I SAW THE DEVIL: A TRULY DISTURBING REVENGE FILM

There are movies that you watch to be entertained by. There are movies you watch to experience a piece of art. And then there are movies that combine these two ideas and come out with something altogether different, a movie that entertains on some level and yet is so well made as to be considered art. I SAW THE DEVIL is one such film, a truly disturbing picture that will stay with you long after the final credits.

The film opens in winter where a young woman’s car has a flat. While speaking to her boyfriend, a secret agent, she is offered assistance by a bus driver which she declines. Once she hangs up, the bus driver viciously attacks her, breaking out the windows of her car and clubbing her into submission with a hammer. She awakes to find herself in a secluded location where her kidnapper systematically tortures and kills her, even after she pleads for not just her life but that of her unborn child.

The victim’s boyfriend Kim Soo-hyeon (Byung-hung Lee) is distraught by her murder. Contacting her father, an ex-police detective, he is given several leads as to who may have killed her and begins targeting each one. As he enacts his revenge on the first two in a most brutal fashion, he finds himself realizing that the third is the guilty party. Tracking him down is easy. What he does afterwards is not.

Kim finds Kyung-chul (Min-Sik Choi) and nearly beats him to death. But he stops. His thirst for revenge would be short lived if he killed this monster. Instead he allows him to live with the knowledge that it isn’t over. Kim becomes the hunter, thrilling at the hunt as he continues to track down Kyung. Kyung continues on a murderous rampage almost racking up several more victims but Kim always shows at the last minute and does more physical damage to Kyung.

Readers may recall that I’ve found what is now called “torture porn” to be pretty distasteful, especially the film HOSTEL. There are many scenes in this film that rival HOSTEL for the sheer power of filmed torture. But there’s a difference as well that some will squabble over. In HOSTEL we witnessed a movie in which voyeurs had the chance to become a part of the action, to pay to torture people, no more motivation than the so called thrill. In this film we witness a man whose memory is tortured for his not being there to save his fiancé, a man who is seeking out vengeance.

I found myself watching and thinking what would I do given the same circumstances? Would I want to find vengeance on my own? If I had the skill set as the character of Kim has, the capabilities he displays in fighting and surveillance techniques, would I want to take my own pound of flesh from someone who had caused me such pain? I never did find an answer for my questions, just that there is the possibility that I would.

The film continues with bloody encounters all the way from start to finish. There’s even a stop by Kyung at a home invasion his friend has just done, a friend who enjoys cannibalism and is in the middle of eating one of his victims. But the encounters between Kyung and Kim as Kim nears the threshold of finally exacting his revenge are what make this movie click. It is witnessing Kim perhaps turn into the same monster he seeks in his search for revenge, perhaps not finally doing so, that holds our interest.

A word of warning: This film is not for the weak of heart. It is not for anyone who would be offended or upset at witnessing some of the most brutal moments on film that I’ve witnessed in some time. That being said this film is a movie that will stick with you in more ways than one. On a visceral level it will twist your insides. On an emotional level you’ll wonder how you would react in the same situation. And on a film watching level you will see a movie that holds many lyrical moments visually one minute and gut wrenching moments (literally) the next.

If you’ve seen the movie OLDBOY (which also starred Min-Sik Choi) then you’ll know the type of film to expect. It may not be for everyone but if you’re willing to take a chance you’ll finish by seeing a well made movie that doesn’t treat a serial killer as a jokester ala Freddy Kreuger, but treats him as the terrifying killer that he truly is. This is a film that treats horror as horror and not a joke. And it stays with you even after it ends.

MAN MOVIES: MR. MAJESTYK

How can anyone make a list of man movies and not bring up the films of Charles Bronson? Granted he’s already been in the cast of three of the movies I’ve chosen to write about already (THE DIRTY DOZEN, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and THE GREAT ESCAPE), but those movies included him more as a member of the cast and not as the star. As Bronson’s career grew he went from playing the mute lab assistant in THE HOUSE OF WAX to the main character in a number of action films in the seventies including today’s gem MR. MAJESTYK.

Bronson stars as Vince Majestyk, a watermelon grower who wants nothing more than to get his crop in. As the film starts he shows his caring side by taking the side of migrant workers who just want to use a gas station’s rest room. Hiring them to work along side his already picked crew, he returns to the farm to find a hustler named Bobby Kopas (Paul Koslo) trying to force him into using the crew Kopas wants to supply. A physical altercation that results in Kopas losing his gun and having the stock used to change his mind results in a warrant issued for Majestyk’s arrest.

