Hey folks,

As if you needed another reason to go ahead and invest in a Blu-ray player, the latest Criterion newsletter announced that they will be unleashing their first batch of Blu-ray titles in October. Supplemental content will be the same as content on the standard DVD releases.

The titles being released on Blu-ray are:

The Third Man
Bottle Rocket
Chungking Express
The Man Who Fell to Earth
The Last Emperor
El Norte
The 400 Blows
Gimme Shelter
The Complete Monterey Pop
Contempt
Walkabout
For All Mankind
The Wages of Fear

Criterion adds: "Alongside our DVD and Blu-ray box sets of The Last Emperor, we'll also be putting out the theatrical version as a stand-alone release in both formats, priced at $39.95. Our Blu-ray release of Walkabout will be an all-new edition, featuring new supplements as well as a new transfer; we will also release an updated anamorphic DVD of Nicolas Roeg's outback masterpiece at the same time."

I know I'm excited about seeing some of these titles in hi-def. How about you?

I don't receive that much direct feedback for my reviews, so I tend to pay a lot of attention to whether readers think my critiques are fair, based on the yes/no option at the bottom of the page. Generally, I find my reviews are considered fair by the majority of readers who rate them. Strange, then, that only 5 of 9 readers as of this writing feel that I have given The Love Boat - Season One, Volume 1 a fair shake.

Anyone who has read my reviews of "lightweight" material like the Frankie and Annette Collection or the Tammy Triple Feature set knows that I am generally very open to films and TV shows which are frothy and fluffy, but not overly substantive. I'm not one of those critics that enjoys looking down his nose at something because it doesn't make a profound statement about human nature, the Iraq War, globalization, the plight of the humpback whale, etc. If a film or show is meant to be entertaining and fun in a very simple or superficial way, I acknowledge that going in, and I do my best to judge the material with that intent in mind.

I approached The Love Boat knowing full well (from having watched it fairly regularly during its network run) that it was never meant to be heavy or "important" stuff. It was intended to be romance and mild farce on the high seas, with recognizable actors enjoying a week on a cruise ship and a break from their typical roles. I didn't set out to hold the show to any unfairly high standard which it had no chance of meeting. I took it at face value, and still found it lacking.

For whatever charm it had (and still has), The Love Boat was a thoroughly predictable and generally only mildly amusing program. Its plots were given too little time to develop, its characters were too broadly drawn, and its resolutions were too easy to see coming for the show to be really satisfying on any level. Too often, great comedic actors were handed scripts which required them to deliver humorous dialogue on a par with the commentary for the annual Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, and which did not fully take advantage of their considerable talent as performers. As I cited in the review, when you see George Jefferson and Aunt Esther trading venomous barbs and still don't laugh, something is wrong in TV Land.

Those who found the review unfair should note that I gave credit to many of the guest stars, and to a few of the regulars, for doing fine work in the series' early episodes. Also noteworthy is the fact that much of my dissatisfaction with the box set centered on the high retail price, the lack of extras, and the distributor's decision to release the show in half-seasons. Had this been a full season of the program, with commentary tracks and other extras, I undoubtedly would have given the release a higher overall grade, in spite of the show's inherent shortcomings.

This is the first time I've ever felt compelled to defend a review in a public forum. I'm not certain why the 4 "unfair" ratings bother me so much, though I suspect that it stems largely from the fact that I subconsciously wanted to like this set a lot more than I did. Again, I watched this show as a kid, and I fully acknowledge its place in TV history. Sometimes, though, a strong feeling of nostalgia is not sufficient reason to overlook artistic flaws in, or stingy home video presentation of, a film or television program. I stand by my review of this set. I can only hope that those who think I have judged it too harshly will take a second look at both the review and the DVD, and realize that my criticisms, though at times scathing, are still honest and fair.

I've been a fan of Kenneth Branagh's films for quite some time, and I'm also a big fan of the 1972 film Sleuth. When I heard that Branagh was remaking Sleuth, I was intrigued. When I heard that Michael Caine (who co-starred in the original film) would be in the film playing the role originally played by Laurence Olivier, I was even more intrigued. When I heard that the acclaimed playwright Harold Pinter was writing the screenplay, I was fascinated. Then, when the movie never got around to coming to a theatre near me, I was annoyed. I read a lot of bad reviews, and the good reviews all had serious reservations. Nonetheless, I was still keen to see the film. So, I finally got a chance to watch the DVD this week. I'm glad I did, because the new Sleuth is nothing short of fascinating.

Both films share the same plot. Two men meet to resolve their dispute over a woman. The woman's husband is Andrew Wyke (played by Laurence Olivier in 1972, played by Michael Caine in 2007), a successful writer of crime novels. The woman's lover is Milo Tindle (played by Michael Caine in 1972, played by Jude Law in 2007). The two agree to meet at Wyke's house to figure out how to deal with the situation, and neither knows what they are in for. What follows is a series of mind games and manipulations that will push both characters to extremes.

This Branagh/Pinter Sleuth is not so much a remake of the original as a reverse image of it. Watching the new Sleuth is like looking at the negative of a very familiar photo. Consider the following observations:

1972: The film runs nearly two and a half hours, and features a very clever Anthony Schaffer screenplay full of elegant prose and memorable speeches.
2007: The film runs under ninety minutes, and features a very clever Harold Pinter screenplay featuring harsh, clipped, dialogue that cuts right to the chase.

