My Top 50 Films of 2007

There are no words that exist that can express my love for this film. Sheer brilliance from all fronts, especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, or rather personification, of Daniel Plainview and Paul Thomas Anderson's masterful direction. Easily the greatest film of the year and perhaps one of the greatest of the decade. This film is extremely relevant to today's time and issues and should be seen by everyone. It's very long runtime might turn people off, but I will make it my duty to recruit people to see this masterpiece.

"I... drink... your... MILKSHAKE! I DRINK IT UP!

Review coming soon .

Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007)
director: Julian Schnabel
starring: Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Seigner, Marie-Josée Croze, Anne Cosigny, Max Von Sydow

This is one of few films that have really impressed me this year. 2007 has been a wonderful year for cinema and having The Diving Bell and the Butterfly released right at the end of it really made for a great conclusion. What I was impressed with the most in this film was not the fact that it was based on a true story or the actor's performances, the cinematography or the screenplay. What impressed me the most was the masterful work by director Julian Schnabel. Don't get me wrong, I loved everything about this film and everything did impress me immensely, but the direction here is impeccable and I thought that Schnabel deserved some more attention for his fantastic directorial job.

"Le scaphandre et le papillon" [or "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" in English] was first a memoir published in 1997 by Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of French fashion magazine Elle. It details the author's life after he suffered a massive stroke which ultimately left him fully paralyzed. His condition was the rare Locked-In Syndrome in which the patient is completely aware and awake, but they are physically unresponsive due to the complete paralysis of all of the voluntary muscles in the body. The only part of his body which he could move was his left eyelid. Taking advantage of the one movable body part he had, Bauby wrote his memoir through a series of blinks. This novel was an incredible achievement not only in literature, but in human development.

What I am impressed with is Julian Schnabel's attention to detail and his intricate display of images and camera techniques; angles and focuses that allow us to communicate with the character of Bauby mentally as he himself would. What Schnabel has done here is extremely artistic, but he does not overuse or abuse his visuals to a point where everything just seems like a kaleidoscope slide. Taking Bauby's story and translating it into film was undoubtedly a difficult task, but Schnabel has made what seemed like a near impossible project into something of great importance to cinematic history and of great significance to humanity.

Personally, I can't imagine what Jean-Dominique Bauby was like as a person or how a Locked-In Syndrome patient would be, but I do believe that Mathieu Amalric's performance as Bauby is revolutionary. Acting with only one eye and a fixed position for almost the whole film is an extraordinary feat for an actor. He displayed some of the rawest emotions I have ever seen by an actor and he isn't even able to speak. I am very impressed with Amalric's portrayal and I think that he should be acknowledged for such a brilliant performance.

The supporting cast was also important to the progression of the film and the development of Bauby's character. Marie-Josée Croze and Anne Consigny give good performances as two of Bauby's aides, but the woman who is astonishingly heartbreaking in this film is Emmanuelle Seigner. She plays Bauby's ex-wife, Celine Desmoulins, and emits such a powerful performance that I couldn't help but empathize with her. Such pathos is generated for both Bauby and Celine in this film, but the character who broke my heart the most was Bauby's Papinou. Max Von Sydow played Papinou, Bauby's father, and, even though appearing on screen for a very limited amount of time, gives an emotionally harrowing performance that is incomparable to any tearjerker out there.

Not a film for the faint, the use of cinematography is exquisite, but very dizzying. It's extremely necessary for the film, but some people might be turned off by this. I beg you to give this film a chance if your reason for not watching this is the camera work. It's a brilliantly shot masterpiece by one of my favourite cinematographers of all-time, Janusz Kaminski. The use of colour, angles and focusing makes the scenes from Bauby's point of view much more real. The realism in the film's depiction of this disease from Bauby's perspective is absolutely haunting and also from the perspective of the nurses taking care of him and his family. At the 2008 Academy Awards, cinematographer Robert Elswit (also one of my personal favourites) won the Oscar for his stunning work on There Will Be Blood. Being my favourite film of 2007, it's hard to go against it, but I do believe that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly had much better cinematography and Janusz Kaminski should be holding the Oscar right now. It's a gorgeous film all around, but mainly because of Kaminski's wonderful eye and excellent camera work.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a review for Woody Allen's film Interiors. An amazing film which had fantastic performances and a great screenplay and was also a direct homage to the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. With The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, I feel that there is some homage or perhaps just similar styles to that of Bergman, too. Modern European cinema always seems to come back around to at least some Bergman influences, but this film is filled with many influences, most of them being visual.

As said previously, Schnabel's attention to detail is impeccable, but he also allows himself the freedom to express his own vision into the film. With some of the best cinematography I've ever seen and a brilliant performance by Amalric, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has risen to be my second favourite film of 2007. It is an absolutely incredible achievement for Julian Schnabel and has engraved itself into cinema history as a stunning accomplishment of visual expression and analysis of human significance.

When I heard that the Coen brothers were making another film for the first time since the not-so-impressive The Ladykillers, I almost jumped through the ceiling. The Coen brothers have been two of my favourite people in the cinematic world since their American masterpiece Fargo. Ever since then, I've been mesmerized by most of their films and they have had great influence on me.

