Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:00 pmI'll have to make due with the DVD releases of "Lost World" and "Five Weeks In A Balloon" if we never get a Blu-Ray. The one annoying thing about "Balloon" is it's one of those older releases with widescreen on one side and full-screen on the other and that means I can't put the disc in a storage album! (I never put double sided discs in an album)

Just a heads-up -- this UK region-free Blu-Ray is extremely affordable (it's on the USA site but is over $20 and is erroneously tagged as an Italian import). You may be able to find it on Ebay also.

Entry says it's Region B not region-free. Is there something I'm missing?

It's definitely region free, I have it. Never trust an Amazon listing when it comes to region coding! Many times inaccurate....there are many UK discs listed as Region B which aren't actually region locked.

Best place to check is BD.com or the forums'


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Five-Wee ... ay/170247/

A trio of upcoming Kino Lorber Blu-Rays...

SEMI-TOUGH (1977)
6/10

Fresh off his success with the beauty pageant satire “Smile” and the classic little league comedy “The Bad News Bears” (both, inexplicably, still absent from the Blu-Ray format), director Michael Ritchie turned his attention to the world of professional football with “Semi-Tough.”

An adaptation of Dan Jenkins’ book scripted by Walter Bernstein, “Semi-Tough” follows the misadventures of players Burt Reynolds and Kris Kristofferson, whose Miami team is comprised of a predictable motley crew, from bawdy Brian Dennehy to introspective kicker Ron Silver. The team still manages a fair amount of success considering their penchant for excess – drinking, carousing, and hanging out with a number of women, including the daughter (Jill Clayburgh) of the team’s owner (Robert Preston), whom both Kristofferson and Reynolds share a seemingly platonic relationship with (note: that’s not going to last for long).

“Semi-Tough” was understandably not nearly as well-received as Ritchie’s previous two films, and it’s best viewed as a time capsule of its era instead of a portrait of pro football which, as it turns out, is just a side distraction for its lead characters and their relationships. There’s actually less action on the field than there is a lengthy trip to an EST-like seminar presided over by guru Bert Convy – who’s quite funny by himself, but this tangent in the film’s second half only adds to the movie’s unfocused narrative. What ultimately holds the uneven film together is the sheer chemistry of Reynolds – more likeable than usual here – and Clayburgh, along with the nostalgic scenes of roadside stops in places like the Ramada Inn, which should bring back memories for anyone who grew up during, or lived through, the era.

Kino Lorber’s “Semi-Tough” Blu-Ray offers an ok catalog transfer from the MGM vaults (1.85, DTS MA mono) that offers decent detail. An image gallery and the trailer are also on-hand.

ULZANA'S RAID (1972)
7/10

Robert Aldrich’s 1972 collaboration with Burt Lancaster is a strange, exciting and at-times befuddling western: a Vietnam allegory with Lancaster as a grizzled scout leading green cavalry lieutenant Bruce Davison and his company into the rugged terrain of southern Arizona. There, a renegade Apache (Joaquin Martinez) has been brutally slaying homesteaders en route to stealing as many horses as possible.

“Ulzana’s Raid” is briskly paced by Aldrich – it’s one of his shorter films – and offers notable performances from Lancaster, Bruce Davison, and especially Richard Jaeckel as a veteran commander working with his younger counterpart to stop Ulzana on Apache turf. Aldrich and writer Alan Sharp’s comparisons with Vietnam are obvious, and yet the Apaches are ruthlessly portrayed with jaw-dropping bursts of violence: it’s jarring to watch a teen sit idly by while his mother is shot dead by their would-be cowboy protector, who instead of submitting to Ulzana and his men, blows his own brains out. A scene shortly thereafter shows the Apaches tossing the man’s heart around as if they were playing a game – and all of this is made even odder by Frank DeVol’s sprightly underscoring, which sounds as if it could’ve been written for any number of old-fashioned sagebrush sagas from the 1950s!

