Huge Electronic companies and their appalling customer support.

This is not only a bashing of Customer "support" services, but also an illustration of how hacking a DVD player - using simple codes on your remote - can unlock its full potential. In this case I had problems getting a Hi-Def (upconverting) Samsung DVD player working properly through Component connections with a Philip's LCD TV.

I don't usually use my blog as a place to vent (reviewing films is a pretty good way to vent anyway), but today I will make an exception because I just have to get this off my chest.

I am a geek, no two ways around that. I've used computers since I was nine and my current job as a digital compositor means I've learnt quite a bit of technical stuff related to television (fields, aspect ratios etc...). I consider myself fairly knowledgeable in these departments, but I have my limits, and when you reach your limits what do you do? You call on the 'experts' right?

Wrong.

I am the happy owner of a Philips LCD TV and just yesterday, I decided it was time to buy a new DVD player (I'd been using my modded Xbox to play DVDs, but my fiancée can't remember what buttons do what, so I thought I'd make things easier on her and it was a good excuse to buy a new toy!). I'd read a bit about HD DVD players - not the real thing of course, the new HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players aren't out yet. Current HD DVD players upconvert an image (like PAL 720x576) to higher resolutions (like 720p, 1080i etc) and it seemed the best option to exploit as much out of my current generation DVD collection as possible.

After looking at a few positive reviews I went down to my local overly-air-conditioned Electronics store and bought their most recent (yet well priced) HD-DVD player available - the Samsung DVD-HD850. It came with the new HDMI cable, but my LCD TV doesn't have HDMI (or DVI, the other input compatible with HDMI). So I inspected the box and found that there was no info regarding whether the Hi-Def images can be carried through Component cables with this player (I already knew Component cables are capable of carrying higher res images because my Xbox has been connected at 1080i to my TV via the HD component inputs). I looked around for a shop assistant and was eventually served by a bored looking, balding middle-aged man, who looked at me blankly as I described my situation. After he faked his way through with half-arse uninformed answers I said that I'd like to look at the manual. He took it out, gave it to me and walked off (he must have had more important things to do other than serving his costumers). Unsurprisingly the manual was utter shit and if anything, made me even more confused.

I looked around and spotted a younger shop assistant who looked like he had potential to have a fully working brain. He saw me and strolled over. Low and behold he actually knew about the products he was selling! He could answer most my questions, but when it came to the Component issue he was honest and admitted he simply didn't know. So he got on the phone to Samsung and after just a few moments they informed him that the component cable could carry up to 720p Res with this model of DVD player. I was relieved to find that out and happy to make a purchase (so that salesman got the commission, not the balding git).

I excitedly took it home and after about four hours of untangling cords and making everything all neat and tidy (as I always do when I get a new toy) I finally turned it on... It was time for disappointment. I went to the menu and selected HDMI through Component option and discovered that only 576p was available and that the other resolutions were greyed out. I fiddled endlessly trying to find a way to change that and realised I couldn't so I thought I might as well check out the image quality. I chucked in The Incredibles (love that film!) and the screen flickered like crazy... great. Clearly this res was not agreeing with my TV.

After much more fiddling the only res that I could get the TV and DVD player to agree on was 480p, which is odd because that's an NTSC res and I live in New Zealand where we use PAL. Anyway, I was happy that I was at least getting a picture and it was a damn good one at that. But I don't give up easy and I was convinced that there had to be a true solution. I hopped on the Net and did a bit of research and discovered that something called HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) may have been the cause of my flickering TV screen. The Samsung player transmitted this HDCP but perhaps my TV came out too early to have the ability to decode it?

So first I thought I'd look at Samsung and Philips' websites to see if I could find any help - unsurprisingly their websites were useless and inaccurate. So I gave Samsung a call and after explaining my entire situation to the operator she informed me that she'd have to put me on to their "Technical Expert" (which is who I asked to talk to in the first place!). I explained my situation again to the "Technical Expert" and this was his enlightening response "You have an incompatibility issue." No shit Sherlock! That's why I'm fucking ringing you, you imbecile! So I thought that maybe, just maybe, I'd have better luck with Philips. I called them and insisted I speak to a technical expert. The lady was helpful and gave me the email address of their "Technical Expert". I emailed him a detailed list of questions and eventually he phoned me (obviously emailing me back was too technical for him). This is an approximation of what transpired:

Firstly the "Technical Expert" called Barry read aloud the email I'd sent him. He read it very, very slowly. He sounded like he was probably in his 60's. After he'd finished reading it he went on and on to me about how S-Video is the best connection type, not Component. Which is A: Incorrect. B: Has nothing to do with my questions. After 5 minutes more of him ranting about S-Video I got in a few questions.

"Could DHCP be producing the 'hand shake' type effect on my TV?" I enquired.

"Mumble, mumble, bullshit, bullshit, mumble, mumble, bullshit." Was his response. I quickly ascertained that this "Technical Expert" also had no fucking idea about HDCP. So I moved on to another question.

"Could it be that my TV is having trouble with the progressive image, even though it claims to be a progressive capable TV?" (my question was better than that, but I'm just paraphrasing here).

He went on to tell me that PAL can't be progressive, only NTSC supports it and he knows this because he is a "Technical Expert". Righttttttt. So even though every single TV at the electronics store says it has progressive scan on the box, it's not really the case? He then went on to tell me about his TV from the 70's that was NTSC and that even that - way back then - could support progressive scan... do I fucking care? No I don't you idiot. What I want is to talk to a "Technical Expert" who actually knows something about these new fangled DVD players and LCD TVs and can actually answer my fucking questions!

As you may be able to tell I was at my wits end. It's like the old saying: "If you want something done right, do it yourself".

After about five minutes of searching on the "Interweb-net" - as Barry the "Technical Expert" would probably refer to it - I found a few hacks that promised to A: Remove the HDCP protection. And B: Remove the region coding (which I was eventually going to do anyway, once I got the image upscaling working first). After trying these codes I discovered that they were probably for the US model (the region 1 model) so I searched a little more and finally found one that referenced the exact model number on my DVD player's remote. After trying these codes the DVD player was region and HDCP free (if you have this DVD model and need help, I'd be happy to share these codes with you, just post a comment).

I was excited. I had made progress and could smell success around the corner. I went into the DVD's menu and turned it back into PAL mode. I left it in the default res of 576p and tried 'The Incredibles' again. No success, the image still flickered... Damn.

I stopped the DVD and pressed the HDMI button (which cycles through different resolutions). What's interesting here is that originally - before I hacked the machine - when I pressed the HDMI button it would tell me in white text that it was changing resolutions but, in fact, it wasn't. This time when I pressed the button, the screen would actually react - it would go black for a moment and then come back with the new resolution. I put it into 720p and tried 'The Incredibles' again. Success. It played and it looked incredible (no pun intended). I tried 1080i and got a black screen (not in the Samsung menu, but when watching a DVD). I'm very happy with the 720p res so it didn't bother me that 1080i wasn't working - but I will continue to fiddle around with it a bit more.

Now after all this crap I finally have a fully working machine, that is actually capable of doing what it promised on the box. Why it can't do this to begin with, is beyond me.

If you've made it this far, congratulations. This has to be officially the most boring post I have EVER made. But I just had to get this crap off my chest - and I thought it may be of some help to people in my position.

