Adams Movie Reviews

"The Best Years of Our Lives" is an Oscar winning picture that, at the height of the dream factory in Hollywood, stooped to strip away the pretensions of glamor and expose the sad, sobering truth that faced returning soldiers after WWII. Dana Andrews, Frederic March and real life amputee, Harold Russell star. Their journey from war front to home front is poignant, heart-breaking, yet ultimately, life affirming. Teresa Wright, Virginia Mayo and Myrna Loy costar.
TRANSFER: An absolute travesty. Not only is the gray scale poorly rendered, with insufficient black levels and low contrast, but there is so much film grain and age related artifacts present to make this movie look three times its age. Worse still, digital anomalies; aliasing, shimmering, edge enhancement, abound and are thoroughly distracting to say the least. The audio - remixed by CHACE sound is amply presented, however, the documentary on the making of the film - previously available through HBO home video (though there too the transfer of the film was pure junk) is absent from this MGM re-release! What a mess, shame and sham!
BOTTOM LINE: This film will get a better transfer somewhere down the road. On this journey however, the wise DVD consumer would do best to steer clear!

The Best Years of Our Lives is an often touching drama about three WWII vetrans returning home. Scenes such as a sailor who has hooks for hands flawlessly attempting to light a match to the amazement and discomfort of civilian familiy members are unforgetable. Also powerful is the slow dissolution of the bonds of these vetrans as the affairs of normal life begin to take over. Frediric March delivers a powerful performance as a Sargent who returns home to a well off life as a bank executive, giving loans to vets under the GI bill. He won the best actor oscar for his performance, beating even Jimmy Stewart in Its a Wonderful Life that year. Toland delivers fantastic cinematrography, the more often the camera leaves the studio, such as the rows and rows of mothballed bombers. An interesting performance is delivered by real life vet Harol Russell who truly had no hands and was performing in his first and only movie. Amazingly, he won the Oscar for best supporting actor - an award I found undeserving given he even botched lines in scenes such as his wedding. Nevertheless, this movie has plenty of emotion and plenty of great screenwriting to make it worth seeing.

What it is not, is one of the greatest movies of all time now. Much of the acting is dated - comprising the overdone, grandiose style common to the stage and 30s and 40s movies. The plot lines and reactions of the actors sometimes seem dated and not genuine in 2003. Screenwriters tended to boil down their characters to one dimentional entities in 1946. Air Force Captain Derry's wife played by Virginia Mayo is one such one dimentional character. She wants money and glamour being married to an officer, but when that offier becomes a 32 dollar a week soda fountain worker, she loses interest. And her loss of interest is obvious, unsubtle, repeated, and driven home in every scene over and over. Its this sort of dated style which makes Best Years of Our Lives a great movie in 1946 but it plays more like a well done AMC classic today and does not have the sweep of Cinematic giants and other Best Picture winners like Godfather, Gone with the Wind or even Schindler's List. I'm sure to vets or folks who remember 1946, the movie will pack more punch than it delivered to me.

Every now and then a book or a movie appears that tells the story of a whole generation. Some, like Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" and Hopper's "Easy Rider" tell the story of a segment of a generation. However, "The Best Years of Our Lives" eloquently tells the story of Americans at the end of World War II. The story is told through three returning veterans who come home together. Before their flight takes off, one of them wanders through a "graveyard" of military planes. The vastness of this airfield of defunct military equiptment brings home the message; the war's over and there's no further need for its' "leftovers". The soldier can either move on or become another "leftover". However, moving on is not all that easy to do. Not after you've been through what these three men have been through.

Ironicly, the sailor, played by Harold Russell, laments that he didn't see any action. The pilot and the soldier look at his two missing arms questioningly. Russell was, himself, a returning disabled vet and he won a special Oscar for his inspiring preformance. His role served as a reminder that it wasn't only the front-line troops that that came home with scars.

The three servicemen represent three different types of enlistees. The men who entered the services right out of school, the ones who were called as they were starting out in the world on their own, and those who left behind an established career. In turn, the ones they came home to represnted three different scenarios. The young sailor comes home to his high school sweetheart. She knows that this is not the boy who left her. She is ready to love the man who returned in his place if she can figure out who he is. The pilot came home to the woman he married just before he left for war. He discovers that she had married a uniform and wasn't the least bit interested in what was inside it. The third homecoming is to an established household of many years were there was still some uncertainty.

All three men found their perspectives radically changed by their absence and their experiences. The ultimate question for each of them to answer was the meaning of the movie's title. What were "the best years of our lives"? Were they they years of dedicated military service that they sacrificed for their country? Or were they the lives they came home to. The power of this movie is seeing them struggle with the question. The way they they and the vast majority of US servicemen ultimately answered the question was what made America the greatest country in the world.

"The Best Years of Our Lives" is an Oscar winning picture that, at the height of the dream factory in Hollywood, stooped to strip away the pretensions of glamor and expose the sad, sobering truth that faced returning soldiers after WWII. Dana Andrews, Frederic March and real life amputee, Harold Russell star. Their journey from war front to home front is poignant, heart-breaking, yet ultimately, life affirming. Teresa Wright, Virginia Mayo and Myrna Loy costar.
TRANSFER: An absolute travesty. Not only is the gray scale poorly rendered, with insufficient black levels and low contrast, but there is so much film grain and age related artifacts present to make this movie look three times its age. Worse still, digital anomalies; aliasing, shimmering, edge enhancement, abound and are thoroughly distracting to say the least. The audio - remixed by CHACE sound is amply presented, however, the documentary on the making of the film - previously available through HBO home video (though there too the transfer of the film was pure junk) is absent from this MGM re-release! What a mess, shame and sham!
BOTTOM LINE: This film will get a better transfer somewhere down the road. On this journey however, the wise DVD consumer would do best to steer clear!

