Movies I own

Used to be my absolute favourite. Then I saw Sweeney Todd, and realised the importance of feeling sympathy for a character.

Though Malcolm MacDowell is a fantastic actor (deserves much more recognition than he gets), one can't help but think that Alex, the little shit, deserves everything he gets. There is no sympathy from this side, though I believe Kubrick hints that Alex deserved some mercy.

It's disturbing, but face it, it happens. Kubrick sets a mood with rather eccentric music, and I say again, it works largely due to Malcolm MacDowell's often unnoticed skills.

So, though still fascinating and dark, it's no longer a top favourite. Well worth seeing anyway.

Bernardo Bertolucci shows some Commie love with his take on the epic film. The uncut version is five hours, so take a deep breath.

On the acting side, everyone involved does a decent job, except for Sutherland - who, let's face it, is legendary. Simply can't believe there was no Oscar nomination. And let's face it, back in '77, most members of the female population would have ('have' is, indeed, the last word of that sentence).

Bertolucci may still have been in his experimentation stage (compare this work to later pieces like Last Emperor), but he manages to make it interesting, taking into consideration the length. The writing may be somewhat unbelievable at times, so maybe there was a bit of English experimentation at this point in time too.

All would have been well had it not been for the crappy pro - Communist ending. One specific scene looks like it could have been cut straight out of a Stalin advertising campaign.

All in all, a worthwhile watch, if you're prepared to be patient.

As a great fan of the book, I was determined to separate the film from it. And, when you do, the movie is actually very enjoyable.

It's faithful to the novel, I'll add. But, ignoring that, it's a cold look at the neuroticism hidden under the surface of many - if not all - religions.

Though Connery is good, it is Slater who really breaks through in the movie, despite the odd pudding - bowl haircut. At seventeen or so, he managed to keep up with his much older co - stars superbly. No awards for the poor chap, though.

Overall, a great watch. The Da Vinci code for people who want to think.

In my eyes, not the greatest movie of all time. By far, but still a wonderful epic.

Despite it's length (of 224 minutes) it grasps the viewer's attention by giving a bit of everything - romance, drama, war, comedy. And Clark Gable, but that's a different matter, on which I shan't elaborate.

Vivien Leigh is a powerful actress, but Scarlett O'Hara will irritate you so much you actually wish she'd fall off a cliff. Just when your hopes start to pick up (war comes, Scarlett gets a wake up call, has to get her hands dirty and appreciates her prior position more), she reverts to being an uppity, overindulgent bitch. Just goes to show - once a spoiled brat, always a spoiled brat.

I give an extra star for Hattie McDaniel. She steals the show with every line.

A worthwhile watch, and worthy of the 'classic' title.

There are more than enough reasons to like this movie. One of them is the very expressive John Lone (as Pu Yi), who somehow manages to play the same character over 30 or 40 years effectively.

It has it's arty aspects (of the beneficial sort), but there aren't too many rolling landscape shots (not enough to make you scream, anyway).

The one flaw is that the Chinese atmosphere is slightly warped by the movie being in English. But I award an extra half star for the music. Especially the track playing on the dvd menu.

Verdict: Bertolucci is a master of his occupation.

I've only just realised how little I said before. Well, let me tell you exactly why this movie is so perfect.

The atmosphere created and shots taken are probably the best I've ever seen in my cinematic history. You get the impression that the script was thought about long and hard, and pieced together again and again for the best results.

The acting is top - notch. Crowe has an incredibly strong presence, and Joaquin Phoenix is dramatic and convincing as Emperor Commodus.

I can't really think of more to say, except that 'Gladiator' excels in every aspect of film - making. THE must - see for all fans of historical drama. Who cares if Commodus really died in a bathtub? It's a movie, people, not a documentary; get over it.

Doesn't hit the same spot as the first. The transition stage in making the franchise more commercial. Basically, more action, more effects, less plot. Still introduces some new ideas, though, which cannot be said for the third.

An outstanding film. Way beyond initial expectations.

Depp is excellent, so is Geoffrey Rush. Knightley isn't given a chance to show her budding talent, and Bloom doesn't have much presence, but hey, we need a handsome sucker in every blockbuster.

A fun story, good directing, no awkward shots. One of the best films of the decade and a definite favourite.

A very enjoyable movie ... if you've read the play. It's sole fault is that, for those who have not studied the work itself, it is completely incomprehensible.

Laurence Olivier is superb, but the whole thing is carried out very dramatically (check the crown). Naturally, the words are no different from the play, but the script was still relatively well handled.

A good one for those studying Shakespeare, but not really for entertainment purposes only.

Pretty good adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. The characters all look natural; no make - up, no fancy hairdo's. Aside, some of the ugliest bonnets I've ever seen are on full display in Persuasion.

Ciarán Hinds is a decent actor, and Amanda Root seems to be a pretty good fit. Interesting to see Fiona Shaw in a different type of role (as opposed to the one she took on in Harry Potter).

Recommend it to those who enjoyed 2005's Pride and Prejudice, though this was made on a lower budget.

An excellent adaptation of a novel which I actually did not enjoy.

It's predictable, obviously, but beautiful. Nice to see a movie where nobody has to take off their clothes to get an audience's attention.

It made me change my mind about Keira Knightley. When given the opportunity, she can actually pull up her socks and act. The rest of the cast is well - suited to their roles, in particular, Brenda Blethyn. Donald Sutherland, despite his part being small, is an added bonus.

