5-Star Masterpieces...

"The battle of Helm's Deep is over; the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin..."

Through my eyes, Peter Jackson's much-anticipated and much-glorified The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the paradigmatic example of a perfect movie. The cinematic journey that initiated on Boxing Day 2001 and quickly received worldwide acclaim ultimately came to a conclusion with this final instalment. Personally, my passion for the Lord of the Rings trilogy never ceased and to this day I continue to view them frequently.

Just like its two precursors, The Return of the King was met with a congregation of positive reviews and of course recognition from the Oscar committee. I was ecstatic during the Oscar season at the beginning of 2004 when I discovered that the film was recognised with 11 Oscar nominations. Needless to say, I was even more ecstatic when Peter Jackson and his crew walked away with all 11 in their possession. The Return of the King won literally hundreds of awards worldwide and above all it accomplished a Box Office landmark: breaking the $1 billion milestone and becoming just the second film in history to do so. With this film walking away after sweeping the Oscars and sitting at a convincing second on the worldwide box office (as of mid-2008), this is indeed a rare event when it comes to a film offering of the fantasy genre. The technical proficiency is purely the finest that money can buy. Jackson's team at WETA workshop single-handedly created and rendered all special effects shots using software they had designed themselves.

This is by far the longest instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy; however it never feels too long. While many will complain (endlessly complain) about the length, I see the film in a completely different light. The way I see it the length is necessary to maintain a sense of fidelity to the novel and to successfully wrap everything up. If anything, I hate it when filmmakers rush things and end up with a missed opportunity on their hands. Peter Jackson had a modest budget and some astronomically amazing special effects on his side, so the work in every other department had to be top notch. Jackson's supreme gift is that of total immersion; the breathtaking lands of Middle Earth remain vibrantly alive. The film's pace may be reasonably slow for some, but the beauty soars with opulent layers of architecture, geography and complex storytelling.

Just like both entries thus far in the trilogy, The Return of the King reinvents the word "epic" completely. Many of the battles throughout the film display rich texture, and awe-inspiring showcases of visual effects. The action is emphatically extravagant and brought to life on an exorbitantly impressive scale! But what separates this from most fantasy epics is the heart at its core. Whenever there's a battle, you'll always find a satisfying serving of emotionally-charged moments featuring intimate scenes with the central protagonists. This coupling of visceral special effects and moving moments that display deep camaraderie is absolutely spellbinding!

This third and final instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy starts off almost exactly where The Two Towers ended. One must remember that all three of Tolkien's novels were written to plainly be one enormous piece of literature, and it was his publisher that insisted the novel should be split up the three shorter, more convenient components. In essence, all three additions to the cinematic Lord of the Rings trilogy can be edited together and the transitions would be seamless. The films are identical to the situation with Tolkien's novels: one big chunk of storytelling that's separated into three parts. You can never watch The Return of the King without first watching the initial two parts as this was never meant to be a standalone movie.

The first section of the plot here is concerned with Frodo (Wood), Sam (Astin) and the creature Gollum (a digital character played by Andy Serkis). As they move closer to the dark lands of Mordor, towards the fire of Mount Doom where the One Ring must be destroyed, the ring is becoming a heavier burden for the troubled young Frodo. As the quest perseveres, Frodo is becoming severely tested. Faith has been placed in Gollum to lead the Hobbits to Mount Doom despite the constant mistrust that Sam holds for the former Hobbit. On the outside this seems like a simple physically straining journey, but it's also an emotionally tiring journey on the inside for the three companions. While this story unfolds, the focus also alters to the remainder of the original fellowship. Sauron's eye has shifted to the city of Minas Tirith, the capital of Gondor, as the next target for his rampaging army. The fall of Gondor will mean the end of Men and the completion of his objective to clean Middle Earth of the species. A portion of the original fellowship, along with a horde of newer characters, move to the city of Minas Tirith to help build up defence for the impending attack and possible destruction of the White City. We find Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davis) through their more diverse journey into the cursed mountains to summon the legendary Army of the Dead.

This brief synopsis barely breaks the surface of this grandiose, all-round extremely satisfying epic film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is an unprecedented milestone of contemporary moviemaking. If The Two Towers raised the bar with its epic battles, then The Return of the King knocks the bar cleanly out of the ground! This is so much more than just a simple fantasy epic, in fact this is multi-faceted tale about the strength of character, friendship, loyalty and love. Each shot is sizzling with visual elegance...the special effects are nothing short of breathtaking! Every battle is truly monumental in its sheer scale, as well as exciting and intense. Previously, I briefly touched on the emotionally-straining moments that this film has to offer. The cast pull off these moments beautifully and I was extremely close to tears more than once during the movie. There are several truly moving moments that still give me goose bumps at the simple thought of them. These moments are fuelled by not only the motivating performances, but the score courtesy of composer Howard Shore. The composer was recognised with an Oscar and I plainly cannot quibble with this decision. The music retains the elegance of the visuals, and even makes the epic battles look even grander.

There are only a few new additions to the cast that are introduced here, the most notable being Australian actor John Noble as Denethor who rules Minas Tirith with an iron fist. The Oscar committee barely gave any recognition to the actors (only awarding Ian McKellen with a nomination for Fellowship). I guess with so many people in the cast it'd be impossible to choose one or two for a nomination. Andy Serkis is one member of the cast that deserves particular credit. He's hidden behind digital make-up, but each line he delivers is potent and really hits home. The acting from Elijah Wood is truly a triumph to behold. His performance required a great degree of emotion to portray the ring's power to corrupt. His performance was critical in order to display the ring's influence, which needless to say is absolute. Each character has their own personal demon to confront, and each undergoes their own inner journey. Every cast member does their job stunningly.

The Return of the King has of course been filmed in Peter Jackson's homeland of New Zealand. The Kiwi landscape is vast and beautiful. Whenever one views the film we're taking a step inside the gorgeous land of Middle Earth. Peter Jackson is a visionary, and like all the preceding films the attention and care to every conceivable detail is incredible.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a build up with an even share of action and exposition. The Two Towers is more exposition and build up followed by some action. With The Return of the King, the build up is definitely worth it...every second. The exposition has already been established in the other films, so this film is short on exposition and instead stocks a great supply of action scenes that are truly a cinematic marvel. The battles are lengthy but never suffer from over-length...each second is as intense as the one preceding it. Then the conclusion to the film is wholly satisfying. Some people complain about "too many endings". Okay, so there were many instances when the film could have ended but instead moved onto something else. Fair enough, but I mean this trilogy has already gone for like 9 hours...they can't wrap everything up in a hurry and leave plot holes or stories that haven't been concluded. Instead of rushing everything, each second is lovingly created in all aspects: filming, editing, colour scheme, special effects, acting, scripting, etc. The best part is that this end remains faithful to Tolkien's original novel. Thus the fans needn't worry...for the novel has been properly transferred to the medium of film.

There are far too many pointless and vain arguments between the haters and the lovers of the trilogy. The bottom line is that we're all entitled to our own opinion, and we can't all agree. Thus labelling Peter Jackson's masterpiece as "overrated" only proves that you are too narrow-minded to accept the fact that you are just a component of the minority that disagrees with the majority.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the crowning achievement of the fantasy genre. In terms of a conventional fantasy with wizards, magic and mythical creatures, this is as good as a fantasy film can get! Since 2003 this film has been my favourite of all time. In the number of years since the first time I saw it, I have never seen a film that can top the quality and escapism of this masterpiece. All three Lord of the Rings films score top marks from me, which is a rarity when it comes to a trilogy or series. All three films are truly an unfathomably excellent work of art. J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy that was preserved on pages is now preserved on film for the audiences of the contemporary age. The Return of the King is one of the most finely tuned and cinematically perfect films ever made. Winner of 11 Oscars including Best Picture 2003, Best Director, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Score among others. Also available in an extended edition that adds 50 minutes to the experience.

In the common tongue it reads "One Ring to Rule Them All. One Ring to Find Them. One Ring to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them."

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring marks the first ambitious film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's highly praised and acclaimed series of fantasy novels. Naturally, transferring one of the world's greatest fantasy novels to the screen would subsist as a daunting undertaking. For the die-hard fans of Tolkien's legendary novels, uncertainty was always an issue when small-time New Zealand born director Peter Jackson took the reigns. Although Jackson is an accomplished director who had previously helmed such films as Heavenly Creatures and Bad Taste, no-one knew for sure if the Kiwi was up to the task. The results are absolutely outstanding: a ripping yarn of a fantasy film rich in extraordinary production values, astounding special effects and never a dull moment.

The hordes of Tolkien fans must have breathed a collective sigh of relief when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring thundered across cinemas worldwide and became an instant hit. The film grossed millions of dollars globally and was being met with cavalcades of acclaim including mountains of positive reviews. What's more - the film also scored 13 Oscar nominations and subsequently walked away with 4 wins. Although previous stabs at adapting Tolkien's novels to the big screen yielded embarrassing results, Jackson's prior experience and familiarity with the fantasy genre translated into a respectful, lavish, gorgeously-mounted production that breathed fresh cinematic life into Middle Earth.

This first instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy introduces the characters and establishes the story. An ancient ring of power was forged several centuries ago by the Dark Lord Sauron (Baker). Sauron's master ring, known as the One Ring, was filled with Sauron's sinister power and contains the capability to rule all peoples of Middle Earth. After an impressive opening montage that recaps the integral events of Middle Earth that have occurred thousands of years ago, the story then picks up at Hobbiton: a village that is largely inhabited by the Hobbit race.

After being lost for centuries, Sauron's One Ring is picked up by a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Holm). Fast forward a few decades and it's Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday. As the celebrations rage on, Bilbo should be happy but feels empty as his life is seemingly winding down and there are still a lot of things he wants to do before shuffling off. Bilbo departs Hobbiton, leaving the One Ring to be inherited by his nephew Frodo Baggins (Wood). Frodo soon learns that this ring is Sauron's master ring, and it must be immediately destroyed. Now Frodo must embark on a journey to the fires of Mount Doom. Only in the flames of that mountain can the ring be destroyed. If he fails and a resurrected Sauron reclaims the ring, he will bind the other 9 subservient rings to his will and cast a pall over the lands of Middle Earth.

The film's subtitle, The Fellowship of the Ring, is drawn from the milestone in Frodo's journey to Mount Doom that occurs: Frodo collects a band of companions who swear to aid in the quest and protect Frodo at all costs.

The film's easy-going first hour quickly transforms into a heart-stopping, exciting, powerful and violent saga that is truly difficult to find boring. Although audience reactions were mixed and many complained about the film's length, I frankly cannot imagine myself being bored.

To say that I loved this film is a gross understatement. Not only is Tolkien's novel one of the greatest books ever published, but Jackson's film adaptation now confidently places itself amongst the greatest movies of all time. This first instalment in Jackson's trilogy is a labour of love - he and his team were determined and worked endlessly to accomplish the best possible product. Jackson's first LOTR film is visually astounding, as well being outstanding in terms of audio and atmosphere.

While so many battles were created using computer technology, this is the blueprint of "epic". Over the years we've seen "big" films like Titanic and Braveheart, but this film simply dwarfs most movies in terms of sheer production size. Every facet of the movie has been done to perfection - every chair, every sword, every location. Why has it taken so many decades to finally get this ambitious project off the ground? Simply because the sheer scope and size of the production would cost far too much. Even in the age of advanced digital technology and big-budget epics, it took countless years to finish. It's refreshing to see so much determination to reach perfection. The descriptions of everything in Tolkien's novel are brilliantly matched by the ideal creative team.

Pale imitations like Harry Potter are a regularity. In the years succeeding this film's release the world was exposed to failed fantasy epics like Eragon, just to name one. The brilliance of Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy will always remain unmatched. To quote a music reviewer, this film is the "blueprint for a trillion inferior facsimiles." With the aid of contemporary filmmaking technology and the diverse New Zealand landscape, the visual result is simply impossible to match.

Special recognition must go to Howard Shore for composing the music that won an Oscar! I own the soundtrack CD and can't get enough of the music. It's exciting, intense, grand, passionate and even heart-breaking at times. This is the cherry on top.

The film is astronomically elevated by the marvellous cast. Elijah Wood makes an exceptional Frodo Baggins. This is an emotionally challenging role for the youthful actor, and nevertheless he nails it perfectly. Sean Astin plays the exigent role of Samwise Gamgee. The role called for an endless assortment of diverse emotions that Astin strikes faultlessly. Ian McKellen is utterly flawless as Gandalf the Grey. McKellen was acknowledged with an Oscar nomination for playing Gandalf with equal parts of underhanded humour and shrewdness. McKellen IS Gandalf and there is no doubt about that. Viggo Mortenson convincingly pulls off the dashing Aragorn: a ranger who becomes determined to help Frodo. Credit must also go to Sean Bean. I am a great admirer of Bean, and must mention his outstanding performance. His versatility is tested with this challenging role: like many other additions to the cast, a collection of emotions are pivotal. Bean passionately pulls off the role of Boromir.

I'm not even halfway through mentioning the cast! Orlando Bloom got his big break playing the loyal elf Legolas. This is the single role that Bloom was meant to play. The character is flat and emotionless...and this describes the nature of every single Orlando Bloom performance. John Rhys-Davis is sublime as the dwarf Gimli. This is one of the veteran actors included in the cast. I couldn't imagine anyone better suited. Finally there are great portrayals from Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan as two Hobbit companions, in addition to sublime elf portrayals from such actors as Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler. The cast is truly a wonder to behold!

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring will forever be one of my absolute favourite movies! I still recall the first time I saw this movie: it was Boxing Day 2001 and my favourite uncle dragged me along to the cinema with my brother and cousin. We had booked tickets in advance and it's a good thing we did as there was a sign outside that strictly read "LOTR sold out!" Ever since that first screening I viewed, I subsequently saw it many more times at the cinema (about 5 more times, actually) as well as watching it at marathons and in the comfort of my own bedroom where I can watch the DVD.

Peter Jackson and his creative team have achieved a cinematic marvel! Even with characters and segments of the book being removed, this will remain the definitive cinematic vision of Tolkien's novel for many decades to come. One of the most anticipated cinematic events in history has finally transpired and in my opinion it is completely worth the wait! Some will love it, some will hate it: I will always be part of the former. Critics and audiences alike will always praise this film, and who's to quibble? It's a fine movie! Winner of 4 Oscars. Later released in an extended version.

"All our hopes now lie with two little hobbits, somewhere in the wilderness."

I still remember leaving the cinema subsequent to the first session I saw of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Little did I know that the screening I attended would cause a never-ending obsession with the epic trilogy. Instantly I was completely hooked, and the cliff-hanger at the end of the first film made my anticipation even higher for the second. Alas, 12 months later Peter Jackson and his talented creative team reeled out the second instalment for which I waited with baited breath. Just like the first film, I remember booking tickets in advance and heading to a screening on Boxing Day of 2002: exactly one year since I initially saw the first film. Just like its predecessor, I absolutely loved The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

The reception from critics and audiences was a mixed bag. Be that as it may, I will always adore all three additions in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like its predecessor the film flaunts visceral filmmaking: astounding special effects, mind-blowing cinematography, amazing locations and incredible production values! Where the first LOTR film was essentially a road story of epic proportions, The Two Towers is a rich, heroic epic containing powerful and moving themes of friendship and courage in times of peril. With so many powerful underlying messages, the film also moves at a brisk pace with testosterone and intensity during the action scenes.

Like the first film, The Two Towers was acknowledged worldwide with critical acclaim and recognition from the Oscar committee. This film scored a mere 6 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture), ultimately walking away with two wins. In addition to this, award ceremonies globally recognised the film with several awards. There can be no disagreeances on this front: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is an exceptional movie that even dwarfs the original film with its increasingly expanded definition of the word "epic".

This second instalment in Peter Jackson's epic trilogy continues the story where it concluded at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring: basically, the fellowship is broken with groups of characters being separated from each other. The film does not open with any flashbacks or lines of narration: there is no help to assist first-time viewers to find their footing. Instead we're thrown straight into the action. If someone was to edit the first two films together (erasing the opening titles, of course) the transition would be fundamentally seamless.

Anyway, the original nine members of the fellowship have been broken apart. Frodo Baggins (Wood) is now travelling to Mordor with companion Samwise Gamgee (Astin). The camaraderie of the two is what keeps the flame of their spirit and determination burning. However they strike a hindrance when they discover that they are hopelessly lost. A ray of hope begins to shine as the tragic creature Gollum (a digital character played by Andy Serkis) is visibly following them. Gollum was once a Hobbit named Sméagol...who became a deformed creature because of the effect of the ring he now refers to as his "precious". Gollum is the ultimate expression of the One Ring's corrupting and draining influence, and serves as a reminder of the urgency of Frodo's mission while guiding him towards the boundaries of Mordor. Upon capturing Gollum, Frodo and Sam convince the troubled creature to act as a guide to help them navigate the difficult lands through which they are crossing. In an alternative storyline (that is vitally linked and occurring simultaneously) we find Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davis) who are tracking the Uruk-Hai warriors that kidnapped Merry (Monaghan) and Pippin (Boyd). Their pursuit of the Uruk-Hai brings them to the land of Rohan that is under threat. King Théoden (Hill) has too long been under the treacherous influence of his advisor Grima Wormtongue (Dourif). With the land of Rohan under threat of imminent attack, the inhabitants are advised to leave immediately and flee to the stronghold of Helm's Deep. Meanwhile, Saruman (Lee) is raising an army of several thousand Uruk-Hai warriors to advance on Helm's Deep. In the neighbouring forest of Fangorn, Merry and Pippin are under the very safe guard of the Ents. These Ents are creatures that are essentially walking trees. On the eve of the fight for Middle Earth, the Ents are reluctant to get involved. Most of their story is concerned with their decision-making process and subsequent battle.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a truly spectacular second part of an excellent trilogy. This film is darker, more focused, more deeply emotional and overall more exciting than its predecessor! Identical to the first film, The Two Towers is filmed against the magnificent scenery of New Zealand that is marvellously showcased as Middle Earth. This film is simply a visual enchantment. Even after repeated screenings you will still be trying to grasp the attention to detail in every single shot.

The special effects work is nothing short of mind-blowing! There's a spectacular assortment of technical wizardry on exhibition here, highlighted by the amazing CGI creation of Gollum. The character was created in a computer, using actor Serkis as a model for which to animate his mannerisms. Every piece of Gollum has been inserted by computer, and yet it's almost impossible to point out any flaws in the CGI. Shadow detail, skin texture...everything has been brilliantly detailed by the ideal creative team! Even though Gollum is a computer creation we can experience his emotions with a great deal of potency. His story is tragic and enough to make you cry. His mannerisms and voice by Andy Serkis is just the icing on the cake. There are certainly multiple facets to explore with this character, especially with dual personalities buzzing around in the mind of Gollum. This is all shown extremely well. I can't compliment the filmmakers enough!

