Product: Sony KDL-46XBR9

List Price: $2,399.99
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Click Here To See Amazon Sale Price
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Sony KDL-46XBR9

Just received this last week. Of course, Amazon beat any other pricing by a wide margin – by at least $500 for the cheapest store bought price (on sale) and I even checked some stores on a walk in and they were charging $1,000 above the Amazon price or more. Delivery was free and could not wait to get this set out of the box. I researched a great many LCD’s before picking this one. I wanted the very latest technology to ward off obsolesence, at the best price I could find, and am not disappointed one bit by this set. Easy set up, and just with the building’s digital antenna, the picture is absolutely outstanding. There are many presets, but with a bit of tweaking, as it appears with most LCDs, you get a terrific picture. You can customize each preset if you wish. Setting adjustments are intuitive and the screen navigation is very easy. Sound is pretty decent as well, although I already have it hooked into my AV. I have already watched sports, television and DVDs and all have been as crisp, vibrant, without drag or latency, as I have ever seen on an LCD this size. The contrast ratio is just unreal and my eyes are still getting used to it. Plenty of input/output options including plenty of HDMI and even ethernet and PC connections. Having Fios HD installed this week and can’t wait to see how it looks. So far, am very satisfied and would definitely recommend at the price. Thanks Amazon!

I bought this TV because of Sony’s legendary reputation in beautiful pictures and previous experience with the XBR line. As expected, the picture is absolutely great. If you want amazing HDTV, then this set is for you. The TV has a very simple and understated front, which I like a lot. The Amazon delivery was great! Two men brought it into the house, put it where we wanted it, connected it, turned it on and checked the remote for operation. The deliveryman was familiar with the TV and went above and beyond by doing the initial setup, which admittedly was simple, but not something he was required to do. There are only two drawbacks so far. The stand is flimsy feeling and wobbles like a weeble if you bump the set. My XBR4 had a rock solid stand. I just attached a cable to the wall for piece of mind (didn’t want it falling on the grand kids). The second thing is a lack of PIP or P&P, both of which were on my KDL40XBR4. Bottom line–love it so far.

I got this TV two weeks ago. As an admitted unapologetic Sony “fanboy” I had high expectations. The display is beautiful especially when viewing blu-ray’s or HD sources. However in an extremely dark scene it is evident that LCD’s still have a ways to go when it comes to contrasting blacks. I have played around with settings and even adjusted the custom setting to those recommended in CNet’s review of the TV but it still leaves much to be desired.

Pros:

Excellent response time and display when viewing HD sources.

A lot of options for customizing to fit your personal taste.

A ton of extras (mostly accessed if/when you hook your TV up to your home internet network). The widgets and video on demand are fun features but likely not something that will be for the average user.

Cons: Black contrasts still aren’t near the level displayed in Plasmas and the LED technology also looks to be a major improvement in this area.

Display of SD (standard definition/non HD) content leaves much to be desired. Going from an old Sony 36″ CRT HDTV (HS510) standard definition played extremely well on that model and HD sources looked great also. On this model (like with most LCD’s) the SD sources look worse than they normally do on non HD tubes.

One area that I have yet to decide if it is a pro or a con is the input jacks. The back only has one HDMI input where as the side has 3. I really think Sony should have put two on the back and two on the side but at least the ones on the side are recessed enough to where the wires aren’t visible unless you are standing near the side of the tv.

I have already gotten compliments on the glass bezel that surrounds the screen and this tv definitely passes the “eye test” as far as attractiveness. The SONY logo at the bottom can be dimmed or turned off if you find it distracting (I thought this was a nice touch).

I am happy with the purchase but all-in-all if I had to do it over I might wait for a 240Hz LED model by Sony or opt for a Plasma from a competitor.

Product: Samsung UN46B7000

List Price: $2,699.00
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Click Here To See Amazon Sale Price
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Samsung UN46B7000

My requirement for a television is quite simple: plug it in to the cable box and have it work the first time; then turn on the sports event of the day, e.g. Mets or Yankees, Jets or Giants, etc. The Samsung 46 inch LED TV does that very well. You plug it in, it works.

This TV does more with less. It weighs only about 40 pounds plus another 10 pounds for the stand. Compare that with the older Samsung 950 model of the same size which weighs 70 pounds. The elegant stand allows for easy rotation. The TV is only a little over one inch thick! Power consumption has been measured by reviewers at about 105 watts. The 950 model comes in at 180 watts.

The picture is great. The contrast ratio, rated at 3,000,000 to 1, exceeds that of older LCD TVs. The black areas are dark and the picture has an almost 3D quality. There are four preset picture options. I chose the “normal” setting. The next higher setting, “standard”, makes infield grass look almost dayglow. I do not think that there is a need to have any further adjustment done on the picture. However, there is an automatic dimming of the overall brightness for dark scenes. For instance, when the credits of a movie run against a black background the lettering becomes dimmer. This has no effect on sports, but does effect dark movie scenes.

The screen surface does reduce reflections but does not eliminate them entirely. The black frame is shiny and does also reflect some light. Rotating the screen to the best angle helps.

The remote provides choices for four picture size variations. I use “16:9″ for the HD format or “wide” to make the non-HD, 4:3, video fill the screen. That loses some of the 4:3 picture at the top and bottom edges, but the picture quality is still good.

The sound also has four preset choices. Although, the internal speakers are not bad, I decided to use my sound system for the audio. The TV has an audio output connection, but the TV remote volume control only allows variation in the sound level for the internal speakers. The audio output stays at a constant level. I got around this by taking the audio from my cable box directly to my sound system and controlling the level with the cable remote. This works.

Although Samsung provides a version of the instruction manual on a USB drive with the TV, I found it easy to download and print a pdf of the manual from the Samsung support center. Having the printed manual is helpful. See my comment for the web address of the support center.

After one month, I still really like this TV. It is great for sports. An added bonus is that my electric bill has actually gone down.

Note: This review was written for the 6000 model. The 7000 model differs from the 6000 model only in its I/O capabilities. If you do not need the extras, go with the 6000 and save a few dollars.

This TV has produced a lot of controversy. After having spent a lot of time wading through it, passively and actively (debating it in threads), I came to the conclusion that I would get this set for a number of reasons:

1. I was not convinced by the people who were claiming that there were serious issues with this TV. One reviewer claimed to have seen trails in large dark objects. I went to the store and found NO ability to see it, and it was right next to the 750 (and a lot of other sets). As to the LED being edge and thus the lighting being inconsistent, ditto. I am not saying that it’s all lies and local dimming is useless. I am saying that it’s not something I can see right now (and that’s really all I care about).

