Can’t Stop The Music is an ersatz autobiography of the band, charting their formation in New York’s Greenwich Village to a final, climactically fruity concert at San Francisco. A fresh faced, snake-hipped Steve Guttenberg plays Jack Morell (a thinly disguised Morali) who, after quitting his day job working in a record shop, decides to become a composer. A ten minute roller skating jaunt through New York set to a sickeningly optimistic disco tune later, he meets his landlady (Valerie Perrine) who happens to be an ex-supermodel with lots of contacts in the record business. After recruiting the Native American village person (Felipe Rose), the other members of the band join one by one and their place in disco folklore is assured.

Before we lose ourselves in its sanguine four-on-the-floor beats and relentless Eighties-ness, let’s get one thing straight: in a lot of respects, this movie stinks. The dialogue is terrible, the acting shonky and you could drive a bus through the holes in the plot.

However, I’m prepared to give this film a pass. If you can put your brain in neutral and disengage your critical faculties, it’s actually quite fun. There are a lot of memorable things that stick in the mind long after the film is finished. In every scene where Guttenberg is composing or arranging the band, he puts you in mind of Steve Martin in The Jerk, who has a crippling inability to clap in time to a beat. Leatherman (Glenn Hughes), with a ‘tache that would put Merv the Swerve to shame, gives a memorable rendition of ‘Danny Boy’ atop a grand piano, and there is a mindbending milk commercial that has to be seen to be believed. The music throughout the film is quite catchy, even though the lyrics were seemingly written by someone without English as a first language.

Special mention must be made of the rendition of the band’s biggest hit, YMCA. Filmed in an actual hostel, there’s stylised boxing, diving, gymnastics and cheeky male shower scenes galore, and more naked male flesh on display than is healthy for one person. It’s the gayest thing since Carry On Fisting (a film Sid James refused to talk about until his dying day), and it’s enough to turn Burt Reynolds ginger beer.

All in all, it’s a so-bad-it’s-watchable film. Not Star Wars Holiday Special bad, but Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad, which makes it okay in my book.

Amazingly, Soderbergh raised the $58 million budget entirely outside of North America which allowed him much more creative freedom. The result was a four and half hour epic that refused to champion or demonize Che and instead opted to objectively depict his rise in Cuba and his fall in Bolivia. This approach ultimately doomed Che’s chances in North America where, despite breaking the film up into two more digestible parts, it received limited distribution. Predictably, it divided critics and was criminally ignored by all of the major award ceremonies – rather fitting for a film about someone who refused to rest on his laurels, always hungry to get back to the jungle and get back to work.

I think that the key to understanding Del Toro and Soderbergh’s take on Che comes from an interview with director where he said, “clearly this is a guy whose priority is going into the jungle and starting a revolution. That is the most important thing in his life … If you take away all the words and just look at what he did, the guy kept going back into the jungle.” Del Toro and Soderbergh were faced with the daunting task of making a film about an iconic historic figure, someone whose image has graced countless t-shirts and posters. Che is an extremely polarizing figure and so it makes sense that they would step back and take a more objective look at the man. Then, it would be up to the audience to decide how they felt about him.

Those looking for a crowd-pleasing underdog story a la Erin Brockovich (2000) will be disappointed by Che. The famous Argentinean is not as easy to like as the scrappy Brockovich. As depicted in Che, he’s a much more complex individual. He cares about the cause and those that fight with him but does not feel the need to show a lot of emotion. When he’s in the jungle it is all about the task at hand and living in the moment. Che never loses sight of what his objective is and his conviction never wavers, not even in the face of death. He’s like a Method actor that stays in character on and off-camera during a shoot.

Part One juxtaposes Che’s efforts to remove Batista from power in Cuba in 1958 with him addressing the United Nations in 1964 and in doing so we see Che in his element, putting into practice guerrilla warfare tactics, and we see Che the superstar espousing his beliefs to the media in New York City and the international community at large. At first, the Bolivia campaign as depicted in Part Two starts off well enough with Che sneaking into the country and meeting with his fellow revolutionaries. We see them get supplies and train in preparation for the task at hand. However, the country’s Communist party refuses to support an armed struggle, especially one led by a foreigner. The support of the peasants, so crucial in Cuba, is lacking in Bolivia, making food hard to come by. A feeling of dread creeps in as government troops gradually close in on Che, cutting off any avenue of escape.

