Thomas Craven is a homicide detective. His daughter Emma is coming into town, and Thomas is visibly excited as he waits for her at the train station. When she arrives, he notices that she’s feeling under the weather. He alludes to her possibly being pregnant, at least that’s how she takes it, to which she says she is not, but she is seeing someone. She says she’s probably just coming down with a bug. She also wishes her Father would meet someone.

Once they get home and start cooking dinner, her nose starts bleeding, then she begins vomiting profusely, exclaiming that she has to go to the doctor. Mel quickly grabs his coat and keys, leaving his badge and gun on the counter. His daughter waits at the door. They both exit the house, only to find a masked man with a shotgun at the foot of the steps. He yells ‘Craven!’, then shoots the daughter, blowing her back into and through the front door. As she struggles for breath, Mel tells her ‘you’re my girl’, and she replies, ‘I know’, then dies in his arms.  It is a short, but extremely powerful scene, with Thomas breaking down emotionally before we cut to the next scene. This scene alone gripped me, and they did a really great job on it by making it powerful, yet quick.

A powerful confrontation.

Well, now Thomas is haunted by the events that took place, and rightfully so, but he doesn’t want time off to grieve, oh no. He wants to find out who did this. Again, rightfully so. His hauntings continue on as he constantly sees Emma as a little girl, and hears her talking to him, guiding him on his path. It’s a clever device and one that doesn’t come off as hokey or cheesy. It’s about a man trying to cope with his loss and this is how he is doing that. I actually applaud the filmmakers for not spoon feeding the viewer a saccarin relationship between the two. We can easily surmise the strength of their relationship on our own.

Thomas finds a gun in his daughter’s belongings, and being a cop, he runs the serial number and finds a man’s name, David Burnham, who he goes to see in hopes of finding some answers. This kick starts his own investigation, and he ends up delving deeper into conspiracy than he probably though he’d get, uncovering some awfully dastardly deeds by some powerful and corrupt people.

This movie has some great performances. Mel is really good in this. In fact, it’s my favorite performance of his since Payback. He’s not playing the noir aspect that Payback had, but a lot of his rage and emotion seeps into this character, and rightfully so.

You have to go now.

Ray Winstone is superb, as always. I can’t even think of a movie he did where he didn’t bring his A-game. I’ve always enjoyed his acting and this movie is no exception. Danny Huston is great as the corporate muck muck who’s trying to cover up some secrets that his company has.

The plot is rich, but not overly complex. Since I’m not familiar with the source material very much, I can’t really compare, but regardless, I believe the plot is quite relevant, and besides, who doesn’t think that big corporations are evil? It’s an age old story telling device of David vs. Goliath.

One of the things that I really loved about this movie was the emotion that comes from Mel. While I feel that I personally connected to the film as a Father, empathizing for poor Thomas and the pain of seeing his daughter murdered in front of him and the investigation into her murder that follows, I think that anyone that enjoys good cinema will be enraptured by the film.  Mel’s ability to go from complete anger to confused sadness is remarkable. You can read his expressions and know what’s going on in his head.

All in all, this was a very entertaining and engaging film. Mix in some good acting and you have a winner, even if the box office didn’t think so.  I suggest this one for fans of Mel, modern noir style, or mysteries with some action peppered in.

"> Red Rock West is a great modern noir tale. It is truly a great film with some nice twists, fantastic performances from the entire cast, and a great noir ending. The kind you expect to see within the genre. Though it was released in 1993, it holds up very well and is just as good now as it was back then.

Nicolas Cage is Michael Williams, a man down to his last 5 dollars and looking for work. He is an honest man with solid principles, but he is also a man who is at the end of his rope, looking for a way to survive. He has a bum leg, and reveals this to a prospective employer his friend set up for him. The job is working at an oil drill, and with his bad leg, the employer cannot take a chance on him due to safety concerns and insurance. So Michael moves on down the road, spends his last 5 dollars on fuel for his Cadillac, and rolls into Red Rock, hoping to find work.

