evabba Reviews

Eva Peron: The True Story (1996)

Evita is Immortalized Yet Again.

[7/10 · 6 February 2006]

This Argentine feature was release around the same time as Alan Parker's film version of the hit musical "Evita". For those interested in learning about Argentina's controversial first lady, I recommend both films. Desanzo's version is lower-budget and therefore not as spectacular as Parker's interpretation, but "Eva Perón" is more historically accurate and fair in it's treatment of Evita. At least when compared to what has been written about her in a historical context.

The film deals with the final stages of Eva Perón's life. It chronicles her bid for the vice-presidency and her illness in detail. Other stages of her short life, childhood, artistic years, etc, are seen in flashbacks.

My only (minor) complaint lies with, surprisingly, Esther Goris. I say surprisingly because her performance is great (more on this a little later) and she does resemble Eva Perón during her final stages but when playing the younger Eva Duarte de Perón or the actress Eva Duarte, Goris doesn't even come close in her resemblance. Maybe it's because I have seen one too many pictures of the historical woman pre-1950 (before her disease) and the differences in physical appearance are too apparent. The real Eva's beauty was more radiant, her hair more elaborate and her body was more voluptuous in those earlier years. Goris is too thin, to abrasive and does not possess the softness that is evident in pictures or newsreel footage of the young Evita during her earlier years as the First Lady. I usually have difficulties watching a bio-film when the leading actor does not resemble the person they are portraying. I had a similar problem with Leonardo DiCaprio portraying Howard Hughes in "The Aviator".

Goris's voice and personality are also too over-bearing. Granted, the real Eva, according to many, was just that and her voice was indeed shrill when giving her impassioned speeches on the balcony of the Casa Rosada but during her less intense speeches and moments such as speaking to her Descamisados over the radio, her voice was calm and peaceful. According to those who knew her best, she also had a sweet and gentle side to her. That's not really seen in this film. Eva Perón was a diamond with some rough edges, Goris is rough around the edges.

With that said, since Goris is portraying Eva during her final years, for the most part, she does indeed capture her essence physically and vocally and her performance is riveting. Like Madonna in Parker's film, Goris appears to have become Eva Perón and her passion for the role is evident in this performance.

Those thinking that this Argentine version will portray Eva as a saintly deity may be shocked. This interpretation portrays an Eva Perón who liked to wear nice clothes and hats but had the will of a survivor. A strong woman who talked the talk and walked the walk and was able to change, for good or bad (take your pick), an entire nation forever due to her overwhelming fire and passion. This is a much tougher Evita than in Parker's film and if Madonna's Evita and Goris' Evita would ever face off in a boxing ring, Goris' Eva would stand victorious.

Despite my above comments, Esther Goris is outstanding in her portrayal and the production as a whole is excellent. Considering the tremendous amount of misinformation about the real woman on film: "Little Mother", "Evita Peron" (starring the mis-cast Faye Dunaway) and even the rock opera, this film is a blessing. And for those, like me, who are thirsty for something more truthful to history, we finally have a film that is pretty accurate historically and unbiased in it's treatment of it's leading lady and her legacy.

7.5 out of 10.

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

A Masterpiece. A Truly Unforgettable Motion Picture.

[9/10 · 6 February 2006]

Expertly acted and directed, "House of Sand and Fog" remains a depressing but incredibly effective motion picture. The film centres around Kathy (Jennifer Connelly), a troubled young woman who is left homeless after her home is repossessed and auctioned off. The buyer, Behrani (Ben Kingsley), is a determined Iranian immigrant who works hard to provide for his wife Nadi (Shohreh Aghdashloo) and young son Esmail (Jonathan Ahdout). Kathy and Behrani meet under unfortunate circumstances and their encounter unwillingly set off a chain of unfortunate events that escalates into tragedy.

Directed by Vadim Perelman, this film is dark, depressing; the characters, sad and ultimately tragic. What is interesting here is that it is very difficult to pick a side. Are we on Team Kathy - The emotionally unstable young woman and recovering addict who is unjustly (or justly) thrown out in to the streets or Team Behrani – the hard working father and husband, who's newly acquired home may not truly belong to him? Behrani's family are also thrown in to this emotional chaos while Kathy's only ally- Lester (Ron Eldard) becomes just another victim, mostly of his own stupidity, letting his emotions and his passion for the troubled woman consume him.