The Best Years of Our Lives is an often touching drama about three WWII vetrans returning home. Scenes such as a sailor who has hooks for hands flawlessly attempting to light a match to the amazement and discomfort of civilian familiy members are unforgetable. Also powerful is the slow dissolution of the bonds of these vetrans as the affairs of normal life begin to take over. Frediric March delivers a powerful performance as a Sargent who returns home to a well off life as a bank executive, giving loans to vets under the GI bill. He won the best actor oscar for his performance, beating even Jimmy Stewart in Its a Wonderful Life that year. Toland delivers fantastic cinematrography, the more often the camera leaves the studio, such as the rows and rows of mothballed bombers. An interesting performance is delivered by real life vet Harol Russell who truly had no hands and was performing in his first and only movie. Amazingly, he won the Oscar for best supporting actor - an award I found undeserving given he even botched lines in scenes such as his wedding. Nevertheless, this movie has plenty of emotion and plenty of great screenwriting to make it worth seeing.

What it is not, is one of the greatest movies of all time now. Much of the acting is dated - comprising the overdone, grandiose style common to the stage and 30s and 40s movies. The plot lines and reactions of the actors sometimes seem dated and not genuine in 2003. Screenwriters tended to boil down their characters to one dimentional entities in 1946. Air Force Captain Derry's wife played by Virginia Mayo is one such one dimentional character. She wants money and glamour being married to an officer, but when that offier becomes a 32 dollar a week soda fountain worker, she loses interest. And her loss of interest is obvious, unsubtle, repeated, and driven home in every scene over and over. Its this sort of dated style which makes Best Years of Our Lives a great movie in 1946 but it plays more like a well done AMC classic today and does not have the sweep of Cinematic giants and other Best Picture winners like Godfather, Gone with the Wind or even Schindler's List. I'm sure to vets or folks who remember 1946, the movie will pack more punch than it delivered to me.

Every now and then a book or a movie appears that tells the story of a whole generation. Some, like Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" and Hopper's "Easy Rider" tell the story of a segment of a generation. However, "The Best Years of Our Lives" eloquently tells the story of Americans at the end of World War II. The story is told through three returning veterans who come home together. Before their flight takes off, one of them wanders through a "graveyard" of military planes. The vastness of this airfield of defunct military equiptment brings home the message; the war's over and there's no further need for its' "leftovers". The soldier can either move on or become another "leftover". However, moving on is not all that easy to do. Not after you've been through what these three men have been through.

Ironicly, the sailor, played by Harold Russell, laments that he didn't see any action. The pilot and the soldier look at his two missing arms questioningly. Russell was, himself, a returning disabled vet and he won a special Oscar for his inspiring preformance. His role served as a reminder that it wasn't only the front-line troops that that came home with scars.

The three servicemen represent three different types of enlistees. The men who entered the services right out of school, the ones who were called as they were starting out in the world on their own, and those who left behind an established career. In turn, the ones they came home to represnted three different scenarios. The young sailor comes home to his high school sweetheart. She knows that this is not the boy who left her. She is ready to love the man who returned in his place if she can figure out who he is. The pilot came home to the woman he married just before he left for war. He discovers that she had married a uniform and wasn't the least bit interested in what was inside it. The third homecoming is to an established household of many years were there was still some uncertainty.

All three men found their perspectives radically changed by their absence and their experiences. The ultimate question for each of them to answer was the meaning of the movie's title. What were "the best years of our lives"? Were they they years of dedicated military service that they sacrificed for their country? Or were they the lives they came home to. The power of this movie is seeing them struggle with the question. The way they they and the vast majority of US servicemen ultimately answered the question was what made America the greatest country in the world.

Yikes! I'm quite baffled by the positive reviews here! I really like Jude Law (Gattaca) and thoroughly enjoy romantic comedies, but I found this film so absolutely lame on every level that it was difficult to finish. By the time it was over, my husband and I just looked at each other and said, "Whoa, what was that?!"

First, the movie has a very bizarre framing device: Law's character is asked to help deliver a baby when he is five years old. Aside from the discomfort of seeing a child reach into Brenda Blethyn's womb, the young actor must then look sweetly at the new baby and say "I'm going to marry her." This is not only bizarre, it's creepy-bizarre. Still, I tried to forgive this oddity and get on with the movie. Second, this is a great cast that is SO wasted -- Blethyn, Martha Plimpton, Jennifer Tilly and many others in this large under-utilized cast are given a number of quirks but there are so many subplots that you never get to know any of them, or why they are the way they are. Didn't someone once say, "Quirks do not a character make"? Well, that person was not this screenwriter. You just jump from one goofy but endearing mannerism or device to another. There are enough charcters here to make three romantic comedies but instead we get one overcrowded mess. Third, Jude Law is incredibly talented, but he's miscast here as a young man so in love that he affects his love interest's entire family. Law is more a button-down quiet guy, who might inspire passion but not necessarily of the exuberant, romantic variety. Fourth, the chemistry between Law and Gretchen Mol is nonexistent -- two nice actors who are NOT good together. Fifth, the music is pretty bad, intruding on the film more than accentuating the emotions. Finally, the DVD features are: the movie trailer. Whooppee!