Placed in a jail Majestyk runs afoul of mob hit man Frank Renda (Al Lettieri). As far as Majestyk is concerned he’s just another guy in jail. Renda strikes fear in the hearts of the rest of the convicts but not Vince. The prisoners are loaded for transfer to another location but their bus is attacked by a group trying to free Renda. In the aftermath of the attack a number of officers are left dead or dying and Vince has taken Renda and the bus for a drive to his summer cabin. He makes a deal for Renda’s release just to get his crop in, but Renda’s crew show to rescue him.

The die is cast. Renda won’t listen to reason, wanting nothing more than to exact his revenge on Majestyk. The police won’t interfere, hoping that Majestyk can be used as live bait to catch Renda in the act. Not willing to bide his time, Renda eventually attacks Majestyk, first shooting up his barn filled with watermelons and then breaking the legs of Larry (Alejandro Rey) his foreman. Now its time for Majestyk to get some revenge of his own.

Written by action author Elmore Leonard, MR. MAJESTYK is a fantastic action/revenge film that moves at a fast pace and doesn’t waste a moment of screen time. Each second seen on the screen is planting the seeds for the final showdown and doing it with perfection. And the two leads are amazing to watch. Lettieri was always cast as a mobster and killer and seemed to excel at those roles.

Bronson was the epitome of the tough guy you just knew you shouldn’t mess with but who stood up for those less fortunate. He made a living playing roles like this, becoming a icon of the seventies. He didn’t possess the looks of the typical leading man having a rough exterior, but there was something about him that made you wish you had him in your corner. He had more movies that fit the “man movie” category and you’ll see me write about them in the future. In looking back Bronson was one of the main stars to represent the kind of actor found in those films. He took no guff, he kicked butt and he stood for something bigger than himself. And in MR. MAJESTYK Bronson gives a good example of the kind of star he was just before he became a bigger international sensation.

BLACK DEATH: TAKE A SWIPE AT CHRISTIANITY

I’ll say up front two things about BLACK DEATH. The first is that it is a well made film, photographed well, acted well, directed well. The second is that it falls into a category of film I’ve tired of: trying to make Christians look responsible for every bad thing to ever happen in the world.

The time is 1342 and England is being ravaged by the Black Plague. The smell of death floats across the air in every corner of every location that exists. The dead are carted to the roadside to be taken away and rotting corpses are nothing unusual.

A monastery is no safer from the plague than anywhere else. Monks are dying just as the everyday citizens are. Young Osmond (Eddie Redmayne) is a monk early on in his life. Having sworn his life to God he also has done the forbidden by falling in love with childhood friend Averill (Kimberly Nixon). Insisting she leave town before she falls victim to the plague, she gives him a last chance: abandon God and follow me. She tells him she will wait for one week in the town they grew up in and then move on with her life.

Once Averill leaves a new group enters. This is an emissary of the Bishop, a warrior named Ulric (Sean Bean) who is en route to find a town where it is said no one dies or is affected by the plague. He’s looking for a guide and Osmond, having just asked God for a sign what to do, jumps at the chance since the town they seek is next to the one he grew up in. That town holds the chance of returning to Averill.

The journey is slow moving as the men walk and one cart is pulled along, a cart that contains the tools of torture used to force confessions of witchcraft and necromancy from helpless victims. The warriors that accompany Ulric all have their own short tales to tell, how they came to this place and what they expect to find. Bloodthirsty and ready for action they get their chance early on.

Near the town, Osmond sneaks off one morning to see if Averill awaits. To his dismay he only finds her cape drenched in blood and a group of thieves, weapons drawn. Osmond runs back and alerts the warriors who take up arms and battle the larger numbered thieves. They win but at what costs as one of their own lies dying and Osmond is wounded.

Moving forward they come to the marshland that holds the mysterious city they are searching for. They enter and find the inhabitants at first inhospitable, but after pretending to seek sanctuary they are welcomed to spend the night. A pale and well groomed woman takes Osmond with her and tends to his wound with a poultice. The rest wander about trying to figure out which one is the necromancer, the wizard, that has taken this village under his wing.

At dinner they discover that there may be more than meets the eye in this group. Are they truly bewitched? Are they pagans, worshipping the devil himself? Or is it just that this town is lucky? Perhaps they’ve discovered a secret that keeps them alive.