Soderbergh maintains an objective stance by refusing to show any close-ups of Che. We always see him from a certain distance and often grouped with others. During the battle at El Uvero on May 28, 1957, Soderbergh conveys the noisy, chaotic nature of combat as men are seemingly wounded at random but there is never any confusion visually about what is going on. Twice during the battle, he takes us out of it by having a voiceover by Che where he espouses his philosophy of guerrilla warfare. With a widescreen aspect ratio, Soderbergh opens things up in Part One and this is particularly evident during the battle scenes. In Part Two, this all changes, as the smooth camerawork is replaced with hand-held cameras and a more standard aspect ratio which creates a claustrophobic feel and look. The long takes and deliberately slow pace may frustrate some expecting a more traditional biopic but I found it a welcome change from the cookie cutter mentality of most Hollywood depictions of history.

During the Cuban campaign it is evident that Che is very much a man of the people, whether it is making contact with and befriending peasants that he comes across in the jungle or treating a wounded comrade. However, Che eschews character development in favor of showing the nuts and bolts of a revolution. As Che says at one point, “A real revolutionary goes where he’s needed. It may not be directly in combat. Sometimes it’s about doing other tasks … finding food, dressing wounds, carrying comrades for miles … and then, taking care of them until they can take care of themselves.” The film takes this philosophy to heart by showing the day-to-day activities of Che and his fellow revolutionaries. We see him dressing wounds, the wounded being carried through the jungle and strategizing with his men and Fidel Castro (Bichir).

Benicio del Toro effortlessly becomes Che and tones down his tendency to sometimes resort to Brando-esque acting tics (see The Way of the Gun) and plays the iconic revolutionary as a man confident of his own convictions. He conveys Che’s sharp intellect with his eyes and also does an excellent job with the physical aspects like his recurring asthma that constantly plagued him. Del Toro provides us insight into the man’s character through attitude, behavior and the way he acts towards others.

Che is ultimately a study in contrasts. What worked in Cuba did not work in Bolivia. Soderbergh’s film illustrates the differences. In Cuba, the revolutionaries were able to get the trust and support of the peasants while in Bolivia they feared the rebels. It must also be said that Castro played a key role in the success of the Cuban revolution and his absence in Bolivia, the galvanizing effect he had, is sorely missed. With Che, Soderbergh has created an unusual biopic that does its best to not try and manipulate you into feeling one way or another about the revolutionary. Instead, it shows two very different examples of the man’s philosophies put into practice and how they played out – one a success and the other a failure. Che was a polarizing historical figure long before this film came along and will continue to be long afterwards.

Special Features:

The first disc includes an audio commentary for Part One by Jon Lee Anderson, chief consultant on Che and author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. He starts off by calling Che a “hippie rebel,” and a product of the 1960s. He talks about the corruption and decadence of Cuba under Batista and how this provoked men like Che and Fidel Castro to start a revolution. Anderson provides extensive historical background to what we are watching which fills in a lot of gaps and often explains what is being shown, putting it into context.

Also included is a theatrical trailer.

The second disc sees Anderson return for an audio commentary for Part Two. He explains Che’s fascination with Bolivia at an early age and why he chose that country to start a revolution. He talks about the political conditions in Bolivia that made it ripe for a revolution. Like he did with Part One, Anderson provides the backstory and elaborates in detail on what we are watching.

The third and final disc starts off with “Making Che,” a 50-minute documentary that takes a look at how the film came together. It started with producer Laura Bickford and her interested in Jon Lee Anderson’s book. She got Benicio del Toro involved and they spent years doing research and deciding what part of his life to depict. The film’s screenwriters talk about the challenge of condensing so many events into one film and so Soderbergh decided to split it up into two films. The director explains his depiction of Che, including the omission of the man’s more questionable actions, and his approach to the film. This is an excellent, in-depth look.

There are ten deleted scenes from Part One with optional commentary by Soderbergh. He puts this footage in context and explains why it was cut. These scenes provide some insight into Che and it’s nice to be able to see them.

Also included are four deleted scenes from Part Two with optional commentary by Soderbergh. Much of this footage illustrates Che’s philosophy of guerrilla warfare.

“End of a Revolution” is a 1968 documentary about the aftermath of Che’s failed revolution in Bolivia, the origins of it and a look at the forces that prevented it. The featurette begins with stills of Che’s dead body and a journalist describing the scene, his voice full of emotion. The doc does a nice job of profiling Bolivia and its people; for example, we see the brutal living and working conditions of the tin miners.