2. This set is INSANELY thin. I have a space for mine where this actually makes a big difference.

3. I like to vote with my dollars. This is the lowest consuming television ever made. The CNET list of sets showed that the range was 8:1, which is pretty phenomenal if you think about it; in cars, mileage is not even that spread out. This is a REMARKABLE achievement and it’s a drag to hear people whining about dumb little imperfections that 99% of people would never see while they are buying from the other end of the spectrum. Of course, the amount of energy less you are going to use is not going to make a revolution, but a tiny percentage of all TVs using this amount would make a huge difference (game theory 101).

The biggest difference from my prior set (Westinghouse LCD) is this one actually has blacks.

The controls, menus, remote, etc., are all fine (I use a universal remote). Having a bunch of HDMI ports is great. I plugged in the connection to the web and looked at the Yahoo Widgets. Calling them useless at this point is an understatement. Should be interesting to see what is coming from that direction.

The argument that if the 750 looks just as good, save the money and get that is a compelling one. In terms of value overall, I paid ~$1500 for my 42″ Westinghouse 3 years ago. I just replaced it because it had developed background noise (patterns you could see). If this set lasts 2 more years, it will have exceeded the prior value in size and savings of energy.

Again, this is a remarkable achievement in an industry that had told us we’d all be using power sipping OLED by now, this is a hybrid strategy, here today.

I had the Samsung UN40B7000 for about 3 weeks and loved the picture quality and the features it has. Coming from a 27 to a 32 and now a 40″ I love the large screen size. I would have thought the large the screen the more defects I would notice on the screen but that did not affect me at all. Now I can’t see my shelf viewing a smaller screen at all anymore. This past week I noticed that the prices on the UN40B7000 and UN467000 dropped dramatically at my local Fry’s $1499 for the 40″ and $1699 for the 46″ and both included the Samsung BD P1600 Blue Ray Player worth $225 for FREE. I had no choice but return my 40″ and replaced it with the 46″ for the same price I paid for the 40″ and received the Free Blue-Ray player. Now that I have hooked up the UN467000 I love the bigger screen and happy I upgraded to the 46″ for the same price.

Picture:

I didn’t notice any flashing or black corners on both of my Samsung 7000, only clear high resolution picture with vivid colors. Compared to the Sony XBR9 the Samsung LED picture quality is bright and the color pops out. HD picture is awesome and the SD is okay for an LCD much better than my old 32″ and my brothers XBR4. With 3,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio and 120hz Auto Motion that you can be turn off or adjusted this TV has an it all.

Blue Ray movies is outstanding, best picture I’ve ever seen in any TV set and the standard DVD plays great as well not Blue Ray quality but it’s a step up from my old TV. But I don’t know if it’s because of my new 46″ 7000 or the new Samsung BD P1600 that Fry’s throw in that make the picture much better or both.

Gaming:

I have the TV set up with the PS3 and it’s great. The picture quality is amazing no blur affects at all in fast movement.

Sound:

Speakers could be better but what do we expect for a TV that is 1.2″ thin. I’ve purchased the Sony HTC T100 sound bar to get better sound. I must say the HTC T100 has a great sound and meets my expectation and needs (See my review).

Features:

I haven’t yet connected the TV to the internet to see how the widget or DNLA works but I have used the USB connection to plug in my flash drive to view movies, picutres and listen to music. I’ve even connected my I-pod to it and it plays my music, video and even charges the battery.

Overall this TV is the best LCD TV I’ve seen and I’ve been looking for months. The prices are steadily going down and it’s much more affordable to go larger now than it was a month ago and according to what I’ve read the prices might go even lower when it gets closer to the Super Bowl and of course Black Friday. I highly recommend this TV to any one who is looking for a thin set that doesn’t compromises picture quality, features or price.

Product: Sony DSC-L1

List Price: No List Price Available
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Click Here To See Amazon Sale Price
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Sony DSC-L1

Many times what determines whether you will use the technology alot is whether you have it readily available when you need it. This is particularly true for cameras, especially if you want to capture all those spontaneous moments in life. Size therefore plays a major factor.

In this camera, Sony proves that size doesn’t mean less capability. To be able to pack a 4M pixel camera with 3X optical zoom, and NTSC resolution full motion audio/video capture (with no time limit) in a form factor the size of a candy bar is pure genius.

The interface is easy to use. I picked up the camera and started using it without having to read the manual.

There are only 3 weaknesses with the camera:

1. the microphone is positioned on the top left hand side of the unit so it is easy to cover it up when you are holding the camera to take videos.

2. when in video shooting mode, zoom is fixed but autofocus continues to operate.

3. flash pictures in dark environments can sometimes yield lens flaring.

I just bought this camera and am extremely happy with it. I have already had the chance to use it under different lighting and it works great with the preset functions. I also bought the sports pack and am absolutely thrilled with it. I took it skiing on the weekend and the camera was perfectly safe. In summer I can take it to the beach and not worry about getting sand or water in it.

When I used it in the snow I used the preset “Snow Function” and the pictures were amazing. It really contrasts the individuals from the extremely bright backgound.

In all, a great camera the size of a candy bar.

The good: This camera is very attractive: compact and sleek. Pretty easy menu system and the most important functions are readily accessible. When conditions are right, it takes clear, beautiful photos. Rechargeable internal battery means you don’t spend a fortune in double A’s. LCD screen is a good size.

The bad: Focus problems!! In certain lighting conditions (e.g. fluorescent lights) you cannot take an in focus picture using the automatic setting. I missed so many potentially great holiday pics of my kids due to fiddling around with the settings. Mostly, I simply gave up trying to get a clear pic. I finally contacted Sony tech support and they acknowledged the focus problems under certain lighting conditions, including bright sunlight. They suggested changing the white balance and shutter speed- but when you’re a novice photographer, changing these settings is not so intuitive!

Bottom line: Buy a Canon elph. I wish I had. It would have been worth the extra money!

Product: Optoma EP1691

List Price: $999.00
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Click Here To See Amazon Sale Price
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Optoma EP1691

This is an exceptionally compact and well designed projector.

The menus are intuitive. The features are practical.

At 2500 lumens it is perfectly adequate for all but the brighest rooms.

Some projectors are difficult to figure out the keystone correction controls… this one is simple.

I think it’s worth the $1,000 I spent on it.

I selected this model for its size and portability and wasn’t disappointed in either. It also had good light output and excellent resoulution. On a recent business trip I used it for presentations up to six hours per day without a glitch.

I recently purchased the Optoma EP1691 projector, and have been exceptionally pleased with its ease of transportation (it’s so small) and its ease of use. I used it at a recent board meeting and will never go back to paper for board meetings again. This projector puts out a great image and its simple to use.