In short order (and hopefully without giving too much away) a confrontation involving the warriors being forced to recant their beliefs in order to stay alive is offered and a discussion about the horrors inflicted on many because of their belief in Christianity ensues. Christians are depicted as believe like me or die while pagans are shown as understanding and compassionate yet eventually acting the same way. Follow my way or die. A twist ending feels more tacked on than a part of the whole.

While both sides are shown to have terrible flaws in their religious backgrounds and thinking, the more damaging presentation is tossed at Christians. Certainly if you go back and check history you will find that Christians did some terrible things in the name of God (anyone ever heard of the Inquisition?).  But if all you had to go by was this film you’d think Christians did nothing but attempt to exterminate people and that pagans just wanted to be left to their own devices. The truth is a combination. Both sides did wrong at one time or another. To depict one as being more aggressive at it just shows us another movie maker taking a swipe at Christians.

One thing this movie definitely illustrates. Those of us who can remember far back know of a time when Hollywood made movies like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, KING OF KINGS and BEN HUR. All of these movies painted Christianity in a good light. With the inclusion of historical “accuracy” into films in the late 60s, things changed. It was no longer considered cool. Weird religions started popping up and those new age followings were given a wider birth to be explored than Christianity. So what happened? Why did it become wrong to believe in God? And why is it that the only religion that seems to be fair game is Christianity?

I can’t give an answer to that other than to believe offers more restrictions than these new age religions. And God knows Hollywood doesn’t want to be restricted from anything.

In any event out of 5 stars I would give this movie 3 just for the quality of the production. Were it on content alone I’d have to slide down to 2. But if it were rated on the basis of how much it would offend or upset someone its 5 stars all the way. Perhaps I took it to hard or too serious. Then again that just might show the strength of my beliefs and their lack of the same.

THE GREEN HORNET: MORE HUMOR, LESS STING

In the sixties the comic book icon Batman was turned into a television series that was low on detective seasoning and high on camp. The show became so popular that it was soon followed by a spin off, The Green Hornet, based on the pulp fiction/radio show character from the past. The show never took off like Batman did, but it did introduce the world to martial arts expert Bruce Lee as the Hornet’s sidekick Kato. Talk of a new film version of the series went on for years, even Kevin Smith the director of CLERKS was involved at one point. So fans were delighted to see the Hornet finally appear on the big screen.

Seth Rogen stars as Britt Reid, the goofball son of publisher James Reid (Tom Wilkinson). The senior Reid puts out The Daily Sentinel, a newspaper that prides itself on reporting the real news and focuses on the issues of crime that happen daily in Los Angeles. When suddenly dies of a bee sting, Britt is left in charge as well as left to finally grow up.

Despondent at first and unable to fill his father’s shoes, Britt turns to the man who took care of his father’s cars and who made his coffee, Kato (Jay Chou). In Kato he discovers a kindred spirit; someone who loved yet felt much anger at his father and a man who feels a need for heroes much as Britt does.

Through a misadventure in which they save a couple from an attack by thugs, the pair decides to take on crime in LA. Kato sets out pimping their ride, a car now armed to the gills with missiles, machine guns, a flame thrower and more. Then Britt turns the newspaper on its ear, insisting that they do extensive coverage of the Hornet, going so far as to come up with his name. The next thing they do is hire an assistant for Britt, Lenore Case (Cameron Diaz), who knows more about crime than he does, going so far as to predict what the Green Hornet will do next. In truth, her predictions become their directions.

It seems that the entire criminal element in LA is run by one man, Benjamin Chudnovsky (Christoph Waltz), a bloodthirsty criminal who has made it his life’s ambition to control crime from top to bottom. Chudnovsky makes a point of striking fear in those who would oppose him. And when the Green Hornet starts interfering with his operations, the Hornet becomes his number one target.

So does it work? In some ways very much so but in most not quite. As with the recent GULLIVER’S TRAVELS, we’re presented with a star that needs someone to rein him in, to mold him into the character rather than have the character twist into something its not. Rogen can be a great actor at times but here he tends to run wild and use certain mannerisms that he has in past roles, none of which tend to enhance the character of Britt Reid. Instead much of the movie has Britt as the same goofball he was when the film started except rather than party non-stop he behaves like a kid who finally gets the chance to play the hero. It would have been nice to see the change in Britt come about far earlier in the film than it does and to have left more of the comedy out. The story deserves more action and less comedy.