Getting to the film now, No Country for Old Men is easily the greatest film of the year. No film yet this year has even come close to this one's greatness. I would even go as far as to say that this is the second best Coen brothers film. They have matured their style since the ever so dull Intolerable Cruelty and the disappointing The Ladykillers to come out with this masterful work. Adapted for the screen by (who else) the Coen brothers from Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name, this film is dark, violent and quite often funny at the same time. The one thing that I have to talk about is the debut of one of the most evil and genuinely scary villains in modern-day film: Anton Chigurh (Bardem). Not since Hannibal Lecter has such an evil character been so calm that it's creepy. His image is deceiving because it wouldn't appear that such a man would be a psychopathic murderer. His pageboy haircut tops it all off as if he was Burton's Willy Wonka. Equipped with a cattle gun, his dark appearance and eerie voice make for memorable scenes. "What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?"

The technical side of this film is nothing less than perfect. Three people need to be acknowledged for their work on this film (besides the obvious): Carter Burwell, Roger Deakins and the alias Roderick Jaynes (which is actually Ethan and Joel Coen). The original score is absolutely mesmerizing in the film. When listened to by itself, it's nothing compared to when it's put infront of this visual wonder. Roger Deakins' cinematography is beautiful and the editing combined with the cinematography and score just makes this whole movie terrific eye candy.

The film revolves around three different men all pursuing the same thing, a suitcase filled with $2 million. Each character is shown in separate storylines, almost never sharing the screen together. This takes me back to my review of American Gangster where I spoke of Ridley Scott's directorial talents. I was impressed with how he was able to maintain two different storylines and show them both with equal importance, but I am even more impressed with the Coen brothers' way of splitting this film in three, not necessarily showing all three equally, but making each character as important as the next. Not until a little before three quarters of the way through the film do any of the characters actually meet, but when they do meet, this film's thrill factor triples. When Moss (Brolin) and Chigurh face-off, it's a showdown that the audience has been built up for.

The performances in this film are superb. Josh Brolin is terrific and that surprises me. I never saw him as an actor really, but now he proved me wrong. He did a great job. Tommy Lee Jones was fantastic in providing insight and explanation in the film, and also was the person who summed up the film in the end in that wonderful speech of his dreams. The only person who I think gave a brilliant performance in this film was Javier Bardem. His psychopathic character Anton Chigurh will not only be remembered as one of the best performances of the year, but will go down in history as a one of the greatest villains of the screen. Bardem did a terrific job of portraying evil personified from his actions (or lack there of) to his tone. Fantastic performance.

Aside from the technical aspects, the violence and the acting, this film is important for a whole other reason. This film's meaning lies in its title. The film is not about the three men who are looking for stolen money... that's why we never see a conclusion that lets us know where the money is or if Chigurh gets away. The film is not about that (although that builds up the suspense of the film). The whole idea of the film is summed up in Tommy Lee Jones' speech in the last scene of the film.

He explains two dreams he had the night before where he and his father were riding horses in the wilderness. It was cold and snowing and his father was carrying a horn full of fire which he used to light one in 'all that dark and all that cold'. His dream represents the way we see our heroes in our dreams. His father must have been his. We dream of these people who are above all evil, but in reality, there are no such people. In this film there are no such people. This film shows how the country (and most countries) are nowadays. It shows that no matter how good some people can be, they cannot stop all of the evil going on in the world. He says that in his dream, his father carried a horn full of fire. This fire represents the hope that he dreams of, but doesn't exist in his country. The last line of the film goes like this "...he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. Out there up ahead. And then I woke up." It's such a sad way to end the film, but it's so true. His hope diminishes when he wakes up.

This film comments on modern-day violence in American culture and it really does a fantastic job. Today is about the youth and the old men are helpless and saddened by the fact that they have lived through so much misery to only live through more in their later years. The title says it all, this is No Country for Old Men.

There is nothing wrong with this movie. I find it to be perfect. The Coen brothers have made another masterpiece that is an instant classic. It's one of my new favourite films and I think that everyone should go out and see this film. I hope to see it nominated for many Oscars come next year. It really deserves the recognition.

This is one of the greatest cinematic experiences of the year. Directed by Sean Penn, this film makes every other film this year look weak and unimportant. Sean Penn, to me, has never been known as a director, but he has directed some great films in the past (The Crossing Guard, The Pledge, The Indian Runner), but none come even close to the greatness of Into the Wild. This is Penn's best film to date and I will always remember this film for a few reasons that I will explain throughout this review.

Adapted from the novel by Jon Krakauer, the story is based on true events that happened in the early 90s. Christopher McCandless, a young student, graduates from University only to donate his entire savings of $24,000 to charity and destroy all of his identification so he can move into the Alaskan wilderness. He doesn't know how long he'll be there, but he's prepared to face nature. Leaving behind a rough relationship with his parents (played by William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden), Chris changes his name and begins his journey into the wild.

Through the film, Chris' philosophical outlook on life let's us know that he doesn't believe life should depend on communication with others. Having relationships and friends is something that doesn't need to be maintained in life to fulfill it. However, on his journey he encounters many different people that he forms relationships with that help him through this adventure. It's not only everyone that Chris meets that learn from him and his philosophical look on life, but it's Chris himself that learns from these ordinary people. He gets to hear people's stories and empathize with them. He becomes a better person by doing so.

