It didn’t and received negative press over the portrayal of a Black Confederate guerrilla played by Jeffrey Wright. There were rumblings of problems between Lee and the studio suggesting that what he originally envisioned did not make it to the big screen. With this new version, created exclusively for the Criterion Collection, Lee takes another crack at Ride with the Devil in an attempt to restore the film to his original intentions.

Set during the Kansas-Missouri border wars, an informal outfit of southern sympathizers known as the Bushwhackers engaged in vicious guerrilla warfare with the occupying Union army and their northern equivalent, the Jayhawkers. Caught up in this chaos are two best friends, Jack Bull Chiles (Ulrich) and Jake Roedel (Maguire). Jake’s father wants him to leave the state for a safer place as war is imminent, but he wants to stay and fight with his friends. Jack’s father is killed by marauding Jayhawkers which makes it pretty easy for him to pick a side to fight on. A year later and Jack and Jake have joined the Bushwhackers and are killing Union soldiers and sympathizers. We learn that, for some, like Black John Ambrose (Caviezel), they fight for the cause, while for others, like Pitt Mackeson (Meyers), they enjoy killing. The film follows Jack and Jake, and those around them, over the course of the war showing how it affects them and alters their lives forever.

The cast acquits themselves just fine but I didn’t quite buy Tobey Maguire as a hardened southern guerrilla fighter. He looks and sounds like he’s still rooted in a contemporary setting despite the period garb and dialogue. The real surprise is Skeet Ulrich who has been sometimes referred to as the poor man’s Johnny Depp. Here, he does a good job of immersing himself in his role. He has gone on to show an impressive range on television with a lead role in the short-lived Jericho. The always reliable Jeffrey Wright has perhaps the most fascinating arc over the course of the film as his character goes from a subservient African American fighting for the South to a self-emancipated man in charge of his own destiny.

Ang Lee displays a knack for action in the shoot-outs that occur sporadically throughout the film between the Bushwhackers and the Union army. He infuses a sense of tension and danger through editing as people are killed our wounded without a moment’s hesitation. Like the Civil War epic that came after it, Cold Mountain (2003), Lee’s Ride with the Devil doesn’t shy away from the brutality of the violence or its after-effects, culminating in the Lawrence, Kansas massacre where almost 200 men died at the hands of the Bushwhackers. The film also shows the harsh living conditions that these people endured as they tried to evade the Union army. While Ride with the Devil is not Lee’s best film, it certainly isn’t his Heaven’s Gate (1980) either. Perhaps this new version will acquire its share of admirers where the previous one did not.

Special Features:

There is an audio commentary by director Ang Lee and producer/screenwriter James Schamus. They start things off by talking about the source material and the origins of the film’s title. Schamus explains that at the time they made Ride with the Devil, the studio was in turmoil and the film was given a brief theatrical release, never finding its audience. They point out the footage that was put back in and the reasons why. Both Lee and Schamus praise the young cast and talk briefly about what some of them brought to their respective roles. This is an engaging and informative track.

Also included is a commentary by cinematographer Frederick Elmes, sound designer Drew Kunin and production designer Mark Friedberg. Surprisingly, these guys put what we are watching in some kind of historical context. In fact, they talk at length about the historical aspects. Naturally, they also cover some technical aspects of the film but in a way that isn’t dry or boring.

Finally, Jeffrey Wright is interviewed exclusively for this DVD. He talks about working on the film and how he felt that it took a sophisticated look at race relations in America. He talks about his initial impressions of Lee and how he got the role. Naturally, the ever-eloquent Wright speaks at length about his character and journey he takes over the course of the film.

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.

Adapted from an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story of the same name by Eric Roth, the Academy Award-winning screenwriter for Forrest Gump (1994), there was speculation that Fincher had finally sold out and was going for the gold with an Academy-friendly film. While Benjamin Button was nominated for 13 Oscars, it only won three technical-oriented awards and once again Fincher came up empty handed. Is this film really the director kowtowing to the establishment or has he managed to yet again sneak a subversive message under the radar?