Chou does a great job of presenting himself here. Pretty much an unknown in the U.S., he does a fantastic job of combining martial arts mastery with acting ability, much like Bruce Lee did when first starting out. The scenes with Chou feel more like the Green Hornet than do those with Rogen.

The supporting cast seems just to be walking through. Waltz shows less of the menace in his character here than he did in INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. And Diaz seems to have such a minor part as to nearly qualify as a cameo.

Much of the film comes together towards the last 20 minutes or so. It would have been nice to see many of the things that work well there happen 30 minutes earlier and the movie be taken a bit more seriously than it was. Instead, while entertaining enough, the film seems more like a Seth Rogen vehicle and less a comic hero film. Was it enough to garner a sequel? Doubtful, the box office wasn’t stupendous, something Hollywood expects these days. If one does come about, let’s hope they find a director willing to tell Rogen to rope it in and to play it straight for once. He has the ability, now he needs someone in charge to convince him of it.

SCREAM 3: ANOTHER ROUND

One would think that two SCREAM movies would have milked out all of the ideas they had. Then again any fan of horror films, or follower of Randy in the series, would realize that a good horror franchise needs to become a trilogy to be great. Okay forget the new movie and just consider this one for the moment.

Gone are the days of school, both high school and college. The survivors of the earlier films have moved on with their lives. Gale (Courtney Cox) and Dewey (David Arquette) were and item but are now apart. Sidney (Neve Campbell) lives in a secluded and secure location where she councils victims via phone. And Cotton?

Well as the film opens Cotton (Liev Schreiber) has become a radio talk show host and is on his way home when he gets a call. One of “those” calls fans of the films recognize by now. The killer is in his home and about to kill Cotton’s girlfriend. Cotton races home to stop this but fails and in so doing finds himself the second victim of part 3, his girlfriend being the first.

All of this occurs as a film studio is in the process of making STAB 3, the third movie based on the fictional murders in this series of films. I wonder if INCEPTION got their idea for a dream within a dream from these movies within movies? Anyway, Word of Cotton’s death reaches the cast and crew and of course Gale is there to cover the story. In her usual insensitive manner she goes looking for the story. It leads her to the studio where the film is being shot and running into Dewey who is a technical advisor to the film, helping Jennifer Jolie (Parker Posey) as the character based on Gale.

The banter between the two goes back and forth but eventually they work together as members of the cast begin being murdered in the same order their characters are in the script. The killer also keeps leaving behind pictures of Sidney’s mother, the woman whose infidelity began this whole story.  He/she also wants to know where to find Sidney.

Each cast member as well as studio executives and the police detective in charge of the investigation (Patrick Dempsey) become a suspect at one time or another. Perhaps the only ones not suspects are Sidney, Gale and Dewey. As the cast and crew are whittled down, the revelation of who the killer is this time around and his/her motivations are revealed.

It is the revelation that shows how original and interesting this series actually was. Once more they could have taken an easy out or done something that didn’t relate to anything. Instead the film works as another whodunit where we are presented with clues that will lead us to the killer if we only pay close attention. Here we are again presented with what could have been a lame excuse for a movie but instead becomes a good little film all in itself.

The ideas behind movies are discussed in each of the films. On the surface this is seen when each one discusses the rules found in all horror films. But it also takes on critics who talk about how bad sequels can be, proving them wrong. It talks about how violence affects us by showing that perhaps the violence we see onscreen isn’t what causes violence but the circumstances of our lives do. It talks about a press who is willing to sacrifice love, honor and respect for people in the attempt to get the story. And it talks about the fact that while we may make fun of sequels we still fill the theater seats to see them when they come out.

The series is well worth adding to your collection if you’re a horror fan. Once again Lionsgate has done a bang up job of putting together a quality product here. The extras on all three don’t offer much but I for one don’t mind. I find that with all the movies I want to watch I rarely have time for these any longer. I mean come on, how come a movie can be 90 minutes long but have 3 hours of extras to watch?

Suffice to say that the SCREAM series as released now on blu-ray is a great buy for fans. Now all we have to do is sit back a few months and wait for the release of SCREAM 4.

SCREAM 2: THE SEQUELS BEGIN

Fans of the SCREAM movies will recognize themselves as the geeky Randy who knows so many tidbits of information about movies, horror films in particular. These fans are the ones who show up on opening weekend for a sequel that, chances are, won’t be near as good as the original film. Those fans were probably quite surprised with what they got when they went to see SCREAM 2. Where most horror films sequels fail, this one lived up to the first.