There are many encounters that Chris makes on his journey and they are all important in one way or another. The one that stuck with me and really pulled on my heartstrings was his encounter with Ron Franz (portrayed brilliantly by Hal Holbrook). The relationship they form is touching and the scene with their parting ways is very, very sad. Hal Holbrook hasn't been recognized by AMPAS in all of his cinematic career (which seems like forever), but I do believe he will be nominated this year and it will be a very deserved nomination.

The whole supporting cast was terrific in each of their encounters with Chris and each of them helped shape his character. With such a character to play, Emile Hirsch was up for a great challenge. Seeing him as an actor in only small roles (Lords of Dogtown, Imaginary Heroes), I was very impressed with the performance he pulled off in this film. Not only did he interract with the other characters well, he emodied this character and made me feel his pain. It's sad, but uplifting at the same time. I think Emile Hirsch is this year's Ryan Gosling. The performance is that good and I do hope to see him recognized for this effort.

As for the visuals, the cinematography is beautiful. Eric Gautier, who has photographed other films like The Motorcycle Diaries and some segments in Paris, je t'aime, helps show us why Chris wanted to live in the wild in the first place. He lets us see the beauty of the Alaskan wilderness from angles that can only be dreamt of. It was truly a gorgeous experience. Also, the score was fantastic. Composed by Michael Brook with Kaki King and Eddie Vedder, the music not only helps the characters' emotions come through, but it generates the mood when there are no characters on the screen. Also, the wonderful original soundtrack to this film is written by Eddie Vedder and some of the songs are already being awared. "Guaranteed" and "Rise" are only a few of the many that go perfectly with this epic two and a half hour film.

The running time is perfect (although some may beg to differ). It lets us see the relationships blossom between Chris and the people he encounters in a more than basic way. If this film was crammed into a 90 minute running time, the result wouldn't be as stunning.

Overall, I loved this film. It's one of the best of 2007 and one of the most memorable of the decade. The performances are top-notch (especially from Hirsch, Holbrook and Keener) and the technical aspects are nothing less than excellent. Sean Penn's best film to date, Into the Wild is strongly recommended by me. See it as soon as you can.

Nevermind Hairspray, Enchanted or Across the Universe, Sweeney Todd is the best musical of the year. This is a Gothic masterpiece from director Tim Burton that was revived from Stephen Sondheim's 1979 stage production. This film is probably the best stage-to-screen adaptation since Chicago and is one of the truest musicals I've ever seen. It's not afraid to be a musical with probably less than 30 minutes of actual speaking dialogue and that's something risky in modern cinema. Burton had trouble finding a studio to produce this film because of the fact that none of the musical numbers had upbeat pop songs (and I'm sure the excessive violence didn't help much either). What can you expect when the film is a revival of a Sondheim musical? West Side Story still manages to do well with teenage audiences, so why can't this? Luckily, Paramount picked this project up and it's now being called one of the best films of the year.

Tim Burton has worked with Johnny Depp in six films now and I'd have to say, this is their best work yet. It seems like Burton took bits from all his previous films and combined then into one. It's little bit Corpse Bride, a little bit Sleepy Hollow and a little bit Edward Scissorhands all at the same time. This film is so dark that it screams "Tim Burton" and anyone watching this will know who directed it from the first frame.

I'll be honest, when the film first started (after the credits... the credits were terrific), I wasn't all that impressed with the first musical number. Depp's vocals weren't exactly pleasing to the ears and the song was downright depressing, but it fit the scene perfectly. The moment Sweeney Todd encountered Mrs. Lovett for the first time was when I was glued to this film. The scenes they shared together were absolutely fantastic and from "The Worst Pies in London" on, I was in love with this movie.

In the 1979 stage production, the set consisted of a small rotating piece like any normal stage play. This wasn't nearly enough to depict London as Sondheim imagined it, but was exactly what the stage had room for. This is where Burton's vision is brought to life in the film version; London is a character on its own in the story and to characterize it you need a film. Burton's vision of the dark and grimy London was displayed beautifully by production designer Dante Ferretti and set decorater Francesca Lo Schiavo in the film giving London a character that is not only thought of, but can now be seen.

A razor-wielding Johnny Depp gives his best performance since the first Pirates of the Caribbean film and embodies Sweeney Todd showing us not only the dark side of Sweeney Todd, but the deep emotions of his past life as Benjamin Barker that conflict with his now demonic barber persona that seeks revenge on the people who stole his family. People have been critiquing his vocals saying they're not up to par to be in a musical like this. First of all, did you expect Depp to whip out a voice like Pavarotti? I don't think so. Secondly, the character doesn't need a big voice. Sweeney Todd's songs are angry, yes, but a huge voice for such a subdued character would not work. I think he was perfect in his role and should not be forgotten come Oscar time.

I know that Sweeney Todd is the main character, but the character that stole the film (in my opinion) is Mrs. Lovett. Helena Bonham Carter gives a fantastic performance in this film as the dark, quirky and loveable pie maker. This is a character that has been perfected in the past by such greats like Angela Lansbury and Patti LuPone, but I do say that Helena Bonham Carter does not fail to deliver. She also embodies her character (which isn't seen to its full potential until the near end), but what makes Mrs. Lovett memorable is her witty humour and sometimes careless behaviour. Her "Worst Pies in London" scene is hilarious and character blooms when she performs "By the Sea", but it's not until "Not While I'm Around" with Ed Sanders that we see the reality of this character. Carter does a phenomenal job as Mrs. Lovett and I also think she shouldn't be overlooked come Oscar time.