1972: Andrew Wyke's house looks it might turn into a wild carnival at any moment. Every room is packed with gadgets, statues, trinkets, and gizmos, all of which seem either strange or sinister. It's an artful funhouse, inhabited by an eccentric clown.
2007: Andrew Wyke's house is the very definition of cold new-age taste, featuring almost-empty rooms, a minimal amount of modern art, and a very advanced security system.

1972: The film features a score by British composer John Addison, who creates a busy monothematic effort that suggests a very playful and somewhat dangerous atmosphere.
2007: The film features a score by British composer Patrick Doyle, who creates a minimalist monothematic effort that suggests a very cold and deadly atmosphere.

I could go on and on making similar comparisons, but you get the idea. This Sleuth is intended as a direct reflection of the original, something that compliments the first film rather than replacing it. The film seems stripped-down, lean, simple, but don't mistake that for a lack of complexity. Between Pinter's dialogue, the actors delivering it, and Branagh's direction, the simple and mundane is rarely as simple and mundane as it seems. Small statements seem to carry double or triple meanings, and we wonder whether the motivations are remarkably simple or terribly complex. Like the artwork in Wyke's house, everything can be viewed very quickly, but you may spend an hour pondering it afterwards.

I will grant critics of the film that the characters are very unsavory. These two people deserve each other, they are unpleasant individuals. Nonetheless, we are not being asked to sympathize with these characters. That would be a large demand. We are asked to observe them, to try and figure them out, something suggested by Kenneth Branagh's direction. Many shots are shown through a security a camera, or a window from another room, or a strange angle, and we feel like voyeurs; we are looking at something that we probably should not see.

The performances in the film are excellent, particularly Michael Caine's turn as Andrew Wyke. Caine is immensely compelling in this role, adding another strong performance to a string of very solid acting turns over the past decade. Jude Law is not exactly a great actor, but he definitely gives everything he has got here, and really does manage to create a credible and interesting character. If you've seen the original, you may be wondering about the character that shows up during the second act. That character shows up again in this film, and it's no harder to figure out this time than it was the first time. However, I don't think that anybody was ever trying to fool us. We are meant to observe how the characters behave in such a situation, our knowledge of what one character doesn't know enhances our experience.

The real shame is that the original film isn't readily available on DVD. I think that a knowledge of the original film will greatly enhance a viewer's appreciation for this film (though admittedly, many of the bad reviews were offering the "not nearly as good as the original" complaint). It would be terrific to watch both films back to back, it would make for a really fascinating character study as well as a very revealing look at how to approach a story from two different angles. Let's hope that the 1972 Sleuth gets some sort of special edition re-release in the not-too-distant future. There's plenty of room for both versions of this tantalizing tale in my DVD collection.

Just saw a little notice at the bottom of the TV screen. Michael Palin's New Europe begins on the Travel Channel tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern. Considering that they've advertised the new season of Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations at every break, I'm surprised I didn't catch any ads for Palin before.

So I went and saw Cloverfield. Now, what can I possibly say about this movie that the rest of the internet hasn’t already said? Let’s see…

Blah blah blah plot summary blah blah blah surprise party blah blah blah New York attacked blah blah blah giant monster blah blah blah hand-held camera blah blah blah motion sickness blah blah blah go back to get the girl blah blah blah internet hype blah blah blah cauliflower blah blah blah J.J. Abrams blah blah blah Slusho blah blah blah Zoidberg blah blah blah boogers blah blah blah has Rambo opened yet?

The big question: Do we actually see the monster? Answer: yes, it gets a close-up. And, honestly, I was kind of disappointed. After all that build-up, I’m sad to say that the big beastie looks kind of ordinary (for a giant monster, that is). Plus, the overall visual effects look a little too CGI-ish and not fully integrated with the human characters. At least not to my eye.

If the filmmakers were here, I’m sure they’d give me a big speech right now about how the movie is supposed to be more about the characters than the monster, and I can kind of see that. Unfortunately, some of the character bits don’t make sense, just like some of the monster bits don’t make sense. I’m willing to believe that a guy would go to great lengths during a crisis to save the girl he’s hot for, but it’s a little harder to buy two friends and a fourth person who hardly knows him tagging along. And, yeah, as the movie goes from one nightmarish experience to the next, it becomes less and less believable that they’d keep filming all this. I get that they’d do it for a while, because this attack would be history in the making, etc., but after almost getting killed for the 14th time or so, it gets incredulous. There are numerous instances of character motivations, camera set-ups, and even monster attacks that serve no real purpose except getting these people to the next plot point, and that makes for frustrating viewing.

Did I totally hate the movie? No. There were a few scenes that really captured the intense, thrill-ride feel the creators were aiming for. Some of the humor in the dialogue also got me chuckling. Some twists and shocks in the movie took me by surprise, I’ll admit. It’s just that a few fun scenes don’t add up to a satisfying movie overall. I’d classify Cloverfield as an interesting experiment -- a novelty item. It was amusing to see once, but not something I’d rush out to see again (or see a sequel to).