Product: Canon BP511A 1390mAh Lithium Ion Battery Pack for Select Digital Cameras and Camcorders

List Price: $70.00
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Canon BP511A 1390mAh Lithium Ion Battery Pack for Select Digital Cameras and Camcorders

I bought this battery to have as a backup for the identical one that came with my Canon Powershot G5. The battery is astounding. I’ve always been very displeased with the shooting capacity of digital cameras in general – they would bustle out of battery in a very short time. This battery was one of the deciding factors for me buying a Canon Powershot G5. According to a test on dpreview, it’s the best performing battery (when broken-down in the G3) out there for any digital camera (at the time of testing) .

I’ve taken a few thousand pictures with it so far, and I’m very tickled. When using the LCD reveal for a mix of movies and pictures (on my G5), I pick up around 600 pictures out of one fully charged battery. I’ve never completely “emptied” the battery with the LCD mask off (preview only), but based on my experience so far, I would reflect that you’ll rep somewhere between 600-1000 pictures out of one fully charged battery – maybe more – when the LCD is not on all the time. If you steal a lot of pictures (I can easily select 500 on a weekend waddle), I would quiet recommend buying an extra battery though. I’m fearful about ever running out of battery (or memory) while I’m shooting.

Should you choose a cheaper non-Canon note equivalent battery? I’ve not tried an equivalent for the BP-511, but I’ve got a DigiPower equivalent for my Canon Powershot S200 (Elph II), and it’s crap. I would never prefer and equivalent for my G5 camera, because in my experience, it’s quite apparent that you pick up what you pay for.

Pros:
* Extremely superior capacity – 500-1000 pictures on one charge with normal employ.
* Charges relatively hasty in my G5 – about 90 minutes

Cons:
* Very heavy. It’ll weigh down your camera, but for the capacity it provides, I personally mediate it’s worth it.

Conclusion: It’s a very superior battery – capacity is fantastic. I’ve had no problems with it – it doesn’t overheat, it doesn’t end working, and so far after about 6 months of operation, I’ve noticed no topple in capacity. I give it an unconditional 5 stars!!!

This battery will give you about 500-1000 shots before going insensible. Even if you utilize the flash often, it won’t die easily!! You can always count on this battery, no matter how you spend it. Highly Recommended for any level photographer!!

(…)

Product: Flip UltraHD Camcorder, 120 Minutes (White)

List Price: $199.99
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Flip UltraHD Camcorder, 120 Minutes (White)

I previously owned the Flip MinoHD so this review is based on a comparison between the Flip MinoHD and the new Flip UltraHD.

After reading about the Flip UltraHD’s addition of an HDMI output, larger screen, and longer battery life I decided to sell my 4 month old Flip MinoHD and purchase the Flip UltraHD. Since the MinoHD is very sleek and diminutive in size, my first reaction to the UltraHD was that it was quite a bit larger and bulkier to hold, and has taken some time to get used to. However, unless you’ve used a MinoHD the larger size of the UlraHD will probably be less noticeable. I found the camera controls on the UltraHD to be slightly easier to operate vs. the touch sensitive buttons on the MinoHD. As far as video quality between the two, I compared two different videos and both are about the same, however, the colors appear to be slightly more vibrant with the UltraHD.

If you are trying to decide which one to purchase, if maximum portability is important to you than the MinoHD is the better choice. Otherwise, if you’re looking compact camcorder with more features (HDMI output, replaceable batteries, longer record time) then you can’t go wrong with the UltraHD.

My ultimate wish is for Pure Digital/Cisco to introduce a MinoHD with all of same functionality as the UltraHD. Until then, the UltraHD is the all-around better choice.

So when I was 17 (and convinced that I would someday be famous) I really wanted a video camcorder to try my hand at making movies, or to film myself to see whether I had what it took to be a TV reporter, but never could justifying spending $500+ on one. Over the years I moved onto other tech cravings and ambitions. Then last year a friend showed me the Flip Mino – and I had to have one. It was super easy to use and fun, and I started getting great videos of my own kids – and captured moments that otherwise would have been fleeting, including my youngest child’s first steps. I wish this had been around when I was a kid. Anyway, the Mino is great, but it’s tiny tiny tiny. That’s convenient when it comes to having a camcorder on you at all times, or when trying to get into events that prohibit cameras, and the screen is really small. So I just picked up this new Flip – the Ultra HD. The screen is wonderfully large. It comes with a rechargeable AA battery back, which works through the USB, but it looks like you can throw in regular AA batteries in a pinch. Sound quality is great, video seems even better than the Mino. Only drawback with both the Mino and Ultra is you have to keep your hand steady when filming – but I find that easier to do with the Ultra than the Mino. Also, it’s not ideal for filming kids’ concerts, because the zoom is only 2x. But for capturing otherwise fleeting moments in great quality, the Ultra HD is now my standby. The software that comes with it makes it easy to email videos to family and friends, or to upload a video to Flickr or wherever. Bottom line is I’ve been carrying this thing around nonstop since I got it. Hasn’t made me famous yet, but I love my Ultra.

Product: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290 12.1 MP Digital Camera with 5x Optical Zoom and Super Steady Shot Image Stabilization (Black)

List Price: No List Price Available
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W290 12.1 MP Digital Camera with 5x Optical Zoom and Super Steady Shot Image Stabilization (Black)

This camera does take great pictures. These days the cameras are very easy to operate with all of the auto settings and advanced face detection and scene recognition – it’s hard to mess up a shot. This camera is no exception and makes the user feel like a pro when taking pictures. However, here are some things to think about when buying this camera:

1) The controls are on the right rear side of the camera. In particular the W/T buttons and the directional pad/button – the W button is hard to press and the left side of the dpad as well. For some reason they are right up against the right side of the 3″ screen which causes a problem and you have to either reposition your finger or use your nail to press the buttons I mentioned. No, I don’t have large fingers – it is just a design flaw. The buttons are set below the screen – if they were raised there would not be a problem. If you really want to see what I mean look at the pictures here on Amazon and zoom in on the back panel picture. Something I never noticed before but the directional button even has a part of the 3″ LCD frame cut out because it is so close to the button. See for yourself….

2) The video is crisp and clear (720p) but you CAN NOT ZOOM while shooting video. Compared to the T500, T700, T900, T90 ect where you can zoom when recording video. Very disappointing and if someone here mentioned that in their review I wouldn’t have bought the camera – I bet people here don’t even own the damn thing. The steady shot works well too by the way.

3) There is a rattle when you shake the camera. This is apparent only when the camera is turned on so I think it is the lens cover(s) which retract and automatically opens and closes when you turn the camera on. The lens protector is very fragile and when closed you can push it open with your finger unlike the DSC-N1 that I had which was like solid doors covering the lens.

4) This thing is BIG! OK it’s not huge but compared to the W300 It’s thick. I know, it has a 3.0″ screen compared to a 2.7″ screen but it is heavier and thicker than the W300 and the T series but I want to compare apples to apples.