Although this is not based on a true story, you almost get the sense of something like this happening in real life and the tragic characters are so expertly played by the actors, most notably Ben Kingsley (who is brilliant), Jennifer Connelly and Shohreh Aghdashloo, that your heart goes out to every single one of them despite them being on opposing sides. I must single out Aghdashloo who play's Behrani's benevolent wife. Her performance is poignant and it haunted me for days the first time I saw this over a decade ago. Her character is emotionally rich. She emanates kindness and grace and she is the most sympathetic person in this film, an unfortunate victim of circumstance. There is a scene, towards the end of the film, where Nadi awakens from a dream and she recounts that dream to her husband- "I dreamt of a bird trapped in our empty house. It was trying to find a way out….. I could feel the air from the wings on my face", and it is an incredibly moving scene. Serene and poignant but heartbreaking. Her performance - perfection.

Brilliant performances and a compelling story makes "House of Sand and Fog" a very powerful motion pictures that retains its power. It is dark, it is effective, it is provocative, it is far too realistic in its portrayal, it is tragic. It may move you to tears but even if it does not, it will have you feeling something – This film is that effective.

Boogeyman (2005)

It's Scary but for the Wrong Reason's.

[1/10 · 6 February 2006]

When will Hollywood give us horror film fans a good horror movie? I don't think we're being unreasonable. During the last couple of years, they have given us "Darkness Falls", "They", "The Ring 2", "The Grudge", "Hide and Seek" and poor remakes such as "The Haunting", "House On Haunted Hill", "Amityville Horror", "House Of Wax" (in-name only remake),"The Fog" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Not to mention the countless other horror atrocities that have gone directly to video/DVD.

To be fair the "Amityville" remake was technically better than the original and the newer "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was a pretty good time- waster with some genuine thrills. Even some straight-to-video releases such as "Dead Birds" and "Toolbox Murders" had their moments but they were not on the same level as some of the earlier classics such as "Black Christmas", "Halloween", "The Shining", "The Exorcist", "Poltergeist", "Suspiria", "The Changeling", "The Howling", "An American Werewolf In London"... you get my point? Judging by Hollywood's recent track record, I'm getting the impression that today's film-maker's really don't give a darn about the "horror" genre. Which is a shame because there are millions of horror film fans out there just waiting for that one horror masterpiece.

The wait will continue because BOOGEYMAN isn't it. As a matter of fact, this film has got to be the worst horror film of the last 10 years.

The film stars a very stiff Barry Watson (whom I believe has no facial muscles since his expression does not seem to change for the duration of this film) who plays a traumatized magazine editor who returns to his childhood home to confront his childhood fear- the CGI created title character. Sounds interesting? It really isn't. Maybe with a different cast, different script and a different director, this may have been worth the while but everything about this film is "bottom-of-the- barrel". The entire adult cast including Lucy Lawless is stiff and uninspired. The child protagonist Skye McCole Bartusiak doesn't fare any better. I never thought the day would come that I'd utter these unfortunate words: "Dakota Fanning- where are you?"

As for the Boogeyman himself, once he's revealed to the viewer, he is as frightening as Gonzo from "The Muppet Show". But wait, even the muppets have more depth, more character than this flat, dreary, one-dimensional entity created using someone's laptop.

There is an obscure, low-budget, early 80's horror film called "The Boogeyman" starring the life-less (I am sensing a trend here) Suzanne Love and the always creepy John Carradine. Although it is no masterpiece and the film suffers greatly from it's obvious low-budget and bad acting, it is still a lot more entertaining and creative than this stinker. "Boogeyman"(2005) has nothing to recommend it. There's not one memorable scene or character. Even as a B-movie this fails.

If it's thrills, chills and action you're looking for then watch an episode of "Iron Chef-America" and thank me later.

Highly not recommended.

The Fog (1980)

Forget the Remake. Carpenter's Original Ghost Story is Deeply Chilling.

[7/10 · 6 February 2006]

After watching the lack-lustre 2005 remake of Carpenter's "The Fog", I quickly ran to my nearest television set and inserted this DVD into my DVD player just so I can recall the days when horror film's were made without the over-use of annoying CGI.

This film (along with that other Carpenter film, whats-its-name?) is a testament to the fact that you do not need a $30 million dollar budget to create an effective scary ghost movie. There is no CGI here only talent, mood, a great location and a creepy story.

