Films I Own... [on DVD]

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).

"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).

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"Tell them our time has come! Our time has come!"

It is not too soon for United 93; this powerful, brilliant and emotional drama that recounts the tragic events that occurred on that day in 2001. This film is not a Hollywood production, this film is not an action film, this film is not one that you just watch and enjoy...this film is a realistic, emotional and plausible depiction of that day. The film does not depict the terrorists as villains - there's no need to do that. Like everyone else in the movie they are people of ordinary appearance, going about their business. United 93 is incomparably more powerful because it depicts all of its characters as people trapped in an inexorable progress toward tragedy. The movie contains no politics. No theory. No personal chit-chat. No patriotic speeches. We never see the big picture.


We begin our story when the passengers of United Flight 93 board the plane, not knowing of the impending danger upon them. We travel through the stages in control towers from the beginning of the threat when the hijacking of the first plane was a mere myth - no-one believed it. Then as time moves on they watch the television as the heart-wrenching events unfold, and the hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center. When they show the footage on CNN of the second plane hitting the WTC I felt like I was back in that day again when for the first time I heard about the events. The horror and terror that struck me at that moment when I heard about the tragedy. The film flies (no pun intended) from the plane to air traffic control towers and military firms and shows the conflicting views that came in and confused the US public.


The director Greengrass has made a terrific decision to deliberately use almost complete unknowns as the part of the passengers, so instead of using a well-known actor, he uses unrecognisable ones. And that is the touch that makes the film so special. The way the film is made puts us directly in the events. The lighting, the camera angles, the depiction of the characters, the editing, the sound mix, the rare usage of music; all these assist in the allusion that we are there on that day again. And to achieve that in a film is nearly impossible, but Greengrass has done it perfectly.


Like I have already said this is not a mindless Hollywood action film. Hollywood is overzealous and unbelievable; this film is just realism and doesn't stretch the truth to make money and to make a film to watch over and over. The only other films that do this properly are mainly Spielberg films. Look at Schindler's List or Munich; they are both films like this - they tell true stories and do not exaggerate the true events of what happened. Of course what the people did aboard the plane to fight the terrorists was made up, and they had to guess what happened; but they made it plausible, extremely possible. It's not like one of those silly films when they just chuck in a few things just to make it look cool and to sell popcorn, it's one that throws out a completely plausible guess of the events aboard the plane.


Overall this is a terrific film, one that should not be missed.

"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.

"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).

"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.

"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.

""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.

"E.T. phone home..."

I don't know if it's possible, by any stretch of the imagination, to find Steven Spielberg's E.T. anything less than a perfect movie. The whole experience completely blew me away, and just the thought of this movie being made almost 30 years ago makes the film seem even more amazing.

The whole movie has not dated one bit. Every time we see that little fat alien it never looks fake - not even for a second. For the whole time he looks incredibly real, without any hint of flaws at all. The whole story is classic, and the whole experience is filled with moments of true nostalgia.

E.T. is the tale of a little ugly-but-loveable alien who comes to Earth with others from his species. But as the government arrives at the scene, the aliens pack up and leave...inadvertently leaving behind one of their own. The story then turns to a young boy named Elliot (Thomas) who lives with his family. In a bad state of mind because of the recent divorce of his parents, Elliot is having trouble coping. But one night his whole life is changed when he finds the little alien in his garden shed. Of course, no-one believes what he saw...until Elliot decides to bring the alien into his home and harbour him from the harsh world that surrounds them. But the government have not called off their search for the little extra terrestrial they know was left behind, and now know where he is hiding.

E.T. is a film filled with incredible power. With each new film Spielberg sets the bar even higher with his new state-of-the-art special effects and innovative concepts. Spielberg conceived the whole concept himself, and this only heightens my respect for the man. His directing is always done to perfection. He knows how each shot will play out, and must reach perfection before the film's completion.

And John Williams' score...was absolutely flawless. The music gave me goosebumps because it was so powerful, and it still gives me goosebumps every time I watch it. The power of the movie never wears off no matter how many times you've seen it. If anything, it's more powerful with each new screening. The score is triumphant, inspirational and poignant.

The whole sound design was amazing. The little alien sounded so oblivious and innocent, and his tone of voice is so gorgeous not to mention adorable.

Performances are loaded with power. Young Henry Thomas, star of the show, carries the film incredibly. He's a young actor, but he can't be flawed in terms of acting skills. He had me in tears. It was interesting seeing young Drew Barrymore in the cast. She's still a young girl and she looks so delightful.

Almost 30 years on, E.T. is a film that still captures the hearts of contemporary audiences. It stands the test of time and is a true classic. I was in tears for the whole movie, and you will be too - in terms of both sadness and the poignancy of the experience. Do not miss this one or you will be passing up one of the greatest films of all time.

"She says the jungle... it just came alive and took him."

There was a period back in the 1980s when Arnold Schwarzenegger ruled Hollywood. He was the ultimate action hero, and it didn't matter in the slightest that he was a one-dimensional actor who favoured snappy one-liners over Oscar-worthy dialogue. Whether he was the action hero in Commando or the villain in The Terminator, "Ah-nuld" was a force of star-power to be reckoned with, and movie-goers flocked to see any of his action films. 1987's Predator is simply the perfect '80s movie, offering an amalgamation of the three most popular mainstream genres of that decade: action-adventure, horror, and science fiction - and it's a Schwarzenegger flick to boot. All of these components are mixed up to form this heady brew of violent action, macho posturing and ridiculously quotable dialogue, which is all set at a breakneck pace.

At its most basic narrative level, Predator is your usual men-on-a-mission movie (think The Wild Geese or The Dirty Dozen) with added flourishes of horror and sci-fi. At the beginning of the film, Dutch Schaefer (Schwarzenegger) and his battle-hardened squad of elite commandos begrudgingly accept a mission set by the CIA to rescue a group of political hostages from guerrillas in the remote jungles of Central America. The assignment seems simple enough, but shortly after rappelling into enemy territory, Dutch and his team get the feeling that something isn't quite right. Not only have they been set up by the CIA who in reality wants them to recover military intelligence, but there's also something lurking in the jungle...a creature from another planet watching their every move. As the men head to the extraction point, they are slowly targeted one by one...

The rest of the movie sustains a skilfully realised dance between the increasingly desperate commandos (who are stripped of their physical and military superiority, and must resort to any trick in order to stay alive) and the titular Predator (who mixes futuristic technology with a taste for sadistic rituals). The fact that the Predator never gives a reason for its presence on Earth makes its hunting far more ruthless. Moreover, this creature has no voice and it can't be reasoned with - it's a hunter; pure and simple. And it slaughters the commandos for no reason other than it wants to. Unsurprisingly, the movie eventually boils down to a mano-a-mano standoff between Schwarzenegger and the Predator, with the stakes more equal when Dutch discovers an invisibility method. At this point Predator announces its affinity for all things primeval, as Dutch has to reach deep inside himself and become a primordial warrior stripped of all guns and armour. The battles between Dutch and the Predator are highly exciting, and have been bestowed with an element of danger rarely felt when Arnie is typically dodging bullets - he's far more vulnerable when pitted against this strong otherworldly entity. Predator is a rare film in which a viewer gets the sense that something might just defeat Ah-nuld.

A huge part of what makes Predator such a top-shelf action flick is that it never stops charging ahead. There's a refreshingly uncomplicated plotline in place which is never dragged down by sprawling back-stories, rambling chunks of exposition or gratuitous distractions. Dutch and his commandos have a hell of a lot of personality, and the screenplay (credited to Jim & John Thomas) doles them out without ever stopping to catch a breath. The lulls in the action are always filled with something: mistrust, pig-sticking, pussy jokes, the nagging sense that something's not quite right, intense character interaction... The pacing never has the chance to drag. On top of this, Predator is one of the most quotable films in history (not far behind Arnie's Commando) - "If it bleeds, we can kill it"; "Get to the choppaaaah!"; "I ain't got time to bleed"; "You're one ugly motherfucker"...the list could keep going, but you get the idea.

This was director John McTiernan's second film, and his work here is brilliant. McTiernan has become famous for generating tension and suspense using confined locations, and for Predator he certainly uses the steamy jungle to great effect. His direction is claustrophobic and assured; confidently staging amazing action while also concentrating on tension and atmosphere. The jungle itself plays a crucial part in the proceedings, and it's wonderfully photographed by Donald McAlpine. Then there's the Predator itself. Despite being little more than a man in a suit that bleeds highlighter ink, it's a marvellous creation engineered by effects maestro Stan Winston (with some input from James Cameron). Played by Kevin Peter Hall (who stands an imposing 7'2"), the Predator is an unnerving combination of insect, reptile and professional wrestler. The creature effects are immaculate, with the invisibility camouflage optical effect still impressing to this day. Naturally, not all of the special effects stand up to this day. But happily, even the phoney-looking effects are still serviceable.

Predator features countless large and in-charge actors. Arnold Schwarzenegger leads the pack. He may not be Hollywood's greatest actor, but at the peak of his career he certainly knew how to entertain an audience. Interestingly, the film features another actor who went on to serve as Governor - Jesse Ventura. The most dynamic action sequences are saved for these two very large men, whose oversized physiques are in full display here.
Two of the most macho African American performers of the 1980s also feature in Predator - Bill Duke and Carl Weathers. Both men submit highly authoritative performances. Sonny Landham was hired for the film under one condition: that he had a bodyguard with him at all times - not to protect Sonny but to protect everyone around the actor (he was prone to starting bar fights). That trivia fact reveals pretty much everything you need to know about the badass Landham. Rounding out the cast is the endearing Elpidia Carrillo as Anna, in addition to Richard Chaves and Shane Black as members of Dutch's unit. This was the film debut of Black, who became famous for his screenwriting. Indeed, Black penned Lethal Weapon, and spent his free time on the Predator set writing his screenplay for The Last Boy Scout.

With its thrilling, high-octane mix of Rambo and Aliens, Predator certainly delivers on its promise of non-stop, energetic action - and it does not disappoint in the macho department. It's cheesy as hell, of course, and slightly dated, but it's also entertaining and cool as hell, with tonnes of quotable lines and an utterly unforgettable villain. Predator is an action movie with something for everyone, and a jewel in Arnie's career.

"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."

"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.

"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...

"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."

"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.

"Tell me something, my friend. You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

When director Tim Burton grasped the reigns of the first serious screen manifestation of the DC Comics superhero, The Dark Knight (a.k.a. Batman), fans were understandably slightly nervous considering the director's little prior experience as a filmmaker. If one inspects director Burton's current résumé, it's crammed with some of the greatest fantasy films of all time - from Big Fish to Edward Scissorhands. However, towards the end of the 1980s he was only commercially recognised for Pee-wee's Big Adventure and Beetlejuice. Tim Burton's Batman marks the first escapade of the illustrious superhero since the incredibly campy 1960s TV show. It was apparent from the outset that Burton's intent was to visibly separate himself from those roots, instead opting to return to the menacing psychopathology of vigilante violence amidst a neo-noir atmosphere with chilling gothic connotations. Burton's amazing vision is a mix of noir mobster clichés with remote psychotic notions that appear to encompass their origins in dreamlike imagery cast over with the compelling spectacle of the legendary Dark Knight. In a nutshell: this makes for equally a visual and an expressive extravagance.

Batman introduces an innovative interpretation of the renowned character: a traumatised albeit determined vigilante...a spot on blend of hero and anti-hero. The creative team eliminate the embarrassingly atrocious blue tights worn by Adam West in the 1960s TV show (and the campy film): these are substituted with smooth leather, latex and marvellously meticulous body armour. To contrast the dark image of Batman, we are presented with a flamboyant, vivacious Jack Nicholson portraying Batman's arch nemesis...the Joker. The characters are wholly believable as opposed to over-the-top and campy. They are placed where they belong: in a serious film noir. Burton's Batman is a template for the superhero genre that also introduced an innovative formula. This masterpiece gave birth to both the summer blockbuster and the contemporary superhero genre in general.

Bruce Wayne (Keaton) is a millionaire whose parents were killed when he was a boy. Bruce is now residing in Gotham City which is governed by fear and crime. By day he's a bland rich man with seemingly nothing to do. But by night, he masquerades as the Caped Crusader who's an illustrious, albeit mysterious figure. Jack Napier (Nicholson) is a criminal being hunted by the authorities. Following a disastrous encounter with Batman, Jack Napier returns as the Joker who threatens the entire population of Gotham City. The Joker is a brilliant but unreservedly crazy criminal mastermind capable of heinous and unpredictable brutality.

There are countless reasons in relation to why Tim Burton's Batman is a masterpiece of the highest regard. Principally, its brilliance is due to the director's decision to make his production as dark and realistic as possible while still preserving a comic-book sensibility. There's impressive stylised violence that's spectacular but not brutal. The kids will love the film due to its visuals, while the adults will appreciate the film on a much broader scale. It's a daunting task to convincingly pull off a film concerning a crime-fighter in a bat suit swinging from one building to the next in a fictional Gotham City. Burton manages the achievement by making us believe the characters, their ambitions, and even believe in their predicaments. Burton helps us suspend our disbelief by crafting a noir-ish atmosphere reminiscent of the best Hollywood film noirs of the 40s, the 50s and the greatest graphic novels of the 80s and beyond: we are presented with shadowy rooms; gloomy, rain-swept streets; and dark, smoke-filled alleys. This is a towering spectacle that stands as a monumentally creative reinvention of a superhero for the big screen.

The vision of Gotham City is an unparalleled feat. Instead of a typical city setting similar to those frequently seen in America, we are transported to a visual feast that is marvellous to behold. It's like a page of the comic being transported to film. The combination of Anton Furst's production design and Peter Young's set decoration makes everything look truly impeccable. On top of this, the action is satisfying and abundant. People watch superhero films to see their favourite superhero overpowering their adversaries. From start to finish we have a clear-cut villain, and we're rooting for the good guy. Then there's Danny Elfman's invigorating musical score containing a theme as recognisable and as energetic as the Superman theme. Prince also contributed a few songs to the film's soundtrack. Sure, they may sound silly but it adds to the film's perfect tone. One glance at the opening sequence alone and you know it's Batman: a unique labour of love flaunting considerable inspiration and imagination.

Michael Keaton shall always be Batman through my eyes. Burton's decision would have been considered slightly peculiar as the actor was known mainly for comedic roles (like featuring in Burton's Beetlejuice), however Keaton proves capable of pulling off a complicated role. Jack Nicholson is brilliant as the Joker. Granted he's over-the-top, but he nails the character's sinister undertones while maintaining a colourful appearance. His laugh and smile are faultless here. Kim Basinger would probably be considered an odd choice as well. But lo and behold: she also nails her character of the nervous and determined journalist. Also in the magnificent supporting cast you'll find such names as Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle and Billy Dee Williams. Michael Gough is perfect as Alfred. He has a warm feel to his character and it's impossible to imagine someone pulling off a better performance.

All in all, Tim Burton has accomplished a groundbreaking masterpiece with his neo-gothic vision of Batman. The comic has been brought to life in an amazing cinematic event. I remember watching this classic film as a child and adoring it. Years have passed, but I'm still in complete awe at everything about this film. It's perhaps needlessly long and slightly slow-paced around the middle section...still, this is possibly the greatest superhero affair of all time: a groundbreaking visual and aural onslaught that altered the way in which comic book adaptations were viewed. Followed by Batman Returns, and an additional two sequels before the series was rebooted in 2005.

Bob Morton: "What are your Prime Directives?"
RoboCop: "Serve the public trust, protect the innocent, uphold the law."

RoboCop was released during a generation dominated by a studio obsession with futuristic science fiction action flicks. Prior to the release of RoboCop, James Cameron accomplished success with a low-budget old-school sci-fi action film flaunting muscle-bound actor Arnold Schwarzenegger portraying a killer robot in The Terminator. Even before that, there was Blade Runner and Star Wars - so it's safe to assert that sci-fi was the prominently triumphant genre throughout the 70s, 80s and beyond. Orion, the studio that distributed The Terminator, was more than happy to tackle another science fiction action film featuring an unstoppable cyborg...and found satisfaction when the script for RoboCop fell into their lap. The film's screenplay effectively masquerades as your customary superhero film in the same vein as Superman. Underneath it's possible to ascertain a far more complex multi-faceted production that wears several of its inspirations on its sleeves. This includes references to Frankenstein, Dirty Harry, Judge Dredd and Metropolis among many others. With a few similarities to formerly familiar films, the charm of this wonderful action flick continues to elevate.

It's the ideas that swirl around underneath all the action and killing (of which there is a lot!) that make this film interesting. Nevertheless it's an awesome action romp that still works well on the simple level of a superhero who is wronged, transformed, and ultimately rededicated to foiling evil. And of course, some of the robots and weapons are pretty fun - like those enormous cannons that the thugs employ to shoot up the city. The RoboCop firearm is just badass as well! Practically every aspect of the film remains virtually impeccable decades after the initial release.

RoboCop is set in a not-too-distant, non-specific futuristic time frame. The charm of the film is that no specific time period is disclosed. It could be 100 years into the future, or virtually present day. The film's central location is the city of Detroit that is falling apart as a consequence of crime. Police officers are unhappy with their work conditions, and a strike is in negotiations. A private organisation, Omni Consomer Products (OCP), eventually seizes control of local law enforcement to ensure security on the streets. Technicians at OCP begin developing a robot that can uphold the law and work diligently. Subsequent to a disastrous prototype, the technicians instigate a new program - the RoboCop program (therein lies the title) - as a follow-up to sustain the philosophy. When policeman Alex Murphy (Weller) is sadistically slaughtered by a street gang (one of the most brutal executions in film history), OCP technicians use his deceased corpse to manufacture a perfect cop with mechanical limbs and superhuman capabilities...a machine completely impervious to bullets and explosions. The results are highly successful as RoboCop begins abolishing crime in the city. However, RoboCop begins remembering some of his past memories and commences a rampage aiming for a goal of retribution.

Dutch director Paul Verhoeven contributes stellar direction to the production. Originally the director wasn't interested in taking the reigns until his wife talked him into it. Verhoeven seized RoboCop with escalating enthusiasm, seeing the film as a way of making keen annotations regarding the conditions of things in the USA from the perspective of an outsider. He conveyed an unyielding impression of pace and economy...with a few hundred litres of fake blood to compliment the action scenes. In addition to the ingenious creative concepts contributed by Verhoeven, there's the remarkable Ed Neumeier script that takes an enthralling look at a dystopian society of the future. Unfortunately, the film's marginal weakness is in the script. The film will surely be scoffed at by today's audiences. In tradition with typical 1980s action flicks such as those executed with Stallone or Arnie as the film's primary acting talent, the one-liners are badass but laughable. One of the film's principally stand-out features at the time was the work of gifted Rob Bottin who contributes special effects that still retain their 'wow' factor. Sure, some of the stop motion techniques look dated but they are still mighty impressive. The RoboCop outfit looks inspirationally spectacular. If that's not enough, the score by Basil Poledouris is truly wonderful. The theme is awesome! It sincerely delivers the correct messages and constantly portrays a sensation of exhilaration during the action scenes. Memorable themes are persistently absent from movies nowadays, and so it's revitalising to take a look back to when movie music meant something.

RoboCop is supported by an amazing cast! Peter Weller instantly perfects his role from his first line delivery. When Weller is placed underneath the elaborate outfit, all we see is his lower face. The filmmakers were apparently seeking someone with a strong jaw-line. This goal is achieved...and the altered, more mechanical voice sounds fantastic and perfectly suited to the corny lines assigned to the character. Kurtwood Smith is also very impressive as the film's central villain. Like many other aspects of the film, his performance will probably be regarded as laughable. Still, he seems evil and he does evil things. This is the period of the 80s action films in question!

Overall, RoboCop quickly earned a place among my all-time favourite action films. It's an extremely fun action flick that, despite all its predictability, delivers an engaging portrait of a futuristic superhero kicking arse and unleashing a one-man war on the bad guys. A commendable facet of the action scenes is that we can no longer criticise the appalling aiming of those firing at the hero. Instead RoboCop is hit several times...but of course cannot be wounded by bullets or weapons so he is able to continue his tremendous killing spree. It's a rare event to witness an action film of this stature anymore: instead the studios opt for watered down violence and kiddie action scenes to aim for a mainstream audience. RoboCop is everything one could desire from a hardcore science fiction action film. There's awesome production design, abundant action and plenty of opportunities for corny lines to surface while violence unfolds. In a sense it's a futuristic western that also borrows elements from other famous films. This is simply an awesome movie that is worthy of multiple screenings.

"I'm gonna be a day behind you, William. Unless something happens, and if it does, I need a man at the ranch to run things, protect our family, and I know that you can do that because you've become a fine man, William. You've become a fine man. You got all the best parts of me. What few there are. And you just remember that your old man walked Ben Wade to that station when nobody else would."

In this current generation of cinema, hardly any people remember Delmer Daves' classic 1957 western film 3:10 to Yuma that was based on a short story by Elmore Leonard. This is an extraordinarily rare occurrence when a remake actually outshines and surpasses the original in every aspect. In a sense, James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma symbolises a glimmer of optimism for the future of cinematic remakes. For years, Hollywood has persistently remade classic films with completely catastrophic consequences. Mangold's film also signifies a new Hollywood generation for the western genre. In 2005, Australian filmmakers reinvented the genre with The Proposition. Although this film cannot improve on the Australian production, this is a western for the history books. Critics have praised this movie as the best western since Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven (which collected the Best Picture Oscar back in the early 1990s). There can be no dispute: 3:10 to Yuma is a riveting western abundant in underlying psychological messages analogous to those present in the original. Most commendably, this remake avoids replicating the original. As an alternative the script employs roughly 30% of the 1957 film. The rest of the script builds deeper characterisations in the protagonists, and stretches out the plot for a more expanded running time of about 120 minutes (as opposed to the original's 90 minutes). Normally this could be disastrous, however to the credit of those involved the additions don't feel fabricated: they feel natural and completely fitting in this version of the story. Kudos to director Mangold for maintaining the conflict and central spirit of Daves' original, while still managing to accommodate a fairly serious expansion of a terrifically original story.

3:10 to Yuma is a character-driven western fuelled by astounding performances. The seemingly never-ending string of exposition pays off when the action kicks in. These are possibly the most intense, riveting, stimulating western action scenes the genre has ever seen. Mangold has always been a completely focused director; confident and proficient behind the camera, determinedly manufacturing fine results. The technical aptitude is palpable in all filmmaking aspects. Mangold and cinematographer Phedon Papamichael produce the amazing visuals that are assisted and complimented by the accomplished sound mix: ear shattering sound effects for the gunshots amalgamated with silent but effective music composed by Marco Beltrami. The music isn't overbearing to the point of distraction like a majority of modern action movies; instead it's subtle, exciting, powerful and artistic. The production values are a marvel to behold. A modern western will of course appear completely authentic in terms of props and costumes, and this is no exemption. The period is depicted with brutal honesty and an astronomical level of legitimacy. This portrayal will essentially transport you back to the represented time period for the film's duration. The absorbing drama mixed with this authenticity will suck you in from start to finish.

In this remake of the 1957 film, the plot remains virtually untouched. The difference is in the storytelling and the plot progression. Ben Wade (Crowe) is a notorious outlaw with a solid reputation for robbing and murdering. After Wade robs a stagecoach, he is arrested by the law and held prisoner. Rancher Dan Evans (Bale) heads into town to clarify concerns pertaining to the sake of his land when he beholds the closing events of the stagecoach robbery. Shortly thereafter, Evans is offered an immense amount of money to be among those escorting Ben Wade to the town of Contention where he will be placed on the 3:10pm train to Yuma. Once the train reaches its destination, Wade will be incarcerated. Evans' calamitous endeavour to transport Wade to the train station is in part an effort to save his land but also a component of an internal conflict to determine whether the man can prove to be more than a mere naïve rancher in the eyes of his impulsive and gun-slinging young son William Evans (Lerman). The transport to the town of Contention is perilous and overflowing with ambushes by Indians, pursuits by Wade's rancorous gang and Wade's personal manipulative and surreptitious conduct that makes the journey far more intense.