The rest of the cast is also great (especially Rickman), but the performance from Sacha Baron Cohen will still be the most memorable if for anything it's comedic relief. The score was fantastic and kept true to the original and the costumes by Colleen Atwood were also wonderful.

Overall, this film is absolutely brilliant. Tim Burton is a visionary and Depp and Carter are both terrific. If it wasn't for No Country for Old Men, this would be my favourite film of the year. I recommend this to everyone. There is excess amounts of blood and brutal killings in this film, but they are dramatized in the same way Sleepy Hollow was (the blood looks like watered-down paint so don't be turned off by that). One of the best films of the year, Sweeney Todd should be seen by all. Go and catch it while it's still in theatres now.

Review coming soon.

Now this is a movie! After watching a summer full of movies that went from bad to worse, this quiet, little film makes withstanding those bad movies all worth while. I waited months and months for this movie to come out on DVD so I could actually watch a film this year. This film has been compared to [i]The Notebook[/i] and I can see where the comparison comes in, but this film was a lot better and more heartwrenching to me. This film is like a long poem; it pulls at your heartstrings and leaves such an impact on you for a long while after you've watched it. This is a film that you not only watch, but feel as well.

Actress Sarah Polley of films like [i]The Sweet Hereafter[/i] and [i]My Life Without Me[/i] directs this beautiful film. In her directorial debut she has accomplished more of a film than most directors do in their whole career. This very Canadian film was based on a short story by Alice Munro called "The Bear Came Over the Mountain" and the screenplay was also written by Polley. She has made a name for herself as a director now and I think she should be making more films if she has this kind of insight and vision.

The beauty in this film comes out through the gorgeous landscapes and the little things that most people do not notice in other films. Set in Ontario, Canada during the winter (I can vouch that we do have a beautiful winter season in Ontario), this film's outdoor scenes are very memorable in both mind and spirit. The very talented actors in this film are what make most of the scenes hauntingly sad and vividly memorable. Julie Christie's performance has been called one of the best female performances this year. I choose to call it the best female performance this year (so far). Gordon Pinsent has been underlooked because most of the praise has been going to Christie, but I believe that his performance in this little independent film is just as worthy of praise as Christie's. The one scene that had me near-tears was when Grant comes back after 30 days to visit Fiona in the home and she has no clue who he is. She's oblivious to her condition and she has now transferred her feelings for her husband of 40 years to a wheelchair-bound man (Aubrey) in the home. Grant visits her everyday and watches as she cares for this new man the way she cared for him. Truly heartbreaking.

Such an amazing achievement for Sarah Polley and a milestone in her film career. Christie and Pinsent have never been so amazing and Dukakis lends a great supporting hand with her performance, too. I recommend this to anyone who has a heart. It will make you sad, but in the end, you will feel Grant's pain and agree with his final decision in relation to Fiona's feelings for Aubrey.

One of, if not the best, movie of the year.

So, I've been hearing people call Ratatouille the best and most original Pixar film yet. I do agree that this is very original and quite amazing, but I don't agree that it tops films like The Incredibles, Finding Nemo and Toy Story.

With that said, I do however believe that this is the best film I've seen so far this year. With such an original story and the most vivid animation I've ever seen, Brad Bird completes yet another animated masterpiece. I can see it now... another Oscar in his hands next February for this film. Everytime Pixar makes a film, the story is always impressive and original and never does one flop. It's amazing.

Rémy (Oswalt) is a street rat who dreams of becoming a great chef just like his human idol, Auguste Gusteau (Garrett). One day, he and his brother Emile (Sohn) sneak into a house and try to steal ingredients for one of Rémy's recipes, but they end up waking up the owner of the house and everything goes wrong. She whips out her shotgun and starts chasing Rémy, Emile and their whole clan out of the fields. As they try to escape via the river they lose Rémy in the process. Now alone, he ventures into the sewers and stumbles upon a building that he discovers was Gusteau's famed restaurant. There he meets up with a garbage boy named Linguini (Romano) who realizes that Rémy can cook so they team up and try to restore the reputation of the once legendary restaurant.

Ratatouille is probably the most fun I have had all year in a movie. It offers everything a nice comedy can give. A terrific original story, likeable characters, hilarious lines and slapstick humour and not to mention amazing animation. When it comes down to it, I think that Ratatouille could even be considered the funniest movie of the year. With other strong comedies this year like Knocked Up and Hot Fuzz one would think that an animated film couldn't stand a chance against adult humour. Compared to the immature humour in Knocked Up, this seems like comedy gold. It's funny and warmhearted at the same time. I really enjoyed watching this movie.

The voice work was also well done. The actors all fit their respective roles perfectly and their characters seemed that much more realistic because of it. Oswalt, Romano, Holm, Garofalo, Sohn, Dennehy, Garrett and especially O'Toole were spot on and their characters were perfectly voiced. When I watch a Pixar movie, it's very different compared to other animated movies. I actually feel like I am watching a live-action movie and then I realize that it's just brilliant computer animation. Pixar always offers a great and enjoyable movie-going experience for me.

