I cannot remember the first time I watched John Carpenter's Halloween (1979), in fact I have lost count how many times I have watched this film. Obviously it is compulsory viewing on October 31st but, for me, it still holds up well after countless viewings. I recall purchasing Halloween on VHS in the early nineties on the 4Front label. The transfer was dark and atrociously panned and scanned. I remember purchasing the first American DVD release of Halloween on the Anchor Bay label and being amazed at the difference between the compromised pan and scan version and the full anamorphic widescreen frame. I then replaced this version with the two disc limited edition release, also by the enterprising American Anchor Bay label. This version was even better as it included a cut of the film containing scenes that were shot especially for a television the film as well as having a cool holographic cover. Some years later I purchased the Anchor Bay UK 'Divimax' release since it had a Carpenter audio commentary that was not present on any other release. So, by my calculations, it is a film that I have purchased four times and currently own two releases of.

That number now needs to be changed to five as when I arrived home this afternoon I found the Anchor Bay/Starz Blu-Ray release waiting for me on the porch floor along with Dawn of the Dead (1978). I had intended to wait until October 31st to watch this film but it was a temptation that I just could not resist. Initial reports on this disc have been more that favourable apart from one which has generated a minor ripple amongst the fan community. High-Def Digest, who are somewhat known for their inclement reviews of HD discs, gave the video a one out of five score in their recent review. This is not because of the visual quality of the transfer but because it does not feature the exact colour timing of the original print. There have been some screen grabs posted on several forums that confirm this oversight. But this does not necessarily mean that it is worthy of such a low score.

So this transfer may be in some way compromised for some but for a low budget film that is over twenty-five years old this is some achievement. The AVC encoded transfer presents so much detail. Even though I have seen the film numerous times there were occasions when it felt like I was watching a brand new film, there were so many things that I had not noticed before. Obviously this will never be a perfect transfer but this is probably about as good as Halloween will ever look . This will be a title that will persuade many horror fans to take the plunge and buy a PS3 or a Blu-Ray player. Providing that are not too concerned about the colour timing issue that will be very pleased with the results. Another added bonus is that the disc is region free meaning that it can be played on Blu-Ray players worldwide. The special features are identical to the Divimax SD-DVD release, it would have been nice to have seen the 25 Years of Terror documentary included as an extra to make this release even more desirable. The audio options are plentiful and for once the original audio track is included in addition to the PCM uncompressed 5.1 track.

Halloween is by far my favourite Blu-Ray release and will definitely be watched again on Halloween night. It has rekindled my interest in producing a monograph on this film. Perhaps this may finally come to fruition in the near future.

I came quite late to the Western, two years ago in fact. Being a fan of Italian cult-cinema I decided that I should make an effort to see Sergio Leone's classic Spaghetti Westerns starring Clint Eastwood. I loved them, the way they were shot, the soundtrack, the narrative, just everything about them. When I found out that a HD-DVD of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven (1992) was available I decided to give it a chance and see what his tribute to Leone would be like.

Reformed, aging outlaw William Munny (Eastwood) is encouraged to come out of retirement to collect a bounty raised by a groups prostitutes after one of them is violently abused. He convinces his old partner Ned (Morgan Freeman) to join him in the task. But Sherrif 'Little' Bill (Gene Hackman) does not take kindly to any trouble occurring in his town as Munny slips back into his killing ways.

This could be my favourite film that Clint Eastwood has directed and fits easily into my top twenty-five films. It is as near perfect a film as you will get; the acting is superb, the storyline is engrossing and the direction flawless. I wanted to watch it again immediately after viewing it for the first time. Eastwood clearly has learnt well from Leone and the other great directors he has worked with. Unlike the majority of films that receive Oscars this one certainly deserved all of the praise bestowed upon it.

The HD-DVD is without a doubt the best way to watch this film. Though there are many instances of unwelcome edge enhancement there are a number of scenes that are brought to life. Some of the shots of the environment are quite simply breathtaking and have to be seen to be believed. HD really can change the way we consume film.

As I am sure you now realise, I cannot recommend this film highly enough whether it is on HD or SD. Long live Clint Eastwood!

Continuing my coverage on the films of William Friedkin I got round to watching Sorcerer (1974) last night. The Sorcerer was Friedkin's first film after the huge international success, and do not forget controversy, of the The Exorcist (1973). Apparently upon it's first screenings in the US people were frantically queuing up to see it but unfortunately these queues were all but gone in the second week of release. This is no doubt due to Sorcerer being a completely different film to The Exorcist. But this is not necessarily a bad thing.