5) Switching from menus and functions is a bit slow. There is definitely a processing delay with video and some pictures that I took too. I wouldn’t begin to throw a number out there (seconds) but it is definitely slower than the W300 for good comparison. Turning the camera on – slight lag – lens pops out – it’s just a lot slower than the N1 and W300.

6) There is NO docking cradle, memory or a case provided with the camera. I like the new battery charger which does not have a power cord but has plugs that flip out so you just plug it into an outlet and walk away – when the indicator light is off you are done charging – really good idea!

7) You need two hands to operate this camera. With the W300 you can work the zoom and shutter button with your right had with ease. Not so with the W290. Watch that left hand too! The RF illumination is located right where you might put your left forefinger. Careful.

The shutter button is on top of the camera along with the power button and a new SMILE button. The smile button will automatically engage the smile detector and will snap a shot automatically when activated. Very cool. However, the button, along with the power button is so small and inset that you really have to wonder if you are pressing it or not. You do feel a click I should say so it isn’t that bad I guess.

Canon – who’s that? I don’t use their products – Sony only baby. This is a great camera but could be better. Like the T700 the T900 came out and fixed a lot of issues. The W300 is a better camera than the W290. I am sure they will come out with a W400? It will be great I am sure! Get this W290 camera for the price and basic functions as a starter camera.

+This camera takes amazing pictures. Sharp, vivid, crisp, (insert synonyms here).

+Having such a high resolution is nice and the wide angle lens is great. It also has a little extra zoom than other point-and-shoots, which is another great feature. The smile detection feature is fun for about 30 minutes, but ultimately useless. (At least to me….)

+It has tons of little features and settings and even allows for some “editing” on the camera like red-eye removal and such.

-I do wish i could mess with the settings a bit more though. I like to be able to manually set the exposure time and mess with other things as well. These are unaccessible to the user. Regardless, it takes great pictures without me fiddling with things, so perhaps it is best. Though I do wish it had a long exposure setting to take some cool lightning shots or mess with light graffiti, but I think I’ll live.

-Also, you can’t zoom while shooting video. This is a bit of a frustration as well.

+The camera itself is amazingly small for it’s high resolution and hi-def video capabilities.

+Its construction is solid and the black looks pretty slick.

+Great “bang for the buck” camera. Simple enough for the family or girlfriend to use, and enough features and good enough quality for some more creative shots of my own. (and I don’t feel girlie carrying it, though there are other colors if that’s your thing…)

Product: Transcend 8 GB SDHC Class 6 Flash Memory Card TS8GSDHC6

List Price: $39.99
Average customer review:

Amazon Price: Too low to display
Add to cart to see low price@

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships in 24 Hours
Free Shipping Available

Compare Prices on Transcend 8 GB SDHC Class 6 Flash Memory Card TS8GSDHC6

I recently bought this 8GB SDHC card for my Canon SD1000 camera. The card works very well and I’ve had no problems with it so far. If you’re in the market for an affordable high quality SDHC card, this may be the one for you. Sorry, I kind of sounded like a used car salesman right there, didn’t I? I assure you that I don’t work for Transcend. But, here’s why I think this card is awesome:

Pros:

-Affordable!

-Large 8GB capacity

-Class 6 read/write speed (which is the fastest speed currently available)

-Lifetime warranty (at least that’s what the package says

-Transcend is a reputable company that’s been making memory products for a very long time. ( I swear to the tech Gods that I don’t work for them!)

Cons:

- I can’t think of any right now. The closest thing to a “Con” that I can think of is that if you buy this card now, it will probably become cheaper in a month or so No, make that 2 weeks.

IMPORTANT SPECIAL NOTES ABOUT SDHC MEMORY CARDS:

-SDHC cards are not compatible with most older SD cameras, SD devices, or SD card readers.

-SDHC cards are rated by speed using different “classes”. There are currently three data transfer speed classes available for SDHC cards. These classes are “class 2, class 4, and class 6″. For example, “Class 2″ would have the slowest read/write speed while “Class 6″ has the fastest read/write speed. So if you have a device in which speed may play a crucial role, make sure you buy a higher “class” SDHC card. Again, this SDHC card has the fastest read/write speed available right now. Class 6 has a minimum read/write speed of 6mb/sec… while Class 2 has minimum speed rating of 2mb/sec, and Class 4 is 4mb/sec. Starting to see the pattern?

SO WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “SD CARDS” AND “SDHC CARDS?

SDHC is basically an upgrade to the older SD cards. The reason they upgraded it was to achieve greater data transfer speeds AND capacity than previously possible with normal SD cards… and to do this, they had to redesign the card (which is why it’s not compatible with normal SD devices). This was necessary because digital cameras and digital video cameras these days have higher resolutions, which equate to larger file sizes and faster data transfer needs.

I hope I haven’t confused everybody by going into this much detail, but I can’t help being the nerd that I am. If you are confused, don’t hesitate to comment on this post and I will try my best to answer your questions. Also, any feedback is always welcome!

Conclusion: Buy the card if you have a new device that uses SDHC. It rocks! (This message has been approved by the “Duke of New Mexico”)

I recently purchased a Canon Powershot A720IS digital camera that is capable of recognizing and using up to 2 TERRABYTES of memory card (in the future) so I wanted to get the largest memory card I could install for now. I wanted to use the camera both on dry land and with an underwater housing for shooting stills and video on dive trips. Camera specs said an 8 GB SDHC card would record one hour of hi res video at 30 fps. Or nearly 2300 hi res stills at 8 megapixels.

A test of the Transcend 8GB SDHC card in the camera ended up shooting 70 minutes of full screen, 30fps digital video that could not be distinguished from my DV camcorder video quality. Playback from the memory card to the TV was so fast & efficient there was never a single “stutter” on the screen. The card speed is genuinely FAST as advertised. Low level formatting of the card allowed for very acceptable rapid-fire sequential still photo shooting speeds when light levels were bright enough that the flash was not needed/used. Something like 2 photos every 3 seconds. Files were flawless in display, both for stills and video.

This product was significantly lower in price than the Kingston 8GB SDHC card I originally bought with the camera. I’ve used both interchangeably and cannot see any different in the speed or capacity and quality of imagery is identical. For the money I’ll stick with Transcend and am looking forward to getting their 16GB card once the price drops substantially below the $100 mark. That would provide nearly 2 1/2 hours of video on my still camera or 4600 highest quality stills. I’m afraid my camcorder will be collecting dust much of the time. A big advantage to video on the card is there are NO MOVING PARTS, e.g. a mini DV tape cassette and camcorder or VCR playback unit needed to dump the video and stills to my Mac for editing and burning DVDs. I just stick the card in the MicroMate USB card reader, plug it in the computer and bingo, ready to sort thru and dump to the hard drive. Since the card is formatted by a Canon camera it automatically boots up the Canon Viewer software too. That should work the same for other brands of still cameras formatting this chip.

