I've been watching a bunch of DVDs of late. Here are some!

J. Edgar

Director Clint Eastwood's low-key biopic of J. Edgar Hoover, the founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), probably surprised some people. Some audiences may have thought Eastwood — known for his more conservative politics — might have presented a whitewashed vision of the man who held onto power by having private files on Washington players.

Instead, Eastwood presents story of a very conflicted person and does so in a non-exploitative way. Perhaps this approach wasn't also satisfying to people who see Hoover as a villain.

What I liked about the film is that Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black succeed in showing a portrait of an undeniable patriot and an uncontrollable paranoid; a man who was concerned about his image, more than his accomplishments; and a man who fought to create a federal policing agency, but also abused it.

Ultimately, "J. Edgar" is about a man who fights against many personal odds to achieve a goal, but the very nature of how he achieved those goals destroyed the legacy he so desperately wanted to have.

From capturing bank robbers in the 1930s to fighting Nazi spies in the 1940s, Hoover found himself unable to change with the law enforcement challenges of the last 20 years of his career. He fought acknowledging the existence of organized crime and looked for communist ties in anyone whom he believed was questioning the status quo.

Leonardo DiCaprio is amazing in the role. Although he looks nothing like Hoover, DiCaprio, with the help of minimal makeup, transforms himself into the stubby bulldog.

DiCaprio's performance is matched by Dame Judi Dench, who plays Hoover's controlling mother and Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, Hoover's second in command at the FBI and his lover.

Eastwood doesn't shy away from the issue of Hoover's homosexuality, but nor does he allow it to become the central theme of the movie. He effectively conveys the irony that Hoover sought to find out secrets about potential political opponents in order to protect his own secret.

The film has a washed-out look, which adds a certain documentary feel to it. Eastwood effectively hops back and forth to different times in Hoover's life, but manages to keep the narrative from becoming confusing.

It's a shame the Academy ignored the film. DiCaprio certainly deserved a nomination, as did Eastman. It's a fascinating drama, especially for those of us who remember J. Edgar.



Bounty Hunters


If I was teaching a class in film as I did for years at Western New England University, I would be tempted to screen this new release as an example of how to make a low budget action exploitation film.

"Bounty Hunters" is a modest Canadian production starring former wrestling star Trish Stratus. Rule number one: have at least one person in the cast with some sort of name value who would appeal to the intended demographic.

The story is straight forward: a team of bounty hunters must decide if they are going to accept a bribe of $1 million to return a gangster to the local crime boss who wants to kill him so he can't testify against him. Rule number two: keep the story simple.

Rule three: give the audience what they want to see. Stratus can convincingly say a line and is quite beautiful, but she also can deliver the goods in the numerous fight scenes. That's what the audience of this film wants to see.

So is there violence, is there some gratuitous nudity? The filmmakers respect the expectations of the audience, as there is a brief scene in a strip club. Stratus, though, keeps her clothes on.

Rule five: keep it brief. This film keeps rolling straight ahead and doesn't try to add more exposition than need be. Again, they know their audience.

Rule six: will it rent at the Red Box? Oh, yes. Stratus will sell.

Is the film watchable? I didn't hit the fast forward button once. Would I ever watch it again? No. Is it groundbreaking in some way? Oh, no, but that is not the intent.

This film is all about watching a former WWE star kick some backside and shoot some guns. If that's your standard in entertainment, then rent this one today.



London Boulevard


Generally, I like the recent spate of British crime films — such as the Guy Ritchie movies and "Layer Cake," to name several — and I had high hopes for "London Boulevard."

The film marks the directorial debut of William Monahan, the writer of "The Departed," and is based on a well-received crime novel.

Colin Farrell plays Mitchel, a man who has just been released from prison after a three-year term. We're not sure what he did to get into prison except it was violent, but we do know that he doesn't ever want to go back. Despite a reunion party for being a stand-up guy, Mitchel simply wants to live his own life outside of organized crime.

That isn't going to be easy as Gant (played with intensity by Ray Winstone), a local crime boss, sees potential in Mitchel and wants him to lead a loan shark operation.

