Movies that I have written reviews for.

Branagh's best Shakespere film. His direction varies from artsy and stylized to standard and straight-forward, depending on the needs of each scene. The comedy varies from heavy-handed to subtle depending on the scene and actor. The drama is pitch perfect and never heavier than is necessary. The diction is clear but retains the poetry of the text. All the actors are suited perfectly for their roles. I could recommend this to anyone who likes period drama or romantic comedy. Whether they like Shakespeare or not.

Filmmaking is a balance of numerous artists. But in this film it is impossible to see where director Akira Kurosawa ends and actor Takashi Shimura begins. It is the story of a burocratic zombie who comes to life at the moment of his imminent death. The film uses both first-person and second-person storytelling techniques. Also brilliant camera work and some of the truest acting that I have ever seen. The title means "to live". In this film, "to live" becomes a riddle of the Sphinx, and we follow one mans's solution to it.

Director Ray Lawrence and Peter Carey (the author of the original novel) create the ultimate paan to storytelling. A surrealistic masterpiece that shows that truth is stranger than fiction. But the truth here is more human than the usual tries at that idea, and far more thought provoking. An amazing balance of deep cynicism and passionate inspiration. Spiritual and grounded in reality. Modern and Primitive. The actors deserve equal credit in the exceptional quality of this production.

The difinitive adventure film. Smart, fun, well written and directed. Harrison Ford's acting and stunt work make Indiana Jones a hero that seems real. An action hero with roots in Alan Quartermain, James Bond, and the classic adventure movie serials. Very similar in many ways to the adventure stories of Robert E. Howard, Gritty heros with exotic dangers and locations.

The difinitive movie of it's type. Suspense takes center stage from beginning to end. Not a scene wasted. John Carpenter takes his time and puts the audience in every scene, instead of the flash-edit shock value technique used in today's films.

I avoided this film for years because of it's reputation. Now it is one of my guilty pleasures! Never destined to be a classic, but it is a lot of fun. The cinimatic equivalent of a ride at Disneyland. Pre-computer animation, almost every stunt you see is performed by actors and stuntmen. Davis comfortabley handles the stunt work and fights. Modine does a good job with what is usually a thankless role of male love interest to a female action lead. The story and diologue is no more complicated than is necessary to advance the action. A popcorn-munching, matinee movie and a fun ride.

There are many films that the audience are an equal part of (Star Wars, Star Trek, ect.), but this is the one that engages the audience DURRING the film. It is a unique balance of parody and relentless originality. An English perspective of American film culture icons. And yet Tim Curry's firebrand performance is more iconic than anything the film parodies. The films flip irreverence no doubt inspired the American audience participation. Director Jim Sharman's placement of the importance on actors and setting over camera work and editing places the audience with the characters on their journey, but takes nothing seriously. And yet you still feel for them. I frequently attended the midnight showings and the enthusiasm and liberation was deeply infectious. Both live theatre and cinema. Perfect for me.

Other than the flash-edit rewinds between the points of view, I found little wrong with this film. It was nice to see a complicated political story with multiple characters that wasn't stretched out to over two hours just to make it seem more important. The story in this is well served. The actors stay in character and I feel for each one. Dennis Quaid's character doesn't get as beat up looking as we expect in modern films, but it does fit what we see if you pay attention. This is one of the best examples I have seen recently of everything in the film serving the story. No showboating anywhere. Other film makers could learn from it. Not an epic, but I enjoyed going to see it.

As all too often happens, people who discover a philosophical truth then decide that it is the ONLY truth. Here the message is that possitive things only happen to us when we draw positive energy towards us, and negitive things when we draw negitive energy. They deny both random action (if a pinecone hits me on the head in the forest, did I draw it to me?), and others directing their will toward us. It puts the responsibility solely on us without input from the world around us. Yes, what they are saying is true. But it's not the only truth. I would love to get one of these people on some talk show with the parents of some child who had been victimized or murdered, and have them explain that the child drew that to them. That is a documentary that I would love to see.