"Technical Experts" suck balls in a major way. You should be able to ring them and get detailed and helpful answers. Alas that is not the case. Why can't massive companies like Philips and Samsung get their act together? There is no excuse. Hire some young geek like me and train them up so that they understand every facet of the electronics they sell. Is that really asking too much?

Also Region coding and stupid protection mechanisms suck. Get rid of them companies, just give me a kickarse DVD player that does everything from the get-go. Why should I have to go through a process like this? You promised things on the box and didn't deliver. Shame on you.

If you are in my shoes, good luck and don't give up. If you want something done right, do it yourself (or comment on this post and maybe I can help!).

P.S. The Samsung DVD HD-850 is actually coming highly recommended by me, regardless of my hassles. Once you hack it, it's fantastic. It looks nice, it's very quiet and it has played everything I've thrown at it (DivX, Xvid, crusty old burnt DVDs, DVD+RW, SVCD, VCD etc...). And once you get it upscalling to higher resolutions it looks awesome. Of course if your TV has an HDMI input then none of this is relevant!

Adieu. Farewell and good luck.


DVD hacks here

Atlantis:The Lost Empire/Treasure Planet - Ray's Reviews

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
95 min

Directed by:
Gary Trousdale
Kirk Wise

Written by:
Tab Murphy (story & screenplay)
Joss Whedon (Treatment)
and others.

Starring the voices of:
Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch
James Garner as Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke
Leonard Nimoy as King Kashekim Nedakh

Plot synopsis from Amazon.com:

"...An eccentric zillionaire sends Milo (Michael J. Fox) out to test his hypothesis with an anachronistic crew that includes tough Puerto Rican mechanic Audrey (Jacqueline Obradors), demolition expert Vinnie (Don Novello), and butt-kicking blond adventurer Helga (Claudia Christian). When they find Atlantis, its culture is dying because the people can no longer read the runes that explain their mysterious power source--but Milo can. Nasty Commander Rourke (James Garner) attempts to steal that power source, leading to the requisite all-out battle."

Ray's Opinion:

Atlantis is an odd entry for Disney. The makers were brave in ditching musical numbers and avoided much of the juvenile humour found in most their films. There are no cute animal sidekicks present, yet there are attempts at humour with some 'funny' characters - particularly Mole, a strange, stinky little man who likes to dig holes. I appreciated the new direction for Disney, but unfortunately the elements do not come together to form a cohesive whole and we are left with a unique yet unsatisfying animated film.

I'm a fan of Michael J. Fox and hoped that his contribution would help raise my investment in the lead character, but somehow, like most the film, Milo just didn't gel. Overall I found the interactions between characters dull and predictable, only the physical action was able to engage me and there is some pretty cool stuff in that area: We get an intense underwater battle with a huge sea-monster, and the entire last 20 mins is all action and spectacle, with a particularly exciting volcano eruption to really finish with a bang. But despite all the effort in the action areas, if you don't care much about the characters, you're not going to care about what happens to them and that was the case here.

However, regardless of its uninvolving characters and dull tone, I was looking forward to the discovery of Atlantis - unfortunately, Atlantis didn't turn out to be very interesting and I didn't get a sense of the place as a whole either. Once there, you meet just a few key characters (yet apparently it is a populated city) and explore the barest of locations. I guess I expected a little more after such a long and dangerous journey.

In a first for an animated film, there was a entire plot element that I just couldn't wrap my brain around. Atlantis has a source of power, that seems to keep its inhabitants alive for eternity, but I was confused about how this power source worked. Was it a crystal? Was it a person? Why did it a need a person to work? Why didn't they understand how to use it if it's been the very centre of their existence for all time? Why had it seemingly stopped working, but still kept them alive for thousands of years? Why, why, why? Anyway...

Apparently the character design is based on Mike Mignola's chunky style (Hellboy). The characters are very angular, with big stubby hands. Personally I prefer the usual Disney style (like in Aladdin), but I guess it did add to the films unique look. There is an abundance of CG and it's well integrated with the 2d elements. I haven't watched the DVD's extras yet, but I'm guessing the ships backgrounds were fully 3D, with the barest of 2d details thrown in.

Sound wise, things are looking up. Underwater films have the potential for a truly immersive sound environment and Atlantis delivered. I pumped up the volume and gave my stereo a good workout (and managed to make my cat run away in terror when the subs kicked in).

Overall, I appreciate Atlantis for doing things differently, but after being spoiled by far more emotionally engaging films like The Lion King and Tarzan, Atlantis felt flat and lifeless. Maybe it's one of those films that grow on you with repeat viewings? Any big fans out there?

5/10 - Atlantis



Treasure Planet (2002)
95 min

Directed by:
Ron Clements
John Musker
(The little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules)

Based on the novel by:
Robert Louis Stevenson

Written by:
Ron Clements
John Musker
and others.

Starring the voices of:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Jim Hawkins
Brian Murray as John Silver
David Hyde Pierce as Doctor Doppler
Emma Thompson as Captain Amelia
Martin Short as B.E.N.

Official synopsis:

"In this adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's TREASURE ISLAND, Disney presents a fantastic space adventure. Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a teenage boy with a taste for adventure who seems to always be in trouble, much to the chagrin of his hardworking mother (Laurie Metcalf). But when he comes into possession of a high-tech map leading to Treasure Planet where an ancient cache of jewels and gold lies buried, it's like a dream come true. His mother's friend Doctor Doppler (David Hyde Pierce) arranges for a ship, and the two set sail, traversing the universe on course for the treasure. Captain Amelia (Emma Thompson), a domineering feline, is in charge of a rough-and-tumble crew of odd creatures, who may have their own designs on the treasure. Jim is placed under the supervision of John Silver (Brian Murray), the cook, who is both his father figure and his adversary. Slowly but surely the ship makes its way toward its destination, as Jim comes of age, learning to follow his heart, do what's right, and be a leader."

Ray's Opinion:

I prefer Treasure Planet to Disney's previous effort Atlantis. While it's not as classic as The Lion King, Aladdin or Tarzan, it's still an exciting adventure, presented beautifully and carried along by memorable characters.

Like Atlantis, Treasure Planet ditches the classic Disney musical numbers - it has one song, but it's not performed by the character himself - but unlike Atlantis, it does bring back the 'cute' sidekicks in the form of an enthusiastic shape-changing blob called Morph and a forgetful, blabbering robot called B.E.N. Thankfully they weren't as annoying as you might expect and they actually got a few laughs out of me.

I can see why the directors had their hearts set on making Treasure Planet (they've been attempting to make it since 1985 but kept getting assigned other projects), it's a cool idea and its potential for dramatic visuals is obvious. While some may quibble over the space setting, I thought it was a cool idea - completely implausible - but ripe with imaginative ideas. All the techniques in Disney's arsenal were put to use here and at times you have a blend of three animation styles at once: Firstly you have the obvious hand drawn 2D animation. Secondly you have the CG backgrounds using the 'deep canvas' technique (that was developed for Tarzan, enabling him to jungle 'surf') and lastly, there are 3D elements rendered to look flat and blend in with the 2D animation - such as John Silver's robotic arm (which blends in perfectly). It was exciting for a geek like me to see all these different elements come together so successfully.