The story takes place in Antonio Bay. A depressingly gloomy but charming seaside town whose inhabitants become the victims of a thick, glowing fog carrying the angry ghosts of lepers who were killed in a shipwreck a century earlier. What makes this ghost story original in my opinion is that the ghosts depicted here are not transparent, floating phantasms that move objects and say "boo". They are walking dead guys, covered in rags, dripping in salt water and armed with knives, hooks, swords and possibly every other sharp, metallic object you can think of and simply slice up their unfortunate victims.

The cast is first-rate. The stand-out performer is Carpenter's then- wife, Adrienne Barbeau who plays Stevie Wayne. A sexy radio disc-jockey who becomes trapped inside a light-house while the rest of the cast seeks refuge in an old church outside of town. Scream-Queens Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Leigh and Nancy Loomis co-star as the other luck-less female victims and put their screaming talents to good use. The legendary John Houseman makes a great cameo appearance in the opening sequence, setting the creepy tone and the man sure knows how to tell a tale. The great cast, the location, the creative fog effects and a simple yet effective Carpenter score all contribute in making this low- budget chiller a clear winner.

However, it should be stated that "The Fog" is not perfect. Despite a chilling first 20 minutes, the film takes its time in building its tension and therefore drags a bit. And even those who love this movie will admit that it's not as effective as Carpenter's "Halloween" and under close inspection, plot holes become too apparent. But us fans don't seem to care since we all know that this film is not intended to be taken too seriously. It's about a killer fog for crying out loud. Anyone approaching this for realism needs to re-evaluate their criteria for viewing horror movies since many of these genre films are simply made to entertain (and to scare the pants off you) and if you are a horror fan (like I am) you should find plenty to like here. By combining several different branches off the horror genre and using it to great effect, "The Fog" is a combination of such classics as "Halloween" and "Night of the Living Dead".

So forget all of this CGI stuff for a minute and see what a true horror movie should really be like. "The Fog" is simple yet deeply chilling and atmospheric. Follow it with Carpenter's ultimate classic (you know which movie I'm talking about) and double your pleasure.

There's a reason why this low-budget shocker is so beloved by fans of the genre. Recommended.

3.5 out of 5.

The Fog (2005)

Not Entirely Bad but it's Still a Major Disappointment.

[2/10 · 6 February 2006]

The plot centres around the quaint, charming sea-side town of "Antonio Bay". Without warning, a mysterious, thick fog rolls in carrying the murderous ghosts of lepers who were wrongfully killed in a shipwreck a century earlier. The townspeople need to solve this mystery before days end or they will fall victim to the fog's fury.

The original "Fog" has always been one of my favourite John Carpenter films behind "Halloween" of course. It offers a great cast (Adrienne Barbeau, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Leigh, John Houseman), built-up tension, an eerie Carpenter score, a great location and a bone-chilling ghost story. Although it's not perfect, it works.

The remake offers an attractive, younger cast (Tom Welling, Selma Blair, Maggie Grace) and expensive CGI effects. The story remains the same but somehow the film-makers got rid of the much-needed suspense. There is no sense of threat or tension in the air despite the violent, black, CGI created fog that is constantly on display. They even changed the ghosts form of execution of it's victims which in my opinion, was a huge mistake. In the original film, the wronged ghosts appear as three- dimensional beings. They're covered in rags, dripping in salt water and armed with every sharp, metallic object you can think of; swords, hooks, knives. It was like watching "Night Of The Living Dead" and "Halloween" all rolled into one. The idea was original and deeply chilling. The remake tried to make the murders seem more ghostly by not taking the original's approach and there were added embellishments to the story that were not necessary and didn't work. Instead of inspiring fear in the movie theatre I watched this in, it inspired bursts of laughter from the audience.

This film is still far superior to some other horror atrocities released from Hollywood in the last couple of years or so (did someone say "Boogeyman"??) but it's still a major disappointment. Especially when you take the budget and talent into consideration. For those who have not seen the original, I recommend watching it instead. Despite it's low-budget, it's a far more effective and satisfying shocker. Bigger is not always better and "The Fog" (2005) is a prime example.

This "Fog" is too thick for it's own good.

Recommended to undiscriminating "horror" film fans only.