As I previously stated, 3:10 to Yuma is driven by the remarkable performances from an outstanding cast. Russell Crowe proves that he is still among the greatest actors of this generation. Crowe makes the role of Ben Wade his own. The character is endowed with additional depth in this remake, as opposed to the slightly underdeveloped outlaw in the original. Christian Bale also brings tremendous depth to the character. His version of Dan Evans is a lot stronger than the Van Heflin portrayal in Daves' 1957 version. There's excellent hostility leading to chemistry as Bale's humourless stoicism is jabbed for feebleness and mercy by Crowe's jovial, joking outlaw. Character notes are sufficient - like Dan's necessity for the approval of son William, and Ben's early abandonment - for a density that compels us to be concerned. The taut script never bogs in unnecessary analysis or sentimentality. All characters are pampered with the brutal reality from the period.

Both Crowe and Bale submit dynamite performances and execute a fine job of playing cowboy. Each actor creates depth to his character, and when you insert convincing western action, intelligent dialogue, and elegant cinematography it produces a strong western film for the ages. It's interesting to note that the evil is not drawn from Crowe's Ben Wade. Instead, Wade's motives are kept clouded with mystery until the finale while hinting that there might be a heart in him after all. The evil in the film is drawn from Ben Foster's Charlie Prince: a man who leads Wade's gang to the town of Contention for the irrevocable final stand-off. The brilliant acting never permits you to grow bored. The film is gripping and stimulating, eventually ending in an ultimately perplexing conclusion that avoids duplicating the somewhat conventional conclusion offered in the original.

Overall, 3:10 to Yuma is an extraordinarily rare event when a remake is superior to the film that spawned it. Delmar Daves' 1957 flick is still a brilliant western on its own merits, whereas James Mangold's remake improves the original in every aspect of filmmaking. 3:10 to Yuma is one of the finest westerns of this era. It's indeed an infrequent event when two groundbreaking westerns are created in the course of a few years - in this case The Proposition and 3:10 to Yuma - that rival the last truly brilliant western that was Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. Perhaps this film represents a new Hollywood era for westerns. The filmmakers remind the audience that westerns are about old-school, gritty action scenes built around some amazing character development. This film is simply far too brilliant to miss: an enduring story that offers first-class acting, heart-racing action, mind-blowing stunts and filmmaking of the highest order.

"Well, the street seems to be clear and everybody's going inside. I guess they figure a storm is blowin' up, huh Dan?"

3:10 to Yuma maintains the tradition of brilliant 1950s westerns. People such as Gary Cooper and John Wayne materialised as the luminaries of the genre. Cooper is still affectionately remembered for his striking performance in High Noon, whereas John Wayne is chiefly remembered for such films as The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In amidst all this Hollywood enthusiasm with the genre, Delmer Daves came into the spotlight with this riveting western: a deep, challenging character examination revealing strength of character, deception, allegiances and treachery. The film presents itself as a sombre scrutinisation of the temperament of intrepidness in a simple, mundane man in control of a dangerous outlaw. This film is primarily a distinguished psychological drama executed in the claustrophobic location of a hotel under mental and physical siege. It concerns two unreservedly contrasting characters locked together in a secluded space where director Daves' camera shifts incessantly on their course of action. Daves' 3:10 to Yuma is a terrific blend of subtle psychology and action with taut editing. Although the pacing is sluggish, there is never a needless frame present. Every scene is imperative for the development of the characters and the plot in the lead-up to the final, intense stand-off.

The story is concerned with infamous figure Ben Wade (Ford): a notorious criminal who commands a fierce loyal gang of outlaws. After holding up a stage coach that results in the murder of two men, Wade is eventually caught by the authorities. Small-time everyman rancher Dan Evans (Heflin) witnessed the crime at the stage coach but did not desire to get himself caught up in the crimes that unfolded. However he and his family are in a dire crisis due to a prolonged drought. Evans is in need of funds to continue supporting his wife and children, and the solution presents itself to him: the authorities persuade Evans to transfer Ben Wade to the prison in Yuma. For fulfilling this mission he will be rewarded. Driven by the promise of money and the thought of sustaining his morals, Evans agrees to transport Wade on the 3:10pm train to Yuma (therein lies the title). While the two men await the arrival of a train in a hotel room as the clock slowly ticks by, Wade's gang of cohorts close in on the town. In an isolated room, a battle of wills unfolds between the struggling rancher and the infamous criminal.

3:10 to Yuma flaunts remarkable acting and realistic dialogue. The two protagonists are absorbing when alone in a room together. Van Heflin represents an ordinary everyman trying to do what's best for his community and his family. Unlike John Wayne or Gary Cooper, Heflin is just another bloke who shows vulnerability and weakness. Glenn Ford is outstanding as Ben Wade. The character of Ben Wade is complex: an outlaw and a killer whose motivations are never shown until the unexpected conclusion. The chemistry between the two leads is spellbinding! The dialogue becomes meaningful and clever. Despite being very talky, the story is kept tense and is steadily paced. This is also a deep lesson on creating brilliance out of simplicity. The film is held together by a straightforward, devilishly clever plot. The visuals are especially outstanding here. The authenticity in the costumes and props are a treat for the eye. Also a sound mix that creates a realistic atmosphere. The mournful theme song is also extremely haunting. The film's final 15 minutes turn into a tense, nail-biting climax that is brought to a wholly satisfying conclusion. It's unexpected, and it shows the strength in the characterisations of the protagonists.

Overall, 3:10 to Yuma is one of the greatest westerns of the 1950s. Before Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone, the American westerns were ripe and successful. This superlative adult western draws its mesmeric drama and power from the interaction of well-drawn characters rather than gun-blazing action, which is still impressively filmed and laced with outlandish stunts. They just don't make westerns like this anymore. Highly recommended! Remade in 2007.

Captain Stanley: Now, suppose I told you there was a way to save your little brother Mikey from the noose. Suppose I gave you a horse and a gun. Suppose, Mr. Burns, I was to give both you and your young brother Mikey, here, a pardon. Suppose I said that I could give you the chance to expunge the guilt beneath which you so clearly labour. Suppose I gave you till Christmas. Now, suppose you tell me what it is I want from you.
Charlie Burns: You want me to kill me brother.
Captain Stanley: I want you to kill your brother.

The Proposition is an artistic tale of disloyalty, honour, rituals of violence and familial bonds. Not only does this gritty film accomplish a new standard for the western genre (previously shaped by Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns and other such films as Unforgiven and The Wild Bunch), but it additionally inaugurates a new era of Australian filmmaking. The Proposition is a peculiar film that can best be described as a beautiful nightmare mixed with an absorbing character examination and some unconventional underlying messages. Nick Cave, the famous Aussie rocker, wrote the screenplay as well as assisting in the creation of the powerful and evocative musical score, with John Hillcoat at the helm. In a nutshell: this is one of those westerns you will either love or loathe. It is a strange, unsettling film that is both gratuitous and relentless - exactly the tone of the period in which it is set. Some people criticised the strong explicit violence; however I find it necessary to underline the strong moralistic message that stimulates the film's proceedings.

The title of The Proposition refers to a significant facet of the film's plot: a facet that virtually fuels the film for its duration. The typical plot for a western has been transplanted into the harsh sands of rural outback Australia. Mikey (Wilson), Charlie (Pearce) and Arthur Burns (Huston) are three brothers who are prime suspects in raping a pregnant woman and subsequently murdering an entire family. A British lawman known as Captain Stanley (Winstone) is hired by the local Australian authorities to track down the three brothers. At the beginning of the film, Charlie and Mikey Burns lose in a shoot-out to the authorities and are arrested by Captain Stanley. But the supposed mastermind of the brothers, Arthur, is on the loose. Stanley strikes an impossible proposition with Charlie. Basically, Stanley will agree to pardon both Charlie and Mikey if Charlie agrees to venture out into the desert and hunt down his brother Arthur. If Charlie does not return by Christmas Day then young Mikey will be hung by the neck. Either way, one of his brothers will be killed on Christmas Day. Charlie is faced with the gruelling decision of choosing which brother he must sacrifice to save the other.

The plot is straightforward and easy to follow, but at the same time it's also highly effective and embodies tremendous emotional depth. This praiseworthy emotional depth can be attributed to the potent screenplay penned by Nick Cave, the powerful performances, astonishing direction and the captivating cinematography that accurately encapsulates the unsympathetic rural outback. Using beautiful cinematography, the filmmakers present a commendable portrayal of the landscape of the Australian desert. This aforementioned landscape is a character equally as vital as any of the damaged souls wandering through it. The outback is laudably photographed by Hillcoat and cinematographer Benoit Delhomme: it's beautiful yet hostile, recognisable yet alien and ultimately indifferent to humankind. The sands of this desolate area are spectacular to witness. Scorched and sun-blasted - this is the kind of location where awful, violent things are bound to transpire.

The Proposition returns the western genre to its roots by resurrecting classic trademarks. One of these admirable qualities is the equivocations while establishing the heroes from the villains. The three Burns brothers are portrayed as evil, but on the contrary the film explores this facet to be marginally untrue. Charlie in particular is on the road to redemption and this film depicts the change of mindset. This inner journey is a deeply explored, leading to an remarkably potent final shot. The authorities of the genre are stereotypically depicted as the heroes of the film. The Proposition blurs that convention and presents us with a diverse slate of characters. For the most part, the authority figures are shown as brainless and inept, but above all are even more heartless than the outlaws they are currently hunting.

The transformation of locations is another innovative feature in this particular film. Filmmakers have endlessly portrayed the period in different American locations, so when the creative team shifted the focus to Australia they were already breaking new ground. There are many stirring and memorable things about this brutal Australian western, but personally the flies created the most potent effect. Possibly this is for the reason that they're absolutely everywhere; the majority of the film's scenes feature the omnipresent buzzing of hundreds of hungry flies. Whether indoors or outdoors, moving or standing still, it matters not - they're there and you cannot avoid them. Some scenes even highlight the fact that inhabitants of the outback have learned to eat food even if infested with the entire fly population. Their presence is inescapable in the blistering outback wasteland in which The Proposition is set, and that impression of suffocating inevitability is raw, visceral and uncompromising: ultimately an admirable component imperative for the film's success.

Each character of the film is played to absolute perfection. This is an Australian film with British financing, hence a rare instance when an Aussie film contains a cast filled by international stars. Guy Pearce is fierce and haunting in the lead role. We've all seen him in films such as Memento and Factory Girl, and he's tremendously suitable as a typical gunslinger. His character undergoes a subtle moralistic internal journey that leads to an unexpectedly, unforgettably brutal climax. Surrounding Pearce we have a number of fantastic international stars filling the supporting cast. Ray Winstone plays a principal character that is explored powerfully. His character of Captain Stanley does not succumb to the expected hateful authority figure. Stanley is a rational man trying to do the right thing and yet realising that he's hopelessly overwhelmed. Gazing out at the despondency of the desert, Stanley has no idea what will materialise and his uncertainty is where the central plot is constructed. The Proposition sees Stanley trapped in a hell that is partly his own doing and partly circumstance. He asserts his control early and makes his goal clear: he wants to civilise the country. However it doesn't take long before things slip from his grasp. This is especially palpable when he's upbraided by his superior: the commanding Eden Fletcher (Wenham) who's furious that Stanley allowed a prisoner to go free. Stanley becomes reduced to a dumbstruck child, unable to do much more than weep for the destruction of his pride and all he thought was right. Part of Stanley's downfall can be attributed to his desire to civilise the outback and his willingness to strike deals with devils to do so. Although actor Guy Pearce is the lead, I see the story as being more about Winstone's character of Stanley. While Pearce's Charlie confronts his inner demons to achieve a moral awakening, Stanley is also undergoing a spiritual journey as he comes to terms with the destruction of his merits. Danny Huston brilliantly portrays the murderous rage of Arthur Burns and creates a career-best performance. Also in the cast there's a superb John Hurt as a quirky bounty hunter, a unique David Wenham as the aforementioned authority figure, and Emily Watson as Winstone's bride.

Overall, The Proposition is one of the best Australian productions I have seen for years! This is an intense, riveting, wholly gratifying and poignant addition to the western genre that has remained dormant for years. Not since Jim Jarmusch's 1995 film Dead Man have I been this impressed with the genre. Before that, Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. Every generation has its definitive western and, until persuaded otherwise, The Proposition stands as this generation's definitive western. There may be a shortage on action, but it doesn't matter through my eyes. This is a beautifully filmed movie that is both powerful and challenging. The film's climax is particularly haunting. The final shot shows two characters sitting motionless in front of an achingly gorgeous sunset as one asks the other, "What're you gonna do now?" The answer goes unspoken, however it rings clear anyway: sit here and wait for the flies to come take them just like everyone else.

Ted: "Surely you can't be serious..."
Dr. Rumack: "I am serious...and don't call me Shirley"

Airplane! (known as Flying High! in Australia) is cinema's seminal spoof movie. It was decades ago that the capable, imaginative duo of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker (ZAZ) wrote and directed what became, through my eyes, the funniest movie of all time. Up until 1980 when Airplane! was released, Mel Brooks was acknowledged as the guru of movie spoofs - with films like Blazing Saddles to Young Frankenstein under his belt. Apparently Mel Brooks viewed Airplane! and realised there were new kids on the block playing his game, and they were playing his game even better than he once did!

The three creators of Airplane! introduced audiences to an entirely new kind of comedy altogether. It combines sight gags, memorable dialogue and just plain random humour...creating unbeatable results! The film generated its own unique genre of comedy satire. Subsequently this style was to be copied and expanded upon in many different guises, both by its creators and countless others, but alas never again possessing the same freshness and appeal. The distinguishing feature is the sheer number of laughs incorporated into this film...it's almost sufficient to fill three movies! Breaking down just a minute of the film, you can literally find about 8 gags. They say you cannot analyse humour, but au contraire my friends...lo and behold a laugh count of about 500 an hour! Seriously, if you're not laughing uncontrollably by the film's ending you should check into a mental clinic, or get inspected for possible lockjaw.

Airplane! is ostensibly a spoof of the old, cheesy, terribly made 1950s disaster movies. Basically the almost non-existent plot concerns a perilous situation on-board a passenger plane. When a severe case of food poisoning breaks out, the crew are left incapacitated with several passengers becoming violently ill. Former war pilot Ted Striker (Hays) is the only hope for those aboard the plane. He must overcome the troubles with his former wife (Hagerty) and conquer his lack of enthusiasm to save the day. Along the way you'll find spoofs of everything from Jaws to Saturday Night Live. The plot is wafer thin, with no depth or attempt to make it more than just a comedy. The problem with most comedies these days is that they incorporate a bit of drama into the mix, fishing for a movie that amalgamates laughs and drama. The thing about Airplane! is that the creators want to make a comedy and nothing more...no drama, no seriousness. Just laughs and a never-ending flow of them as well. This is comedy done right, and even without much of a plot this is truly a masterpiece.

It's the gag density and the lack of gaps between the laughs that keeps this film fast-paced and thoroughly enjoyable. You will be wanting more when the credit begin to roll...I was certainly thirsty for more and set out to watch more films by the ZAZ threesome. It's not only the thickness of gags, but the actors that elevate this movie. Leslie Nielsen's impeccable dialogue delivery exalts the quality of this film astronomically. Before this film he actually did some serious movies. After this film, his career as a serious performer was destroyed. His deadpan nature can make you laugh just by looking at him. Heck, his introduction with a stethoscope around his neck will add to the already heightened urge to laugh. He steals the show. Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty have great chemistry whenever they feature in a scene together. And their dialogue is faultlessly written.

Airplane! deserves the appraisal and accolades it subsequently received. There are so many laughs included here that you will need to watch the film continually just to notice them all. I've watched the film repeatedly, and I'm still noticing new laughs. This is before sexual innuendo and puerile remarks became the foundation for humour. Maybe that is what's missing from modern comedies. Quite simply, you will never find a comedy that's more original than this! Check it out...immediately!

"Not so fast, my young friend! No-one can outrun their fate."

F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent film Nosferatu is a groundbreaking masterpiece of the vampire genre: a truly fascinating film that is the essential blueprint for all vampire movies that were to follow. Murnau fundamentally gave birth to the horror genre with this silent film from the German Expressionism era of filmmaking. At the time of release, no moviegoers had ever experienced this genre embodied on film. In essence, this film contains all the exemplary vampire components and is still the archetypal vampire movie experience.

The story is based on Bram Stoker's classic novel Dracula, but director Murnau was unable to get the rights to the novel. Not willing to accept defeat, Murnau made 'cosmetic' changes to pass it off as his own creation. However after the film's release, Stoker's widow perceived that it was a blatant version of her late husband's novel and sued the filmmakers. As a result, the studio went broke (this was the studio's only movie) and the settlement resulted in an instigated court order to have all copies of the film destroyed. Obviously, not all copies of the film were thrown onto the fire. Thankfully, a limited supply of original film negatives actually still exist and can still be exhibited. Said negatives (that is, primary copies of the film that were originally distributed in 1922) that survived the fire are now a prized possession among film buffs and cinema collectors.

Recently the film underwent a massive restoration effort: missing frames and missing scenes were collected from all over the world to be inserted back into the final film and create the definitive Nosferatu experience. Over the years, cheap cut versions running at 70 or 80 minutes were common. This restored version runs over 90 minutes and is never boring for a second.

Gustav von Wangenheim plays Thomas Hutter: a successful realtor who works for the town's local real estate agent. Count Orlok (Schreck) from an isolated castle in Transylvania expresses interest in the acquisition of a house in the peaceful town that Hutter inhabits. Hutter is given the overwhelming assignment of travelling to Transylvania to complete the transaction, but as he draws nearer to the castle he begins to comprehend the genuine malevolence he is walking into. Hutter realises that merely mentioning Count Orlok's name is enough to arouse fear and dread in the local townspeople. While Hutter resides at the castle he discovers quite a bit regarding the true identity of Count Orlok...also known as Nosferatu the vampire. Orlok travels to Germany to live in his new house, said journey causing the deaths of all the crew of the ship he was on. As this terror unfolds, Hutter frantically hastens home to save his beloved wife Ellen (Schröder). Little does Hutter realise that Orlok has developed an obsession with Ellen and wants to have her under his spell. To tell you even more would be unimaginable...

This symphony of horror is the original archetypal film. Over the years it has succumbed to rotten spoofs, remakes and retakes on the story. Nosferatu accurately portrays the potency of the fear of vampires throughout the 19th century. Around this time they were portrayed as seductive and were metaphors for transmitting sexual diseases. These prominent sexual themes sparked controversy at the time of the film's release. In the film there is also frequent mentioning of rats and vampires spreading the bubonic plague. Throughout the 19th century, the plague was a tremendous worry (the last massive outbreak of the plague was as late as the 1890s).

The film is crafted to perfection by F.W. Murnau. Behind the camera Murnau's determination was palpable. Whenever the camera rolled, everything in his frame was used to great effect. He employed extreme expressionist angles that effectively create anxiety and intrigue in the viewer.

Max Schreck is one of the most terrifying and ugly screen vampires of all time. Even with modern make-up technology it is an extremely daunting task to replicate the realism of Schreck's animalistic features. When I first saw Schreck walk into frame...I found it difficult to breathe and chills ran down my spine. His appearance is truly terrifying. If you don't find him scary, you're far too familiarised with Hollywood vampires (I'm looking at you, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise among many others). This brings me onto a myth that quickly circulated in the decades following the film's release. Legend has it that Schreck was, in reality, an actual member of the undead - a genuine vampire! Ostensibly, director Murnau was so committed to producing the definitive vampire experience that he was willing to risk the safety of his cast and crew by using an actual vampire. During the production, the crew had to deal with crew-members turning up dead or going missing. This is a fact. Even despite this evidence people can be naysayers on the issue. Everyone can draw their own conclusions and judgements on the matter. The prolific myth will never be confirmed or invalidated.

The supporting cast is equipped with a host of talented actors. By today's standard, bored audiences will just laugh at the exaggerated mannerisms and be annoyed at the titlecards which were used for the dialogue. It's very simple: if you think the acting is bad and that silent movies are boring, stick to Hollywood blockbusters please. I'm sick of the usual complaint of "it's just so old" or "it's very boring". Got news for you - you're part of the "four-minute music video generation" and should never watch an actual masterpiece.

Nosferatu is only for those with the patience to sit through 90 minutes of brilliant cinema history accompanied with a sinister score. Beware: only the recent 2006/2007 restored version contains the actual original music (a new recording of it). All versions before that include the appalling techno version and many other poor orchestral compositions. Do not judge the films score until you've seen the latest restoration!

The film flaunts visual effects that were state-of-the-art when first released in 1922, but the impact has slowly disintegrated over the decades. In my opinion, Nosferatu is a riveting horror film deserving of the acclaim and accolades that were to follow over the years. Some will love it, some will hate it. Personally I can understand why some contemporary audiences dislike the film because of its age. Be that as it may, this is the best vampire movie ever made. In the decades to follow, imitations were very regular in the form of blockbusters made for a quick buck. Even TV shows use the premise of vampires in which to create a new tale of vampirism.

Nosferatu will never be tainted in my opinion. Although today it is regarded as clichéd, just remember that this is a film made before the times of clichés: it was the first horror film ever made! Respect its age! On the whole, the film is atmospheric and compelling. It's simple and not complex, but this quote from director Murnau accurately defends this observation: "Real art is simple, but simplicity requires the greatest art". Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (the original German title that commonly translates as Nosferatu, a Symphony of Terror) is true art that is hard to match. I studied this film extensively in school. Despite this broad study of the film, I never grew sick of its brilliance. It only heightened my respect. I am truly waxing lyrical when I discuss this legendary horror film.

"When you decide to be something, you can be it. That's what they don't tell you in the church. When I was your age they would say we can become cops, or criminals. Today, what I'm saying to you is this: when you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?"

Most people were very sceptical about Scorsese approaching a remake of a highly successful original Asian movie. Personally I really liked the original Asian film Infernal Affairs and was hoping Scorsese could once again pull off his magic.


The Departed is an infinitely better movie than its Asian counter-part in my opinion. I found myself completely engaged in this movie from start to finish. The Departed has all the same key plot points as the Hong Kong picture that spawned it.


For this film Scorsese is not focusing on the usual Italian American gangsters; instead the film is set in Boston where the Irish gangsters dominate the mob and the police. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan; a man on the wrong side of the tracks who has mobster blood in him. Billy graduates from the Massachusetts State Police Academy with plans to bury his mob heritage. But those higher up in the police force have other plans. Because of Billy's background he's the perfect man to infiltrate the Irish mob. Billy is assigned to work undercover (extremely confidentially) and penetrate a group of Irish gangsters lead by infamous Irish mobster Frank Costello (Nicholson). Billy's mission: to acquire enough evidence to have Frank Costello arrested.


Unbeknownst to the police, Frank Costello's protégée Colin Sullivan (Damon) is another young cadet who graduates from the police academy with excellent results. Because Colin reaches a position of such power and importance he is the perfect man to be Frank's mole inside the police. New clues lead to some unfortunate discoveries and both sides soon realise that they're being scrutinised by the enemy. Of course both sides do not desire this close scrutiny; each respective side assigning their mole to discover the identity of the other mole.


One of the main elements of The Departed that made it far superior to Infernal Affairs is that Scorsese takes his time to develop the characters. Infernal Affairs moved so fast and contained cryptic dialogue, hence I had no idea what was actually going on. The characters in that film were also poorly distinguished. With this film, we take a deeply penetrating look at the life of each character. Scorsese is never in a rush to get anywhere. If anything this slow pace made the film a lot more fascinating.


The Departed is an incredible crime thriller that also contains some truly breathtaking performances. Leonardo DiCaprio was an actor I had little respect for. Prior to 2006 he was too much of a pretty boy who gets the girl. With this film and Blood Diamond in the same year, DiCaprio produces his best two performances to date. At the Golden Globes he was nominated twice for Best Actor; one for each respective film. What makes DiCaprio so excellent is his deep and confronting portrayal. Billy Costigan is a profoundly insightful, multi-faceted character. At first he displays professionalism. But when he is put undercover he has become the bad boy. I never expect him to pull off such a stunning portrayal after all his 'pretty boy' roles. Matt Damon is every bit as brilliant as DiCaprio. He shows a wide range of emotions and he never strikes a false note. Jack Nicholson is truly electrifying! He plays Costello with an intimidating screen presence. Like each amazing performance, there is believability and vulnerability expressed throughout the film.