Unlike Aladdin and The Lion King (and Tarzan to a lesser extent) Treasure Planet does not have broad appeal. It is definitely pitched at boys and this may explain its lackluster boxoffice numbers - it cost Disney $130 Million (including advertising) to make and returned around $90 million (worldwide grosses), their biggest failure ever. However video rentals/sales have made back more than its budget by now. I'm still a boy at heart and I enjoyed the young heroes' journey and could relate somewhat to his issues stemming from the lack of a father figure in his childhood. I find it hard to imagine most young girls enjoying it, even with the addition of the great feline Captain voiced by Emma Thompson.

The picture quality is high (it should be considering it's a digital film) and with a colour palette like this film has, you're in for a visual treat. The 5.1 mix gave my stereo a good workout thanks to space battles, supernova explosions and the like.

Treasure Planet is not an all out success, but it's a fun way to spend 95 minutes. As I've stated already, I don't believe it's in the same league as The Lion King or Aladdin, but it's certainly better than Atlantis and far more suited to my taste than Lilo and Stitch, Mulan or Pocahontas.

7/10 - Treasure Planet

I've been searching the stores for a copy of another Disney favourite of mine: The Emperor's New Groove. When I find it, I'll review it.

Any comments about your favourite animated films would be of much interest to me...

More animated film reviews by Ray:

Tarzan

The Prince of Egypt

The Road to El Dorado

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Ray's Review

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
109 min

Directed by:
Garth Jennings

Based on the book by:
Douglas Adams

Screenplay by:
Douglas Adams
Karey Kirkpatrick

Starring:
Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent
Zooey Deschanel as Trillian
Mos Def as Ford Prefect
Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox
Alan Rickman as Marvin (voice)
John Malkovich as Humma Kavula
Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast


Official Synopsis:

"...Seconds before Earth is destroyed to make way for a new hyperspace express route, mild-mannered Arthur Dent is whisked into space by his best friend (an alien posing as an out-of-work actor). And so the misadventures begin as he and fellow travelers, including the cool but dim-witted President of the Galaxy, the Earth girl Trillian, and Marvin the paranoid android, search for answers to the mystery of Life, the Universe, and Everything."

Ray's Opinion:

Do Panic.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is not a total failure, but it is these things: Messy, dull, poorly paced and above all, dated. I think this really is a case where the film version should have been made when the radioplay/book/TV series was fresh, because the humour is often based around technology and my, how things have changed since the late 70's. It may have been funny before, but now, after great sci-fi comedy shows like Red Dwarf (which has obvious influences from Hitchhiker's Guide) and films like Galaxy Quest, Hitchhiker's Guide just seems incredibly out of touch with today's style of intergalactic humour

Take for example the scene where the Robot Marvin is told to freeze, he replies back "Freeze? I'm a robot. I'm not a refrigerator. "... oh the hilarity, I can hardly contain myself. But I'm being quite mean I guess, I did snigger a few times quietly to myself, such as when the ship's jolly computer Eddie anounces happily "I am pleased to inform you that two nuclear missiles are now headed this way... if you don't mind, I am going to take action". Zaphod replies "Computer, do something!". The computer answers back "Ok, switching to manual mode... good luck!".
I appreciated some of the more Monty Python'ish bizarro bits like the opening song where dolphins leave planet Earth and sing "Thanks for all the fish". And some of the advice from the Hitchhikers guide itself was pretty funny: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy also talks about love. It says, Avoid if at all possible." But most the time I sat stony faced, staring at the screen with my finger hovering over the "next chapter" button (and this is coming from someone who adores British comedy and can endlessly quote Blackadder and Red Dwarf).

The lead actor Martin Freeman (from BBC's The Office) is banal as the pajamas wearing hero. The girl doesn't really have that much to do. Sam Rockwell was vaguely amusing as the two-headed "President of the Galaxy" Zaphod Beeblebrox, but his performace felt forced and was embarrassing at times (as it was with many of the actors).

I really don't have much else to say about this film. The sets, planets, creatures etcetera all felt uninspired. The humour was outdated and only occasionally got a rise out of me. Sorry filmmakers, Hitchhiker's Guide gets a big yawn from me. Perhaps fans of the source material appreciate it more?

4/10

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Ray's Review

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
115 min

Directed by:
Tim Burton

Based on the book by:
Roald Dahl

Screenplay by:
John August (Big Fish)

Starring:
Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka
Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket
David Kelly as Grandpa Joe
Deep Roy as Oompa Loompa
Christopher Lee as Dr. Wonka

Official Plot Synopsis:

"Acclaimed director Tim Burton brings his vividly imaginative style to the beloved Roald Dahl classic Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, about eccentric chocolatier Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp) and Charlie (Freddie Highmore), a good-hearted boy from a poor family who lives in the shadow of Wonka’s extraordinary factory. Long isolated from his own family, Wonka launches a worldwide contest to select an heir to his candy empire. Five lucky children, including Charlie, draw golden tickets from Wonka chocolate bars and win a guided tour of the legendary candy-making facility that no outsider has seen in 15 years. Dazzled by one amazing sight after another, Charlie is drawn into Wonka’s fantastic world in this astonishing and enduring story."

Ray's Opinion:

This is one of those films that is nearly impossible for me to accurately review, I have such a love of the original film - as it was one of the most watched films of my childhood - that it was a bizarre experience watching the new version. Wonka is different, there's a few additional scenes and it's more faithful to the book, yet I couldn't shake the weird sense of deja vu I had throughout. I've seen this film already... about 30 times!

Firstly let's get Depp's Wonka out of the way. I am a huge Gene Wilder fan and had grave fears about what Depp's interpretation would be - Depp has the capacity to be completely over the top and ruin a film for me, which he did in Sleepy Hollow. Horrible descriptive words such as 'zany' and 'whacky' entered my mind, but thankfully Depp is great as Wonka and is different enough to Gene Wilder that comparisons are pointless - Gene Wilder's Wonka was undeniably strange, but you knew he had a good heart, where as Depp's Wonka is totally insane. I loved Depp's take on it and in retrospect, it's a good thing his Wonka was so different because everything else was so familiar. Apparently Depp based his interpretation of Wonka on gameshow hosts, mixed with a large helping of social ineptitude - not on Michael Jackson as many people would assume. Personally I liked the fact that he reminded me of Jackson, I thought it added a really bizarre streak to it.

If you've seen the original there will be very few surprises in store for you, it really is the same old scenes from a new director's perspective - a director with a unique and interesting perspective... but they're still essentially the same scenes. In a funny way, the new version felt like a companion piece to the 1971 version, expanding on things I'd wondered about (such as Wonka's past and where the Oompa Loompas came from). Some of the new scenes are from the book and had simply been altered or omitted from the 1971 version (such as the Nut Room now in place of the Golden Geese room), while other scenes are entirely new (like Wonka's flashbacks, detailing his relationship with his father, played by the enigmatic Christopher Lee). I loved the new scenes about Wonka's past, but found most the other new scenes made little difference overall.