Of course, The Two Towers features an outstanding cast. In my review of the first film I mention most of the cast in-depth. I will prominently mention the new members of the cast this time. Bernard Hill is an exceptional character portrayal of King Théoden. At first the king is weak and dying...then he becomes rejuvenated and younger. Hill plays both of these character personalities to perfection. I simply cannot imagine anyone but Hill pulling off this role. Miranda Otto is stunning and idyllic as Éowyn: a confident and feisty woman (also very beautiful) who spends most of the movie proving her worth in combat. Many of these bonding scenes with co-star Viggo Mortensen are very compelling, and their chemistry sizzles. Karl Urban's best role is on display here as he portrays the soldier Éomer. His lines are never contrived and he looks the part. David Wenham is yet another commendable addition to the cast as Gondorian ranger Faramir. During combat his lines are delivered with great intensity. Wenham never strikes a false note. There's also a powerhouse performance by Christopher Lee as the powerful white wizard, and a sadistic-looking Brad Dourif as the deformed Wormtongue. John Rhys-Davis also voiced Treebeard the Ent who is fittingly introduced in this second instalment.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is every bit as stunning as its forerunner. With a gorgeous, motivating score from Howard Shore (that establishes a number of trademark themes for characters, locations, etc), exquisitely dazzling visuals, a solid script and plenty of testosterone this is indeed a film for the history books. The Fellowship of the Ring was a hard act to follow, but Jackson and his superlative creative team pull off a film that suitably matches its predecessor in terms of visuals, heart and intensity. This film created further reason for my never-ending obsession with the trilogy. I have so far attended 2 marathons, and I viewed The Two Towers singularly in the cinema on multiple occasions. It's a grand achievement of contemporary filmmaking...a cinematic rush of blood to the head that exhilarates, astounds and enchants; leaving you hungry for more.

The Two Towers continues Tolkein's trilogy in grandiose style, casting a spell that is impossible to resist. The Battle of Helm's Deep is possibly the greatest battle scene in cinematic history. Winner of 2 Oscars. Later released in an extended edition.

"I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!"

Based on a true story, The Elephant Man is a drama that unconditionally blew me away.

The film is a dramatisation of the life of Englishman Joseph Merrick (Hurt), known as John in the film, who was born with a grotesque physical deformity. Due to the nature and severity of the man's malformation he is unfortunately condemned to a life as a circus freak as people profit by displaying him in a freak show.

But all this changes when a London surgeon named Frederick Treves (Hopkins) discovers John in a street freak show. Frederick notices that John is also suffering from severe injuries due to improper action on the part of his owner. To treat his injuries, John is moved to a London hospital where Frederick also studies John's anatomical structure.

But while John is in hospital it is discovered that although suffering from rigorous deformities, underneath he is in fact a highly intelligent man capable of discernable speech, cerebral thought and sensitivity. Frederick is determined to make sure John is never mistreated again and isn't looked upon as just a freak with a physically deformed face.

This altruistic act of compassion and benevolence alters John's life forever. The film was shot in grainy black and white. In many ways this style suits the film perfectly. The picture looks dated; almost like genuine footage shot during the turn-of-the-century in London. I couldn't fault anything that I saw on the screen. Everything was able to catch my eye. Costumes looked authentic and the sets create the desired atmosphere of 19th Century London.

The make-up was outstanding! Every time the character of John 'The Elephant Man' appears on screen you can't recognise actor John Hurt underneath the elaborate make-up. His face looks authentically deformed and helps the audience get engaged in the film a lot easier.

On the topic of the performance, though, I get goose-bumps at the thought. John Hurt was robbed of his Oscar. The man's performance was a textbook example of portraying a character perfectly. His character is so poignant and so powerful. The world around him is so malevolent and prejudiced due to his appearance and we feel his pain like it's actually happening to us. The first time he utters a word in character I was in tears. And I stayed like that for the whole movie. I cried like a baby. And the thought that it actually happened and there was a real man of such animalistic appearance...made me cry even harder.

Anthony Hopkins was the ideal choice for his character of a London surgeon. I couldn't fault him anywhere because he's always so focused on bringing life to his character.

Many will not recognise this work being under the cap of director David Lynch. The storytelling isn't as bizarre or unusual as the kind of movies he became famous for. Instead the film is told using straight-forward storytelling that sometimes uses peculiar imagery to convey the situation to the audience. These instances include montages utilising images of elephants that contrast to the title character's outward show. Editing was sublime in these certain instances.

Overall, The Elephant Man is a brilliant piece of filmmaking in every sense of the word. The film is powerful, moving and unfathomably astounding. I cried for most of the film's duration. You will too.

"Here's looking at you, kid."

It has been over 6 decades since Casablanca was first released. That totals over 60 years of movie lovers and film enthusiasts alike admiring this masterpiece with the utmost praise.

Casablanca is a magical tale of loyalty, love and radiant romance that deserves every bit of praise it still receives, and then some. Casablanca is one of the only old movies that I could watch daily for the rest of my life and never get sick of. The film is a true original Hollywood classic that will always be thought by some to be the greatest movie of all time. It will always be in my Top 10.

Casablanca has not dated one iota; it's appealing, charming, magical and a downright masterpiece. Set during World War II, the main action of this exotic tale is located in the non-occupied French Morocco city of Casablanca, logically enough. The central character is a cynical café owner named Rick Blaine (Bogart), a discontented soul who "sticks his neck out for nobody". Rick finds himself coming into possession of two letters of transit; these can guarantee safe passage out of the country to whosoever carries the letters. Rick is informed that the leader of the underground in Europe, Victor Laszlo (Henreid), has arrived in Casablanca with hopes of escaping to America. But he needs these letters of transit that Rick is presently in possession of. The twist is that Victor arrives with his wife Ilsa (Bergman). Ilsa and Rick were lovers in Paris many years ago and departed under tragic circumstances. And now a classic love triangle emerges; two letters and three people that want the letters. Rick must now decide between being selfless or selfish.

Casablanca is an unforgettable film that is still mighty appealing in this contemporary age of cinema. It is classic and timeless in every sense of the word. Many people still regard the screenplay to be the best script in existence. Do I agree? Absolutely! The script is definitely the best script ever written for the screen. It contains some gorgeous lines that we often hear parodied and quoted. ("Round up the usual suspects", "We'll always have Paris", the list goes on) If you ever do a course on writing screenplays, Casablanca will be brought up as an example. The lines cannot be faulted at all. There is never anything cheesy and never anything too corny. The film is never boring and is also the perfect length.

Both the screenplay and the directing assist in making this perfect film into a reality. It almost goes without saying that the performances are fantastic. Humphrey Bogart was in his prime when this film was released. After The Maltese Falcon he was finally given his big break. And since this film in particular, Bogart has gone on to become one of the world's most memorable actors. Bogart's performance is masterful. Every line is delivered with such precision; keeping the audience interested and enthralled in everything that is going to happen next. The final line uttered in this movie is the greatest last line in cinematic history without question or debate. And Bogart's delivery is essentially flawless.

Ingrid Bergman was an extremely talented actress when this film was made. Her performance is sublime. The romance is never cheesy, and each line delivered by either her or Bogart glistens with perfection. The song As Time Goes By is the greatest movie song of all time. It will give one goose-bumps because of its poignancy and power.

I've seen this film broken down during filmmakering classes. Everything in this movie is to perfection. People will always suggest Casablanca as an example of a perfect movie. There is little wonder or debate surrounding that statement. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again, Casablanca could be the greatest movie ever made. If you want an example of a perfect movie then watch this one. If you want a good movie to watch with your partner, watch this one. Rush out and buy the movie with hesitation. I cannot put it clearer than that.

"We've become a race of Peeping Toms. What people ought to do is get outside their own house and look in for a change. Yes sir. How's that for a bit of homespun philosophy?"

Rear Window is an undemanding lesson in accomplishing perfection from simplicity. This classic film was the creation of Alfred Hitchcock during one of his last grand creative spells. In the years to follow, the all-time master of suspense produced such classics as Vertigo and Psycho.

Rear Window is Hitchcock's supreme cinematic creation, his crowning triumph and the feather in his cap. With this particular production, the director influenced thrillers and their formulas still decades following its release. Rear Window is a film that invents the clichés. Preceding Hitchcock's masterpiece, said clichés didn't exist. The certain formula didn't exist either. Ergo, a modern audience labelling the film as "clichéd" or "predictable" is both unjust and unfair. Taking the film's age into account, this is a faultless production that unfortunately gave birth to millions of subsequent reproductions. The film is a multi-faceted production enriched and permeated with screenplay integrity, realism, credibility and originality. On top of this, Hitchcock's competently entrancing direction is capable of keeping an audience enthralled from start to finish.

Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, Rear Window, is a riveting thriller pervaded with tension and a spellbinding atmosphere. It's truly a gem and a half! Everyone has at least heard of this production. If one hasn't seen it, they're probably sick of the hype, praise and acclaim. Be that as it may, there is a reason why Rear Window is held in high regard over 50 years since its initial release. The crux of its perfection is within its straightforwardness. It's probable to argue that the film is supported by an exceedingly boring concept, as the film's events concern one person in one room. Mind you, that one person is actor James Stewart...and that one room is an intricate creation augmented with authenticity and absorbing panorama. Moreover, this is Alfred Hitchcock we're discussing. That director has forever been regarded as the master of suspense. Although countless have endeavoured, no other directors can competently tackle the genre like Mr. Hitchcock. His filmmaking allure lies in his ability to keep an audience captivated and interested. This is achieved by employing attention-grabbing camera movements and a succession of proceedings grounded in gripping realism.

This simple story is set in the apartment of successful, professional globe-trotting photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart). After an unfortunate incident during an assignment, Jeff becomes confined to a wheelchair in his boring apartment. Jeff is faced with sheer boredom and, with nothing else to do, he begins spying on his neighbours. With the occasional visit of his nurse (Ritter) and beautiful girlfriend Carol (Kelly), there's plenty of time for Jeff to become consumed in the private dramas of his neighbours. One night his voyeuristic activities pay off when Jeff believes that he witnesses a murder. Salesman Lars Thorwald (Burr), living in the neighbouring apartment building, begins acting suspiciously after the unexplained disappearance of his nagging wife. Gradually, Jeff builds his investigation and he becomes increasingly convinced that the salesman is guilty of murder. While he steadily gathers evidence, Jeff draws others to his intrigue.

Witty, enthralling, poignant, comical and prudent - Rear Window challenges an audience with its connivance in the stories witnessed. Hitchcock also works up the film to one of cinema's greatest hero-and-killer confrontations. This confrontation is particularly memorable for Thorwald's acquiescent perplexity that a stranger would be interested in his certain life, let alone keen to expose his secrets. Flawless...essential.

Hitchcock's camera remains in one apartment, with very few exceptions. Despite sounding quite boring as we remain in one location for the film's entirety, Rear Window is an absorbing film crammed with limitless suspense. Hitchcock is of course the master of suspense, so you'll find many moments here when it's difficult to draw a breath. The director keeps his audience enthralled and engrossed until the unforgettable climax. The classic touches from a classic director are truly hard to beat. He can raise a clever grin occasionally while keeping an audience riveted and on the edge of their seat.

The single location is also an extremely fascinating one. Cleverly, the focus isn't directly on the murder plot. The characters are occasionally entangled in the dramas unfolding in other apartments. We are introduced to a cavalcade of people, and the short character development is effective despite being brief. The script is always taut and there is never a wasted frame. Hitchcock always uses his visuals to tell his story with further intrigue and suspense without relying solely on music. Silence, in fact, provides some of the film's most terrifying moments. Even better, the focus is on the protagonist and his story. The ending may seem rushed as the explanation is revealed very quickly, but this is one of the best decisions on Hitchcock's part in my opinion. It reminds the audience that we're following Jeff, and only a few moments of pure exposition were necessary. It also shows the build up of tension in Thorwald that eventually bursts open forcefully...he becomes ready to confess. This is a rare film that flaunts excellence and perfection in just about every aspect.

James Stewart's performance was absolutely essential. As we're spending the duration of the film in a single location with a chief protagonist, it was a necessity for Stewart to exude charm and charisma to keep the audience enthralled. Stewart has always been one of the screen's greatest performers. Partner him with Alfred Hitchcock and you simply cannot go wrong. For every shot...every frame...Stewart never strikes a false note. He's also fascinating and he possesses a particularly engaging voice. The eminence of his performance is demonstrated in the nuances, and none are superior to the expression of reprieve as he relieves the itches caused by the plaster cast. Stewart is simply so darned excellent in any role he tackles! Alongside Stewart, the beautiful Grace Kelly appears as the love interest that becomes entangled and obsessed with uncovering evidence to prove a man guilty of murder. At the time of release, Grace Kelly was one of the screen's greatest beauties and she abundantly reminds us of this. Thelma Ritter brings a delightful comedic sense to her role as Jeff's nurse. Across the entire film, there is an evident ring of excellence around the entire cast (no, not the cast on Jeff's leg).

Not only is Hitchcock a master of the thriller genre, he's also one of the greatest directors of all time. In his career he directed several memorable masterpieces such as North by Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, Vertigo and several others. No-one then or now could match Hitchcock's large quantity of quality masterpieces. They say it's impossible for a director to helm more than 2 or 3 masterpieces in his career. Hitchcock transcends this expectation. Rear Window is his best film in my opinion. Everything about the film is pure perfection. If there was a rating higher than 5/5 or 10/10, then Rear Window would undoubtedly wear that rating with aplomb.

Several film buffs and cinema enthusiasts would concur that there's no such thing as a perfect movie. In my opinion, that statement is highly incorrect. This is a masterpiece of the highest order: a faultless marriage of tension, romance, drama and mystery with undertones of intrigue. Cunningly manipulative in optimum Hitchcock elegance, as well as managing to offer us with a complete gamut of human emotions and intrinsic idiosyncrasies all from the vantage point of just the one room: there is good reason why Rear Window is regarded as a classic masterpiece. With an impeccably selected cast, a virtuoso script courtesy of John Michael Hayes and a man who was probably the most creative director to ever draw breath...it simply lacks nothing. The best aspect is in its ability to build effectively until you abruptly realise that you're completely engrossed in this cinematic universe and you don't want the film to end. You cannot afford to miss this one.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his."

General George S. Patton emerged as a prominent military leader during World War II. He got things done by way of heavy discipline and a dedication to his country.

Patton is a biopic of the life of General Patton during the Second World War and it contains one of the greatest performances of the 20th Century. George C. Scott won an Oscar for his portrayal of the man behind several illustrious military campaigns. And there is little wonder. Scott remains focused and full of concentration; never breaking his character for a moment.

Patton used drastic measures, even utilising some that made troops terrified of him, and made sure his soldiers were well trained. Patton was one of the greatest military figures of the modern era; he commanded many attacks that proved successful, and struck a massive blow to the German side. General Rommel was even petrified of the man, and Rommel was the one who had to plan the German attacks!

The film opens with a brusque, stirring and famous speech delivered by Patton before an enormous American flag. The speech proved inspirational to the soldiers in times of combat, and set the atmosphere for the amazing experience that was to come.

Although a brilliant general, Patton was well known for shooting his mouth off; saying inappropriate things, being too harsh on men and raising his voice at the slightest things. In some scenes the audience can empathise with the man's situation, in others we sit in awe as George C. Scott delivers lines that are so powerful that in turn the audience will become increasingly scared.

But there was a lighter side to Patton that was never seen by any of his soldiers that didn't hold a position of power, and this side is exposed frequently. The man had a sense of humour; he says some very amusing things that are blunt but true. In a word, the man was interesting; volatile temper, vast array of knowledge of battle tactics, belief in reincarnation, fascination with history and yet a very dry sense of humour.

Patton is one of the greatest war movies ever to hit the big screen. Although essentially a drama, the film has its fair share of elaborate battle scenes that aren't necessarily gory but with an enormous body count. The battles look spectacular, and that's only putting it mildly.

The scale is enormous; detailed costumes, genuine props, and tonnes of extras. Not to mention the very impressive array of tanks present during the battles that add to the high level of authenticity in the production.

The film also uses grainy black & white footage as a medium for outlining events that have happened between scenes. But the boldest aspect has yet to come. The film also examines the other side of the battle - the planning strategies of the Germans who are working to ensure they don't let Patton get the upper hand.

And as a result the film is an absorbing character study that is not action orientated but rather focused on the drama that unfolded in between the battles. We see the planning; the brains behind the operations that have now become famous amongst modern historians.

Patton is a moving portrait and a patriotic tribute to a man who was so dedicated to his career as a general. The film is long, but not overlong. It's drawn out, but always fascinating.

Patton is a film that will be remembered as fondly as the general whose life spawned the tale. A film you cannot afford to miss.

"Oh, we have 12 vacancies. 12 cabins, 12 vacancies."

Produced during the period when Alfred Hitchcock created his most gripping work, Psycho is the original archetypal horror movie and an essential piece of filmic history. It's the ultimate spine-tingler, the definitive slasher, and the perfect chiller. In the decades prior to helming Psycho, Hitchcock had delighted in astonishing and scaring audiences. However, never had Hitchcock engaged in full-on, straight-up horror until this macabre riposte to the schlock frighteners of the late 1950s.

Psycho has been imitated often, but never surpassed. This is suitably evidenced by almost 50 years of slasher flicks (like John Carpenter's brilliant original Halloween and the crappy Friday the 13th series) including the film's own sequels (that varied in quality), a TV movie spin-off and, in particular, Gus Van Sant's utterly woeful 1998 remake. Furthermore, this Hitchcock masterpiece is a reason why people these days lock the bathroom door while having a shower.

Psycho is more than the great granddaddy of all slashers; it is also an excellent thriller, a quality black comedy, and a valuable lesson in filmmaking. It's a landmark movie for its application of realistic violence, shock, subtle humour and surprise. Virtually every modern horror film and thriller owes its allegiance to Psycho.

Back in 1959, no-one could believe that the Master of Suspense was going to direct a movie with a mere $800,000 budget in a measly thirty-day period (seven of these days were spent shooting the shower scene, which is packed with 87 cross-cuts in its frenzied 45 seconds) using the crew from his TV series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. People also couldn't understand why Hitchcock was helming a filmic adaptation of a pulp novel by Robert Bloch which was influenced by the gruesome career of the Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein. The audience reaction at the time must have been quite similar to the mutual bewilderment when news broke out that Gus Van Sant intended to direct a shot-for-shot remake of this very masterpiece.