Overall, Ratatouille is so far the best film I have seen this year. It's the most enjoyable, the funniest and the most original, also. This isn't just for kids, this is for adults to see, too. I am sure you all know that by now after watching Pixar's previous greats, but just in case, this is an all-ages appropriate film. Whether you're 4 or 40, this will probably have you smiling.

I highly recommend this movie to everyone.

I know this is becoming quite redundant now, but this is definitely the best film so far this year. The movies I've been seeing just keep getting better and better and Zodiac just wiped out all of the competition. It's by far the best film so far this year.

I was completely pissed at the end of this movie for one major reason... you never find out The Zodiac's true identity. After 2 hours and 38 minutes of very deep suspense and mystery, the conclusion doesn't offer an answer. I know there is no logical way for the film to do this since there was no one officially tagged to the Zodiac murders in reality, but in the film world who knows what could be done. Nevertheless, David Fincher tackled this topic with all of the impulse and passion he used in previous achievements like Fight Club and Se7en.

I consider Fincher to be a master of suspense and one of the greatest auteurs of modern-day cinema. His take on the string of Zodiac murders from the late 60s to the mid 70s is one that is much different than any other already produced, most notably The Zodiac (2005) starring Justin Chambers. The direction of that film lacked intelligence and organization which are the areas that David Fincher's Zodiac excelled in.

With a story like this, Fincher could have very well made a gore-fest that misused the actors and visuals to merely entertain instead of inform, but luckily for us, Fincher is too good of a director to stoop to that level. James Vanderbilt's amazing screenplay and David Fincher's genius vision work to make the legend of The Zodiac into a strong psychological thriller instead of a gory horror film. The suspense generated in most of these scenes might actually kill you... it's very climactic (especially in the scenes with Gyllenhaal near the end).

Harris Savides' cinematography is absolutely brilliant and really adds to the overall suspense in most scenes. Within the first few frames I could tell that this cinematography would be something else. Savides worked on films like Birth and Elephant in the past, but has completed his work on the upcoming Ridley Scott crime-drama American Gangster which I am looking forward to seeing already just for Savides' work.

The musical score was very suitable for the film, also. David Shire (who won an Oscar for his work on 1979's Norma Rae) composed the score for this film and I think that it fits perfectly with the film and highlights many of the thrilling scnenes. The production design was also very effective from the lighting all the way to Zodiac's car; everything worked perfectly.

The cast was top-notch with strong performances from Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr. and Jake Gyllenhaal. Downey Jr. was perfectly cast and Mark Ruffalo really impressed me for the first time since You Can Count on Me seven years ago.

What really highlights this film is the terrific direction from David Fincher. He makes a film and it always comes out near perfect with very few flaws. From Se7en, The Game, Fight Club and Panic Room to this, he proves that he is an intrepid director that will not let us down.
I'll say it once again, the best film so far this year. I highly recommend this.

Unbelievable! This is an amazing piece of film that I find hard to believe isn't getting much attention from the critics. It's beautifully photographed and the technicals are wonderful, but the thing I love the most about this masterful work by Andrew Dominik is the amazing performance by Casey Affleck. It's the best supporting performance of the year and that's really a lot for me to say because I loved Wilkinson in Michael Clayton. Affleck deserves all the praise he's getting.

Review coming soon .

Review coming soon .

This is the best film of the year so far. It's compiled of eighteen different short films that are all love stories of some kind set in Paris. All of them stand out in their own distinctive way, but there are a few that were just jaw-droppingly beautiful and well put together.

For example, Le Marais was my personal favourite because it had such terrific writing and a wonderful performance (from Gaspard Ulliel who I was surprised by... plesantly surprised). I also loved Tuileries from Joel and Ethan Coen. The Coen Bros. are two of my favourite people in the film industry and I love all of their work. When I heard they were directing a short in this film I was really excited to see what it would be like and I have to say that Tuileries was not what I expected. It was better than I expected, actually. The camera work and the music worked so well together and I loved the opening shot where we see the tunnel expecting a train to come and Steve Buscemi's head just pops into view and he looks so confused. Priceless face. Place des Victoires from Nobuhiro Suwa takes the prize for having the best performance in it. Miss Juliette Binoche can do no wrong and here, she is so wonderful. She is truly one of the best actresses of our time. The short overall was sad, but very well made. I also loved Parc Monceau, Pigalle, Faubourg Saint-Denis and (what probably is my favourite or second favourite one) 14e Arondissement from Alexander Payne.

There were also a few of the shorts that I didn't care for as well. Montmartre and Loin du 16ème didn't really make an impact on me and I didn't find them all that memorable. Catalina Sandino Moreno was wonderful to watch, but I guess I really didn't understand what the film was supposed to mean. Also, Porte de Choisy, Tour Eiffel and Père-Lachaise didn't quite catch my attention all that well either. However, I think that Porte de Choisy might be the most memorable one because it was so wacky and kind of freaked me out. All of the chinese women with different hair-dos grouped together waving goodbye to Barbet Schroeder after he cut their hair was just plain creepy. I didn't find this one enjoyable at all (but it did have wonderful cinematography).