This is not a particularly cohesive picture – some scenes have been obviously shortened and, indeed, Lancaster produced his own cut for overseas markets that reportedly accentuated his character. Yet, if you can overcome the at-times shocking tonal shifts and moments of outrageous violence, “Ulzana’s Raid” proves to be a worthwhile western that’s not overly preachy – it makes its point, but not at the expense of being entertaining.

Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray (1.85, 2.0 DTS MA mono) preserves Aldrich’s U.S. theatrical cut of “Ulzana’s Raid” in an acceptable, if obviously older, Universal master. Commentary from critic Nick Pinkerton and an interview with Davison are among the supplemental highlights, with another Trailers From Hell, this time featuring admirer John Landis, on-hand along with the trailer by itself.

THE WHISPERERS (1967)
6.5/10

Moody and starkly shot Bryan Forbes production is set in a dilapidated England where buildings and entire neighborhoods seem to be in the process of being torn down – something that matches the fragile mental state of its elderly protagonist, Mrs. Ross. As played by Edith Evans in a deservedly Oscar nominated performance, Mrs. Ross lives alone in an apartment, hearing voices and managing a fragile existence – at least until she’s preyed upon by a woman she meets at the local assistance board and is subsequently reunited with her estranged, no-good husband (Eric Portman)…yet in this instance, is that actually a good thing?

Forbes wrote and directed this adaptation of Robert Nicolson’s book, beautifully filmed in black-and-white by Gerry Turpin and sporting an effective dramatic score by John Barry. “The Whisperers” is a film that unfolds extremely slowly and keeps you off-kilter throughout, and Forbes’ most effective gambit is bringing the viewer to a point where you realize, at the conclusion, that Evans’ character is actually better off in her solitary existence. It’s not a great film – the material with Portman feels as if it’s come out of another story, and Mrs. Ross seems more mentally “capable” in some scenes than in others – yet it’s worth a look for its central performance and overriding atmosphere.

Kino Lorber’s attractive Blu-Ray hails from a sterling new 2K master (1.66) with high detail and perfect contrast levels. A commentary from Kat Ellinger and trailers round out this debut HD release of the film.

Penelope (1966) 6.5 of 10

-Finally, a home video release! It was great to retire an early 2000s non-anamorphic TCM recording. The transfer is excellent showing that stylish glossy New York City of 1960s color movies that seems a million years removed from the seedy, dark New York of 1970s movies. The great transfer highlights the film's strengths (the opening bank robbery scene, Peter Falk's scenes with Wood) but it also highlights the film's unevenness and fatal weakness (the bad Jonathan Winters scene and the film's last 20 minutes where Natalie is trying to get people to believe her and they won't). Still, there's more to enjoy for me with reservations and it's tied with "How To Steal A Million" for my favorite Williams 60s comedy score.

The Life And Death Of Peter Sellers (2005) 7.5 of 10
-Stumbled across this and I have to say that Geoffrey Rush is just outstanding. He nails every facet of Sellers throughout his last quarter-century that at times its like you're not watching an actor. The film gives us Sellers life from the time he got his first break in films after already being successful on radio up to just before his death. It offers a compelling look at how a man so gifted, IMO the most brilliant pure comic film actor I've ever seen, could also be so troubled and incapable of having an identity of his own.

-There are some offbeat parts of the telling in which Rush as Sellers, will at various points become some of the other figures like his father, his mother, his first wife, Stanley Kubrick, Blake Edwards and break the fourth wall to the viewer to give further impressions/insights of Sellers the man. It's a bit jarring at first, but it does fit the picture of Sellers as such a troubled, complicated figure. Events of his life are telescoped once we get past his divorce from Britt Ekland (nailed perfectly by Charlize Theron, despite being so much taller) in that we don't get the full scope of his Pink Panther comeback (they have to gloss over "The Party" because to show him working with Edwards at that stage would have complicated the film narrative), and they also cut out his final two marriages (there were scenes of his fourth wife filmed but deleted). But overall I was impressed.