Download & Watch X-Men Origins: Wolverine at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch X-Men Origins: Wolverine Online Now!

I want to get this out first, I love the comics. I think none of these movies are anywhere close to represent the X-men as they are in the comics. That said, I think these movies exist in a different world that has nothing to do with the 616, except for the characters names and most their powers. I have no problems with these movies; X-men 1 and 2 were very entertaining action movies. But even those movies should have been called, “Wolverine ‘N Pals”, because they didn’t focus on the X-men, but on Wolverine’s interaction with the other characters. My expectations of this movie were not based on the comics themselves, but on the previous movie storylines. I knew in my heart that Hollywood would somehow find a way to rape the image of one of my favorite characters in the Marvel Universe, Deadpool. So when “Weapool 11″ popped up at the end I wasn’t even surprised they would do something that silly. I read an interview a long time ago that about X-men 1 that the producers had to fight to have Cyclops wear the visor because the director didn’t like it. So, I am not surprised nor bothered by the fact that these Hollywood interpretations don’t have a clue about how these characters should be handled. I did like the previous movies (except 3), and understand that this is merely a diferent interpretation of these characters.

Wolverine Origins or, “Wolverine ‘N Pals 4; how this mess began”, is a very entertaining movie. But it fails to deliver a comprehensible story line. A lot of the story doesn’t make any sense. The movie,( as you might be have been clued to know), is about Wolverines origins, its shows you where he came from and how his powers manifested, leading to spending a long part of his life with his half brother Sabertooth, whom we were introduced to in the 1st X-men. After many adventures and wars, the pair ends up joining a military group of people with superpowers led by Stryker. On one of the missions, Wolverine angered by Sabertooth’s actions leaves the group to pursue a nicer lifestyle. This is when he falls in love with Silverfox and the pair lives happily for a while. Many years later Sabertooth comes back in a killing rampage taking out some old members of Stryker’s group, and Wolverine’s love is killed during this. To get his revenge, Wolverine agrees to have done on him an experimental procedure that with give him metal plated bones.

Not bad right? Love, family, betrayal and revenge. All the stuff to make a great story. This is where it doesn’t add up. For those of you that don’t want “Spoilers” please don’t read, as I might give away some plot details.

-After wolverine finds Silverfox dead, Wolverine a veteran of many wars, doesn’t check to make sure she is in fact dead? Why did he leave her body there in the field? Couldnt’t his enhanced smell detect the fake blood? Was it her manipulation power that convinced him to just move on instead of taking her to a medic.

-If she can manipulate people by touch, how the hell didn’t she manipulate Stryker in letting her sister or any of the other kids go? She spends 7 years of her life with Wolvie and doesn’t manipulate him, and indestructible man, to kill Stryker? Was she having to much fun maybe?

-After Wolverine has adamantium put on his bones and escapes to visit the “Kents”, why on earth would Stryker send Maverick with a rifle to shoot a man that can’t die with metal bones? Was he going to shoot through an eyeball from a helicopter? He missed pretty badly by the way, twice. Superman gonna be angry when he goes home to visit.

-Its revealed that Silverfox wasn’t killed by Sabertooth yet after Sabertooth saves Wolverine from falling off the cooling tower, Wolverine tells him “this doesn’t change anything”. Why? She’s not dead. She fooled you. He saves you from falling and having your butt kicked but Weapon 11, why the hell are you still mad at him?

-Stryker failed to wipe Wolverine’s memories so the solution is to shoot a guy with metal on his skull on his head? How the hell does that work? How did he know it would work?

-Why did the most powerful telepath (Professor X) not control someone inside the 3 mile island release the kids? Why wait 7 years and then help. Why didn’t he do that stop time thing from the previous movies so he can save the kids? Where was Magneto? Doesnt he care about abused mutant kids? (One of the restrained kids looked like Quicksilver, who is Magnetos son in the comics)

-How come those kids couldn’t get away on their own? What was that chain link fence cage they were in made of? Adamantium?

-Why was Gambit hanging out in a casino, when he knew he was being looked for by Stryker? How was it that Stryker can’t find him in a long time and yet Wolverine finds him in a day? Maybe Stryker didn’t want him anymore. Maybe they couldn’t persuade the Blob to talk?

-Why add the scene in the end where Stryker is going to be arrested for his crimes, when we well know that he was a high ranking military official in X-men 2?

Well these are most of the plot points from the movie that just don’t make any sense. It’s ok for an action movie to be extremely silly and self referential in that way. For example in Transformers when they have the teen kid take the cube and the alien so they can hide in the populated city, one of the characters mentions how dumb that idea is. They make no excuses in this movie, and just because it’s “supposed” to be a dumb action movie, there is no justification for the producers of this movie to assume their viewers are idiots, and won’t care about a story plot that doesn’t make any sense. Which, apparently they are correct because this movie made a boatload of cash. I will not act like there is nothing wrong with this movie just because it’s flashy and has lost of explosions.

In my arrogant opinion, it’s a onetime watcher. This is not a boring movie by far, yes, it’s a lot of fun and tons of action and the movie’s cast was really great. But the story is convoluted and nonsensical, it seems to take the audience for granted. So, if you want to enjoy this mess, just ignore the entire story and watch the shiny stuff happening on screen.

Awesome movie, does most of wolverine’s history justice, only part that kinda stunk was…SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!….what they did with deadpool/ryan reynolds character, he could have been so much more in the movie, but it was a very enjoyable movie, watched it twice allready!!! blue ray is awesome!!!

Over the course of the “X-Men” trilogy there has been one constant story thread that has been touched upon, yet it’s never been fully explored. For those of you that have watched the series, then you most likely know exactly what I’m referring to… the origin of the most popular mutant of all, Logan/Wolverine. Finally, after three highly successful films chronicling the adventures of the X-Men team, 20th Century Fox has chosen to spin-off Wolverine into his own movie and potential franchise by providing his official origin story with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” presents many key events in Wolverine’s (Hugh Jackman) life prior to his fateful arrival at the X-Mansion in the original “X-Men” film. Beginning with his initial discovery as a youth that he possessed the ability to unsheathe claws from beneath his skin, to his complicated friendship and eventual hatred of his former best friend Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber), his time spent working for the government as part of an elite team of mutant trackers, and all of this culminating in a senses-shattering showdown that will leave no one unscathed.

The mystery behind Wolverine’s origin has been a long-standing plotline, not just in the film trilogy, but in the various comic books in which the character has appeared. In 2001, Marvel Comics began a six-issue limited series aptly titled “Origin” that would establish the official backstory for the berserker mutant once and for all. Obviously, so long as interest in the onscreen version of the character remained alive, it would only be a matter of time before his origin, or at least some semblance of it, made it to the big screen as well.