When he arrives at the local bar, the barkeep notices his Texas plates and asks him why he is a week late in arriving for the job. Michael is confused at first, but plays along. The barkeep is actually the owner of the bar, Wayne Brown, (played wonderfully by J.T. Walsh, R.I.P.), and they head to his office to discuss the job.

Lara Flynn-Boyle as Suzanne Brown, the object of the hit.

He gives Michael $5,000 for the job and explains that he is to break into his house, trash the place a bit, and kill his wife. To reveal anymore would be to give away too much, but believe me…there is MUCH more to it, as Michael gets in way over his head.

The layers in this film are not only complex for our characters, which is what any good noir should have, but the situations just spiral out of control for everyone involved. You can clearly see this is the stuff that good noir is made of.

The story is solid, with interesting plot twists, devious character betrayals, and just flat out greatly entertaining. I really wish more films were made like this in this day and age, instead of the ho-hum flash in the pan type movies we see Hollywood churning out every month.

The incomparable J.T. Walsh, R.I.P.

The acting is superb. If, for any reason, you have ever doubted that Nic Cage could act well, or maybe you’ve forgotten how good he really can be, I suggest picking up this film and reacquainting yourself with him. His performance in this film really shows that he can hold a movie. His ability in this film to stick to his ethics as a good man, as well as expressing the internal conflicts he’s feeling, is showcased here in a way seldom seen by him these days.

Of course, we have the aforementioned J.T. Walsh, who is rock solid as always. It’s such a shame we lost him. I really think he had a lot more great performances under his belt to match this one.

Lara Flynn Boyle plays J.T.’s wife and she also does a good job. I actually hadn’t seen her put in such a good performance since Twin Peaks. She does a good job of portraying both the victim and the temptress, who places doubt within your head as to her motivations.

Lyle from Dallas as portrayed by Dennis Hopper

We also have Dennis Hopper. Say what you will about Dennis, but his performance here is really good. He only slightly plays it over the top, and only briefly and when the character warrants it. In fact, he plays his character just right, never over stepping the bounds of the character, or underplaying it. He finds the perfect middle ground and puts in a great performance, even if his accent wavers a bit.

Red Rock West is a noir thrill ride, and one that I think any fan of film can truly appreciate, even if the film was underappreciated at its time of release. The director and co-writer John Dahl has put together a film that has withstood the test of time. I’m actually surprised that he hasn’t done more films, but rather dedicating himself to more television projects.

I highly recommend this noir thrill ride to any film fan who is hungering for a good mystery with some great pacing, interesting story, and intriguing characters.

"> Contrary to popular belief this is not a scary movie, not really sure it was ever meant to be one. It has its creepy moment, seeing as its set in 1954, on an island in Boston Harbor, on the site of an old civil war fort; that has since then been converted into a mental institution for the criminally insane. This choice of setting lends itself nicely to the true nature of this movie, which is a psychological thriller. A quick synapse of the movie is that two U.S. Marshals are sent to the island to investigate the disappearance of one of the inmates. While on the island the lead Marshal played by DiCaprio, feels like something else is going on that everyone on the island is apart of. He investigates and finds that things are not what they really seem.

Shhhh... Don't give away the ending!

I wish I could give you more on this movie but as it is a psychological thriller with one hell of a twist that still has me wondering, weeks later, telling you too much would totally ruin the movie for you. Either way I highly recommend this movie, and if your like me and try and get everything sublet detail out of a movie, you are going to have to see it twice, because the first time won’t even get you through the skin of this psychological onion.

"> Four Boxes looks like an interesting indie film. It brings comparisons to Blair Witch, which is a comparison I don’t think we’ll see ending anytime soon. Whenever a new indie film within the horror/thriller genre is trying to get bigger exposure, it seems that the Blair Witch comparison is always brought up, (i.e. Paranormal Activity).

However, they’ve gone a few steps further still, claiming on their website that this flick is the ‘Rear Window for the internet’. All I can say is that if you have the balls to claim your movie is like ‘Rear Window for the internet’…you better be able to back it up!