PENELOPE (1966)
4/10

Silly early/mid '60s comedies haven't ever been a favorite genre of mine. The bad ones seem positively antiquated, most trapped between the confines of formulaic TV sitcoms and a big-screen arena that was a few years off from being able to embrace the more free-wheeling openness of R-rated fare.

The frivolous MGM comedy PENELOPE is one of those instances – a glossy star comedy that wastes the talents of Natalie Wood, here playing the bored housewife of a bank vice-president (Ian Bannen). She's so neglected, “Penelope” takes to dressing up as an old woman and pulling off a series of stick 'em ups – including a heist of Bannen's brand-new, just-opened establishment.

Co-starring Dick Shawn (Penelope's shrink), Peter Falk (warming up for “Columbo” as, what else, the lead cop working the case), and Jonathan Winters in an icky role as a college professor who tries to rape our heroine, only to inadvertently expose her to a (double) life of crime, “Penelope” looks good but fizzles in the laugh department. The overly manic tone established by director Arthur Hiller tries to compensate for an unfunny screenplay by George Wells, which adapted a well-received 1965 comic novel by E.V. Cunningham (Howard Fast) that was apparently based on the script.

The movie shows few signs of life, with the rampant artificiality of it – despite its widescreen trappings – punctuating how empty the film is. Even John(ny) Williams' early score proves to be an annoyance with its repetitive, obnoxious main title theme (written with Leslie Bricusse), though at least the score itself offers a few sprightly flourishes that give a small indication of the composer's abundant ability, and more substantial works, that would later follow.

Warner Archive's attractive Blu-Ray offers a sparkling 1080p (2.35) AVC encoded transfer and DTS MA mono of a movie making its home video debut in the U.S. The trailer and a brief promo feauturette featuring the great Edith Head comprise the extras.

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:25 pm Silly early/mid '60s comedies haven't ever been a favorite genre of mine. The bad ones seem positively antiquated, most trapped between the confines of formulaic TV sitcoms and a big-screen arena that was a few years off from being able to embrace the more free-wheeling openness of R-rated fare.

I have to admit I find these kinds of films more accessible precisely because they still couldn't cross certain lines. "Barefoot In The Park", "Sunday In New York" etc. fall into that kind of category as well and I'd rather sit through them (even a flawed one like "Penelope") then go through Natalie's comeback vehicle after this film's failure, "Bob And Carol And Ted And Alice" because that's when things were starting to get too "Free-wheeling" for my taste.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:35 pmI have to admit I find these kinds of films more accessible precisely because they still couldn't cross certain lines. "Barefoot In The Park", "Sunday In New York" etc. fall into that kind of category as well and I'd rather sit through them (even a flawed one like "Penelope") then go through Natalie's comeback vehicle after this film's failure, "Bob And Carol And Ted And Alice" because that's when things were starting to get too "Free-wheeling" for my taste.

I think Winters' attempted rape sequence is more offensive than anything in BOB AND CAROL AND TED AND ALICE!

Oh it's bad taste. No argument there and it throws the film off-course completely after a great beginning. I have to admit, I never liked Winters.

기생충 (Parasite) (3/10)

The first half of this film is a lighthearted, almost-funny comedy. A poor family cons its way into the employee of a rich one. No spoilers but things then take a turn about 2/3 of the way through. Parasite has a solid script, is well-acted, directed and watchable with a fair amount of suspense. But I also found much of the third act to be extremely unpleasant and excessively violent.

None of the characters are particularly sympathetic either, so there is no one to really root for. The poor family is conning the rich one, yet the former are ostensibly the protagonists, and the latter isn't harming anyone -- though perhaps being wealthy is a crime in itself and the film is trying make a statement about social inequality? I don't know. I'm not sure what writer-director Bong Joon-ho was on about (if anything). Crime doesn't pay? Con jobs are justified if one is poor? Rich people deserve their comeuppance for being rich? I'm baffled (or maybe just too dim to "get it"). Or maybe (like Tarantino) he just wanted to make a cool, violent movie.