If you want to see a fun romantic comedy that you haven't heard of, check out Happy Accidents. This film is lame despite its great cast, and one wonders why all these talented people signed on to this goofy project.

I bought this film for the same reason most other young women probably did - a love story involving the gorgeous Jude Law! I'd never even heard of this film and only found it after doing a Jude Law search on Amazon. I have just finished watching it and I can sort of understand why it wasn't widely publicised ...

It's an OK film ... a comment which sort of prepares you for how 'memorable' I found it. The film's main love story is that of Danny (Law) and Anna (Gretchen Mol), who first meet when Anna is being born (5 year-old Danny literally lends a hand!). The young Danny declares to the amusement of the adults present that he will marry this little baby one day! After moving to England and growing up there, Danny returns to the States 25 years later only to run into Anna and her family once again. Danny, a 30 year-old tile-maker and incurable romantic, decides it's his fate to end up with Anna, but of course things couldn't be that simple - Anna already has a fiance that everyone likes. There's also a lot of stuff going on in Anna's family which seems to be coming to a head when Danny arrives on the scene - Anna's blind sister is in need of a huge change in her overly-closeted life; her beloved mother is dying; and her arrogant brother is dealing with an unstable wife who likes to confront him regularly with a pistol!

What slightly disappointed me about this film was the fact that the 'main' love story was the least interesting of all (save a couple of cute scenes involving the toss of a coin). The other stories, particularly the one involving Jennifer Tilly as the blind sister, held my attention more. I never grew to like Anna - who seemed cold and boring throughout - and thus found the passionate Danny's sudden love for her too unbelievable. There is barely a meaningful word spoken between the two, and they seem to be two completely ill-matched people - so the instant 'love' was inexplicable. It's either the fault of the script-writers or Mol, but it's a shame that a better portrayal of 'the object of Danny's desire' could've made this a better film.

To end on a positive note, I did enjoy the film more for its frequent comic interludes and some of the supporting cast's performances, particularly Martha Plimpton and Brenda Bletyhn. It's a good film for a free afternoon where you feel like smiling (and gazing at Jude Law!). I just wish it could have concentrated more on developing its main love story than dedicating too much time (and better script-writing) to its sub-plots.

This movie is fantastic. It's funny, romantic and, well, fantastic. Not much of a Jude Law fan, I was in love with him by the end of the movie. Jennifer Tilley was not her playing her normal, ditzy role. One of her lines from the movie pretty much sums it up... "Danny's (Jude Law) love for [Anna] is so big, it spilled over and effected us all". This movie will effect you!

Carl Reiner COULD'VE made sure this classic comedy was done right on DVD but obviously Carl Reiner could care less and likes to RIP PEOPLE OFF. If you ask me Carl Reiner (especially his political wacko Meathead son) are THE JERKS.Thanks for nothing and ripping off one of your past fans.This HORRIBLE DVD version should be burned and everybody who bought it should be able to get their money back. NOT IN WIDESCREEN, GOOD SCENCES WERE DELETED, AND IT HAS A BAD PICTURE TRANSFER, ALL IN MONO SOUND!!Thanks for nothing Meathead'sfather.Steve Martin should take part of the blame also for allowing this horrible dvd to be released to unsuspecting fans that wasted their hard earned money on it.I'l beware from now on when buying ANY dvd from Steve Martin or especially any Reiner's.You could tape this off cable tv and get a WAY BETTER picture, sound, etc.

Until Universal gets its act together and releases a proper version of "The Jerk" on DVD, there's really no reason to own this film on DVD. Save the money and get the VHS version.

"The Jerk" was Steve Martin's theatrical debut; he also co-wrote the story. Directed by comedy legend Carl Reiner, "The Jerk" doesn't really have a proper plot. It's more a series of gags strung together.

Martin is Navin Johnson, who was "born a poor black child." Actually, Navin is the adopted son of an African-American family. The family is dirt poor but happy. On Navin's 18th birthday he sets off on the road to find fame and fortune. The fame and fortune come after Navin invents the "opti-grab," a handle for eyeglasses. Unfortunately for Navin, his invention causes the user to go cross-eyed.

The wonderful Bernadette Peters co-stars as Navin's trumpet playing girlfriend Marie.

For a 2000 release, there really is no excuse for this bare-bones DVD. It is presented in full-screen format, and the print has aged -- badly. Every single scratch is shown in the clarity only DVD can provide. Add to that Dolby Digital 2.0 mono sound and, worst of all, no special features. Nothing. This is a movie screaming out for a special edition release. It's certainly not worth it to buy this for your home theater system. Save some money and get the VHS version. It probably will actually look better on VHS.

"The Jerk" is very funny, and a great debut for Steve Martin. It's a shame the DVD is so poor.