“Interviews from Cuba” features interviews with participants and historians of the Cuban Revolution conducted by producer Laura Bickford and actor Benicio del Toro. The participants talk about how they met Che and their impressions of him. They also discuss their views on the revolution. The historians talk about the key influences on the revolution and take us through significant moments of it.

Finally, there is “Che and the Digital Cinema Revolution!” Soderbergh’s film was the first feature to use the Red digital camera because of its quality and versatility in the terrain he would be shooting in. He did not have a lot of time to shoot Che and needed a camera that would allow him to shoot fast and not require a lot of artificial light. The cameras almost weren’t ready for the start of principal photography but Soderbergh stuck to his guns was able to get them just in time. This doc does a nice job taking a look at the challenges of using the Red camera and how it was the ideal technology for this particular film.

With his death came the inevitable increase in sales for his music and DVDs as he topped the download charts with Man in the Mirror and his music videos were bought en masse once again, as though it were the mid eighties. The mid eighties was Michael’s peak, when the Bad album spawned five US number ones and the movie Moonwalker was released.

Moonwalker was a Michael Jackson extravaganza. A movie that featured documentary clips of Michael and the Jackson Five, some of Michael’s music videos and a short story about Michael saving the world from drug obsessed crime baron Mr Big (played by Joe Pesci).

Moonwalker starts with a live performance of the download number one single Man in the Mirror before going into the documentary montage that takes you through the early days of Michael’s career, from his debut, through his Grammys and through the many highs that he enjoyed.

The movie also features the music video for the bonus track featured on the Bad album CD version, Leave Me Alone, which perfectly sums up Michael’s career and his relationship with the media.

The actual plot of Moonwalker finally kicks in as Michael stumbles onto the evil plans of Mr Big, causing him to be a marked man. Michael is chased by Big’s troopers, only to transform into a high performance car (way before Michael Bay got his hands on Transformers) and speed off towards the 1930’s Chicago club for the famous Smooth Criminal music video. This is perhaps Michael’s greatest video and without doubt the highlight of the movie, as Michael makes his way through the club to the tunes of Smooth Criminal, dispatching bad guys as he goes.

The finale of the film sees Michael take on the whole of Big’s army, before Transforming again into a giant robot, and then a spaceship.

This movie comes from the genius mind of Michael Jackson. It may not flow as a normal, narrative driven, movie would, but this doesn’t disguise the brilliance of Moonwalker. It’s escapist, it’s imaginative, it’s pure Michael Jackson.

The only downside to this DVD release is that it doesn’t feature any special features, but Michael Jackson’s numerous other DVDs more than make up for that.

The film traces Biggie’s (Woolard) humble beginnings as an aspiring rapper and drug dealers on the streets of Brooklyn, which provided him with plenty of material for his songs and also gave him all kinds of opportunities to hone his rapping skills as he battled local rappers. His strict mother (Bassett) tries to keep him on the straight and narrow but it is a losing battle and she finally kicks him out when he misses too many days of school.

Along the way, Biggie gets a girl pregnant and serves a small stretch in prison while his mom provides emotional and spiritual support. Once he gets out, Biggie shifts his focus to rapping and comes to the attention of up-and-coming music producer Sean Combs (Luke). With Combs’ guidance and business savvy, Biggie starts earning some serious money, as well as launching both of their careers. Notorious covers Biggie’s friendship and feud with Tupac Shakur (Mackie) and his turbulent relationships with Lil’ Kim (Naughton) and his wife Faith Evans (Smith).

The casting for this film is spot-on as the filmmakers opt for a cast of largely unknowns that don’t actually look like the famous people that they are portraying but do an excellent job of capturing their spirit and, in many cases, their swagger and attitude. This is epitomized with newcomer Jamal Woolard who plays Biggie. He doesn’t really look like the rapper but he’s got the speech and mannerisms down cold, especially his rapping technique – he did all of his own rapping in the film. He also gives some depth to this iconic figure by showing several sides – the confident rapper and the guy who loves his mom.