The film's screenplay is fantastic. Heavy drama is balanced out with a high level of violence and bloodshed. When Scorsese wants a character's death to be violent he doesn't hesitate to add endless amounts of blood into a shot. After decades of moviemaking and decades of making the best quality crime films around, Martin Scorsese finally scored an Oscar at the Academy Awards for his extraordinary directing. The film clocks at approximately 140 minutes; however director Scorsese maintains focus and concentration for every frame that appears in the film. It's impossible to fault the filmmaking in any way.


I particularly liked how classy its style is. There's catchy music played frequently, compelling drama and violent action. You know this is definitely a film by Martin Scorsese.


The Departed could be Scorsese's best film. Personally I loved his movies like Taxi Driver, GoodFellas and Casino. Like the films he made beforehand, Scorsese does not disappoint. He continues to remind us why he is the guru of the crime thriller genre. The only drawback on The Departed would be its shocking and depressing conclusion. Although because of the film's nature and style it was almost to be expected.


Overall, this is a thriller you simply cannot afford to miss. Winner of several Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director.

"Houston, we have a problem."

The sci-fi genre has resulted in the release of several absurd space films. You can forget about Hollywood blockbusters like Armageddon, Pitch Black, Deep Impact, Lost in Space, Mission to Mars and several others. Not since Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has there been a real space movie that captures the wonder of space; that captures how mesmerising and stimulating the experience would be. My prayers were finally answered when Ron Howard was given the green light to make this phenomenal film.


In a nutshell: Ron Howard's Apollo 13 is utterly exceptional. Director Howard has been able to meticulously recreate such an extraordinary scientific occurrence in stunning detail that firmly places the viewer inside the spaceship with the men who are in mortal peril.


Apollo 13 is a film that tells a dramatic account of the true danger that three frail humans faced while in outer space when an explosion on board their vessel cast doubt on them ever reaching it back to Earth. When the explosion occurs and the danger becomes real, the scientists back at NASA would not rest until the crew were brought back home safely.


We follow the three protagonists up in space whose lives are challenged, we follow the NASA scientists back on Earth working to bring the crew home, and we follow those on the home front who are worried sick about their loved ones: three different perspectives of the one heart-stopping event.


Ron Howard's direction is just exceptional; because of the skilful directing I actually forgot it was a movie due to its realism and flawless special effects. It's very hard to believe that this film was made when CGI was still in its youth. Of course Howard's direction was also accompanied by a spectacular cast.


The one thing that struck me about Apollo 13 was its striking realism and believability despite an abundance of well-known actors. Tom Hanks emerged as the principal character here. Hanks is one of the world's greatest actors and he is capable of convincingly pulling off any role that falls into his lap. I couldn't think of anyone better suited to this job. His portrayal is both powerful and moving. Needless to say, each and every other cast member did their job to a high standard. Gary Sinise was a particular surprise as one of those present at NASA during the crisis.


I will admit that the film's opening is fairly slow-paced. It demands patience from its audience. Because when the action moves into space it's extremely hard to drag your eyes away from the screen. In space the film is brimming with realism and an engrossing sequence of events.


I thought one of the most significant things that made this movie so brilliant was its spectacular special effects. I have not seen special effects of this high standard since Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Everything was scrupulously detailed: the space ship (both interior and exterior), as well as the interior of the NASA building. The exterior of the Apollo 13 is particularly well executed and almost impossible to fault. For a film of the 90's this high level of quality is extremely rare.


Apollo 13 scores higher than any space-oriented Hollywood blockbuster fluff, and firmly positions itself amongst the best movies ever made. This filmmaking is tremendously close to perfection. Just think that it was only about 40 years ago when the world held their breath while watching footage of Apollo 13's perilous situation in space. If this film was not a true story, I couldn't have believed it was possible.

"I feel like I've been in a coma for the past twenty years. And I'm just now waking up."

American Beauty is a virtuoso, provocative, multi-faceted, incisive and unconventional drama that takes a comprehensive glimpse at the American dream gone wrong. I had approached this movie with a great deal of hesitation. There were reviews aplenty from people who praised this film as a wonderful masterpiece of the highest order. Before watching this film I could never have believed that making a film of such stature and power would actually be possible.


American Beauty is a magnificent psychological drama that takes a satirical at the American community. The characters are versatile and intricate. The movie demonstrates the darkest things of a person's personality. Even though the characters do some truly appalling things the audience can still be involved with the characters because although bad, they are still shown as unexaggerated and human.


Lester Burnham (Spacey) is a forty-something year old suburban father who is depressed and unhappy. He has a wife (Carolyn; played by Benning), who is looking for sexual pleasure elsewhere, and he has a daughter (Jane; played by Birch) who hates her father and falls in love with their new next door neighbour Ricky (Bentley). Lester's job is leading nowhere when his company decides they have to cut back on their staff due to money issues. Lester also becomes fascinated and infatuated with one of Jane's friends; Angela (Suvari). Lester's behaviour drives him further and further away from his family that already detest him. From there, we follow each family member who are on their own emotional journey of life.


American Beauty is an extremely powerful drama carried by some superb performances. The acting is truly amazing with Kevin Spacey in a performance that won him an Oscar. Spacey has the look and feel of your usual stereotypical suburban American father. He may seem conventional but these stereotypes are explored; revealing a personality with a lot more depth and complexity. There are several horrible character traits he exhibits; however it's impossible not to empathise with him. His family drifts away from him and we can genuinely feel his motivations.


The driving force behind the film is not only the performances but the screenplay. Each line of dialogue is intriguing and enthralling. There is never a wasted minute during the film's duration because of how meticulously the dialogue was written; intelligent, fascinating and profoundly insightful.


The direction, which also gained an Oscar, is utterly flawless. Sam Mendes compliments the great screenplay with equally accomplished directing. Each scene is both engaging and meaningful; it gives the audience further insight into the characters that are being examined so deeply. On top of this, it's compelling storytelling as well as being occasionally humorous.


American Beauty is a lot more complex and eloquent than it sounds; it's a brilliant and amazing story that constructs an indication of the sad reality of contemporary American society. I never expected a film like this to be as brilliant as it turned out to be. It's relevant to today's society, it carries a good message about life and it is extremely potent. Winner of 5 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Cinematography and Best Writing.

"I could have killed 'em all, I could kill you. In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it go. Let it go."

Because of Sylvester Stallone's reputation as being the tough, unstoppable action hero (an image painted in films like Cobra, Cliffhanger, and all the Rambo sequels) people have immediately type-cast Stallone as a luminary of the 80's action genre who can't act and doesn't display much depth.

First Blood is something far from a brainless 80's action ride. In fact, it's one of Sly's most intelligent films. Before Rambo the only recognisable action hero would be someone like James Bond; a man who always stays calm and never seems to display any real vulnerability. The character of John J. Rambo is the most unconventional action hero of all time. Rambo shows that he is not invincible - he bleeds, he screams, feels pain and has emotions. This is different to the character featured in the novel by David Morrell of the same name; but in my honest opinion I felt this was a more human image, hence a change for the best.

John J. Rambo (Stallone) is a disillusioned Vietnam vet who has become a drifter eschewed by a prejudice society. Rambo is an ex-Greet Beret and a medal of honour recipient. On a journey to visit an old Vietnam buddy he drifts into a small town where he is made very unwelcome by the local Sheriff Teasle (Dennehy) who doesn't accept drifters in a town that he rules with an iron fist.

Rambo comes into the town looking for something to eat, instead he is turned away. He is arrested for resisting his unwarranted mistreatment. Beaten and humiliated, Rambo utilises his skills to escape and flee into a neighbouring forest where his one man war commences...on his own terms. Using his extensive knowledge of guerrilla warfare and setting traps, the local police force have no idea what they are about to walk into.

First Blood is an unconventional entry to the 1980's action genre; instead of frequent violence and a high body count we instead are shown an engaging, absorbing character study of a man who is pushed over the edge. Rambo is mentally unstable and is still haunted by his Vietnam days. Flashbacks are triggered when he is given nothing but unprovoked treatment from the police.

Unlike most action films, First Blood develops the characters and doesn't focus on the action. Rambo does not want to kill someone unless absolutely necessary. Even after being treated so badly by a discriminatory society he does not wish to start mindless killing and violence.

Stallone is John Rambo. There is no-one else who could possibly play the role. It's like Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones or Bruce Willis as John McClane; a replacement would be futile and offensive. Stallone's muscles aren't exaggerated or bulging. He is a trim man with innocent facial expressions that tell his story. For most of the movie he says very little dialogue; instead staring at someone or yelping in pain. His final monologue is one of the most poignant few minutes of any action movie. It has heart and it helps us empathise with the character. If someone can find an 80's action movie featuring Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren that has heart or soul I beg you to recommend it to me.

Richard Crenna is a fantastic patriarchal figure who was once Rambo's mentor during Vietnam. Crenna's performance is also heart-felt and further allows us to get engaged in the spellbinding personality of Rambo.

The filmmaking in every aspect was fantastic. The lush scenery of the forest gives one the feeling of isolation. And it feels like just your average common town that Rambo finds himself drifting into.

Action scenes were accompanied with taut direction and a riveting score by Jerry Goldsmith. Goldsmith's score is outstanding. The Rambo theme is poignant and powerful. When there's an action scene the music is intense and engrossing. The audience are compelled to keep their eyes ardently glued to the screen. You won't want to miss a second.

First Blood is one of the best 1980's action films that is a perfect vehicle for Stallone to display intensity and aptitude as an action hero. I always find myself captivated and mesmerised, as well as highly entertained. The credibility is sometimes thrown to the wind which is the only drawback on an otherwise superb production.

Even if you're not a fan of action movies, First Blood is a must see movie that cannot be missed. Followed by 3 sequels.

"Believe me, you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head."

Michael Mann struck moderate success with a 1986 thriller entitled Manhunter. This film introduced us to a brilliant psychiatrist/cannibalistic serial killer named Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lector. First played by Brian Cox, the role was then filled by actor Anthony Hopkins.

Based on a novel of the same name by Thomas Harris, The Silence of the Lambs is one of the greatest movies of all time and one of the world's most effective thrillers. If you have never seen this absolute classic thriller that redefined the serial killer genre you have no idea what you're missing out on.

Clarice Starling (Foster) is a brilliant FBI agent-in-training who is assigned to assist in the hunt for a serial killer known as Buffalo Bill who has been kidnapping, murdering and skinning young women. The head of the FBI Behavioural Sciences section Jack Crawford (Glenn) sends Clarice to a mental institution to confide with once-renowned Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lector (Hopkins). It is hoped that Lector will provide a detailed profile of Buffalo Bill and perhaps aid in his capture. Lector only agrees to help if in return Clarice feed facts about her life to his morbid curiosity just for his own amusement.

The Silence of the Lambs is a stunning, taut, intelligent thriller that was an unexpected hit when it was first released. The film also made a successful trip to the Oscars; becoming the third film to clean up the top 5 Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Surely this profitable Academy Awards evening should be enough motivation to warrant multiple viewings.

The Silence of the Lambs is also quite a terrifying experience. It's not the kind of horror you'd find in a typical slasher flick; it's a psychological thriller that makes the audience petrified of the grim characters, and it's played exceptionally well on the underlying modern fear of the lethal human predator with no conscience, remorse or perceived reason. Hannibal Lector looks normal on the surface, but is revealed to be twisted and disturbing on the inside. It's also the macabre images present in the basement of a serial killer that adds to the film's terrifying nature. It will give you the creeps.

The film is also held together by the extremely strong interaction between Lector and Clarice. It's no wonder that both of them received Oscars. Anthony Hopkins cannot be even slightly faulted as the twisted psychiatrist. This was truly a career-changing role of Hopkins. I personally prefer Hopkins as Lector over Brian Cox. Although Cox did a great job, he just wasn't as creepy or spine-chilling as Hopkins' sublime portrayal. It's a close call, though. Jodie Foster's performance also holds the movie together. She always seems so vulnerable with an outward show that suggests a tough-spirited character. Foster always looks somewhat scared whenever she has a conversation with Lector - or even so much as glances at him.

Jonathan Demme's direction is masterful. I'm not sure if it was the direction or the editing - either way, the film is highly suspenseful and effective. Especially towards the climax. Demme keeps the dialogue taut and interesting; receiving engaging performances from the spirited cast.

The Silence of the Lambs is entertaining, smart, effective, imaginative, gory and scary with a high level of intelligence. The thriller genre does not get any better than this!

This is the film that redefined serial killer movies. I have enjoyed viewing this film after multiple screenings and the DVD will continue to be replayed. The Silence of the Lambs can't be missed at any cost.

"Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? They said when you got here the whole thing started. Who are you? What are you? Where did you come from! I think you're evil. EVIL!"

As Hitchcock's career progressed, he created some of his finest work. The Birds is a thriller of reference superiority, and is undoubtedly one of Hitchcock's best films.

No-one can match Hitchcock when it comes to sheer suspense and terror, and this film is no exception. What I admire most about Hitchcock is that he's never afraid to attempt a new style of thriller - in this case making a thriller sans music. There is not a single note of music throughout the movie, and because of Hitchcock's inspirational direction you will be too engaged in the terror to actually realise this. Not many directors can accomplish this degree of suspense and horror without the assistance of a composer, but Hitchcock proves skilled in this aspect.

Melanie Daniels (Hedren) is shopping in San Francisco when she meets potential boyfriend Mitch (Taylor) in a petshop. After Mitch leaves, Melanie is intrigued by Mitch and decides to pursue him in the hope of a probable relationship.

Melanie follows him to an insignificant North Californian town. Shortly after this, Melanie is swooping by a seagull and what follows is a bizarre set of circumstances as our allies from the sky begin attacking humankind.

The Birds is a PG rated suspense film, but it can only be viewed by those game enough to sit through some terrifying horror scenes that are even effective despite the age of the movie. Many may look upon the film as dated, but Hitchcock's direction is still as effective as it was when the film was first released.

And of course the cast were all first rate. They are able to instil a sense of sheer terror from their acting whenever a flock of birds appeared on screen. Many will think that the birds look corny and a remake is necessary (Michael Bay is currently gearing up for the dreaded remake), but the film was never about the quality of the special effects (that are fantastic nonetheless). The cinematography and just the image of a flock of birds is what made the film so scary. It will keep audiences on the edge of their seat, without a clue about what will happen next.

Based on a short story, Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds is an outstanding thriller. Probably considered tame by mainstream contemporary audiences, but I found the film to be almost flawless.

What I also admire about Hitchcock's work here is that he was bold enough to tag the film with an uncertain ending. At first I found this unsatisfying. But upon closer inspection I discovered that Hitchcock used this effect to create the impression of "unending terror" (direct quote from the man himself). The story of the main characters finished at the end of the movie, and it was a best place to end it.

Perfect suspense, skilfully constructed, and the film is so unbelievably intense that you will never look at a flock of birds the same way again. Classic Hitchcock!

"Sometimes it's easier livin' the lie."

Catch Me If You Can is one of Spielberg's best films of late. The whole film is told with a very bright, charming atmosphere accompanied by great filmmaking in every aspect.

Based on the real life story, Leonardo DiCaprio plays teenager Frank Abagnale Jr. who runs away from home at a tender age of 16. After the bitter divorce of his parents, Frank can't deal with the emotion and flees his home in an attempt to escape what is happening. But Frank soon discovers that he has very little funds to keep him going, and realises that he can pose as someone employed in a high class occupation to get him a nice fat paycheck.

Before Frank reaches his 21st birthday, he proceeded to impersonate a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer and became a dab hand at forging cheques and making millions in the process. Tom Hanks is FBI agent Carl Hanratty who is assigned to the case. Over the course of many years, Carl chases Frank in an attempt to bring him to justice for his brilliant crimes.

The film's running time hinges on the lengthy chase that ensues when Carl is chasing Frank who appears to be one step ahead all the time. Many may complain about the running time, but I was engaged in the film from start to finish.

Spielberg's direction makes for a fascinating visual feast for the eyes, and John Williams' jazzy score creates an audio feast for the ears. The style of the film has yet to be matched in a film of this genre. Because everything is done to perfection there are little flaws, and hence an astronomically high entertainment value.

From the cleverly animated opening credits that set the atmosphere right up until the brilliant conclusion, I was hooked.

Leo DiCaprio was a great choice for the title role. Although I'm not an overall fan of the young fellow, I felt that only Leo could pull this one off. Tom Hanks is exceptional as an FBI agent.

Catch Me If You Can is a high energy romp that is truly one of Spielberg's best films in recent years. It will surely provide great entertainment for a rainy afternoon or a boring evening.

"Get off my plane!"

Air Force One is nothing short of being one of the greatest action thrillers I have ever seen; its combination of a plausible plot, interesting characters and plenty of plot twists with stunning action makes for one hell of a great night out at the movies.

Air Force One also holds the position of one of my all time favourite action movies that I watch it frequently and never get sick of. I'm not sure what it is, but the film really engaged my attention and has continued to do this with each new viewing.

The President of the United States, James Marshall (Ford), recently authorised a strike force to kidnap the self-declared President of Kazakhstan; General Radek (Prochnow). Because Radek was threatening use of nuclear weapons against other countries he became a high priority target.

After Radek's capture, U.S. President James Marshall delivers a bold statement at the celebratory dinner before heading to Air Force One for his flight home. During the flight, a group of renegade Russians (lead by Gary Oldman) disguised as a news team seize control of the plane; effectively taking all passengers hostage. Their demands for safe release of hostages: for the Americans to release General Radek. The President, on the other hand, is able to elude capture and must utilise stealth tactics to overthrow the hijackers and stop the release of Radek from coming to fruition.

Harrison Ford is a very good presidential figure; he's head over heels better than George W. Bush as his portrayal shows the man as honourable and filled with courage. Gee, if only that could be true in real life. Gary Oldman is realistic, brutal and convincing as the terrorist leader. He has a menacing, authoritative screen presence and demonstrates stellar acting skills. I was oblivious to the actor actually being English in real life. The rest of the cast manage to establish a great deal of intensity; during both scenes of drama and scenes of action.

Air Force One is an action thriller that is both fast-paced and immensely entertaining. There is a whole lot of blood, a high body count and plenty of action. However, I found the visual effects work to be very poor at times - the final destruction of the plane was absurd and unconvincing! When the plane was airborne the effects were fairly impressive but no-where close to perfection.

Despite the flaws, this film achieved what it set out to do: entertain. Air Force One is a popcorn action film that still contains the clichés and conventions, but it is still a mighty entertaining experience.

"Life will find a way."

Jurassic Park is a truly amazing movie, and one of Spielberg's true masterpieces.

Although made over a decade ago, the special effects still look phenomenal and fundamentally flawless to this day. The powerhouse effects make the dinosaurs live and are truly breathtaking at times.

Based loosely on the novel by Michael Crichton, billionaire John Hammond (Attenborough) creates a remarkable theme park on an isolated artificial island filled with real dinosaurs that have been brought to life using huge advancements in state-of-the-art scientific technology.

Hammond invites a group of special guests to the island for a weekend, to show them the park and hopefully get their stamp of approval. But on the first night a security breakdown is succeeded by the dinosaurs escaping their enclosures and roaming free around the park. What starts as a pleasant weekend becomes a race for survival.

Jurassic Park is a groundbreaking production. Never before have we seen dinosaurs with this degree of realism, and never before had audiences witnessed dinosaurs that look so breathtaking. The special effects are still almost impossible to fault. And even with CGI in its infancy, it still looks fantastic on screen.

The film is a definitive blockbuster and still one of the greatest movies ever made.

As a child of the 90s I still remember watching this film constantly and even now I love the film as much as I did when I was a youngster obsessed with dinosaurs.

Sam Neill is an amazing actor and was the perfect choice for the role of a palaeontologist. Jeff Goldblum was also extremely good. As one of my favourite characters, I always found his performance to be fantastic.

It would take a long time to mention all the members of the tremendously good cast, needless to say they all did a remarkable job.

John Williams' evocative score, including the memorable theme, is also hard to fault. It gave the film its 'wow' moments, its exciting moments and its tragic moments. Williams is a composer who knows his stuff very well and is without a doubt one of the greatest film composers of all time.

It goes without saying that Spielberg's direction was phenomenal. The man has a clear vision, and knows how to accomplish it.

Jurassic Park is a much loved screen gem and a sensational experience. For those of you yet to see it, do not hesitate to get your hands on a copy. Followed by The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

He chose you, honey! From all the women in the world to be the mother of his only living son!"

Roman Polanski's classic horror film Rosemary's Baby is the best and most terrifying supernatural horror film of all time bar none.

This movie is an example of the horror genre done right; there are spine-chilling moments, satanic images and horror themes that will stay with you forever.

A young couple named Rosemary (Farrow) and Guy (Cassavetes) move into a new apartment in the city of New York. The couple have plans of raising a family there, and start trying for a child.

But the two soon meet an elderly couple living in the same building who seem peculiar but caring. When Rosemary ends up pregnant, Guy strikes a deal with a group of devil worshippers unbeknownst to his wife. Rosemary's pregnancy is plagued by troubles - odd pains that last for extended periods of time, ill health and lack of good advice from the people around her.

Slowly, and surely, Rosemary learns to realise that she may be having the son of Satan.

Polanski has made this film nothing short of perfect - the film is effective, terrifying and spine-chilling. Some of the satanic images and black magic rituals will leave you terrified...and towards the end it's impossible to feel bored or to tear your eyes away from the screen.

The themes of witchcraft and devil worshipping are the icing on the cake. Mia Farrow's performance was astounding. It's obvious that she put everything she could into portraying such a pivotal character.

John Cassavetes is just brilliant here as well. He is able to play his character so well and believably. Both Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmer are superb as the very strange neighbours.

Rosemary's Baby is unmissable for any horror fan. It's incredibly creepy, atmospheric, eerie, brooding and creates an incredible sense of unthinkable danger.

Heck, Polanski even tops a bunch of Hitchcock's classic thrillers...and this is coming from someone who adores Hitchcock's work. Adapted from the novel by Ira Levin, and basically a modern take on demons and witchcraft.

In a nutshell, it's absolutely unthinkable to miss this movie. It's just an incredible experience and one of the most terrifying movies of all time.

"As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster."

Martin Scorsese is a director who will always be remembered for a long list of classic mob dramas. The beginning of his career was marked with the brilliant Taxi Driver. Since then, Scorsese has continued to produce great quality work. It's a rare occasion if he produces a faulty product.

GoodFellas is arguably Scorsese's best film to date; this slick, fast-paced crime drama is engrossing, captivating and riveting. Before GoodFellas many had regarded The Godfather to be the best mob drama in existence. Since the release of this film, that statement continues to spark debate.

GoodFellas is based on the true story about a gangster named Henry Hill (Liotta). As a teenage local boy Henry becomes part of the mafia. He becomes partners with gangsters Jimmy Conway (De Niro) and Tommy DeVito (Pesci). The film is a tale that follows this certain mafia family over the course of about 30 years; chronicling the rise and fall of Henry and his two counterparts.

Even with its 140-minute running time, GoodFellas is exceptionally told. The film encapsulates everything that should be present in the genre; strong characters, heavy profanity and lots of repulsive violence. Each performance is engaging and compelling with a smart script to boot.

The script is smart and enthralling. The whole film is told with outstanding voice-over narration that gets us into the mind of the character being portrayed.

This could be Robert De Niro's finest hour. His screen presence is brooding and unnerving. Because of his character's reputation there is good reason to fear him. De Niro plays Jimmy Conway as terrifying and intimidating.

Ray Liotta is a realistic gangster figure. At times his bitter anger seems very genuine. He spits out a tonne of profanity during the compelling drama that frequently occurs during the film's running time.

Joe Pesci pretty much stole the show. De Niro may be terrifying, but on the other hand Pesci is the epitome of sadistic gangsters. He frequently swears and cannot hold his temper. Whenever he's in a fit of rage it is quite menacing.

GoodFellas is a film that exposes gangsters for what they truly are - people who preach loyalties, respects and principles. But when it comes down to it they are just a bunch of two-bit criminals that will stab each other in the back for money, power or otherwise. They have an outward persona of being calm and tolerant. Underneath they are capable of incredible rage and are quite detestable people.

Martin Scorsese is very talented when he is at the helm of a mafia drama. His directing makes everything seem so authentic like it's actually happening. Of course this is the beauty of Scorsese's work - that nothing ever feels contrived or staged.

GoodFellas is an exceptional movie powered by remarkable performances and great directing. The R rating truly signifies the film's nature. The profanity levels are through the roof, the violence is off-putting, the experience is unnerving. But despite its ghastly nature the film is a brilliant mob drama. For aficionados of Scorsese or the genre, this is a must.