In New Orleans, on the eve of Hurricane Katrina, a very old woman named Daisy (Blanchett) lies on her deathbed as she tells her daughter (Ormond) the story of a clockmaker (Koteas) who lost his only son in World War I. He builds a clock that runs backwards as a gesture, a hope that all those who died in the war could come back to life, including his son. The clock, like the film’s protagonist, epitomizes time in reverse even if the rest of the world is not. Daisy asks her daughter to read from the diary of a man she knew named Benjamin Button (Pitt).

Benjamin was born at the end of World War I. However, as a baby, he looked like a miniature old man. Horrified, his father (Flemyng) took the baby and dumped the child on a stranger’s doorstep. A kind lady by the name of Queenie (Henson) takes young Benjamin in and raises him as if he was one of her own. Like the clockmaker’s clock, Benjamin ages in reverse – the older he gets in years, the younger he looks physically. He’s raised in a nursing home and is surrounded by death and those at the end of their lives while he’s just at the beginning of his, which gives him an odd outlook on life as you can imagine.

In 1930, Benjamin meets Daisy as a little girl while he still looks like a little old man. He confides in her his condition and a bond between them is established that will last their entire lives. As soon as he’s old enough and physically able, Benjamin strikes out on his own, acquiring life experiences, like working on a tugboat, traveling all over the world, and helping tow in ships destroyed during World War II. All of the people he meets have a story to tell – the tugboat captain (Harris) who is a tattoo artist or the woman who tried to swim the English Channel or the man hit by lightning seven times – and he learns something from all of them.

Something seems to happen whenever Fincher and Brad Pitt work together. They always seem to bring out the best in one another and this is no different. Pitt exudes a warmth that has never been evident before and he makes us care about what happens to Benjamin. Early on, Pitt is able to convey an openness as his character experiences new feelings, meets new people and grows up. Benjamin enjoys meeting people and listening to their adventures but he is not a passive, blank slate. He seizes opportunities to have his own adventures and see as much of the world as possible. In recent years, Pitt has really come into his own as an actor and improved with age, using his clout to push through fascinating films like Babel (2006), The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and now Benjamin Button, arguably his best performance to date.

Fincher has also entered a new, fascinating period in his career that began with Zodiac and continues with this moving meditation on the passing of time and what it means to get old. We are the sum of our parts and of what we have learned (or haven’t learned) from our life experiences. Fincher’s trademark meticulous attention to detail is incredible with this film, from recreating 1930s New Orleans to New York City in the 1950s, he transports us to another time and place, which is what films are supposed to do. Benjamin Button is filled with beautiful imagery, like the scene where Benjamin and Daisy take a tugboat ride in the early morning fog, or the eerie, late night attack on an enemy submarine, or Daisy dancing seductively for Benjamin in the moonlight. There are also magical, intimate moments, like the late night conversations Benjamin has with the wife (Swinton) of a spy in the kitchen of a hotel in Russia. Fincher has created an intimate character study on an epic scale.

Special Features:

The first disc features an audio commentary by director David Fincher. He talks about the arduous task of applying Cate Blanchett’s old age makeup and how it affected her performance. He talks about how they avoided sappy sentimentality whenever possible. Fincher also talks about how they cast various roles in the film and what they were looking for. He tells all kinds of interesting and engaging filming anecdotes about the challenges of shooting on location with his trademark dry sense of humour. This is another outstanding track by Fincher as he offers eloquent observations and tells entertaining stories.

As with all special edition DVDs of Fincher’s films, Benjamin Button documents various aspects of the production in detail. Entitled, “The Curious Birth of Benjamin Button,” this making of documentary is broken down into several digestible sections.

