Disc Type

"Where there's life ... there's hope. Bob Hope, that is."

Few American entertainers have had a career to match that of Bob Hope. He lived 100 years and spent over 80 of those years in the entertainment industry. He appeared in over 70 films, wrote various books, and has over 300 appearance credits to his name on television and radio. He cut out a niche for himself during World War II that carried him through the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. He conducted literally hundreds of appearances for GI's out in the field, performing sometimes for audiences at the front. He brought a ton of his celebrity friends and was Mr. USO for decades. An honest look at his career is impossible here. Thanks to the folks over at Kino, we have the opportunity to explore a couple of his films from the 1940's. You can pick up each of them on Blu-ray now, and we'll give you an idea of what you're going to get for your money

I’m going to go ahead and say that this limited series is only meant for the diehard fans of the original series. Those are the only people that I can see enjoying the show, based on the lack of context provided for newcomers. You are kind of just thrown into the mix without a real frame of reference for the characters or the central premise unless you already have some familiarity with the universe. Given that Adventure Time: Distant Lands was intended as a continuation of said series, that is fine. In fact, it is completely understandable. Barring extreme circumstances, there would be no reason for you jump to this four-episode limited series unless you were fond of the original format. However, I find myself in that said extreme circumstance, and as such without familiarity with the other series, I was pretty lost coming out of the gate. I am also not the intended audience for the show, but even my daughter failed to resonate with the series, as she walked out during the first episode.

Who would have thought that a movie that features the apocalypse and mass suicide would have moments of charm and levity? I mean, when you think of those type of themes, you don’t expect that you are going to have some laughs. And yet somehow Silent Night pulls it off. Part of that probably had to do with high-class talent that took part of the film, which featured Matthew Goode, Keira Knightly, Annabelle Wallis, Lily Rose Depp, and Lucy Punch. The film lulls you into a bit of a false sense of security; I initially thought that Goode’s and Knightly’s characters were going to turn homicidal and murder all their dear friends. I figured that was the central premise of the film. All in all I think I prefer the film as it is instead of that idea. While that might have been interesting to see, it would have made the film more of a one-trick pony. As it is, Silent Night is witty, funny, and still manages to tackle complex philosophical views in an easily comprehensible manner. That is a feat not easily accomplished.

This 1974 film has previously been regarded as an Italian version of the widely successful American supernatural film, The Exorcist. It’s been suggesting that The Antichrist was an attempt to cash in on some of the success that the American film experienced a year earlier. After watching it, I don’t see why the two films can’t coexist. Whether or not the American film had any bearing on this one will never be determined, but it stands to reason that if you enjoyed that one, there is no reason that you won’t enjoy this as well. I suppose there is the risk of it feeling redundant, but a little redundancy has never bothered me. Besides, if you can’t deal with films with similar premises and themes, your lists of viewing pleasure is going to shrink exponentially. I won’t spend a lot of time comparing the two films for couple of reasons: one, I believe that would be doing this film a disservice, given that I found it mildly entertaining; and two, it’s quite some time since I watched to The Exorcist, so my memory of it is slightly foggy. That said, I believe that will give me an objective view of The Antichrist, because I won’t waste undue time with comparisons.

Remakes are nothing new. They've been around for as long as there have been films. Today we appear to be dominated by the remake, but they've been around forever. There are many reasons to do a remake. Often, like the case of Peter Jackson's King Kong and the recent Kong/Godzilla movies, it's because technology has taken us to a place where we can do things on the screen that the original filmmakers couldn't have dreamed of. Other times it's merely a classic story that stands the test of time, and every once in a while someone wants to attach themselves to that history. Yet other times there's more that can be added to the story, or there is a fresh perspective to what came before. While many of these types lead to sequels and reboots, they still lead to the remake. Then there are those remakes that are almost a shot-for-shot imitation of the original with no apparent reason to exist other than to capitalize on the name. I really don't want to put the 1997 made-for-television remake of 12 Angry Men in that category.