"Don't go..."

Edward (Depp) lives as an exile shunned from society; an artificial man with scissors for hands. Edward lives in a secluded historic mansion where his creator (Price) lived, working on finishing his creation. But his creator's sudden demise changes this, resulting in Edward living alone and afraid.

That is, until local Avon Lady Peg (Weist) befriends Edward and invites him into her stereotypical suburban community. Edward must navigate a society that is often prejudiced against him because of his uniqueness. While adapting to his new lifestyle, Edward falls in love with a young teenager (Ryder) who develops a soft spot for him. But Edward is not cut out for a suburban life, and severe trouble for Edward's safety is what transpires.

Edward Scissorhands is the crowning creation from visionary director Tim Burton, and is my favourite fairytale movie. The film is enjoyable and exquisite is every sense of the word; Edward feels real, and all other performances add more to the already extraordinary experience.

The performance by Johnny Depp, in one of his first film roles, is probably his finest hour. Not only does Depp do a superb job of bringing the character to life, but he also lets us forget that this is an actor that went on to become a famous figure.

At first I figured Edward Scissorhands to be a weepy chick flick/fairytale...but this is a textbook example of incorrectly judging a book by its cover.

Edward Scissorhands is a film that will always remains one of the greatest films in existence; it's humorous, well made and quite frankly a modern masterpiece. The ending, no matter how many times you see it, will always be a tear jerker because of the sheer power of Tim Burton's storytelling and Danny Elfman's compelling score.

"The core of mans' spirit comes from new experiences."

Sean Penn's beautiful film Into the Wild is yet another masterpiece of 2007 that divides the blockbuster/action lovers from those who seek magnificent filmmaking.

Into the Wild is a gorgeous production affluent in poignant messages about life. The 140-minute film is exquisitely paced and carried by not only the performances but elegant shots that depict beautiful pictures of nature.

The film is based on a best-selling novel by Jon Krakauer that tells the tragic tale of a young man who escapes the banalities of life, leaves his middle-class family and explores the world. Christopher McCandless (Hirsch) graduates from university with fantastic grades. His marks will open up endless opportunities for jobs and careers for his imminent future. But Chris doesn't want to continue an acquisitive life that is orientated by money and materialistic possessions. Instead he wants to travel to Alaska where he feels nature will provide true happiness free of obligation and relationships. Chris donates most of the remaining money of his college fund to charity, burns the rest and hits the road as a dirty hitchhiker under the alias of Alexander Supertramp with the goal of Alaska in mind.

His excursion introduces him to a procession of people whom he becomes emotionally involved with. These people shape Chris' life and are touched by his vigour and dedication that will lead him to his eventual ambition of reaching the wilderness of Alaska. Chris is an inexperienced bushman but is devoted to his belief of finding contentment in the natural world away from a world that relies on wealth and materialistic belongings.

Into the Wild is powerful, riveting and moving. Sean Penn's direction is fundamentally perfect. He wrote the screenplay and transitioned this script to the big screen. The cinematography was one of the first things that really struck me. The colour palette felt natural; showcasing some landscape scenes that are absolutely beautiful to watch. Be it running water, stunning mountain ranges, animals in their natural habitat or the wind grazing the trees; these are all unique examples of accurately showing the mainstream environment of its location. Even shots that show the mundane city or the typical life of suburbia look graceful thanks to the great cinematography and powerful score. The soft guitar music was frequently utilised and it gives each shot a magical feeling to it. The music suits each and every scene it features in; each note was carefully planned out to suit the shot that it's being used for. This care and dedication to on-screen perfection means that the audience can never be bored.

I was never bored in amidst the fascinating events and the engaging story. Emile Hirsch's performance as Chris/Alex is close to Oscar worthy. I will admit that his character was a selfish human being who brought the tragedies upon himself, but Hirsch plays the role faultlessly. Hal Holbrook was nominated for an Oscar for his minor role in the film. He only appears for little time during the final quarter, but the character is one of the most significant in the film. Hal's performance has a heavy, powerful impact on the audience. He almost had me in tears during his important lines that are vital for the advancement of the story. Jena Malone was a stand out as Chris' sister who also delivers lines of narration throughout the film's duration.

Into the Wild is a remarkable tale that is thoroughly engaging and immensely entertaining. Into the Wild is stunning, gorgeous and memorable. It celebrates the extraordinary, tragic tale of an ambitious man who abandons his money-orientated existence and gives up all possible prospects of becoming highly successful in the pursuit of happiness. Highly recommended.

"The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn from the crow."

Dead Man is definitely not a film for all tastes. This stylish production is sometimes difficult to watch due to the grainy black and white imagery, not to mention some of the harsh images of violence and even cannibalism.

Certainly not your average western, we follow a young accountant from Cleveland named William Blake (Depp) who takes the train into a town for an accounting position. Coming into town dressed in a smart suit and carrying a briefcase, he is the odd one out among the murderers and outlaws. But he is informed that he is too late for the job despite pouring every cent he had into coming to the town. After a number of mishaps, William begins to undergo a massive physical, mental and spiritual journey.

William is a young man looking for a steady job, and ends up taking a tragic descent into personal oblivion as he transforms into a wanted outlaw being hunted by numbers of bounty hunters.

To assist in his spiritual journey, William is accompanied by an Indian named "Nobody" (Farmer) who is rich in the ways of his tribe and ancestors. The transformation from meek accountant to hunted outlaw is emphasized by the weight of the wounds William carries, both physically and spiritually. His world becomes increasingly distant and he becomes ever more reliant on his Indian companion.

Dead Man is told with very alluring, unique cinematography and a very certain style. The director's prominent use of fades to cut shots together works exceptionally.

The film is also very ambiguous, told with deliberately slow pacing and performances that wouldn't normally grasp one with a short attention span. This style will not be embraced by modern audiences who crave fast-paced action, but the film will be adored by those who love art house cinema.

The director, Jim Jarmusch, struck massive success with the movie. He was finally discovered with the release of this movie, mainly due to the lead role being portrayed by Johnny Depp.

Depp's performance is sublime. He is able to let the audience empathize with his situation while never looking entirely vulnerable to his surroundings. The transformation of Depp's character was crucial for the success of the movie, and Depp played his role to perfection. If Depp isn't the greatest actor of all time, I don't know how to describe him.

The musical score is good at times, and creates a very haunting atmosphere to compliment the already exceptional visual images. At a glance, many might see Dead Man as one to leave on the shelf. If you crave simple mindless garbage that Michael Bay rolls out, you are correct to leave it alone. But if you are looking for a multi-layered production rich in messages about life, then I suggest you pick this one up without hesitation. I couldn't recommend this any higher.

"Good morning, Dave."

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a truly groundbreaking, unforgettable, incredible science fiction experience unlike any other film you are ever likely to see. Kubrick is a true visionary, and the entire film is a visual feast that will be devoured by the eyes of science fiction fans.

Many filmgoers will look upon 2001 as a load of tripe that is boring beyond belief. While these people are entitled to their own opinion, I still regard the film as a masterpiece of the highest order.

2001 is a vastly unique film that is mysterious, thought-provoking and just immensely fine filmmaking. The special effects won an Oscar for a very good reason, as they present viewers with an astounding vision of the future. The state-of-the-art special effects are still fundamentally impossible to fault; the filmmakers use models, matte paintings and extensive sets. For a film of the 1960's, it most certainly does not feel dated one little bit.

As the movie opens, we are shown the dawn of man; a time when monkeys still occupied the planet. Fast-forward many thousands of years and we are looking at space-crafts in the depths of space. The film mainly centres on the crew aboard a space ship controlled by the advanced HAL 9000 computer (voiced by Rain).

The crew are on a voyage to the moon to investigate a mysterious monolith discovered beneath the surface. The plot is expanded over the film's 140-minute running time, and to be honest I felt that Kubrick wasted no time during the film's duration.

While many will think the pacing is painfully slow, I found the film not slow but fascinating. The visual effects showcase some marvellous special effects that even had me in awe. The effects were created in the pre-CGI days, and yet the effects are still even more effective than much of the CGI we see in modern productions. It's blended seamlessly and Kubrick uses brilliant camera work to further solidify its overwhelming impression. It never seems to be in a hurry to get anywhere; and thus takes its time for maximum impact. Some scenes are merely shots played out to minor voices or heavy breathing. And the conclusion of the movie is simply hypnotic imagery with spellbinding music.

The film was much talked about after its initial release, and it is still widely discussed to this very day. The movie is very mysterious, with multiple layers piled on top of each other to present the audience with the opportunity to make their own interpretation. The magnificence of the filmmaking lies in the fact that the film defies explanation. It's a visual marvel and a groundbreaking achievement in motion picture history because of this very fact.

When I was younger I couldn't understand what on Earth was going on because of how enigmatic the film was. But I've grown to understand that this was the very point of the movie. It was never meant to surround the viewing audience with blatant information, but rather the unfathomable nature lets the audience draw their own conclusions.

The end of the movie leaves a baffling, profound impact on the viewing audience; it's overwhelmingly different, it sets a new genre, it sparks thought. In a nutshell, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a sci-fi masterpiece that cannot be missed. It's provocative, brilliant, fascinating, engrossing, stimulating, enthralling, captivating, influential - and any adjective branching off from those words, as the film wears them all with aplomb. This is by far Kubrick's best work, and is still up there with the best films of all time.

"There are many stories about Michael Sullivan. Some say he was a decent man. Some say there was no good in him at all. But I once spent 6 weeks on the road with him, in the winter of 1931..."

Following Sam Mendes' success with his masterpiece American Beauty, I found Road to Perdition to be a stunning, captivating, brilliant gangster thriller. The film is one of the best additions to the gangster genre of late and places itself in the league of such other gangster greats as The Godfather and GoodFellas.

Tom Hanks is an Irish mob hitman named Michael Sullivan who has dedicated his life to his career. Sullivan feels very distant from his family, especially his children who don't really know what he does for a living. His son Michael Jr. (Hoechlin) is curious, and is challenged by his younger brother to follow their father to work one night. But that night his life is changed when he witnesses a brutal slaying.

Now Sullivan and his family are in danger as the mafia are afraid that little Michael will talk. The film then follows father and son as they flee their home town to avoid the wrath of the men Sullivan used to work for, and to ensure that young Michael does not end up like his father.

The plot is fairly simple and straight-forward, but expanded upon extremely well by the screenwriter. The film does not go on for very long at all when you compare it to the running time of the other gangster classics. And this works because it doesn't waste any time with boring dialogue, but keeps the audience enthralled in the action that is occurring.

But the prominent thing that was vital for the success of the movie was the performances by the cast. Each performance was engaging and vibrant, with Tom Hanks in what could be his finest hour. We have never seen Hanks like this before. He is very sadistic and quite soft spoken. It was in his accent that helped the audience feel so mesmerised by every line that he delivered. Newcomer Tyler Hoechlin was fantastic. He is still a reasonably young actor, but he was able to make the audience feel a sense of intensity during the more thrilling sequences. I was unable to recognise Jude Law in such a unique performance here. Playing a hitman who is sent to eliminate Hanks' character, he feels so evil and so mesmerised by what he's doing. With each line he gives the audience the impression that he's some kind of a mad man. He looks and sounds like a man on the edge, who is usually very calm and concentrated on the task at hand; be it killing someone or photographing a corpse. Daniel Craig was fascinating to say the least. He's not his usual wooden self, but a completely different person altogether. Paul Newman was superb as a mob boss.

Sam Mendes excelled himself in the directing aspect. It was the film's visual style that keeps the audience engrossed for the film's duration. He keeps the dialogue taut, and in the scenes of action (which are very rare, to say the least) he keeps the violence strong and highly realistic.

It was a magnificent creative choice about the dynamic sound design. The gunshots sound so loud and deafening compared to the dialogue or anything else. And hence the dialogue will sound faint, but audible, and then when a gun is fired it sounds so deafening and something we did not expect. The sound is very contrasting to keep the audience on the edge and it does a fantastic job of it.

Road to Perdition is an extremely good movie and will become a gangster classic. The beautiful Oscar-winning cinematography, the focused direction, the engrossing performances and the vigorous sound design all add up to one fantastic experience. Do yourself a favour, and watch it.

" I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five years old..."

The Coen Brothers have had their finest hours and weakest hours, but No Country for Old Men will forever stand as their best hour. The film just manages to beat Fargo (a film which I loved) with its mix of engaging drama and a script that doesn't feel compelled to follow the standard conventions.

The trailers didn't do much for me, and I was a little bit apprehensive at first...but it raked it awards endlessly and I felt like it was my duty to investigate. Boy am I glad that I did. "Do not judge a book by its cover" is all the advice I can give you in this case.

A hunter named Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) stumbles across a pile of dead bodies, a stash of heroin and millions of dollars in cash. After collecting the money for himself, he is endlessly stalked by a madman named Anton (Bardem). Violence and mayhem ensue as the bloodbath commences, and there will be no stopping it until someone is dead.

The plot is a lot more complex and interesting, but I found the film more enjoyable when I didn't know where it was going. Every scene is filled with intelligent dialogue and necessary character development. On top of this, the Coen Brothers have injected their special kind of subtle humour into the mix.

The film is incredibly violent, and some of the scenes are really hard to stomach. But the film is well made, and once the intensity begins it never eases up. During some of the scenes I was on the edge of my seat, with the slightest noise causing me to jump uncontrollably.

The way that the film is constructed and crafted is superb. There is not a scrap of music to be found during the film. Only during the end credits. Without music, we are able to be further engaged in the action, and I think we're more able to feel a certain character's emotions to an extent that can't be beaten.

The ending was something that had me thinking for about half an hour as it felt incomplete at first, but then I realised how clever and unconventional it is, albeit quite sudden. The ending just put things into perspective and kept the story out of standard Hollywood territory.

Kudos to the Coen Brothers for keeping the violence taut, the dialogue worthwhile and the characters realistic. Although I had little hopes for this film, No Country for Old Men is one of 2007's best movies and truly worthy of its Oscar nominations.

"Bring the noise!"

After the great success of the 2004 British comedy Shaun of the Dead it was inevitable that the filmmakers would team up for another spoof. Unlike the brainless spoof films created by the Americans who never have any conception of plot, Hot Fuzz is unique and brilliant. Instead of brainlessly spoofing films while focusing on the laughs, Hot Fuzz is a parody of the action genre as well as an addition to the action genre. There are plenty of clever laughs that improve with every screening, not to mention a lot of high-energy action and a genius amalgamation of every action film cliché under the sun. It would take a very talented bunch of filmmakers to actually make this idea work; needless to say I was very impressed with the efforts of everyone who took part in the filmmaking.

Simon Pegg is a big city cop named Nicolas Angel who has a mighty impressive record during his career: an arrest rate 400% higher than any other police officer, and very skilled in every aspect of being part of the force. Nicolas' jealous colleagues conspire to get rid of him because he is making them all "look bad". And hence Nicolas is reassigned to the sleepy, pleasant little village of Sandford.

He is teamed up with an overeager police officer named Danny Butterman (Frost) whose father runs the local police force. Danny is an eager action movie fan who is desperate to see real action; that is, intense gun fights and high octane car chases. Danny's enormous ego really gets on Nicolas' nerves. But the sleepy town is soon rocked by a number of gruesome deaths that are dismissed as accidents. Nicolas, however, becomes convinced that these people were in fact murdered. As the intrigue deepens, Danny's dreams of explosions, high-octane car-chases, gun fights and all-out action becomes more and more like a reality.

In tradition with Shaun of the Dead, the filmmakers spend plenty of time fleshing out a discernable plot while filling the screen with laughs. Unlike the brainless laughs supplied by American films, it seems the British gags are a lot more cerebral. And it's this fact that moves the film out of the "brainless entertainment" category; instead becoming a damn fine piece of cinema that is also quite groundbreaking and creative.

For a comedy, the filmmakers made no attempt to hold back on high levels of strong gruesome violence during the action scenes. The action scenes were filmed using shaky cam style and quick cuts for the modern action movie-goer. This may be looked upon as a negative aspect, but the point of using this style was to spoof the modern action genre. And it's a lot more kickass than the usual Bad Boys II kind of action scenes.

Hot Fuzz is nothing short of a brilliant movie. It's superb entertainment filled with laughs and jammed with references to classic action films. Although a bit of a slow build up, the final action scene is a no-holds-barred piece that last at least 20 minutes. Even though it's a long action scene, the filmmakers sustain the intensity and excitement from start to finish.

Hot Fuzz is immensely superior to the usual American spoof movies we've seen far too much of these days. The film is creative, enthralling and extremely entertaining. The creators of Shaun of the Dead have recaptured the magic and spoofed another genre. I hope the team spoof another genre sometime into the future.

"Nobody's perfect."

Billy Wilder became forever famous for his classics; Some Like It Hot is one of those memorable, timeless, unforgettable films that has lost very little of its original appeal. Wilder has crafted a risqué, gender-binding comedy rich in sexual innuendo, steamy seductions, and spoofs of gender stereotypes.

The very straightforward plot follows two men; Joe (Curtis) and Jerry (Lemmon) who are simple jazz musicians seeking decent work in Chicago at the peak of prohibition. Soon the two become unfortunate witnesses to a gangland crime and hence are on the gang's hit list. In a hurry to get out of town to avoid being whacked by the mob, they rename themselves Josephine and Daphne, pose as girls and get themselves into an all-woman jazz band as they head on an all expenses paid trip to Florida.

Then a highly hilarious love triangle emerges; the lead singer of the band (Monroe) falls for Josephine (who has posed as a young British millionaire), and an old millionaire (Brown) falls for a very bewildered Daphne. On top of this a bellhop also takes a fancy to Josephine (a very good recurring joke). Sure this sounds like an episode of a daytime soapie, but the story is handled well and the script is superb.

At first I was quite reluctant to watch a movie rich in themes about transvestites; however the first scene when we look at the two men now dressed in drag...had me in stitches and sold the idea. On top of this the laughs emerged fairly quickly.

The two central male (/female) characters were given an array of fantastic lines to deliver. Then when Marilyn Monroe appeared...I was sold. She is certainly in her prime and at her best. She's young, angelic and stunning. It's no wonder she became one of the sex icons of the 20th Century. Tony Curtis displays a vast array of different characters here. In addition to being his actual character, he's also a woman and a young British gentleman. His voices were all done to perfection. I especially liked his British accent. Jack Lemmon is one really fantastic actor. He can be very funny when he wants to. Kudos to the screenwriter for conceiving a perfect character for Jack to work with.

The major stand out here, though, was Joe E. Brown as a perverted old millionaire who wants to marry Jack's character. This sets the stage for the very famous final line that had me laughing for several minutes after the film concluded. With these classic films, it was pivotal to have memorable lines of dialogue such as that.

Some Like It Hot remains an extremely enjoyable romp after almost 40 years. The laughs never get old. Some of the sight gags even had me laughing. I never would have thought that an old film could supply golden laughs.

Some Like It Hot is classic stuff in every sense of the word. It's highly memorable and everlasting; in short, a film you cannot afford to miss. Don't hesitate to pick this one off the shelf.

"Have you recently had a close encounter?"

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a miraculous piece of science fiction cinema, and is unquestionably one of Spielberg's many groundbreaking masterpieces created during his youth.

The film also marks Spielberg's first invasion film, with two other equally impressive invasion films to follow years later. Before Close Encounters, Spielberg had already made a name for himself thanks to his skilful effort in making Jaws two years previously.

Undisputedly among the best science fiction movies of all time, Close Encounters of the Third Kind follows a young father named Roy Neary (Dreyfuss) who lives a general suburban lifestyle with a family and a mortgage. On one night Roy finds himself out driving in the middle of no-where. While in a state of disorientation, Roy experiences a 'close encounter' with a UFO. He strongly believes in what he saw, and what follows is a personal struggle in addition to a descent into madness.

Like most of Spielberg's movies there are lots of absorbing recurring themes; principally, the theme of a neglectful father. Because of Roy's obsession with the strange occurrences with aliens he neglects his family and begins going insane. This is played to perfection by Richard Dreyfuss. The man can act extremely well; he portrays a very likable man despite the characters flaws created by the screenwriter.

The special effects still look absolutely staggering, with alien spacecrafts that look out of this world! The design is flawless and revolutionary, marking one of the first invasion films not to include the trademark 1950's style flying saucers. The use of lights was especially stunning, and the cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is outstanding.

The impressive visuals are accompanied by John Williams' evocative score. The use of choirs during key scenes creates such an exceptional atmosphere and is perfect for use during scenes that showcase such marvellous special effects.

Steven Spielberg, still a young man, put everything he could into this movie. His incredible vision is realised on screen in an inspirational way. The middle section of the movie is tight, but requires patience on the part of the viewers. Because of the fascinating style it's impossible to feel bored.

Of course this invasion film is not concerned with action or the end of the world, but the beautiful bond that mankind can share with creatures from another world. Many criticise the conclusion for the movie, calling it unsatisfying. The ending is perfect and symbolic. I could not think of a better way to finish the already perfect experience.

Close Encounters is a remarkable science fiction film that cannot be missed. Both critics and audiences adored this movie when it was first released, and its original impact still remains. Watch it without hesitation.

"This is the story of Harold Crick..."

Stranger Than Fiction is a film that completely blew me away. Still minutes after concluding my screening I have tears wetting my eyes, goose-bumps covering my body and I am still trying to figure out what I have just experienced.

Before watching this movie I had only glanced at the film's theatrical poster and thus I had no clue as to the plot of the movie. I had no expectations at all and began watching the movie with absolutely no ideas what to expect. In all honesty I couldn't shake off the feeling that it was going to be another dumb Will Ferrell comedy during which he overacts to get some laughs.

But Stranger Than Fiction is none of that. Instead of a no-brainer comedy we are presented with a masterpiece; a heart-warming, touching comedy/drama that is pretty much unbeatable. If you're expecting another Anchorman or Talladega Nights then I suggest you go rent something else. But if you can look past Ferrell's type-cast performance and instead clear your head of all expectations then you will see what a genuinely outstanding film this truly is.

Stranger Than Fiction is filled with originality, fascinating characters and unpredictable twists. Not to mention the film is groundbreaking, innovative, thought-provoking and captivating. I doubt we will see any films of this stature for a very long time to come.

While watching the movie I enjoyed it a whole lot more without any conception of the plot of the movie. And because of this, I must recommend experiencing the movie without any pre-gained knowledge of the plot. I will just tell you that the film is the story of an IRS agent named Harold Crick (Ferrell) whose organised lifestyle is suddenly interrupted.

Stranger Than Fiction is an extraordinary tale that is engaging and enthralling from start to finish.

The first thing that I noticed was the way in which it was created; there's bright scenery, appealing actors, realistic setting and some catchy music to accompany this. The establishing few shots were enough to keep my attention throughout the whole movie.

Will Ferrell is a man I respect because of his overzealous comedy roles. Ferrell is outstanding in a drama such as this. The man is focused 100% and never breaks his concentration. He's deadpan, dedicated, and charming. Ferrell also had me in tears towards the end because of the poignancy of his performance and the way we could actually sympathise with him. Dustin Hoffman is another person one would hardly expect to find in a film such as this. But he is absolutely superb and lets his character live. Emma Thompson has never been like this before, and she will probably never be this good ever again. She seems concentrated on getting her character perfected. The supporting players are a very weird bunch of big names including Maggie Gyllenhaal and Queen Latifah.

Marc Foster was successfully able to set the atmosphere of this movie within the first five seconds. From that point on I couldn't take my eyes away from the screen. And of course Foster's direction was supported by the great music. I loved the music used in this film as it is catchy and it triggers your imagination.

Stranger Than Fiction is a lot better than I originally thought it would end up to be. The film is a masterpiece - pure and simple. I loved it and found it to be one of my favourite movies of 2006. Not to be missed.

"I see dead people..."

M. Night Shyamalan both wrote and directed this phenomenal thriller, marking his first work outside of family/comedy movies.

In this chilling psychological thriller, Bruce Willis is disheartened child psychologist Malcolm Crowe. After making a mistake with a patient, Crowe later discovers that he failed to help him. Several months later, Crowe learns of a young boy whose circumstances are similar to those of the ex-patient he failed to help. Hoping for redemption, Crowe visits eight-year-old Cole Sear (Osment) who claims he is visited by ghosts, and can "see dead people".