Upon release, Psycho was panned by quite a number of critics across the country. Nevertheless people lined up for the movie for blocks (there are stories of queues as long as three miles at drive-in cinemas), it became popular among audiences, and within a few months most critics had changed their opinion. Before long Hitchcock was nominated for an Academy Award, and Psycho was considered one of the best films of the year. In the subsequent decades it was being featured on lists of the best shockers, best suspense thrillers, and, eventually, best films of all time.

All and sundry should be familiar with the straightforward plot of Psycho. If you're unaware of the storyline, surely you've witnessed at least one of the thousands of lampoons and parodies of the acclaimed shower scene. It's hard to imagine anyone not knowing the plot of this masterpiece. For the sake of this reviewer's writing traditions, I'll provide a reasonably brief synopsis.
Marion Crane (Leigh) works as an assistant at a real estate agency in Phoenix, Arizona. She's a struggling working girl, and she's fed up with the way life is treating her. The only way she can see her lover Sam Loomis (Gavin) is if she sneaks out during her extended lunch breaks. Marion wants to marry Sam, but they have insufficient funds to commence a new life together. On a seemingly regular Friday afternoon, Marion's employer entrusts her with an enormous cash sum of $40,000. She's instructed to deposit the money at the bank. However, Marion's instinct tells her that this money could be her last chance at a new life. She steals the money and leaves town. On a fiercely stormy night, Marion stops at the Bates Motel. At this enigmatic location Marion encounters Norman Bates (Perkins): the shy-but-kind manager who's happy to offer her a room for the night and a sympathetic ear. But too long has the Bates Motel been under the authority of Norman's mother, and this night concludes with the immortal shower scene. In the weeks following Marion's murder, her family and friends grow worried and suspicious. Unfortunately for Norman Bates, things escalate when the investigation begins.

Plot-wise, Psycho isn't anything extraordinary. The film's true ingeniousness lies in its edifice. Director Hitchcock and screenwriter Joseph Stafano developed this masterpiece in such a way that it constantly defies expectations and eliminates any sense of predictability. There are two key surprises: the shower scene murder and the final shocking revelation (this ending still shocks me even after watching the film countless times). A viewer who watches Psycho for the first time without any knowledge about either surprise will experience the full impact of Hitchcock's intentions. In fact, the impact is weaker these days because the shower scene is so frequently discussed and so well-known. The greatest shock for a first-time audience member is the early exit of Marion Crane. This is doubly unanticipated because up to this point the script has tricked us into accepting Marion as the main character. When events dispel that illusion, and the point-of-view shifts to Norman Bates, viewers are justifiably baffled. In order to keep this aspect of the film secret when Psycho opened in theatres in 1960, no advance screenings were held, no-one was admitted to a showing after the feature had started, and Hitchcock purchased every copy of Robert Bloch's novel he could find.

To this day, audiences never forget how scary and disturbing Psycho truly is. People still have trouble taking a shower because of it (Janet Leigh reportedly never took a shower ever again after filming concluded). If you're looking for blood and gore, look elsewhere. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or a Friday the 13th entry will be more to your liking. Psycho has a grand total of about two minutes (if that!) of actual violence in it. Yet these are the most unforgettable two minutes of violence in film history. Alfred Hitchcock was a magician and a director. The violence was done with mirrors, trick shots, and general illusions. The viewer comes away swearing they've witnessed more than they've actually seen. For example, at no point in Psycho do we ever see a knife penetrate the skin. The murders are done with quick flashes, expert editing, and realistic sounds (the stabbing noises were actually a recording of Hitchcock stabbing melons with a kitchen knife).
Let's not forget about the music. The film is offered an absolutely riveting score courtesy of Hitchcock regular Bernard Herrmann. Without the chilling sound of Herrman's music the film would lose about half its intensity. Psycho is probably the best instance in cinematic history of music effectively strengthening action and intensity.

Hitchcock purposely made the film in black & white because he thought it'd be too gory in colour! Hitchcock dabbled in cinematic taboos and pushed the censorship envelope with Psycho. In fact this was the first American motion picture to feature a toilet being flushed (up until then movies didn't even acknowledge the existence of toilets). Janet Leigh is also shown in her underwear on more than one occasion, and it's possible to see hints of flesh (mainly belonging to a body double) during the shower scene. The script also features a character speaking the word "transvestite" - a line that survived the censor only after a Herculean struggle on Stafano's part.

Anthony Perkins' perfect performance as Norman Bates is a brilliant mix of sincerity, charisma and impenetrable insanity. In the Robert Bloch novel the character of Norman Bates was a fat and balding middle-aged voyeur. To make the character more sympathetic, screenwriter Stafano reworked Bates in order for Perkins to suit the role.
Janet Leigh was nominated for an Oscar. Her performance is also quite extraordinary.
According to various actors who worked with the Master of Suspense, Hitchcock was a director never particularly concerned with the acting in his movies. Apparently he was more of a technician. Hitchcock (known more affectionately as "Hitch" to his collaborators) knew precisely what he wanted actors to do, and he expected them to do it. Most of the acting in Psycho is in fact quite perfunctory. Janet Leigh was the one who got an Oscar nomination, but it's Anthony Perkins' indelible performance that everyone remembers. Perkins delivers one of the cinema's most frightening and extraordinary performances. Perkins became so identified with Norman Bates that it changed the trajectory of his career. For years following Psycho, Perkins shunned talking about the part until he finally made peace with Norman in the 70s, and at long last returned to play the role in sequels.

Alfred Hitchcock's name has become synonymous with Psycho. If Hitch's name pops up in conversation, people will usually associate him with Psycho or Rear Window or Vertigo or The Birds. Hitchcock's Psycho is so incredibly influential and unspeakably brilliant. Many believe that John Carpenter's Halloween was the mother of the slasher genre. It became responsible for the Scream films and many other modern slashers. Yet, as important as Halloween was to the horror genre during the 80s and 90s, John Carpenter's thriller didn't invent this brand of terror...it re-invented it by paying tribute to one of the most frightening films of all time: Psycho. Not only did Halloween star Jamie Lee Curtis (Janet Leigh's daughter) but the character name of "Sam Loomis" was re-used.

Visually rich, unbearably intense and absolutely terrifying, no-one has ever done it better than Hitchcock and no-one ever will. As the film's shocking revelation is revealed, I always get goosebumps. These are the consequence of a combination of several elements: the shocking imagery, the sound, and the haunting music. Several argue that Psycho is Hitchcock's best movie. In my opinion that honour goes to Rear Window, although it's incredibly close.
Today, Psycho still holds up amazingly well. With the possible exception of Halloween and perhaps Scream, no latter-day horror/thriller has been capable of generating as many goosebumps as Psycho. The black and white photography is perfect for the film's tone and mood - colour would have blurred the nightmarish quality. The painstaking way in which Hitchcock composed every scene is evident in the quality of the final product. This is the most notorious title in the Hitchcock canon. It moves from one memorable scene to the next. It rattles along at a brisk pace, and before you know it the film is over. This was my introduction to Hitchcock and I've been viewing more of the director's work ever since.

"A boy's best friend is his mother."

It's Hebrew, it's from the Talmud. It says, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."

Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List is a challenging film to review. The incentive behind this is not because it's a bad movie...but that it's such a powerful experience to exhibit and it's virtually unfeasible to illustrate its power by employing words. In a sense, Spielberg's Schindler's List is something much more than a movie: this is a phenomenon!

When it was announced that director Spielberg was taking the reigns, this declaration encountered nothing but abject incredulity. Beforehand the director had only helmed mainstream blockbusters and films exhibiting bright exuberance like Jaws, Always, The Sugarland Express, Raiders of the Lost Ark and several others. Questions and uncertainties began to surface concerning the director's aptitude and capability to tackle a project of such enormity. There comes an occasion in the career of a director when they step away from the genre in which they take an interest, instead attempting something new. Certain directors have failed, some have prevailed. When Schindler's List was set for release, audiences sharpened their knives due to their qualms regarding the director. But make the film Spielberg did, and the world came to watch.

Spielberg achieved his goal beyond all initial comprehension...this was a step upwards for the director and a significant milestone in contemporary cinema. For the film's three hours duration audiences sat under an overwhelming collective spell - horrified, beleaguered, fascinated, inspired. As movie-goers stumbled, erratically blinking, from the theatres of the world, moist-eyed and moved, it became clear that a new era of filmmaking had commenced. Spielberg traded in his stereotyped career in the year 1993 with an astonishing double-whammy - he envisioned an unparalleled Holocaust template with Schindler's List, as well as resurrecting the dinosaurs with his astounding vision in Jurassic Park. By 1994 Spielberg was presiding over the most lucrative motion pictures of all time, and finally he received his cherished Oscar.

The subject matter is correctly a delicate topic. After all, it was only a number of decades ago that Adolf Hitler instigated a policy that necessitated the annihilation of Jews. Personally, I have studied the Holocaust in detail and am knowledgeable in the intricate, heart-wrenching niceties regarding the events leading up to mass murder. On a daily basis throughout the Holocaust, thousands of Jews were executed in sadistic ways - people were cooked alive, some shot, even some were exposed to poison gas. The disturbing factor is that the Nazis never felt an iota of sympathy due to the attitudes they were so severely lead to believe.

The focus of Schindler's List is not to portray the horrors that unfolded in extermination camps at all. Spielberg keeps the focus purely on the more minor events, and above all the viewpoint from a select few characters. The heavy nature in its depiction of executions challenges out notion of tolerance. We are challenged not only by the staggering acts of cruelty we see, but by the equally confounding acts of kindness. As we observe these ghastly proceedings unfold, we are strained to identify those virtues within ourselves that are equally light and dark. Schindler's List is not a film that we can impassively scrutinize. We are propelled into the dismay and the panic...the indignity, the brutality. As the title would suggest, this film is mainly the story of one man: Oskar Schindler (Neeson). Schindler is a Czech of German ethnicity who travels to Poland with the intention of becoming a war profiteer. He employs assistance from Jewish investors in order to buy his own pots-and-pans factory. At the outset, Schindler uses forced Jewish labour because it was inexpensive compared to hiring Polish workers. However, Schindler witnesses as World War II and the Holocaust develops with devastating results. These events are too overwhelming to fathom, and Schindler begins experiencing a slow, subtle moral awakening. His poignant story of bravery and generosity launches when Schindler cons the Nazis as he places more than a thousand Jews under his protection. By the conclusion of World War II, Schindler had exhausted his whole war-generated wealth to guarantee that his Jews would never again be touched by the Nazis.

On a more subtle, thematic level the screenwriter portrays a battle for Schindler's soul between camp commandant Amon Goeth (Fiennes) and Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern (Kingsley). Schindler's story is a staggering one. In a cacophony of death clouding his existence, one man managed to save roughly 1,100 Jewish lives using charisma, bluster, and trickery. The Holocaust has been previously described as a mechanical insanity because of the enormity of people who followed the philosophies: they are like cogs in a machine. It took a single person...a single machine cog with alternative ideas and an ethically problematic lifestyle (Schindler treasured alcohol and womanising) to mislead the Nazis (who regarded him as their frivolous comrade).

At the centre of the film we have a simply sublime group of actors. Liam Neeson nails the character of Oskar Schindler in a satisfyingly brilliant performance. Neeson perfectly displays Schindler's quiet method of expressing his morals. His outward show suggests he is a close buddy of the Nazis, but on the inside he's resentful and anguished towards the brutal, arbitrary termination of Jewish lives. Neeson was nominated for an Oscar. Ralph Fiennes was also nominated for an Oscar. His performance is utterly terrifying: he's intimidating and unnerving whenever he steps into the frame. His sheer established cruelty and viciousness will be enough to leave you in complete shock. This actor is focused as he portrays a character that appears to be soft-spoken when in fact his intentions are cruel and inhuman.

The meticulous screenplay was penned by Steven Zallian, and was based on the source material by Australian writer Thomas Keneally. Interestingly, Keneally was an accomplished author when he strolled into a luggage shop and immediately struck up a conversation with the shop owner. Said shop owner was one Leopald Page, formerly Poldek Pfefferberg: a Schindlerjuden. During their friendly conversation, Pfefferberg conveyed to Keneally the story of Oskar Schindler: the German industrialist who had saved him and 1,100 others from certain death in occupied Poland during the 1940s. Schindler was a Nazi who had not stood back. Keneally was so inspired and moved that he transformed this story into the Booker Prize winning novel Schindler's Ark. The rights were soon purchased by Universal boss Sid Sheinberg, and the transformation from book to movie was soon initiated. When Spielberg was involved in the project he originally offered the film to director Roman Polanski, but his own experiences in Polish ghettos were too tender for him to accept the director's chair. Thus Spielberg, who was at the time ensconced in post-production work for Jurassic Park, decided to tackle the directing duties himself. The director flew to Poland and began his masterwork for which he accepted no salary, saying that it would be akin to taking "blood money."

Spielberg worked intimately with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and the project was lensed using stylish grainy black and white photography techniques. The film was undertaken without any storyboarding: Spielberg planned each shot instinctively as the cameras were about to roll, where all of his God-given skills as an accomplished director were distilled into something intuitional and turbulently expressive. The cinematography techniques created a realistic atmosphere of almost documentary footage: he utilised jarring hand-held filmmaking to portray the intense confusion for the Jews during times of complete chaos. Spielberg evokes these creative techniques to create the illusion of complete immersion: for the 190 minutes that make up this film's duration, you will feel transported to an entirely different world...you will feel engrossed in the occurrences. The music by none other than John Williams (Spielberg's trademark composer), is a poignant composition that adds to the atmosphere. But it's not the music that ultimately helps the audience get involved: it's the visuals. One scene was played to very little music; however it always makes me cry. The scene in question is when we watch as corpses are transported past Oskar Schindler to be dumped into the ground without an iota of sentimentality towards any of the victims. No matter how manly you consider yourself, your eyes will be moist.

Spielberg does not want his audience to endure a fun romp that you'll want to immediately watch again...he instead tells his story straight and with the utmost sincerity. World War II films cannot come more personal than the masterpiece that is Schindler's List. The reviews were exultant and the Oscar committee rewarded the film with twelve nominations. Although Spielberg did receive some criticism in relation to several aspects of the film, such judgements are hard to swallow after watching this film. While some slam the director for not including the prejudice towards the handicapped and the homosexuals that were also prosecuted, or that the focus was shifted away from the concentration camps...quite simply it does not matter at all. This is the story that Poldek Pfefferberg wanted told: a story that intimately examines one man and his struggle to come to terms with his morals during an internationally horrific event. This was never meant to be the definitive Holocaust film and hence doesn't need to concentrate on all aspects...this is a personal movie based on a personal experience.

After trying with such dedication since the commencement of his career, Steven Spielberg has finally achieved a mature production with Schindler's List. An extraordinary work by any standard: this intense historical and biographical drama, about an amazing Nazi industrialist, evinces an artistic intransigence and unsentimental intellect disparate from anything the world's most successful filmmaker had previously demonstrated. Infused with a brilliant screenplay, outstandingly sinuous cinematic techniques, three astonishing lead performances and an approach toward the traumatic subject matter that is both passionately felt and impressively restrained, this is the film to win over the Spielberg skeptics.

Even now, all these years after its cinematic release, Schindler's List remains an expressive, heartbreaking and remarkable slice of filmmaking that transcends all obstacles of theatrical disbelief. The film successfully draws us personally into the dark hearts of a dark age, and then liberates us with the few beams of light produced by the actions of the righteous few. The harrowing detail and poignancy of this production will enthral audiences for generations of movie-goers to follow. After you finish watching this movie you will have the words of Schindlerjuden profoundly present in your heart - "That it may never happen again." Winner of 7 Oscars including Best Picture 1993, Best Director (for Steven Spielberg), Best Cinematography (for Janusz Kaminski), Best Music (for John Williams), Best Film Editing (for Michael Kahn), Best Writing based on other material (for Steven Zallian) and Best Art Direction/Set Direction (for Allan Starski and Ewa Braun).

"I love robbing the English, they're so polite."

How does one distinguish the difference between a masterpiece and just another ordinary comedy? For starters, an ordinary comedy is commonly clichéd beyond all comprehension - i.e. characters are standard, events are glaringly foreseeable and the structure is far too formulaic. In addition, an ordinary comedy usually features well-known actors who are so desperate for laughs that they overact (like Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, and so on) rather than dispersing clever, witty, cerebral dialogue. In an ordinary comedy the laughs are also predominantly forgettable. And finally, an ordinary comedy is funny but nothing further. It doesn't break new boundaries...it's just another comedy that'll be long forgotten and relegated to the $5 bargain bin at your local shops. But when we're talking about Hollywood movie studios, the executives just want a quick buck to raise their annual profits. Ordinary comedies are easy to make, cheap, and quality is never the concern. Genuine masterpieces of the comedy genre are close to non-existent. Only John Cleese of the Monty Python fame could've been capable of developing the perfect comedy...and he succeeds!

A Fish Called Wanda ticks all the boxes to pull it out of the "ordinary comedy" territory. The film isn't clichéd at all; characters are extraordinarily well-written, the film isn't predictable, and the structure is original. The script is peppered with dynamite dialogue, in-jokes and memorable lines (that I continually quote almost daily) as it moves from one hilarious, creative scenario to the one succeeding it. It even breaks new boundaries with its prize-winning combination of laughs and creativity. It's purely one of the most entertaining films of all time! Best of all, despite countless viewing it always seems fresh and never fails to entertain me. And I'm not alone in my sentiments. The film pulled in $60 million in the USA, making it the highest grossing British picture in America at that time. All these ingredients ensure that A Fish Called Wanda is anything but ordinary.

On the surface, it probably seems difficult to imagine this film being even considered funny. After all, this is a flick concerning diamond robbers double and triple crossing each other, not to mention it's also somewhat mean-spirited at times and cruel to animals. But by golly the package works! The result will bring tears of laughter to your eyes and side-splitting pains to your stomach as you roll all over the floor laughing uncontrollably.
A Fish Called Wanda is reminiscent of the days of Fawlty Towers and Monty Python. This is Cleese in his element: finding himself in awkward situations and having to worm his way out of them. If you're a fan of Fawlty Towers (or is it Flowery Twats or Flay Otters or Watery Fowls?), like I am, you'll have a good grasp of the laugh-out-loud comedy I'm referring to. Considering John Cleese's mostly awful recent work, it's terrific to revisit those winners he scored back in his glory days. Seriously, not many comedies get nominated for Oscars! Let alone a comedy of British origins up for Oscar noms, ultimately walking away with one win. If you want the short version, here it is: if you haven't yet seen A Fish Called Wanda then you're missing out and should immediately visit your local shop to secure a copy.