Even better, we see another comparison on their site where they call it “Sex, Lies and Videotape meets Rear Window”. Hmmm…yes, I am extremely skeptical about this. Sex, Lies…and Rear Window are two movies I hold in high regard, and I guess that’s their point in comparing them, but…well, I’m skeptical. Regardless, I have to admit that I am very intrigued by this film and am looking forward to seeing it when it drops on DVD or if I get lucky enough to get it playing somewhere nearby.

Four Boxes is going to be screening at SXSW this year, so if anyone sees it, give me a shout and let me know what you thought. Me, I’ll have to wait…

The above trailer is kind of weak, so I suggest you click THIS LINK to see a more robust trailer. Note that it will open in Windows Media Player. Also, check out THE WEBSITE, (not much information on there, but hopefully they’ll be updating with new content once SXSW begins).

"> Continuing on the groundwork I’ve laid for the Lime Green Set by David Lynch, we now make our way to a film of his that is, according to me, one of the greatest films of ours or any generation past: Blue Velvet. The dark humor, the characters, the intrigue, the mystery…it’s all here and Lynch uses them all, and more, perfectly. Not only are his script and direction spot on, but the actors are also deeply invested in their characters, which just gives that much more to the film.

For a 23 year old film, it holds up very well. The crime/mystery aspect of the story is timeless, so even though you can tell the film takes place in the mid to later 1980′s, it could very well take place in current times, or even the 1960′s. That’s one of the beautiful things about this film, the timelessness of it. Lynch creates a small town world in which we can slip into anytime, anywhere.

From the opening credits, a flowing blue velvet background with type overlayed, the film mesmerizes you. The music adds a certain mysterious charm to it which invites you in as you also feel a slight bit of hesitation. Then we are introduced to the small town of Lumberton through beautiful images. We are shown a fire truck, roses, quaint homes on any street, USA. It is within the opening sequence that we are warned about the type of world we are entering.

As these wholesome images are shown to us, the idyllic small town life, we see a man watering his garden as he succumbs to a stroke. He falls to the ground while his pup tries to get at the water hose he still holds. The music slowly fades out and is overtaken by sounds…growling, grumbling, low sounds, as the camera pans down to below the earth, where we see insects in grotesque close up. It is a very interesting first scene, and one which shows us that even though Lumberton is a quaint small town, seemingly perfect, it does have it’s dirty underside, it’s bad bugs which also inhabit the town.

Our protaganist Jeffrey comes home from College due to his Father’s stroke, which we saw in the opening. While walking back from visiting him in the hospital, he discovers an ear in a field where he was throwing rocks at some bottles. He takes the ear to Detective Williams, a cop he knows from his neighborhood, who in turn takes it to the crime lab to have it examined.

Later, when paying a visit to Detective Williams to inquire about the ear, he tells Jeffrey to just try and turn off his inquisitive nature, as the police are now investigating the ear and its origins. As Jeffrey is leaving, he runs into Detective Williams’ daughter, Sandy. Her introductory scene is as beautiful as they come, as she speaks to Jeffrey from the darkness, but then slowly walks into the light, into view. It is a scene that captures mystery and innocence, much like Sandy herself. She is definitely the catalyst to Jeffrey’s obssession, as she tells him that her room is right over her Father’s office, and she hears many details about the cases on which he is working. She relays quite a bit of information to Jeffrey about the case he is so curious about.

Of course, the two team up to try and find out some more information, which means they must first visit an apartment building on the wrong side of town where one Dorothy Valens lives. She is a name Sandy heard her Father talking about in reference to the ear. From there, Jeffrey is drawn to a world that he would probably rather not visit, but this is an interesting aspect of Jeffrey. He is drawn by his curiousity, the hope to find out the truth about the ear and all those involved and maybe even solve this perplexing mystery. He cannot look away nor resist its gentle pull. As he allows himself to get pulled in further, he learns more about the people involved in this bizarre situation, and as fortune would have it, he meets one disturbed individual in particular that is involved: Frank Booth.