The screenplay by John August (who wrote 'Big Fish', and the just released 'Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride') is better than the original. It's leaner and gets us into the factory faster, which is a good thing for kids as the lead-up in the 1971 version was protracted and full of strange adult bits that are sort of cool, but completely dull for the wee ones - my five year old sister was watching the Gene Wilder one recently and during the lead-up she turned and said "I'm bored", I skipped forward to the factory and she was absorbed from then on. Thankfully the new screenplay hasn't pandered to today's youth, and has avoided the pointless insertion of hip references to modern culture - which so often happens nowadays in children's films (such as Shrek 2).

The roles are all fairly well cast. I thought the 'child star' who played Charlie was merely average and his grandad lacked the warmth of the 1971 version (whoops, there I go comparing them again). Augustus Gloop looked the part. The girls (Violet Beauregarde and Veruca Salt) were perfect. Mike Teavee had nothing over his incredibly annoying 1971 counterpart. The parents failed to leave much of an impression on me, other than Violet Beauregarde's mother (in matching blue tracksuit).

"Oompa Loompa doompa dee-doo, I've got another puzzle for you" - what the hell is up with the new oompa loompa songs? They are bloody horrible and unquestionably the absolute worst part of the film. I hated the musical numbers and couldn't wait for them to end (I can just see myself pressing the "next chapter" button on my remote when I have the DVD). Unlike the 1971 film, these songs are A: Not catchy. B: Impossible to understand C: Totally pointless. I had no friggen idea what the Oompa Loompas were on about, which was a shame because overall the new Oompa Loopma (a single actor portrayed them all with the aid of CG) was pretty cool and way more developed than the old ones - with a little backstory thrown in too. In a nice touch, the kids observe that the Oompa Loompa songs seem rehearsed and Wonka tries to defend the Oompa Loompas, saying that they are just improvising.

The look of the film is, of course, in the typical gothic Burton style (Dr Seuss inspiration too perhaps?). Apparently the entire "edible room" set was huge and relatively CG free - it looked cool, but it's not really that different to the old version (there I go again).

Overall, regardless of it's astounding similarity to the 1971 version (which I concede is inevitable because they are both based on the same book) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an excellent family film, full of imaginative visuals, held together by a solid script and an interesting central performance by the much over-rated Johnny Depp (I love the guy, but he's not that great). If I hadn't seen the original film so many times I may have enjoyed the new one even more... or less... who knows?

8/10

Tarzan (Disney) - Ray's Review

Tarzan (1999)
88 min

Directed by:
Chris Buck
Kevin Lima

Starring the voices of:
Tony Goldwyn .... Tarzan
Minnie Driver .... Jane Porter
Glenn Close .... Kala
Brian Blessed .... Clayton
Nigel Hawthorne .... Porter
Lance Henriksen .... Kerchak
Wayne Knight .... Tantor
Alex D. Linz .... Young Tarzan
Rosie O'Donnell .... Terk


Plot Summary from Amazon.com:

"...Disney's magnificent animated adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough's story of the ape man begins deep within the jungle when baby Tarzan is adopted by a family of gorillas. Even though he is shunned as a "hairless wonder" by their leader, Tarzan is accepted by the gorillas and raised as one of their own. Together with his wisecracking ape buddy Terk and neurotic elephant pal Tantor, Tarzan learns how to "surf" and swing through the trees and survive in the animal kingdom. His "Two Worlds" collide with the arrival of humans, forcing Tarzan to choose between a "civilized" life with the beautiful Jane and the life he knows and loves with his gorilla family..."

Ray's Opinion:

I always feel divided about Disney films. On the one hand I love a good animated film and I admire the skill involved in their production. On the other hand I am an adult and usually there are many elements that my cynical self will struggle with in animated "kids" films, such as sappy songs, 'amusing' sidekicks and blatant moral lessons. Sometimes I have the capacity to just let things go and I really enjoy myself, other times I am cringing constantly and rolling my eyes. Tarzan had a mixed effect on me, but overall I kept my cynical self in check.

I've got to hand it to the folks behind the tight screenplay, this has got to be the most fast paced Tarzan ever devised. I've noticed some other reviewers felt it was rushed, but I just thought it was incredibly efficient. By the 25 minute mark Tarzan's human parents have been killed, he's been saved by his ape mum Kala, they've established all the animal characters - including the obligatory 'amusing' sidekicks - and Tarzan's gone from boy to man.

The highlight for me is the scene where Tarzan saves his ape father Kerchak and has a showdown with a leopard. It's an awesome scene and in comparison, the end fight is quite lame. I watched some deleted scenes and there was a early pre-viz type animation of an alternate fight scene between Tarzan and his nemesis Clayton. Clayton had captured several apes and is sailing down river in a small boat. Tarzan and him have a huge and brutal fight that ends with the ship exploding. It would have been a much more satisfying end fight and could have broken things up visually too. I guess it may have been deemed a little too brutal for children, or perhaps it was a running time issue (maybe I'll find out when I listen to the film's commentary track)?

Tarzan is a stunning looking production. The jungle comes to life with a system called 'Deep Canvas' that essentially enables you to move through what appears to be a painting, but is in fact a sophisticated blend of 3d elements and traditional 2d painting methods. It enables the virtual camera to go where it wants, creating a dynamic, fluid feeling - it is particularly stomach churning in the scenes where Tarzan 'surfs' through the tree tops; an improbable and bizarre method of getting around, but lots of fun to watch.

The songs are by Phil Collins and they play a huge part in Tarzan - he's crafted some catchy and rhythmic tunes here, but if you can't stand him, he may ruin the whole thing for you. There's heaps of his music and it is all in the sappy Disney style. I enjoyed most of it and actually caught myself humming the main tune "You'll be in my heart" long after Tarzan finished. I've got to hand it to Mr Collins, seeing him sing the songs in Italian, French, Spanish and German - for the international versions - was really impressive.

On the negative side I didn't jive to the 'amusing' sidekicks at all. Sometimes sidekicks are amusing and add something - such as Scrat the squirrel in Ice Age - but I found these ones obnoxious. Also I felt it was very strange having an elephant living with an ape family, Kerchak seemed to have enough of a problem with the 'hairless wonder' being with them, let alone a massive pink elephant. I most enjoyed the animals when they were actually acting animal-like, because sometimes they were just too human - such as the small monkey falling for Jane's "look bananas" distraction. I can appreciate that this is essentially made for children, but I think humanising the animals too much detracted from how spot-on most of the ape behaviour was (I don't have a problem with the ape's talking, because they identified that it sounded like ape-talk to the humans).

The voice work fits the characters well, particularly Tarzan (Tony Goldwyn - I best remember him as the obnoxious 'Colonel Bagley' from The Last Samurai). Minnie Driver (Matt Damon's girlfriend from Good Will Hunting) puts on the perfect snobby British accent (or does she?) that suits Jane, and Lance Henriksen's gravely voice is, of-course, perfect for the intimidating Kerchak.

The DVD image was excellent and I didn't spot any compression issues. The 5.1 sound (there was no DTS on this version) was deep and rich, and used the surrounds effectively. The instrumental soundtrack - with lots of cool 'jungle' type drumming - was powerful and really added to the excitement.