Overall, all of the films offered something wonderful (even if I found some of them fell quite flat). The concept of this whole film (which was thought of by Emmanuel Benbihy and Tristan Carné) is beautiful. The idea of having eighteen different stories all dealing with eighteen different kinds of love is really unique and I loved watching every story unfold. I also loved seeing some of my favourite actors in this film (Steve Buscemi, Juliette Binoche, Gena Rowlands, Natalie Portman, Bob Hoskins, etc.) and some of my favourite directors directing it, too (Joel Coen, Alexander Payne, Tom Tykwer, Alfonso Cuarón and Gus Van Sant).

I highly recommend this film to everyone. It's a terrific segmented piece that beats down all others like it out there (especially something like Coffee & Cigarettes, no offence Jim Jarmusch). It's a story of love in the greatest and most romantic city in the world. Paris, I love you.

I do realize that this film is now nominated for Golden Globes and such, but I still feel that Michael Clayton is underrated by the average moviegoer. I don't think people are giving this film a chance and dismissing it as a bore-fest because the plot doesn't deal with explosions or robots. I watched this film last week (it was one of my most anticipated films of 2007). I don't know what took me so long to see it, but when I finally did I was very pleased. Written and directed by Tony Gilroy (previously a writer for films like Dolores Claiborne, The Devil's Advocate and the Bourne series) in an impressive directorial debut, this film excels in its genre and hosts three of the best performances of the year.

When looking for flaws in this film, I could find only a few and I've decided not to point because there are already many negative reviews floating around. I'm here to praise this film and I will start by acknowledging the original screenplay. Written by Gilroy, the screenplay is very complicated if you don't understand the legal jargon, but if you do, you'll be pleased with a more than satisfying story. When looking at films of the same genre (legal dramas), Wall Street and The Contender come to mind, this film excels in exactly the same ways they do. It's nothing different and nothing that we haven't seen before, but something about it is intriguing and made me feel obliged to listen to every word spoken by these important people.

Just like Wall Street and The Contender, this film has strong performances. Clooney joins the likes of Michael Douglas and Joan Allen as a strong leading character in a legal drama. His performance reminds me of someone, too. Oh, wait... it reminds me of George Clooney! He seems to play himself in this film, but this isn't a bad thing. Look at Jack Nicholson, he plays himself in practically every movie he's been in since 1980 but has been phenomenal nonetheless. Clooney's attitude and character work well with this film and his performance is nothing less than extraordinary. He's proven that he can do it all with Good Night, and Good Luck. and now he's out to get some votes again with Michael Clayton.

The two supporting characters in this film also give brilliant performances. Tom Wilkinson plays Arthur Eden, one of the law firm's (the one Clayton works for) top parters. During a deposition hearing in Milwaukee, Eden suddenly goes crazy and strips naked and runs through the parking lot. Wilkinson plays a good nut (as we've already seen in Batman Begins) and his performance is one of the best I've seen this year. Wilkinson also gives one of the best voiceovers I have ever heard in any film during the opening sequence of Michael Clayton. Very impressive stuff from Tom Wilkinson.

Also a standout in this film is one of my personal favourite actresses of today: Tilda Swinton. As Karen Crowder, the chief legal executive for U-North (one of Clayton's law firm's biggest clients who is being sued for poison pollution... something like we've seen in Erin Brockovich), Swinton gives a performance that I can only describe as electrical. She plays a character that seems so paranoid, yet has so much power and authority that everytime she's onscreen I get goosebumps.

Sydney Pollack also appears in this film as the head of Clayton's law firm, a role which he is so familiar with. He's been playing these authority figures, law firm heads, big-time bosses in most of the films he's been in (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) that he has the performance down pat. With these four big name, big talent actors in one little film like Michael Clayton, you're sure to have excellent performances. If it wasn't for these four, this film wouldn't have been as good as it was. The actors made the film and commanded every scene they were in. This movie, if anything, was to showcase these actors in top form.

As I said before, this was one of my most anticipated films of 2007. I was anticipating this film for four reasons:

1. George Clooney
2. Tilda Swinton
3. Tom Wilkinson
4. Robert Elswit

Who is Robert Elswit? Elswit is one of my personal favourite cinematographers. In the past he has worked on all of P.T. Anderson's films (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love), Good Night, and Good Luck., Syriana and the upcoming There Will Be Blood (also P.T. Anderson). His work is amazing and I wasn't let down with Michael Clayton.

Overall, this film is one of the best of 2007. A strong legal drama in the same league as Wall Street that has three of the best performances of the year. A strong directorial debut from Tony Gilroy, a great screenplay (also from Gilroy) and beautiful cinematography from Elswit complete this film. I highly recommend this (although not everyone will love it), and I hope to see this nominated for some Oscars come January.

This is probably one of the funniest films of the past few years. The humour is so dry, but the delivery of the lines are perfect. I have yet to see Shaun of the Dead, but I can tell that this filmmaker is really terrific. His films a basically mockeries of other classic films. Unlike Scary Movie, this film actually pulls off the whole spoof idea with still having an amazing screenplay.

The whole buddy movie idea was much more enjoyable here than in films like Bad Boys or something more dramatic like Rain Man. It just works a lot better here. Maybe it's the great writing... Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are absolutely hilarious together. Pegg the hardass and Frost the dumbass. It really is a funny combination and the chemistry between them is great.