“The First Trimester” documents the pre-production phase and Fincher kicks things off with a surprisingly moving preface where he recounts the death of his father and how that drew him closer to the material. This section takes us through the origins of the project and how Steven Spielberg almost did it with Tom Cruise. We go through the long screenwriting process that lasted several years. We also see Fincher and his crew scouting locations that would span several years and countries. Also included are storyboard and art direction galleries.

“The Second Trimester” examines principal photography with all kinds of behind-the-scenes footage. We see several sets being built with various key crew members talking about their work on the film. Several major cast members talk about how they got involved and their impressions of the film and of Fincher’s legendary reputation. We also get to see how the tugboat was built on a soundstage where all of its scenes were shot. There is fascinating insight into the elaborate aging makeup. Aspects of costume design are also covered, including a gallery.

“Third Trimester” takes a look at the film’s groundbreaking visual effects. We see, in great detail, how they seamlessly digitally grafted Brad Pitt’s face onto other actor’s bodies. It is amazing to see just how much work was involved. We also see how they did the CGI for the tugboat scenes and other things, like the background plates for scenes that took place in exotic locations. Other aspects, like sound design and Alexandre Desplat’s atmospheric score, are examined. It’s great to see Desplat at work and interview soundbites where he talks about his working method.

“Birth” features footage of the film’s premiere in New Orleans with the cast and crew reflecting on the experience of making the film and what it means to them. Also included is a gallery of production stills.

Finally, there are two theatrical trailers.

Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman) is a headstrong English aristocrat who travels to Northern Australia in 1939 to meet her husband at their ranch Faraway Downs. Within a few minutes of arriving, she meets her guide to this strange new land, a man known as the Drover (Jackman), a hard-drinking, two-fisted Australian version of a cowboy. They take an instant dislike to each other: she thinks that he’s crude and uncultured and he thinks that she’s too prim and proper.

They arrive at Faraway Downs to find her husband dead (apparently at the hands of an Aboriginal) and the ranch in disarray and in danger of being foreclosed. Mr. Carney (Brown), the local tycoon with a monopoly on the local economy, has his right-hand man, Mr. Fletcher (Wenham) try to sabotage Lady Ashley. In order to save Faraway Downs, she has to drive 1,500 head of cattle to Darwin and so she enlists the help of the Drover. Along the way, they befriend a young Aboriginal boy named Nullah (Walters) whom she protects from being taken away and forced to assimilate with white folks.

As with his previous films, Luhrmann populates Australia with broad, stereotypical characters and tells a classic story. The film revels in archetypes: Ashley is a pure, upstanding woman, the Drover is the rugged western hero, Fletcher is the dastardly villain, and Nullah is the adorable child who narrates the story. As he proved with is previous films, Luhrmann has an uncanny knack for casting. Who can forget the undeniable chemistry between Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes in Romeo + Juliet and the sparks that flew between Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge!? He’s at it again with this new film with the casting of Hugh Jackman and Kidman as the romantic leads.

Jackman finally fulfills those early comparisons to Clint Eastwood as he plays the Drover as a tough, dependable hero who’s not afraid to show his vulnerable side. He’s never been more charismatic as he proves to be equally adept at the physical demands and the emotional range that the role requires. No one knows how to photograph Kidman quite like Luhrmann. She looks stunning, even covered in a layer of dirt and dust from a cattle drive. At first, her stuffy English aristocrat comes off as a cartoonish stereotype but as her character becomes acclimatized to the country and she develops a bond with Nullah, she becomes warmer and more empathetic.

Beginning in 1939 and climaxing with the Japanese bombing of Darwin in 1942, Luhrmann’s Australia mixes the larger-than-life melodrama of Gone with the Wind (1939) with the exciting cattle drive in Red River (1948) and with a dash of The Wizard of Oz (1939). His film clearly harkens back to the kind of cinema that they just don’t make anymore with very little CGI used and everything built from scratch and on location. Australia is the kind of ambitious Technicolor epic that might have been made by John Ford or George Stevens. It is a marvel of absolutely stunning cinematography – only Luhrmann could make the desolate outback look vibrant and alive. He alternates between sun-drenched day scenes and night scenes that appear to be impossibly illuminated by the stars.