Tarzan is great entertainment for an hour and a half and is one of my favourite animated films overall. It's consistently exciting and has some incredible sequences like Tarzan's fight with the leopard and his jungle 'surfing'. Tarzan is an amazingly agile character that could only ever be fully realised in animation, which the animators did an excellent job of. Unfortunately - well maybe not for kids - it also has cringe inducing scenes like the scene where the 'amusing' sidekicks create a song out of everyday objects at the human's camp - The elephant plays the trumpet... Is that really necessary in the legend of Tarzan?

8/10

The Prince of Egypt - Ray's Review

The Prince of Egypt (1998)
99 min

Directed by:
Brenda Chapman
Steve Hickner
Simon Wells

Written by:
Too many to mention!

Starring the voices of:
Val Kilmer as Moses/God
Ralph Fiennes as Rameses
Michelle Pfeiffer as Tzipporah
Sandra Bullock as Miriam
Jeff Goldblum as Aaron
Danny Glover as Jethro
Patrick Stewart as Pharaoh Seti I
Helen Mirren as The Queen
Steve Martin as Hotep
Martin Short as Huy

Plot Summary from Amazon.com:

"Born a slave and set adrift in the river, Moses (voiced by Val Kilmer) is raised as the son of Pharaoh Seti (Patrick Stewart) and is a fitting rival for his stepbrother Rameses (Ralph Fiennes). When he learns of his roots he flees to the desert, where he heeds God's calling to free the slaves from Egypt."

Intro:

For those who don't know, Jeffrey Katzenberg - who executive produced The Prince of Egypt - has an interesting background. In 1984 Katzenberg become the studio head of Disney's motion picture division and was responsible for turning the studio around by creating some of the most memorable box-office successes ever with films like: Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. He also signed the deal, forging the lucrative partnership between Pixar and Disney.

When Katzenberg didn't get the promotion he deserved for making Disney bucketloads of cash, he pushed the issue too far and was fired... big mistake for Disney (he later filed a lawsuit against Disney and got an out of court settlement for an estimated $100 - $250 million). If you look back Disney hasn't really recovered since he left. Sure, their Pixar films have gone extremely well, but all their traditionally animated films have gone poorly; think back to Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Lilo and Stitch and the more recent Home on the Range... these films are simply not in the same league as when Katzenberg was on board at Disney (in box office terms The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Lion King made close to 1.5 billion in combined worldwide grosses at the cinema. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo and Stitch and Home on the Range combined made about half that much).

In 1994 Katzenberg co-founded Dreamworks SKG (with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen) and is CEO of the Dreamworks animation department. Katzenberg was ambitious and wanted to make something epic, he discussed this with Spielberg, and Spielberg said "Why not make The Ten Commandments?". After recovering from shock, Katzenberg dived into this massive project (which took 4 years to complete) and in 1998 The Prince of Egypt was released - a spectacular animated film with no cute sidekicks, that carries a serious biblical theme.

Ray's Opinion:

The first words that leap into one's mind regarding The Prince of Egypt are: Huge, Epic, Ambitious, Vast, Grand... you get the idea. TPOE is an incredibly attractive David Lean (Laurence of Arabia) type film that affected me on a completely different level to other animated films. I wasn't so much entertained, as enthralled.

TPOE starts with a bang with the song 'Deliver Us' setting the scene perfectly. Unfortunately no other song is as strong and often they felt too 'on the nose'. I can understand the importance of songs being in service of plot, however there is a limit to how far you take it. Yet the songs added to the dramatic quality of the film, so they didn't bother me too much (apart from the song that Moses sings "All I Ever Wanted", that was utterly pompous).

Visually speaking, I was blown away. The stand-out scene is when Moses parts the Red Sea - it looks incredible and is suitably impressive. There are smaller scenes that are inspired too, such as Moses's hieroglyphic dream sequence. Like most recent animated films there is massive amounts of CG elements - which at times doesn't mix entirely well with traditional animation- but it's all in service of making scenes as dynamic as possible, so the trade-off is worth it (I think I've made the same point in all my animated film reviews).

The characters reminded me a little of the style found in Roger Rabbit, with their shaded sides - making them look semi-3D. They also feature slightly embossed edges giving them a subtle hieroglyphic style. Unfortunately the DVD image is average and because large blocks of single colours are frequently used, you can clearly see compression issues, particularly in their skin. I had heard the DVD quality was exceptional, so this was somewhat of a unpleasant surprise (when things are moving fast, the compression looks fine). Thankfully the sound quality is top notch.

TPOE is a strange beast of an animated film. It's not really a kids film, yet people associate animation with children so of course many, many children saw this film. I would like to watch it with a kid to see how they find it, because there's little humour, no cute sidekicks and besides the chariot race, there is basically no action. Not to mention that we have some pretty bleak stuff here, such as: Dead children. A man falling to his death. Drowned guards. Human slaughter and a plague! It's all done as tastefully as possible, but it will definitely evoke a few more questions from children than most animated films.

Regarding the religious aspects of the film, I think Dreamworks did an excellent juggling act in telling a religious story accurately, while avoiding putting off non-religious folks like myself. Cleverly, the film ends with Moses simply carrying The Ten Commandments slab in his arms, we never actually hear them. Also God is seen as a general life-force - a sort of swirling energy, that surrounds a small tree- far preferable to the cliche 'bearded man in the clouds' image.

Overall I was very impressed. The animation style still seems fresh and inventive - and in places, jaw dropingly cool. The voice-work - while not perfect - suits most the characters and is never distracting. For pure entertainment I would be inclined to watch The Road to El Dorado, but for pure spectacle The Prince of Egypt wins hands down.

8/10


Read my review of The Road to El Dorado

Read my review of Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas - Ray's Review

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

Directed by Patrick Gilmore and Tim Johnson

Written by John Logan (Gladiator, The Aviator)

Starring the voices of:
Brad Pitt as Sinbad
Catherine Zeta-Jones as Marina
Michelle Pfeiffer as Eris
Joseph Fiennes as Proteus


Plot Synopsis from Amazon.com:

"Sinbad gets commissioned by the wicked goddess Eris to steal a magical book called the Book of Peace from the city of Syracuse--but the prince of Syracuse turns out to be a childhood friend of Sinbad's. So Eris steals the book herself and frames Sinbad, making the hero sail to the edge of the world to get it back, accompanied by Marina, a woman he's secretly loved for years..."

Ray's Opinion:

Sinbad is not as good as Dreamworks previous animated effort The Legend of El Dorado. Firstly the basic structure is far more conventional and hero based, making it feel predictable. Secondly, the voice work is merely average, with Michelle Pfeiffer coming off best, simply because her character isn't as banal as the rest (but Eris is still dull). It's all very well to choose big stars to headline an animated film, but you can't just choose them because they are famous, choose them for their interesting voices and vocal comic skills... something Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones sorely lack (at least when you can't actually see their pretty faces).

The look of Sinbad is impressive. Much like El Dorado the palette is again highly saturated and leaps off the screen. Like previous animated Dreamwork's films, Sinbad is loaded with CG elements and overall they look cool. The huge monsters (like a giant squid and a massive white eagle) have a sense of weight to them, due to their 3D nature, yet they don't quite mix with the 2D animated characters. Take for example the bit where Sinbad's slobbering dog Spike bites onto the giant squid's tentacle, Spike and the squid look completely different, the squid is far more detailed. However I can overlook this, as the 3D elements add far more than they take away.