As many great films as Dennis Hopper has done, I believe that the the role of Frank Booth is easily his most renowned. There’s a reason for that. He plays the character to utter perfection. You see, Frank Booth is a very disturbed man, but he is also an obsessed man, much like Jeffrey, but definitely on a different level. He is a psychotic man, and also one who is too much in love. He will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants, and even more to keep it. Many have stated that Hopper overacted in this role. While that may be true to a certain degree, I think they need to also consider how over the top Frank Booth is. He has no trouble making proclamations of his feelings, and he also doesn’t really care about you think about that. Yes, Frank Booth is over the top, and Dennis Hopper captured that perfectly.

One of the standouts for me is one of the smaller roles. That is the character Ben, portrayed by Dean Stockwell. He is so delightfully warped, yet mellow, that he is the perfect complement to Frank Booth. When they share screentime together, short as it is, it is an amazing chemistry, and you can’t get a much better performance than Ben lip synching Roy Orbison’s ‘In Dreams’. Genius.

There are so many layers to this film, it’s quite dense and rich. It works on every single level, too. In fact, it’s about as close as you can get to a perfect film. It is a dark film, make no bones about it. For any brief moment of levity is brought down quickly, almost as if you think you’re going to get away from the darkness of the world around you, but it snatches you back down and makes you pay attention. It is as charming as it is revolting. Some of the themes are disturbing, yet contain a raw realism to them.

Blue Velvet has some of the most beautiful shots commited to film. I know you’ve heard that before from me when discussing David Lynch, but you’ll hear it many times over in the future, too. It’s just a fact. Lynch is a painter first and foremost, and it really shows through in his visuals. The way he sees things, and in turn shows us through the lens is truly astonishing.

SPECIAL FEATURES

The DVD has some pretty nice extras on it, including:

• Documentary: Mysteries of Love
• Deleted Scene Montage
• Siskel & Ebert “At the Movies 1986
• Photo Gallery
• Trailer/TV Spots

The documentary has some great early footage with Lynch talking about his creative process for creating Blue Velvet. There also interviews with Kyle MacLachlan, Isabella Rossellini, Laura Dern, Dennis Hopper, and a couple producers. It is very interesting to hear the actors discuss their roles and their first time meeting David Lynch. They understood the movie and their characters they were portraying so well, it’s no wonder all of their performances are top notch. This is a really great documentary.

The deleted scene montage is an interesting piece. Not all of the scenes cut from the film were in a restorable condition. As such, they show us several photo montages to fill in those scenes. There is only music playing over them, but they are very interesting to see. An unusual addition to this set, one which is unusual in a good, original way.

It’s actually kind of mind blowing to think that the original cut of this film was 4 hours long. I can’t even really fathom that. It would sure be interesting to see, as I’m sure there are more characters and more interactions between the ones already in the film. Probably a lot more backstory, too. Since we can’t have that 4 hour cut, these deleted scene montages work well to give us at least an idea of what they may have been like, back in the film.

I don’t really know why they included the Siskel & Ebert bit, except for maybe either posterity’s sake, or just to show what a clueless ass Ebert is. I’ve never really liked him and this only further cements it. I would think that a film critic would be able to separate the actress from the character, but apparently he can’t. If you’re interested in seeing just how out of touch a world famous movie critic can be, watch it.

The photo gallery is divided up into 3 areas: Lumberton, USA, International Posters, and Peter Braatz photos. There are some really beautiful pictures in this gallery, including a bunch of behind the scenes photos. I don’t know about you, but when there’s a film I really like, such as this one, I just love to see old photos taken on set and seeing the cast hanging out, or the director directing his actors, or whatever. It’s just cool to see.

The Trailer/TV Spots feature has the original trailer for the film, and 2 television spots that ran to promote the film. Nothing too exciting there, but it is fun to watch them and see how they promoted such a dark film back then.