One should not go into Australia expecting realism. Luhrmann presents a mythologized take on his country. Love him or hate him, you have to respect Luhrmann for not being afraid to wear his heart on his sleeve. He’s arguably the most romantic filmmaker working today with the possible exception of Wong Kar-Wai. And with Australia, he has made an unabashed love letter to his homeland on a grand scale.

Special Features:

Not much – two deleted scenes. One features the Drover convincing Ashley to stay after her husband dies and another featuring an angry staff serving Ashley dinner. Luhrmann has said in interviews that he’s planning a special edition DVD later this year making this version strictly a rental.

It’s been a year since Peter (Moseley), Susan (Popplewell), Edmund (Keynes) and Lucy (Henley) were in Narnia and they long to return. As if to answer their wishes, the subway station they are in is magically transformed into a beach in Narnia. They find out that in Narnia time, over 1,500 years have passed and the magical creatures are almost extinct. A malevolent race of humans known as the Telmarines rule the land led by King Miraz (Castellitto). He tries to assassinate his nephew, Prince Caspian (Barnes) so that he can become king.

However, Caspian narrowly escapes and takes refuge in the nearby forest where he finds solace with the remaining Narnians. Not surprisingly, he’s not too popular with them because of what his people have done. Caspian pledges to help the Narnians regain their freedom but his people quickly prepare to wipe out the Narnians once and for all. The wild card thrown into the mix is, of course, the four children who fight alongside Caspian and the Narnians.

As one character puts it, Narnia is a much more savage place and quite different from when we last saw it. Everything is in ruins and all the magical creatures, that once thrived, are very much in the minority. There seems to be a much greater emphasis on plot and story and less on character, which is a shame because what made the first film so enjoyable was the interaction between the four children. In Prince Caspian, they’re too busy giving orders or strategizing. That being said, Peter Dinklage is very funny as a sarcastic dwarf while Eddie Izzard provides the voice for a very precocious mouse.

Prince Caspian is certainly a darker film than The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, with much more at stake. Creatures that were once enemies are now allies against a common foe. In some respects, this film has the same kind of epic battles and sieges as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), only without the proper balance of compelling characters and large scale battles.

Special Features:

The first disc features an audio commentary by director Andrew Adamson and actors Ben Barnes, Georgie Henley, Skander Keynes, William Moseley, and Anna Popplewell. They talk about doing some of their own stunts and riding horses while Adamson points out which scenes were shot in various countries. They shot the majority of the film on location as opposed to the first film which relied mostly on sets. Everyone tells all kinds of filming anecdotes on this engaging track.

The second disc starts off with “Inside Narnia: The Adventure Returns,” which takes a look at what motivated Adamson to make another Narnia film. Originally, he wasn’t interested in making another big budget film on such a large scale than the first film but enjoyed working with the four children and found a way to personalize the material.

“Sets of Narnia: A Classic Comes to Life” examines how the filmmakers translated the book’s sometimes sparse descriptions into detailed sets. It’s nice to see that they used actual locations and constructed sets whenever possible.

“Big Movie Comes to a Small Town” takes a look at filming a small town in Slovenia. It is surrounded by mountains and has a beautiful river that the filmmakers used for a crucial set piece in the film. At one point, a crew of 1,200 people moved into this small town to work on the film.

“Previsualizing Narnia” examines the prep work done with rough, computer animation so that the filmmakers could have an idea of what the film would look like.

“Talking Animals and Walking Trees: The Magical World of Narnia” takes a look at the fantastical creatures in the film and the role nature plays in the story.

Also included are 10 deleted scenes with audio introductions by Adamson. This footage fleshes out certain characters and the relationships between them but ultimately was repetitive or unnecessary.

“The Bloopers of Narnia” is a collection of blown lines, physical slip-ups and goofing around that is fairly amusing to watch.