A Fish Called Wanda is a simple tail...erm, tale about betrayal, love, lust, greed and seafood. Wanda (Curtis) and Otto (Kline) are a duo of American thieves who visit Britain to pull off a diamond heist. They team up with George (Georgeson) and the animal-loving Ken (Palin) to commit an armed robbery, walking away with a loot worth $20 million US. Trouble is...Wanda and Otto are lovers posing as brother and sister who plan to double-cross their collaborators, taking off with the loot themselves. But it also seems George and Ken are mistrusting of Wanda and Otto (despite George and Wanda commencing a relationship, which Wanda faked of course). George double-crosses Wanda and Otto by secretly moving the loot before Wanda and Otto have the opportunity to finalise their double-crossing of George! Anyway, George is dobbed into the police and is arrested. When Wanda and Otto realise they'll need to figure out the new location of the loot, a somewhat complex plan to find it becomes necessitous. This involves Wanda inveigling her way into the life of jaded Etonian Archie Leach (Cleese), George's barrister. However...what begins as a simple spot of using somebody to further her own means becomes more complicated as Wanda's attraction to this somewhat repressed and cute ("in a pompous sort of way") barrister grows. Oh, and then there's Ken's little project to dispose of the only witness to their diamond heist. Utter anarchic hilarity ensues.

The plotline is fun to be sure, but it's the characters that are at the heart of the film. The central appeal is the characters' faults and peculiarities - George is your typical evil mastermind, Wanda will sleep with anybody if the occasion calls for it, Ken prefers animals to humans, and Archie is a snobbish and repressed Englishman hen-pecked by wife (Aitken) and daughter (Cynthia Cleese, who's John's real-life daughter). Then there's Otto. He's...well...Otto. Kevin Kline plays the malicious and cruel but incompetent Otto with such wild abandon.

John Cleese is in his element as writer and an actor for the film. In addition to conceiving such rich characterisations and providing a tradition Cleese-esque performance, he also sprinkles the film with the kind of devilish humour he's revered for. His character of Archie Leach is a variation of Basil Fawlty from his popular TV series. He's a stiff-upper-lipped English barrister not above a little avarice and hanky panky. Cleese said he chose the name Archie Leach because it's Cary Grant's real name, and this was about as close as he'd ever get to being Cary Grant in a film. However, the film doesn't rely solely on John Cleese for the laughs as the rest of the actors are total knockouts.

Kevin Kline won an Oscar for his eccentric performance as Otto: an ex-CIA operative who reads the philosophies of Nietzche to make him look smart. But in reality he's so stupid! ("Don't call me stupid") He thinks Aristotle was Belgian, the central message of Buddhism is every man for himself, and that the London underground is a political movement. When Wanda calls him an ape, Otto replies with "Apes don't read philosophy". "Yes, they do, Otto," Wanda then replies. "They just don't understand it."
Otto's character is so well-written that there's always something new to pick up on. Kline never strikes an incorrect note, and definitely deserved the Oscar he received.

Playing Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is an absolute delight. She's as smart as she is sexy. From the deadly serious Halloween to a light-hearted comedy...Jamie Lee Curtis demonstrates her talents as a versatile performer. She even does a fine job of making Wanda curiously nefarious but intriguingly beguiling at the same time - when she's not snogging everyone that moves, that is.

Then there's Michael Palin (from the golden days of Monty Python) as the hapless K-K-K-K-Ken. He spends most of his time stuttering hopelessly (this is absolutely side-splitting at times) or tending to his animals. Kevin Kline is given a batch of hilarious lines in relation to Ken's stutter: "Are you thinking, Ken? Or are you in mid-stutter?", "...those phoney accents! Not you Ken, you've got a beautiful speaking voice...when it works" and so on. In Ken's assignment to kill a witness before George's trial commences, he instead accidentally targets the old woman's dogs in gruesome ways. This is all the more ironic because Ken is such an animal lover who wouldn't hurt a fly. Seeing him at each funeral for the dogs is just hilarious.
For Tom Georgeson's character, Cleese decided to do a clever name switch...calling the character George Thomason.

Despite its runaway success, A Fish Called Wanda wasn't all good news from the start. It was helmed by a director who hadn't worked for 25 years, it featured a male actor on the wrong side of 40, and it also featured a sexy female with a great body who refused to do any nudity. But those that gave the film a chance walked away raving. It established a template for the future of British comedy exports. Even Richard Curtis was taking notes at this time. The film walked away with a basket of awards. In order to reach such perfection, the script went through 13 drafts. Director Charlie Crichton and John Cleese got together three times a month for two-and-a-half years to give the script touch-ups.

When production finally started, they managed to wrap up filming in a mere four weeks. Crichton's economic direction meant not a day was wasted. This also gave the film its glorious fast pace. Before you realise it, the film is over and you're howling for more. Thankfully, though, none of the gags have dated and they seem fresh even after constant viewings. The snappy dialogue, the subtle images...even John Cleese's striptease are wonderful no matter how many times you watch the film. And finally, the film was given its definitive touch in post-production: the music. John Du Prez's music is catchy and atmospheric, and you'll be humming the theme for weeks.

Mixing Python-esque humour with a sweet touch of rom-com, A Fish Called Wanda is the greatest hour for any former Python. Originally known as the working title of A Wish Called Fonda, Cleese then reworked his original ideas and the result was this masterpiece of cinematic comedy. It even has a universal appeal, with characters being featured of different nationalities. This film is totally faultless. It's a solid movie that holds up surprisingly well after a number of decades. If the words uproarious, hilarious, or side-splitting mean anything to you, this is your film for sure! It improves with each new screening as a matter of fact.
This film doesn't rely on swearing for its laughs, nor does it rely on overacting either. It relies on its clever script and an impeccable bunch of actors instead. The same crew tried again about a decade later with Fierce Creature. A good attempt, but it wasn't the same. A Fish Called Wanda is one of a kind...and that kind is very, very funny and just plain FUN! Fans of John Cleese or Kevin Kline will not be disappointed. Come on, how can you resist the prospect of seeing Michael Palin running over Kevin Kline with a steamroller after Kline eats Palin's tropic fish?!

Highly recommended!

"Wanda, do you have any idea what it's like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing, of saying to someone "Are you married?" and hearing "My wife left me this morning," or saying, uh, "Do you have children?" and being told they all burned to death on Wednesday. You see, Wanda, we'll all terrified of embarrassment. That's why we're so... dead. Most of my friends are dead, you know, we have these piles of corpses to dinner."

"He knew the risks, he didn't have to be there. It rains... you get wet."

Heat is an absolutely stunning film; this epic, brilliant crime drama is unmissable and unforgettable.

Many will lose interest due to the film's length, but I found the film essentially perfect despite the running time.

First of all, Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in the same movie. These are two of the best actors on the planet, and both are in top form. The script (written by director Mann) is nothing short of remarkable. The dialogue is always witty, realistic, and is never contrived. The actors further cement this realism in an amazing way.

Mann's direction for every second of the movie was stunning. The way Mann approached this movie was destined to equal excellence. First of all, he penned the damn fine screenplay himself and thus knew what he wanted on screen. Second, he employed incredible cinematographic techniques to achieve his vision. And finally, he knew what actors he wanted and was not going to stop until the result is exactly the way he wants it. Even a dialogue scene between De Niro and Pacino can sustain interest in the viewer without showing any action.

Neil McCauley (De Niro) is a thief who indulges in precision jobs along with his team of professionals. After the robbery of an armoured car, the police are now investigating. Vincent Hanna (Pacino) leads the investigation. Hanna is a master at his profession, and McCauley is at the peak of his.

This epic crime film then becomes a game of cat-and-mouse as Hanna works to bring McCauley to justice. In amidst this, we have plenty of time for a character study as Mann digs in-depth into the private lives of the protagonists.

And of course, the occasional action scene is both spectacular and incredibly violent at times. The action scenes are crafted to perfection, with cinematography that blew me away.

De Niro and Pacino share very little screen time together, but when those two are in a scene together the results are unbeatable. The memorable scene at the diner between De Niro and Pacino is something we rarely ever see in a movie - great script, great direction, great performances. And the final showdown isn't your usual "good guy/bad guy" showdown but something a lot deeper.

The highlights of the movie include magnificent cinematic techniques during the few action scenes, and the wonderful performances from everyone in the cast.

Michael Mann's Heat is absolutely unmissable. This epic crime story is most definitely one of the best movies ever made. If you have not yet seen it, I urge you to get a copy of this film in your hands immediately.

"The boy's alive and we're going to send someone to save him... and we are going to get him the hell out of there."

The directorial career of Steven Spielberg commenced in the early years of the 1970s. Spielberg originally directed Duel before progressing onto further projects such as The Sugarland Express, Jaws, and the excellent Indiana Jones adventures (beginning with Raiders of the Lost Ark). These few years established Spielberg as an accomplished purveyor of light-hearted blockbusters and good fun action movies. It was in 1993 that Spielberg demonstrated his ability to direct powerful and mature films. Schindler's List denoted a crucial addition to Spielberg's extensive résumé: a modern masterpiece that personified good (Schindler) and evil (Amon Goeth), playing out the struggle against the tragic backdrop of the Holocaust.

1997 marked the release of two further additions to the Spielberg canon - Amistad and The Lost World: Jurassic Park. These films are fine examples of Spielberg as a thinker and as an entertainer. For 1998's Saving Private Ryan, these two characteristics are deftly merged. Not only is Saving Private Ryan an extremely powerful and deeply philosophical affair, but it's also very entertaining and utterly riveting for its entire duration.

D-Day: Tuesday, June 6th, 1944. At 6:30am that ill-fated morning, an initial assault wave disembarked at Omaha Beach. This first assault wave comprised of 96 tanks, almost 1500 assault infantry, and a task force of engineers to clear the landing area of obstructions. In the hours preceding the landing, the German shore defences were heavily pulverised by Allied artillery, naval guns, and aerial barrages. However as the first landing craft came within a quarter-mile of shore...it became apparent that the German fortifications hadn't been neutralised. Rough seas and poor visibility had hampered the artillery bombardments, with overcast conditions amplifying the margin of error for the bombing runs. Consequently, a majority of the bombs hit too far inland. Establishing the beachhead would prove to be far more gruelling than originally envisaged. As the landing crafts hit the sand, the infantry immediately found themselves under concentrated small-arms, mortar and artillery fire from enemy fortifications that covered Omaha Beach. Burdened by heavy equipment, weakened by seasickness, exhausted, and disoriented by the mayhem surrounding them, the disembarking infantry had to travel through knee-deep to waist-high water, making them easy targets for the German soldiers. Upon reaching shore, they then had to move up 200 yards of open beach before reaching any form of cover. All this while avoiding enemy fire, which fell thick and fast all around them. This event was a violent massacre.

The story conveyed in Saving Private Ryan is prefaced with the D-Day landing at Omaha Beach. This beginning is commonly regarded as the best battle sequence ever committed to celluloid. It's also frequently regarded as the best war scene in cinematic history. This sequence depicts the Omaha Beach landing from the perspective of the soldiers who fought it. This is a brilliant scene, not only in terms of technique but in its unparalleled ability to have a viewer completely immersed as the anarchic mayhem transpires. This is certainly the most violent, gory, visceral cinematic depiction of war I have ever witnessed. Spielberg spares the viewer nothing of the horrors of war as he uses every tactic at his disposal to convey the utter turmoil and futile waste that lies at the core of any engagement. The audience is presented with unforgettable, haunting images of bodies being cut to pieces by bullets, limbs being blown off, entrails spilling out, as well as a range of additional assorted examples of carnage. When the tide comes in at the battle's conclusion, with the waves breaking on the body-strewn beach, the water is crimson. It's jaw-droppingly compelling material, and all the more sobering when you realise that this isn't fiction - this actually occurred to the mostly young, inexperienced soldiers. Spielberg and his cast & crew have produced an astonishingly faithful recreation of the war experience. Shell-shocked D-Day veterans reportedly staggered out of theatres mumbling "someone finally showed what it was really like". Steven Spielberg won a Best Director Oscar for his efforts of course.

"This Ryan had better be worth it - he better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb."

The story following this phenomenal opening sequence is a simple one. A group of eight soldiers, led by D-Day survivor and hero Captain Miller (Hanks), are dispatched to find a soldier who is currently believed to be stuck behind enemy lines. This soldier they're searching for is Private James Ryan (Damon) whose three other brothers were killed in action. To avoid the devastation of Ryan's mother suffering the loss of her last son, General George C. Marshall (Presnell) orders these aforementioned eight soldiers to find Private Ryan and bring him back home. Screenwriter Robert Rodat adapted the story from a real-life situation.
This is an incisive, philosophical story. The underlying theme that runs the length of the movie is in regards to the value of a single human soul. As the eight-man platoon suffers casualties, is it really worth it just to save one man? Are there lives in this world more important than others? As the soldiers strive to complete their objective, their loyalties begin to blur and they begin to question the necessity of the mission. Spielberg vividly contrasts the faceless carnage of the Omaha Beach landing with the extremely personal and shocking deaths of some of the soldiers during their mission. Thousands died on Omaha beach, including many close friends of the surviving men. Yet the nature of this mission - which a majority of the men see as "Fubar" - causes them to question the value they place on their own lives as well as the lives of their friends. As events unfold, these soldiers commit acts of vengeance and rage that they themselves would most likely never have thought themselves capable of mere days beforehand.

"To me sir, this mission is a serious misallocation of valuable military resources."

The three-act structure of Saving Private Ryan is moderately straightforward. The movie is book-ended by two major battle sequences. In between these two major battles there are smaller skirmishes and relatively subdued character-building moments. Consequently the entire film is absorbing, engrossing, mesmerising and totally enthralling. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is an emotionally intense journey through the battlegrounds of occupied France during World War II. Director Spielberg delivers one of the greatest war movies of all time, if not the greatest war movie in history. But, despite being set against the background of WWII, this isn't just a war movie; this is a human drama first and a war adventure second. It commemorates the preservation of hope, courage, and sacrifice in the cauldron of fear and devastation that was WWII, or any war for that matter. These virtues shine brightest throughout humanity's gloomiest hours. Spielberg understands that in art one must show the horrors of a certain situation in order to suitably illustrate the full potential of the human spirit. All of the verisimilitude merely exists to transport us into the hearts and minds of those who tolerated such taxing circumstances so that we may perhaps identify with them, and maybe become acquainted with ourselves a bit better along the way.

As escapist entertainment (something that Spielberg also relishes) Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece that offers a rollercoaster ride yet to be equalled or surpassed.

"We're not here to do the decent thing - we're here to follow fucking orders."

The authenticity of its period depiction is truly astounding. Spielberg opted for the film to be shot in bleached colour, with lenses similar to those available during the 1940s to give the impression of actual documentary footage. The director employs other methods to encapsulate the essence of combat - gritty hand-held cameras, a slight speeding up of the images, muted colours, and an assortment of different kinds of film stock. Altogether this adds up to a dizzying, exhausting assault on the senses. Needless to say, the film confidently won the Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing.
The searing and uncompromising images of violence and gore almost earned an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. However the gore is by no means exploitative or exaggerated. Instead of dwelling on geysers of blood being spilled, the film continues to rapidly move along at lightning pace.

If you're avoiding the movie due to the three-hour running time, then you're avoiding it for all the wrong reasons. 160 minutes has never flown by so fast. You'll be so captivated by the brilliant filmmaking that you won't ever be reduced to boredom. The film is also remarkably visceral. Spielberg very sparingly employs CGI. Things are generally kept practical, and the rare instances of CGI are so subtle that you won't notice. Even about 20 amputee stuntmen were employed and fitted with prosthetic limbs.
Words cannot accurately describe how remarkable the sound design truly is. Loud accurate gun noises, deafening explosions and explicit stabbings are among the moments perfectly topped off by the terrific sound mix. Needless to say, the film earned an Academy Award for both Best Sound and Best Sound Effects Editing.

There's an absolutely astonishing cast at the centre of the film. Tom Hanks once again delivers an impeccable performance. He was nominated for an Oscar, naturally. The excellent ensemble cast also includes Tom Sizemore, Matt Damon, Edward Burns, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, Adam Goldberg, Barry Pepper, Ted Danson, Paul Giamatti and Giovanni Ribisi. They all look the part and convey the emotional necessities of their respective characters.
In the film there is no specific human villain. Even the harsh ideology and inhumane beliefs of Nazi Germany aren't presented as the evil to be overcome. Instead war and the blistering impact it has on soldiers is the real enemy.

"The more men I kill, the further away from home I feel."

John Williams was nominated for an Oscar for his terrific music. In my opinion this must be considered as one of Williams' finest scores. The music is touching and poignant, heroic and emotive. Music is never employed during the action sequences simply because (as Spielberg once explained) it reminds the audience that they're watching a movie. Instead of music, the ambient sound effects permeate the battles. This works perfectly. Other Oscar nominations included Best Writing and Best Make-Up. It deserved both of these awards in my books.

After the masterpiece of Schindler's List, nobody could imagine Spielberg crafting another masterpiece of such brilliance. But Saving Private Ryan is proof the director is capable of making another film of such a high standard. In my opinion, Saving Private Ryan earns the honour of being the greatest war film in history. It's gripping, engrossing, and uncompromising. Spielberg strikes the perfect balance of confronting horror and poignant human drama. The director's dexterous touch is readily apparent throughout this film, particularly in his inspired use of camera framing and movement as well as the soundtrack that plays a crucial role.

Saving Private Ryan is the most powerful and accurate cinematic rendering of World War II. Nothing you've ever read in history books can prepare you for the uncompromising way Spielberg brings the war to life...he does so with great attention to detail and a genuine passion for honesty toward his subject matter. Some bitterly complain about this film being potent American propaganda. The same can be said about any war film. This particular war film is based on a real mission that was carried out by American soldiers. If you think this is propaganda then you're unbelievably narrow-minded.

"Where's the sense of risking eight lives for one guy?"

In one of the biggest Oscar blunders in history, the Academy overlooked this masterpiece and awarded Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love. How this happened is simply beyond me...

""Treason doth never prosper," wrote an English poet, "What's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

JFK is an astonishing, riveting achievement in filmmaking and marks Oliver Stone's best movie to date. Stone has crafted a masterpiece, and although the film is controversial and always will be due to the subject matter (not to mention those who believe something different will hate the film in favour of their beliefs) the film has been approached exceptionally!

There have been many conspiracy theories in relation to the John F. Kennedy assassination, and all aspects and theories are approached by Oliver Stone in great detail and using all available evidence at his disposal.

The film is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Costner) who is the only man to date to take someone to court in relation to the JFK assassination. He takes it upon himself to open up a detailed investigation and finally crack open the conspiracy in relation to one of the worst tragedies during the 20th Century.

In creating such a masterpiece, Stone has also put together an unbeatable cast lead by Kevin Costner who delivers a flawless performance.