The Sixth Sense received acclaim from critics and audiences alike, and rightfully so. Not since Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho have audiences refused to give away the ending of a movie. The twist...is absolutely mind-blowing.

Shyamalan crafted the movie amazingly, and as a result upon our second viewing we can pick up clues that we missed the first time around. Aside from that, the film is incredibly intelligent and absolutely terrifying at times.

Unlike most thrillers, Shyamalan relies on psychology and our own imagination to scare us rather than using extensive gore. There are plenty of disturbing images throughout the movie as well.

Bruce Willis was absolutely exceptional in the lead role! Haley Joel Osment was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of the troubled young boy. He is extremely chilling at times, and some of his lines send chills down your spine. Toni Collette was also nominated for an Oscar, and rightfully so.

The Sixth Sense could be the best thriller film ever made. The film is brilliant. Pure and simple. Shyamalan's exceptional filmmaking techniques create some haunting moments and memorable creepy images that will still leave you terrified after the credits commence rolling. If you have not seen this movie then you have no idea what you're missing out on. It will blow you away. Watch out for a cameo appearance by director Shyamalan.

"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"

Stand by Me is a timeless screen gem based on a Stephen King novella called 'The Body'. The film marks one of the best Stephen King translations to the big screen; this poignant, touching classic is quite simply a masterpiece.

Stand by Me is a film that follows three young boys about to enter their teen years; Gordie (Wheaton), Chris (Phoenix), Teddy (Feldman) and Vern (O'Connell). The plot is quite simple; Vern is underneath his house digging furiously for his pennies when he overhears a conversation regarding the final resting place of a missing boy who is presumed dead. The boy was hit by a train but has not been found by authorities. The four young boys decide that they want to be heroes and head off on a journey to find the corpse. They figure that if they report the location of the body to the authorities they'll get their 15 minutes of fame in the local newspapers. With this goal in mind they set out on a journey to the location of the body. This journey is filled with bonding and arguing that you'd come to expect from 12-year-old boys.

Not only is this a tender narrative but also a coming-of-age tale of young boys ascending into manhood. The film's story is told in flashback to narration by Richard Dreyfuss. The opening introduces us to Dreyfuss' character, which is followed by the aforementioned flashbacks that accurately display pre-pubescent males of the 1950s.

Dreyfuss' character amusingly uses a complex vocabulary while the title characters on screen speak so immaturely; cheaply throwing insults at each other and each other's mothers.

The problem with most child actors is that they usually fail to engage the audiences during complex situations. Stand by Me contains performances prominently by a group of boys between the ages of 11 and 12. Understandably, I was reluctant about this idea at first. Maybe it was Reiner's skilled directing, or maybe it was the acting talent of the four principal children; either way I found the acting to be stellar. I was astounded at the brilliant results achieved by the young actors. There's also a very recognisable Kiefer Sutherland who pops up as a typical teenager bully. Because I had seen so much of Sutherland's recent work I was shocked at how youthful he looks.

Thankfully the whole cast were given a remarkable script to feast on. The dialogue is realistic, as are the members of the cast. Some scenes called for sublime acting, especially when the boys were meant to be in tears. The young cast pull it off with wonderful results.

Stand by Me can't be missed because of how moving, touching and emotive the whole experience is. Stand by Me is a simple story but contains a powerful message about the ascension in adulthood. Memorable, riveting and brilliant. I can't believe it took me so long to finally watch this one. Funniest moment: the gross (but amusing) story about a young fat boy getting revenge on his enemies by initiating a barf-fest in a tent during a pie-eating contest.

"Guns don't kill people! But they sure help."

It is with much confidence that I can state that during my numerous years of viewing movies, never before have I beheld an action film's opening sequence tagged with a hero dispatching a villain by penetrating their brain with a carrot, delivering a baby during an intense, chaotic gunfight, then severing the baby's umbilical cord with a bullet before a rather comical profanity exchange using neon lights. If you're incapable of discerning what this film is about after reading the title and the opening sentence of this review...then you're in trouble. Shoot 'Em Up is a straightforward satirical addition to the action genre. For its entire 80-minute duration, writer/director Michael Davis has crafted a masterful action flick overflowing with silly over-the-top violence and ingeniously witty (hilarious) one-liners.

You know what the difference is between Shoot 'Em Up and an action film from the mind of someone like Uwe Boll? Shoot 'Em Up is a great bad movie...while Uwe Boll produces plain unadulterated bad movies! Boll is somehow so incredibly self-deluded that he sincerely believes he's creating an artistic and inspiring piece of celluloid, and that he's an "industry genius". Truth be told, Boll's films such as BloodRayne and Alone in the Dark are dull and uninspiring beyond all comprehension, not to mention they are also among the worst pile of faeces ever to be committed to film. On the other hand, Michael Davis' Shoot 'Em Up is completely 100% self-aware that it's a noisy, stupendous, over-the-top, leave-your-brain-at-the-door bullet-fest...and it's proud of it. It also only aspires to provide a simple fun time without taking itself seriously at all. This is why I can consciously enjoy Shoot 'Em Up and grant it an emphatic thumbs up, while absolutely detesting creations from filmmakers such as Rob Cohen, Uwe Boll or Michael Bay.

Immature, irresponsible, dumb and insane are just a few words to accurately describe Shoot 'Em Up. It's a film lacking a meaty, cohesive narrative, and it exists merely to exhibit a dozen or so outrageous, awesome action sequences. Astonishing violent and astonishingly stylish, this film is exhilarating fun! It's even complete with a blaring soundtrack featuring Wolfmother, Motörhead, AC/DC, and various other artists. Furthermore, our hero continually munches on carrots throughout the film's duration. The first time we see Clive Owen as tough guy supreme, chewing a carrot at a bus-stop, we know he means business. And yes, there are the obvious Looney Tunes references such as "What's up doc?" followed by "You're a wascally wabbit!". Davis probably inserted these references to remind the audience of the old-fashioned cartoon violence from the Looney Tunes shorts, as it's the kind of comic violence presented in this film.

While the film is primarily about action, it has its fair share of clever one-liners. For example, Paul Giamatti's Mr. Hertz is forever on the phone to his wife.
"You know why a gun is better than a wife? You can put a silencer on a gun."
Clive Owen is also given a number of notable moments, such as when he describes himself as "a British nanny, and I'm dangerous".
In the long run, Shoot 'Em Up is a whole lot of shootouts, sex scenes, and even a shootout during a sex scene. At one stage there's even a shooting gallery, with little time to breathe except for when the characters are reloading. Thankfully, though, Michael Davis has learned to shoot his shootouts (pun intended) in the best kind of style: so that we know what is actually going on (take notes, Michael Bay). In the long run, the film is an extended gun-battle with a concise running time that leaves you hungry for more.

It seems almost redundant to outline the plot. After all, if you watch a film with the title of Shoot 'Em Up searching for plot and thoughtful dialogue...you're in the wrong place.
More or less, the film follows the carrot-chomping, gun-touting Mr. Smith (Owen). Smith is a tired, apathetic bystander who witnesses a pregnant woman being pursued by gunmen. He reluctantly intervenes and gets in on the action. The woman gives birth to a child (during an intense gun battle) before getting killed in the cross-fire. Smith feels compelled to protect the newborn, and recruits lactating hooker girlfriend Donna (Bellucci) while the vicious Hertz (Giamatti) is on the hunt with an army of gunmen. Meanwhile, as Smith eludes Hertz's men, he tries to figure out why the tot was targeted and endeavours to fathom the full extent of what he's got himself into.
The film opens with the New Line cinema logo being shot to bits...it's an indication of things to come. The proceedings get underway when Smith gets entangled in a large-scale gun battle with deafeningly raucous music accompanying the extremely violent visuals. Needless to say, it seldom lets up for meaningful dialogue or a fleshed out story.

Clive Owen is excellent as the title character. Having this rugged, handsome hero in the film really elevates the overall value. Granted, Owen is at times quite wooden. But it's the point: he's a dead-pan character who shows little emotion no matter the circumstances. Like when he's in the middle of sex, he's interrupted by a bunch of hooligans with guns. Still pleasuring his girl, he grabs a pistol and begins rolling into strategic positions with bullets whipping around him. Never does he look remotely scared or threatened. After dispatching said gunmen, he casually remarks "Talk about shooting your load."
Paul Giamatti could be the greatest action movie villain since Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber in Die Hard back in 1988. Giamatti has witty dialogue to deliver and is oozing charm throughout. He's a pleasure to watch for every frame of his screen-time.
Monica Bellucci is angelic and seductive as the lactating prostitute. Her introductory scene shows her breast-feeding an adult male. This establishes her character very fittingly.
The acting from most of the supporting cast is pretty standard. Then again, this is just a straightforward action film where the grunts are dispatched within a few seconds of their introduction...so don't expect Oscar material.

As previously stated, Shoot 'Em Up is unreservedly self-aware that it's insane, ridiculous and definitely not a movie to be taken seriously for a split second. So, logically, it disregards the requirements of physics, character depth or coherent plotting all for the sake of having some fun at whatever the cost. The action scenes are deliberately as idiotic and unfeasible as you can imagine, but they're so exaggerated that there's always a sense of humour. This reminds you that you should be smiling instead of sneering.

If you can ignore the fact that the world of physics is completely overlooked here, you shouldn't have any difficulty going along for the ride. This is what makes Shoot 'Em Up such a fun flick. The shootouts are so outrageous and will have the audience laughing and cheering at the preposterous proceedings. Furthermore, the filmmakers have purposely made the special effects look awful. The sky-diving action scene is so ridiculous and looks so unbelievable that you can practically see the green screen. It's the point! Or when Smith's car flips over, then flips upright again and he isn't even scratched. The internal logic is meant to be nonsense. On these merits, Michael Davis has scored a winner. For its entire 80-minute duration it's a total blast! It's a bloody good, entertaining, nonsensical low-brow satirical take on the action genre. Lighten up, leave you brain and common sense at the door, and you'll have a great time! For those that hate the film...remember that it's supposed to be a completely stupendous, silly flick and it's 100% proud to be as such!

"Just once, I'd like a regular, normal Christmas. Eggnog, a fuckin' Christmas tree, a little turkey. But, no. I gotta crawl around in this motherfuckin' tin can."

The original Die Hard is an action blockbuster that rapidly became both a critical and commercial success. The prevailing philosophy of Hollywood movie studios is fairly straightforward: if there's an unexpected hit on their back catalogue, they should capitalise on its success by making a sequel. Sequels are an intriguing breed. Very rarely are these follow-ups capable of replicating the quality of its predecessor. These sequels usually adhere to the same formula of its forerunner while additionally retaining a number of the original characters for heightened nostalgia.

Die Hard 2: Die Harder brings back the popular character of John McClane (Willis): his quip-laden, terse style made him an ideal vehicle to be transplanted into just about any situation as long as it included lots of guns, lots of bad guys, and lots of violence. It'd be fair to state that the screenwriters for Die Hard 2 relied on the original far too excessively. The same formula is exercised (as in the main character finding himself in a situation requiring his heroics) and bouts of déjà vu will occur frequently. For instance: it's Christmas Eve again, McClane is forced to crawl through ventilation shafts again (McClane even states his familiarity with the situation), McClane is out to save hostages, his wife is one of these hostages, and the police are as useless as tits on a bull. It may be looked upon as a blatant and unimaginative facsimile of the original Die Hard to some...but, despite the panning this sequel took, it works!

Die Hard 2 is a straightforward, action-packed, thrill-a-minute, violent, extremely entertaining action romp and an endearing return of everyone's favourite action hero. The seminal rule of sequels is that they should be bigger...and everything is bigger. Unfortunately, due to everything being so much bigger, the size of your suspension of disbelief must also be bigger to compensate for it all. Unfortunately, too, this allows slightly less time for characters to flourish and a plot to be developed. This is still an action film, though, so we watch it to see some action of which there is plenty. It may be over-the-top, but it's charming and utterly exhilarating.
To me, Christmas is never complete without at least one screening of Die Hard and Die Hard 2: Die Harder back-to-back. They are imbued with the Christmas spirit and provide a very enjoyable evening of entertainment.

Anyway, onto the plot: it's a snowy Christmas Eve, and it's exactly one year following the events that transpired at Nakatomi Plaza. John McClane is waiting at Dulles International Airport in Washington for a plane carrying his wife Holly (Bedelia). Also scheduled for arrival that evening is a drug baron known as General Ramon Esperanza (Nero). Esperanza is being extradited to the United States to face drug charges. As a large snowstorm rages outside, a group of renegade terrorists led by a certain Colonel Stuart (Sadler) attack the airport. They disable all the capabilities of the control tower. Now the terrorists are in command of the landing lights and communication with the planes, essentially holding hostage all the planes endlessly circling above, and all the passengers on-board. Unless the demands of these terrorists are met, the planes will run out of fuel and begin plummeting to the ground. The terrorists are loyal to Esperanza and wish to secure the freedom of the General. Needless to say, McClane steps into the equation with plans to disrupt the intentions of the terrorists. Mayhem is what ensues. Also toss in the arrogant, egotistical TV reporter Richard Thornberg (Atherton), a bumbling airport police chief (Franz), Reginald VelJohnson in a brief cameo, and plenty of baddies for McClane to kill.

Grant: "You're the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time."
John McClane: "Story of my life."

Even at a running time of two hours, Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a pulse-pounding action film featuring Bruce Willis as Bruce Willis in spades. Finnish director Renny Harlin was handed the reigns for this sequel. Harlin has had his good days (Cliffhanger) and bad days (Deep Blue Sea). Thankfully, this is one of his better days.
The film must be lauded for its outstanding special effects. Reminiscent of the first film, all the major explosions are done for real. There's green screen and miniatures with very little computer imagery in between. For the planes, the effects are close to unbeatable. Once again, this film serves as a good reminder of the dying art now being replaced in this current digital age. Harlin appears right at home with the action scenes. The director once described this movie as being during his "squib period" when referring to the abundance of blood being spilt when characters are gunned down. At times, though, the action is more pedestrian than stylish. The film also establishes more of a "shoot now, ask questions later" attitude for John McClane. Instead of a warning before pulling the trigger, he disperses bullets without a second of hesitation. With all the action and an extra dollop of gore, director Harlin has taken a literal reading of the subtitle, Die Harder.

Screenwriters Doug Richardson and Steven E. de Souza adequately recapture a number of the strengths of the original film. John McClane is still John McClane. He's tired, pissed off, and is thrown into a situation he doesn't like. While a few of the film's aspects borrow heavily from its predecessor, McClane's wisecracks and witticisms are new material and they're as sharp as a knife. On top of this, his "why me?" attitude remains the same and he spends a lot of his time talking to himself. He's the John McClane we've come to know and love. If you watch a Die Hard sequel, you're obviously looking to see exhilarating action, big explosions, and John McClane doing what he does best. Die Hard 2: Die Harder ticks all these boxes. The villain is one-dimensional, at times it's utterly absurd, plot holes are easier to notice and it's undeniably overproduced - but the film is entertaining nonsense and you can't be too picky when it comes to the action genre. However, with some well-written characters and a moderate amount of character development, it rises above the usual standard of Van Damme or Chuck Norris rubbish. Although Die Hard 2 is occasionally just an unimaginative remake of the original film, there are still a handful of creative ideas incorporated into this sequel.

Bruce Willis supplies yet another masterful performance as John McClane. His sardonic wit is in tact, and he has great chemistry with the actors surrounding him. By the 1990s, Willis had become the essential embodiment of the realistic action hero. He was the John Wayne of the contemporary action genre. Like The Duke (i.e. John Wayne), Bruce Willis has his trademark characters. In fact the 1990s and beyond bore the releases of several Bruce Willis action vehicles. Out of this selection my personal favourites are The Last Boy Scout, Mercury Rising, Hostage and 16 Blocks. An honourable mention to Striking Distance as well. At heart, John McClane is a lone Western hero, much like the characters The Duke played during his golden years. Similar to John Wayne, Willis easily got stereotyped and very rarely stepped out of his comfort zone. But Willis knew what his strengths were, and he played to them.

Also returning from the original film is Bonnie Bedelia as McClane's wife. Bedelia plays the part wonderfully. She is also given the opportunity to deliver amusing wisecracks. William Sadler is very one-dimensional as the villain. This fact lies in both Sadler's performance and in the way the character is written. His proper motivations are never made clear, therefore he's never anything more than a typical action movie villain. He's not nearly as compelling, charismatic or interesting as Alan Rickman's performance in the first film. Rounding out the cast are William Atherton, Reginald VelJohnson, Franco Nero, John Amos, Dennis Franz, Fred Dalton Thompson, and even Robert Patrick who appears very briefly (Robert Patrick will probably be most widely known as the T-1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day).

All things considered, Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a solid entry to the Die Hard canon. John McClane is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time once again, and we're all happier for it. Die Hard 2 isn't nearly of the quality of its predecessor, but it never tried to be. Occasionally one will have to accept McClane's superhuman powers and indestructibility, and the film is very derivative of its forerunner in addition to being preposterous and absurdly over-the-top - but hey, it's never boring. The realism of the first entry is sorely missed, yet there is a sufficient offering to keep any action fan happy. You'll be entertained, you'll root for the good guys, you'll love watching the bad guys get their just deserts, and you'll have the immortal words of John McClane in your heart - "Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!"

Followed by Die Hard: With A Vengeance.

"Oh man, I can't fucking believe this. Another basement, another elevator. How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?"

"All you gotta do is go pick up a kid down in New Jersey, and drive him down to D.C. How hard can that be, huh? Can't be that hard, now, can it? No, gotta be a senior detective. Think like a traffic jam, throwing a car at me's gonna stop me? Huh?"

THEATRICAL VERSION: 4/5


According to Bruce Willis, money wasn't the reason he agreed to return to the Die Hard series for this fourth entry...he just wasn't satisfied with Die Hard 2: Die Harder or Die Hard: With a Vengeance. The second Die Hard movie was highly entertaining nonsense, but it was fairly undercut because it replicated the original too often and there were too many utterly preposterous action scenes. The third, while almost on par with the original, altered the formula to create more of a Lethal Weapon style buddy action flick. Willis reportedly wanted to give John McClane a more fitting farewell. Live Free or Die Hard (known in other countries as Die Hard 4.0) thus entered pre-production.

From the outset Willis aimed to go back to the original formula of focusing primarily on John McClane and diminishing the humour in favour of pure action. In tradition with any action movie sequel, the film had to up the ante and push the envelope. This time the old-fashioned John McClane finds himself battling cyber-terrorism. While Willis wanted Live Free or Die Hard to be superior to the previous sequels (in an interview he even stated it was better than the first film), this is the weakest in the series. However, that's a fairly faint criticism. The film still supplies the action, it moves at a breakneck pace and it's wholly exhilarating.

Prior to the eventual release of Live Free or Die Hard, there were countless controversies and concerns. First of all, Len Wiseman was handed the reigns. While his Underworld movies were fun and action-packed, they were too digital...and the Die Hard series is anything but digital. Justin Long was another worry. This is the guy from the Mac commercials! Last but not least, the most significant controversy was this being the first Die Hard movie to receive a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. The previous instalments were rated R for good reasons: violence was severe, profanity was frequent, and bloodshed was graphic. The decision to dilute the content was because this was a summer blockbuster and it'd die at the box office with so many other PG-13 titles hitting the cinema. This proves that Hollywood studios no longer possess the balls or backbone to continue producing R-rated action flicks. I had reasonably low expectations for this film with the PG-13 rating in mind, though it didn't stop me from looking forward to it (especially with the incredible trailers, rave reviews and a temporary position on the IMDb Top 250). While this fourth Die Hard outing is a mild disappointment, it's still an entertaining action romp and a worthy film to rest under the Die Hard banner.

"You're a Timex watch in a digital age!


The terrorists this time are a group of hackers who begin a cyber-terrorism plot to systematically shut down the United States. We find John McClane (Willis) who has now passed his prime. He's long divorced and having trouble establishing a relationship with his daughter Lucy (Winstead). Now McClane works for the NYPD and occasionally does jobs for the United States Department of Homeland Security. On the eve of Independence Day, there's a breach in the FBI computer system. In retaliation the FBI wishes to interview all the most notorious hackers who could be capable of hacking their system. John McClane is contacted and ordered to collect a young hacker named Matt Ferrell (Long). This seemingly straightforward assignment results in McClane becoming entangled in the cyber-terrorism attack. It's a call of duty for McClane as he feels compelled to do whatever he can. Once again the FBI and the regular police force are useless, and the duties of saving the day fall to McClane.

Live Free or Die Hard is a straightforward summer blockbuster. There's an abundance of action to witness, and there's a lot of fun to be had. Needless to say, the action is extremely over-the-top. The over-the-top nature of the action is among the film's downfalls. One of the most controversial sequences was McClane battling an F-35 fighter jet while a highway collapses. It's an exhilarating sequence, but some of the CGI is somewhat obvious and similar to that of a video game. There's also a ludicrous scene during which McClane jumps out of a car that conveniently keeps moving at full speed and crashes into a conveniently placed helicopter. It's preposterous to extremes, but then again all the Die Hard films have their fair share of ridiculous moments. This is a film that was made to entertain, and it accomplishes this goal.

I'm pleased to report that the traditional shootouts are both exciting and energetic. The first shootout (in Matt Ferrell's apartment) is simply thrilling to watch. Arguably the best action scene of 2007 is also present in this movie: a helicopter pursuing guys on the street. A car chase ensues. It's pulse-pounding and exciting. When this sequence concludes with a car crashing into a helicopter it may be preposterous but it's a practical special effect. Normally, in this digital age, heavy CGI would be employed. This is not the case. For relying on stunt-work and practical explosions, the creative team deserve to be lauded. There's also a scene in an elevator shaft that'll have you on the edge of your seat. Len Wiseman lacks the flair of John McTiernan and Renny Harlin, but for a young and moderately inexperienced lad his efforts are commendable. However, the directing/editing collaboration at times is appalling. Painfully obvious ADR (popular theory is that these scenes were profanity-laced but had to have new dialogue recorded to obtain the PG-13 rating), close-ups not matching long shots, continuity looking utterly messy, and so on. For such a modern action movie, I never expected to witness this low standard when it comes to editing.

"Another day in paradise.


In tradition with the rest of the Die Hard series, the special effects are (for the most part) absolutely terrific. A lot of stunts and practical effects are employed with remarkable results. And of course, no Die Hard flick is complete without the customary tense music and spectacular sound effects. This is the first instalment in the series without the music of Michael Kamen. Instead, young composer Marco Beltrami was brought onboard. This was subject to further worrying, but Beltrami's efforts are incredibly effective. The trademark Die Hard music is frequently employed. This music raises the tension when it wants to, and gets your heart racing during the action.

Mark Bomback has constructed a surprisingly terrific script. To be honest, I never expected this guy to produce anything worthwhile. Bomback did write that turkey known as Godsend, after all. Despite his previous bombs, Bomback mixes classic McClane wisecracks and witticisms with enjoyable scenarios. McClane's sarcasm, wit and hilarious remarks are continual. Other characters are also given legendary, quotable one-liners.

It's been twelve years since Die Hard: With a Vengeance, yet Bruce Willis is capable of slipping into the character of John McClane again with ease. He's a much older and more mature McClane, but at heart he's still the action hero we all know and love. It's a shame he wasn't given more f-bombs to drop, though. This is among the script's shortcomings. But Willis is in good shape: he's still handy in close combat, he's still dexterous with a gun, and he is still an utter badass. In fact, despite the diluted violence there is still a lot of killing. There isn't much blood, but McClane is brutal and efficient in dispatching enemies. Naturally, McClane is still a hero who's easy to root for. This time he has found no solace in a life of being a hero. It must be said that McClane's occasional superhuman capabilities are somewhat distracting, though, especially towards the end. Thankfully it's still fun and exhilarating.

Justin Long is McClane's sidekick for this adventure. A young actor famous for Mac commercials, I hear you ask? Fear not. Long has done everything the script called for him to do. He offers a very believable character.
Timothy Olyphant was endlessly criticised for not being as sinister or as evil as the other villains in the series. Truth be told, he's probably a little underwhelming. Nevertheless, his character is a disgruntled government worker who goes postal on the system he helped design. Being more sinister would have made his character far less realistic in my opinion.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead appears as John McClane's daughter. Not only is Mary a great actress, but she's quite hot. As Mary is playing McClane's daughter, she's also feisty and witty.
Other additions to the cast include a very memorable Cliff Curtis and a slick Maggie Q. Jonathan Sadowski and Cyril Raffaelli are also terrific. Then there's Kevin Smith as an overweight hacker literally still living in his mother's basement. Smith is a delight to watch.