Many times with spin-offs, the story tends to be weaker than those utilized for the main franchise; however, this film appears to be one of those very rare exceptions where the quality actually remains intact. Written by David Benioff (”Troy”) and Skip Woods (”Swordfish”), with some elements loosely based upon the mini-series “Origin”, the story focuses upon some of the various influences, circumstances, and powerful outside forces that shaped Logan into becoming one of the most dangerous mutants on the face of the Earth.

The story spends ample time showcasing the extremely visceral nature of the film’s two primary characters, Wolverine and Sabretooth, and how they deal with their inner beasts in drastically different ways. Along with this complicated relationship, the film delves into the almost constant, yet subtle, manipulation that eventually led to Logan’s decision to participate in the excruciatingly painful Weapon X program, which bonded liquid Adamantium to his bones. It’s during these moments of manipulation, mostly at the hands of William Stryker (Danny Huston), that the film’s story really shines.

Another strong aspect of the film is the sharply written, and often times witty, dialogue. The interactions between the characters felt believable and completely natural within the scenes. Some spin-offs suffer from an over-abundance of clichés or merely recycled lines and moments from the original franchise on which they are based; however, “Wolverine” easily side-steps these issues in every respect. In the hands of less capable writers that didn’t feel some responsibility to keep the quality of the franchise intact, the dialogue, and the rest of the story for that matter, could have potentially gone the way of so many other spin-offs and failed miserably, thus hurting the main franchise in the process. As a fan of the series, I am very pleased by the fact that even though this is the fourth film in the franchise, the creative minds behind the series continually try to surpass what has come before.

For all you action fans out there do not worry. This series hasn’t lost sight of one of its key elements. Throughout the film’s story the action scenes never take a backseat to the drama unfolding within the characters’ lives. The fights are much more violent and at times graphic in comparison to the previous three films of the “X-Men” franchise; not to mention, even more up close and personal due to fewer mutants with projectile-like abilities. The decision to make the fights even more brutal worked very well alongside the animalistic overtones of the story; although it may have resulted in some parents not wishing their children to see the film, despite the fact that they may have seen the other three in the series.

Of course, what would a comic book movie be without the use of visual effects? Well, obviously it would be quite boring, but that almost goes without saying. For the most part, the CGI-intensive sequences were well executed; however, there were some surprising scenes in which the effects looked a bit shoddy. Oddly, enough these scenes involved the use of Wolverine’s claws, which by this point should have been mastered and no longer a cause for concern. I’m not sure what caused the problem, if it was a lack of texture on the CGI claws or what, but something was definitely off about them during a couple of scenes. Please note, that these are not pivotal scenes and that the problem was not all that detrimental to the end result of the movie, it’s just something that I found frustrating and thought honestly shouldn’t have occurred within the film. Otherwise, like I said, the visual effects were very good, and at times numerous sequences were truly awesome to watch and easily overshadowed any of the weaker moments in this area.

Lastly, the acting for the film, just as it was in the original three movies, remains consistently high throughout. Despite having played the role of Wolverine three times already, Hugh Jackman is still able to bring a fresh new approach to the character that is crucial to the continued success of the series. No doubt the ability for Jackman to convey such enthusiasm for the role was assisted by the fact that he was so passionate about finally getting to tell the official origin for this beloved comic book icon. Another neat aspect of the character that was explored a little further in this film than in the previous movies was Wolverine’s famed “Berserker Rage” (comic book fans know what I’m talking about). Although, we don’t necessarily get to see an all-out fully realized rage, we are given a much closer look at what he would be like if he succumbed to his unbridled fury, and it was obvious that Hugh enjoyed this new side to the character being explored.

Supporting Hugh are some extremely talented actors beginning with Liev Schreiber (”The Sum of All Fears”). Liev takes a role that was relatively wordless in the original film, and was tasked with creating a character that was dramatically rich, incredibly feral, and ultimately could become the nemesis to Wolverine we saw in the first movie. Not necessarily an easy job, but Liev pulled it off perfectly. He delivered a multi-layered villain that was a prime example of what Wolverine could have become if given a couple of different choices along the way, and Liev is clearly relishing every evil moment he gets onscreen. Next is actor Danny Huston (”30 Days of Night”) taking over the role of William Stryker from Brian Cox (”X2: X-Men United”). Danny played Stryker with the perfect blend of subtle manipulation and malice. At times he would be fatherly, especially towards Logan (albeit only to further his own agenda), but then he would snap and show his true colors by unveiling an obviously twisted, sadistic, and potentially unstable man who wanted nothing more than unlimited power to quell the surging mutant problem.

Rounding out the supporting cast is actor Ryan Reynolds (”The Proposal”) and singer turned actor Will.i.am (”Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa”). I’ve become a fan of Ryan’s work over the last few years, and I enjoy his unfettered sarcasm that he seems to imbue into almost every single character he portrays, but never in a way that feels unnatural or tired within in the role, mind you. In this film, Ryan isn’t given all that much screen time, but what he does get he definitely makes the most of by making his character of Wade Wilson (comic book fans know him as the Merc with the Mouth, Deadpool) an enjoyable addition to the group of rogues that Stryker has assembled. Sadly, his role was intended as an introduction to the character in hopes of getting an eventual spin-off for him as well, a tactic that most likely worked given the film’s success; however, I for one wish there could have been a little more of the character in this story, not to mention fewer major tweaks to the character’s origin that don’t line-up with the comic books. But, I digress. Last, but not least, is Will.i.am as John Wraith, a mutant teleporter. Will shows that he definitely has potential, displaying some good comedic timing in a few scenes, and a natural charisma that makes for a more interesting character than I believe he would have been if played by another actor.

Directed by Gavin Hood (”Rendition”), “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is an incredibly fast-paced action film that delivers on all counts. Granted there are some gripes with the movie, but overall it’s a very solid addition to a terrific franchise. This is a must-see for fans of the original trilogy and a perfect jumping on point for newcomers to the series.

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief nudity.

Download & Watch The Reader at Amazon.com. Click Here Now to Download & Watch The Reader Online Now!

I am writing this review on Oscar Nomination morning (although due to the fact that I refuse to post a review until the DVD has dropped you will be reading this much later) mostly due to my elation that it has been nominated for not only the marvelous performance by Kate Winslet (in the right category mind you) but also for Best Picture, Best Director and Adapted Screenplay. I’ve been chomping at the bit to write this review ever since I walked out of the theater a few weeks back, and since then I’ve seen the film a record three times and I would watch it again right now if I could. I’ve pondered this film, discussed this film, relived this film and can honestly label it the best film of the year and quite possibly one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time.

Sure, you can be quick to pinpoint it’s supposed faults, and you can try and label it something that it is not, but if you allow your eyes to open and your mind to absorb you may be able to see this for what it really is; a masterpiece.

When sitting down to write this review I asked my friend how I was going to be able to do so without being redundant or irritating. I mean, how many different ways can you say masterpiece before someone says “I get the point, now move on”? I’m going to try and get all that out of the way right now so that my review will be palatable.