The Jerk is about a guy named Navain Johnson who's adpoted by a poor, black faimliy, despite the fact that he is white. He almost gets assasitanted, but thinks his killer is triing to shoot the cans.
I hate the bad reveiws with dumb people whining about how the dvd isn't good enough for them I buy a dvd for the movie, not the scene selction, not the speical features, and not the lanuge selction or cool menus. Hey, those things are nice, but come on who are we trying to fool. A movie is a movie, whether it's on dvd or vhs.
Thanks to Steve Martin for being the 2nd funniest person alive.

I am reviewing this item not for the feature (as I already reviewed this excellent film a while back), I am reviewing the Criterion Special Edition DVD, which is a two-disc set packed and
loaded with tones of special features. The first disc contains the original theatrical version which director Herk Harvey edited some sequences and scenes out. The first disc also contains a really neat look back on the film in a 1989 documentary "The Movie That Wouldn't Die". There is also a very neat extra of 45 minutes of rare outtakes seen for the first time, and accompanied by the eerie organ music of Gene Moore. Some rare songs not heard in the original movie are here for your scary enjoyment. There is also a theatrical trailer feature.
A very interesting look back on the locations for Carnival of Souls is included, and it talks about the history of the Saltair Resort, which has a very magnificent history and was used for the carnival location, this is an illustrated history.

On the second disc, there is a director's cut of the film, including some scenes not even shown on the VHS "director's cut" editions. One scene that is most notably absent from the original
is the scene where the priest talks to the church carpenter about how strange Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) is. This disc also contains a selected audio commentary by screenwriter John Clifford and the late Herk Harvey. Some excerpts of films made by the Centron Corporation. As well as an essay on the history of Centron. Some printed interviews with film illustrations are featured here as well.

This DVD-set is the best DVD-set I've ever seen. The image quality of the black and white transfer is unbelievably clear, and is the best image transfer I've ever seen. The special features are very cool, and believe it or not, the outtakes featured here are remastered in picture quality as well, along with the music score.

I was blown away with this DVD, and I'm sure you will be too. It is one of the best treatments to a cult classic every put on screen. Carnival of Souls is my favourite movie I believe, and I
am so pleased with this DVD-set I could just burst. I thank the Criterion people for making this a dream come true :)

Carnival of Souls aka "Corridors of Evil", is a crowning jewel in American Cinema. Despite the low budget and poor film quality, this 1962 masterpiece stands as a cult more than 40 years after it's release. Candice Hilligoss' fine performance will overwhelm you as she portrays a character caught in a purgatory between life and death. Her beauty alone will strike the viewer in a way few actresses can. Her physical acting, facial gestures, and line delivery will leave you wondering why this woman did not become a household name like Marilyn Monroe or Raquel Welch.

The story is as simple as it is complex. A woman is an innocent passenger in a car that gets into a drag race with some teenage thugs. The result is her car going over a bridge into a fast running, sandy river. As she crawls out of the wreckage covered in mud, the viewer thinks she has survived, but has she?

Ms. Hilligoss' character is a musician, an organist to be exact who takes a job as a church organist in Salt Lake City, Utah. As she begins her journey she is terrified of images of a phantom of sorts who seems to be seeking her out. Anyone who has driven for an average of twelve hours straight can tell you that driving can take its toll, and the mind can play tricks on a sleepy driver. However, after she checks into her room, she finds the same phantom lurking in the window, then in the hallway. Who is this creature, what does he want, where is he from?

The main point of the film is not horror, but human nature. Are we all alone in this world? Is everyone an island unto themselves. The lesson is thrown upon our character by a minister, a psychologist, and a would be male suitor. They all try to help her in their own way (except the suitor who is only interested in her for a chance to have sex). But our character waves a hand at them all, convinced that she can do it her own way. She is an independent woman who needs no man or companionship; a view that may have gone against society's thinking in 1962.

The male suitor (or 'just your normal guy' as he likes to call himself) is an obnoxious oaf to say the least. His headstrong pursuit of her is only his own selfish desire to have her. He's not an alcoholic he claims, yet he drinks at dawn. He quit college because he doesn't like to learn. This is not an ideal resume for a long term relationship for her or any other woman. When she is truly frightened by the visiting spectre, and she reaches out to him as a last resort for help, he runs. Not wanting to get involved, he was only interested in her for her body and his own sexual desire. Yet another lesson in this film for all the young ladies who care to pay attention.

As the story goes on Candace's soul seems to deteriorate. She slips in and out of reality and a strange sort of parallel world. This dimension looks the same as real life, but she cannot be seen or heard. The department store dressing room for example, shows how the lost spirit must learn that she is no longer of this world, but now belongs in the spirit world, where yet another companion awaits her.

Who is this man that haunts her in visions? We see at the end of the film that they are to be together forever. In the final seen where we see Candace's peek at her after-life. She screams in horror as the ghosts dance eternally as the haunt the carnival. She is finally captured by the ghosts and is spirited away. The police and minister are confused and baffled as her footprints and final body print leads nowhere. The minister gives a knowing look as if he has known all along, but says nothing.

The minister must have known there was something wrong with his new organist when he first met and eventually fired her. She had not the soul of a musician, she only had a knowledge for music. She was told this too by the organ builder in the beginning of the film. When she is possessed in the church and her true musician ship comes out as she plays without control, that is her true spirit, but the misinster fires her for 'blasphony'.

This film cannot be watched once and dismissed. It deserves to be watched over and over again. It is a timeless movie where something seems new every time you watch it. I applaud you 'Carnival of Souls'. One of the greatest movies ever made.