With Notorious being an officially sanctioned biopic, it is somewhat of a surprise that it doesn’t shy away from Biggie’s womanizing – the abandonment of the girl he got pregnant and his daughter for Lil’ Kim only to leave her for Faith whom he marries only to cheat on her while on tour. The film does a nice job of charting Biggie’s rise to fame and fortune with solid direction by George Tillman, Jr. who certainly has an affinity for the material. The film does tend to marginalize and simplify Lil’ Kim (who has bad-mouthed the film in the press) and simplify the whole East Coast/West Coast feud between Tupac and Biggie by basically absolving Biggie of any responsibility for what happened. Of course, there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding what went down, including their respective deaths, that we will probably never know the truth. As far as biopics go, Notorious is pretty good and does a decent job dramatizing Biggie’s life, while providing a vibrant snapshot of the rap game in the mid-‘90s.

Special Features:

The first disc allows you to watch either the theatrical version or the extended director’s cut.

There is also an audio commentary by director George Tillman, Jr., co-screenwriter Reggie Rock Bythewood, co-screenwriter Cheo Hodari Coker and editor Dirk Westervelt. Not surprisingly, the emphasis is on how the film got made with all kinds of anecdotal information about the production.

Also included is a commentary by producer/Biggie’s Mom Voletta Wallace, producer/Biggie’s co-manager Wayne Barrow and producer/Biggie’s co-manager Mark Pitts. As you would imagine, this track is all about Biggie’s life and the accuracy of the film.

The second disc contains the bulk of the supplemental material. “Behind the Scenes: The Making of Notorious” takes a look at how this film came together. Biggie’s mother had read all kinds of books and seen documentaries about her son and wanted to do her own take. The filmmakers saw a lot of people for Biggie but it wasn’t until Ms. Wallace saw Jamal Woolard that the producers knew they had found the right person. Derek Luke talks about the challenge of playing someone like Sean Combs. The filmmakers shot on location, often on the same streets and places that Biggie frequented to add to the authenticity of the project.

“I Got a Story to Tell: The Lyrics of Biggie Smalls” takes a look at Biggie with DJs, friends, families and journalists sharing stories about the man and praising him. They also laud his ability as a storyteller.

“Notorious Things: Casting the Film” examines the challenge of casting roles for famous people who are mostly still alive and not to do a simple imitation. We see audition footage and soundbites with the actors who were cast in key roles. Some of the actual people comment on the actors playing them.

“Biggie Boot Camp” was a three to four month program to transform key cast members into rappers. The filmmakers hired a dialect coach and choreographer to get these people ready to play their famous counterparts. The director takes us through the process with behind-the-scenes footage.

“Anatomy of a B.I.G. Performance” takes a look at how they created a Biggie Small’s concert and which performances they picked for the film and why.

“Party and Bullshit” features actual archival footage of key performances in the film. It is amazing how well it was recreated.

“The B.I.G. Three-Sixty” allows you to see how the filmmakers recreated Biggie’s murder. They did a lot of research and shot on location.

Finally, there are 10 deleted scenes that feature more of the events leading up to Biggie’s murder and, of course, more of him rapping and establishing his reputation.

The film begins in 1894 when Chaplin was a child and watches his mother (Chaplin) bomb on stage only to go on in her place and win over the hostile audience with his singing. His family is dirty poor and faces hardships like something out of a Charles Dickens story. With the help of his older brother, Chaplin gets a chance to perform on Vaudeville where he hones his comedic chops, and in particular, his knack for physical comedy.

Chaplin travels to the United States and discovers (and becomes fascinated) by the cinema. As luck would have it, he ends up getting a job appearing in films directed by Mack Sennett (Aykroyd) and learns how films are made. Chaplin works his way up until he directs and stars in his own motion pictures, starting his own movie studio. In addition to chronicling Chaplin’s rise in show business, the film also takes a look at several of his personal relationships with various women in his life: teenage actress Mildred Harris (Jovovich) and actress Paulette Levy (Lane), who is more Chaplin’s intellectual equal.

There are awkward jumps in time as in one scene, Chaplin angers a dancer (Kelly) backstage, and in the next one they are on a fancy date in which he proposes marriage to her. Attenborough tries to cover this with a framing device that has an old Chaplin dictating his autobiography to a writer (Hopkins) who complains that he is omitting the more painful aspects of his life. Attenborough faithfully recreates some of the most memorable bits in Chaplin’s films and Robert Downey Jr. uncannily inhabits this role. Not only does he do a credible English accent, but he does a great job replicating many of Chaplin’s signature moves. This earned Downey numerous critical raves and it’s just a shame that the rest of the film wasn’t up to his level.