A good, classic heist movie. The twist is that while the bank robbers are fictional, the other characters as well as the events and outcomes are true. This is an example of where if this were a purely fictional story it would be torn apart by the critics. Statham is, as usual, solid in the lead. His range as an actor is subtle, but I can always count on him to be engaging and always in character. Too often a story is brought to a halt to have a scene for the actor to prove how good they are (ironicly, that's usually their worst scene in the film). As I said, a good heist film, and my attention was kept up from begining to end.

The acting and drama is well balanced in what could have been a very preachy, anti-nuclear film. It builds good suspense in an unmanipulative way. The story is served first with it's political message only along for the ride. The main message seems more about the danger of putting success over safety than anything in particular about the nuclear industry. I also applaud the more natural character development. I often feel that films try too hard to round out each person and wind up disrupting the pace or style of the storytelling. The actors do an excelent job of staying within their characters. Not the greatest movie, but a good job all around.

Good film making, but it left me cold. The end just seems to peter out. Maybe it was supposed to seem ironic or realistic. I wasn't expecting an action-hero ending, but I thought it should have some sort of climax. It even lacked the sense of fate that the old film noir's had. I know people love this film, but I wonder how much of it is because the unconventional ending seems "arty".

The perfect movie musical. A fantasy couched in family drama and history. the comedy ranges from simple to sophisticated, the drama from quaint to powerfull. The music is catchy and sometimes moving. Missing only exceptional dancing to make it all things to all people, it can hardly be said it suffers for it. Arguably director Vincente Minnelli's masterpiece, and Judy Garland was never better. Eye candy that feeds like a meal.

Typical "style over substance" film. Anothe example of a successful director given too much freedom. But it's the producers fault. It's their job to keep the production focused. That's why they get the best picture oscars, not the directors. The talent is wasted and the acting often seems improvised. The ingredients do not make the meal, you have to cook well too.

I found this film to be lacking in both suspense and depth. The actors seem good, but the one-note performances give little to base a judgement on. The director should have fleshed out their characters more or created some nuances in the performances. Just a dull revenge film with no surprises.

Good job all around on this screen adaption of the stage musical. Burton's style was perfect for this story. Depp and Carter are capable singers and use their acting talents to add subtlety to the broad characterizations. Sounds good, looks great. What more do you need from a musical?

I was afraid constantly throughout this film that all concerned were in over their head. I shouldn't have been. The performances stay on track, skirting the edge of maudlin without falling in. Lessons typically used in this subject matter are taught, not preached. A couple of questions are addressed rather late in the story and the title reference is a little too quaint, but that didn't matter. I could have done without the voice-over at the end though. Still, I would have to say that it was one of the most satisfying dramas that I have seen in a while. Well worth looking into.

Lean adds his visual muscle to this Dickens classic. Great production value and solid acting from the whole cast. Lean shows here that he is already a master of cinimatic images without sacrificing the performances. A class act

While this breaks no new ground in the superhero film genre, it does at least try for quality. The romance is mature and realistic. The other relationships are natural and not forced. Downey even makes a convincing gear-head. Fans of the comic book will be scratching their heads at Stark's "illness". No doubt it is an example of the modernizing or "rethinking" that producers can't seem to resist. It seems medically immprobable to me, and that distracts from the story. Other than that, it was a fun day at the movies and I would still recommend it.

I was happy when i found out that Rob Zombie was directing this remake. He knows and loves horror films and has proved that he can make them too. But here I feel that he failed. His detailed build up of back story to humanize Michael Myers is sacrficed by turning him into a stringy-haired giant. Power to Taylor Mane for getting to play Myers, but his talents are wasted. He is made into too much of a caricature for us to see the performance. Zombie deserves credit for making the film his own, but here it is not enough. It's not a bad film, and of course in other hands it would have been garbage. I'm a fan of the series and gave the film a second look to make sure that I was not basing my opinion on first impressions. I still felt the same. What I did love was the ending. Carpenter's ending was intended to not allow the audience a release in tension (and sadly gave birth to a film cliche). Zombie instead remains loyal to his character developement and gives us an emotionally powerful moment. But he doesn't spell it out for us, so I'm not sure that audiences just looking for a horror thrill will get it. I reccomend it, but it is an Icarus of horror films. It flys high, but falls because it's wings are not made of better stuff.