As Mitchel tries to keep Gant at bay, he struggles to deal with his sister, a multi-level addict, and a new job he has fallen into: helping Charlotte, a reclusive movie star (played by Keira Knightley) with odd jobs and keeping the paparazzi away.

The conflict with Gant and a growing love affair with the actress come to their respective heads and Mitchel puts forth a violent plan to rid himself of the crime boss permanently to start his new life.

As a director, Monahan gets a lot of things right, but there are details that color the story that are obscured, such as Gant's sexual identity and if Mitchel was raped in prison. Part of the reason American audiences may not fully understand such plot points is due to the English accents and colloquialisms. I had a hard time following the dialogue in some scenes.

The irony about Knightley's character is that Charlotte complains she has been receiving movie roles in which she is there simply to tell more of the hero's story and that is exactly what happens in this film. There is not much of an opportunity for Knightley to develop her character and instead Charlotte comes off as self-indulgent and wacky, instead of sympathetic.

Farrell carries the film, though. At his core, his character is an essentially decent man who wants to take care of his sister and protect Charlotte and Farrell reveals his character's intentions in an effective, low-keyed manner.

So despite the flaws, I was enjoying the film until the end, which was very unsatisfying. There is a difference between a movie with film noir aspirations and a clunky bummer, but Monahan apparently doesn't understand the difference.

"London Boulevard" is an interesting film, but not a successfully told story.



Devil's Rock


OK, the trailer looked pretty damn intriguing and I was in the mood for a solid horror film. Alas, the budget limitations kept this New Zealand horror film from being a satisfying guilty pleasure.

The premise, in true exploitation film tradition, is a riff off a successful film property — in this case, "Hellboy." In the "Hellboy" films, Ron Perlman plays a demon who had been summoned by the Nazis during World War II but was rescued by the Allies and fights evil.

In this film though, two New Zealand commandos accidentally discover that Nazis have conjured up a demon they intend to use as weapon against the Allied invasion. The only problem is that our two heroes find it's not going so well for the Nazis.

The demon, who appears as the woman a person loves, has killed and eaten the unit with the exception of its commander.

The film takes place primarily on two sets and quickly becomes a three-character enterprise: a commando, the Nazi and the demon. Although there are some good performances, the movie's thin budget shows through by a lack of action and special effects.

It is also another film that ends in a way that is scarcely satisfying.

With a larger budget, the film might have gone places far more interesting. Director Paul Campion, who also co-wrote the script, shows some ingenuity in his staging of the film, but the cheap claustrophobic nature of the production ultimately defeated him.



The Ides of March


With Americans finding themselves knee-deep in this year's presidential race, George Clooney's latest effort as a director certainly hits home with a powerful look at how campaigns are run and the morality of those who run them.

Clooney plays a sitting governor, Mike Morris, who's running for the Democratic nomination. He is facing a tough race in the pivotal state of Ohio. If he can win that state, he will be the frontrunner and an almost cinch for the nomination.

What we start to learn is that it doesn't matter what ideas Morris presents to voters, but how his campaign manager Paul Zara (played with a realistic combination of competitiveness and fatigue by Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his second in command, Stephen Meyers, (Ryan Gosling) do behind the scenes.

Where Zara is the seasoned hand, Meyers is still the idealist, who declares he wouldn't work for Morris if he weren't ethical and moral. Morris shows early on a willingness to buck conventional wisdom to stick to his philosophical guns.

Something happens, though, and I'm reluctant to provide too many details — so I won't — that causes Meyers to question his own beliefs and descend to a level to which he never thought he would go.

Clooney is not the central character in the film. It is Gosling's picture and he does well portraying a guy whose life and livelihood is very much hanging in the balance. Like Clooney, much has been made about Gosling's looks, but also like Clooney, he can carry a film well.

"Ides of March" features a tight script, co-written by Clooney, as well as effective direction. There is a ring of truth throughout the film including the central theme: should you support a flawed man who would do the right thing as president?

Although I though the ending of the film was premature — there was the potential for more of the story — I did think this was one of the finer political films I've seen in a long time.