In the end, I cannot show enough appreciation for this film. It is truly a masterpiece of cinema that will capture you and not let go. Dennis Hopper called David Lynch’s style ‘American Surrealism’, and I could not agree more. His keen artistic eye shows us a story in moving pictures in a way that only David Lynch can imagine. This film should be mandatory viewing for all film school students, and as Kyle MacLachlan says, “everyone should see it at least once in their life”. I couldn’t agree more.

"> Kate Beckinsale is alright, I suppose.  I mean, she’s a fairly decent actress, but nothing she’s ever done that I’ve seen her in really made me go ‘WOW’, (Cold Comfort Farm aside), so it was with a fair amount of trepidation that I approached Whiteout.

Honestly, the main reason I was even interested in viewing this movie was because I thought there were aliens or monsters or something supernatural involved. The trailer makes it seems as though there is something other than just human stuff going on, but alas…nope. No monsters. No aliens. No ghosts. Nothing interesting at all, really.

I guess you could say that there are ghosts involved in this movie, but only because our leading lady is haunted by ghosts from her past. In fact, those same ghosts plague her throughout the movie. You know the drill: cop had something bad happen to them that they can’t get over. Yeah, that doesn’t really count as supernatural or ghostly at all, I know, so let’s move on.

This is a cat and mouse kind of movie. A U.S. Marshal is searching for a killer in Antarctica, but wait…is the killer among them? One of them? I bet you cannot wait to find out!

I was reminded of another movie, Shoot to Kill, as I was watching this. Mainly due to the fact that the killer shows themself early on and attacks Kate, but we don’t see their face.  No, the killer is not unmasked until later on in the movie, (just like in Shoot to Kill), but that reveal was nowhere nearly as exciting as the reveal in Shoot to Kill. It lacked the tension of Shoot to Kill, so the big reveal wasn’t that big of a deal at all. It was just kind of there.

This seems to be the problem I had with this movie, in that the excitement factor just isn’t there.  You’d think for an action/adventure movie such as this, it would be, but with all the snow whipping around, it’s tough to get really involved with it.  I mean, I know it’s called Whiteout for a reason, but I really felt that it took away from the tenseness of many action scenes, hindering them when it should be complementing them. I felt they should have used the snow to more effect, as another performer, or as more of a story device, rather than just blinding foreground scenery.

There are also so many stupid little things in the movie that are done just to try and create tension, when it’s not necessary to.  The tension is already there, so why come up with these ridiculous little things?  It’s akin to the whole ‘hurry up and download the information off the PC before the person comes back and catches you’, that I’ve mentioned before. The movie would have been better served in relying on its own pace and let things naturally unfold, rather than give it a forced feel.

Plus, the ending was not only kind of dumb, but just…no, it was just dumb.  In fact, the whole movie is derivative of so many other, better movies, that when you’re watching, you get a ‘been there, done that’ feeling.

So if you’re a hardcore Kate Beckinsale fan, then you’ll really want to see this movie. If you’re not a hardcore Kate Beckinsale fan, then you probably won’t.  You’ve probably already seen it with a different name before, and I’d hate for you to waste your time on it. That’s what I’m for, wasting time on watching mediocre movies so you don’t have to!

"> How stupid do you have to be to frame yourself with circumstantial evidence in hopes of catching a crooked District Attorney that you suspect is planting evidence?  Pretty stupid, and C.J. Nicholas is that stupid.  He’s a reporter who suspects D.A. Mark Hunter, (Michael Douglas), is planting evidence and he wants to prove it.  What better way than to frame yourself, right?  Riiiiiiight.

So him and his reporter pal Corey Finley, (Joel Moore), take all the necessary steps to set up the evidence to point to C.J. and film it all to prove they were setting it up.  Then, when crooked D.A. Michael Douglas introduces DNA evidence that they know is false, they can show their tape to the court and BLAM-O!  Got him!