Fans of Stephen King will find nothing new here. It cribs from his various holocostic stories, from The Stand to Storm Of The Century. If you can get past that, than you will find this to be a well crafted horror tale. It is adapted from a story written directly for an audiobook. A story of how no matter how bad monsters get, we are still our own worst enemy. The acting is solid and the direction is top notch. Other than the all too comon need for sci-fi/horror films to have a twist ending, I find little wrong with this film.

Adventure DOES have a name. And it IS Indiana Jones. I have already read some nit-picky complaints about this film. Sorry, but no sequel will ever give you an epiphany like the first in any series. All you are going to find here is one heck of a good time. Light humor, creative scenarios, good looking CGI, stunts with real actors, and lots of action. Where the first film places itself in the adventure serials of the 1930's, this one uses elements typical of movies from the 1950's. Not a history lesson (none of them were, including Raiders), and Jones is still more like Alan Quartermain than Howard Carter. What makes it better than the usual rollarcoaster ride movie is the feeling that these specific artists are the only ones who could make this film. Spielberg's humor, Lucas's visuals, and Ford's physicality. Since you can see that Ford is doing most of his own stunts, there are a couple of stunts that made the audience I saw it with gasp. It's light-hearted fun that isn't meant to be taken seriously. And why should it. It is my favorite series of films, and I felt that it was well served. A great day at the movies.

Intended to, and still often thought to, glorify the Nazis. To me though, it proved how dangerous they were. This is a properly objective and brilliantly photographed documentary. I believe it when I read that the director was apolitical because any message of the Nazi's "greatness" is shown, not told to me by the filmmaker. It creeped me out! Hitler was a very charismatic speaker when you see a whole speech, instead of just an excerpt. The crowds looked like a well dressed and organized lynch mob of massive preportions. When I saw this in a theatre, the audience was dumb-founded. A cold, clear document of malevolence. All the worse because I could see Hitler as a human being, not an icon. Scarey stuff.

A typical entry in the gangster genre with shades of Heat and Black Caesar. Being based on a true story is the only original detail in this by-the-numbers tale of the rise and fall of a crime boss. That said, there is nothing wrong with the quality of the film making. The direction, writing, and acting are all good. Fans of the genre should be well pleased with this one. I saw the extended cut on video and would recommend that version.

A noble effort from director Brannah. Well acted, photographed, and cleverly adapted. My problem is in the part of the story where the female lead disguises as a man. There is a nominal effort at costuming and no effort at acting to express this. It makes it very difficult to believe that anyone would confuse her for a man. This flaw brings the whole film down like a house of cards because that plot device is vital to the climax of the story. For Shakespeare fans only for the supporting players. Brian Blessed's duel roles are stand-outs.

A great war film. Good performances and solid direction raise this one above the norm. Great action for it's time, but with an emphisis on character developement. Some cliche`s typical of the genre, but it doesn't hurt the film. Maureen O'Hara playes with understated complexity. Fonda playes the kind of simple character that doesn't usually apeal to me, but here he makes it work.

A noble effort, but for Beatles fans only. Visually fantastic and well constructed, but I had a difficult time caring about the characters. They had no more depth than was necessary to get their song in the story. It would be a great over view of the 1960's, but a number of films have done that before. Bono and Joe Cocker are stand-outs that almost steal the film. Pretty good over all, but not much more.

Romero makes the best zombie films, but this one is just above average. Still, this is a must see for fans of the genre. Quite inventive in numurous places, and not lacking in effective gore. Although the actors still seem to be "acting" even when in the story they are no longer "acting". They are all just characters from a zombie flick, lacking in any details that would make them seem real. Romero gets credit for presenting it as an edited film not just a "found" tape. Unlike films like The Blair Wich Project and Cloverfield where the recordings break at edit convienent places. The pretentious style also makes it come across like it was made by film students. But in the end I can only reccomend it to zombie film fans with low expectations.