Stone's films are always going to be controversial, and many people believe that he tried to shove a viewpoint down out throats and make us believe what he wants us to. But this is only narrow-minded people, as Stone was only outlining the inconsistencies that question the official line of Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman. Until the government finally release the truth, we will never know how accurate the theories outlined here actually are.

Yes, the film is three hours long and many people lose interest, but the film is so well told and above all engaging that I was never bored. When the drama makes it to the courtroom for the final 40 minutes, I had my eyes glued to the screen as we are presented the facts in ways that we cannot dispute, and Costner's final monologue was Oscar-worthy.

On top of this, there are so many other qualities, like providing us with archive footage integrated into the dramatisations that are occurring. That Oscar for film editing was much deserved.

Love it or hate it, I leave it up to you. But if you dislike the movie due to its viewpoints that may question your beliefs; your narrow-mindedness shames our race. It's that simple. And if you don't wish to watch the film due to its three hour running time (God knows I didn't), I suggest that you cut out your stupidity and spend a few hours acquainting yourself with one of the most riveting, astonishing films ever made.

I never had much of an interest in investigating the truth behind the assassination of such a fine man that was JFK, but when I viewed this movie I now feel advantaged to have been presented with such facts, but infuriated that the government have never issued the truth that they so obviously hold. It also reminded me that the democracy we live in disadvantages us in terms of not being presented with vital information that we deserve to be given. And if Oliver Stone was able to trigger such thoughts in my mind, he has done his job correctly.

"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or from the air, and I plan on doing both before the war is over."

John Sturges' The Great Escape is debatably the greatest World War II adventure film in cinematic history. Multitudes of film buffs will collectively agree that Sturges' classic action/adventure masterpiece is highly deserving of its reputation, everlasting acclaim and endless accolades. Through my eyes, The Great Escape is a rare film that undoubtedly justifies a score exceeding 5/5, 10/10 or 100%.

In the 21st century, blockbuster action films are characterised as cinematic creations flaunting masses of CGI and an abundance of action. Back in the 1960s, films such as this were the paradigmatic definition of an epic blockbuster. It's also a definitive blueprint of an action/adventure movie. Although many may not realise it, this production certainly is an action film. It's just gruelling to categorise it as such in light of recent action films like Rambo and Face/Off where things are blown to pieces and bullets are frequently dispatched. With The Great Escape it isn't the quantity or regularity of the action, it's the quality. Motorcycle chases, tense escapes and nail-biting foot pursuits are among the film's highlights.

How does one ascertain that they're watching a great film? Personally, there are two factors that typify a great movie. Firstly, you never get sick of it regardless of how many times you watch it. Secondly, the running time never feels as long as it actually is. The Great Escape clocks as a whopping 170 minutes yet it never feels that long. It's a lengthy saga for sure, but the excellence of the filmmaking and the brisk pacing never permits the audience to feel bored. Although made in 1963 (45 years ago at the time of writing this review), John Sturges' war epic has stood the test of time. While watching the movie, the transfer indicates that it's an old movie. However, the filmmaking is top-notch and every frame is lovingly crafted. Not to mention the high level of authenticity in the period depiction. These factors are rare occurrences in contemporary filmmaking. To be sure, some things have dated and there are a few anachronisms. These insignificant imperfections simply do not matter and can be easily ignored. Why? The filmmaking is masterful, to the point that everything else stands up during close scrutiny. This cinema master class is virtually impossible to match these days, not to mention effectively impossible to top.

The Great Escape is based on a true story of a truly remarkable and inspiring war tale. It's based on an escape that occurred in March 1944 during which 76 POWs escaped from a German POW camp, Stalag Luft III in Poland. The elaborate preparation and extraordinary implementation of this escape is truly mind-boggling and unbelievable...it must be seen to be believed. The film is primarily based on a novel by a former Australian prison of war, Paul Brickhill. Brickhill helped plan the escape, but due to claustrophobia he did not go through the tunnel. Instead Brickhill recorded detailed accounts of the event, later penning his novel that was then transferred into this engrossing movie.

The film is introduced with this prerequisite:

"This is a true story. Although the characters are composites of real men, and time and place have been compressed, every detail of the escape is the way it really happened."

The film's central characters are an assortment of nationalities. Australian, American, British, etc. The true story didn't include Americans as they were moved to another prison camp. However the filmmakers felt obliged to provide American characters as it would boost the film's popularity with an American audience.
Basically the Nazis opt to move all their worst prisoners to a single POW camp. In essence, the POWs that have a notorious history of escape attempts are bunched together.

"We have in effect put all our rotten eggs in one basket. And we intend to watch this basket carefully."

To the Germans it's the perfect plan, but they don't realise that they've effectively assembled the most efficient and talented escape crew in history. Hence all the POWs spend over a year planning an escape that results in 76 prisoners disappearing into the night. All the prisoners are allocated a job to complete, such as people to build the tunnel, people to forge documents, and even people to assemble outfits for the prisoners to don after their escape.
The film chronicles the POW camp's inauguration until the eventual execution of the escape, then the following manhunt and subsequent recapture of a majority of the POWs (during the real event, only 3 out of 76 remained at large).

The events depicted in The Great Escape are significant as it portrays the biggest and most famous escape from a POW camp in history. It also must be noted that the POWs weren't conducting the escape just to get back to their families, as they also aimed to create a diversion for the German army who would utilise their resources during the manhunt while invasions took place.

The Great Escape is a masterpiece for several reasons. I stated before of its entertainment value, but there are additional features that elevate this into the competition for a perfect movie, primarily the film's authenticity. All costumes and props mirror the period in staggering realism. The film was also lensed in German locations. The extensive POW camp recreation is another thing. It's intricately designed, with credible characters inhabiting it. More importantly, the Nazis are actually humanised. To be sure, no-one ever took Hogan's Heroes seriously with the humour and down-to-earth soldiers. Remove the bumbling antics as well as the humour, and what remains is what we see on the big screen here. Surprisingly, there's a faint camaraderie shared by the Germans and specific POWs. The proceedings are therefore more engrossing and charming.

Director John Sturges apparently tried to get this film off the ground for 13 years. It was only after he directed The Magnificent Seven that the film finally received the green light. Sturges' determination is obvious as each scene is crafted amazingly. His lens delicately tracks his actors through the convincing sets. There are only very minor technical glitches to be found amongst the otherwise faultless filmmaking. Sturges has the drama balanced with a great blend of subtle humour. Character interactions are filled with witty and fascinating dialogue. The final act of The Great Escape is a masterfully sustained quantity of action and tension as the assorted escapees strive for freedom via train, bicycle, motorbike, row boat and hitchhiking. Sturges brilliantly edits between all their activities and leads us to an inevitable tragedy. This tragic happening sets a new, more foreboding tone before returning to light-hearted humour for the concluding shot.

"Colonel Von Luger, it is the sworn duty of all officers to try to escape. If they cannot escape, then it is their sworn duty to cause the enemy to use an inordinate number of troops to guard them, and their sworn duty to harass the enemy to the best of their ability."

Sturges' World War II extravaganza is also blessed with an ideal cast. These actors are of such high calibre that they could never be replaced in a modern age of filmmaking. Steve McQueen is both cool and tough as the suitably cocky and brash American prisoner.
Richard Attenborough is in an early performance as the co-ordinator of the escape. If one is familiar with Attenborough's subsequent performances, such as Jurassic Park, it's almost impossible to recognise him. Here his acting is absolutely top-notch.
Charles Bronson is also worth noting for his portrayal of a rugged Polish tunnel king.
Donald Pleasence is most likely recognised for his performance as Blofeld in the James Bond film You Only Live Twice. Here, Pleasence puts forth a magnificent performance as a forgery expert.
Beyond these names, the entire supporting cast is sensational. Director Sturges scarcely lets a faulty performance slip through the cracks in spite of a few embarrassingly phoney accents (James Coburn's Aussie number takes a bow).

Eventually the definitive final element was added during post-production: the music. Composer Elmer Bernstein's famous theme music is instantly recognisable. The Great Escape is perhaps most commonly known for its wonderful theme. It always sets the proper atmosphere. Even during the opening sequence depicting the arrival of POWs, Bernstein's theme hits a defiant note. Bernstein is even dexterous with every other note of music. There are endless segments of music that you'll be humming for days due to how memorable and cheery it is.

Overall, The Great Escape is a sublime masterpiece of almost unrivalled quality. It's unbelievable that it took me so long to finally watch this movie. Its influence on cinema is profound and obvious. Films such as the animated Chicken Run shamelessly borrow the formula. This is yet another testament to the superiority of this masterpiece. It's a textbook example of a great film: even after numerous decades, almost everything holds up. Additionally, repeated screenings will only further increase your respect for this classic. The great cast, sharp storyline, astute directing, and humour manage to pervade an ultimately tragic tale, simply making this an unmissable film. It's not solely for war movie buffs, but for anyone that appreciates a story depicting the strength and triumph of the human spirit.

"Conscience. What a thing. If you believe you got a conscience it'll pester you to death. But if you don't believe you got one, what could it do t'ya? Makes me sick, all this talking and fussing about nonsense."

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a riveting classic adventure tale that made a huge impression on global cinema. Even though it's over 60 years old the film holds a major influence on the way adventure films have been made to this day.

Many will wonder what makes the film so special. For me it was a great way to spend two hours because it was highly entertaining, fascinating and has a high sense of excitement. Then underneath the surface we have a great underlying message about human nature and the lust for greed.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a tale set in 1920s Mexico. Two poor men named Dobbs (Bogart) and Curtin (Holt) are desperate for a pay check and will do anything to strike wealth. Lucky for them they run into an old codger named Howard (played by director John Huston's dad Walter) who endlessly drones on about mining for gold and knowing the spot where one can find gold worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And so the three men set out into the mountains for a spot of gold prospering after pooling together their funds to purchase all necessary equipment. During their adventure they encounter bandits and Indians but none of these threaten them as much as something they never anticipated - human nature and greed.

This classic tale is one high adventure film that you won't want to miss. It delivers a sense of true adventure; making the experience exhilarating and a whole heap of fun. But what really makes this one unlike all other adventure films is its subconscious message about how easily mankind can be corrupted and manipulated by the thought of money.

Some of the scenes throughout the movie during which characters quarrel over the gold is spellbinding. Because of the fantastic characters we can easily find ourselves engaged in what's going on for the film's two hour period.

And what was imperative for this to work? It's simple - the extraordinary performances from everyone in the cast. Humphrey Bogart was already an established star and was raking in lots of money. Especially after The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca this man was extremely distinguished amongst the thousands of other actors working at the time. Bogey's portrayal was captivating and brilliant. He got his role perfected in no time. He seemed like a gruff, poor beggar at the beginning of the movie. And by the end we get the sense of what occurred after he got his hands on such a large amount of gold. His lust for wealth got the better of him, and Bogart gets his character across in a stunning way.

Walter Huston, father to director John Huston, finally received an Oscar as the aging gold prospector. Clearly there are little flaws to find in his character. Tim Holt was only known for trashy B-Grade flicks up until he got his big break here. He is always so focused, and so dissimilar to the other two protagonists. With this in mind, each of the three title characters are so divergent.

John Huston both wrote and directed the film himself. He was without question the perfect man for the job. He excelled himself, and I liked this film better than The Maltese Falcon which is also among the screen greats.

Above all this, the cinematography is what sold the film for me. Each location was brilliant and looked completely gorgeous on the big screen. The use of such dense bush and the sense of isolation totally blew me away.

But wait - there's more. Just when you think things couldn't get any better, I also found the invigorating score by Max Steiner to be the perfect way to top it all off. I don't think there are any flaws to be pointed out in this classic production. Quotable lines, great messages about humanity and just all round inspiring filmmaking.

The Treasure of Sierra Madre is a phenomenal achievement and will forever be a movie that stands the test of time. It's groundbreaking, exciting and adventurous. Quite simply if you've never seen this classic cinematic gem then you have no idea what you're missing out on.

"Nazis. I hate these guys."

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the third, but not final instalment in the legendary Indiana Jones series. The first film is still one of the best movies in cinematic history, with the second film grossly incapable of recapturing the charm and appeal of its predecessor. This next Indiana Jones adventure is the best sequel thus far. The filmmakers have almost equalled the brilliance of the first flick. Just like the original movie, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a faultless blend of action and adventure with intrigue and romance thrown into the mix.


The opening sequence is always a pivotal part in the success of these movies. In this case the film opens with a prologue that traces the roots of Indy as we now know him. This prologue digs into his fear of snakes, delves into why he has a scar on his chin, the reasoning behind his passion for relic hunting and how he came into possession of his trademark items. This prologue also serves as an artefact hunt that acts as a bridge into the main plot.


Everyone's favourite treasure-hunter-come-professor Indiana Jones (Ford) whips back into action with a hunt for yet another ancient relic. Indy is taken to meet a wealthy ancient relic devotee named Walter Donovan (Glover). Walter explains that recent discoveries have been made that may possibly point to the locality of the Holy Grail - the cup Jesus Christ theoretically drank from at the last supper. Indy is also informed that the project leader has gone missing; said leader is none other than Professor Henry Jones Sr. (Connery), Indy's father. With his father's Grail scrapbook in his pocket, Indy heads to Venice in search of his father. The adventure then moves to Germany during the height of the Nazi regime. It then becomes a race against time as Indy and his father scramble to find the location of the Holy Grail before the Nazis get there first.


Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is of course filled with endless action and excitement. Just like Raiders of the Lost Ark this film is a myriad of now memorable scenes. Some of these unforgettable scenes include a desert scene with a large tank, Indy inadvertently getting the autograph of Adolf Hitler, avoiding a nest of rats in the catacombs underneath a library, a battle in the air and a great scene set inside a German blimp.


Harrison Ford is every bit as charming and appealing as he was when the series commenced in 1981. Ford is always fit for action and is given a plethora of clever lines to work with. The casting department of these films will endlessly receive compliments and recognition for their superb choice of actors. Sean Connery is perfect in the role he was born to play. Formerly playing the role of James Bond, Connery is an absolutely ideal choice. The chemistry between Ford and Connery never feels at all contrived. The two feel like a genuine pair of father and son. More appraisal for the casting department as the rest of the supporting cast is equally remarkable. Denholm Elliot, John Rhys-Davies, Julian Glover, Alison Doody...they are all outstanding.


No Indiana Jones film is complete without the brilliant directing from Steven Spielberg and the exciting music from John Williams. Composer Williams excels himself with the music in this film. There is plenty of action accompanied with a perfect score. The special effects still look elegant and hard to fault. I adore the use of old school effects. In this case everything is done practically and all special effects objects actually have a screen presence. The cinematography is also a major stand out with this film as well.


Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade satisfied my every requirement in an adventure movie. Loads of action, plenty of witty dialogue, well conceived characters and a high level of excitement. Many have tried, but no-one can ever match the brilliance of the Indiana Jones movies. They don't make movies of this elegance anymore. Followed 19 years later by Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

"We have 11 Palestinian names, each one of them had a hand in planning Munich. We want them all dead."

Steven Spielberg has always been capable of achieving excellent results when behind the camera. I have been a massive fan of his work for years now and I always anticipate the release of his latest movies.

Munich was a film that I had wanted to see ever since I learned he was at the helm. The film met with major criticism preceding its release because of the short time in which the film was made. Filming began in June 2005 with a December 2005 release date in mind. Spielberg has always been good at making films in a very tight shooting schedule.

While watching the movie I couldn't believe the focus and concentration that is obvious while watching each frame of film that has been produced.

Munich is a riveting, powerful, involving and confronting human drama that is one of the most important films of this century. It was a daring move to produce such a confronting piece of cinema due to how incomplete the facts are; make no mistake, the film is no history lesson. But then again it was never meant to be a documentary. The facts presented may be seen as agonizingly erroneous, but what actually happened will always remain a mystery.

Munich is also a milestone in Steven Spielberg's career. He has been well known for making family-friendly blockbusters that sometimes mirror his childhood. The film represents a step up for maturity in Spielberg's filmmaking.

Based on true events; Munich chronicles the fate of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes who were brutally murdered during the Olympics of 1972 in Munich. In response to the savage massacre the government commissions a group of agents to track down and eliminate those responsible for the tragedy that occurred in the Olympic village that fateful day. The five-man team carry out their mission with the knowledge in mind that they officially have had no contact with those who hired them. The mission is confidential and officially does not exist. As the team eliminate men in the most callous of ways and the body count rises - so do questions, uncertainties and sleepless nights. They begin questioning the justification of the counter-violence and loyalties begin to blur.

Munich is a film that asks a lot of its audience as Spielberg presents questions without answers; offering no easy answers and keeping firm focus on the human response and the conflict between the motivations behind their actions and the consequences.

The tension built up between the characters is insurmountable. Some of the pivotal roles are executed in outstanding style; the accents seem genuine and each line appears to be said with meaning. The film wastes no time getting into the nitty gritty suspense sequences.

Spielberg has also integrated archive footage that gives the film a high level of chilling realism. The beginning events are essentially told through the archive footage presented. And throughout the movie we are shown clips that look in detail at the tragic massacre during which 11 athletes lost their lives. Some of these clips are shown in harrowing realism; startlingly showing brutal violence and heart-wrenching sequences that will have your mouth gaping open.

Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski achieved fantastic results with this film. The action and suspense scenes were filmed extremely well. From the opening sequence I was already engaged in the film; although production was rushed it never feels this way.

John Williams' score creates a brooding, maligned atmosphere that is intense and malevolent. The key suspense scene had me sitting in awe at what was going on.

Munich was a daring film but was executed spectacularly. The film is challenging, pulse-pounding, captivating and involving. The whole film is an extraordinary experience marred only marginally by its over-length. Highly recommended.

"It takes a certain kind of person to do what I do. No-one's ever impressed; no-one's ever fascinated. If you're a fireman, all the kids will want to jump on the back of the truck and follow you to a fire. There's going to be no kids willing to do that with me. So, I don't do it to impress people - it's a job, it's my trade, and I actually think I'm pretty good at it."

There is one undeniable, inescapable bona fide fact regarding humans that we rarely like to discuss or even mention: everybody poos. Generally speaking, mainstream movies exercise this fact for brainless comedy. Modern comedies usually toss in a fart gag or a diarrhoeic outburst in a desperate attempt for a laugh. From such scenes in Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle or Dumb and Dumber, to dramatic shit smearing in North Country...even to German hack director Uwe Boll whose films are pure cinematic semi-liquid nuggets of week-old vindaloo proportions.