Live Free or Die Hard scratches an itch that needed scratching. Over the course of the past 10 years, the traditional shoot 'em up action flick morphed into something else. Something...lamer. Take The Mummy and its sequels. Or anything Tony Scott has done lately: style over substance plagues the frame, with the shaky cam/fast cutting syndrome dominating modern action films. Die Another Day was widely criticised by audiences, and regarded as the worst Bond in history for the overuse of digital effects instead of miniatures or more practical effects. If everything is digital or incomprehensibly filmed, it feels like there's less danger. CGI these days barely enhances...it overwhelms to the point of distraction. You have to be a really talented director to pull off a CGI fest. Len Wiseman is the right man in the right place. Despite the Underworld films being the worst offenders of cheesy CGI, he wisely eschews his big bag of digital tricks for Live Free or Die Hard. He goes old school; making use of stuntmen, real exploding cars and extensive sets. This is a movie a little out of touch with modern times and frankly it's a breath of fresh air.

Live Free or Die Hard is the weakest in the Die Hard series, but by no means is it a terrible movie. There's so much creativity being offered in the scenarios, characters and one-liners. Cyber-terrorism is also a potent issue in this digital age, thus creating an interesting premise. This is a summer flick, and a damn fine summer blockbuster at that! The action never slows down, the suspense keeps building and the wisecracks keep coming. It's competently made as well. There are shortcomings, such as the ridiculously over-the-top action sequences, the crummy editing and the lack of genuine Die Hard content...but it doesn't matter. This is a beer and pizza/popcorn event. It exists to entertain, and it does that. It's by far one of the most solid action movies of the 2007 summer season. I loved it! The film was later re-edited in and uncut version (reviewed below).

UNCUT VERSION: 2.5/5
I'll be frank: my disappointment with the watering down of Live Free or Die Hard was the equivalent of being depressed following a death in the family. The latest plague affecting contemporary action films is the acquisition of the PG-13 rating from the MPAA to secure as much money at the box office as possible. I was unreservedly devastated when I learnt that the long-awaited Die Hard sequel would have the proverbial hardcore violence and foul language diluted for the attainment of a PG-13 rating. Understandably, I was therefore extraordinarily excited when I learnt of the uncut version. I never thought I'd ever say this...but give me the theatrical version any day!

This uncut version merely includes about twenty obviously dubbed swear words and a few shots being touched up with terribly fake CGI blood. There are a few instances when the swear words were genuinely spoken on set, but too often were there occasions when it's painfully obvious Bruce was just thrown into a dubbing booth and asked to swear as frequently as he could. Had the filmmakers lensed a reasonable quantity of practical blood effects and alternate takes that included profanity, this film could be damn close to rivalling the first Die Hard. As it is, this uncut version is a colossal disappointment.

The editor could have at least just inserted all the genuine f-bombs, leaving out both the dubbed f-bombs and the CGI blood, as that would have been the best edit. Furthermore, while I watched behind-the-scenes footage I realised Bruce Willis did a number of alternate takes. These extra lines never made it into this uncut version when they'd fit perfectly. It's infuriating that this uncut version also removed two of the greatest lines from the theatrical cut. One of these lines was replaced with something inferior; the other line was replaced with nothing at all. And the theatrical version suffered from numerous obvious moments of shoddy ADR. It seemed to me these shots were probably originally laced with profanity and would be restored for this cut...but these moments all remain exactly the same. It looks like the editor spent 10 minutes putting together this hack-job. It occasionally looks like a dodgy TV edit!

This is a wasted opportunity...pure and simple. If Fox gave me the entire cast, a few sets and a camera crew for a few days, I could definitely produce a worthy R-rated version. Heck, if I was given access to all the raw footage and an expert editor to give me a helping hand, I'd also be able to produce a more worthy version. Fox deserves a letter bomb for this!
As an uncut version, this deserves a dismal 1.5/5 rating. It isn't a total disaster as it's great hearing John McClane using the term "motherfucker" again (when it was spoken on the set, that is). As a standalone pic it warrants a 3.5 star rating simply because the suspense and tension is still there, as is the awesome action and the clever scenarios. All in all, this is a missed opportunity.


"Fuck being a hero. You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah blah blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy."

"Hot in here, or am I just scared to death?"

The first Die Hard instalment hit cinemas back in summer 1988. Produced by Joel Silver (whose name is also attached to the Lethal Weapon series and The Last Boy Scout, just to name a few), Die Hard set a new paradigm for action films. Gone was the indestructible hero capable of shooting his enemies with infallible precision while bullets magically skirted around him. In its place was an ordinary bloke who gets involuntarily entangled in circumstances that necessitate his heroics. Die Hard was also set in a claustrophobic location. This formula proved popular as it was soon applied to incalculable other action films including Air Force One, Passenger 57, Under Siege, and so on. Fox enjoyed the critical and commercial success of Die Hard, and within two years a sequel found its way into worldwide cinemas. Die Hard 2: Die Harder was an abundantly entertaining action film undermined by its utter implausibility and the exasperating affinity to the original film.

Die Hard: With a Vengeance is the third entry in the Die Hard series. There was a gap of five years between this third film and the earlier second film. These five years facilitated numerous things. For starters, the clichéd formula was modified and given a substantial spruce-up. The creative team realised yet another Die Hard facsimile would produce a mediocre sequel. So they adapted, and the plot was expanded into a buddy cop movie similar to the Lethal Weapon series.

John McTiernan (the man responsible for directing the original Die Hard) was brought back onboard as well. Naturally, Bruce Willis also agreed to reprise the role that made him a star. This third film also opted to eliminate much of the nostalgia aspect. The film's plot may have relevance to the preceding films, but returning characters are kept to a minimum. Die Hard: With a Vengeance is consequently a radically different addition to the Die Hard canon - but it's a good different and a change for the better. The claustrophobic setting is replaced with the far more expansive location of the city of New York.

In the opening scenes of the movie, a bomb is detonated in downtown New York City on a seemingly regular day. The mastermind behind this bombing identifies himself only as Simon (Irons). He contacts the police and informs them of his intentions to set off another bomb. He explains that another big bang will occur unless Detective John McClane (Willis) completes a number of set tasks. This instalment finds McClane on the booze, on suspension from the police force, and with his marriage in tatters. But he still dons his trademark vest, he's still handy with a gun and he's still wholly vulnerable. Anyway, McClane's first task takes him to Harlem where he meets Negro electrician Zeus Carver (Jackson). After Zeus becomes involuntarily intertwined in the state of affairs, he's forced to partner with McClane as Simon appoints them a number of tasks that take them around the city. The remainder of the plot is a series of contrivances to propel the terrible twosome of McClane and Zeus from one end of New York to the other (stopping in Canada of all places for the climax).

Die Hard: With a Vengeance is more destructive, more exhilarating and far more intense than the previous instalments. Yet it's still grounded in more reality than the second Die Hard entry. With a wider space for plot gestation, there are a wider range of possibilities for stunts and action sequences. Generic action film elements are added such as car chases, interesting arenas for shootouts, and general vehicle mayhem. Entire streets are blown up in sequences that stretch credulity almost past the point of breaking.

It should probably be noted that this is the most graphic Die Hard film in terms of language (about 90-10 f-bombs are dropped), violence, gory deaths (one guy is even sliced in half!) and even a brief sex scene. John McTiernan is of course at ease with the screenplay. He formerly helmed Predator and The Last Action Hero, as well as the first Die Hard film. He knows his way around an action scene, and he knows how to orchestrate this kind of action. Cinematographer Peter Menzies captures the action with consummate skill, making the action thrilling in its own right. As a result it's imbued with great energy. The definitive layers were added in post-production: John Wright's competent editing, Michael Kamen's impeccable music and the booming sound mix. Explosions and gunshots will give a speaker system one heck of a workout! And, of course, special effects are absolutely top-notch. As the digital age was slowly developing, there are a few CGI instances but they're not too noticeable. For the most part the special effects are quite seamless.

The original screenplay written by Jonathan Hensleigh wasn't meant to be a Die Hard film from the outset. When it was discovered that it could easily be moulded into the third Die Hard movie, re-writes commenced. Thankfully, there are plenty of wisecracks and amusing witticisms courtesy of John McClane's badass attitude. Bruce Willis plays the role with such ease that he improvised one-liners while the cameras rolled. The laughs are reasonably frequent and moderately droll. The searing chemistry of Willis and Samuel L. Jackson is off the chart. Their volatile attitudes generate very interesting scenarios. The film moves at an invigorating pace. It encompasses sufficient character development mixed with satisfying amounts of pure adrenaline-charged action: bombings, subway crashes, car chases and helicopter pursuits altogether creating the ultimate roller-coaster ride. While this description would usually fit any generic Van Damme or Steven Seagal action vehicle, Die Hard: With a Vengeance is cut above the pack. The intelligence of the first movie has made a welcome return. There are great unpredictable plot twists and clever set-ups. For an action movie it's fairly subversive.

Bruce Willis gives further weight to the argument that no-one can portray an action hero better than he can. The reason why we love John McClane so much is due to his attitude towards the situations he finds himself entangled in. Here's an interesting fact: the part of John McClane was originally offered to all the conventional 80s action stars. Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Seagal - they all had a shot. The beauty of casting Bruce Willis is that it avoids the clichés. Had it been one of these abovementioned names, Die Hard would have been a clichéd action ride that fell dead in the water after the first instalment. But they stayed away from conventions, and Willis immersed himself into the role perfectly.

Samuel L. Jackson is the ideal companion for Willis' John McClane. Jackson is a scene stealer and he rises above the material. Bruce Willis was reportedly unhappy about sharing the spotlight with Jackson. It's also been reported that Willis disliked the focus shift from lone ranger to buddy flick. Only really die-hard Willis purists (pun truly and absolutely intended) side with the actor.
Jeremy Irons is evil and sadistic and above all memorable as the villain. When it comes to Die Hard, a memorable villain is essential. His crisp European accent and interesting screen persona elevates him above the one-dimensional villain present in Die Hard 2: Die Harder. Even so, Alan Rickman remains unthreatened.
This time the cast is accompanied by such names as Graham Greene, Colleen Camp, Larry Bryggman, Anthony Peck, Nick Wyman, Sam Phillips and Kevin Chamberlin. These precise performances keep us engaged from the remarkable first frame to the last.

Die Hard: With a Vengeance opened a short time following a bombing in Oklahoma City. Needless to say, both critics and audiences were still shaken up from the bombings, and the film (although scripted, filmed and edited before the bombings took place) was treading on sensitive territory. It would be justified to state that viewers were unfairly harsh while watching the film for two reasons. Firstly, the Oklahoma City bombings affected them greatly. Secondly, this was a radically different Die Hard movie, exercising a different formula and a new batch of characters. Personally, I think this third Die Hard film is damn close to equalling the original. It only falls short due to its mildly sluggish pace at times. From time to time, logic is also the film's enemy (falling about 20 feet onto metal without a broken bone? I don't think so). Nevertheless this is excellent entertainment and a worthy film to sit under the Die Hard banner. It provides the rush of adrenalin, the witty one-liners, the exhilarating action and the outlandish stunt-work. It's an endearing, thrilling ride guaranteed to keep an audience on the edge of their seat.

Followed in 2007 by Live Free or Die Hard

"Listen, we got a report of a guy coming through here with, uh, eight reindeer." [shoots terrorists] "Yeah, they said he was a jolly, old, fat guy with a snowy, white beard. Cute little red and white suit. I'm surprised you didn't see him."

"You know what you are. What you're made of. War is in your blood. Don't fight it. You didn't kill for your country. You killed for yourself. God's never gonna make that go away. When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing."

It's been a long time since the decade of the 80s concluded. This was a decade when action films were ripe and extensively successful: they were brutal, violent and entertaining. In the era of contemporary action movies, violence is commonly diluted to accomplish a docile classification appropriate for a mainstream audience. Action lovers desired more...they were sick of the childish, watered-down violence being portrayed. When an aging Sylvester Stallone announced the creation of a fourth Rambo movie, his objective was to resurrect the classic gratuitous violence merged with scenes infused with utterly incredible action. Stallone acknowledged what his fans sought after. Thus when he produced the fourth adventure for the illustrious John J. Rambo he wasn't making it for box office receipts, he wasn't making a film that would be hailed by critics...Stallone was making a movie purely and genuinely for the multitude of fans that yearned for the return of old school, over-the-top, hardcore action violence that was once so prominent in the 80s. On this guarantee he delivered. He delivered perfectly.

Stallone was commended when he wet the appetites of his fans, and the first trailer for Rambo (at that time entitled John Rambo) was distributed over the internet - this was a red-band, uncut trailer that displayed several incredible minutes of hardcore violence as graphic and realistic as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. Hordes of fans were already aching to see the final product because they distinguished that Stallone had completed his job correctly. Of course, the critics severely panned Stallone's Rambo - they labelled it as pointless, pure action porn. On the other hand, the audiences received what they had expected and applauded Stallone for his relentless images of war. The writer/director/star did not succumb to the watered down violence for juveniles, and for that he gained loads of respect. The man returned action to its roots: interesting characters, witty lines, classic formula and lots of violence. The character of Rambo is also returned to his roots: not much dialogue, instead using facial expressions to tell his story. Even more impressive is the lack of clichés. Sure, the whole film is structured using the old formula. But there is no love interest despite the presence of a female, there are no dumb characters that have little faith in the hero, and there are no futile set-ups for elaborate deaths. In fact, the action scenes are scattered sparingly across the film's running time. For a man over the age of 60, Stallone deserves nothing but commendation and admiration for his persistence and ultimate success.

The film finds legendary troubled Vietnam veteran John J. Rambo (Stallone) living a secluded, inconsolable life in Thailand. Rambo has left his past behind him, instead indulging in the undemanding career of a snake wrangler. Rambo currently resides just downriver from the appalling genocide unfolding in nearby Burma. He is approached by a group of Christian missionaries, lead by a man named Michael (Schulze). These missionaries implore him to assist in taking them upriver into Burma. Although reluctant at first, Rambo agrees to take them into the chaos that has been the site of genocide for many years. Following the apprehension and incarceration of the missionaries by the fierce Burmese military, their church are informed and become determined to save them. The pastor of the church hires a group of mercenaries to travel into Burma to extract and rescue the innocent Christian missionaries. John J. Rambo dons his head-band and comes out of retirement one last time to battle the malicious Burmese soldiers in the thick jungle...the landscape in which Rambo was trained to battle.

Screenwriter Stallone takes his time building up to the action sequences. The film's first half sets up a plot that exists before diving into a world of utter chaos and incredible action. For authenticity in its depiction of the Burma, Stallone decided to dedicate the film's opening sequence to a montage of actual newsreel footage portraying the atrocities that are occurring in that part of the world everyday. Throughout the film's first half, we are incessantly shown the genocide that continues to unfold as the military choose new target villages with each new day. Stallone announced in an interview that he wanted the fourth John Rambo film to be about something...about humanity and its current state. Thus, he dives head first into the site of the longest running war in the world. Stallone handles the material with style: his uncompromising representation of Burma is gritty, brutal and horrifying. Rambo masquerades as an action/adventure film when in fact it's also a film that spreads awareness of the Burmese situation. By portraying the area using so much graphic violence the audience therefore considers the situation with greater scrutiny. The critics that despised the film so much simply do not understand the film. It's their loss.

Even at a ripe old age of 61, classic action icon Sylvester Stallone still has it in him. I do not care for those who find ease in insulting the man due to his HGH scandal in 2007. People's judgments on actors sometimes taint their image on the certain actor's films. If you're seriously avoiding this film because you believe Stallone is on steroids then it's impossible to take your cinematic views sincerely. Julie Benz is a superb member of the supporting cast. She plays a Christian missionary named Sarah. She is not a love interest so to speak, although Rambo does jump through hoops for her. But it's not because Rambo has taken a fondness for her and is looking for a lay - Sarah has profoundly touched his soul, and has allowed him to heighten his faithfulness towards humankind. Rambo is happily oblivious to world events because he's living a life of desolation, until Sarah opens his eyes to the capability of one human life. Also in the cast there's an ideal bunch of actors portraying the mercenaries who travel into Burma. There are some great lines of dialogue for all of them to deliver.

Rambo is also equipped with homages to the previous films, including a dream sequence depicting a montage to remind the audience of Rambo's past, and music that suitably mirrors Jerry Goldsmith's original score. The music present here is astounding. When powerful atrocities are being showcased there's a profoundly, deeply moving score to accompany the visuals. Sometimes the touching music will bring you to the verge of tears. If something like that is present in a pure action movie then the filmmakers have completed their objective. Also worth noting is the film's sound mix. The ambience of the Burmese jungle is captured wonderfully...all the gunfights and explosions sound spectacular. It's easy to become engaged in the action with such amazing sound effects that all sound natural.

Overall, Rambo is a perfect way to bring the infamous action hero full circle. We find the character returning to his roots and returning to a life he once knew before experiencing an unplanned turmoil in First Blood. Stallone reminds his fans that he is still here and ready to work despite his age. After striking such triumph with Rocky Balboa, another of his characters has been brought to a wholly satisfying conclusion. Of course, this film is far from perfect. It's very formulaic, but all audiences just love cheering when they witness the bad guys getting their comeuppance in brutal, satisfying ways. The intelligence of First Blood also lacks (like Rambo setting traps and ambushes, etc); however it would be hard to imagine the character pulling off elaborately planned traps at his current age. Rambo is solid, top-notch entertainment. It's incredibly awesome, absolutely entertaining and very realistic. The gore factor is, at times, astounding! Stallone promised to dish up violence that the action genre hasn't birthed for decades. He succeeded beyond all expectations. Despite the negative reviews from the critics, I wholly enjoyed Rambo and will continue to do so with each new screening. If you're looking for a good old-fashioned action movie full of realistic violence and gore then it's time to visit the latest adventure of John Rambo. This is an action film masterpiece!

Cab Driver: "Look out there, its a fucking coup d'etat."
Agent Sands: "I can't see, fuck-mook. I have no eyes."

Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi trilogy is brought to a conclusion with the entertaining, big budget Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Something must be stated about the Rodriguez method of filmmaking: the critics perceive his films as unadulterated crap because they're generally pure action with desperately convoluted plots. On the other hand, action lovers such as myself will delight in the inexorable blood, gore and action the director habitually flaunts. This instalment in Rodriguez's El Mariachi trilogy features an enormously impressive cast including the return of Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek (among others) mixed with new names such as Johnny Depp, Ruben Blades, Mickey Rourke and Willem Dafoe. What started as a small film made on a $7,000 budget featuring a cast of friends and unknowns (in the original El Mariachi) has ended on an extremely larger scale and with more action, blood and guts with an extraordinary cast to boot.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is another tale of the famed musician-turned-gunslinger only known as the "El Mariachi" (Banderas, reprising the role from Desperado). The character's story started a long time ago when a naïve, simple mariachi (played by Carlos Gallardo) was seeking a job when he accidentally came into possession of a guitar case stocked with an impressive assortment of weapons. His girlfriend was slaughtered, and our hero went on a fierce rampage. He slaughtered the bad guys but was wounded, and another love was taken from him - his ability to play the guitar. That was El Mariachi: the first film in the series that was made on an ultra low budget but was so successful that Columbia gave it a theatrical release. Following Rodriguez's unexpected directorial triumph, he made Desperado with Hollywood backing to bring the series a fresh new look. Antonio Banderas took over as the character of "El Mariachi" in the second instalment, receiving a new guitar case loaded with an improved arsenal of firearms. The first embodiment of the character was a simple man who was placed into incredible situations and strained to become a hero. Banderas' portrayal was that of an extraordinarily accomplished gunslinger who is the biggest and baddest in the land and a man who has found new love in the spicy Salma Hayek.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico, the third film, picks up after the events of the first two movies. We now find the El Mariachi who has retreated to a life of isolation: he's haunted and scarred by the tragedy of losing his new wife Carolina (Hayek). The legend of the character has become so fabled that even the Mexican president is looking to have him eliminated. Now without his love, he settles in a tranquil town. A corrupt CIA agent known as Agent Sands (Depp) wants to eliminate the Mexican president and pulls the El Mariachi out of retirement to complete the task. He compares his reasoning to that of shooting a chef: to bring balance to country. He explains that if a chef cooks a meal that is the best he's ever tasted, the chef must be executed to give other chefs a chance to excel at their profession. Sands knows that the El Mariachi will have no problem with fulfilling his task as it will allow him retribution on the man that killed Carolina. At least that's what I picked up of the plot. There are so many characters and conspiracies here that it gets a tad too perplexing for a dumbarse action film. However, it is still watchable and as a swansong to the trilogy this ambitious film does pale the former releases.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico is held together by the stellar cast that features some amazing actors. Antonio Banderas is engaging and credible as the infamous El Mariachi. But for this film, it's Johnny Depp that completely steals the show. Depp again displays his versatility, and reminds us why he's one of this generation's finest performers. With the character of Agent Sands, he skilfully pulls off the subtle wit and humour of the character. The screenwriter granted Depp lots of terrific dialogue that he pulls off remarkably! Johnny Depp is in supreme Johnny Depp mode with Agent Sands. One of the film's highlights is a diner scene that depicts excellent dialogue between Depp and Banderas. Also in the cast you'll discover an extremely cool Mickey Rourke, a sinister Willem Dafoe, and a few good actors such as Danny Trejo and Eva Mendes among others.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico greatly benefits from the style and approach supplied its director (who was also the producer, editor, cinematographer, production designer, sound effects mixer, visual effects supervisor, camera operator and the one who supplied the music). Rodriguez is a capable filmmaker that has a unique look and feel that he brings to his creations. He isn't afraid of attempting different things with the camera and he is one of the few directors that can make fast cuts and edits actually work without being annoying. Rodriguez crafts films that progress and perform rapidly. He doesn't allow the viewer much time to rest. In a society plagued with movie-goers whose attention spans are becoming increasingly short, Rodriguez makes films that have no issues with keeping short attention spans happy. This is his greatest gift. In short, Rodriguez knows how to make a film fun. He demonstrated with Spy Kids that he's able to keep the kids happy, and it shows his talents are even greater for the adults in Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

Overall, when it comes to a Robert Rodriguez film a movie-goer expects nothing further than outstanding action scenes. The director has a genuine talent for directing and lensing over-the-top action filled with over-the-top bloodshed. The stunts, special effects and explosions all look spectacular! Once Upon a Time in Mexico is not recommended for those searching for a deep experience or an exemplary character examination. Instead, it's for those looking to be reminded why we go to the cinema in the first place: we indulge in the magic of the movies to be entertained! If you're able to overlook the glaring story issues, you will definitely enjoy this film. The film's shootouts are as over-the-top as you can find. They border on silliness at times, but it's difficult not to enjoy a good guy knocking a bad guy across the room with a shotgun. Rodriguez is an action film director who takes pride in his work. You must respect him for that. Look out for Johnny Depp in the church scene doing his Marlon Brando impersonation.

"Bush told the people to rise up against Saddam. They thought they'd have our support. They don't. Now they're getting slaughtered!"

Three Kings is a rare contemporary war film that will satisfy the action junkies in addition to those looking for a more emotional experience. One of the film's most admirable qualities is the absence of drawn out political mumbo jumbo. In its place the filmmakers have opted to focus on the soldiers and their situation in the desert during the first Television War (i.e. the first Gulf War). It's a fitting and triumphant portrait that acts as an absorbing character study containing a commendable balance of drama and action.

Three Kings delivers a potent anti-war message. The film does not begin with the announcement of war, but soldiers celebrating its conclusion before coming to grips with its consequences. The film examines the impact of the media in the warzone: images and propaganda that the gullible American public were fed. With America under the rule of George Bush Snr. there is little wonder why the war suffered from such poor regulations. Just think...this is a man that actually said "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them". Yes, he truly said that.

