century France. Jean-Baptiste Grunuis (Ben Whishaw) is born under his mother's table at the fish market, onto a pile of muddy fish guts, establishing from the beginning his repulsion for putrid scents. A childhood of neglect and, later, a job at a tannery, encourage Jean-Baptiste to develop his olfactory sense rather than his verbal skills, so that an opportunity to prove his worth to Parisian perfumist, Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman), results in his immediate hire into a promising new career. His successes in perfume mixing are negated by a blinding obsession for capturing the sublime beauty of human soul, which in his twisted logic requires the killing of young women to reduce their body fats to essential oils for the ultimate, cannibalized eau de parfum. An omniscient narrator tells the story with much sympathy for Jean-Baptiste's perverted psychology, making it, often, too obvious that his need for love justifies his murderous desire to capture misguided sexual attractions in a vile. Continuous close-ups of Grunius's nose, countered by close-ups of the places and objects he smells, enhance the viewer's understanding of his sensitivity. Repeated comparisons are made between the killer and dogs who aid, then expose his sick experimentation. The settings are fascinating, especially Baldini's perfumery and some later scenes in enflorage factories outside Provence. Whishaw's and Hoffman's performances are both grand. But Perfume unnecessarily spells out Jean-Baptiste's psychosis, squelching any chance for metaphor. This is unfortunate, considering the story's paradoxical nature. As this crude hunter navigates his way through a world of utmost delicacy, one craves ambiguity rather than explanation. --Trinie Dalton

Stills from Perfume: The Story Of A Murderer (click for larger image)

Customer Reviews:

Good movie with an unexpected ending.......2007-09-14

the ending was really unexpected! i thought it was really clever and i liked it!
i was really surprised with the scenario of the movie, very realistic, i never saw something like that in other movies...
really cool movie

Great at first, then spiraled downward.......2007-09-11

At first I thought this movie was so original and imaginative. It is filmed beautifully. The clothing and scenery. The colors. The music. I enjoyed the narration. But you keep waiting for Ben Wishaw's character Jean-Baptiste to get interesting. He is emotionless. As another reviewer said you almost don't care what happens to any of the characters. (Although I thought Alan Rickman and Dustin Hoffman did a fine job with their smaller roles). Especially Jean-Baptiste. But he's so irritating with his lack of personality or emotion that I really disliked him. Stop reading here is you don't want to read a spoiler. The main plot twist is that Jean-Baptiste wants to get his hands on the beautiful Laura and so since he is the villian of the story you hope that he will, of course, not kill her like all the other girls. And even when he gets into her room you hope, somehow she will escape. You hope that finally one of the girls will be able to defend themselves... but no, that would have actually given the movie a little suspense. He killed any chance of that when he killed her. But I kept thinking that the movie might improve with an interesting twist of an ending. There is a fine line between interesting and just ridiculous. Some people loved this entire movie including the ending. I felt the ending became so bizarre and strange that it was unpleasant to watch. It was so unfufilling and stupid that I have to give this movie 1 star, despite it's promising beginning. Maybe, as another reviewer said, the book is great. I haven't read the book. But I hated this movie. Unless you enjoy period movies, enjoy great costumes or really, really bizarre movies I recommend renting this movie - like if you have Netflix and you won't be wasting $5 to watch it. If you want to see a good movie with interesting characters, suspense and mystery see the Illusionist instead.

If you loved the book, skip the film!.......2007-09-09

The book was fabulous. The film adaptation is horrid. Where to begin? Dustin Hoffman is a fine actor, but nothing of his ability and screen power come thru in this film. Ben Whishaw? Forget it. His performance is bland and boring, his performance lacking any emotion or inspiration. You simply don't care about him as a character. In fact, that is the primary fault of the entire film. Character development is so poor that you simply don't care what happens to anyone in the film.

Alan Rickman, as usual, delivers a strong screen presence, but his role is so small that he cannot possibly save the film. John Hurt with his characteristic voice also does a fine job of narrating the film.

Perfume is an excellent novel - a unique, well-developed story. Definitely read the book! But the film is a real stinker (pun intended).

Ridiculous movie.......2007-09-08

And again, everyone loves the emperor's clothes and how pretty all the colors are. Dustin Hoffman's career is circling down the drain much in the same manner that Robert De Niro's is, by showing up in films like this that are so utterly undeserving of his talent. If this is esteemed as a work of vision and depth, then the fix is truly in and the moviegoing public has been broken on the wheel of mediocrity- happily ingesting any substandard, contemptible feed Hollywood wishes to slop into the entertainment trough. Just because someone can recreate the streets of Paris or can CGI color a few fruits and hairdos to convey beauty and richness of experience doesn't mean that we should all clap and be awestruck. This movie is meaningless and unbelievable, a mockery of the period piece, the detective thriller, the psychosexual drama, the tortured genius expose, or any other genre it unintentionally parodies.

In politics, some say we get the government we deserve. By heaping praise on hollow window dressing like "Perfume", it looks like we will all continue to get the movies we deserve. Giving further life to this box office bomb via rentals or DVD sales is simply irresponsible. I bet the author of the book had to be restrained from going into the lot when this was filming, hoping he could find the screenwriter and sock him(and I say 'him' because I'm having trouble with the idea that an intelligent woman would countenance abetting the creation of such mindless exploitation of the fairer sex) in the jaw.

Original And, Despite The Ending, I Found It Fascinating.......2007-09-05

Wow, this is really a bizarre story with an ending that probably will turn off 98 percent of viewers who stick with this two hours, 147-minute film. I'm not sure what to make of it, other than totally understanding if people are left unsatisfied after watching this movie. As I said, I'm not sure how to interpret it as I just finished it minutes ago. It leaves you almost stunned.

Rather than judging that finale or divulging it, let me just comment on the first two hours of the film, which I found utterly fascinating. If I wasn't such an admirer o