Dr. Who: The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe

Dr. Who: The William Hartnell Years

Dr. Who: The Peter Davison Years


BBC Home Video has recently released not only the most current Christmas special for the venerable British science fiction series but also two other DVD collections of two of the other 11 actors who have played the time lord.

If you're not familiar with Dr. Who, summing up more than 40 years of programs, movies and specials will be a somewhat difficult task, but I'll do my best. The Doctor is the last of his kind, an alien from a destroyed world who can travel through time and space in a vessel known as the Tardis, but looks like a British policeman's box.

Always eccentric in his dress and demeanor, he is accompanied by at least one human companion and is often at odds with a number of reoccurring villains, perhaps the most notable are the Daleks, creatures who live inside robotic bodies and bent on universal domination.

"Dr. Who" has the most original and handy plot device to explain the change of the actor in the lead role. The Doctor changes into a new person — with residual memories — every time he dies.

Although originally designed for children, since the series revival in 2005, the emphasis has been on more adult stories resulting in a new audience, some of whom were fans as children and some who have discovered the show recently.

"Dr. Who: The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" is the latest Who production, broadcast this past Christmas. Matt Smith plays The Doctor with a lot of humor, but at the same time, the ability to express anger as well. In this show, set in the midst of World War II, he attempts to make the Christmas of a widow and her two children as happy as he can by constructing a time and space portal to a world where the snow-covered trees look like an image from a Christmas card.

The curious little boy opens the package early and The Doctor finds out more is happening on this planet than meets the eye.

Like any great pop culture property — Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, and the Lone Ranger — there is no effort to explain who is The Doctor, which might put off some new viewers, but this production is well worth the time of neophytes.

Although I'm not a great "Dr. Who" fan, I do enjoy many of the episodes I've seen and this one was first-rate with an interesting premise and some heart-felt emotion.

The other two collections feature the first Doctor, played by William Hartnell, and the fifth Doctor, Peter Davison are for dedicated fans. The slow-moving black and white Hartnell shows are short on action and on budget, while the show selected for the Davison collection shows a marked improvement in budget and technology, but is a little confusing.

Nostalgia probably helps the viewing of these collections.



Wake Wood

Years and years ago, it was possible to make a very good guess what studio made a particular film just by watching it and looking at the credits — no peeking allowed at the studio logo.

Hints were in the form of the cast and crew, the look of the film and its subject matter. Fans of 1930s movies can tell you what the difference was between a film from Paramount and Warner Brothers, for instance. In the 1960s, it was easy to spot many films released by American International Pictures.

Hammer Films from Great Britain certainly had identifying markers. The studio excelled in period horror films from the late 1950s to its demise in the late 1970s. It launched the career of Sir Christopher Lee in roles such as Dracula and furthered the stardom of Sir Peter Cushing, who came to the studio as a significant television star.

Not every Hammer film was a gem, but it produced enduring classics such as “The Horror of Dracula,” “Kiss of the Vampires” and “The Devil’s Bride,” just to name three.

The art direction always made full use of its budget and the studio had talented, if under-appreciated, directors such as Terence Fisher. Hammer films were noted as well for their lush musical scores and a repertory company of character actors.

Hammer was one of the last studios to establish and maintain a style and one wonders if the new Hammer is going to do the same. Film fans around the world recognized the old Hammer brand.

I was one of those fans who knew that a film made by Hammer had a good chance of at least being an enjoyable throwaway film, if not something I’d want to see again.

A newly reconstituted Hammer — not unlike one of the creations Cushing labored over in his “Frankenstein” series — has reemerged and in the last two years has released several films with its newest production, “The Woman in Black,” starring Daniel Radcliffe about to hit American movie screens.

I certainly intend to see “The Woman in Black” next month and I recently received the DVD release of one of the studio’s new films, “Wake Wood.”

“Wake Wood,” would have broken the old Hammer mold if the previous studio bosses had considered making it. It’s a contemporary film set in Ireland with an appropriate use of bloody scenes but no sexual tease. It doesn’t star anyone associated with the horror genre, although the superb character actor Timothy Spall, who had a reoccurring role in the “Harry Potter” series, is prominent in the cast.

Nor is the film directed by someone with experience in the horror genre.