The best thing about this film is the recreation of the musical performances by Joy Division. The actors perform their own music and excellently mimic the physical movement of the original band. But for a director who was a photographer and cinematographer, the bland black-and-white photography brings the film way down from it's potential. The acting and story are fine, but it feels like it needs something more. At least it didn't turn Curtis's life story into a drama pagent that most biopics turn into. It's also refreshing to see a biography of an artist where they are not a victim of their fame. It's getting harder for me to sympathise with artists who are a success at creating their own art on their own terms, yet still feel the need to self-distruct. This is the simple tragedy of an interupted life from circumstances that are both of and not of his own making. But that is Curtis's life, and this is about the film. A for effort, C+ for results after expectations, and B for reccomendation to anyone unfamilier with Joy Division and Ian Curtis.

Much better than the original Game Of Death at using footage of Bruce lee in a film he didn't make. Old footage and new are exceptionally well matched together and often seem natural. Only the difference in film stock give it away in various scenes. Even the actor doubling Lee looks more like him and mimics his physical movement quite well. Fight choreography is by Yuen Woo Ping and raises this well above the typical chop-socky flick. Considering the low quality of most films in this genre, even it's cheesyness can't bring it down. Bruce Lee fans will be well pleased as long as they have realistic expectations. Not a masterpiece by far, but a lot of fun. As someone who can't get enough of martial arts movies, I loved it.

A pleasant blend of The Karate Kid and every period film Jet Li and Jackie Chan ever made. A slightly more natural white-guy-in-Chinese-kung-fu story. Michael Angarano may have even known some Wushu before he made the film. The action is excellent from choreographer Yuen Woo Ping. The long awaited Jackie Chan/Jet Li fight scene is one of the best I've ever seen. The photography is good and the effects are fairly natural. Li and Chan both have dual roles to add acting to the various skills they display here. The innevitable training sequence is pleasantly brief and contains philosophy that would be familier to anyone who has studied Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do. The quest narrative is second only to revenge stories, and between them they represent 90 percent of all martial-arts films. So the quest story here will hold few surprises. This does not hurt the film however, and a good time could be had by all.

Another self-distructive artist story, but more in the vein of a victim of their times and scene. The Algonquin Round Table was another artistic scene (like the Worhol studios, 1960's Height-Ashbury district, ect.) where the scene was as important as any art it might create. But at least this film shows that some real work got done. Typically film biographies of artists short change the creative process for the sake of showing the glamour. I'm often left wondering how the artist got anything done to be famous for. But Here I truely felt like I was seeing the life and times of Dorothy Parker and her contemporaries. Hitorical context and perspective is well handled. The historical figures are shown in both a good and bad light. It's even pointed out that Fitzgerald and Hemingway had to leave New York to be more productive. The performances are kept real and unsentemental. Directer Rudolph does an excellent job keeping everything focused. Parker fans will enjoy it, others should at least find it interesting. Keep your eyes open for an unbilled cameo by Cyndi Lauper, whose 20's era looks and New York accent blend her in perfectly.

I felt cheated when I saw this film because I had always heard what a great war film it was. The war is only a few minutes of it's running time. What this is is a great biography of a man of faith. Howard Hawks strength as a director was not to have a particular style that he applied to each film, but make the best kind of film of whatever type he worked on. So here a director famous equally for comedies and action films has made a solid dramatic biography. Gary Cooper's one-note acting style works well for him here (although he would become a much better actor in his later films). The film does have a messege, but in the end I felt that I got to know Alvin York the man, not the hero. Maybe that's why he seems like a real hero. Not for the guts and the glory, but for doing the right thing at the right time when no one else seems to be able to. The best scene in the movie? The one where a couple of army officers, after finding out that he is a concienceous objector, try to use bible quotes to prove to him that he is wrong. He then points out to them what the quotes really mean by the context of the stories they come from. That scene made the whole film for me. I reccommend it to anyone, and as I pointed out before, you don't even have to like war movies.