The time is 2 years after the events of the first film. Those teens who survived are now off at Windsor College, studying and trying to forget the past. If you haven’t seen the first film stop reading now and go watch it. I’ll wait. If you have you know that the survivors are Sidney and Randy. These two are doing their best to be the regular college students everyone expects.

The film opens at a special screening of the movie STAB based on the murders. Young couple Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett (before she was Smith) are there to watch and get more involved than they expected. Epps is killed in the men’s room and Pinkett in the theater while a full house runs around screaming with fake knives and ghosts masks thinking its part of the show.

Other members of the original cast begin to turn up now. Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) has become a celebrity in her own right having written a best seller about the murders. Now she’s back to bother Sidney once more, never thinking of her feelings but simply there to get the story. Cotton Weary (Leiv Schreiber) has been released from prison and is making the rounds of the talk show circuit to cash in as well. He shows as a guest of Gale in the hopes she can catch the first meeting between Cotton and Sidney on film. Then Dewey (David Arquette) shows up fearing that Sidney might be in trouble. Toss in a new boyfriend (Jerry O’Connell), his friend (Timothy Olyphant) and a roommate (Elise Neal) and you have multiple suspects once more.

Victims fall over like flies narrowing the possibilities of who the killer is. We know the original killers are both dead and gone, witnessed at the end of the first film. So who’s responsible now? And why would they be stalking Sidney? Is it simply that, a stalker influenced by the books and the movie, or is it someone else?

This time around the film takes a look at the claims that were made at the time that horror films and slasher films in particular could influence people to repeat the scenes they witnessed on screen. While the proof was never there it made for great defense tactics for lawyers of accused murderers. Its unusual that a film maker like Wes Craven would take up the banner for this argument but he presents a great case here.

There were two things I was most surprised at in this film. The first was the number of actors who had small parts here who went on to bigger and better things. Since it’s been several years since the film came out I’m not sure if some were big then doing cameos or just getting started. Luke Wilson, Tori Spelling, Omar Epps, Jada Pinkett, Heather Graham, Sarah Michelle Geller, Joshua Jackson, Rebecca Gayheart, Portia di Rosi, Laurie Metcalf and David Warner can all be found here.

The second was the fact that even though this film is a sequel it stands up on its own as a truly scary horror film. One would expect the weakest of plot devices to be used in an attempt to cash in on the success of the first film. Instead we have a well conceived idea here as to who the killer is and why. It also ties into the first film rather than one of those oh yeah moments where the reason seems contrived at best.

Randy once again tells us what to expect in horror films and sequels in general. And for the most part he’s right with one exception. Where he claims that all sequels suck, this movie lives up to the name of SCREAM.

SCREAM: FORGOTTEN CLASSIC

So many will wonder why I claim this is a forgotten classic. I mean isn’t the SCREAM mask still sold at Halloween? Haven’t we just seen a new sequel released? Isn’t the movie spoken of in every Wes Craven interview?

All of these things might be true but the fact remains that while SCREAM did do big box office, was sequelized and is talked about at times, I found in watching it again that it was a much better film than I recalled. It was scarier than I remembered. It was better made than I thought at first. And it works on so many levels as to be considered a classic.

For those uninitiated the film tells the story of a group of teenage friends. The film opens with Casey (Drew Barrymore) receiving an anonymous phone call with someone who at first flirts with her and then threatens her. In short order she not only witnesses her boyfriend’s demise but is soon murdered herself by a killer in a stretched ghost face mask and flowing black tattered robe.

The next day the kids at her high school are upset when they hear of the murders. But as teens go they also tend to move on to the next thing that interests them, a true example of A.D.D. Enter our main character Sidney (Neve Campbell), a young woman whose boyfriend Billy (Skeet Ulrich) wants to take things to another level but who remains chaste. Her best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan) isn’t quite as pure. Tatum’s boyfriend Stuart (Matthew Lillard) is the court jester, making jokes at all times. Rounding out this group is Randy (Jamie Kennedy) the nerd of pack who works at the local video store and is a movie fanatic.

As the film progresses so does the body count. With each murder we also get a glimpse of the killer and the fact that he seems to be a bit of a bumbler compared to the villains other slasher films have delivered in the past. Where the cool killer reigned in most, this killer trips over his costume, gets knocked in the head more than once and gets downed occasionally only to mysteriously disappear. While choosing to wear a goofy mask this seems like more of what a real serial killer might be like, a klutz who makes mistakes.