“Wake Wood” is the story of a married couple, Patrick (Aiden Gillen) and Louise (Eva Birthistle), a veterinarian and a pharmacist, whose daughter is killed in a dog attack.

The couple is overwhelmed by grief and leave their urban home for the small bucolic village of Wake Wood to start over.

By accident they discover a secret: Wake Wood is the home of a group of pagans who perform a ritual that allows a dead family member to return to the living for three days. It is used to allow the grieving to say a final goodbye and find some peace.

Louise is desperate to see her daughter again and the couple agrees to take part in the ritual, but when their daughter Alice returns, there is something dreadfully wrong.

The script is, at least initially, pretty formulaic. Director David Keating tells the story in a competent straightforward manner with a sure hand on the shock sequences, but the story itself is predictable. It only starts to change gears a bit in the last third.

The conclusion is a surprise, although it violates the logic of the story.

A fairly effective film, especially if you’ve never read or heard of the story “The Monkey’s Paw,” “Wake Wood” falls into the category of enjoyable timewaster, rather than classic.

It will be interesting to see how this new Hammer builds its brand and if such a thing is possible in the motion picture industry of today.



Brighton Rock

The British gangster film has been defined by director Guy Ritchie in the last few years with movies such as “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” and “Snatch,” but this adaptation of Graham Greene’s 1938 novel is more old school.

You won’t find flashy editing or grimly humorous characters in “Brighton Rock.” This film owes more to the British social dramas of the 1960s and American film noir.

At its heart, the film is about whether or not the central character of Pinkie, an ambitious thug willing to ignite a gang war in the English resort community of Brighton, is beyond redemption.

Many classic gangster films are about the rise — and fall — of a powerful criminal, such as “Little Cesar,” “Public Enemy” or either version of “Scarface.” This film follows that format to a certain degree, but Pinkie never makes it to the heights of the title characters in those films.

Pinkie is the junior member of a threadbare gang who kills, instead of scares, a rival gang member. His situation is complicated by the fact there is a material witness to the crime, Rose, a very innocent waitress working in a restaurant on the Brighton pier. He knows that he has to keep her quiet somehow and decides to woo her.

Ida, Rose’s boss, knew the murdered man and she starts to realize who Pinkie is and that Rose plays a role in the affair.

As events and the rival gang boss start to close in on him, the question is whether or not Pinkie sees Rose’s love as his redemption or if he plans to just kill her.

This is the first feature film for director and writer Rowan Joffe and it’s an auspicious start. Although it is a period film, it’s not set in 1938, but moved to 1964 when the clash between British youth groups were at their height.

Sam Riley gives an award-worthy performance as Pinkie, a kid who is trying to prove himself, while Helen Mirren shines as Ida. Andrea Riseborough strikes the right notes as Rose.

If film noir and crime films are of interest to you, check out “Brighton Rock.”



Don’t be Afraid of the Dark


I think the best horror films are those that strip any adult logic from you and return you to a child-like state in which simple noises and shadows can cause gooseflesh, much less ideas and images.

This film does pretty well in making its audiences remember what it was to be a kid and scared of things that logic and common sense should discount.

It does so without a big serving of gore but with a fairly sympathetic central character and a really good monster — or monsters.

Alex (Guy Pearce) is an architect who has moved into his new project — renovating the home long closed that once belonged to a distinguished artist. All is going well until his daughter, Sally, shows up. It seems her mom has other priorities and has dumped her on her ex.

The only person who welcomes Sally’s arrival is Kim (Katie Holmes), Alex’s girlfriend and designer. Sally (Bailee Madison) rejects her attention and retreats to her room where she hears voices telling her things she wants to hear.

Although there is a sizable logic problem that happens during a key section of the film, first time feature film director Troy Nixey did an admirable job with a script by Guillermo del Toro and Matthew Robbins, which is based on the original film of the same name made for television in 1973.

For horror fans who like their films moist with blood, this film might be weak tea, but for those of us who like a little more subtlety, “Don’t be Afraid of the Dark” is quite good.