“Secrets of the Duel” examines how they shot the film’s climactic swordfight between Peter and King Miraz, including all of the prep work that went into it – choreography, costumes and gear.

“Becoming Trumpkin” takes a look at how Peter Dinklage became his character, including the make-up applications.

Finally, there is “Warwick Davis: The Man Behind Nikabrik,” which examines an average filming day for this veteran genre actor, including hours in make-up and so on.

300 is a fast ‘n’ loose take on the Battle of Thermopylae between the Spartans and the Persian army. The Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Butler), faced incredible odds. There were only 300 of them and thousands upon thousands of Persians. The film begins by establishing the harsh, war-like nature of the Spartans and how their society works. Trouble arises when Persian messengers arrive in Sparta telling Leonidas to submit to their leader, Xerxes (Santoro). Naturally, he rejects their offer by killing the messengers.

Leonidas is eager to take the battle to the Persians but the Oracles disagree. It is against Spartan law to disobey them but, hey, Leonidas is the king so he assembles 300 of his best warriors and they set out to find the Persian army. The Spartans find just the right geographical location that allows the Persian army to funnel in making their vast numbers irrelevant so long as the Spartans don’t lose too many of their army. The Persians send wave after wave of men to die at the hands of Leonidas and his very determined men. As the battle drags on, Xerxes throws all kinds of variations at the Spartans: a giant, a heavily armoured rhino, a wave of arrows that blots out the sun and even crude grenades.

Gerard Butler is suitably buffed up for the role and gleefully chews up the scenery with rousing speeches to rally his troops when all looks lost. He’s got plenty of charisma to spare and convincingly portrays a leader of men, the kind of king that men would follow to the gates of Hell if he ordered them. Like Russell Crowe did in Gladiator, he commits fully to the role and sells the clichéd dialogue as if it was Shakespeare.

Director Zack Snyder films everything through a sepia filter giving 300 the look an old photograph. It’s a stunning film to behold with every frame looking like it came right out of Miller’s comic book. The battles are viscerally depicted with plenty of limb-hacking, decapitations and bone-crunching violence to satisfy any action film fan.

300 blends the epic sword and sandal brutality of Gladiator (2000) with the cutting edge SFX and the pulp sensibility of Sin City. The voiceover narration is the epitome of cheesy pretension, laughably solemn, giving the film an appropriately pulpy vibe, but pulpy times call for pulpy dialogue. One really has to enjoy 300 for what it is – an exciting thrill-ride with loads of lofty pronouncements, R-rated violence, monsters and beautiful women. Oliver Stone’s Alexander (2004) might have been more successful if it was more like this film. If they ever try to make another Conan the Barbarian film, they’ve got their visual blueprint. Snyder understands that this film’s strengths lie in its breathtaking visuals and that the dialogue is merely window-dressing. This is melodramatic, visual storytelling at its purest.

Special Features:

The single disc edition features only an audio commentary by director Zack Snyder, screenwriter Kurt Johnstad and director of photography Larry Fong. Snyder tends to dominate the track, pointing out images in the film that come straight from Miller’s comic book. He has an annoying habit of continually pointing out what was added later with CGI by often saying, “That’s a CG shot,” and so on. There are also too many lulls as the participants get caught up in watching the film. This is a pretty disappointing track.

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.

Big time.

Longer and darker in tone, The Two Towers opens with a ‘what really happened with Gandalf and the Balrog’ sequence that immediately sets the heart racing. And this is a good thing seeing as there’s another three hours of the stuff to get through. Meanwhile Sam and Frodo continue their trek towards Mordor, and finally come face to face with Gollum: (“The thieves. The thieves. The filthy little thieves!”) In the book he was perhaps more openly evil and ugly, yet Serkis plays Gollum with an irresistible child-like charm that simoultaneously hides a murderous longing for the ring.