Of course, the D.A. has a Detective in his pocket and they find out about the plan, so the dirty cop kills Corey as he’s retrieving the evidence so he can show it in court. Why didn’t he just bring the disc to court with him?  Good question! The detective kills him by crashing his car into Corey’s car, thus pushing him into the path of a speeding bus, which broadsides him, then he THROWS A CIGARETTE AT THE LEAKING FUEL ON THE GROUND, thus blowing up the car and poor Joel Moore.  Wow, how inventive.  Well, at least Joel can go home now and count the money he was paid for this gig.

Give me my paycheck so I can get off this movie.

Now, this wouldn’t be a noir, (which I felt it really isn’t since the tone of the film was lacking any real noir qualities, but it’s a remake of a noir, so…benefit of the doubt), if it didn’t have some extra twists, and it does.  The problem is that it’s hard not to suspect the old report of C.J.’s that gave him his big break in journalism had something to do with it.  They cram that notion down our throats.  The camera lingered on so many ‘clues’ that you’d have to be blind not to catch on, and that’s insulting to blind people, because they would have figured it out, too.

There are so many contrived plot devices and clichés in this movie that you’ll know what’s coming long before it happens.  Not only the aforementioned cigarette explosion, but there’s also a great bit where the Detective attempts to kill the young A.D.A., (Amber Tamblyn), in an empty parking garage by running her over with his car.  He literally drives circles around her.  Yeeeeah.  These things may have worked in 1956, but not now, (and I don’t really know if they did this in the original or not, having not seen it).  We’ve all been exposed to these types of contrived devices enough to know better. Maybe that works against us now, but what it should do is make filmmakers try harder to be creative and not just be lazy.

SUSPENSE

Also, could we PLEASE give it a rest on the whole ‘download the evidence from the computer before the person comes back and catches you’?  It’s so old and tired.  Can’t we find new ways to create tension?

So this remake of the 1956 original fails in every aspect as a film. The only saving grace is Orlando Jones, but he’s not really in enough scenes to help, and I’m sure they would have found a way to screw up his character, too, if given the chance.

This movie had a very limited U.S. release. I wish it had been more limited, as in ‘not playing in my area’, because they sure suckered me in.  Do yourself a favor when this one hits DVD…AVOID.

"> When I first saw commercials for this movie on television, I chalked it up to another ‘bad seed’ style movie, akin to The Omen, The Good Son, or…well, The Bad Seed.  Even with some good casting, such as Vera Farmiga, CCH Pounder (love her!), and Peter Sarsgaard, I didn’t think much of it.  However, since I’m the kind of person who will watch pretty much anything, (or at least try to), I checked it out and was actually quite surprised by the movie, but for a different reason than you probably think.

DISCLAIMER: Although I don’t care about reading spoilers, or writing about spoilers, some people do. If you are one of those people, then proceed with caution, as I give up the big twist in this movie.  You have been warned.

Now, the premise is nothing new, you’ve seen it before many times.  The kills and the threats and the sabotage are all pretty standard fare for a movie like this, which didn’t really surprise me much.  While I will admit that the big twist in the movie was a bit different, it was equally ridiculous.  However, the one beacon of light in this movie had little to do with the writing , but more about one person, the title star of the movie: the Orphan herself, Isabelle Fuhrman.

This girl is talented at acting well beyond her 12 years of age.  Her ability to become the character of this young, twisted orphan is nothing short of astounding.  Her cold, calculating looks sent chills up my spines.  The accent she put on, (the orphan is from Russia), was the likes of a much more mature actress, but she pulled it off with perfect aplomb.  When she needed to play the naive, innocent 9 year old, she did that, too.

After the big twist is realized, (turns out she’s actually a 33 year old who suffers from an extreme case of dwarfism…lol, yeah, that’s kind of reaching, but I suppose it’s better than finding out she’s a satan baby), and her new Father rejects her advances of a romantic nature, she goes into a rage as she transforms herself into the ‘real her’…and it is frightening.  She captures the desperation of a 33 year old who has lost everything she was trying to claim as her own. Clearly, the character was not sane to begin with, but once she has her break down, all bets are off and she lets go.  Coupled with the great make-up job that was done on her, she does look like a dwarfed 33 year old.  I was truly amazed at how well she was able to display a much older appearance just through her facial expressions and movements.  All in all, her performance was the best thing in this movie.