© 2012 by Gordon Michael Dobbs

Time for some DVD reviews as I haven't posted any in quite some time:

The Strange One


I had the pleasure of interviewing Ben Gazzara several years ago when he appeared at CityStage in a one-man play on the life of Yogi Berra.

Even with a diminished vocal capacity Gazzara turned in a masterful performance that was compelling to this non-baseball fan.

That's why I was eager to see "The Strange One," released on DVD for the first time. It was Gazzara's first film role - in fact, he was the star of the film - and it's a fascinating look at a near pathological bully.

The title gives little indication of the film's story. Gazzara is Cadet Jocko DeParis, an upperclassman at a military college located somewhere in the deep South.

DeParis is a smooth talking, highly intelligent guy who has mastered how the college works. His latest exercise is to punish a faculty member who disciplined him by engineering the discharge of his son from the college. He does so in a way that implicates four other cadets who all realize that if any of them come forward they will all be discharged.

Shot in 1957, the film has a strong contemporary feel to it by implying visually the segregation of the time as well as noting in the dialogue the strong prejudice against anyone deemed "foreign" or "un-American."

The 100-minute film moves very quickly and the drama is compelling, as the young cadets must grapple with doing the right thing or saving themselves.

Some reviewers have noted a gay character in the film that provides another layer of social criticism. Paul E. Richards played a cadet nicknamed "Cockroach" by DeParis. Despite the abuse, Cockroach is drawn to DeParis and has based a novel on his exploits.

The film features other early performances by Pat Hingle, James Olson and George Peppard. Arthur Storch almost steals the show, though, as a freshman cadet who appears like Peter Lorre and is a pathological liar and coward.

Even when scene-stealers are on camera, "The Strange One" is always Gazzara's show. It's a fascinating film.

The extra for the disc is a new interview with Gazzara about the making of the film.

Tell No One


I'm not a big French film fan, so this title was positioned toward the bottom of the review pile, but I'm very glad I watched it. This murder mystery is a top-notch thriller that understands how to keep an audience on the edge of its seat.

Francois Cluzet plays Dr. Alexandre Beck, a successful pediatrician who has loved his wife since they were kids. She is brutally murdered and he is the prime suspect until the evidence pointed to a serial killer who is caught and convicted.

Eight years later he is still mourning her death and there is now new interest in the case when two bodies are discovered at the site of her killing. The police are now interested again in Beck, who is acting a tad suspiciously because he received an e-mail with a video from his long-dead wife.

Director Guillaume Canet wrote the screenplay based on the book of the same name by Harlan Coben and clearly Canet understands how a suspense film is supposed to work.

I think a reference to the work of Alfred Hitchcock is an appropriate compliment for this film. Canet doesn't try to copy Hitchcock's style, but the story of the unjustly accused hero is right out of the Hitchcock canon.

The film has an English soundtrack for those of you who are subtitled impaired, but as always I like hearing the inflections of actors even if I can't understand their language.

With solid performances, an involving plot and plenty of surprises, "Tell No One" should be at the top of your pile.

Elsewhere

Low budget horror and suspense films are a dime a dozen, but "Elsewhere" stands above the crowd. This independent production stays away from the standard elements of the genre - there is no nudity and very little on-screen violence.

In other words, writer and director Nathan Hope wants to present something more mature, something a little deeper than the typical horny-soon-to-be-dead teenager movie.

"Elsewhere" is set in small town in Indiana. Sarah (Anna Kendrick) has a pretty standard teen life of high school, a part-time job and coping with life as a child of divorce.

Her best friend Jillian (Tania Raymonde) has a greatly different life. Sexually active and dying to get of the town, she cruises for guys through her Web page. She plays the dangerous game of even meeting some of them and one day she disappears.

Her mother doesn't care. The police won't investigate. Only Sarah is concerned, along with another high school friend.

She discovers that Jillian isn't the only girl from the wrong side of town to have vanished in the past several years.

Part "Nancy Drew," part 21st century cautionary tale, "Elsewhere" develops into a pretty solid little thriller. Hope is also a cinematographer and although he wasn't behind the camera for this movie, the film has a great look that few low budget features have.