I was hesitant to purchase this film, since I have seen so many flawed, tainted versions of it and been enthralled by the content and yet disappointed by the quality of the presentation. In the end, I found myself trusting the reputation of the Criterion Collection and purchased "Carnival Of Souls", finding it to be one of the finest DVDs I have ever purchased. The price of this DVD is worthy of the film, looking spectacular, crisp, clear, and utterly haunting. I wonder now how Herk Harvey (Director) didn't end up changing the film industry by his methods of film-making. This Criterion Collection version of "Carnival Of Souls" is well worth the price. I can't wait to view it once more!

I am reviewing this item not for the feature (as I already reviewed this excellent film a while back), I am reviewing the Criterion Special Edition DVD, which is a two-disc set packed and
loaded with tones of special features. The first disc contains the original theatrical version which director Herk Harvey edited some sequences and scenes out. The first disc also contains a really neat look back on the film in a 1989 documentary "The Movie That Wouldn't Die". There is also a very neat extra of 45 minutes of rare outtakes seen for the first time, and accompanied by the eerie organ music of Gene Moore. Some rare songs not heard in the original movie are here for your scary enjoyment. There is also a theatrical trailer feature.
A very interesting look back on the locations for Carnival of Souls is included, and it talks about the history of the Saltair Resort, which has a very magnificent history and was used for the carnival location, this is an illustrated history.

On the second disc, there is a director's cut of the film, including some scenes not even shown on the VHS "director's cut" editions. One scene that is most notably absent from the original
is the scene where the priest talks to the church carpenter about how strange Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) is. This disc also contains a selected audio commentary by screenwriter John Clifford and the late Herk Harvey. Some excerpts of films made by the Centron Corporation. As well as an essay on the history of Centron. Some printed interviews with film illustrations are featured here as well.

This DVD-set is the best DVD-set I've ever seen. The image quality of the black and white transfer is unbelievably clear, and is the best image transfer I've ever seen. The special features are very cool, and believe it or not, the outtakes featured here are remastered in picture quality as well, along with the music score.

I was blown away with this DVD, and I'm sure you will be too. It is one of the best treatments to a cult classic every put on screen. Carnival of Souls is my favourite movie I believe, and I
am so pleased with this DVD-set I could just burst. I thank the Criterion people for making this a dream come true :)

Carnival of Souls aka "Corridors of Evil", is a crowning jewel in American Cinema. Despite the low budget and poor film quality, this 1962 masterpiece stands as a cult more than 40 years after it's release. Candice Hilligoss' fine performance will overwhelm you as she portrays a character caught in a purgatory between life and death. Her beauty alone will strike the viewer in a way few actresses can. Her physical acting, facial gestures, and line delivery will leave you wondering why this woman did not become a household name like Marilyn Monroe or Raquel Welch.

The story is as simple as it is complex. A woman is an innocent passenger in a car that gets into a drag race with some teenage thugs. The result is her car going over a bridge into a fast running, sandy river. As she crawls out of the wreckage covered in mud, the viewer thinks she has survived, but has she?

Ms. Hilligoss' character is a musician, an organist to be exact who takes a job as a church organist in Salt Lake City, Utah. As she begins her journey she is terrified of images of a phantom of sorts who seems to be seeking her out. Anyone who has driven for an average of twelve hours straight can tell you that driving can take its toll, and the mind can play tricks on a sleepy driver. However, after she checks into her room, she finds the same phantom lurking in the window, then in the hallway. Who is this creature, what does he want, where is he from?

The main point of the film is not horror, but human nature. Are we all alone in this world? Is everyone an island unto themselves. The lesson is thrown upon our character by a minister, a psychologist, and a would be male suitor. They all try to help her in their own way (except the suitor who is only interested in her for a chance to have sex). But our character waves a hand at them all, convinced that she can do it her own way. She is an independent woman who needs no man or companionship; a view that may have gone against society's thinking in 1962.

The male suitor (or 'just your normal guy' as he likes to call himself) is an obnoxious oaf to say the least. His headstrong pursuit of her is only his own selfish desire to have her. He's not an alcoholic he claims, yet he drinks at dawn. He quit college because he doesn't like to learn. This is not an ideal resume for a long term relationship for her or any other woman. When she is truly frightened by the visiting spectre, and she reaches out to him as a last resort for help, he runs. Not wanting to get involved, he was only interested in her for her body and his own sexual desire. Yet another lesson in this film for all the young ladies who care to pay attention.

As the story goes on Candace's soul seems to deteriorate. She slips in and out of reality and a strange sort of parallel world. This dimension looks the same as real life, but she cannot be seen or heard. The department store dressing room for example, shows how the lost spirit must learn that she is no longer of this world, but now belongs in the spirit world, where yet another companion awaits her.

Who is this man that haunts her in visions? We see at the end of the film that they are to be together forever. In the final seen where we see Candace's peek at her after-life. She screams in horror as the ghosts dance eternally as the haunt the carnival. She is finally captured by the ghosts and is spirited away. The police and minister are confused and baffled as her footprints and final body print leads nowhere. The minister gives a knowing look as if he has known all along, but says nothing.