Kenny serves a potent yet valuable reminder regarding everybody's need to poo. At first it most likely seems like a daft single-joke comedy overflowing with scatological humour. During its marketing campaign and preliminary hype, there wasn't much to convince anyone otherwise. But Kenny is something radically different. This is a hysterical, enormously entertaining mockumentary featuring an impeccable blend of humour, pathos and heart-warming moments. It delivers a poignant and effective snapshot of a forgotten cog in society who's frowned upon due to the nature of his trade. The character of Kenny (played by little-known actor Shane Jacobson, who won an AFI award for his performance) is commonly alienated from family and friends due to his job. But with this mockumentary we're reminded that he performs an essential public service: if the "Kennys" of the world didn't exist, where would we take a dump at a big festival? It's a trade no-one wants to think about, yet someone needs to do it.

The Jacobson brothers themselves were sceptical as to whether this concept would actually work as a film. Kenny was originally a short that debuted at a major Aussie film festival. Astonishingly, the audience reaction was enormously positive. Due to massive demand, Splashdown (the toilet company which the character of Kenny works for) persuaded the Jacobson brothers to develop the concept into a feature-length movie...and Kenny was eventually born.

Kenny Smyth is a typical Everyman trying to make a living. He works at a Corporate Bathroom Rental company known as Splashdown. Kenny is a knight in shining overalls, taking care of business with his faithful Splashdown crew by his side. The film follows Kenny as he tackles all troubles great and small...from the biggest festival to smallest social gatherings; Kenny confronts every septic challenge that comes his way. He also battles his way through personal problems, dealing with his bitter divorce during which he lost custody of son Jesse (played by Shane Jacobson's real-life son), and he also must tend to the blossoming romance between himself and an airline hostess (Bibra). Every challenge in Kenny's life he faces with charm, humour and unflinching dignity.

"I'd love to be able to say "I plumb toilets" and have someone say "Now that is something I've always wanted to do"."


Kenny lifts the lid on the very real issues in contemporary society. No-one is ever impressed or fascinated with what Kenny does. Kenny even expounds on the glories of his craft. It isn't as glamorous as being a fireman but it's also more secure than a desk job. ("It's not like my business is ever going to dry up overnight!") In addition, he's treated badly by the members of the general public he's forced to interact with. Barely anyone will shake his hand, his own father (played by Shane and director Clayton Jacobson's actual father) orders him to remove his work overalls before sitting down, and people shun him at social gatherings. When Kenny's son assists in cleaning the port-a-loos, members of the public complain indignantly and inquire "What kind of diseases could he get?". This film presents us with disillusionments and misunderstandings in relation to Kenny's trade. For its brutal honesty and realism, the filmmakers deserve to be lauded.

Director Clayton Jacobson (who gets a very small role as well) lensed the movie using suitable digital photography. It feels like a home movie at times, which is the desired effect. Lots of people (myself included) were under the false impression that Kenny was a real person, and that the events were real. Make no mistake: 95% of the film is staged and rehearsed, with the fantastic naturalistic acting generating the ingenious illusion that we're watching genuine documentary footage. The cinematography is extremely accomplished with its fly-on-the-wall style.

"There's another classic example of someone having a two inch arsehole and us having installed only one inch piping."


Shane Jacobson earned an AFI award for Best Actor. His acting can only be described as faultless. In real life, Shane doesn't have a lisp. I, like many others, was under the impression that the lisp was genuine. This is a testament to the masterclass of acting offered by Jacobson. Kenny Smyth is the best Aussie character to hit screens since Michael Caton's Darryl Kerrigan in The Castle and Paul Hogan's Mick Dundee in Crocodile Dundee. He presents the essential Australian: simple, hard-working and looking forward to having a beer at the end of the day. Kenny's naivety is emphasised by his family's simplicity. He's the first person in his family to fly out of Australia, and he's utterly curious about the workings of an aeroplane. When he arrives at Nashville, Tennessee in America for the International Plumper and Cleaner Expo - i.e. "Poo HQ" as Kenny affectionately calls it - he's bewildered by the size of the expo. Kenny is also your typical Aussie using ockerisms and slang that may appear pretty peculiar to an international audience. His similes are particularly amusing. "Sillier than a bum full of smarties", "Mad as a clown's cock", and so on. Kenny is irresistible and charming, humorous and kind-natured. He's part philosopher, part comedian and all heart. Shane Jacobson gives the film the gusto and momentum it needs.
The other actors deserve a brief mention. It was a family and friend affair, with Shane Jacobson's real father playing Kenny Smyth's father, and Shane's real son played Kenny's son. Ronald Jacobson was nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the AFI awards. He's brilliant, witty and quotable.

The Jacobson brothers may have built the film's premise around toilets and poo, yet a brown log is never actually shown at all throughout the entire film. They never cross the line...the "mud biscuits and apple juice" are merely referenced instead of being shown. The humour of the film is in Kenny's delightful matter-of-factness in his observations. He cleverly describes his trade and things going on around him...and it's hilarious. Better yet, it's all done with a straight face. At the beginning of the film Kenny is interviewing a potential client via phone. As he asks whether this client will be serving food or drink at the event, the implications of his questions are hilarious. "Are there any Indonesian foods or curries?" The opening 30 minutes are probably the strongest part of the movie. We are offered a very intimate insight into the life of Kenny Smyth. Kenny is developed as a three-dimensional human, and in his personality fragments we see ourselves. From start to finish, it's a mosaic of hilarious and quotable lines with an adequate dosage of pathos and heart. The concoction works incredibly effectively!

"There's a smell in here that is gonna outlast religion."


When all's said and done, Kenny simply reminds everyone that in the age of big-budget adventures and CGI spectacles, engaging characters and a good story are all that matter. Kenny has both. This is a little-known film that scored big at the box office. It remained in cinemas for roughly a year. Even after the DVD was released, selected Australian cinemas were still showing it. As a character study so singularly focused on its central character, a film like this relies on its central character for its success. Shane Jacobson delivers a delightful performance. Kenny is a man with good intentions, and this comes across very powerfully. Shane has impeccable comedic timing as he deadpans a series of hilarious lines in expert fashion. Aside from being consistently laugh-out-loud funny, the terrific script generates real affection for Kenny in order that we desperately root for him to succeed. The character makes several valid observations about family, work and the value of human dignity.

Kenny is a masterpiece for its expert amalgamation of great comedy, pathos and terrific touching moments. This is a hysterical movie that holds up admirably no matter how many times you watch it. I still laugh at every joke after 50 viewings. It's a very entertaining movie, and I absolutely love it. At first I had no interest in seeing this picture. But on a firm recommendation I attended a screening (which required a lot of searching to determine which local cinemas were showing it), and it was the best cinematic experience in my entire life. It was a full house, and every single person in the cinema was crying with laughter. It was the most entertaining two hours of my entire life, and now I constantly revisit the movie. This is the greatest mockumentary in history! Yes, it's better than This is Spinal Tap!!

Followed by a spin-off TV series entitled Kenny's World.

"For nearly three thousand years man has been searching for the lost ark. It's not something to be taken lightly. No one knows its secrets. It's like nothing you've ever gone after before."

The Indiana Jones films became the most influential adventure films in cinematic history. The films made their mark on the genre and still influence the way adventure films are made to this day. What's the allure of the series? Put rather simply, all the Indiana Jones films impeccably merge action, exhilarating adventure, dazzling locations, marvellous humour and a mixture of great characters. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the first instalment in the highly acclaimed Indiana Jones series, and still the superior film. The elegance and class of this movie is so far unrivalled and unsurpassed even after several decades.


Set in 1936 on the eve of World War II, Dr. Indiana Jones (Ford) is a renowned archaeologist and a famed adventurer. Jones grows tired of lecturing students at a university; instead he adores trekking through the jungle touting a whip and a gun while searching for ancient artefacts. After an incredibly memorable opening sequence set in Africa, Indy is hired by the United States government to investigate the possible existence of the 'Ark of the Covenant'; an ancient relic that appears to be the cause of strange doings by the Nazis. Indy is pitted against rival archaeologist René Belloq (Freeman) who is also searching for this illustrious ark that has been nothing but myth and legend for centuries.


This fascinating story is merely the beginning as the film rapidly moves to numerous different locations around the globe from Nepal to Cairo.


Harrison Ford is unreservedly perfect for the principal role of Indiana Jones. Ford possesses that certain look about him that suits the role of both an adventurer and a professor. His dialogue is delivered extraordinarily, and his on screen magnetism is one of the film's highest points. Ford has all the wit and appeal: the character of Indiana Jones is the essential embodiment of an adventure hero that encompasses all the qualities and the charisma that makes him one of the best action heroes of all time (as voted on several occasions). Ford is partnered with the equally charismatic Karen Allen. Playing Indy's love interest, this isn't the usual clichéd damsel in distress who can't fend for herself. On top of this there's a remarkable performance by John Rhys-Davis, and unforgettable performances from both Paul Freeman and Ronald Lacey.


Steven Spielberg's direction is magnificent. This focused directing and the lavish cinematography are qualities rarely seen in contemporary adventure movies. I particularly loved the old school effects and the elaborate sets. With such gorgeous images on the screen for every second of the film's duration, it effectively moves from one memorable scene to the next.


The opening artefact hunt is still my favourite film opening of all time. Not to mention all the other memorable scenes - the bar fight, the plane scene, the snake pit, the truck chase, the ship battle, the final showdown...it's impossible to spot a dull second amongst the action and adventure. The outlandish stunts are a requirement for an adventure film of this calibre. The filmmakers deliver a never-ending supply.


The film is only made better by the accompanying exciting music by John Williams. The classic Indiana Jones theme is still my favourite movie theme of all time! The exhilarating action is only made better by the triumphant, invigorating music.


The special effects delightfully hold up even after all these years. With filmmaking technology forever advancing I am pleased and happy to see such terrific old school effects that still look mighty impressive.


When I was a youngster I remember watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on various occasions. The first three Indiana Jones films were an essential part of my childhood. Now that I've aged and matured I still love these original three films tremendously. This is unquestionably one of the best movies of all time! Followed by several sequels beginning with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (this is actually a prequel).

"Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?"

Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life is an endearing masterpiece that remains timeless in its messages and thoughtfulness. This sentimental and honest motion picture conveys a fantastic story of self-realisation and the significance of a single human soul. There's little doubt that Capra's classic fantasy-drama has become practically synonymous with Christmas, and it's one of today's most popular Christmas movies. It's a Wonderful Life has become a seasonal favourite (despite producer-director Capra never intending it as a Christmas film) chiefly due to the crucial scene at the film's dénouement occurring on Christmas Eve, and (of course) because this is a film about giving rather than receiving. For any film buff, cinema connoisseur, or average movie-goer, this film demands to be viewed at the earliest opportunity. This film is magnificent, charming, remarkable, heart-warming and uplifting. Not only is it one of the greatest Christmas films, but it's also one of the greatest films in history - period!

There's a question surely all of us have pondered at some point in our lives - what if I'd never been born? If I was absent from this world, would it really make a colossal difference? Whilst most of us can do nothing more than merely hypothesise, the answer to this philosophical (and probably alcohol-induced) question is offered to this film's protagonist - George Bailey (Stewart) - who actually witnesses his hometown had he not ever existed to help shape its development.

"You've been given a great gift, George: A chance to see what the world would be like without you."

It's a Wonderful Life is based on Philip Van Doren Stern's story The Greatest Gift. Stern was struck with the concept of a suicidal man being confronted by his guardian angel, but his story was rejected by several magazines. He subsequently added the seasonal setting, printed 200 copies and sent them as Christmas "cards". Among the recipients was his agent who then sent it to the studios. At Cary Grant's urging, RKO bought the film rights and hired Dalton Trumbo to adapt the story. Trumbo (never credited) was the first in a long line of screenwriters who contributed. Supposedly his version was too dark, too sophisticated and too political...but it was he who wrote the immortal line: "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings".

After World War II had concluded, director Frank Capra was yesterday's man. Narcissistic, embittered and cynical, Capra went independent and founded Liberty Pictures. Sensing an affinity with its darker aspects, Capra purchased the film rights for It's a Wonderful Life from RKO, hired his own group of screenwriters and financed the production at the Bank of America.

At the commencement of It's a Wonderful Life, it's Christmas Eve. Up in heaven, a chorus of prayers are heard coming from the town of Bedford Falls. These prayers plead for those above to assist the despairing George Bailey - the unsung hero of Bedford Falls who begins to contemplate suicide. Clarence Oddbody (Travers) - George's appointed guardian angel who's yet to earn his wings - is sent down from heaven to pay George a visit and heighten his spirits. Roughly the first 100 minutes are dedicated to recapping George's life so far. Initially, George is a young man who's entirely selfless - he courageously saves his brother's life, and forfeits his dreams in order to help his town. Eventually George accomplishes the American Dream; he has a loving family, a great home, and he has inherited his father's business. But as financial and personal troubles mount, George plunges into a tragic abyss of despondency. Enter lovable guardian angel Clarence. Following a nightmarish vision of Bedford Falls without his influence, George ultimately concludes that his life is a wonderful one...and at long last Clarence earns the beloved wings that he has desired for 200 years.

"Look, Daddy. Teacher says, every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings."

It's a Wonderful Life earned its legion of fans because it effectively communicates one basic truth of life: everyone, regardless of how seemingly insignificant a single person may seem, has the capacity to make a difference. It additionally reiterates the values of the WWII generation - patriotism, hard work, and sacrifice - while heralding the values of the Baby Boomer/Eisenhower generation (i.e. the perception of the American Dream which entails family, home ownership, children, and not just tolerable, but wonderful neighbours).

The underlying themes are obvious: our lives positively affect the world more than we believe, and we touch many more people and than we realise. Until Clarence reveals it to him, George doesn't realise how much good he has done in the world. Furthermore, we're led to believe that no-one who believes in themselves is a failure. George is simply depressed, and just needs his confidence restored. This is the type of experience movies were intended for.

A common philosophy frequently embraced by cinema enthusiasts claims the non-existence of a perfect movie. It's a Wonderful Life, however, is rock-solid proof that perfect movies exist. Capra's masterwork is a flawless tour de force - an enduring masterpiece of the highest order that entertains, inspires and uplifts. It demonstrates the capability of the indelible power of friendship, and reminds us that a loving family and a bunch of great friends are all that truly matter in the grand scheme of things. This is an enriching experience full of warm characters and edifying, poignant messages about life. It's a Wonderful Life has become a generational favourite, probably because of its sweet, stirring story that merges two time-honoured Hollywood plots: rags-to-riches, and romance.

Frank Capra and James Stewart always declared that It's a Wonderful Life was their favourite film. It's undoubtedly one of mine as well. After all, how can you not like it? It has an excellent script, it's marvellously acted, and it's resplendent with Capra's proverbial touches in casting and the underlying messages.

There's little doubt that It's a Wonderful Life could be considered the definitive "feel good" movie. Yet the film stands out due to its sometimes darker tone to counteract the occasional uplifting moment. George's nightmarish odyssey through the garish Pottersville and a community in which he was never born - dubbed by the filmmakers as "the unborn sequence" - is noticeably noir cinema; gloomy and disenchanted. The result is a wistfully realistic movie, yet it also maintains the Capra spirit of belief in the ultimate triumph of right over wrong, and the importance of an ordinary person contributing to that triumph. Anybody who isn't sincerely moved by the film's conclusion should wonder what the heck is wrong with them.

Technically, It's a Wonderful Life is very impressive indeed. A gigantic construction of Bedford Falls' main street was built, with over eighty stores and buildings, as well as twenty transplanted oak trees. It's virtually impossible to view Bedford Falls as anything but a genuine town. Production transpired during summer, thus a large quantity of snowflakes for the winter scenes had to be artificially created. Through the magic of the movies, every flake of snow looks authentic (in fact I had no idea the snow was artificial until I conducted research!). If anything is be criticised (perhaps that word is too strong), it's the sporadic technical fault - like a wide shot not precisely matching a close-up. That aside, Capra's direction is solid. Each shot is infused with magnificent visual flair. The black & white photography looks stunning.

It's a Wonderful Life will be primarily recognised as a significant component of popular culture. It's a Christmastime television tradition worldwide. All these decades later, Capra's masterwork is still viewed by its loyal fans annually on Christmas Eve. Movies recurringly pay tribute to this picture as well. Sesame Street even contained two characters named after Bert the cop and Ernie the cabbie. There's even a band called Zuzu's Petals. Even in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (my favourite Christmas movie) the characters are watching It's a Wonderful Life at one point.

Surprisingly, this wonderful movie was not an immediate hit. It's a Wonderful Life received mixed reviews, ranging from a lionisation in The Hollywood Reporter to a vicious trashing in the New Yorker. Although nominated for five Academy Awards, it was shut out the ceremony. Worse still, the film was a box office bomb...spelling doom for Capra's newly established Liberty Films. It wasn't until the 1970s that It's a Wonderful Life was transformed into a Christmas staple. The expiration of the film's copyright and its descent into the public domain was the cause of this. It could be played ad infinitum by any television station without being charged. TV stations seized it as a time-filler for the Christmas season. Capra's oeuvre was ultimately rediscovered by a new generation of movie-goers, and the reviews were almost unanimously positive. Finally, Capra's masterpiece received the recognition it deserved, albeit several decades after its theatrical release. Now it's a perennial Christmas favourite. This is the ultimate comeback movie!

While Frank Capra must claim some of the recognition for the brilliance of this masterpiece, it's the phenomenal performance of James Stewart that truly makes an impact. He infuses George Bailey with a deft mixture of innocence and integrity, but also humanity and fallibility, which has the viewer rooting for him from the outset. Stewart fits the role like a glove - he's amiable and convincing, and when plunged into the garish vision of Pottersville his desperation and despair is increasingly apparent.

As Mary, Donna Reed embodies the independence and sweetness required to capture George's heart. Reed wasn't Capra's first choice, yet it's difficult to visualise any other actress in the role. On the surface the character of Mary may seem straightforward, but Reed is required to display genuine emotional depth during the film's climax and does so ably. Henry Travers appears as the charming Clarence; George's guardian angel. His performance is simply glorious.

The rest of the supporting cast is memorable and uniformly excellent. Lionel Barrymore provides the character of Potter with the correct degree of cunning and malice, Thomas Mitchell is very watchable as the lovable - albeit incompetent - Uncle Billy, and the duo of Frank Faylen and Ward Bond appear as Ernie the cabbie and Bert the cop. Capra never allows a faulty performance to slip under the radar.

"A toast to my big brother George: The richest man in town."

Underpinned by a fascinating philosophical conceit, It's a Wonderful Life remains one of the most watchable and enjoyable movie classics in cinematic history. Capra's commemoration of the power of community and defiant optimism is orchestrated with consummate mastery; flawlessly combining laughs, poignant sentiment and exuberant allure with imagination and a beautifully rendered tone. Critics back in the 1940s may have blasted the film for the sentimentality that characterises a Capra film, but it has grown more beloved over the years.