The ultimate master-of-all-genres director Howard Hawks is in top form with this World War 2 action/drama. Hawks never really had his own directorial "style" (unless you count strong women and naturalized diologue). He always approached each film with what was the best way to tell that story. By using no preconcieved notions, he mastered all genres. Here he approaches the war genre more in the way one would make a disaster film. A B-17 Flying Fortness and it's crew on a standard mission attempt to land at Pearl Harbour only to find it being attacked. They try to land various places around the Pacific, only to find out about attacks in those places. Their search to find a safe landing and to find out what has happened to family and loved-ones is the core of this story. There is an eerily similar feeling of "what is happening to us and what will happen next" that we all felt on September 11, 2001 durring those attacks. There is a perfect moment early on when they hear radio broadcasts around Hawaii of the attack and the communications of the Japanese pilots. One charecter asks if it's Orson Welles in reference to the War Of The Worlds panic broadcast of only three years before. The patriotic ending was perfect for the war-time audiences who would have seen this when it was first realeased, but may date this film for current viewers. I would reccomend this film to anyone, not just war film fans. Because Hawks films are not about the events of a story, but about how people react and respond to them. This film is not so much about war as it is about history. I recomend it strongly.

Another example of the positive current trend of quality directors doing summer action flicks. I was a little dissapointed, but only because my expectations were a little too high. It DOES deliver the action, humor, and charecter developement that made the first film a hit. It does not surpass the first film (except for the ever improving quality of digital effects), but it is a worthy sequel. Jeffrey Tambor is wasted and there is not enough of the Golden Army to justify the title, but that matters little. I couldn't reccomend it to everyone, but I could if you like this style of mythical/action film. Then it would be well worth the ticket price.

The advertising for this film misled me, but I'm happy for it. What seemed like a slap-stick C.G.I comedy turns out to be a well balanced action film. I could best describe it's style by comparing it to a Lethal Weapon film. The various previews give away most of the good jokes, but they only represent the first half of the film. Will Smith has taken a page out of the John Wayne school af acting that states; if you can't change like a chameleon, act like yourself in ernest. And sure enough, by half way through the film I stopped thinking of him a Will Smith and saw him as Hancock. His performance in I Am Legend is far better, but this isn't that sort of film. Just a little too stylized in places where it doesn't need to be, it is in the end a polished and mature work. It wisely does not go over-the-top and has a far more realistic climax than I had expected. The originality of the story will no doubt lead to some dissapointment from justifiably high expectations, but the filmmakers stick to their story and make a polished film. Not a classic, but a good popcorn-munching matinee movie.

Antoine Fuqua is one of my favorite current action directors, but here he has crafted a fairly typical action flick. He belongs to that class of directors whose bad films are better than most others best efforts. This is one of his "bad" ones. It's well detailed and competently acted, but I can't help but feel like I've seen this story many times before. The charecter development is just enough to advance the story where more would help. The action is top-notch, but uninspired. It's a good enough film to make me want ot see more from this director, but I could only reccomend it with reservations.

This is one of my favorite recent supernatural thrillers. I saw it out of desperation for a film of it's type that I hadn't seen, and was pleasanty surprised. Don't let the presence of Sarah Michelle Gellar fool you. This is not a teen horror flick, a japanese horror film, or Saw type slasher porn. It is a classic gothic type supernatural thriller in modern times. Some shock scares typical of modern films, but all within the realm of the story. The strength of the film is that there is nothing in the film that doesn't serve the story. No useless or flashy scares injected in to keep fifteen-minute attention spans in check. I never felt like the film was trying to convince me of how important or scary it was. The story seemed to unfold naturally, and I honestly felt for the charecters. That always makes the suspense and scares more effective. Gellar's performance is more polished and mature than anything else I've seen her in, even holding her own in her scenes with Sam Shepard. Too many films (not always to their discredit) are just pop entertainment, so I always appreciate a class act when I see one. And this is one.

One of the best dramas I have seen in a long time. Hollywood has long perfected the drama to a point where each year you are bound to see something that profoundly affects you. Usually it comes from originality, but sometimes familier ground is raised above the norm. This is one such case. A story of family strife, loss, grief, and the collapse of a family. But here the details and sensitivity of the performances are what raise it up. All the different elements of the film making enhance the humanity of the story. Fancy dramatic climaxes are avoided for the sake of realism. I was even afraid that it would have some sort of non-ending to maintain that realism, but wound up satisfied in the end. It well deserved a nomination for a best picture Oscar, because it has that little extra something that makes it stand out from the rest.