The minister must have known there was something wrong with his new organist when he first met and eventually fired her. She had not the soul of a musician, she only had a knowledge for music. She was told this too by the organ builder in the beginning of the film. When she is possessed in the church and her true musician ship comes out as she plays without control, that is her true spirit, but the misinster fires her for 'blasphony'.

This film cannot be watched once and dismissed. It deserves to be watched over and over again. It is a timeless movie where something seems new every time you watch it. I applaud you 'Carnival of Souls'. One of the greatest movies ever made.

I was hesitant to purchase this film, since I have seen so many flawed, tainted versions of it and been enthralled by the content and yet disappointed by the quality of the presentation. In the end, I found myself trusting the reputation of the Criterion Collection and purchased "Carnival Of Souls", finding it to be one of the finest DVDs I have ever purchased. The price of this DVD is worthy of the film, looking spectacular, crisp, clear, and utterly haunting. I wonder now how Herk Harvey (Director) didn't end up changing the film industry by his methods of film-making. This Criterion Collection version of "Carnival Of Souls" is well worth the price. I can't wait to view it once more!

This film is for those who enjoy films with strong, realistic portrayals of real people in extraordinary circumstances. Which is the case of Ray Liotta and Jason Patric's characters: two cops, which are totally opposite in the way they behave and handle things.
Liotta's character has passed the thin line that divides a man in control of his emotions and respectful of law and authority, and one who cannot or doesn't want to do things in the right way: he simply has lost interest, and has too much rage to give a damn about things, so, to him the end justifies the means. But the problem is that there is no way in which this character can get rid of his demons, there isn't a way in which he can redeem himself, not with the way he decided things should be done.
Patric's character, on the other side, also has a conflicted conscious, but still believes in doing good. And to him, the end does not justify the means. He is a man who still has something to look up for, something to cherish, and does whatever he can to preserve things that way, no matter how hard things get.
This is a film about these two cops and their struggles within themselves and their antagonistic way in which they see things should be done. But there are not good or evil people here; there are not black and whites; but there is only one way to make things at least a little better.

Simply put, this film is sledge-hammer-to-the-chest, both-eyes-agape, runaway-train-through-a-living-room astonishing. I watched this movie and immediately woke my 3 year old up around 3:00 a.m. to embrace her as tight as I annoyingly could. That's how this movie affects you. If you have children and ever see this film, I promise you'll do exactly the same thing.

And might I say a sincere bravo to Joe Carnahan for delivering such a treat to those of us who believe true filmmaking is dead. I myself work directly in Hollywood as an active member on film sets and I regretfully admit that I have become jaded and cynical towards "movies".

But this one knocked me out of my socks. I think to quote an ever on point Tom Cruise, " . . . I was pinned to my seat." And I honestly can't remember the last time such a gritty, raw and unrelentless vehicle like this one made me forget I was actually watching a "movie". Lord knows if I didn't know a thing about a thing, I'd have probably thought this was some kind of documentary.

So that little bit being said without actually saying a thing about NARC, this film is absolutely incredible.

Featuring solid work from both Jason Patric and the astonishing Ray Liotta (he should have won an Oscar),"Narc" is a dark brutal, tale of the hunt for a supposed cop killer. If the opening chase scene doesn't pull you in, then you don't have a pulse! Writer/Director Joe Carnahan stages and shoots much of this great film like a 70's cop drama, but never lets style overcome the story. Busta Rhymes is good a small put pivotal role as a drug dealer and his revelations near the end of the piece send the tale in a whole new direction. Liotta with his weathered face, bushy goatee and bloated, almost lumbering appearance is a marvel to watch as he alternates between violent, sadistic rage and moments of clear-headed reasoning and remembrance (the stakeout scene in the car when he talks about his deceased wife is one of the best sequences here and a fine bit of subtle acting by both he and Patric). While is has it's moments of bloody violence, the movie never shows us carnage for the sake of shock value. An all around excellent movie, "Narc" will achieve an even greater reputation with the passing of time and be fondly remembered as one of the best cop films in cinematic history. Highly Recommended.

This film is for those who enjoy films with strong, realistic portrayals of real people in extraordinary circumstances. Which is the case of Ray Liotta and Jason Patric's characters: two cops, which are totally opposite in the way they behave and handle things.
Liotta's character has passed the thin line that divides a man in control of his emotions and respectful of law and authority, and one who cannot or doesn't want to do things in the right way: he simply has lost interest, and has too much rage to give a damn about things, so, to him the end justifies the means. But the problem is that there is no way in which this character can get rid of his demons, there isn't a way in which he can redeem himself, not with the way he decided things should be done.
Patric's character, on the other side, also has a conflicted conscious, but still believes in doing good. And to him, the end does not justify the means. He is a man who still has something to look up for, something to cherish, and does whatever he can to preserve things that way, no matter how hard things get.
This is a film about these two cops and their struggles within themselves and their antagonistic way in which they see things should be done. But there are not good or evil people here; there are not black and whites; but there is only one way to make things at least a little better.

Simply put, this film is sledge-hammer-to-the-chest, both-eyes-agape, runaway-train-through-a-living-room astonishing. I watched this movie and immediately woke my 3 year old up around 3:00 a.m. to embrace her as tight as I annoyingly could. That's how this movie affects you. If you have children and ever see this film, I promise you'll do exactly the same thing.