Frodo makes Gollum be their guide into Mordor; a decision which Sam (and the audience) know will only end in treachery. Serkis and the effects team at Weta have created a fully interactive character (Jar Jar who?) so believable that after the first ten minutes you almost forget Gollum is just a bunch of zeros and ones on a Kiwi’s Applemac.

Whereas Fellowship was about team effort, Towers is about breaking up that team into separate narratives and goals. Saruman is getting stronger, ready to unleash his feed n’ grow army of nasties, while Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are still on the trail of kidnapped Hobbits Merry and Pippin.

New characters take their first bows; Treebeard, another tour-de-force by Weta, voiced by Gimli actor John Rhys-Davies, King Theoden (Bernard Hill), Wormtongue (Brad Dourif), princess Eowyn (Otto) and Boromir’s brother, Faramir. Dourif revels in these sorts of slimebag roles, and you either want to laugh or wince at his performance. This is, after all, his best shot at anything resembling Shakespeare. Hill isn’t much better, and it’s only Otto who really strikes a chord in the land of Rohan, where Aragorn and his buddies come seeking help. We’ve only seen her in small roles so far over here, in The Thin Red Line and What Lies Beneath, and it may surprise some to know she’s older than twenty-five, but she’s more than a match for Aragorn on screen and soon enough there’s a love triangle going on, with Arwen still stuck in Rivendell with Agent Smith- oops, I mean Elrond.

The movie climaxes with the epic battle at Helm’s Deep with Saruman’s army, and it’s hard to recall when our generation has seen such a true series of epics like this on the big screen. Jackson unleashes shot after shot of CGI/model genius that makes you coo like a baby. He’s always been technically adept (see the underrated The Frighteners for proof) but literally nothing like this has ever been attempted on film.

Stand-out scenes include Gollum’s schizophrenic one on one, Frodo’s creepy experience in the dead marshes and a close call with a black rider.

An Oscar snubb will not be glossed over this year – not least because Christopher Lee has threatened to get medieval on academy voter’s asses if they favour another middling Ron Howard film over Tolkien.

On the down side, you do leave the cinema with a numb backside as well as a light head, and without much sense of closure. LOTR virgins won’t know what the hell is going on, and book devotees may grumble at things being juggled about or removed entirely (spidey Shelhob has been retained purely for part three). Gimli seems to have adopted a slapstick routine not found in the books, but such a pompous, stubborn character is the obvious choice for such comic relief; Having Aragorn fall off a horse and splutter “I meant to do that!” just wouldn’t work as well.

So the narrative flow is in question, but this is film two of three remember, and when cinema is this good, do we really care about nitpicking the little details? Roll on Return of the King.

Every once in a while a film comes along that redefines everything that has gone before. Benchmarks in excellence if you will. Star Wars, Jurassic Park and now The Lord of the Rings fall firmly into that category.

Many decreed that Tolkien’s trilogy was un-filmable, and to attempt such lunacy would result in unequivocal failure. However the little round Kiwi chap known as Peter Jackson did more than just try. He breathed life, energy and anything else that his talent could muster into what has become one of the greatest masterpieces of all time.

Over two thousand years before the events of this film, a dark lord named Sauron forged a ring that housed all of his evil. This ring gave him the power to enslave all Middle Earth. The Elves and Man joined together to form a mighty army to defend Middle Earth against Sauron’s power. A ferocious battle saw Sauron defeated and the ring lost for centuries. It has now been found by a Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. The ring gives its owner immortality, and corrupts their hearts with its evil. No one is able to wield this ring without becoming a tool for its power, as it answers to only one master; Sauron.

Only Frodo Baggins appears immune to the ring’s power, but even he shows signs of weakness at times. For the sake of all Middle Earth the ring must be destroyed, and a ring with that much power can only be destroyed the same way in which it was created – by being cast into the fires that forged it. For this task the fellowship is formed: Gandalf the Wizard, Frodo Baggins and his friends Sam, Pippin and Merry, Aragon the warrior, Boromir the soldier, Gimli the Dwarf and Legolas the Elf; the fellowship of nine.