The cast is rounded out by David Arquette as Deputy Dewey, Tatum’s brother and the local goofball policeman. Dewey comes off as little more than a Don Knotts/Barney Fife knock off. But beneath it all lies something more than gets revealed a piece at a time in all of the SCREAM movies.

Offsetting this character is Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), a driven newswoman who will do anything to get the story and advance her career. At the moment she is not well liked by Sidney whose life story Gale has pitched on more than one occasion. Sidney’s mother was murdered earlier and Sidney has identified Cotton Weary (Liev Schrieber) as the killer. Gale has taken Cotton’s side in the matter and has done all she can to get his release much to the displeasure of Sidney.

Now the nice part about all of these characters is that each one has a reason to be the killer and the opportunity over and over again. We constantly wonder who the killer is and each time you think you know you find yourself pausing to consider the next person. Is Dewey really hiding his homicidal tendencies behind the goofy façade? Is Gale so determined to get Cotton released that she’d do anything to see it happen? Could Billy have had a reason to become the killer since his mother left him? Every character bops in and out of the scene with ample opportunity to jump back in as the killer.

At the heart of this is Randy, the movie nerd, who takes the time at a party to discuss the ins and outs of horror films and “the rules”. So many actually fit any number of films that have been released its hilarious. For instance the rule that if you’re a virgin you’re safe. Having sex always results in being the next victim. Or never say “I’ll be right back” when leaving a room since it usually results in your chances of returning being non-existent.

What makes this movie so good is that it keeps your guessing like the best whodunit ever made. You find yourself thinking it’s this person then another then another until you’re never quite sure who you think did it. And then result, the reveal, was a tremendous surprise when this film was first released. Even knowing who the killer is doesn’t spoil the fun watching it again as you catch the clues left throughout.

The movie is also fun because of the in jokes that many movie fans will catch. Names of characters, locations, little aside dropped in all make the movie hilarious with each one. The best one is when high school principal Henry Winkler hears a noise in the hall, sticks his head out and sees the school janitor (played by director Wes Craven) wearing a green and red striped long sleeved sweater who grunts at him, to which Winkler replies “Sorry, Fred”. Yes, a direct reference to Craven’s best known film A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

The SCREAM films are being released in blu-ray format for the first time from Lionsgate who recently picked up the distribution rights. They’ve done a great job with it, just in time for the release of the latest sequel. Best of all its nice to see the film come out in a clean format that means it can be appreciated again for some and for the first time for others. Believe it or not the movie IS fifteen years old now. So if you’re watching it with someone who hasn’t seen it don’t let them know who the killer is, sit back and watch them try to figure it out and enjoy the ride.

THE WAY BACK: STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM

There are some movies that you have a sense of importance about them, a feeling prior to watching that what you are about to witness is important and a film that needs to be seen. Films of this sort rarely live up to those expectations. THE WAY BACK is not one of those. This is a movie that people should see, people who need to know that the price of freedom isn’t cheap.

Opening in 1943, we are introduced to Janusz (Jim Sturges) a polish officer who is accused of treason by the Russians. With the help of his wife who was tortured into making the accusations, Janusz is sent to one of the gulags (work camps) in Sibera. The gulags were the Russian equivalent of the death camps the Nazis had but not as well publicized or (as is revealed in the extras on this DVD) recorded as much as the Nazis did their camps.

Unwilling to remain in the camp, Janusz makes friends with another prisoner who says there is a way out. Given directions and the smallest of hopes that it can happen, the pair make plans to escape. But at the same time, they realize there is a better chance with greater numbers. They pick up several people in their plan and when the time arrives they stall the camp’s generator and head for a weak link in the fence.

On the run facing the dangers of the frozen wilderness as well as the possibility of capture by the guards or by people of the area since they have a price on their heads, the group struggles on, keeping off the beaten path and making their way to what they hope is freedom. Among the group are an American who goes by the name of Mister Smith (Ed Harris) and a Russian criminal named Valka (Colin Farrell). Each has their own idiosyncrasies to add to the group, Smith doing his best not to care about anyone and Valka being the tough as nails killer in the group.

Their trek takes them across dangerous terrain and they soon feel that they are lost. Setting out on his own to make certain they aren’t, Janusz finds the lake they have been searching for and their hopes rise. As they move along the lakeside path, they encounter a young woman named Irena (Saoirse Ronan) who asks to join them. Thinking she will just slow them down they deny her the chance, but she eventually does join.