No matter how hard the filmmakers tried Sinbad has a generic feel and as a result I didn't really become involved. The witty banter between Sinbad (Pitt) and Marina (Zeta-Jones) didn't ring true, or perhaps I'm just bored of the antagonistic male-female interplay thing... it's so predictable: They rub each other the wrong way, yet secretly they are attracted to each other and ultimately they grow close through their shared adventures and then sail off into the sunset together... yawn. After the hilarious antics of Tulio (Kevin Kline) and Miguel (Kenneth Branagh) in The Legend of El Dorado, the character interactions in Sinbad just didn't measure up. Where's the originality? Where's a single moment between them that you couldn't see coming a mile off?

Another problem lies in the feeling of déjà vu you'll get watching it. For example, one of the big - if not the biggest - action set-pieces they build to is when Sinbad saves Marina from the giant white eagle's nest and they slide down the mountain using a shield as a sled. I have already seen this twice. First in Aladdin, when he barely escapes from the lava-filled underground lair on the magic carpet and again in Ice Age, when they all slide down the icy slopes to save the human baby. There in lies the problem with Sinbad, almost everything contained in this film you've seen before, detracting from any merit the scene may have, no matter how pretty they've made it look. Sometimes when a film is riddled with cliches and stale ideas they still manage to rise above it with some fresh, new elements - Sinbad is not one of those films.

Yet while it is predictable, there is still something charming about the whole affair. It is a fun adventure film, with dynamic action scenes and some cool supporting characters (the monkey man who swings around on ropes being a highlight). It's all wrapped up in a visually sumptuous package and it does its absolute best to entertain you while it lasts. It's just a shame that the voice work is bland and the plot so generic, when so much effort has gone into its design.

6/10

Trivia:

Initially, 'Russell Crowe' signed up for the title role, but in the autumn of 2001 he was replaced by Brad Pitt because Crowe was too busy working on another project.

Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones did not meet until the premiere - perhaps that explains the complete lack of chemistry between them?

Read my review of The Road to El Dorado

The Road to El Dorado - Ray's Review

The Road To El Dorado (2000)
89 min
Colour - Widescreen

Directed by Bibo Bergeron, Will Finn, Don Paul, David Silverman, Jeffrey Katzenberg (Wow!)

Written by Ted Elliot (Shrek, Aladdin, Treasure Planet)


Starring the voices of:
Kevin Kline as Tulio
Kenneth Branagh as Miguel
Rosie Perez as Chel
Armand Assante as Tzekel-Kan

Plot Synopsis:

Two eccentric con artists, Tulio and Miguel, are shooting craps in the sun-squelched streets of 16th-century Spain when they win a map charting the way to El Dorado, the lost City of Gold, and see it as their ticket both to adventure and an enormous fortune. With the map in hand, they stow away on the ship of evil Spanish leader Cortez, bound for Cuba. By chance, the two men are thrown off course and find themselves in a lush and vibrant rainforest replete with exotic animals, hidden waterfalls, and traces of an Indian civilization. Stumbling upon the gate to El Dorado, Tulio and Miguel are thought to be gods by a group of Mayan natives, and they are led into the heart of the city for a special welcoming ceremony. There they meet the adorable Chel, a con artist herself, who practically bests them at their own tricks. In the end, the two friends must choose whether they will stay and enjoy life in the magical city of El Dorado or make off with the gold and return to Western culture as rich men.

Ray's Opinion:

I tend to go through phases of watching a particular genre of film. As some of you may have gathered I just went through a Western phase, before that I went through a show-off-my-home-cinema phase watching loud, glossy boy's films like The Rock and Independence Day. Now I feel an animated films phase coming on - I don't know exactly what it is that draws me back to animated features, the child within perhaps? Whatever the case, I love them (which isn't hard with titles like The Incredibles around) and am looking forward to delving into a few more in the near future and reviewing them here.

The Road to El Dorado is the second animated feature from Dreamworks after the successful and impressive The Prince of Egypt (which I will be reviewing shortly too). What I love about El Dorado is the fact that there is no main character, this is a film about supporting characters and freed from the restriction of having some earnest, do-gooding central character like most animated films, makes this feel refreshing and different. The major lack of Disney type moral lessons is a relief too (though of course there are some moral elements).

For me there is one huge draw card to El Dorado and that is Kevin Kline. I absolutely love Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda and his strongly recognisable voice is incredibly suited to animation. He constantly had me cracking up and on more than one occasion sounded very Otto like. Kenneth Branagh is excellent too and the witty banter between him and Kevin Kline is consistently funny. For example, after escaping some guards they leap in some barrels and are suddenly hoisted through the air to be placed on a ship, Tulio asks "What's happening here?", Miguel responds "We're both in barrels - that's the extent of my knowledge".

There are some elements that may put off overly sensitive parents such as bare bottoms (oh my) and mild cussing - "Holy Ship" Tulio exclaims as a ship almost crushes them at sea. Rosie Perez's character Chel is fairly curvy too and uses her womanly charms to her advantage. Considering what's on TV these days, I hardly imagine anything contained in this film has the capacity to shock or offend children (but parents on the other hand, well...).

The animation is gorgeous and fluid, mixing traditional cel animation with CG elements fairly well. The palette is rich and looked incredibly good on my LCD TV, with no compression artifacts to be found anywhere. In fact the DVD in general is of stellar quality, with a well mixed and aggressive 5.1 soundtrack to show off your stereo too.

The only real drawback for me is the music. Considering it's the same team that worked magic on The Lion King, it's quite a shock that the soundtrack here is bland and feels out of place. Whenever an Elton John song came on I was immediately pulled out of the experience. Personally, I would have preferred an instrumental soundtrack.

As the film progresses, Tulio and Miguel are swamped by story elements and as a result the amount of jokes dwindles. More focus on humour and less on the predictable story would have been nice. But overall, El Dorado is a great animated film, presented flawlessly on DVD and full of hilarious scenes thanks to the vocal talents of Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh (and thanks to the expressive animation). It's a surprise that such a light hearted and funny film like this was so bashed by critics and overlooked by audiences. I believe it deserves far more attention than it got.

8/10

Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh Reviews

Louis L'Amour's Crossfire Trail (2001)
Colour - Widescreen
92 min

Directed by Simon Wincer

Starring:
Tom Selleck as Rafe Covington
Virginia Madsen as Anne Rodney
Mark Harmon as Bruce Barkow

Description from DVD:

"Rafe Covington is as good as his word, and he's determined to keep his promise to a dying man that he'll look after the man's widow and Wyoming ranch. But the widow doubts the integrity of drifter Covington. And an unscrupulous land grabber and his gunmen are sizing up the ranch the way a spider eyes a fly..."

Ray's Opinion:

This is the second Film, in what could be considered the Tom Selleck/Simon Wincer Western trilogy: Quigly Down Under (1990), Crossfire Trail (2001) and Monte Walsh (2003). While I haven't enjoyed their collaborations as much as Selleck's other Western: Last Stand at Saber River (1997), they are still fine Westerns that I am happy to own and will definitely watch again in the future.

While Quigly Down Under was a proper film, Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh are TNT TV Westerns and Crossfire Trail shows it's TV origin the most. The first fight scene, where Selleck beats up the ship's Captain had poor sound effects that shouted "TV movie" to me instantly, though thankfully the impending gun shots and other sound effects were much better. Selleck has mentioned in interviews that while they are TV films, they were shot like films and they did their best to make them look and feel cinematic.