And might I say a sincere bravo to Joe Carnahan for delivering such a treat to those of us who believe true filmmaking is dead. I myself work directly in Hollywood as an active member on film sets and I regretfully admit that I have become jaded and cynical towards "movies".

But this one knocked me out of my socks. I think to quote an ever on point Tom Cruise, " . . . I was pinned to my seat." And I honestly can't remember the last time such a gritty, raw and unrelentless vehicle like this one made me forget I was actually watching a "movie". Lord knows if I didn't know a thing about a thing, I'd have probably thought this was some kind of documentary.

So that little bit being said without actually saying a thing about NARC, this film is absolutely incredible.

Featuring solid work from both Jason Patric and the astonishing Ray Liotta (he should have won an Oscar),"Narc" is a dark brutal, tale of the hunt for a supposed cop killer. If the opening chase scene doesn't pull you in, then you don't have a pulse! Writer/Director Joe Carnahan stages and shoots much of this great film like a 70's cop drama, but never lets style overcome the story. Busta Rhymes is good a small put pivotal role as a drug dealer and his revelations near the end of the piece send the tale in a whole new direction. Liotta with his weathered face, bushy goatee and bloated, almost lumbering appearance is a marvel to watch as he alternates between violent, sadistic rage and moments of clear-headed reasoning and remembrance (the stakeout scene in the car when he talks about his deceased wife is one of the best sequences here and a fine bit of subtle acting by both he and Patric). While is has it's moments of bloody violence, the movie never shows us carnage for the sake of shock value. An all around excellent movie, "Narc" will achieve an even greater reputation with the passing of time and be fondly remembered as one of the best cop films in cinematic history. Highly Recommended.

This was a fabulous show if not for THREE points:

1. David Gilmour wasn't there
2. They just "had" to put Sinead onstage, staring at her feet the whole time. I fail to see whats so great about her.
3. Roger Waters made a mistake in choosing Van Morrison to sing "Comfortably Numb." Van is a classic singer, no doubt, but he just doesn't have the right type of voice to sing "Comfortably Numb." If David Gilmour couldn't have been there to sing it, they should have used someone with a soft, mellow voice that could have sung the song the way it was MEANT to be sung. By the way, is there anyone out there that can tell me who the two main guitarists were? One guy was kinda skinny and had black shoulder length hair and played most of the guitar parts. The other guitarist played a Les Paul, mostly. Thanks. JonM11100@aol.com

with all the 'Should David G have been here or not' aside, this was a very good presentation. And since I had actually viewed it when it was presented way back when, I was concerned about the presentation of this DVD. (also curious as to why it took so long) All concerns were settled when I watched it. I love the performances, and the only one I really didn't care for was Cindy Laupers, but to great relief Joni Mitchell really spooked up the mix and so did S. O'Connor.. . those two gals really grasped the fear and anxiety in the music greatly...

And how about the Scorpions with IN THE FLESH.. quite a good job.

Last but not least, watching R. Waters sing Goodbye Blue Sky from a hole in the bricks was just great stuff.

I really hope Pink Floyd fans get this cd, and Roger Water/David Gilmore fans too... at least the fans can bridge the gap with this excellent product.

My expectations were rather muted going into this. Primarily due to the "Celebrity" cast. I also had some real concerns over sound quality since it was recorded almost 15 years ago. The sound however is flat out amazing though. Although my issues with the Celebrity cast did not disappear, the quality of the sound and enormity of the production itself made the cast of characters seem less important. The list of those performers seems really stale today, but at the time of the show, they were all "A" list. I think some complaints I've read hold little merit or were the product of lack of understanding of the original source material. Someone said the scorpions attire was in bad taste for such an event. Well folks, that was on purpose! They were the "Surrogate" band which was supposed to be representative of all of the excess in rock and roll that has at one time or another caused many of us to lose sight of the music.

Although, I've never been a Sinead O'conner fan, I thought she was a perfectly appropriate representation of the child in Pink. Her vocals were also very moving. Again, I'm not a Brian Adams fan, but his gritty voice was an excellent fit for "Young Lust". And, no he wasn't really playing guitar, or at least he wasn't wired for sound. He, like the scorpions were there simply to provide vocals and window dressing. The music was thankfully performed strictly by Roger's amazing band. Joni Mitchell's performance was flat out creepy (in a good way)perfect for "Goodbye Blue Sky". Cindi lauper was nothing but annoying. Van morrison (who I love), seemed painfully out of place in this production. I ached for the return of David Gilmour's silky voice during Van's performance of "Comfortably Numb"

My biggest issue with the DVD was the camera angles and distances used for the bulk of the show. The show was so enormous that I think the best overall perspective would have been maybe a hundred and fifty feet or so from the stage. This view was curiously entirely absent. Everything was shot either up close (Like most concert footage), or so far away that the perfomers were merely a speck in the camera lense. These longs distance shots were used primarily between songs though and really did give the viewer an idea of just how huge the show was. In fact I would say the production was probably 4 to 5 times the size of Pink Floyds original prodution. All of the tight camera shots made me feel too much like I was watching a concert video rather than experiencing the show. Another interesting perspective was the footage shot behind the wall after the band had been completely closed off from the audience. It really made me appreciate how weird that must have been for Both Pink Floyd in the original performance and for Roger's band in this version. I mean here you are playing your heart out and you can't even see your audience, and you know they can't see you either. I would liked to have seen a little more of the audience perspective during this part of the show.