Great story, good acting, beautiful location and Orlando Bloom (I'm not speaking about acting skills here).

If you're looking for historical accuracy, look elsewhere. Story is well executed, but it's still a bit far - fetched.

They're doing the anthropomorphic thing ... again! This time, the anthropomorphists (the animals, that is, not the animators) are disproportioned, too!

Though Madagascar boasts some of the worst animation in history (especially for a budget of almost eighty million dollars!)), it is a pretty entertaining movie. Sacha Baron Cohen is delightful as the Lemur King, and the story is simple (and much of the information is wrong - chimps are apes, not monkeys), but a few references to classic films make up for that ('We killed them and ate their livers').

But, I say again, that big ass heap o' loot could have been spent on some proper animators, instead of a few overrated actors.

Sweet ... a good story with too many sequels. I cried when he gets taken to the vet to be put down when I was a kid (no worries - it doesn't happen).

Predictable as hell, but children will love the dog, and adults will love the rest of the cast. Even little Sarah Rose Karr, who plays Emily Newton, puts in tremendous effort and charisma.

Vanessa Redgrave is a wonderful actress, but this movie won't (I say won't defiantly) appeal to everyone. It's basically got the same 'stream of consciousness' structure that Virginia Woolf's novel has, which can be tiresome.

Despite the fact that the guy who plays the young Peter Walsh looks about 40 instead of 19, the cast are all well suited to their roles. No stiff acting, no overdramatic gestures and speeches. Thumbs up to the casting director.

By the director of 'That feminist flick' Antonia's Line. Not really strongly feminist, actually, unlike both Woolf's and Gorris's (the director - in her case, other) works.

Enjoyable, but I can't see many people renting it just for the sake of it.

It has the power to keep you watching for almost three hours: an ability most movies do not possess. But the question is this: does it really deserve the title 'Best movie of all time'?

I disagree there. Although interesting and well - displayed, it lacks the power to rank in my Top 10, or even my favourite movies. The acting is excellent, I give it that. Al Pacino amazed me. Marlon Brando's cotton - wool - in - cheeks voice may take some getting used to, but he gives the character form like no other could. Coppola is a skilled director and has a good enough view of what will catch the eye.

I'm a biggie for script and the realism of the spoken word. That 'nickels and dimes' line is perhaps the most unbelievable ever. The chucking in of Italian terms doesn't fit with the strong American accents some of the family members have adopted.

The characters seem to be rather blatantly sexist (in the traditional light), but that's no fault of Coppola's or any of the actors. I understand that Gangsterism is very much a male - dominated world, but there's no need for Michael to be a dickhead to all the women he meets, or for the family to scorn the birth of a female child over that of a male. Kay sticks with Michael ultimately, though he is abusive and rude, despite her actually having a brain and being financially independent. Essentially, The Godfather portrays the 20th century, and is often subtly unfriendly to the female viewer. Not that this should put off any female fans (of which there are many), it just became rather apparent to me personally.

Perhaps the movie's prestigious reputation is ultimately it's small downfall in my books. But just because I didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it's a bad film.

Ah, yes. Kubrick has done it again.

Unlike every single one of his other movies, it's a comedy. The beginning may bore some, but once you're about 10 or 15 minutes you'll be stuck on it!

If it doesn't bother you that it's in black 'n white, then you should definitely buy this movie. Watch for the scene with Dmitri on the phone!

Saw it again today, and loved it no less this time around.

One of the few horrors out there that made it's way onto my dvd shelf.

Kate Hudson portrays a nurse who goes to work for an eccentric couple living in New Orleans. She is given a spare key to the attic and tries to uncover the secret the family have been hiding for decades.

Kate Hudson didn't do such a marvellous job with this one, but Gena Rowlands steals the show without a doubt. John Hurt's character is confined to making odd noises and pointing so we'll forgive him for that.

What makes this movie so noteworthy and standoffish from other horrors is the situation. It's the fact that, somehow, it could be real. There is no senseless blood and violence or silly American girls screaming their heads off. It's a tense thriller with a supernatural touch.

It decreases in entertainment value after the first time (lost a half star), but it's definitely one of the better horrors out there.

Deviates from the book, but in a beneficial way.

I'll admit - it is the most soppy, predictable little musical ever. I loved it!

The dance scenes are so perfectly co - ordinated, not even the harshest of critics could complain. Gene Kelly may not have a particularly good singing voice, but he sure can move!

Jean Hagen steals the show. Although her character is supposedly less - rounded than Debbie Reynolds', her witchy performance adds spark and verve to her on - screen personality.

Light, witty and generally enjoyable, Singin' in the Rain has it's good reasons for being considered a classic.

I'll list a couple of points.

Pros:
1) Beautifully shot. Great talent behind the camera, and breathtaking scenery.
2) Omar Sharif. He portrays an emotional character without getting sentimental.
3) Script.

Cons:
1) Lara's character. I mean, she's very beautiful, but not the type men would become obsessed with. She spends her life being manipulated by a series of men. The reasonable response would be pity, not a wild occupation with someone so weak.
2) Though the theme song is relaxing, I felt somewhat sick of it after the 11th time it was played throughout the film.

In total, the pros outweigh the cons. Three - and - a - half seems acceptable to me.