Attenborough takes a page out of Oliver Stone’s book and populates Chaplin with an all-star cast that not only enhances the film’s drawing power but also helps the audience keep track of who everyone is. It’s not that Chaplin is a bad film it’s just not a terribly engaging or extraordinary one. For such an intriguing person who led such a fascinating life, the film feels rather flat and uninspired. Compare it to a film like Tim Burton’s Ed Wood (1994), which is vibrant and has real affection for its subject matter, conveying it to the audience passionately. Attenborough’s Chaplin lacks this passion.

Special Features:

“Strolling into the Sunset” features director Richard Attenborough talking about how hard it was to get a biopic about Chaplin made and then casting someone to play the man. He also talks about all the hard work and homework Downey did in order to portray Chaplin. The legendary star’s biographer, one of the film’s producers, and Chaplin’s son also offer their thoughts.

“Chaplin the Hero” takes a look at Chaplin’s global appeal. His genius as a performer on a purely visual level appealed to people of all ages all over the world because they could identify with the simple yet truthful messages in his films.

“The Most Famous Man in the World” examines Chaplin’s rise to fame, from his early days in Vaudeville to film. Once he started making films, Chaplin’s fame grew even more and at a dramatic rate.

“All at Sea: Chaplin Home Movie” features an excerpt from an amateur film shot by young journalist Alistair Cooke while on vacation with Chaplin and Paulette Goddard in the summer of 1933. Chaplin looks relaxed and happy as he goofs around for the camera.

Finally, there is a theatrical trailer.

Alexander is Stone’s take on legendary historical figure Alexander the Great (Farrell), one of the greatest warriors and rulers the world has ever known. At 18 years of age, he set himself an ambitious goal: to the rule the known world. He started with Persia and began to work his way east towards India. Along the way, Alexander is torn between his love for his best friend, Hephaistion (Leto), and his desire for a son with his barbarian wife, Roxane (Dawson).

Angelina Jolie portrays Alexander’s mother, Olympias, as some kind of vampish snake charmer/soothsayer with an outrageous accent straight out of a bad Dracula movie. Val Kilmer plays Alexander’s father, King Philip, as if he’s still trapped in Stone’s Doors (1991) movie but one in which Jim Morrison never died instead time traveling back to 350 B.C. He and Jolie’s first scene together is a contest to see who can chew up more scenery with Kilmer winning by an eye, or rather the lack of one.

The first significant change in this new version is that Stone has moved the battle of Gaugamela to the beginning of the movie. This sets up Alexander as a brilliant tactician early on and also establishes his bravery in battle and his devotion to his men. After this visceral spectacle, the film takes a breather and flashes back to Alexander’s childhood.

However, this new cut doesn’t fix the film’s other flaws, like the miscasting of Colin Farrell, Jared Leto and Jonathan Rhys-Meyer who all look lost in Stone’s bloated, gonzo epic. They don’t sell their lines with the same kind of conviction as Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer and Anthony Hopkins who seem to have a better understanding of what Stone is after. Farrell gamely immerses himself in the role but he is out of place in a period piece like this one. He also spends too much time crying and being angst-ridden to be a truly charismatic figure. This new cut does fix this latter problem by giving him more screen time.

As befitting of the sword and sandal epic genre, there are plenty of solemn speeches, bloody battles on a grand scale, lavish costumes and sets, and heated arguments with lots of shouting and pontificating. The battle scenes are effectively visceral as Stone wisely doesn’t try to copy Gladiator (2000) but going for a more straightforward, classical style, like Troy (2004) — only with more blood and gore. This new cut also spends more time exploring Alexander’s complex relationship with his parents (especially his manipulative mother) and restores more of his bi-sexual nature that was cut out for conservative North American audiences.

The problem inherent with tackling a subject like Alexander the Great is that much of his life is shrouded in mystery and myth. Stone’s film is destined to become a camp classic with its hammy acting and laughably pretentious dialogue that evokes his Conan the Barbarian (1982) screenplay but without John Milius’ muscular direction. On some level, you have to admire the dedication of the cast. They spout Stone’s sometimes ridiculous, over-heated dialogue with conviction and aren’t afraid to let it all hang out. This new cut offers more of the same and definitely plays better with this longer running time. The story is given time to breathe and to develop without the constraints of a typical theatrical running time. Sadly, Alexander is still a mess of a movie but a fascinating one nonetheless.

Special Features:

Just an introduction by Stone who justifies this cut of the film’s existence.