After a heist goes badly wrong Jackie Scanlon (Roy Scheider) is forced to leave the US and start a new life in South America. When a large fire breaks out at the local oil plant the owner hires Scanlon and three other outcasts to drive two trucks containing extremely volatile nitroglycerin 200 miles to assist in extinguishing the fire.

Though the pacing is uneven during the first thirty minutes it soon picks up in the second half of the film as the four characters encounter different obstacles when trying to drive the trucks through a jungle. The scene when they are driving the trucks over a worn rope bridge is particularly tense. One cannot help but feel that if this was released after The French Connection (1971) instead of The Exorcist it would have received much greater recognition.

The region one DVD from Universal features an acceptable full-frame transfer but the original 1.66:1 framing would have been welcomed. Disappointingly there are no special features present. Like a number of Friedkin's other films, there is another edit of this film in existence and considering it's chequered past, poor reception and Friedkin's own high regard for the film it would have been nice to have had an audio commentary at least.

This forgotten film is another quality entry in Friedkin's canon and like the recently re-released Cruising (1980), which I intend to review next, deserves to be lavished with greater attention.

UPDATE

I spoke to soon, a special edition DVD of Sorcerer, and possibly HD-DVD, is being prepared for release late 2007/early 2008.

A few weeks back I posted that I had found a DVD of William Friedkin's rarely seen film Rampage (1988) available in Poland. The DVD arrived last week amidst all of the flooding and I was very happy to find that despite my concerns it was not a bootleg but a genuine, official release. For those who are unfamiliar with the film it was released in two different versions - the original 1988 European cut and the 1993 American Miramax recut. A thorough breakdown of the differences between these two versions can be found in a Mark Kermode essay published in issue 13 of Video Watchdog. The version offered on this Polish DVD is the 1993 Miramax recut which runs at approximately 87 minutes.

Rampage is based, albeit very loosely, on the serial killer Richard Chase who was known as the 'Vampire of Sacramento' because of him drinking the blood of his victims. Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn) is a District Attorney prosecuting serial killer Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) and seeking to have him sentenced to death row. The film is a clever discussion on the ethics of the death penalty and issues of insanity - on what grounds can a killer be deemed legally insane. It also suggests a change in Friedkin's perspective on the death penalty. His first film, The People vs. Paul Crump (1962) was a television documentary that was made to help free a prisoner from death row. So in Rampage is Friedkin trying to construct an argument for the death penalty? Perhaps, but there are a number of many interesting things happening in this film. It may not be his best work but it is certainly a film worthy of greater attention.

The DVD is an acceptable presentation of this rare film. Unfortunately the transfer is not in the original widescreen aspect ratio but is presented in 4:3. It looks to be open-matte but when I zoomed in on the image on my widescreen television it did look a little tight in some scenes. Picture quality is fine, much better than I had expected in fact, as is the audio quality. I have included some screenshots below for those who might be interested in purchasing this rarity:

The DVD can be ordered from the Polish website Merlin.pl or alternatively can be found on eBay from seller 'ulinus'. Hopefully, like Friedkin's Cruising (1980), this will receive the special edition DVD treatment soon offering both edits and a Friedkin commentary. Until now, this Polish DVD will have to suffice and is a welcome release of this forgotten film.

Ealier this month I criticised Live Free or Die Hard (2007) for taking the character of John McClane and unnecessarily changing what had made him so interesting in the previous Die Hard films. With Casino Royale (2006) this is entirely the opposite. I am not a fan of the James Bond series of films. Even though I have seen the majority of Bond films pre Pierce Brosnan, the only Bond film I own on DVD is Dr. No (1962) and that is more out of its importance as a British film than its overall content. The main reason I bought the Blu-Ray version of Casino Royale was for its HD presentation than its content. And not only is it a quality HD release it is actually a good film too.

Daniel Craig's Bond is the most refreshing change the Bond series has received probably since its conception. Not only is Craig more serious in the role but he also looks the part. This Bond is certainly more threatening than any other of the predecessors. The opening twenty minutes are absolutely breathtaking featuring some of the best action stunts I have seen in a Hollywood film. Unfortunately the film cannot maintain the pace set by these scenes, it probably would have been nigh on impossible to do so, but still features a solid storyline. The ending was a tad anti-climatic but nevertheless satisfying. The camp elements common in previous Bond films has gone even though there are some amusing quips and some humourous nods to earlier entries.