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Not as Bad as Some Will Lead You to Believe But Not Great Either

[4/10 · 6 February 2006]

Father Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård) is summoned by a collector of rare antiquities and asked to find a mysterious statue of the demon Pazuzu in a poverty-stricken African village. Once there, Merrin participates in an archaeological excavation which unearths a Byzantine church. This mysterious temple dates back to a time before Christianity arrived to the region. But what's even more mysterious is the evidence which suggests that the perfectly preserved church was buried as soon as it was completed. Panic among the townspeople soon follow and evidence of a demonic force gives reason to suspect that something else was unearthed. Something powerful and evil.

The original "Exorcist" was greeted with mixed reviews when it was first released during the Christmas season of 1973. However, that did not stop it from becoming an almost instant classic garnering several Oscar nods and praise from film buffs everywhere.

The fate of its sequels on the other hand suffered the exact opposite. The first sequel "The Heretic" has been branded by many as the worst sequel in film history. An exaggerated claim but there is no denying that the film is inferior to the original. The second sequel "Exorcist III" received poor reviews and lousy box-office returns but has since developed a rather loyal following. "The Beginning" critically suffered the same fate. We'll just have to wait and see if time is as kind to this instalment as it was to Blatty's "Exorcist III".

"The Beginning" is not that bad as a horror film. If you view this with your expectations set low, you may be surprised by it. I also think the film's main problem is having "Exorcist" in its title. I think people would have accepted this film and would have been kinder to it had it not been a prequel to one of the greatest horror movies of all times. If judged on its own terms, "Exorcist: The Beginning" has a lot to offer the horror film fan; Decent visual effects (less CGI would have been nice though), a good cast, decent make-up effects, some good cinematography, good production values and an interesting storyline. But I guess you can say the same about the first sequel - "The Heretic" and we all know how that one turned out. I guess execution is key and it is in the execution where both films lose it and collapse. I did find the demon (or demons) in this film frightening in certain scenes. We see it's grisly work throughout the village but it never really materializes. It also appears to be far more potent than in the previous films. In the original, the malevolent entity almost destroys the spirit of a little girl. Here we see it consume an entire town as well as its people.

The film's biggest disappointment is in its weak and extremely cheesy exorcism scene. Without giving spoilers, the entire climax seemed rushed, broke no new grounds and it seemed like a pathetic attempt to copy the originals style. If shock value was what the film-makers were aiming for, they failed and the end result is a laughable imitation of the original film and the lame, sexual dialogue had no real purpose other than to try to achieve what Friedkin achieved back in 1973. Also disappointing is the unnecessary twist. It has become obvious that none of these movies, from the "Heretic" all the way up to "The Beginning", bothered in keeping continuity since the characters and time lines do not match up at all making this a very disjointed franchise.

With that said, I found this much maligned prequel to be a somewhat enjoyable night at the theatre. It's better than many of its detractors would have you to believe but it is miles away from being great. It is on par with the equally panned "The Heretic" but inferior to Part III which is far more effective in its psychological terror, and this film would have been much better had they not fumbled the all too important climax.

I recommend "Exorcist: The Beginning" to the casual horror film fan but it needs to be viewed with an open mind especially if you're a fan of the original film. If not, you will most definitely, religiously hate it.

NOTE: There are 2 prequels to "The Exorcist". Renny Harlin's "The Beginning" and Paul Schrader's "Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist" which fared a bit better critically. I recommend both films but rent before you buy because they are very different.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)

Psychologically superior to Renny Harlin's version.

[5/10 · 5 February 2006]

Father Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård) travels to a dusty town in East Africa and participates in an archaeological excavation which unearths a Byzantine church. This mysterious temple dates back to a time before Christianity arrived to the region. But what's even more mysterious is the evidence which suggests that the perfectly preserved church was buried as soon as it was completed. Panic among the townspeople soon follow and evidence of a demonic force gives reason to suspect that something else was unearthed.

This feature was the original prequel to "The Exorcist" but apparently it wasn't shocking enough for studio executives. For this reason, they ended up asking Renny Harlin to take over. The end result was the much maligned but mildly entertaining "Exorcist: The Beginning". Admittedly, this version is not as graphic as Harlin's but "Dominion" has other qualities that are superior. First, since this version concentrates more on the story than scare tactics, there's more character development. One of the stand-out performers here is Gabriel Mann. His portrayal of the other tortured priest is gripping. So likable is his character that he steals every scene he's in. Stellan Skarsgård also turns in a good performance but it's due largely to his imposing presence than his acting since he does nothing here which he hasn't already done before and his face is devoid of expression throughout. But the man's charisma commands our attention. Even when he's not saying a word, we are drawn to his character. While Mann takes us in with his words, Skarsgård does it with his presence.