With a tale as iconic as this, one which basically gave birth to modern fantasy, the scope for disappointing people was immense. How do you make a film of a story that is known and loved by so many people? The first to thing to note is that you can’t compare the films to the books. When you read a passage of a book, no matter how vividly and in how much detail something has been described, the way in which it is visualised by the reader is always different. Therefore when the same event is produced on screen you’re seeing someone else’s visual interpretation of the passage, not your own.

That said, it’s unlikely that anyone could have any grievances with Peter Jackson’s version, no matter how imaginative they may have been whilst reading Tolkien’s work.

The characters, locales and effects are so richly recreated that this film genuinely feels like a blockbuster, unlike so many others of recent years. Upon seeing this three hour experience it leaves you with one thought, and one thought alone. ‘I want to see The Two Towers, now’. As the trilogy of movies was shot simultaneously surely that’s not an unreasonable request? I wish I’d waited until December before watching this, so that I could run straight out to the cinema and see the second part.

No review of this film would be worth its salt if it didn’t mention the effects present therein. Wow! That about sums it up. Imagine a dungeon full of orks, battling it out with an Elf, a Wizard, a Dwarf and a Warrior. Then a giant cave troll enters and starts swatting wildly at anything that moves. These scenes have never existed outside of some Dungeons and Dragons gamer’s mind until they were brought to beard stroking life in Lord of the Rings.

This film also requires no prior knowledge of Tolkien, or The Lord of the Rings books from the viewer. It only asks that you wish to be entertained. But if you are a fan, even if it’s just of fantasy, you’ll be overwhelmed.

Unfortunately this great film is somewhat let down by a series of features that serve as no more that a taster for the extended edition release this November. The short featurettes from LordoftheRings.net are interesting enough as they feature on set interviews and are themed around a specific subject each time, such as Wizards and Language.

The rudimentary theatrical trailers and TV spots serve to get you excited once more before watching the film, and the Enya music video shows that she has broken her curse of killing movies.

Annoyingly enough the best features on this release are adverts for the extended DVD and for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. These feature intimate interviews with Peter Jackson as he gives information on his ideas and thinking behind the films. For example, the Extended edition is not a director’s cut. This would have implied that the version released in cinemas was not his preferred edit. That’s not true, it was. Instead the extended edition features an extra thirty minutes that was cut out for pacing purposes. It features scenes from the book that were filmed and not used, and even scenes that were filmed specifically for the DVD. Something Mr. Lucas has also picked up on.

I don’t know yet whether the Extended edition will give you a seamless branching option of watching either version, if not then this release is the only one that contains the theatrical version.

The preview of The Two Towers further whets an appetite that has already been given a thorough dowsing by The Fellowship of the Ring. We are treated to some spectacular battle sequence footage using models and intelligent computer generated characters. Thousands of warriors are created using a computer programme and then they are set off to fight as they see fit. No animation is required as the ‘self aware’ CGI actors make their own decisions. Technology is indeed a wondrous thing.

Be warned though, if you’ve not read the books and are coming into these films cold then the Two Towers preview does give away information that you may rather not know.

While these features are interesting enough, the documentaries ‘Welcome to Middle-earth’ and ‘Quest for the Ring’ are among the worst kind of Americanised garbage ever made. Everything else about this DVD captures the spirit of the books and the film, the passion and fantasy that has been generated. These documentaries drone on about how great the films are, how great Tolkien was and how great generally everything is. They should not be on this DVD, instead they should be on some Sly Stallone churn ‘em out action flick. I refuse to discuss them further.

Obviously the main special feature that we really want is the director’s commentary, and that’s been saved for the extended edition. If you’re a feature mad DVD collector, and can wait three months then you should probably do so. If however the film is the be all and end all, and you’ve not seen The Lord of the Rings yet, do so now. Don’t wait to read the end of this review, go buy it now.

Actually you didn’t miss anything, we’re finished.