Anyway, David O. Russell's Three Kings is a film split into two phases: the first phase is about a group of bored American soldiers planning to steal some gold, with the second phase concerning the American soldiers witnessing the consequences of their decisions and actions. Major Archie Gates (Clooney) is looking forward to his retirement in a couple of weeks as he is disgusted with the war. Troy Barlow (Wahlberg), Chief Elgin (Cube) and Conrad Vig (Jonze) are three bored soldiers under the command of Gates who discover a map detailing the location of stolen gold. Greed getting the better of them, the four plan to venture out into the desert with the intention of stealing the gold for themselves. In theory it's a simple plan, but troubles ensue in its execution. The soldiers soon realise that the war (that they have been told is over) is still deeply in progress with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi soldiers now attacking the civilian population. With the civilians facing slaughter and eradication, the four men rise to the heroic challenge.

Director David O. Russell has created a very different war movie. Russell wanted to make every bullet count and he completes this objective. On that note, the cinematography and editing is outstanding. Early in the movie the character played by George Clooney talks about the effect of a single bullet when it penetrates the body. In so many other combat-oriented war movies we see characters firing off endless amounts of random ammunition. Three Kings makes the audience sincerely comprehend everyone who is shot - even the nameless grunts. There are a few unique images in the film as we see the interior damage of a bullet. Not entirely graphic by any means (seems like something from a simple documentary), but it really hits home. This is a tremendously effective cinematic device. A good creative decision for sure; however it occasionally overwhelms the story. Instead of being immersed in the events, the audience knows that it's a movie.

My interest in Three Kings was originally fired up when I looked at the cast list, with George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube portraying the central characters. George Clooney rarely, if ever, churns out a faulty product. He hits all the right notes with this film. He proves that he is something much more than just a sex symbol. Mark Wahlberg is deep and engaging in his role. Credit must also go to Ice Cube for his best performance to date. It's a shame that Ice Cube's career soon went down the drain after his sublime performance here. A notable fact is that although the film's title refers to three characters, there are in fact four central protagonists (the fourth being portrayed remarkably by Spike Jonze).

Three Kings is a film with heart and action. Flawed only marginally in its script department, this is a solid film about war and men's actions during war. No gross exaggerations are present.

"The saltwater crocodile is probably the most dangerous member of the crocodilian family. They can swim underwater at up to 20 miles an hour without making a ripple on the surface. And they can burst out to attack...with incredible speed."

To the inexpert eye, one might see Rogue as your customary crocodile horror flick in the same league as Lake Placid or Primeval. Hollywood distributors have no shame in releasing a countless amount of monster movies that resulted in being pure rubbish.

Greg McLean stunned audiences in 2005 with the release of his low-budget horror movie Wolf Creek. As I wasn't a fan of McLean's Wolf Creek my expectations had not been raised overwhelmingly high for this film. Rogue sounds like your standard concept of a large man-eating crocodile chowing down on a few people who wander into its lair. But the results are quite the opposite...in fact this is the only decent crocodile horror movie that has ever been released.

Set in the Northern Territory, a cynical American travel writer named Pete McKell (Vartan) is sent on assignment to the Australia outback. Pete joins a bunch of tourists on a river cruise heading out to witness some crocodiles. Pete initially clashes with tour captain Kate Ryan (Mitchell): a spirited woman who simply figures him for a depressing American in search of a cheap thrill. After an uneventful day in the murky river, one of the tourists spots what appears to be a distress flair. Bound by her obligations, Kate is forced to enter unfamiliar waters to investigate. The group are blissfully unaware that they have stumbled into a region occupied by a terrestrial giant man-eating crocodile. With the group stranded on a secluded island with no radio or communication, a fight for survival emerges as enormous crocodile circles below...

The distributors for this movie delayed its release on several occasions. Why? Because 2007 also had FOUR other killer crocodile movies set for release (another being a low-budget Aussie production). By all accounts, McLean's Rogue emerged as the superior film. Although having an extraordinarily low budget for a monster blockbuster, McLean doesn't let a cent of that money go to waste. Unlike most Hollywood croc films, McLean's team actually conducted thorough research into the movements and habits of the saltwater crocodile. The filmmakers utilised an actual rubber crocodile (gorgeously detailed) with some CGI that looks stunning. This may be a low-budget Australian movie, but the special effects are truly astonishing.

The script does contain some predictable scares and clichéd characters; however it's the best screenplay written thus far for a crocodile movie. Firstly, the dialogue is realistic. Secondly, the characters are realistic. Thirdly, about 80% of the genre's clichés have been removed. McLean delicately allows the audience to familiarise themselves with each character as some head towards their imminent doom. The character development is strong and fascinating: there's clever dialogue and interesting personalities. The only flaw is that the characters sometimes suffer from the typical clichés of the genre. We usually know which characters are going to get killed first.

The film's two central characters are played to perfection by Radha Mitchell and Michael Vartan. A special mention must be made about Stephen Curry. Essentially, he's the film's comic relief: your mainstream beer-drinking Aussie who makes funny remarks.

Young director Greg McLean has crafted this movie almost faultlessly. He effectively makes use of everything at his disposal: there are sweeping shots of the gorgeous locations and some intense horror scenes that are skilfully filmed. The score is also a particular stand-out. Whenever a piece of marvellous cinematography is showcased the score suits the atmosphere.

Rogue may be a low-budget Australian movie but it's the definitive croc experience. It's by no means perfect due to a few problems in the screenwriting department, but this is superior to any and all crocodile movies preceding its release. It's suspenseful, chilling and atmospheric. Highly recommended!!

"Tell Leo he's not God on the throne, he's just a cheap political boss with more hair tonic than brains."

Miller's Crossing is an outstanding gangster drama made prior to the Coen Brothers developing into a massive household name. Even in their early days, the duo consisting of Joel and Ethan Coen could produce movies executed with articulate cinematography, witty dialogue and suspenseful action. It's fascinating that the Coen Brothers were able to successfully nail the gangster genre in one attempt with a screenplay they penned themselves.

Miller's Crossing relies solely on its character development to flesh out the plot. Instead of sincerely delving into the lives of several characters, the film is concerned with one man in particular: Tom Reagan (Byrne). Tom is a wise guy and a loner: acting as a quintessential right-hand man to Prohibition-era Irish mob boss Leo (Finney). The story is a complex plot of intrigue, loyalty and betrayal as it examines the morals within the criminal underworld of the 1930s. The film focuses on two rival gangs that contend for control of the city. Tom's loyalties begin to blur when disputes arise between he and Leo over a girl named Verna (Harden). Inadvertently, Tom is now caught in the middle of a gang war while being posed the question of allegiances. On the surface Miller's Crossing is a mob war film, but underneath it's an exploration of the relationships between a horde of interesting characters, largely from Tom's point of view. Most importantly it is fundamentally an examination of Tom's internal conflicts.

Gabriel Byrne is astonishing as Tom Reagan. Interestingly enough, Byrne's performance reminded me of the classic Bogart performances: a wise-cracking, cool, manipulative and likeable rogue. Byrne is very engaging for those with patience. His performance in this film will always be remembered as one of the genre's finest. Albert Finney is at the top of his game. Similar to the rest of the cast, Finney is absorbing whenever he receives screen time. If anything I believe that Finney was underused; appearing rarely into the second half. Jon Polito is terrifying and menacing as the rival mob boss. Polito nailed his character. Every scene he features in he is nothing short of brilliant. I could not spot any flaws or lapses in his concentration.

The style of the Coen Brothers will not be accepted by all. Many of their creative choices are questionable, albeit unique. The pacing is sometimes extremely slow: an aspect that can be attributed to the way they direct the actors. Similar to every dialogue-orientated gangster film in existence, the filmmakers demand patience. Another unique style of the Coen Brothers is the over-the-top violence and bloodshed. You will frequently witness geysers of blood spurting out from a character that has been shot.

The film also boasts some amazing cinematography. Barry Sonnenfeld's career started as a cinematographer before moving further up the ladder to directing. Sonnenfeld's work cannot be faulted.

Miller's Crossing is one of the definitive films of the Coen Brothers, and marks one of their crowning achievements. The film's single fatal flaw is that it's extremely difficult to get into. It's vital to pay attention to every scene otherwise you'll fall behind and struggle to catch up while missing more of the movie. Naturally, this just means that several screenings are necessary. Overall, Miller's Crossing is extremely an entertaining gangster movie that may not be for all tastes. Do not judge too harshly after your first viewing.

"All I wanted was to be a mariachi, like my ancestors. But the city I thought would bring me luck brought only a curse. I lost my guitar, my hand, and her. With this injury, I may never play the guitar again. Without her, I have no love. But with the dog and the weapons, I'm prepared for the future."

El Mariachi is an early film directed by now-famous filmmaker Robert Rodriguez. Initially the film was intended to be a low-budget action picture that would proceed directly to video. However the reception was far more positive than originally intended and was picked up by Columbia for a theatrical release. With this film, Robert Rodriguez proves that with an astronomically small budget of only $7,000 (approximately) he can craft a superb little action picture.


El Mariachi is the story of a young Mexican musician (Gallardo) who wishes to carry on the family tradition of becoming a mariachi (a wandering musician who travels to different locations in search of work). Little does he realise that an escaped criminal named Azul (Martinez) has wandered into the same town carrying a guitar case featuring an impressive array of firearms. Azul plans to kill local crime lord Moco (Marquardt). Moco is obviously not happy with the concept of being assassinated; sending every hired gun at his disposal to target Azul. Moco's men mistake the innocent young El Mariachi for Azul due to their similarities in appearance. While being hunted by an assortment of hitmen, the El Mariachi becomes involved with barmaid Domino (Gomez) who assists him in his avoidance of being killed.


No-one ever expected El Mariachi to be very successful, hence the small budget. Although the film was shot in two weeks and was made with virtually zero crew, Rodriguez ended up making a surprisingly fantastic, entertaining action film. This film delivers the goods in its minuscule running time of about 80 minutes. Of course there is plenty of high energy action, and even the film is superior to most stunt-reliant, big-buck Hollywood action flicks. In addition to the action there is a lot of suspense and creative cinematography.


Rodriguez was in charge of lensing and editing the material. It's very evident in the final film that he had a clear vision of what he wanted and achieved his goal modestly. One of the most surprising things is that the film maintains an actual plot throughout its duration.


To save costs of hiring actors, most of the cast was filled with family members, friends and amateur actors. Make no mistake - the acting is sometimes really amateurish. On the contrary, most of the actors are very convincing at times. There is a subtle charm to the great performance from Carlos Gallardo. For the film's final showdown, Gallardo feels very naturalistic and believable. The villains are typically shown to be evil and brooding, with their henchmen unable to shoot properly. Some of these things are conventional, but for the sake of the genre we try to ignore it.


Rodriguez was literally the only person behind the camera. He put so much into this movie and his efforts shine as brightly as the morning sun. The man was determined to do what he could with a small shooting schedule and a miniature budget. As a fellow film student I find his action scenes to be well cut and well shot, abundant in visual elegance. Most of the budget must have been channelled into the fake blood and special effects. The action is always extremely violent.


There are a few minor problems with this movie such as a few poor performances and some dumb action movie conventions; however credit of the highest order must go to director Robert Rodriguez for producing a great quality film made with such a tiny budget that one could barely afford a car with it! Copious amounts of fake blood are well expended here. There is little wonder why the director went on to continue making a lot of violent movies. His reputation began with this little movie. Now his career is very well deserved. Followed by a remake/sequel entitled Desperado.

"Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory."

The original Indiana Jones film was a little known production that became a worldwide hit. After the great success of Raiders of the Lost Ark it was inevitable that the team would get back together and produce another ripping yarn of an action/adventure flick. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is certainly the weakest Indiana Jones film to date. After watching it again after all these years I am reminded that even the worst film of a film series can still be bucket loads of fun.


Temple of Doom is a prequel to the original Indiana Jones film, this time set in 1935 before the Nazi occupation commenced. At the beginning of this film we are once again introduced to the legendary archaeologist with a weakness for adventure, Dr. Indiana Jones (Ford). Jones narrowly escapes a group of Chinese gangsters in a nightclub in Shanghai, ending up stranded in a remote location in India. He finds himself being partnered with a young Asian boy named Short Round (Quan) and a head-aching nightclub singer named Willie Scott (Capshaw, who ended up marrying director Steven Spielberg). The trio come across a devastated village that is under crisis. Their children have been taken and their precious stone stolen. The villagers believe Jones and his companions were brought here for a specific reason: to recover their precious stone and the missing children that they hold dearly. Trekking across the thick jungles of India the gang reach the enigmatic Pankot Palace where they are openly welcome. Indy is then faced with a baffling religious ceremony in a mystifying temple. With two companions and a whip by his side, Indy must battle the powerful forces of evil in order to recover the sacred stone and the young children that were taken as slaves.


Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a lot darker and more sinister than its forerunner. We still have the gorgeous locales and elaborate sets, but we are also given some menacing horror scenes that will easily frighten young viewers. Especially when the action moves to the temple, things suddenly become exceedingly shocking. I remember being quite disturbed by these sequences when I was a youngster.


The charm and wit of Harrison Ford has not disappeared at all. Ford is energetic, funny, and sublime as Indiana Jones. The character is still whip-touting and skilled. His dialogue is impeccably written and faultlessly delivered. There is no wonder why Indiana Jones was voted several times as one of the best action heroes of all time. Kate Capshaw will make your head hurt. Throughout the whole film she's endlessly whining or complaining about the conditions. Her character is cleverly constructed; however she's just the essential clichéd damsel in distress. The first film boasted a feisty female lead who suffered from very few fundamental conventions. Recognition must go to Jonathan Ke Quan, a young actor who does a stellar job.


Steven Spielberg is the only man with the skill to helm a successful Indiana Jones film. Even with dated visual effects and limited resources, Spielberg is an accomplished director competent in bringing words on the page to life with great results.


Like the first film, this instalment is filled with stacks of stunts and spectacular special effects that are so abundant that it never leaves us any time to breathe. Unsurprisingly, the film is topped off gorgeously with the rollicking score courtesy of acclaimed composer John Williams.


Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was never going to improve upon the original movie. Be that as it may, this prequel to the successful 1981 adventure film is influential and entertaining. Followed by Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

"We coulda bin good together, eh gil?"

Lee Tamahori's 1994 low budget New Zealand film Once Were Warriors was critically commended and praised for its uncompromising, potent examination of the sinister side of the Maori population. Due to its colossal universal sensation it was virtually predestined that the studio would demand a sequel. In this case, Once Were Warriors is far too brilliant and unbeatable; consequently nobody ever expected this sequel to surpass its forerunner. Films like Once Were Warriors are austerely one-off successes. Nevertheless, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? stands on its own intrinsic worth as an outstanding movie that is different in its own unique way.


It has been five years since the events of the first movie. We resume the story of Jake 'The Muss' Heke (Morrison): a man whose sweltering temper interfered with his family, progressively giving them additional incentive to leave him. The first movie was a story of his wife Beth (Owens); however this film barely concerns Beth at all - in fact we hardly even see her - instead this is the story of Jake and his search for redemption. Jake realises that his fiery anger only detached him from his family. He recognises that he has serious problems affecting his life, and he must confront them to prevent further loss.


The story of What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? is separated into two threads. The first thread is of Jake Heke's pursuit for salvation, and the second is of Jake's son Sonny (Eruera) who clouds his future by joining a rancorous street gang. Sonny wants revenge on the gang who were responsible for the murder of his brother. These two threads of narrative are united with a bang towards the film's conclusion.


This film is extremely different to the style and storytelling of its predecessor. What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? still delivers a mighty kick in the gut and is an uncompromising story; however the original is far more raw around the edges and abundant in mature themes. This film showcases a lot of profanity and some strong violence, especially when it comes to utilisation of firearms. Lots of brutal violence is featured in the scenes that feature Jake bashing up a few characters. The end gang fight is especially heavy and really hits home.


This potent drama is fuelled by some terrific performances. Some people will complain about the thick New Zealand accents. This complaint is obligatory for most American audiences. However the accents add realism and potency to the film. Temuera Morrison is nothing short of outstanding with his a passionate, poignant portrayal of a man living a tragic life. When the sizzling temper of Jake Heke takes control it's impossible to fault his complete concentration. Towards the end of the film in particular his performance will leave you absolutely speechless. Morrison's performance towers above anyone else in the cast. In a sense he's the prominent leader being supported by a group of grunts. Of course the rest of the cast do a good job...they just can't match the brilliance of Morrison.


Ian Mune must have been nervous about taking the reigns after Lee Tamahori directed the first instalment. Similar to the first movie, Mune is able to establish a raw atmosphere that examines people at their lowest ebb. The first film was shot using grainy photography to make it feel raw and authentic. This effect has been completely retracted here, unfortunately.


Overall, What Becomes of the Broken Hearted? is a solid, strong sequel to the excellent Once Were Warriors. It's fascinating to see a refined Jake Heke who has changed his ways and has confronted his problems. On the contrary the character is a lot stronger and better developed in the first movie. This character alteration is both good and bad: draw your own verdict. Do not consider watching this film if you haven't seen the original. If you have seen the original it is not vital to see this one, although it is an interesting continuation of the story.

"Whenever I try to remember my dreams, I always turn 'em into stories. But dreams are like life. You can't catch it with your hands because you can't catch something you don't really see. If you believe in your dreams, you could be sure that any force, a tornado, a volcano or a typhoon, wouldn't be able to knock you out of love; because love exists on its own."

Arizona Dream is an example of a surrealistic film done to perfection. The film is a potent tale of life and the danger of dreams with the backdrop of an otherworldly, bizarre setting. This isn't your customary Hollywood spectacle with guns and explosions - far from it. Its entertainment value is drawn from the powerful drama and the extraordinary performances. The outcome is emblematic, distinctive and very special.


It's an especially daunting task to describe the plot of the film in any real detail without spoiling anything. To follow the movie it's imperative that you listen intimately to the dialogue and constantly endeavour to comprehend what is happening in each scene.


Axel Blackmar (Depp) is an unusual young man who dreams of peculiar images. In the opening sequence he dreams of an Eskimo who catches a rare halibut to bring back to the family igloo. This prominent image of a halibut is recurring throughout the movie; in a sense carrying each scene symbolically. Axel provides an income for himself by catching and tagging fish. Taking a break from his regular life, he leaves to attend the wedding of his Uncle Leo (Lewis). Leo is so caught up in his own world that he believes Axel will take over his family business of selling Cadillacs. However Axel is an individual responsible for his own destiny: this is something that Leo is too stubborn and narrow-minded to understand. While at Leo's wedding Axel meets a young girl named Grace (Taylor) and her step-mother Elaine (Dunaway).


Arizona Dream is then a story about the difficult lives of several people. In addition to the aforementioned protagonists there is also a wannabe actor named Paul (Gallo) who's also obsessed with films (one of Paul's most memorable scenes is when he's mimicking the famous scene from Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest). The spiritual journey of each character is rich in surrealistic imagery and fascinating drama. Be it building a flying machine, wishing to be reincarnated as a turtle or becoming an actor; each character has their own unique journey to accomplish.


I can't stress this enough: if you're going to watch a movie like this with the expectations of something blatant and wholly complete, stay far away. Arizona Dream is exactly what the title suggests: something dreamlike and bizarre. The themes explored are mature and adult. Hence this is not for people who expect some Hollywood action exhibition.


The film is also carried by the determined cast. I will watch anything with Johnny Depp in it - this is a fact and the sole reason I watched the film. I don't think I've ever seen a character that Johnny hasn't played to perfection. Here, he completely nails his role. It's impossible to spot flaws in his concentration or sustaining a developed character for the film's running time. Fay Dunaway is visibly aging, but this does not prevent her from presenting the audience with a remarkable portrayal. Whenever someone thinks of Jerry Lewis it's instinct to recall his rise to stardom during the 60s and 70s. Playing in a drama, Lewis also does a magnificent job.


I couldn't have chosen better actors to fill the supporting cast. The actors especially test their versatility during the most memorable scene in the movie - that is, a dinner scene. The cherry on top is everything else present in the film - strong direction, beautiful music and outstanding use of the camera. The music emphatically scores top marks! It's definitely the film's main strength. Each piece of music is absolutely beautiful. Some of the recurring music is catchy and adds further meaning to the production. The music here is the pinnacle of perfection.


Arizona Dream is a unique production that is strictly for those whose attention spans aren't limited to the conventional fast-paced Hollywood rubbish. If action films are your interest I recommend giving this one a skip. If you're willing to spend 135 minutes of your time on a potent drama rich in symbolism and beautiful, poetic themes then this one is highly recommended.

"Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution."

Amistad is straightforwardly one of Steven Spielberg's greatest motion pictures: an uncompromising, violent history lesson that does not succumb to telling a story of one of the tiring traditional historical events such as the American Civil War, the holocaust, etc. As an alternative to these aforementioned events that have been endlessly told in Hollywood productions, Spielberg tackles a poignant and imperative true story pertaining to the abolition of slavery that had yet to be explored on film.


Set in 1839, a Spanish slave trading vessel known as 'La Amistad' is transporting African prisoners with the intention of selling them into slavery. Not prepared to meekly submit to the harsh conditions they are forced to endure, the Africans stage a violent revolt against their captors. This rebellion is lead by a passionate African named Cinque (Hounsou) whose solitary goal is to sail back home and return to his beloved family. With this objective in mind the Africans inadvertently sail into the shores of the United States. They are captured and detained as runaway slaves. Mindless legal battles between several parties begin to materialise in regards to ownership of the African slaves. These Africans cannot speak a word of English, hence clueless to their probable execution for their violent rebellion. Challenging these assertions is the abolitionist Theodore Joadson (Freeman), a former slave himself, who desires for the Africans to be released and returned to their homeland. Theodore requires a lawyer to represent his position in the courtroom. As a representative he hires property lawyer Roger Baldwin (McConaughey) who believes that he can help.


The film then becomes a fascinating drama as the trial commences and the fate of the confused Africans instigates a battle of words in a confined courtroom. Following various legal proceedings the case is then brought before the US Supreme Court. Facing defeat, Theodore and Roger consult former president and lawyer John Quincy Adams (Hopkins) for help.


Amistad is a gripping legal drama fuelled by a sublime cast. Anthony Hopkins was nominated for an Oscar as John Quincy Adams. This decision is indisputable: for each scene Hopkins features in, he is always a stand-out. The final courtroom speech delivered by Hopkins is driven by poignancy and power. Although said monologue goes for almost 10 minutes there is never a dull second. Every line is attentively thought out. Djimon Hounsou's passionate portrayal is another highlight of the movie. For about 60% of the film's duration the setting is restricted to a courtroom. It can be logically deduced that acting skills of the highest order are absolutely necessary. Hounsou is always compelling and authoritative with his character's motivations blatantly palpable. This is a focused actor who has a great career ahead of him. Recognition must also go to Morgan Freeman and Matthew McConaughey. Freeman is one of the best actors of his generation. He is outstanding! It's refreshing to see Matthew McConaughey playing a unique role. Now that he's notorious for crummy romantic comedies I was a little concerned at first. My fears dissipated very quickly. Combine a mediocre actor with a great director...the results are excellent.


The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski was also nominated for an Oscar. Similar to films like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg only uses the best cinematography accessible. This gorgeous cinematography also assisted in keeping my interest during the long courtroom scenes.


An Oscar nomination was also tossed at John Williams for his admirably beautiful score. The film is topped off outstandingly with the commendable directing courtesy of Mr. Steven Spielberg.


Amistad is powerful, compelling and beautiful. Only being marred marginally by its over-length, this film is a praiseworthy historical epic from the master of modern cinema.

"You're so wise. You're like a miniature Buddha, covered in hair."

First of all, let me make something extremely clear: Anchorman is a film made strictly for those who are looking only for a myriad of non-stop laughs. I have watched this movie repeatedly and the gags never get old. I have quoted this film frequently with friends, and still the laughs always seem fresh.


Anchorman is the tale of a much-respected, top-rated 1970's news anchorman named Ron Burgundy (Ferrell). Every night thousands of people get home in time to watch Ron and his Channel 4 news team give them the news. But when feminism strides into the newsroom in the form of Veronica Corningstone (Applegate), Ron and his three loyal followers (Champ Kind played by Koechner; Brick Tamland played by Carell; and Brian Fantana played by Rudd) do not approve (except for Brick his disapproval is more by default). At first Veronica agrees to report in the field on the more "female" stories like cat fashion parades. However when Veronica decides that she's had enough of being eye candy and desires to take a job behind a news desk...trouble ensues.


From start to finish, Anchorman is one hilarious adventure that is overflowing with so many memorable quotes! I would not be alone in giving this film the title of "most quotable movie ever made". Granted some of the jokes are a bit crude, and there's also lots of sexual humour that may be offensive...despite this there can be no denying that they're always funny regardless of the content.