"Dominion" is not as horrifying as the 1973 original but if you let yourself get too involved with the events taking place, it may end up affecting you more than you thought it was capable of. What we see more of here, is the diabolical, murderous deeds of man. The opening segment for instance, involving Merrin and the Nazi's is unpleasant and disturbed me to the core. The grisly scene is replicated in Africa years later. We clearly understand why Merrin loses his faith in God. There is a similar scene in Harlin's film but it's repeated so often throughout that whatever impact it originally had is lost.

The victim of demonic possession in this story also differ's. For those who have not yet seen either of these movies, I will not give spoilers. However, I will state that in "Dominion's" case, it does not really contradict the original film's story, at least in regards to the characters. I cannot say the same for Harlin's picture. Another aspect of Schrader's account that is dissimilar is in the make-up effects. In Harlin's interpretation, the possession make-up resembled that of the original "Exorcist". The victim of possession had the same facial scars and characteristics. In "Dominion", it does not. The exorcism scene, visually, when compared to Harlin's version, is not as grotesque (or as lame) but this exorcism disturbed me more. The demon played more with Father Merrin's head. It was less destructive physically but not emotionally. While watching the other prequel, I wanted more shocks yet when watching "Dominion", I did not. Schrader set the tone to such a different level, that cheap shocks would have changed its tone completely. It would have seemed out of place. While "The Beginning" is gorier and plays more like a typical contemporary horror movie, Schrader's version is more psychological. It does not rely on cheap thrills to torture it's main character and its target audience. For this reason, I proclaim it the winner.

Recommended.

The Ring Two (2005)

Poorly executed but "The Ring Two" is still visually haunting

[4/10 · 5 February 2006]

Several months after the horrifying events of the original film, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) takes her creepy son, Aidan (the still charmless David Dorfman) and relocates to a small town far from the city. Soon after her arrival, a teen is found murdered so Rachel decides to do some investigating. She discovers that Samara is alive and well (no pun intended) and up to her old tricks. Unable to escape her evil influence, Rachel must do some more detective work or else her son, who begins to show signs of possession may pay the ultimate price.

Inferior sequel to the original horror hit is still an enjoyable watch. Thanks largely to the creative visual effects. This instalment relies less on suspense and more on cheap thrills but if you let yourself get taken in by the awesome images on display, you may easily forget that the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The film's possession theme is an interesting one but it's very sloppily done. The director took a great idea and did absolutely nothing with it. Which is a shame because there are layers to this story that could have been expanded on or executed better. It appears the director was too busy trying to make this picture look good therefore neglecting the plot. But as I mentioned previously, if this film works, it's because it's visually spellbinding. In one incident, during Aidan's bath, we see water pour upwards out of the bathtub and drip from the bathroom ceiling. In another creepy scene, we see the murderous Samara scratch Aidan's bedroom wall which then grows into an over-sized, fiery stain. In another, we witness Samara, almost spider-like, climb and claw her way out of the well in pursuit of a frightened Rachel. Episodes such as these are reason enough to recommend this picture. Another good reason is the great cast. Naomi Watts is great as the distraught Rachel Keller, a mother who desperately tries to save her only child's soul. Other's in the cast include Elizabeth Perkins and an almost unrecognizable Sissy Spacek who is especially creepy as Samara's birth mother. With her messed up hair and sad, weathered face, Spacek delivers the most chilling line in the film "You let the dead get in."

We can all agree that "The Ring Two" is inferior in almost every way to the original. However, the great cast, good performances and spine- chilling imagery should please many horror film fans. They should definitely give this film a try.

Recommended.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Face the Music. This PHANTOM will take your breath away!!

[10/10 · 25 February 2005]

"The Phantom of the Opera" (2004) is a visually spectacular film which remains loyal to the stage production despite some changes to the characters and story. The set design and costumes are sumptuous and Webber's music is beautiful..