A great and funny ensemble makes for hilarious scenes. The supporting cast includes greats like Timothy Dalton, Jim Broadbent, Paddy Considine, Billie Whitelaw and Stuart Wilson. Also, hilarious cameos from Steve Coogan, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy and Cate Blanchett.

The film is clearly spoofing the Bad Boys kind of movies and it really pulls if off well. Edgar Wright really makes these films truly genuine even though he gets most of his material from other films (spoofing it). His previous film, Shaun of the Dead spoofed George A. Romero's zombie series and [from what I've heard] that worked out wonderfully well, too. Thanks to Edgar Wright and performers Pegg and Frost, his films are huge hits.

Genuinely funny, extremely violent and really, really fun, this movie is a film that should be seen by all people. To me, it's already a classic. I have a feeling this film will be a huge hit in a few years and will be remembered for a long time. Cult status perhaps? I hope it becomes widely recognized.
I highly recommend this to all.

This isn't a film that has a happy ending. This isn't a film that allows characters' redemption. This isn't a film you want to watch if you're looking for a cheer-up. Sidney Lumet, film veteran and director-extraordinaire, has returned to fine form after a slew of mediocre movies (Gloria, A Stranger Among Us, Guilty as Sin) to bring us Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. This film is Lumet at his finest and his best film since 1982's The Verdict. At 83-years-old, Lumet still has it ("it" being kick-ass technique and a vision sharper than it's ever been) proving to us that he can tackle anything.

Written by Kelly Masterson (her first screenplay), this film is about two brothers , Andy (Hoffman) and Hank (Hawke), who decide to organize the robbery of their parents' jewelry store. Hank needs some extra money to pay for child support and such, so his plan was to have a quick and victimless heist (Sounds easy enough, right?). Well unfortunately for Hank and Andy, the heist doesn't go as planned and their accomplice (who was doing the actual robbing) is killed and their mother (who wasn't supposed to be in the store) is terribly wounded. The chain of events that happen after the "accident" leaves no one in this film unharmed and the family falling apart before our eyes.

If a legendary director and wonderfully original screenplay weren't enough, this film also provides us with four great performances, too. Albert Finney and Marisa Tomei give terrific supporting performances (each of them has their own "remember that scene...", as I like to call it). The one surprise performance in this film was that of Ethan Hawke. Never before has he impressed me this much. I never thought of him as an actual actor... maybe in the Before Sunset/Sunrise films, but that's it. His performance was almost perfect giving the right amounts of guilt and fright making me believe his character had so much innocence at times even knowing perfectly it was all his doing.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is a standout in his role and makes his scumbag-of-a-character one of the most hated of the year. His behaviour and general persona makes Ethan Hawke's actions look tame. Hoffman's best performance of the year is still in Charlie Wilson's War, but this is a close second. His scene in the car with his wife Gina (Tomei) is rough and his pain is felt. This is one of the points in the film where Hank's heist fiasco starts to affect everyone, tearing them to shreds and ultimately revealing their true characters and deep secrets.

This is a genre Lumet has mastered in having films like Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon on his impressive resumé. The one thing about this film that seemed a little too familiar, however, was the pace and editing. It wasn't bad, it was impressive, but it screamed "Quentin Tarantino". I felt like I was watching Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs at some points because of the interlaced stories and backtracking of events. The quick, flashy editing also felt Tarantino-esque. Other than that, the originality of this film gets hight points and still remains Lumet's best work in a good 20 years.

One other thing that's been bothering me is how this film is being called nihilistic. The characters may all be bad people doing bad things, but the true humanism in this film is what frees it from that term.

I can't see any other reasons to give for everyone to see this movie. It's one of the best of the year, has two amazing performances and is a chance to see Lumet, a master, at work again.

The Savages (2007)
director: Tamara Jenkins
starring: Laura Linney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Bosco, Peter Friedman

An impressive sophomore effort from director and writer Tamara Jenkins. Her first film, Slums of Beverly Hills, which was moderately successful, isn't even comparable to the brilliance of this film. Jenkins has written a terrific screenplay which earned her the first Oscar nomination of her career and propelled her into indie stardom. Even though she is still only recognized by a select few people, those people who do know her will undoubtedly acknowledge her brilliance. We need a director like Tamara Jenkins in cinema today; with only a few female directors making films, someone as original and brilliant as her would be a breath of fresh air for Hollywood.

Aside from the screenplay being brilliant, Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman's performances are stellar. Hoffman had a great year in 2007 with three amazing performances under his belt: The Savages, Charlie Wilson's War and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Linney, who earned an Oscar nomination for this film, is absolutely hilarious and gives, what I think, is her best performance since You Can Count On Me. She is easy to connect with and her portrayals are always heartbreakingly real. She is one of the best actresses of the past decade, but sometimes goes unnoticed. This is unfortunate because she gets many fantastic roles and always gives a performance worth seeing more than once. I'm glad she was recognized for this film because she gave some of her best work here.