Like Citizen Kane (1941), Nixon traces the dramatic rise and fall of a historical figure who tried so hard to be loved by all but ended up being infamous and misunderstood. While Orson Welles’ film was a thinly-veiled attack on newspaper tycoon, William Randolph Hearst, Stone paints an almost sympathetic portrayal of Richard Nixon. Stone may not like Nixon personally, but he does try to explore what motivated the man’s actions and really get inside his head. More importantly, Stone’s posits this thesis: the American political system is an unpredictable entity that politicians have no hope of ever fully controlling. The best they can do is keep it in check most of the time.

Stone began to explore this theory in JFK (1991) but it wasn’t until Nixon that he was able to fully articulate it. Stone’s film argues that Nixon really did want to institute change and make a difference in the world, but his own shortcomings, coupled with the complex infrastructure that is the U.S. political system, ultimately led to his downfall. Anthony Hopkins’ stunning portrayal of the former President humanizes this historical figure. >From the way the film is shot and edited, we are seeing the events of >U.S. history through Nixon’s perspective. This approach also helps in creating a sympathetic portrait of the man. Hopkins wisely does not opt for a Rich Little imitation but instead captures his essence and his spirit. It’s a wonderfully layered performance that Hopkins hasn’t equaled since.

Opposite Hopkins is Joan Allen as Pat Nixon. She more than holds her own with the Academy Award winning thespian portraying Pat as a long suffering yet incredibly strong-willed wife who has to sit by watch her husband strive for unattainable goals. This is not one of those token wife roles that is so often seen in these kinds of movies. The well-written screenplay and Allen’s performance flesh out Pat Nixon into a three-dimensional character.

As always, Stone’s knack for casting is impeccable. Much like he did with JFK, Stone surrounds his leads with an impressive roster of big names in the supporting roles: James Woods, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, David Hyde Pierce, Paul Sorvino and in a restored scene, Sam Waterston delivers a deliciously chilling performance as CIA Director Richard Helms.

What is perhaps most stunning about Nixon is the style of the film. Employing the editing techniques and innovative camerawork he perfected in JFK and Natural Born Killers (1994), Stone has created a unique version of the historical biopic that combines fact and speculation with a cinematic style that blends various film stocks into a seamlessly layered complex narrative. This fractured, overtly stylized approach draws attention to the fact that the we are watching a movie. Or rather, we are seeing historical events through the prism of Nixon’s perspective.

Special Features: On the first disc are two audio commentaries by Oliver Stone. The menu simply calls them Commentary A and B with no other distinction than that. The commentaries have their share of dead air but considering that this is a three and half hour film, I’m willing to forgive Stone for the occasional lull.

Commentary A covers the performances, style and script of the movie, while Commentary B delves into the politics and history of the period. Commentary A is the more entertaining of the two as Stone offers his personal observations on the film. He has a wicked sense of humour and, as always, isn’t afraid to speak his mind. For example, during the scene between Nixon and Helms, Stone mentions that Helms is the one person he’d like to interview in-depth regarding the Kennedy murders and the secrets of the country, but only if the filmmaker could utilize all sorts of “torture techniques” as he wryly puts it. Commentary B is good in its own right as Stone discusses a lot of information that the film assumes the audience already knows and identifies who is who and their function in the narrative. This is extremely helpful as it is very easy to lose track of who everyone is in this rather large and diverse cast. This commentary maybe of more interest to history buffs but Stone’s save it from being dull to the casual viewer.

The second disc features ten deleted or extended scenes, some of which, like the meeting between Nixon and Helms, have also been edited back into the movie. Stone provides an introduction for each scene that puts the footage into the proper context within the film.

From the original DVD is also included the five-minute electronic press kit fluff piece that feels more like an extended movie trailer and the theatrical trailer.

To balance out the superficial EPK is an excellent 55-minute interview Stone did with Charlie Rose. Even though he can be long-winded and pretentious at times, Rose asks superb, in-depth questions and clearly does his research. He knows exactly the right questions to ask Stone making this the best extra on the disc.

Nixon is a powerful historical biopic – arguably the last great one to come out of Hollywood. This two-disc set is a fantastic improvement over the original DVD. Perhaps the inclusion of a documentary on the real-life Nixon would’ve been nice for a different perspective on the man but this is a minor quibble. Nixon is well worth picking up for fans of Stone’s films and students of United States history.