The cast, for the most part is excellent. The standout performer is Emmy Rossum who gives an praise worthy performance as the young soprano Christine Daaé. Although her voice is no match to the others who have played the role on stage such as the sublime Rebecca Caine, Sierra Boggess, Rebecca Luker, Claire Moore to name a few it is still lovely. Her tone is delicate and sweet ("Angel of Music") and at times powerful (the cadenza at the end of "Think of Me") and many times throughout the score, she achieves moments of great vocal beauty (the rooftop scene). She breezes through most of the score effortlessly with a few exceptions (there are moments of strain during the "Think of Me" and during the Phantom's "Point of No Return"). I always keep in mind that she is probably one of the youngest sopranos to ever perform these songs. All the other (stage) Christine's have been at least 10 years older than Miss Rossum and to have someone this young sing these songs is impressive as the score calls for the singer to jump octaves and sing high B's, C's and E's (in this case an E flat). Her physical presence is also worth noting. Physically she is the perfect Christine as her age and look is suited well for the role. Admittedly, I have not read the original novel but I am suspecting Ms. Daaé of Leroux's imagination was close in age to Rossum. If not, she should have been, as it is far more believable to have a young girl, not yet reaching true maturity, succumb to the Phantom's influence.

The title role was given to Gerard Butler who gives a strong dramatic performance but vocally, he is the weakest singer in the bunch. His voice is still competent in parts but many will argue a Phantom with a weak voice is not believable to which they have a point since it is he who teaches Christine how to sing however, like in Rossum's case and since film is a different medium, suspension of disbelief must come into play. If not, the hard-nosed critic will most likely have a difficult time listening to Butler struggle with most of the score. Another distraction that may or will arise is Butler's looks since his Phantom looks more of a Harlequin romance version and not the grotesque creature originally portrayed in the novel or the countless horror films the book inspired. Since this is the musical "Phantom" and not the horror-esque version of the 20's, 40's, 60's and 80's, it works for me. He is not suppose to scare the pants off the audience. If it's scares you want then I suggest you stick with Lon Chaney. Lloyd Weber's Phantom is suppose to seduce the audience and make the audience sympathize with him and Mr. Butler succeeds. Webber himself has stressed in earlier interviews that what attracted him to this piece was the romance, not the hokey horror tale. So while other versions focus on the horror, this one focuses on the romance.

Others in the cast include Patrick Wilson who turns in a solid performance as the love-struck but rather wooden Raoul. His voice is good yet his character remains the least sympathetic despite the film- makers attempt to make him more interesting than his stage counterpart. Minnie Driver's over-the-top but hilarious portrayal of the diva and Christine rival "La Carlotta" is a scene stealer. Driver was the only cast member who did not do her own singing.

Directed by the now infamous-for-putting-nipples-on-Batman-Joel Schumacher, the film is an assault on the senses. The elaborate sets, the glittering costumes, the cinematography are all spectacular and beautiful to behold and Webber's score is gorgeous. Many of Webber's simplest tunes turn out to be his most beautiful works. In the case here, the hauntingly beautiful "Angel of Music" is a standout. This song is repeated throughout the musical and the lovely tune is enhanced by Rossum's delicate soprano and fantastic orchestrations. Other musical highlights include the title track (although many have expressed disappointment in the omission of the last verse), the energetic "Masquerade", the lovely duet "All I Ask of You" (which is spectacular on film) and the Phantom's opera "Don Juan Triumphant" followed by what many call one of Webber's best tunes "Point of No Return".

The film was nominated for Best Cinematography, Best Song and Best Art Direction at the 2005 Oscars. It also received 3 Golden Globes nominations (including Best Picture), 2 Critics Choice award nominations (including Best Picture) and 11 Golden Satellite Awards nominations (including Best Picture). Although the film did not win any of the major awards Emmy Rossum won the National Board of Review Award for her performance in the film, as well as a Critics Choice award which was well deserved.

The 2 disc DVD contains a making of documentary which is interesting enough, the theatrical trailer and if you do some investigative work, you should discover an easter egg. The one disc DVD's contain only the trailer as an extra.

For the millions of fans who have not experienced Schumacher's vision of Andrew Lloyd Webbers musical, do not hesitate. It is a glorious production that does the stage show justice despite some cast controversy and narrative changes. It is a remarkable documentation of the show and as a movie musical, it is almost perfect. Musical theatre has never been this spectacular.