Moving from the snow covered terrain to the warmer climate, the group continues to head south in hopes of finding the trans-Siberian train line. Once there they plan to cross over it and shortly find themselves in Mongolia where they think they will find freedom. Instead they find more difficulties and a reason to move ever forward heading towards the desert and almost certain death. And should they make that the next thing they will encounter will be the Himalayas.

The most amazing thing about this film is the fact that it is based on a true story. To watch and then realize this makes it all the more engrossing a film to watch and also a sadder one as well. With each step they take, with each encounter with the harshest items nature can toss their way, you wonder if you would have had the fortitude to do what these men did. You can call it a desire to live, a desire for freedom, stubbornness or just a will to live, but what they achieve is remarkable.

Directed by Peter Weir (who did MASTER AND COMMANDER, DEAD POETS SOCIETY, WITNESS and more), the film is placed in the hands of a master. He combines the story of the land and the harshness of it with the tale of men who bond beyond what most do. And at the same time he makes you realize that their hunger for freedom is one they will do anything to satisfy.

THE WAY BACK is not a happy go lucky film. It is brutal but not violent, gut wrenching but not gory, sad but filled with a happiness that comes from inside. It covers a wide spectrum of emotions. It also presents some amazing photography of natural scenes most of us are likely to never witness. But in the end it is an inspiring film and one that should be seen. Not backed by one of the major Hollywood studios, the film had a small release. The fact that it is available on DVD rectifies that situation. It gives those who didn’t have the opportunity to see the film before a chance to watch it and perhaps appreciate their own freedoms just a little bit more.

GULLIVER’S TRAVELS: STOP A COMEDIAN, PLEASE

There are comedians who make some hilarious movies. The problem is that they have a certain shtick that they use…and then use again…and then use again and again and again until they’ve played it out so often that they fade to obscurity. That or they begin to make movies that folks never pay to see any more (see Eddie Murphy). Face it, when you rely on the same character or style over and over again people will tire of you quickly. Such is the case with Jack Black and especially his new DVD release GULLIVER’S TRAVELS.

Black stars as Gulliver, the head of the mailroom for a magazine. As he introduces the new guy to the job, we get to see him ignored by most of the staff and his longing for the travel editor Darcy (Amanda Peet). By the end of the day this new employee has taken his job and let him know that he’ll always been in the position he’s in because he has no backbone, no ambition to move forward. He also notes the same holds true with his affection for Darcy, a love that will go unrequited because he never makes a move towards her.

This changes when he stops by her office that night intending to let her know how he feels. But he backs down and tells her that he’s actually there to sign up as a writer for her department. She’s glad and gives him an assignment except that he’s never been anywhere and has no idea what to write. A few moment of copy and paste and suddenly he’s got a new job. And a new assignment, heading to the Bermuda Triangle to look into the truth behind it.

With no idea what he’s doing he soon finds himself heading for a swirling mass of water going up rather than down. His boat is swept up and the next thing he knows he’s been washed ashore of an island inhabited by people who stand about 4 inches tall, the Lilliputians. Captured by egomaniacal officer General Edward (Chris O’Dowd) and their army, he’s forced into a life of servitude making friends with another prisoner named Horatio (Jason Segel). Horatio’s crime is falling in love with Princess Mary (Emily Blunt) who is betrothed to General Edward.

A chance rescue of the Princess wins Gulliver freedom and the same for his new friend. He becomes the protector of the country. All the while Edward attempts to knock down this new hero and take back his place atop the crowd. When that fails, he sets out to take over the kingdom or at least assist in it.

Can Gulliver save the day? Can he take on Edward? Will Horatio and Princess Mary finally get together? Will Gulliver ever have the chance to woo Darcy? WHO CARES!

This movie is perhaps one of the worst that I’ve ever seen and that’s saying something. I like almost every movie I watch in one way or another. But this film is terrible from start to finish. And the biggest reason is the center of it all, Jack Black. This is not a portrayal of Gulliver but the same goofy oddball that he’s played in almost every movie he’s made. This character always tries to act cool, to act like he’s in the know, to create words of his own making to display how with it he is. The problem is that while it may have been funny the first time it has now become downright intolerable. Okay we get it Jack, you’re the goofball who pretends to be hip but who isn’t. Ha ha.

The jokes are some of the lamest ever written. That is if they were intended to be jokes. Who knows, there was never one moment that I found myself smiling let alone laughing. The acting is on par with junior high plays…I take that back. That would be an insult to junior high school actors. But perhaps its less their problem seeing as how most of these actors are quite good and thus the fault of the director.