Not merely just a Christmas film as it can be viewed anytime throughout the year, It's a Wonderful Life conveys one of the most transcendent and joyful experiences a movie-goer could possibly ask for. It delivers a wonderful message of morality, values, principles, and what's truly important in life. Words fail me when I attempt to describe how brilliant, timeless, inspirational, original, touching and wonderful this masterpiece genuinely is. I defy you to not produce a tear as the film winds down to its uplifting conclusion. It's a Wonderful Life is treasured for good reason, and is particularly noted for its heart-warming insistence that "no man is alone who has friends..."

If It's a Wonderful Life was never born, the world would truly be worse off for it.

"You see George, you've really had a wonderful life. Don't you see what a mistake it would be to just throw it away?"

"Remember, remember,
The fifth of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot."

V for Vendetta is a monumental science fiction action-thriller, denoting the duly excellent redemption of The Wachowski Brothers. After helming two horrendously disappointing sequels to their landmark sci-fi picture The Matrix, the brothers have irrevocably redeemed themselves for past blunders with estimable elegance. This outstanding comic book blockbuster is everything one could possibly desire - it's exhilarating, riveting, intense, chilling, electrifying, heartbreaking and extraordinarily entertaining. V for Vendetta is fundamentally a cautionary tale about the rise of fascism and totalitarianism, but it thankfully packs summer-movie pyrotechnics to accompany.

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."


Based on the Vertigo/DC Comics graphic novel (by Alan Moore, illustrated by David Lloyd), V for Vendetta is a futuristic action film set in a dystopian vision of 2020 London. In the wake of a series of devastating terrorist attacks, Chancellor Adam Sutler (Hurt) has ascended to unmitigated supremacy. The general public have forfeited their independence for security; accustomed to exist in a relentless condition of apprehension. Consequently, the perception of constitutional rights for citizens has vanished completely.

A freedom fighter only known as 'V' (Weaving) exercises terrorist diplomacy in an effort to combat the tyrannical society. On the night bridging the fourth and fifth of November, a young British woman named Evey (Portman) is caught by a horde of secret policemen violating the inequitable curfew. The swashbuckling vigilante anarchist V, concealed behind a mask of Guy Fawkes, rescues Evey and she develops into his dubious ally.
Invoking the spirit of Fawkes, V begins the fifth of November by blowing up the Old Bailey to the strings of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. He subsequently ignites a subversive rebellion, marching towards breaking down the fascist government that has taken jurisdiction of Great Britain and has committed atrocities that led the country to its existing condition. V endeavours to eventually reinstate freedom and justice to Britain, as opposed to a society burdened with malice and corruption.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."


The Wachowski Brothers humbly stepped away from the director's chair, instead adopting a sideline position as writers and producers. Newcomer James McTeigue is an ideal replacement, capable of infusing the film with breathtaking visual flair. Action sequences generally exercise slow motion, but it never grows monotonous. This is one of the only films in history to use slo-mo effectively, which is a testament to the direction and superb cinematography.

V for Vendetta is a solid action film that delivers an insightful political message. The film flawlessly merges a socio-political statement with highly intense stylised action scenes featuring some of the finest cinematic moments of 2005. V for Vendetta is saturated with issues and concepts that permeate the global political climate of the early 21st century, and is endowed with an immense timely relevance that belies its trappings as a mere action adventure. The film is equipped with an intelligent character-driven plot coalesced with greatly assured direction generating the illusion of complete immersion. The action is enthralling and the imagery is stimulating. In addition, the film is kept taut as it moves along at an invigorating pace. The script is smart, thoughtful and provocative. The powerful score is also incredible. Classic orchestral overtures are employed to astonishing effect as an act of anarchy is implemented.

" told you, only truth. For 20 years, I sought only this day. Nothing else existed... until I saw you. Then everything changed. I fell in love with you Evey. And to think I no longer believed I could."


The imagery of 2020 London is marvellously conceived and executed. The intricate metropolis has become grim, depressing and dark. Production design is first-rate, and the top-notch cinematography captures it with consummate skill. The world of V for Vendetta was created mostly with sets and miniatures in Berlin, with some local landscape to finish the portrait of a more noir-ish and sinister London. The filmmakers commendably eschew stereotypical futuristic concepts. There are no flying cars, nor are there any truly notable technological revelations - it never tries to predict any outlandish technology for the future. For this reason (and for many others, like the rare usage of special effects that never exhibit the slightest iota of phoniness), V for Vendetta will never grow outdated.

"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world."


Hugo Weaving is impeccable in his portrayal of the violent anarchist 'V'. Throughout the movie his face is never revealed as there is no need. V is permanently concealed behind a mask of Guy Fawkes. The mask is not to disguise his identity but it rather acts as a symbol to proclaim his rebellion. The real Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist who unsuccessfully attempted to blow up the British Houses of Parliament in the 1600s. V is a violent man; however his actions are supported by strong logical reasoning. Society becomes governed by fear and violence. As a counteraction, fear and violence is therefore the ideal instrument for change. Weaving's role would have been tremendously challenging to execute as he is always donning a mask; relying solely on his gestures and voice. In all likelihood, V's face is never exposed on account of Weaving's appearance in the Matrix movies - there were so many copies of him (as Mr. Smith) that the actor probably opted to keep his face concealed throughout this film's duration.

Opposite the first-rate Weaving is young Natalie Portman, displaying her unremitting capacity as an actress. She even sports a symbolic Joan of Arc hair-cut in the movie's second half. Evey is the real anchor of the story. The audience automatically empathises with her. She's a reflection of their hopes and fears, and functions as a mirror. She has immense chemistry with Weaving as V, regardless of his face forever being masked. The character of Evey is more impetuous and independent than her comic book counterpart, to the betterment of the film.
The supporting cast is armed with magnificent names like John Hurt, Stephen Rea, and Stephen Fry in addition to numerous others. Hurt in particular is perfect as the narcissistic and cruel tyrannical ruler; ranting and salivating in true fascist style.

"Strength through unity. Unity through faith."


Believe the hyperbolic hype regarding this motion picture - V for Vendetta is an outstanding multi-faceted sci-fi production. In addition to being an astonishingly entertaining film it also poses the question of what you're willing to surrender for security. With the contemporary world ruled by fear and dismay, would you renounce your freedom to feel more safe and secure? The film also serves a reminder that the term "terrorist" is defined purely by perspective. As the media poisons us against terrorist actions and utilises propaganda to promote its country, V for Vendetta subtly questions who the terrorists actually are - the anarchists or the government?

V for Vendetta is a revolutionary production that uses its imagery and underlying philosophies as a medium to trigger thought. It's uncommonly provocative for a mainstream movie, and it's pervaded with a marvellous comic book ambiance faithful to its source material. Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving are a spellbinding duo, and first-time director James McTeigue (who was a second-unit director for The Wachowski Brothers during their Matrix years) demonstrates his ability to stand on his own two feet. In a modern cinematic world, blockbusters prevail and masterpieces are limited. V for Vendetta is both a blockbuster and a masterpiece. It's entertaining and enjoyable, as well as stirring, moving and filled with emotionality. You'll enjoy, you'll cry, and you'll be taking heed of V's immortal words.


"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."

"You want to know who killed Dietrichson? Hold tight to that cheap cigar of yours, Keyes.
I killed Dietrichson - me, Walter Neff, insurance salesman, 35 years old, unmarried, no visible scars...until a while ago, that is.
Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money and for a woman.
I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?"

Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity has always been regarded as the archetypal film noir. If someone was to ask you what the term "film noir" meant, the simplest answer would be to show them Billy Wilder's 1944 masterpiece. If any movie could perfectly define a genre, it would be Double Indemnity. While some consider The Maltese Falcon as the first of the genre in cinematic history, some critics feel that the first real film noir was Wilder's 1944 film. All the crucial constituents we tend to associate with film noir are present: dangerous dames, robust but ultimately malleable men, expressionistic lighting and mood, as well as an incisive and darkly witty script. Double Indemnity also embodies the fundamental skeletal plot outline for a noir: an everyman falling under the spell of a calculating siren and is thrust into a world of sex, shadows, and crime.

Wilder joined forces with the equally inimitable Raymond Chandler to adapt James M. Cain's novel, and they ultimately produced one of cinema's greatest achievements. Wilder and Chandler indeed hated each other quite passionately, however they tolerated each other for long enough to script this amazing film. Together they flesh out characters so memorable, and dialogue so lethal. It's a film of indomitable cynicism and misanthropic acquiescence; the depiction of a world ostensibly unaffected by global war, but uniformly as degenerate and murderous as anything saturating the sands of Europe. Not only is Double Indemnity the ultimate - and greatest - film noir, but additionally it's absolutely perfect from the opening frame to the last.
This cinematic masterpiece is a study of deception, mendacity, self-indulgence, murder, and sex. If you like your film noirs deep, provocative, riveting and engrossing, then it's impossible to go further than these 105 minutes. How perfect are we talking, I hear you ask? To the point that I genuinely forget I was watching a movie. I became irretrievably immersed in the stylish black & white photography and the killer screenplay.

The film commences with an enigmatic, unforgettable opening image: a silhouette of a man on crutches walking towards the foreground as the credits spill onto the screen. From there, we meet insurance salesman Walter Neff (MacMurray) who wanders into the office late at night with a gunshot wound. Neff is arriving at the office this late at night to record a long confession for friend and colleague Barton Keyes (Robinson). Then the film is told in flashback, hence we're aware that there has been lust, murder and betrayal. Double Indemnity is not a "whodunit" crime film...it's a mesmerising "whydunit" film noir. This technique is innovative, and ultimately more effective. We know the conclusion of the story, but how do we reach this conclusion? It's this thought-provoking mystery that skilfully keeps an audience powerfully engaged.

"They've committed a murder and it's not like taking a trolley ride together where they can get off at different stops. They're stuck with each other and they've got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery."

The crux of Double Indemnity is then revealed: Neff heads to an affluent mansion to visit a client with the intention of renewing his insurance policy. This visit leads him to a fateful meeting with the beautiful Phyllis Dietrichson (Stanwyck). Phyllis appears to Neff at the top of the mansion's staircase (an emblematic position of power), wrapped in a towel. At that point she instantly has him...hook, line and sinker. From there, the scheming Phyllis seduces Neff into secretly setting up a life insurance policy for her husband (Powers). The two plan to murder Phyllis' husband and collect the insurance money. Furthermore, they plan to murder the man under peculiar circumstances that would facilitate double indemnity. Neff uses his expert knowledge of his business to conceive a foolproof plan to execute the murder and get away with it.

Billy Wilder is the master of great stories, and Raymond Chandler is the master of gab. People may remember Raymond Chandler penning stories such as The Big Sleep that were transplanted onto the screen. Howard Hawks helmed this particular adaptation. However, The Big Sleep was so convoluted and complicated. At one stage Hawks asked Chandler who had murdered a minor character...Chandler responded with "I don't know!" Yet, despite his reasonably weak stories, the dialogue he brings to the table is perfect word for word, sentence for sentence.
In the case of Double Indemnity, it was Wilder controlling the story and the proceedings while Chandler handled the dialogue. The screenplay is consequently perfect. The snappy banter between Neff and Phyllis in particular is highly memorable.

Phyllis: "There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour."
Neff: "How fast was I going, officer?"
Phyllis: "I'd say around ninety."

It's difficult for modern ears to become accustomed to the poetry of noir dialogue which has suffered severe parodying over the years. Once one has adapted, the effect is intoxicating. The film illustrates a world of dames and saps, sedition and sex. As some have observed, James M. Cain's original novella was perceived as daring (if not crude). Wilder was accordingly compelled to tread cautiously to avoid censorship. As it is, Walter Neff's fixation with Phyllis' anklet offers the film a fetishistic characteristic, and the atmosphere is constantly somewhat sordid.
Director Billy Wilder managed the production with great perception of every nuance. Wilder and his cinematographer constructed the ideal noir look: contrast of light and dark in every scene, as well as shadows and bars of light leaking through Venetian blinds.
Double Indemnity crackles with authentic hardboiled dialogue and sharp-tongued narration of such a standard that it could only have been conceived by James M. Cain and Raymond Chandler.

"It sounds crazy, Keyes, but it's true, so help me. I couldn't hear my own footsteps. It was the walk of a dead man."

The entire cast gleefully spit out Chandler's words with great conviction. At the time Fred MacMurray was considered a highly unusual choice for the role of Walter Neff. Someone such as Humphrey Bogart would have been the usual go-to guy for such a job, yet Wilder changed his mind about the character and settled for an actor more clean-cut. MacMurray plays a fast-talking, snappy, intelligent character. He really shines in the role and it's impossible to consider any other actor as the crucial protagonist. This statement is further solidified by viewing the 1973 made-for-television remake with Richard Crenna (yes, that guy from First Blood) filling MacMurray's shoes.
By the 1940s, Barbara Stanwyck was the highest paid actress in the world. Stanwyck had already done melodramas and screwball comedies before really displaying her range as Phyllis Dietrichson. Like many others, she of course was a tad hesitant to accept the part until Wilder laid down the challenge..."Are you an actress or a mouse?" Needless to say, Stanwyck was an actress and anything but mousy.
Edward G. Robinson became famous for his gangster roles, such as his performance in Key Largo. Here, Robinson is a pseudo-father figure to MacMurray's Neff. Robinson's character fulfils the job of sniffing out faux insurance claims. Unfortunately for him, his only blind spot is Neff. When Robinson smells something fishy about the murder at hand, Neff would be the last person he'd suspect. The chemistry between the leads is sizzling.

Following the release of Double Indemnity, renowned director Alfred Hitchcock took out an ad to praise Wilder's accomplishment, saying, "The two most important words in Hollywood are 'Billy Wilder'." It's easy to see why, and there's also weighty Hitchcock inspiration painted on Wilder's approach to the film. For example, there's that moment of extreme tension when Phyllis can't get her car started, as well as the effective, succinct conclusion that leaves the audience in hushed suspense.
Double Indemnity is an undisputed masterpiece from an undisputed master of cinema. Personally, the film quickly reached a high position on my list of favourite movies. It's a superlative film noir that single-handedly defined an entire genre.
In one of the biggest Oscar blunders, Wilder's masterpiece was nominated for several Academy Awards but didn't receive any. Instead the forgettable claptrap known as Going My Way earned Best Picture. I guess everyone occasionally makes mistakes.

"Welcome to the party, pal."

Die Hard is considered to be the seminal action movie of the 1980s. Produced in 1988, this is the archetypal blueprint for the contemporary action thriller. It has been decades since this crackling action flick first hit cinemas in summer 1988, yet in the 21st century its influence on the action genre is still overwhelming. Die Hard is the smart-mouthed, high-rise thriller which launched Bruce Willis as an action icon. To this day, the world's greatest action hero (in my opinion) is Willis' John McClane. Willis portraying the New York Cop was a career-defining turn: he mixed comical repartee, action heroics and a grubby white vest to astonishing effect. Die Hard also vastly reinvented the action film formula. It introduced a hero that bleeds when shot, panics when people he's trying to protect are endangered, and conveys uncertainties about his ability to survive. McClane is a vulnerable Everyman as opposed to an unstoppable machine. Instead of dispersing bullets non-stop and regularly raising the body count, this hero prefers to employ his brain more frequently as an alternative. McClane was the lone Western hero transposed to a setting subjugated by skyscrapers rather than rock formations.

On top of this, Die Hard proved that action films could be genuinely original and break new boundaries whilst still awarding a mainstream audience the entertaining action they desired. By contemporary standards, the action in the film superficially emerges as fairly tame. Most films of late, such as The Matrix, depict over-the-top martial arts in irritating slow motion. The fight scenes in Die Hard are far more cramped and sweaty; saturated with a higher level of realism and brutality. These fights depict the way real men would do battle: with hard-hitting punches, struggles and a constant inkling of vulnerability.

The plot is as simple as it is involving. As the film opens, it's Christmas Eve and we are introduced to Officer John McClane (Willis): he's a New York City cop disembarking from a plane to Los Angeles. McClane's business in LA is to visit his estranged wife Holly (Bedelia) who had moved there several months beforehand with their children. Holly is in attendance at a Christmas function hosted in a high-rise LA skyscraper owned by the successful Nakatomi Corporation. Unfortunately for John McClane, the Christmas party is abruptly interrupted when a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (Rickman) seize control of the building and hold the guests hostage. McClane is, however, fortunate enough to be in a separate room when the terrorists make their presence known, therefore able to slip away. This consequently inaugurates an excruciating few hours as McClane works to evade the terrorists while also working to conquer them from the inside.

The film embodies all the customary action movie stereotypes: the hero, the nefarious bad guys, the trademark black guy (VelJohnson), the self-absorbed yet incredibly stupid police chief (Gleason), the despondently brainless federal agents (Bush and Davi) and the ex-wife who's still in love with the hero. However, all is fine as Die Hard spawned the majority of these clichés.

For an action movie made in 1988, the special effects (which secured an Oscar nomination) are still utterly mind-blowing. These special effects are still as effective today as their digital equivalent. The high level of practicality in these special effects is extraordinary, and they supply a valuable reminder about the dying art that's being rapidly replaced by CGI technology.
Prior to John McTiernan helming this 1988 masterpiece, he was only recognised for Predator and Nomads. I immensely adore Predator, however McTiernan's supreme cinematic creation will forever be the classic action romp known as Die Hard. The sense of claustrophobia is overwhelming, and we feel more riveted as the tension steadily increases with each passing second. His demolition-heavy vision - astoundingly captured with cinematographer Jan de Bont's lens - guarantees that the film is pure awesome mayhem...ensuring that it's fun no matter how many times one has watched it.

Die Hard also never conforms to the mediocre quality of a pure action fest. That said, there's still a decent dosage of gun battles, explosions and violent shootings. Decades on, and the gunshot wounds are still hard-hitting. Kneecaps being shredded by bullets, glass jammed into bare feet, bloody executions and fierce close combat are among the highlights. Like I said before, the violence probably appears quite tame when compared to contemporary action films, but it's stylish and used realistically. Despite all this action and violence, much of the 130-minute running time is dedicated to establishing the story and developing the fantastic characters. The script is impeccable. There's a great assortment of enjoyable scenarios punctuated with smart and fascinating dialogue. Die Hard also has the advantage of being largely unpredictable. We expect the hero to prevail, but there's a lack of sentimentality towards the characters, hence lending a hint of uncertainty.