The story was fine, but that's never why I watch a Western (though of course a good story helps). I watch Westerns to escape to another time and place, and I watch them for the hero. A Western is only a good as it's leading man and Tom Selleck is one of the few contemporary actors who has what it takes (Sam Elliot and Kevin Costner being the only others that leap to mind). Here he plays another memorable and charming man, and carries the film on his broad shoulders like a champ.

Crossfire Trail is yet another Western based on a Louis L'Amour novel, which is a good thing as L'Amour knows how to inject just the right amount of "cool" for his hero and fleshes out all the other characters admirably too (though I still prefer Elmore Leonard's dialogue - another fine Western writer). One thing that really stood out was how well defined all the supporting characters were, but that's hardly a surprise as their roles were filled by excellent actors, almost all of whom are experienced Western actors (though the hired-gun brought in to kill Selleck and his crew was a little over the top for my liking - perhaps Sergio could have made him work, but in the context of this film he was bizarre).

Overall Crossfire Trail is a solid Western that's worth checking out if you are a fan of the genre. It is beautifully shot and well acted, and builds nicely up to a well executed final shoot-out. I wouldn't call it an all out classic (it's too predictable for that), but it's still a success.

7/10

Monte Walsh - The Last Cowboy (2003)
Colour - Widescreen
119 min

Directed by Simon Wincer

Starring:
Tom Selleck as Monte Walsh
Isabella Rossellini as 'Countess' Martine
Keith Carradine as Chester 'Chet' Rollins
Robert Carradine as Sunfish Perkins
George Eads as Frank 'Shorty' Austin

Description from DVD:

"Times change, Monte Walsh doesn't. For him, being a cowboy isn't a job, it's a life. And that's something the fenced-in, corporate-bean-counting ways of the onrushing 20th century must never alter. Tom Selleck plays Monte, struggling to continue the life he knows while seeing the new era nudge the cowboy way toward history's dustbin. Lonesome Dove Emmy winner Simon Wincer directs this Western featuring a superb supporting cast and based on a novel by the author of Shane."

Ray's Opinion:

Monte (pronounced "Monty" for those like myself who didn't know) Walsh is a swan song to the West. Watching it I was reminded of Unforgiven, in the sense that it feels like a tribute to the Western genre and also a farewell (though I hope Simon Wincher and Tom Selleck continue making Westerns). It is not dark like Unforgiven (though it does contain some graphic violence), it is far more romanticised and Disney like, but not in a bad way.

Monte Walsh is an extremely assured and leisurely paced film. In some ways it doesn't feel like a traditional film at all, but more of a character study. It looks fantastic (the DVD transfer was superb), in fact the quality in all departments is very high (which is why I was a little disappointed in the quality of Crossfire Trail).

Unlike most Westerns, the focus here is actually on Cowboying (the real kind that is, breaking in horses and working your arse off, as opposed to endlessly standing around in saloons and killing five men a day), so don't come into this expecting an action film. The attention to small details is impressive and for real fans of the West this should be pleasing - the filmmakers understand the West and it is readily apparent that a huge amount of effort has gone into making it as believable as possible (while still being theatrical when it needs to be).

Selleck once again gives a charming performance - possibly his best ever - and commands your attention when on screen. As in his previous Westerns he has surrounded himself with seasoned Western actors in the supporting roles (such as the Carradines), who lend an immense amount of credibility.

Monte Walsh is the perfect Sunday afternoon film. If you can handle its sentimentality you should enjoy the ride... I did. Keep it up Selleck!

8/10

P.S. I may not review the Henry Fonda Westerns as promised in my previous post. I need a rest from Westerns so that I don't lose my perspective on them.

Western DVD Round-up 3 - By Ray

Howdy partner. I've been watching a few Westerns lately, in fact, it's becoming somewhat of an obsession. I've seen about a dozen in the last two weeks, so forgive me if I am a little vague on some details in the upcoming reviews. The films are beginning to all blend into one: Mysterious Loner/Dishonoured Marshall hunts down the men who killed his family/or the pretty lady's family, along the way he learns the value of life again from a beautiful frontier woman (while killing everyone in sight) and settles down with her/or rides off into the mountains with a wound in his side.

Today I will be looking at 3:10 to Yuma, Shane, True Grit, Nevada Smith and The Quick and The Dead (HBO film starring Sam Elliot).



3:10 to Yuma (1957)
92 mins
Black and White - 16:9

Directed by Delmer Daves

Starring:
Glenn Ford as Ben Wade
Van Heflin as Dan Evans

Description from Amazon.com:

"Struggling rancher and family man Van Heflin sneaks captured outlaw Glenn Ford out from under the eyes of his gang and nervously awaits the prison train in this tight, taut Western in the High Noon tradition. Adapted from an Elmore Leonard story, this tense Western thriller is boiled down to its essential elements: a charming and cunning criminal, an initially reluctant hero whose courage and resolution hardens along the way, and a waiting game that pits them in a battle of wills and wits. Glenn Ford practically steals the film in one of his best performances ever: calm, cool, and confident, he's a ruthless killer with polite manners and an honorable streak. Director Delmer Daves (Broken Arrow) sets it all in a harsh, parched frontier of empty landscapes, deserted towns, and dust, creating a brittle quiet that threatens to snap into violence at any moment.--Sean Axmaker."

Ray's Opinion:

This was one of the few "classic" Westerns I've watched recently that I have truly enjoyed. As it states above, 3:10 to Yuma is a psychological Western (with very little action), similar to High Noon. Glenn Ford rules here as the manipulative and smarmy outlaw Ben Wade. Van Heflin's no-nonsense, I'm-doing-it-for-the-money "hero" is great too, I've never seen a hero quite like him (if you can even call him a hero). There is an air of unpredictability - I never knew where the film was heading and I was quite surprised by its direction in several places. 3:10 looks fantastic - the black and white widescreen image is crisp and vivid. This is a Western worth seeing, particularly if you like them a little different to the usual Western mould.

3:10 to Yuma - 9/10



Shane (1953)
118 mins
Colour - 4:3

Directed by George Stevens (Giant, A Place in the Sun)

Starring:
Alan Ladd as Shane
Jean Arthur as Marian Starrett
Van Heflin as Joe Starrett
Jack Palance as Jack Wilson

Description from Amazon.com:

"Consciously crafted by director George Stevens as a piece of American mythmaking, Shane is on nearly everyone's shortlist of great movie Westerns. A buckskin knight, Shane (Alan Ladd) rides into the middle of a range war between farmers and cattlemen, quickly siding with the "sod-busters." While helping a kindly farmer (Van Heflin), Shane falls platonically in love with the man's wife (Jean Arthur, in the last screen performance of a marvelous career). Though the showdowns are exciting, and the story simple but involving, what most people will remember about this movie is the friendship between the stoical Shane and the young son of the farmers. The kid is played by Brandon De Wilde, who gives one of the most amazing child performances in the movies; his parting scene with Shane is guaranteed to draw tears from even the most stonyhearted moviegoer. And speaking of stony hearts, Jack Palance made a sensational impression as the evil gunslinger sent to clean house--he has fewer lines of dialogue than he has lines in his magnificently craggy face, but he makes them count. The photography, highlighting the landscape near Jackson Hole, Wyoming, won an Oscar. --Robert Horton"