And to those Floyd fans who don't think the wall should be done without the original band, I do sympathize. But the fact is, they were asked to perform, and declined. Understandably, the bad blood between the Waters & Floyd camps was too much to overcome under such short notice, even for such a meaningful event and cause. But, the bottom line is that "The Wall" is Roger's brain child. You can count both the musical & lyrical credits of other band members for the double album on one hand. The wall is the least musical of the Floyd creations due to the lack of input of those other band members. But in pure lyrical and conceptual terms, I still feel it is once of the most brilliant and important works of my generation. I still hold out hope that some day, all of the members including Roger will be able to put their egos and bitterness aside and re-unite to produce new music and tour. Until that day however, I feel very fortunate to re-live the wall experience in this powerful incarnation.

This was a fabulous show if not for THREE points:

1. David Gilmour wasn't there
2. They just "had" to put Sinead onstage, staring at her feet the whole time. I fail to see whats so great about her.
3. Roger Waters made a mistake in choosing Van Morrison to sing "Comfortably Numb." Van is a classic singer, no doubt, but he just doesn't have the right type of voice to sing "Comfortably Numb." If David Gilmour couldn't have been there to sing it, they should have used someone with a soft, mellow voice that could have sung the song the way it was MEANT to be sung. By the way, is there anyone out there that can tell me who the two main guitarists were? One guy was kinda skinny and had black shoulder length hair and played most of the guitar parts. The other guitarist played a Les Paul, mostly. Thanks. JonM11100@aol.com

with all the 'Should David G have been here or not' aside, this was a very good presentation. And since I had actually viewed it when it was presented way back when, I was concerned about the presentation of this DVD. (also curious as to why it took so long) All concerns were settled when I watched it. I love the performances, and the only one I really didn't care for was Cindy Laupers, but to great relief Joni Mitchell really spooked up the mix and so did S. O'Connor.. . those two gals really grasped the fear and anxiety in the music greatly...

And how about the Scorpions with IN THE FLESH.. quite a good job.

Last but not least, watching R. Waters sing Goodbye Blue Sky from a hole in the bricks was just great stuff.

I really hope Pink Floyd fans get this cd, and Roger Water/David Gilmore fans too... at least the fans can bridge the gap with this excellent product.

My expectations were rather muted going into this. Primarily due to the "Celebrity" cast. I also had some real concerns over sound quality since it was recorded almost 15 years ago. The sound however is flat out amazing though. Although my issues with the Celebrity cast did not disappear, the quality of the sound and enormity of the production itself made the cast of characters seem less important. The list of those performers seems really stale today, but at the time of the show, they were all "A" list. I think some complaints I've read hold little merit or were the product of lack of understanding of the original source material. Someone said the scorpions attire was in bad taste for such an event. Well folks, that was on purpose! They were the "Surrogate" band which was supposed to be representative of all of the excess in rock and roll that has at one time or another caused many of us to lose sight of the music.

Although, I've never been a Sinead O'conner fan, I thought she was a perfectly appropriate representation of the child in Pink. Her vocals were also very moving. Again, I'm not a Brian Adams fan, but his gritty voice was an excellent fit for "Young Lust". And, no he wasn't really playing guitar, or at least he wasn't wired for sound. He, like the scorpions were there simply to provide vocals and window dressing. The music was thankfully performed strictly by Roger's amazing band. Joni Mitchell's performance was flat out creepy (in a good way)perfect for "Goodbye Blue Sky". Cindi lauper was nothing but annoying. Van morrison (who I love), seemed painfully out of place in this production. I ached for the return of David Gilmour's silky voice during Van's performance of "Comfortably Numb"

My biggest issue with the DVD was the camera angles and distances used for the bulk of the show. The show was so enormous that I think the best overall perspective would have been maybe a hundred and fifty feet or so from the stage. This view was curiously entirely absent. Everything was shot either up close (Like most concert footage), or so far away that the perfomers were merely a speck in the camera lense. These longs distance shots were used primarily between songs though and really did give the viewer an idea of just how huge the show was. In fact I would say the production was probably 4 to 5 times the size of Pink Floyds original prodution. All of the tight camera shots made me feel too much like I was watching a concert video rather than experiencing the show. Another interesting perspective was the footage shot behind the wall after the band had been completely closed off from the audience. It really made me appreciate how weird that must have been for Both Pink Floyd in the original performance and for Roger's band in this version. I mean here you are playing your heart out and you can't even see your audience, and you know they can't see you either. I would liked to have seen a little more of the audience perspective during this part of the show.

And to those Floyd fans who don't think the wall should be done without the original band, I do sympathize. But the fact is, they were asked to perform, and declined. Understandably, the bad blood between the Waters & Floyd camps was too much to overcome under such short notice, even for such a meaningful event and cause. But, the bottom line is that "The Wall" is Roger's brain child. You can count both the musical & lyrical credits of other band members for the double album on one hand. The wall is the least musical of the Floyd creations due to the lack of input of those other band members. But in pure lyrical and conceptual terms, I still feel it is once of the most brilliant and important works of my generation. I still hold out hope that some day, all of the members including Roger will be able to put their egos and bitterness aside and re-unite to produce new music and tour. Until that day however, I feel very fortunate to re-live the wall experience in this powerful incarnation.