The sound effects (which also earned an Oscar nomination) are ear-shattering and realistic. There are booming gunshots, brutal punches and deafening explosions. It'd be difficult to top even by today's standards. The film editing cannot be faulted either. The work of editors John F. Link and Frank J. Urioste holds up under close scrutiny. The directing/editing collaboration is terrific, resulting in minimal continuity issues. The remarkable definitive touch was eventually applied during the post-production period: Michael Kamen's score. There is no distinct Die Hard theme, yet there are countless segments of exciting, pulse-pounding music exclusive to the series. Kamen's musical composition for the film is perfect by action film standards. The intensity gradually elevates thanks to the amazing music. The film's key action sequences are even better with the inclusion of Kamen's efforts. The work behind the scenes is simply terrific!

Director McTiernan also ensured that no faulty performances would slip under the radar. As a result, the entire cast is amazing. Bruce Willis as John McClane cannot be faulted. The smart screenwriting provides Willis with a host of wisecracks and one-liners that are legendary, memorable and quotable. Willis also displays great versatility as an emotional side is expressed towards the climax. As he doubts he will survive the situation, McClane breaks down and lends a hint of vulnerability. The same cannot be said for Stallone, Van Damme, Chuck Norris or any other 80s action genre luminary. Prior to Die Hard, Bruce Willis was primarily known only for starring in the television show Moonlighting and the Blake Edwards comedy Blind Date. For the initial theatrical Die Hard posters, Bruce Willis' unfamiliar likeness wasn't featured because it was feared that this could be a major turn-off for cinemagoers. In hindsight, naturally, there is no doubt that the perennially smirking Willis contributed mightily to the film's enormous success as he traded blows and quips with equal assurance.
John McClane is essentially a Western hero like John Wayne or Roy Rogers. This similarity is referenced on several occasions. When McClane provides an alias, he asks to be called Roy. Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber even talks to McClane at one stage, and asks: "Who are you? Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?" To which McClane retorts with "I was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually". At the climax Gruber then says "Still the cowboy, Mr. McClane? Americans, all alike. Well this time John Wayne does not walk off into the sunset with Grace Kelly". "That's Gary Cooper, asshole" is McClane's response.

Alan Rickman surpasses perfection as the terrorist leader Hans Gruber. Die Hard already had the pleasure of featuring the greatest action hero of all time, but the film also boasts Rickman as the greatest action villain in cinematic history. Rickman's Hans Gruber is polite, witty and sinister. His character is well-written, and Rickman was the perfect man for the job.
But the screenwriter also develops a surplus of other characters as warm as toast. Reginald VelJohnson is highly likeable as the policeman inadvertently pulled into the situation. VelJohnson magnificently bounces off Willis' terrific dialogue. Although VelJohnson and Willis predominantly exchange dialogue via radio, their chemistry is solid.
Then there's Bonnie Bedelia as McClane's estranged wife. Bedelia develops a feisty character not afraid to make snappy remarks - even if a gun is pointed at her.
De'voreaux White contributes yet another terrific character. He provides comic relief and an easily likeable screen persona. I could keep going, but needless to say the supporting cast are devoid of flaws.

At the time of writing this review, Die Hard is two decades old. Even after those 20 years the film is a phenomenal action thrill ride of extraordinary proportions. It offers believable characters, staggering special effects, satisfyingly brutal action, as well as non-stop adventure and tension. Its success at the box office prompted studios to begin green-lighting a slew of knock-offs featuring other 80s action heroes: Die Hard on a ship (Under Siege with Steven Seagal), Die Hard in a sports stadium (Sudden Death with Jean-Claude Van Damme), Die Hard on a train (Under Siege II: Dark Territory with Seagal) and even Die Hard on a bloody big snowy mountain (Cliffhanger with Sylvester Stallone). All these younger siblings of this classic action film follow the same formula of the protagonist finding themself inadvertently entangled in a dangerous situation, and their daring-do is required. This is a testament to how brilliant, engrossing and influential this action masterpiece truly is. Furthermore, I've seen the film at least 60 times in the last few years (including a customary viewing on every Christmas Eve)...and I already want to watch it again. Films like these are simply too few and far between these days.

If you're a self-respecting action fan, Die Hard cannot be missed. If you enjoy watching smart, competent thrillers then this is an essential purchase. Or if you just like being entertained...Die Hard cannot be passed up. I'll be perfectly frank: Die Hard is damn close to being the zenith of filmic perfection. Even a five-star rating isn't sufficient. If this isn't the greatest action film of all time, then it's too close for words. This masterpiece ushered in a new era of action movies, bringing a human quality to the plethora of unbelievable situations in preceding incarnations whereby one man would take on an army himself.

"Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!"


Followed by three sequels, beginning with Die Hard 2: Die Harder.


"I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Mr. Takagi did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life. We can go any way you want it. You can walk out of here or be carried out. But have no illusions. We are in charge. So, decide now, each of you. And please remember: we have left nothing to chance."

"There was a barber and his wife...and she was beautiful..."

Tim Burton is unquestionably one of my favourite directors, if not my absolute favourite director. It's a fact that no matter what the film or the subject matter, I will view a film helmed by Tim Burton (at the time of writing this review, I have seen all of Burton's work and own all his films). The partnership of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp will forever be a movie occasion to treasure, be it Ed Wood or Edward Scissorhands among an enormous number of others. It was the end of 2006 when Dreamworks fast-tracked Burton's latest collaboration with Johnny Depp...and I initially discovered Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. The plan was to transform the lucrative Broadway musical into the world of live action cinema. The best part is that Burton promised a full-on musical to maintain a sense of fidelity to Steven Sondheim's brilliant Broadway production. Before the announcement of Burton's cinematic version of the musical, I hadn't possessed any prior knowledge of the source material. I had no idea what the film was about until my interest suddenly flared and research followed.

If you're familiar with the Broadway musical, you'll be aware of the dark humour and gothic style that is such a prominent feature. Sweeney Todd is a story intended for Tim Burton. The director possesses a distinctive superiority when it comes to the macabre and gothic tones. With the completion of creepy period films such as the wondrous Sleepy Hollow, director Burton demonstrated a special ability to deliver dark humour and elegant visuals. Burton is a director who can bring flawed and unusual characters to life. He is the master of darkness and has adapted a penchant for tossing a little blood around his sets in an exaggerated, albeit entertaining manner. Since the beginning of his career, stunning gothic visuals and extravagant production design has been his forte. Sweeney Todd is a film regarding a central character who is a sorrowful, vengeful and formerly caring individual. This character finds redemption for crimes against him and his family by slashing the throats of the innocents of London while hoping to one day slash the throat of the man who stole his wife and daughter from him. What better plot and central character could possibly be better suited for Tim Burton to bring to life?

2007 was a year that beared the release of several great films, but the year also saw its fair share of bad films (in my opinion, there were more bad films than good films throughout the year). Tim Burton's cinematic vision of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a masterpiece of epic proportions, and ultimately ended up being the best film of 2007 without question or debate. After mentioning so much about Burton's brilliant work, I must admit I was a little worried because Burton's last movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, was disappointing to say the least. With this film, however, Burton patches up the scars. Like I previously mentioned, I didn't know much about the source material before walking into the cinema and had no idea that this film was going to be so good. Within the first few seconds of the titles commencing, I was completely enthralled in Burton's universe.

The film is so poetic, stylish, beautiful and so incredibly emotional at times as well. Every shot has been conceived beautifully, and every line delivered remarkably. This is a musical of course, so naturally the songs being interesting is a vitality. All the songs are utterly stunning and are crafted beautifully. Combine the witty lyrics of Steven Sondheim with the musical stylings of a successful Hollywood composer...suddenly things are looking interesting. The songs are both memorable and remarkable. I purchased the soundtrack CD immediately and now it's my default channel.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is the story of a man named Benjamin Barker (Depp) who once had everything; a wife, a child and a successful career as a barber. For Barker, life could not be better. But a false conviction of a crime he did not commit destroys his happiness and his life, causing him to suffer through a massive, heart-breaking emotional trauma. Upon Barker's London homecoming by boat 15 years later to right the wrongs against him, he comes home to nothing. His family has been ripped apart. He forms an unlikely partnership with Mrs. Lovett (Carter), a creepy old woman who owns a pie shop. Benjamin Barker, who now goes by the name of Sweeney Todd, wants revenge on crooked Judge Turpin (Rickman) who convicted him out of sheer jealously. Sweeney re-opens a barber shop on Fleet Street, with the intention of getting sweet revenge on Turpin if he comes in for a shave. Sweeney uses his sharp silver blades to slash the throats of the innocent London public that come in for a shave, before destroying the evidence of his crimes by allowing the troubled Mrs. Lovett to cook the human corpses into her pies.

From start to finish, I was completely hooked. I literally couldn't tear my eyes away from the screen. Its combination of a superb cast, excellent music, exquisite production design and gorgeous cinematography creates a flawless movie. I remember goose-bumps literally covering my body as soon as the music commenced at the start of the opening credits...the outstanding organ music that successfully creates the desired atmosphere and tone for what is about to come.

Burton's unique colour scheme depicts the grimy streets of London with extremely drained colour that predominantly makes use of grey a black among other dark colours. The sky is always dark, with never a ray of bright sunshine poking through. This is the depressing, gothic mood that the director aimed to achieve. During the flashbacks that depict the events of the past, the colour scheme has been changed to show an array of bright colours as the sun lights the cheery streets. This symbolises Barker's emotions, so to speak. When Barker is happy with his life the colours are bright and joyous. Then when he returns to London and the life he once lived has been destroyed...his depression is reflected in the gloomy visuals.

Johnny Depp, playing the demon barber, is absolutely remarkable. Before this film Depp had never displayed his singing abilities on film. Before he was an actor he played guitar in a band with never an attempt to handle any vocals. If it weren't for his close friend Tim Burton asking him to consider a singing role, he would have gone through his whole career without singing a note. Thankfully, Depp's former career in the music industry allowed him to sing a brilliant tune. Before the film's release, Depp singing was a big question mark. As the film was not marketed as a musical from the previews, we were therefore never given the opportunity to witness the actor handling a song. When I first viewed the film in the cinema (on opening day) I sat in complete awe at the beauty of Johnny Depp's breathtaking singing. The actor was recognised with a Golden Globe win and an Oscar nomination for Best Actor (I still believe he wholly deserved to win). Helena Bonham Carter was the only member of the cast I was reluctant about, but my fears were soon alleviated by her stunning acting skills. She is able to carry on a brilliant duet with co-star Depp. Her singing is amazing. Alan Rickman is brilliant here, as are the rest of the supporting cast. This includes Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen (whose singing is quite incredible), Jamie Campbell Bower, Laura Michelle Kelly, Jayne Wisener and Ed Sanders. Every member of the cast can sing to perfection.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a brilliant mix of dark humour, horror, romance, drama and tragedy. The ending is very sad, but very poetic at the same time. As the credits start to roll (with every screening I watch) I am a complete mess. Usually tears are escaping my eyes...I'm left speechless and stunned. The film is very violent, and when the exaggerated bloodshed begins it is very relentless and there is no stopping it. With Burton's direction the violence is very stylish and extraordinarily beautiful. Of course Burton's direction is the icing on the cake here. The man is a visionary and a wizard of filmmaking. His films are simply close to unbeatable. I am not a fan of the musical genre (interestingly enough, neither is Burton); however a musical of this superiority is a rare event. With each new screening I am always captivated.

Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a modern masterpiece. It's an acquired taste and will not be liked by all of course, so you're welcome to disagree. Every aspect of the filmmaking is absolutely stunning. Without argument or question, this is the best movie of 2007. Since first watching this film, I cannot prevent myself from indulging in repeated screenings. To date, this is Burton's finest hour. Winner of 2 Golden Globes including Best Picture (Comedy or Musical) and Best Actor (for Johnny Depp).

"It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us."

Based on a teleplay by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men marks Sidney Lumet's magnificent film debut. This masterpiece is a dynamic, intense, searing, spellbinding morality study and a brilliant portrayal of our justice system at work. 12 Angry Men was first released decades ago in 1957, yet this potent social microcosm still feels as relevant as ever.

On paper this straightforward courtroom drama probably wasn't much to get excited about - a single room setting (with little to no exceptions), a dozen old-timers arguing, and a first-time feature film director. But when preserved on the medium of film, 12 Angry Men is transformed into a consummate fermentation of acting prowess and dynamite direction. This is a movie that could stand as a screenwriting masterclass in the development of character and plot without resorting to big stunts, grandiose locations or special effects. From start to finish the film is just the story of twelve men on a hot, stuffy afternoon in a single room debating the guilt of a teenager on the wrong side of the tracks. The fact the film kept me riveted and entertained for its entire length is a gratifying testament to everyone involved. In an age dominated by summer blockbusters and teenagers merrily chatting about the latest action fest, 12 Angry Men serves a simple yet powerful reminder that a solid script, a good story and vividly-drawn characters are all that matter at the end of the day.

To the untrained eye, the plot of 12 Angry Men probably appears pretty straightforward and quite boring. Do not be fooled by the apparent simplicity of the plot. Instead of being single-note, it's a multi-faceted and deeply provocative examination of the flawed nature of the justice system. There are twelve main characters altogether (this is usually a recipe for cinematic suicide); however the complex story and dynamite dialogue allows an audience to get to know each and every main character in the picture. Even more amazingly, the characters are never given names (until the very end when two men introduce each other). As an audience member, you will never realise that the characters are nameless. The proceedings are so mesmerising to the point that character names don't even matter.

The central narrative of 12 Angry Men focuses on a jury's intimate deliberations on a capital murder case. The case concerns a teenage Latino accused in the stabbing murder of his father. The defence and prosecution have rested, leaving only the jury to contemplate the facts and reach a verdict. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. To the inexpert eye, it seems like a straightforward open-and-shut case: the defendant has a weak alibi, the key body of evidence points to the defendant's guilt and eyewitnesses have come forward, claiming to have seen the murder taking place.

Rather than chronicling the happenings of the trial and the pomposity of the attorneys, the film commences as the jurors are being released into the deliberation room. This sole location is where the film will remain for almost its entire length. As the twelve-man jury file into the cramped jury room of a hot afternoon, the men seem willing to take the case at face value and lock in the "guilty" verdict. The men are more concerned with getting to a ball game on time, and aren't even prepared to spend five minutes discussing the matter. However, the guilty verdict can only be reached if all twelve men agree on it. During the initial vote, eleven vote "guilty" whereas one member of the jury (Fonda) opts for the "not guilty" verdict. After the customary disparaging "there's always one!" comments are elicited, this juror begins to defend his decision: the boy may be guilty of murder, and probably is, but there is a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt to consider the "not guilty" verdict as the more appropriate decision. The rest of the film follows the escalating apprehension in the room, and the conflict between the jurors as they endeavour to reconcile their divergent beliefs concerning the guilt of the defendant.

In this day and age, 12 Angry Men is a forgotten gem overlooked by the current generation of movie-goers who tend to view the latest action/adventure flick in lieu of the classics. This is also a film with a fairly unexciting premise. It's also fairly offputting to set an entire film in the confines of a single room! Only three minutes in the film's 96-minute running time transpire outside the jury room. Needless to say, it'd take a filmmaking team of remarkable skill to achieve the desired result. Director Sidney Lumet was up to the task. He managed to have this film in the can after only 21 days of shooting! The director employed a number of subtle cinematic techniques to enhance the claustrophobic atmosphere of the jury room. As the film progressed, the camera levels kept descending. At first moderately higher than eye level, the camera steadily moves downwards to below eye level. In addition, the initial stages of the movie were achieved using wide shots. The shots progressively move further inwards as the film draws closer to its enthralling conclusion. Different lenses were also applied to elevate the claustrophobia levels. This approach serves the film well. One can almost feel the heat of the non air-conditioned room and the intensifying emotions of the jurors.

"Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?"

Lumet does a commendable job of building tension. The director also manages to deal effectively with the social issues (including racial bigotry) which arise in the course of the heated discussions in the jury room. Lumet accomplishes a dreadfully gruelling task here; by sticking to the format of the play and allowing almost all the events to transpire within one room, while still managing to keep things fresh and rattling along at a brisk pace.

The film's script explodes like twelve sticks of dynamite. Snappy dialogue and realistic human depictions are the highlights of the screenplay. It's also a multi-faceted tale, unfolding on various different levels. On the first level it's a mystery. The interplay between the jurors throws up several feasible scenarios for the crime. Although differing theories as well as inconsistencies in the official statement are raised, we're left to draw our own conclusions. On another level the film is a deep scrutinisation of human character as revealed by the actions of the twelve grouchy men in dealing with their dilemma. On top of this, 12 Angry Men is a study of the failings of the justice system which relies on imperfect human beings to determine its outcome. These small-minded humans are left to judge who should live and who should die. The film acts as a worthwhile reminder that our justice system is based upon the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and that all have the right to a fair trial. The suitably idealistic message of 12 Angry Men is pure and simple, yet it offers so much more. We witness our own personalities as fragments in the twelve jurors, often times letting personal biases and impatience cloud our judgment.

One of the most stirring parts of the film is when the provocative question is asked: "What if it were you that were on trial?" If my life was in the balance I'd hope a juror like Henry Fonda would be sitting in the jury box. It's disturbing to contemplate the fact that so many men are willing to dismiss the case within five minutes because of other priorities on their mind. What about the poor boy whose life is in question? What if he isn't guilty and is consequently executed on false charges? It's easy to put oneself into the place of both defendant and juror, which demonstrates the potency of both the story and the performances.

Henry Fonda leads the cast as the juror who reminds us that we shouldn't be afraid to go against the herd. His character opposes the opinions of eleven others! The cast is a powerhouse. All twelve members of the cast (there are a few other minor cast members, but they aren't on screen for any more than a minute each) are impeccable. They bounce off each other's lines naturally and credibly. Each actor is brilliant and serves a purpose. The cast is a mosaic of the typical Average Joes compelled to do jury duty. There are the younger ones, the elderly ones, the impatient ones, the foreigner, the old crone, and the smart one. Just simply sit back and enjoy the scorching performances of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fleder, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec and Robert Webber.

"Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution."

12 Angry Men has been classified as a "legal thriller". It's also known as a courtroom drama. Sidney Lumet's directorial debut is a sizzling courtroom drama done right: easy on the courtroom, heavy on the drama. Lumet went on to make such films as Dog Day Afternoon, Network and The Verdict. Not many of the world's greatest directors can boast a debut of this quality. Not even Alfred Hitchcock got it right the first time...neither did Steven Spielberg or George Lucas or Martin Scorsese. Even M. Night Shyamalan tried unsuccessfully before receiving critical acclaim with The Sixth Sense. 12 Angry Men is a lesson on the perfect film debut. No first-time director has ever done it better. 12 Angry Men is a masterpiece. It's an engrossing film that consumes you in its happenings. Filmed in less than a month on a measly budget, this shining example of efficiency has held up amazingly well for more than 50 years. I consider this an absolute must-see movie that's being overlooked far too often.