Ray's Opinion:

I couldn't agree less with critics and fans on this one. Shane is the most camp Western I have ever seen, with the gayest hero of all time. Perhaps this is the "archetypal" 50's Western... but who cares. Alan Ladd is a sissy who looks like he'd be more comfortable in tights doing an experimental dance production than carrying a six-shooter. The scene where Shane and Joe are removing a tree trunk together (Shane is topless and sweaty I might add) is fricken hilarious, the look they exchange at the end is priceless (they turn, look at each other and then break out the big grins... very, very funny). As for the kid who apparently "gives one of the most amazing child performances in the movies", I think my fiancee's reaction to first seeing him sums things up - he popped up from behind a bush and she laughed and said "He looks like a retard". Suffice to say Shane is not on the top of my favourite Westerns list. However, I will give it this, Jack Palance is cool as the quick-drawing hired gun and the final shoot-out redeems the film somewhat, but not nearly enough. Maybe if I had been a teenager in the 1950's I would have loved this film... but I'm not. I guess I like my Westerns with a dash more realism.

NOTE: I assume the film was actually shot widescreen, yet the DVD I saw was 4:3, which was a shame, as it's look was the best thing about it. I may have liked it more if I'd seen it as it was intended.

Shane - 5/10



True Grit (1969)
128 mins
Colour - 16:9

Directed by Henry Hathaway (5 Card Stud, Nevada Smith, North to Alaska)

Starring:
John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn
Glan Campbell as La Boeuf
Kim Darby as Mattie Ross
Robert Duvall as Ned Pepper

Description from DVD:

"The strangest trio ever to track a killer. A fearless, one-eyed U.S. marshal who never knew a dry day in his life... a Texas ranger thirsty for bounty money... and a girl still wet behind the ears who didn't care what they were or who they were as long as they had true grit."

Ray's Opinion:

I like John Wayne, though I'm no expert on the Duke (having only seen The Searchers, Rio Bravo, The Shootist, and bits of his other films). For me, a Western is only as good as it's hero and if he isn't interesting it will not hold my attention. The hero can be shrouded in mystery like the-man-with-no-name or made larger than life from tales of his past... or both. I knew I was in for a good ride as soon as John Wayne's character Rooster Cogburn was introduced, he commanded my attention immediately with his rough, yet charming ways. The film is primarily driven by the relationship he forms with a head-strong tom girl as he tracks her father's killer. I thought the girl was great and it was very funny seeing John Wayne attempting to assert authority over her and always being shot down. True Grit is an attractive film and the transfer on the DVD is of high quality. I can't put it into words - you just know when a Western has the right feel and True Grit is one of those Westerns.

NOTE: I watched the sequel Rooster Cogburn (made 6 years later) and was very disappointed. It looked dull and had a lagging pace. The "witty banter" between Wayne and Katharine Hepburn (who's Parkinson's disease I found quite distracting) felt forced. I only made it to the 30-min mark and it's not often I abandon a film. Thankfully Wayne's last film - The Shootist - is remarkably good.

True Grit - 8/10



Nevada Smith (1966)
128 mins
Colour - 16:9

Directed by Henry Hathaway (same director that did True Grit)

Starring:
Steve McQueen as Nevada Smith/Max Sand
Karl Madden as Tom Fitch
Brian Keith as Jonas Cord
Martin Landau as Jesse Coe

Plot Summary from Amazon.com:

"The Max Sand backstory in Harold Robbins's trashy The Carpetbaggers (an enjoyable wallow onscreen in 1964) made for a solid Western vehicle for Steve McQueen at his peak. Nevada Smith is a revenge movie, but closer in spirit to The Bravados than a Death Wish-style exercise in nihilism. Young Max, offspring of a white father and Indian mother, sets out to avenge their slaughter by three villains. His odyssey includes spiritual re-parenting at several stages, most notably by canny gun dealer Jonas Cord (a swell character part for Brian Keith). Since director Henry Hathaway and cameraman Lucien Ballard couldn't frame a bad shot if their lives depended on it, it's a relief that this movie is finally available in a widescreen format. --Richard T. Jameson"

Ray's Opinion:

I really wanted to like this film more. I enjoyed McQueen's transition from naive boy to tough cowboy and it is an attractively mounted film with a solid cast, but somehow, it never managed to involve me. For one, I found it bizarre hearing everyone refer to McQueen as son or boy, he was 35 years old when he made this and that's exactly how old he looks (hence the complete lack of close-ups on him). Also, it's difficult to buy McQueen acting naive, he simply has a world weary quality about him. Unlike some recent Westerns I've seen, the dialogue in Nevada Smith wasn't a highlight either. The best thing about this film is the physicality that McQueen brings to it, he was an incredibly agile man and it's clear that he performed all his own stunts. Nevada Smith is one of those films that you enjoy, yet it never fully holds your attention and you probably won't want to see it again.

NOTE: Steve McQueen returned to the Western genre with his second to last film Tom Horn. I reviewed it in my last Western Round-up.

Nevada Smith - 6/10



The Quick and the Dead (1987)
91 mins
Colour - 16:9

Directed by Robert Day

Starring:
Sam Elliot as Con Vallian
Tom Conti as Duncan McKaskel
Kate Capshaw as Susanna McKaskel


Description from Amazon.com:

"In 1876 Wyoming, the gun is the only law. And for Duncan and Susanna McKaskel (Tom Conti and Kate Capshaw), newly arrived settlers beset by outlaws, rugged frontiersman Con Vallian (Sam Elliott) is the only hope. From the book by famed Western author Louis L'Amour, THE QUICK AND THE DEAD is a rousing adventure. It shares tried-and-true ingredients of those sagebrush sagas: a tale of peaceable folk driven to action under the guidance of a mysterious stranger."

Ray's Opinion:

Firstly, no, this is not as good as Conagher - another TV Western based on a Louis L'Amour novel starring the ultra-cool Sam Elliot (which I reviewed in my last Western Round-up). I was surprised by how different Sam Elliot's hero character is to Conagher (though his first name is still Con - Louis L'Amour must have a real thing for that strange name). Con is not a reserved man and makes his feelings towards Kate Capshaw's character well known, regardless of her husbands discomfort. Con rides in and out of the McKaskel's life, giving them advice and helping keep them alive. However his help is not so welcomed by the Husband (played by the Ray Romano look-a-like Tom Conti). The father feels threatened by Con's advances towards his wife and he dislikes his son's admiration with this enigmatic stranger. Things progress as you'd expect, with the Father getting a chance to shine for his wife and son when Con is temporarily out of action - it's all very simple, but what makes it worth while is Sam Elliot. He crafts another cool hero here and if you're a fan then this is worth seeing, otherwise there is nothing particularly outstanding or original to see.

The Quick and the Dead - 8/10

In my next Round-up I will be taking a look at the recent Tom Selleck TV Westerns: Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh. Also I will review two classic Henry Fonda Westerns: The Ox-Bow Incident and My Darling Clementine. By then I think I will well and truly need a rest from the west.