The performances are surprisingly good with Kendrick delivering an effective but low-keyed characterization and Raymonde - who has been a regular on "Lost" and "Cold Case" is bitter but vulnerable as Jillian.

"Elsewhere" is well worth checking out.

The Hunger Season One

It's difficult to produce a horror anthology series these days that breaks new ground. The two shows associated with the late writer Rod Serling - "The Twilight Zone" and "Night Gallery" - still pack a punch decades after their original run on television.

I fondly remember "Tales from the Darkside," back in the 1980s, that was partly the brainchild of famed horror director George Romero. I never cared much for "Tales from the Crypt" or "Freddy's Nightmares," although those shows did have their fans.

The "Masters of Horror" series on Showtime, featuring hour-long productions directed by people such as John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, Stuart Gordon, Dario Argento and Joe Dante, was pretty impressive.

Not having Showtime in the 1990s, I missed "The Hunger," another anthology show, which is now out on DVD in a four-disc set.

All of these shows have to have a point of view or specialty to make them stand out and "The Hunger" is no exception. Its gimmick isn't a crypt keeper; it's sex and nudity.

Although I'm no prude, I have to say that in the episodes I watched from this set - sorry, I didn't sit through all 616 minutes of it - the sexual scenes seem a little forced into the narrative.

The other problem is the writing as a whole is a bit weak with predictable endings or endings that make you scratch your head in wonder.

Perhaps there are some good episodes in this set, but I couldn't find them.

The Three Stooges Collection Vol. 6, 1949 to 1951

Let us now sing a song of Shemp -- Shemp Howard that is - and the center of attention in this new volume of Sony Home Video's on-going collection of the Three Stooges.

When I attended UMass back in the 1970s, Three Stooges film nights were highly popular and many were presented on campus with a sign outside the door of the hall assuring "No Shemp." Curly Howard was the preferred third stooge, but frankly this collection shows that Shemp -- who took over for Curly in 1946 - was pretty damn funny.

Shemp had been part of the act before his younger brother Curly joined it and struck out on a solo career in 1932. He was a successful and busy comic character actor in a long list of films and came back to the act only when Curly had suffered a stroke.

While Curly was frequently an almost surreal comic creation, Shemp's humor was more grounded in a sort of reality - if you can call the world of the Three Stooges "real."

Shemp's character struck a balance from the odd non sequitur humor of Curly and that of an actual human being.

This collection has some nicely polished short subject gems. The Columbia short subjects had the advantage of using the studio's standing sets from its feature films, which gave them a more expensive look than other shorts.

If you're an ardent Curly fan, I probably can't convince you this collection of 24 short is worth the money, but I know I would never hang a "No Shemp" sign at my door.

Defiance

This film came and went in theaters rather quickly and that is a shame, as director Edward Zwick's latest historic drama is a very moving film about a relatively unknown chapter of World War II.

In 1942, the Bielski brothers were forced to escape into the forest by the effort of the Nazis to hunt down and kill all the Jews they could in Poland and nearby Belarus. Eventually, as other people joined them, they formed both a resistance group that would engage the Nazi troops as well as a community that grew to 1,200 by the end of the war.

Tuvia and Zus Bielski, who settled in the United States after the war, didn't seek publicity for their actions, but historians of the resistance movement in Europe know their story.

Under Zwick's hand, this is not merely a war movie, but a film that examines how people behave under the duress of a situation such as war. The Bielskis were not saints, nor soldiers, but people who reacted in the best possible way to the horrible events they endured.

Zwick, who also directed "Glory" - another movie that shows a little known side of a well-documented war - is very capable to staging the battle scenes, but even more so in addressing the relationships between the brothers and their growing community.

Daniel Craig gets top billing as Tuvia Bielski while Liev Schreiber portrays Zus Bielski. Although Craig has had a long list of credits to his name before he donned the mantle of James Bond - a potentially restrictive career move - he shows here once again that he is a solid actor who is more than an action movie star. Schreiber confirms he is one of the most intense actors working on the scene today.

The extras include the obligatory "making of" featurette as well as a fascinating look at the Bielski brothers from the perspective of their children and grandchildren.

This film is well worth seeking out.

© 2009 by Gordon Michael Dobbs