But between this and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood I'm really starting to wonder about the collective mental health of the AMPAS.

That makes two of us. I'll be the first to admit it, I guess (or the second): I didn't get the movie at all. I felt it was a very Korean and Korean specific social commentary, because what it was doing and trying to say eluded me. Maybe if I could understand the native language it would've had an impact but I totally agree, it became unpleasant and just bizarre.

Another overpraised critical darling from 2019.

IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
6/10

What was basically sold as "The Mr. Rogers Movie" is really a bait-and-switch where Mr. Rogers (Tom Hanks) is nearly a peripheral part in a depressing family drama wherein acclaimed magazine writer Matthew Rhys has to come to terms with the relationship he has with his (ailing), estranged father (Chris Cooper).

The movie uses Rhys' profile of the TV icon as a springboard, kind of, for how Rogers and his PBS series tapped into, and understood, the feelings of generations of children -- with Rhys reconnecting (of course) with his dad and coping with long buried feelings as a result. Yet the manner in which the picture drops Rhys "into" the series, not to mention uses the show and its models to depict most exterior shots, is downright odd. I doubt these sequences were intended to feel like "The Twilight Zone" but it's how they play.

Aesthetically the film is dreary and unappealing -- too "gritty" and dark -- and the performances are similarly gloomy. Rhys basically repeats his "Americans" role and Hanks is a mixed bag -- the re-enactments of the show function effectively, yet his mannerisms and general delivery come off like a stroke victim at other times. And Rogers' singing voice wasn't nearly as off-key as Hanks'!

The end result is slow-going and maudlin -- despite all the positive reviews, it's easy to see why the film didn't take off commercially as the studio clearly hoped it would.

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:56 pm
But between this and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood I'm really starting to wonder about the collective mental health of the AMPAS.

PARASITE won everything.

SCENES FROM THE CLASS STRUGGLE IN SOUTH KOREA is basically it, and the Academy was in no mood to honor anything short of WOKE ville.

What a total farce.

Braveheart (9/10)

This is what I watched instead of the Oscars.

I actually hadn't planned to watch anything Sunday, but my niece texted and asked if I wanted to do a movie night, and as she'd wanted to see Braveheart for a while, I figured this was a good time.

It’s no exaggeration to say Braveheart holds-up incredibly well after 25 years. Whereas Spartacus (to which this movie is often compared) seemed like a product of its time in 1995, Braveheart today seems like a film that could have been made within the last decade (albeit with a considerably-better score than we are used to hearing these days).

Rife with valor, romance, and authentically visceral battle scenes, Braveheart is still probably the best film Mel Gibson has directed. While it might play fast and loose with historic authenticity (as have many films, actually -- as well as Shakespeare's historic plays it must be added), Braveheart makes up for it with a compelling portrait of a fight against tyranny and oppression (which carries a universal resonance that transcends time and culture).

Though dismissed (even by admirers of his film) as “a star trying to direct”, Gibson exhibits a high pedigree of invention in Braveheart — I consider the scene where Wallace returns to the village and exacts revenge on the English occupiers to be one of the most powerful ever put on screen. Likewise, Gibson’s unflinching depiction of a medieval melee — in gruesome, messy candor — was quite unlike anything we’d seen before.

The love story is equally compelling, and the sequence where Wallace courts Murron among the most touching and romantic ever put on screen. James Horner's music for these scenes is achingly beautiful, bursting with tenderness and longing, and Braveheart's love theme is easily the most beautiful he ever wrote. Indeed the score overall boasts some of Horner's finest work.

Gibson’s performance is equally praiseworthy, investing William Wallace with a larger-than-life heroism, masculinity and bravery, which results in one of the best screen characters of his kind.

Although Gibson’s personal reputation would suffer in the following decade, that does not (for me) diminish the absorbing power of Braveheart, a film of inspiring heroism and passion, which has been oft-imitated (its influence is all over Gladiator and Lord of the Rings) but never equaled.