`The Reader’ is a masterpiece.

Okay, I’m done now.

Having read Bernhard Schlink’s beautiful novel I was really anticipating this film. I feel that Kate Winslet is the finest working actress today and this just seemed like such an ideal role for her (Oscar, if you pass her over this year I vow to never watch another telecast). I of course try and shrug off all `high expectations’, and thankfully with `The Reader’ there was no hype. It hasn’t been hailed as the best of anything, and while it has landed on a few top ten lists it rarely breaks close to the top. The reviews have been mixed, some raving it as a masterpiece, some labeling it a faux; an imitation of a more insightful film. The only awards the film has garnered up until the point have been for Winslet so walking into the film, I was not feeding into hype.

I was simply hoping to see a good movie.

The film tells the story of Michael Berg, a young fifteen year old boy living in Post-WWII Germany. One day while making his way home he falls ill and is helped back by an older woman named Hanna. After waiting out his illness he attempts to thank Hanna but he winds up falling into a steamy affair. The two bond over books, using reading as a form of foreplay, and the two become almost inseparable. Then for no apparent reason Hanna leaves town without a word and Michael is left wondering why his only love has left him. Years later while Michael is attending law school he gets the opportunity to sit in on a trial being held over war crimes and is stunned, and ultimately heartbroken, to see Hanna is one of the accused.

First and foremost it should be addressed that this is not your typical Holocaust film, for quite frankly the Holocaust is the least impressionable part of this film. The film, like the novel, deals strongly with the feelings of guilt and redemption. There is a moral play that runs throughout each scene that begs the audience to cast judgment, but not in an absolute way but in a more complex and understanding way. `The Reader’ has no easy answers, but it throws at the audience a bit of a conundrum. It reminds me very much of `Dead Man Walking’, a film that appears to have such an easy answer yet causes you to rip apart your own ideals.

I am keeping SPOILERS to a minimum here, but be forewarned that there may be a few.

When we meet Michael and Hanna they seem like an odd match. He is obviously better off financially than she is. He is attending school and is doing rather well. Hanna is working a dead end job and living in a small apartment. Her education is limited but her yearning for more is apparent. There is an attraction physically, which cannot be denied. While Hanna is rough due to the nature of her life she is a diamond in the rough, a beautiful woman trapped within the shell of her former life. Michael is young and coming into his own; a handsome boy with a head on his shoulders.

There’s innocence within him that Hanna desires.

Their relationship is very fast and very graphic, but there is a sincerity there that one needs to truly look for. Some have complained that the relationship was pure surface; nothing but lust. They are missing something crucial. `The Reader’ is a film filled with quiet moments that speak volumes about the characters. There is a deeper connection between these two souls, one that maybe they can’t even recognize. There is a moment where Hanna finds herself inside a small church listening to a young choir and the tears are streaming down her face, and as Michael watches her from the doorway we can see it; even if he or even she doesn’t truly understand it.

It is there.

As the film progresses and the two are separated we begin to truly see the deeper connection that they are feeling for the first time. As the trial proceeds Michael is caught between his own feelings of right and wrong; between what is ethical and what is not. He is disturbed by the revelations concerning his former love; distraught over what this means for him and whether or not it had anything to do with his personal attachment to this woman.

Can he bring himself to hate her? Can he bring himself to forgive her? Does she deserve that hatred or that forgiveness?

There is a moment when Michael is attempting to visit Hanna in prison when everything makes sense; his eyes swelling with an emotion he has yet to fully realize. He struggles to convince himself that he hates this woman, because hating her would make it easier to forget her.

`The Reader’ is a masterfully crafted tale of love and loss; of what we tell ourselves in order to better understand something we haven’t the capacity to grasp. There is the shame in Hanna’s eyes as she hides her secret (one that you no doubt had guessed long before it was revealed, but the revealing of the secret is not really the point of the story), willing to sacrifice her very life so as not to be downgraded or looked down on. There is the guilt in Michael’s eyes as he blames himself for Hanna’s fate, unable to step outside his skin long enough to decide the correct course to case. This is a story about mistakes and missteps and regrets and the ultimate loss that comes from not fully understanding how to feel.

Technically, this is a flawless film. I remember reviewing `…Jesse James…’ last year (this site still won’t let me type in that full name) and going on and on about how technically perfect it was, from the cinematography to the score to the lighting to the mood to just about everything. `The Reader’ is the exact opposite in scope yet just as profound. It is a much subtler film, and so the score, the lighting, the cinematography and the set designs are smaller, yet just as pristine. Everything is so crisp and delicate; adding layers to the mood perfectly presented by director Stephen Daldry. I was a little hesitant about Daldry’s ability to transfer Schlink’s novel to the big screen. I loved `Billy Elliott’ and continue to love it more and more every time I watch it, but Daldry’s latest effort was that 2002 debacle `The Hours’ and so I was truly afraid that he was going to run the same gamut and deliver a similar piece.

`The Reader’ is not only much more profound and poignant, but it is also executed much better than `The Hours’ (to be fair, I need to watch this movie again, but I was not impressed the first or second go around).

When it all boils down to it though, this movie is all about two things; Kate Winslet and David Kross. Both actors deliver career highs (and to say that about Winslet is saying a lot since she is always top notch). Their performances are truly organic. That has become my new favorite word this year, for I feel as though it truly taps into the depth of these performances. There is a naturalness that fortifies itself within these performances, deepening with each flicker in the eyes or twitch under the skin. Try your hardest to watch Winslet’s face (I know it’s hard, especially since she is without clothing for practically the whole first hour of the film). There is a scene where she is lying in the bathtub and Kross comes in to hash out their argument. As he speaks you can see for the first time her hard exterior melting away and revealing this woman that she doesn’t even know exists. It is so subtle yet so profound.

Winslet is utter perfection.

Kross is just as superb, sinking into his character and delving deep into his emotional responses to his current situation. The scene in the courtroom (all of the courtroom scenes are beyond breathtaking) when he notices Hanna for the first time is utterly immobilized. Watch as Kross exhibits such a natural gut reaction; as controlled as he can be yet giving way to lapses of uncontrollability.

The supporting cast is also superb, from Fiennes’ dynamic understanding of Michael’s emotional regression to Bruno Ganz’s grasp of the real situation at hand. The one standout here is truly Olin, who proves to be one of the most important facets of the film. Her final scene with Fiennes is what makes the movie work, dispelling any easy sympathies for Hanna’s atrocities with her cold standing. For anyone who has complained (and there have been many) that this film tries to condone the actions taken by Hanna I urge you to rewatch and study this scene, for in a few short words Hanna’s actions are condemned wholeheartedly.

Remember, it is not her actions that we are sympathizing with, it is her inner person; cold and rigged yet incomplete, pleading for something or someone to make her feel whole.