As for the Blu-Ray disc, well, it actually lives up to the hype generated by those who have reviewed the disc. The picture quality here is flawless, there is no evidence of edge-enhancement and no digital noise reduction. The audio is also of an equally high standard, particularly impressive during the collapsing Venetian house sequence. This is by far the highest quality Blu-Ray release I have seen so far and serves as demonstration quality for those wanting to see what all this HD fuss is about.

If you do buy this disc make sure that you import the Australian version from DVD Crave or the Finnish version as all other releases around the world are censored. After all, why should you let someone else decide what you can or cannot watch? So, a Bond film that I actually enjoyed and would happily watch again. I look forward to Craig's next outing as James Bond.

I have never seen a Nick Love film before. Films such as The Business and Football Factory hold no interest for me, I find the whole 'lad' culture thing very unappealing. On the IMDB discussion forums, or bitch boards as I commonly refer to them because of the constant flaming, I recently noticed a post debating whether Shane Meadows or Nick Love is the best current British film maker. With this in mind I decided to see whether this comparison is justified.

Before I go any further I should add that I regard the revenge/vigilante film as one of my favourite sub-genres. I am not sure why, though I am told that it could be because I am a Libra and have a strong sense of justice. Personally, I believe that Astrology is nothing more than hocus crap but what the heck, it is a good justification! I have lost count how many times I have watched the Death Wish film series, The Exterminator, Righting Wrongs, Vigilante, the Dirty Harry films, Street Law etc. So when I found out that a contemporary British revenge film was being released I naturally got quite excited and perhaps built this one up a little too much.

The premise is excellent. A group of British men are becoming disillusioned with society, particularly the rise in yob culture and violent crime. A soldier, Sean Bean, returns from duty in Iraq to find that his wife has a new man and a group of teenagers are disrespectful towards him. He meets a security guard, played by the excellent yet unsettling Sean Harris, who is obviously an avid reader of The Sun and wants to do something about his country. Naturally Sean Bean has an arsenal of weaponry he has been allowed to bring home from Iraq. They recruit a team of wronged people to turn the tables on societies evil doers, ably assisted by police insider Bob Hoskins. With a plot like this how could it fail? Well it does, and badly. After the first thirty minutes I thought this was going to be a perfect revenge film but nothing happens. The characters spend more time talking about what they are going to do rather than actually doing it.

What could have been an interesting and poignant comment on yob culture in Britain suddenly becomes yet another cockney Gangster film. It also slips into Sun reader territory a number of times, I cringed when Bob Hoskins asks Sean Bean to make sure he"kills the nonces". Another major weakness is Danny Dyer. I had never seen him in a film before and I am not sure whether I would like to see him in another. How does this guy consistently get work? His blank expression becomes tiresome after one minute. The ending is abrupt and improbable, almost as if Love did not know how to end it.

This really could have been, in my opinion, something special. It promises so much yet fails to deliver and, with the exception of Dyer, wastes a very strong cast. After all, who would not want to see an angry Sean Bean going round punishing yobs and general evil doers. Perhaps I expected something far simpler. Shane Meadows has nothing to worry about, Nick Love does not even come close. As for the revenge/vigilante sub-genre, let's hope that Death Sentence (2007) lives up to my expectations.

I regard the first Die Hard (1988) as being one of the finest action films ever made. I watch it every Christmas Eve without fail. The two sequels are worthy follow-ups that, unlike most sequels, are of a very high standard. But unfortunately the Die Hard trilogy has now become a quadrilogy thanks to the latest sequel Live Free or Die Hard (2007). When this was first announced I was very excited, after all, what is there not to like about a Die Hard film? Unfortunately this entry in the series leaves a lot to be desired.

What first struck me about Live Free or Die Hard is that it could be any Hollywood action film starring Bruce Willis. It just so happens that the characters have the same names as those from the Die Hard franchise. John MacClane is a solid character that is unlike most other Hollywood action heroes. He he gets wounded, bruised and beaten more so than any other typical movie hero. This has changed. McClane is now superhuman, he can avoid flying cars by a matter of inches and also fall from a collapsing bridge onto an F-18 Fighter Jet which just so happens to be out of control. The script is rather poor featuring some terrible dialogue and a plot which puts McClane the Luddite in the twenty-first century dealing with new media technologies that are alien to him. It would also appear that the character has attended some form of sensitivity training as he no longer uses invective every few minutes.

But the film is entertaining even it is no more than pure spectacle where you are meant to be in awe of the over the top stunts rather than the acting or the storyline. What is most annoying is that it could have been much better. I really do worry about some of the script writers in Hollywood, surely someone could have came up with a better scenario for McClane to be fighting terrorists? This will probably be the last Die Hard film, I wished they had stopped after Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995).