The principal protagonists are an ideal bunch of great comedians. Ferrell in particular shines with his own unique style of humour. Ever since this film, Ferrell has pretty much been type-cast as one who overacts. Not that I'm complaining because I can't get enough of the man's highly amusing mannerisms. Ferrell was by far the most energetic addition to the cast. It's almost impossible not to laugh at him. Rudd, Koechner and Carell are outstanding as Ferrell's news team. Each of the actors has their own unique character to add to the film. They are all truly outstanding.


But I believe the aspect that makes this film so great is the high amount of chemistry between everyone on the cast. While watching the film I found it very obvious that all the actors were close friends and they all had a clear image in their head about the kind of movie they were creating. The palpable camaraderie made this film so much more enjoyable. It is also very evident that the cast were all granted the opportunity to improvise a lot of their lines. Ferrell in particular would have done a lot of improvising because some of his lines...can just be quoted repeatedly without getting old. His quotes are random and spontaneous. You cannot replicate lines this perfect while writing a screenplay. This obvious improvisation is also solidified by the side-splitting outtakes played during the closing credits.


It almost goes without saying that this film received stellar direction from Adam McKay; a man who seems to understand this form of humour. The director is also great friends with a significant number of the cast members. He must have placed great trust in his actors when they were allowed to improvise lines. Watch out for cameos from many famous actors like Vince Vaughn, Tim Robbins, Ben Stiller and Jack Black.


Overall, Anchorman is a film that doesn't deserve some of the negativity is received. I suggest you watch it with an open mind, and take it for what it is: a hilarious, strangely moving comedy that was never meant to be Oscar material. This is the perfected art of being silly. You will be reciting quotes from this film until the day you die. Be sure to watch through the end credits. Followed by a sequel made up of deleted scenes and extra material.

""From Hell". Well at least they got the address right."


Jack the Ripper was a distinguished serial killer from the late 1800s. There are only a limited number of historians who haven't heard of his reputation and the iniquitous crimes he committed.


When I first heard of Jack the Ripper I was fascinated and wanted to learn more. Naturally, viewing a film about him was the best thing to do. I was therefore excited when I heard that a film was to be made about the crimes Ripper committed before the beginning of the 20th century.


Movies that are based around true events tread a difficult path. The choice is to either make a movie as authentic as possible, or to use the rough idea as the basis for an otherwise better story. The Hughes Brothers opted for the latter option; basing their film on the graphic novels created by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell. From Hell is one of the most visually striking films I've ever seen. In this day and age we see graphic novels transplanted onto film that create such films as Sin City and 300. I found From Hell to be a lot more realistic and enthralling than the two aforementioned films (based on graphic novels by Frank Miller).


From Hell is a film that does not concentrate on Jack the Ripper himself. Instead he takes a sideline position with the film taking the form of a whodunit murder mystery thriller with his identity kept a secret. In this film we focus on the man assigned to solve the murders - an inspector from London named Frederick Abberline (Depp). These murders are of course linked to Jack the Ripper who is called as such by the London public.


Abberline, who is still mourning the loss of his wife, begins investigating the murders of street-walking prostitutes found dead and butchered. A hooker named Mary Kelly (Graham) and her depressing group of girlfriend prostitutes appear to be the target as Jack the Ripper begins killing them one by one.


Overall I found the plot, the script and the characters to be quite pragmatic; however the main strength of From Hell is found in its visuals. The whole production seems like a genuine slice of life from the 19th century. The production design is elegant and accurate; using precise dexterity to replicate the grimy streets of Victorian-Era London. The classy atmosphere can be attributed to the production designer, the cinematographer and the directors. As a result of all these elements, the film is moody and quite terrifying at times. It was a shame that the film's pacing was slowed dramatically during its mid section. This is one of the film's very limited flaws.


The performances, with the exception of Heather Graham, are all brilliant. Johnny Depp was nothing short of outstanding. Because he plays an English inspector it's a perfect companion piece for Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow (I could feel a bit of Burton inspirational in the visuals). Depp nailed his role; he was exhilarating and wholly believable. That accent of Depp's in particular never felt contrived.


Heather Graham is a good actress...but as a street-walking whore she fails miserably. Her accent sounds fake and her posture is completely unsuitable. This is an example of gross miscasting. It was delightful to see someone like Ian Holm making an appearance. I am fond of his acting and was not disappointed. He delivers a stimulating performance during the darker, more foreboding scenes. Robbie Coltrane is yet another serviceable addition to an already stellar cast.


From Hell is a skilfully executed, brilliant addition to the horror genre. The film showcases a clever script and a wonderful cast; however it's the extravagant 19th century production design that makes this essential viewing. From Hell is a visually astounding film that really holds up and remains to be amazing after multiple viewings.

"Mr. Sylvester Stallone didn't get where he is today by playing in Jane Austen."

Fierce Creatures is a charming, rather funny non-sequel to A Fish Called Wanda that reunites most of the original cast, but falls far short of matching up to its non-predecessor. In all fairness, A Fish Called Wanda was way too remarkably excellent and unbeatable that I never expected Fierce Creatures to match it.

Fierce Creatures is of course completely unrelated (except a few sneaky references that one should spot, as well as a few Monty Python homages) while also keeping some of the characters much the same (Kline delivers a trademark macho performance here).

A London zoo, owned by an Aussie business tycoon named Rod McCain (Kline), is successful but McCain demands the zoo owner Rollo (Cleese) to raise funds by 20%. Rollo instigates a new policy; a 'fierce creature' policy that entails removing all placid animals and replacing them with exciting, ferocious ones. This new policy is met with complete shock from the zookeepers who discover that the only way to get rid of their placid animals is to shoot them. When matters get worse at the zoo, McCain sends his son Vince (also played by Kline) and up-and-coming business executive Willa Weston (Lee Curtis) to take control.

Fierce Creatures had all the elements it needed for a good old-fashioned fun comedy (including a very good repetitive joke that paints Cleese as a sexual superman found attractive by humans and animals), and it certainly is a fun film with high re-watchable value; it just can't hold a candle to A Fish Called Wanda.

John Cleese is brilliant as always. His character mirrors some of his other characters in the way that he's notorious for getting into trouble and coming up with hilarious excuses. The man will always be funny despite his age. Kevin Kline is of course an utter delight. He is given some very witty lines of dialogue that had me laughing quite spectacularly. Jamie Lee Curtis is her usual self. Mirroring her role in the non-predecessor, I was very impressed with the performance delivered here. And of course Michael Palin is a remarkable, funny and wonderful. Just like John Cleese, age is of no issue. I will always have fond memories of his Monty Python career.

The one real stand out feature for this film, though, is the exceptional musical score. Despite being just for a typical comedy, this score is definitely one of the best I have ever heard. The music is catchy and it matches the atmosphere while setting a very fitting tone as well. Kudos to Jerry Goldsmith for creating such a perfect score for this film.

Fierce Creatures contains some great scattered laughs with hilarious dialogue that become better with every viewing, and of course the film is great entertainment, but there's nothing to convincingly bring it into the 'brilliant' category. Certainly worth seeing.

"Hasta la vista, baby."

The second Terminator production has been widely regarded as better than the first. I do disagree with that statement, but I most certainly enjoyed this sequel.

Terminator 2 now follows Sarah Connor (Hamilton) and her teenage son John (Furlong). It has been many years since the events of the first movie, and the machines in the future are now trying to kill John Connor once again. This time a more advanced, shape-shifting T-1000 (Patrick) is sent to do the job.

Schwarzenegger is now the protector, and has been sent back in time to ensure John Connor survives the fight the war. For me, this was the film's biggest disappointment. I preferred Arnie as the villain rather than the protector. Because of Arnie's physical appearance he's much more nefarious and unforgettable as a cold killer who says very little. Instead he talk a lot, shoots a lot, and even smiles. But this more human approach destroys the image of Arnie from the first movie, in my opinion.

But that's not to say that Robert Patrick wasn't good as the T-1000 - because he was exceptional - but Arnie made a more memorable villain.

The special effects are absolutely out-of-this-world considering the age. Because the T-1000 is 'liquid metal' and can transform his limbs into different shapes, it had to take some amazing CGI to make it look real. Cameron achieves this beautifully. With each new film, Cameron sets the bar higher in terms of new influential technology and special effects.

And the action in this movie is first-rate. Overall, Terminator 2 is no-where near the quality of the first movie. That said, the film is intrinsically great entertainment and cannot be missed.

"The only thing revealing at the moment is two inches of arse crack poking out the top of my pants."

Crackerjack is a simple, funny and light-hearted typical Aussie comedy that is fun and very entertaining. A terrific script written by Mick Molloy and his brother Richard, which is really able to authentically display what old Aussie codgers are truly like. Lazy slob Jack Simpson (played tremendously well by Molloy) has a membership in a local lawn bowls club purely for the purpose of renting out his car park spaces (He owns 3 memberships, equalling 3 car park spaces; the car park for the bowls club is across the road from his work). When things get desperate at the bowling club and they start running out of players, the club call upon Jack (even though he's never held a lawn bowl in his life) to play lawn bowls with the other old folks. Jack is very reluctant, but has no choice if he wants to keep his membership(s), the other two of which the club are still unaware that Jack owns. Unfortunately, this Aussie production took a lot of pasting and it's a real shame that it did. It was never meant to be a masterpiece, and it isn't, but it's a good laugh to have while enjoying a cold one. Crackerjack is also special because it displays many Australian traits that ring true in reality. From believing in the philosophy of a 'fair go', to enjoying nothing more than a cold beer on a hot afternoon. The stereotypical Australians as portrayed in the film are very accurate as well. The cast was terrific, the gags are extremely clever and overall I had a really fun time watching this movie.

"I know now that my wife has become host to a Candarian demon. I fear that the only way to stop those possessed by the spirits of the book is through the act of... bodily dismemberment."

For the ultimate paradigmatic definition of a cult classic horror movie, one should simply behold the unforgettable ultra-low-budget Sam Raimi flick The Evil Dead. Back in 1979, Raimi and a cheery gang of friends journeyed out into the woods of pastoral Tennessee with the objective in mind of making a movie. Raimi was a filmmaker who had previously directed low-budget short films that seldom received the attention they deserved. Those working on the movie had hoped for it to be shown in a few theatres at most...they certainly never anticipated the cult status it received.

Audiences very enthusiastically welcomed The Evil Dead and adored the distinct, unusual and impeccable blend of over-the-top comedy and gore.
This movie is overwhelmingly remarkable for a number of reasons. For starters, it marks the official feature film debut of director Sam Raimi. This film brought the director into the spotlight. Raimi went on to make The Quick and the Dead, A Simple Plan and the recent live-action Spider-Man films.
Secondly, actor Bruce Campbell became a star after starring as the film's main character. Campbell went on to become the B-movie king for a reason.
Thirdly, it's one of the only popular commercial films to earn the dreaded NC-17 rating from the MPAA. Raimi was not afraid to toss around copious amounts of blood.

The Evil Dead is a ludicrously gory, silly, absurd yet hilarious horror/comedy hybrid. It's so violent and gory, in fact, that it makes Arnie's 80s action flicks seem like a pleasant picnic. When you're not reaching for the vomit bucket due to the gore, there are many moments that create genuine, spine-tingling terror. All these merits apply, yet it was made on a shoestring budget of about $350,000. It was also made outside a studio system, allowing the filmmakers the freedom to do whatever they wished. The Blair Witch Project also followed this technique, although The Evil Dead surpasses that film by a country mile. The artistic merits of Blair Witch are quite doubtful, whereas The Evil Dead is a benchmark in its genre.

For those who have never encountered Raimi's classic flick, it is a film that horror buffs simply must check out at some stage. It has a simple, almost non-existent plot...but it's very suitable and predominantly influential.
It is a straightforward tale of five college friends who travel to an isolated, abandoned old wood cabin for a weekend getaway. Upon arrival, they're fairly discontented due to how run-down and ancient the structure is. Shortly after arriving, they discover a tape recording and a creepy old book. This book is known as the "Necronomicon", a.k.a. "The Book of the Dead". The recording warns the friends that reading the book could awaken evil Candarian demons. These spirits become awoken from their "ancient slumber" (as a demon so tenderly describes it), and begin possessing the friends one-by-one. Ash (Campbell) is a coward who can't help but watch as his friends are helplessly transformed into grotesque demons. The only way to kill a possessed victim is through the act of bodily dismemberment. As the night progresses, Ash's friends are turned into demonic Deadites (that is, zombies). Now it's up to Ash to survive the night and battle the Evil Dead.

In a nutshell: The Evil Dead is not for the squeamish or faint of heart. It warranted the NC-17 rating from the MPAA with good reasoning. Several sequences cross the line profoundly. The gore and violence is slow to begin, however for the final 40 minutes it's virtually non-stop. The fake blood nonchalantly covers every inch of the set, all the prosthetics, and even the costumes. At one stage Bruce Campbell's shirt was so soaked in blood (i.e. corn syrup and food colouring) that after dying it by the fire it solidified before crumbling into pieces when Campbell attempted to put it back on again! But fear not: everything looks very fake and it's the point! However, unlike the customary modern gore-fests such as Hostel, the film is so fantastic and it succeeds because of the extreme gore. Without it, we wouldn't love it as much. The ideal concoction of over-the-top gore, black humour, and the use of bizarre and eerie sound effects creates one of the most brutal yet entertaining horror movies ever made! It also gives new meaning to the word "gore". The make-up department efficiently use every cent of the budget to ensure the film is as gory as possible. By golly, their objective was completed!

The Evil Dead was never meant to be a masterpiece. In fact its modest aspirations are what make it a masterpiece. The opening shot is enough to inform the audience of its humble aspirations. For said opening shot the camera zooms through the forest floor. This shot is of course what the "evil" is seeing. The camera was attached to a plank of wood and carried across the forest floor to create the point-of-view shots for the demonic force. Throughout the rest of the film, Raimi injects marvellous energy into the straightforward plot. The claustrophobic set is used to his advantage as the audience feels trapped in a restricted space in an isolated setting. The film was shot on 16mm cameras, similar to Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The grainy film generates an incredibly effective atmosphere of dread, permeated with jump-out-of-your-seat shocks and laugh-out-loud moments. The exceptional music adds to this. The music is effective whenever it's utilised. The shaky handheld camera is employed very efficiently as well.

Despite being filmed on a minuscule budget, The Evil Dead convincingly surpasses all similar films. The unusual camera angles and masterful editing prove that it's by far and away ahead of its time. The infamous tree raping scene, during which roots and branches from a tree violate a woman, flaunts some highly impressive special effects despite the ultra low budget. This proves that Raimi is capable of pulling off impressive feats that would even prove difficult in a multi-million dollar movie. There are countless moments in the film that can frighten viewers. There are also moments that will repulse others. Raimi masterfully merges the ability to develop tension with moments of either horror or humour. In the long run, this sets The Evil Dead apart from any other film of its era and genre. The only film I've seen that matches the fun and shameless camp of the film is its own sequel-come-remake. It's been decades since the release of this film and its sequel, but not even modern filmmakers on a high budget can top it. It's outrageously stylish, enjoyably disgusting and just plain fun!

The Evil Dead is not for all tastes. Some will absolutely abhor it, others will love it for what it is. Director Sam Raimi has crafted a benchmark movie that added innovative elements of cinematic elegance and subtle humour to the pale horror genre. Raimi saw this genre as the easiest and quickest way into the industry. With visual classiness such as this being featured, any genre could have guaranteed the talented individual a lucrative Hollywood career. The Evil Dead is campy, silly and at times very laughable. It's shamelessly what the film aspired to be. It's also excruciatingly dated and awfully fake at times. Once again, it's exactly what the film wanted to be. The acting is second-rate at times as well. But this is a horror film made by precocious young people, some with very little experience in acting, so it can be overlooked.

This is a genre classic that deserves every accolade it has been handed. Sam Raimi's tribute to Night of the Living Dead, The Exorcist, and tonnes of additional horror flicks is an example of the genre done correctly. The film has its tongue firmly in its cheek, it never takes itself seriously, and for the first time in years an audience could mix emphatic laughter with their screams. Watch it on its own terms, and you'll definitely enjoy it! Followed by a sequel/remake entitled Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn.

Trivia fact: Joel Coen is credited as being an assistant editor. Yes, it's the same guy that went on to make Fargo and No Country for Old Men among others. Another trivia fact: actors Theresa Tilly and Richard DeManincor appeared under fake names as they were scared of what could happen to their career by starring in the film.

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."

Tim Burton revitalised the Batman movie franchise in 1989 when the world witnessed the release of Batman. Burton's original film is still possibly the greatest superhero movie of all time. This was the first live action interpretation of Batman since the unbelievably campy TV series and movie of the 1960s that had just about done it in. Director Burton had gone to the graphic novels of the Dark Knight, infusing his two Batman movies with a moody, noirish tone that left fans satisfied and transformed non-fans into believers. Little did Burton know that director Joel Schumacher would hijack the series after Burton created Batman and Batman Returns. After director Schumacher created the mediocre Batman Forever (a fairly dismal title), he then buried the franchise six feet under with the indescribably bad Batman & Robin. The 1997 release of this terrible aforementioned film effectively derailed the Batman express for the succeeding 8 years.

In 2005, renowned director Christopher Nolan returned to square one to start all over again to repair the damage. Nolan was already famous for such films as Memento and Insomnia. In hindsight, this director was the perfect choice to instigate the birth of Batman Begins...the best escapade of the Caped Crusader since Tim Burton's brilliant 1989 blockbuster. First of all, it's extremely important to note that Batman Begins is in no way related to the preceding Batman films. Instead, director Nolan opted to start the series at the beginning. This is a different timeline...essentially an entirely different universe for Batman. To ensure no disasters like Batman & Robin ever occur again, all the previous Batman films are completely disregarded.

Although a bold move, the efforts of the creative team are virtually impeccable. With modern technology in place, the visuals look fantastic. I must state, though, that this interpretation of Gotham City is far more regular than Burton's mind-blowing vision. It essentially resembles any city in America. Nonetheless, every other location is delightful to behold. From the Batcave to Bruce Wayne's estate...to glorious locations displayed at a training facility in the middle of a snowy climate. Batman Begins is a phenomenal film, and while it doesn't invoke the effective mystique of Burton's initial movies, it has abandoned the look of an old comic book for the darker, more realistic aspect of a graphic novel. Gone is the campy dialogue, the detestable corniness and the embarrassing screenplays exhibited previously (in all the non-Burton films). In its place is a gritty, realistic, highly entertaining film guaranteed to please fans of all ages.

As the title suggests, the film dives into the origins of Bruce Wayne and the Batman legend. The whole story is absorbing and complimented with amazingly effective (and compelling) drama mixed with exhilarating action aplenty. The first half of Batman Begins recounts the genesis of Batman: how infuriated, disheartened young billionaire Bruce Wayne (Bale) travels the ends of the Earth to examine the criminal mind and struggle with his own fears, forever seeking a means to combat the injustice he sees around him. Wayne seeks training in an ancient society known as the League of Shadows: centuries old and with an impressive reputation, they are committed to checking world balance. Here he learns to look inward, confront himself, and employ his inner as well as outer strength. When Wayne returns to Gotham City he finds his home governed by corruption, fear and crime. In the film's second half, we watch the transformation of drab billionaire to a caped superhero dedicated to erasing crime. The film takes great pains to offer every facet of its plot and characters as things that could truly happen, no matter how outrageous. There isn't any radioactive bat biting Bruce Wayne to transform him into an instantaneous superhero with mystical powers. Wayne is a commonplace human with extraordinary susceptibilities, a robust physical make-up, access to high-tech gadgetry, and masses of money.

Director Christopher Nolan clearly distances his film from those preceding it. Personally, I found the film to be energetic, exciting, exuberant, involving, compelling and enthralling. There's plenty of drama to exhibit with equal amounts of action. However, Nolan's style isn't without flaws. For starters, it seems Nolan believes everyone expects the irritating close-ups and quick-cutting. Not just for the action, but for the entire film. In action it's detracting albeit still exciting. Nevertheless, I must give credit to the entire creative team for pulling off an incredibly atmospheric adventure. Burton's 1989 film had equal amounts of drama, comedy and action. Nicholson's embodiment of the Joker made us laugh constantly. He was comic relief mixed with psychopathic undertones. Instead of conforming to the set standard, Nolan opts for straight-up drama. This could have proved disastrous as the comics are mainly aimed at younger viewers who may find so much seriousness off-putting. However this style works! The visuals are impressive enough for kids to be excited about. Even during the drama, kids won't be bored (except for perhaps some instances when Batman isn't anywhere to be seen).

The cast is filled with some of the biggest names from the last few decades. Leading the cast is Welsh-born actor Christian Bale. While Michael Keaton shall always remain my all-time preference as Batman, Bale comes in at a close second. It's an extremely close call. Bale easily beats Val Kilmer, although granted Kilmer's interpretation was still highly impressive. Even easier, Bale is far superior to George Clooney (Even Adam West was better than George! It's amusing to note that George apologised for being part of wrecking the Batman franchise, and he even offered to refund the ticket price to anyone who saw the film). Christian Bale is charming as billionaire Bruce Wayne, and perfectly makes Batman his own. His strong jaw-line looks particularly good while under the mask. I will admit that his voice was sometimes slightly over-the-top. Occasionally it just sounds like he has a sore throat. Also in the cast are Liam Neeson, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine (in my opinion surpassing Michael Gough as Alfred the butler), Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson and even Rutger Hauer. Everyone is perfectly cast with the exception of Katie Holmes who seems extremely lightweight in an otherwise solid bunch of actors. Holmes should never be given the opportunity to reprise this role. Sorry, Tom Cruise, but your wife is an underwhelming actress.

Overall, Batman Begins clearly surpasses Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin with flying colours. It's still not as brilliant as Burton's 1989 Batman, but the film is certainly on par. Considering the diminishing quality of the previous two Batman outings, it's easy to discern why it's a fantastic choice to reboot the series. The creative team underwent a labour of love, painfully researching the source material for maximum quality. This film is only marginally flawed by slight over-length, the sometimes detracting shaky cam and by Katie Holmes' disappointing performance. Despite a number of shortcomings, the style is essentially perfect and the atmosphere is effective. If you consider yourself a fan of the comics or the character, watch this film without hesitation. Followed by The Dark Knight.

"Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket!"

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a film that has been widely acclaimed and immensely praised in the decades following its release. I don't think there is anyone on this planet who isn't familiar with the famous theme tune which is played instrumentally, and whistled by the cast in a few scenes.

The memorable theme music is just one in the string of memorable moments this film has to offer. A classic cast and a classic story are also thrown in here for maximum effect.

David Lean (probably best known for his work on Lawrence of Arabia) has crafted the entire film to perfection; utilising gorgeous locations in Sri Lanka, beautiful set design and lush cinematography.

The film is about a group of British Prisoners of War who are sent to a Japanese prison camp. The Japanese wish to build a bridge across the River Kwai to assist in transporting supplies - and hence force the British PoWs to build the bridge for them. Colonel Nicholson (Guinness) oversees the construction of the bridge and is oblivious that his allies are formulating plans to destroy it.

The locations that are showcased here look absolutely stunning. And the result of the bridge...remarkable. And it did have an epic feel on top of this as well. While watching the movie I got the sense that a lot of effort had gone into the overall production.

Naturally, the filming was plagued with troubles and the conditions weren't first-rate. This just makes the film seem a whole lot more realistic and gritty, in my opinion.

The Bridge on the River Kwai was never meant to be a history lesson, and consequently it's widely regarded as being historically inaccurate. Despite this, the film is a classic tale and a very good movie overall.

However the film's entertainment value is not without flaws. The film is dreadfully overlong and bogs horribly during the middle section. While they build the bridge, despite the great filmmaking, I was incredibly bored and couldn't get through it in one sitting. In my opinion they could have massacred at least half an hour off the running time, if not more.

But despite all the aforementioned flaws to do with length and historical inaccuracy, it's extraordinarily good filmmaking and is still regarded as one of the classic war movies. It has stellar direction that earned an Oscar, and a great performance by Alec Guinness that earned an Oscar.

The film walked away with a myriad of Oscars, including some for Best Cinematography and Best Writing...and of course Best Picture. All in all, The Bridge on the River Kwai is a classic war film that is flawed but not overly. It's a great experience, and cinema lovers simply owe it to themselves to see this one.