So I say to you, dear reader, give this one a chance if only to see an amazing performance by a truly talented young star.  She’s one to watch in the future.

"> They don’t make them like this anymore. A steady action thriller with a decent twist and gripping scenarios that put our heroes in constant danger. With Sidney Poitier and Tom Berenger in the lead roles, you don’t need much else. This 1988 movie fits the bill for an adventure film that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Sidney Poitier portrays Warren Stantin, an F.B.I. agent after a ruthless killer, (is there any other kind?), who killed a hostage on Stantin’s watch and escaped. The F.B.I. tracks him to an out of the way place, where our mysterious thief and killer has joined up with a fishing expedition, led by Kirstie Alley’s Sarah, (also Tom Berenger’s characters girlfriend). Well, Tom is having none of that and he reluctantly joins forces with Stantin to track down this cold-blooded killing thief through the dense woods.

The mystery continues through a small portion of the film as we meet each of the fisherman, not knowing which one is the bad guy, as his identity was withheld from the viewers through the tense opening of the film. Right here is one of two problems I have with the movie.

The big reveal of the bad guy should have gone on just a bit longer. It felt too soon and I really think the movie would have benefited from having this mystery linger for more of the movie.

The second problem is that the climax of the movie takes place in a city. This wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that our killer keeps Sarah with him, even though he mentions many times that he only needs her to help him get through the woods. Once he was free of mother nature, there would have been nothing to stop him from killing her, and if he had, that would have elevated the intensity of the movie that much more, especially for Berenger’s character. However, this was 1988 and it was very rare to see such twists as that.

Even still, this is a great movie with some great action scenes and a decent mystery as to the identity of the bad guy. You can’t go wrong with Sidney Poitier, nor Tom Berenger, for that matter. Throw in Kirstie Alley in her heyday and you’re set for an enjoyable couple of hours.

I am pleased!

"> I’m a fan of Kenneth Branagh. Ever since first seeing Dead Again way back around 1992 on VHS which introduced me to him not only as an actor, but as a director, I knew I had to keep an eye on this guy’s work. He’s done some exceptional work since then, including his latest; an adaption of Wallander.

The series is based on the novels by Swedish author Henning Mankell. It is also the second television series to bring the character to the small screen. I have not seen the previous series, nor have I read any of the books. ‘So why write about it’, the hardcore fans say, ‘you’re missing all the good stuff by not reading the books’. Well, this the Viewing Screen and not the Reading Screen, even though you are reading this on a screen right now.

But I digress.

I’ve only watched the first entry in the series, (out of three), and found it to be a compelling crime drama with some really good performances. The plot may have been a bit predictable, but that did not detract from the story in the slightest. I find that a lot of the fun in watching a good crime drama is trying to predict ‘who done it’. Whether right or wrong, the fun is had in trying to figure it out before it’s revealed. Besides, it’s the performances by the cast that can draw you into their world, and everyone on this show are quite successful on that front.

The visuals are simply breathtaking. Using the RED digital camera to shoot the series, this show just looks fantastic. The colors are so rich and vibrant, and the blacks so true that it looks like you can step right into the screen. Amazing. Couple this with the work by Director of Photography Anthony Dod Mantle and we have some seriously visually stimulating eye candy. The outdoor shots really show off the lush scenery which are balanced by the captivating angles and framing of the interior scenes.

So if a captivating crime-drama with interesting characters are your thing, I highly suggest trying to catch this first series run before the second is released. You should have plenty of time to see them before that; Mr. Branagh has put the second series on hold while he focuses on directing the Thor movie.

">

All content ©® 2010 The Viewing Screen, except where explicitly stated. All images ©® their respective owners.