Thanks in large part to David Hare’s marvelous adaptation, `The Reader’ lives up to its source material and delivers a truly outstanding and utterly astounding look at this tragic yet beautiful love story. If you walk away from `The Reader’ unmoved then maybe you are just plain unmovable.

I’ll close by saying that the Oscar’s have passed, Kate won the gold (YES!!!) and I still agree wholeheartedly with every word in this review.

This wasn’t really on my radar, until I started reading good reviews of it, and that, plus the fact of Kate Winslet, one of the few women I would unquestionably go straight for, conspired to send me off to the multiplex, where everyone else was billing and cooing over Marley & Me.

We have a brief snippet with Ralph Fiennes as this fellow Michael as an adult, then flash back to 1958 Germany, where he suddenly becomes sick in a street. Gruff woman Hanna, Winslet completely convincing as a German woman, comes and helps him and takes him home. Turns out he has scarlet fever, and is laid up in bed for three months. When he’s better, he returns to her apartment to thank her. He visits again, and eventually the 16-year-old boy and the woman in her thirties are in a sexual relationship.

She provides his sexual education, and soon she asks him to bring things and read them to her. They spend many nice hours with him reading to her before or after sex. Michael grows to love her and is thrilled to have such an exciting secret, but soon he finds that it interferes with him having normal friendships and girlfriends with people his own age, since he is always running off after school to be with Hanna.

Eventually the affair abruptly ends. Years pass, and Michael goes to law school. The class goes into the city to watch a war crimes trial as a lesson, and Michael is surprised to see Hanna there–on trial. She joined the SS after their affair, as a nurse, and was in particular partially responsible for the burning deaths of a number of prisoners. Michael is very upset at the entire thing, but can’t really confide to his fellow students, and by this time has started to notice that he has trouble forming deep relationships anyway.

SPOILERS > > >

Okay, serious spoilers, I’m not kidding! This section is better for people who have seen the movie. Michael tells his teacher that he has information that could affect the outcome of the trial… but he eventually declines to give it. Hanna is asked to provide a handwriting sample to prove that she wrote a statement about the atrocity. Rather than submit, she admits to the crime, and thus receives a far worse sentence than the others. The reason for both Michael and Hanna’s actions? Hanna can neither read nor write. Therefore Michael could have had her exonerated, or at least significantly reduced her sentence, but he chose not to. She, too, could have exonerated herself, but she chose not to admit that she is unable to read. The film continues and throws out a few more moral complications, but I think this is the crux. < < < SPOILERS END

It strikes me as being about guilt and complicity. Michael has his chance to help Hanna, but now he has seen that his affair perhaps wasn’t the best thing for him in the long run, and left him with several emotional issues. So he takes his revenge–by refusing to help her, and helping her in only very small, grudging ways later–and ways that could be considered as making her a sort of prisoner to him or someone deeply in his debt and control. Hanna seems for long periods to have no moral sense–and to harshly dismiss anyone who makes claims to one–but there’s an element of her self-punishment that goes beyond superficial shame to a feeling of deeper guilt, almost as though, through whatever formed her, she believes herself to be evil and deserving of punishment.

So it all turns into a very literary moral lesson on guilt and levels of complicity. One of those things that chooses a subject and examines it from all sides, providing several different examples and aspects toward creating a detailed whole picture. In this way it’s a very literary film, as it’s about different aspects and shades of a concept, rather than an accumulation of events that eventually impart a lesson or provide an insight.

All the performances are very good. As I said, Winslet is completely convincing as a gruff German woman, and the role requires her to age to about seventy. She also makes a convincing old woman, although my only complaint is that, as an elderly woman, she still moves just as fast as her younger self. David Kross as young Michael conveys the innocent excitement and sense of specialness of being in this unconventional affair, and of course Ralph Fiennes is perfect as always. The direction [by Billy Eliot and The Hours director Stephen Daldry] is effective if undistinguished, using short little shots at times to express a character’s troubled mind, without having to create another scene just to show it.

Overall, an engaging film with great performances that offers a lot to think about more than anything. An examination of the various aspects and shades of guilt and complicity as it relates to a certain interrelated circles of moral quandary. A thoughtful little movie you won’t regret seeing.

The Reader is set in post World War II Germany in the late 50’s where the post-war generation is simultaneously trying to forget and to come to terms with, literally the sins of their fathers (and their mothers`) Nazi past.

A 16 year old Michael Burke (David Kross) meets Hannah (Kate Winslet) an older woman and they have an affair. The affair at first seems to be about sex. When Michael brings his schoolbooks to Hannah’s house, which includes a copy of The Odyssey, Hannah asks Michael to read it to her. Throughout the summer of their affair Michael reads book after book to her until one day Hannah disappears without any explanation to Michael.

Michael assimilates the loss of Hannah into his life and moves on becoming a law student. One day one of his professors takes Michael and the class to a war crimes trial where Michael discovers Hannah is one of the defendants. During the war Hannah had a been a prison guard and true to Hannah’s character she had become a guard because it was a good job, and still truer to Hannah’s character is the revelation that Hannah asked the prisoners to read to her. Michael is devastated to learn why Hannah picked a prisoner to read to her and what happened to them afterwards. But Hannah has a deeper secret, one she fears revealing more than a war crime. Michael has information that would exonerate Hannah, and if Michael helps her or doesn’t sets the moral conflict of the story. Both sides of the issue are discernable, arguable and provocative.

Michael grows up to be Ralph Fiennes, and Kross looks enough like Fiennes that there’s no jolt as the movie switches from a young Michael to the older Michael. You believe Kross can grow up to be Fiennes. Fiennes as the older Michael and half a lifetime away from Hannah still can’t come to grips with the effect, both positive and negative that Hannah has had on his life, as he tries to assuage his guilt in an attempt to come to terms with it.

The acting is uniformly great throughout the movie and David Kross holds his own with both Winslet and Fiennes. While Fiennes is consistently good in the movie, this is Winslet’s movie. One scene that stands out is a moment between Fiennes and Winslet when Hannah wants and needs to be held by Michael and her body betrays her emotions. It is a moment rarely seen in actors that they can portray their characters so viscerally and vulnerably. It’s a nuanced gesture that says so much for the character and for Winslet’s increasing acting abilities.

I like bonus features on DVD’s and The Reader has plenty of bonuses for you. There are deleted scenes that seem like they could have only been deleted for time considerations because they add to, or would have added to the understanding of Hannah. Usually, when watching deleted scenes you understand why they were deleted, but not in this case.

There are also featurettes about the making of the movie, Kate Winslet explaining the make-up (which is actually interesting and funny) and a featurette about the composer as well as the set design of the movie.

From the movie to the bonus features this a complete and full package for someone looking for a good movie to add to their DVD collection.