Another thing that insults the audience is the special effects. In a time when we can make spaceships seem real, when we can make hobbits and orcs look like they could actually exists, the special effects displayed here seem lame. One would think they would outshine those seen in the 1960 film THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER but they don’t. I’m not even certain that children would be impressed with these effects.

But the main thing remains Jack Black. I like him. I loved his earlier films. He just needs to move forward. The same thing has happened with comedic actors in the past. As I said, Eddie Murphy went from making some of the best comedies around to making lame movies where he does the same thing over and over again. Robin Williams was another comedic actor who headed that direction until he finally realized that doing the same character with a different name won’t get people to watch your movie.

Black did a great job in KING KONG. I’d love to see him in another movie that pushed him to act rather than skate through a lame film. If he doesn’t his days are numbered. His acting here seems like an appearance on David Letterman. When that happens I change the channel. And as for this film to even pay a $1 rental would be paying too much.  I’m wondering if even renting this for free from the library would be worth it. Avoid this at all cost.

THE KING'S SPEECH: A KING IN NEED

There are many times when the film picked for best picture at the Oscars tend to be what many would consider the wrong film. Too often these days the award is given to a prestige picture, a film that no one saw and chances are that they won’t even though it won the award. Popular pictures seem to be ignored for more artistic films. This past year saw a marriage of the two, a film that not only entertained and did decent at the box office but that told a solid tale without resorting to simplistic feats. That film arrives on DVD this week, THE KING’S SPEECH.

Opening in 1925, the Duke of York, Albert Frederick Arthur George, was the younger of two brothers to King George V. Played here with a combination of weakness and strength by Colin Firth (who won the Oscar for best actor); Albert is a beaten man when it comes to all things royal. He knows his brother is heir to the crown and is fine with that. But he’s had a problem since childhood that affects him on a daily basis. He is quite tongue tied with a stammer that impedes him from making any speeches whatsoever.

Consulting doctor after doctor with the help of his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) he all but gives up hope. Then she hears of a doctor of a different sort, one who has a record of being able to help each patient sent his way.

Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) is unconventional at best. An Australian now in London, he takes on case after case while hoping to land a career in the theatre. With the arrival of Elizabeth and sworn to secrecy, he sets the ground rules. It is he who will decided if he takes the case or not and when in his locale both men become equals. To make his point, he takes to calling Albert “Bertie”, a nickname only members of the royal family have used in the past. While Albert isn’t aware, Lionel understands it’s not the symptoms that just need treated but the cause as well. And until Albert comes to grips with this, the cure will only be temporary.

The two men work on a daily basis as Lionel helps Albert overcome his fears to a certain extent. He does improve but near as much as he would like. Still unable to make a public speech, setbacks occur more often when he’s in the presence of his father or his more popular brother, Edward (Guy Pearce).

At present Edward isn’t quite so popular with his father. Haven taken up with a married woman named Mrs. Wallis Simpson doesn’t sit well with either his father or the countries politicians. Should he take on the mantel of King he would also be the head of the Church of England, a church that doesn’t believe in divorce or remarrying. And King he does become when his father passes away.

Forced to choose between his love of Mrs. Simpson and his duties to his country, Edward rescinds the crown and Bertie is now next in line to become King. With the help of Logue, he makes it through the ceremony and is now King George VI. But fires are burning across Europe. Hitler is on the move and soon makes his play in Poland. And now Bertie must gather together his strength and inspire a nation with a speech. Has all the work paid off or not?

Based on the true history of these two men, the film slowly develops not just the story but shows the development of the two men as well. One born into high society and the other the son of a drunk, they have little in common and yet learn more from one another than would be expected. And through their learning they become possibly the best friend that either of them has ever had.

Not only did the film win for best picture it also garnered Oscars for best screenplay and best director. It deserved them both. Not only that, Rush should have won for best supporting actor as his part is as important to the story as Firth’s character was. Did the film deserve the awards it was given? Most definitely. This is a story that inspires just with the tale alone. There are no outward heroics with guns blazing. Instead we are inspired by the courage of one man to face his fears, to overcome his disability and to become the voice of his nation.

The true test to me of a good film is if I would consider watching it again. So many films are fun once but not a second or even third time. This is a film that will remain on my shelf and on occasion come down to be watched again. It truly is that good. It’s not just a film that qualifies for a good rental, its worth owning.