I recommend this film to fans of indie cinema and/or Linney and Hoffman fans. You will be pleased, no doubt about it. On the other hand, I don't think the average moviegoer would appreciate a film like this. It isn't the average person's cup of tea (as you can all tell by the movie's undeserved 3-star rating on Flixster), but I do think it's a fantastic achievement for Tamara Jenkins and should be seen by indie movie fans everywhere.

For a film with so many overused film techniques, it still shines brighter than any other film this year to warm the hearts of its viewers and to generate a more than generous response from the critics. It deserves every single bit of acknowledgement it has been receiving and then some. This film is Adrienne Shelly's best and most accomplished work, but unfortunately, it was also her last. Shelly was murdered on November 1st, 2006 in Manhattan by an Ecuadorian teen while finishing the post-production stage of this film. It's a sad ending for the wonderful actress/director, but in her memory, this film will thrive and make many people happy. She has left us with this little masterpiece that just may be one of the best films of the year.



It's inaccuracies and inconsistencies are indeed flaws, but it is the flaws in this film that make it so quirky that it works as a screwball comedy more-so than a drama. All of the characters in this film are quirky people at times except for Jenna (Russell)'s husband Earl (Sisto). He's the one character that adds a dramatic and dark side to the film. The scenes with him are so evil compared to the rest of the film that it makes such a strong contrast in Jenna's character when she's with Dr. Pomatter (Fillion) compared to her husband. The humour is subtle, so it's not a hilarious comedy, but definitely one that will make you laugh a little and smile inside.



It's brilliantly written and acted, and this is shown to full extent in the character of Jenna. Russell gives a fantastic Oscar-worthy performance in her portrayal of this pregnant, pie-making waitress. As one of the best written characters of the year, Jenna makes it awfully hard to dislike her. Everything she does and everything that happens to her are very realistic (in one way or another) and familiar, which let's the audience sympathize with her. This great main character makes this movie. Cheryl Hines and Andy Griffith also offered memorable roles.



The ending to this film is very uplifting and it helps you understand that this movie wasn't just about a pregnant woman trying to escape with a charming doctor from her abusive husband to make pies for the rest of her life... her story was a message to all women, showing them that there is and always will be opportunities for them in life... that they are important. Adrienne Shelly will be missed greatly and luckily for us, she left us with a terrific film that will be remembered for a long time. Check this film out, everyone. It should not be missed.

Review coming soon .

When it comes to crime-drama nowadays, Scott Frank is one of the best writers we have. He's produced terrific screenplays for such films as [i]Get Shorty, Out of Sight[/i] and [i]Minority Report[/i]. With this film, he not only writes but directs as well. When the trailer for this film first came out I remember thinking that it would be a huge rip-off of [/i]Memento[/i]. It did have similar ideas that [i]Memento[/i] had, but other than that, this film is completely original.



I'm glad that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the main star of this film. He's one of my favourite up-and-coming actors and I look forward to each and every movie he's making. His work in [i]Mysterious Skin[/i] and [i]Brick[/i] really impressed me, so naturally, I was really looking forward to this. Not only was his performance in this film terrific, the rest of the cast brought their respective talents to this film as well.



Matthew Goode was... well, good. His performance is somewhat better and more impressive than his performance from [i]Match Point[/i], so he is improving. Isla Fisher was somewhat of a bore. I'd recommend her sticking to comedy roles like that of [i]Wedding Crashers[/i]. She was a riot in that film. Aside from Gordon-Levitt, the person who made this film was Jeff Daniels. I believe that Daniels is one of the most underlooked actors of the past few years. He's produced terrific work that is Oscar-worthy and has been ignored. His performance in [i]The Squid and the Whale[/i] was brilliant and near-perfect and his supporting role in this film was very, very memorable and well-acted. Overall, the cast was great and the characters were, too. The character development was strong and moved at an even pace and worked out to be perfect in the conclusion. Each character was developed just enough and the way they left the film at the ending was just right.



I believe this to be one of the saddest films of the past two years. I know that may sound ridiculous since it's mainly about a bank heist, but when the theme of identity and alienation comes up, this film is actually quite depressing. Chris Pratt's memory loss not only leaves him forgetting how to make his own supper, but forgetting how he lived his life before his accident. He is a totally different person now and it almost seems that he is living a fake life. It's not his fault, but when his family sees his sadness and what seems to be a false identity, they question his decisions and whether or not he should still be living by himself. It's a sad life he lives and a lot of pathos is generated over his character.



All-in-all, Frank has another writing success and a very strong directorial debut, as well. I highly recommend this film to everyone. The only fault was the [i]Memento[/i]-like scenes, the (what seemed to be) rushed ending and some minor acting problems. The ending could have been a little more intense and a little more explained. The tagline of this film is "Whoever has the money, has the power". They should have spent more time on that scene and the few following scenes after that which ultimately crafted the conclusion. A twist ending would have been beneficial to this film's memorability-factor as well. But overall, a solid film that I, personally, will remember for a long, long time.

Nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival in 2007, this film is a work of art. It may not appeal to everyone, but what it shows is something different than any other documentary I've seen lately. Watching it seems more like watching a photo journal essay of some sort because the film is flooded with pictures that Edward Burtynsky took while in China and Bangladesh.

Jennifer Baichwal's Manufactured Landscapes is not the best documentary of 2007, but it is my personal favourite. It's beautiful, yet tragic and disturbing at the same time. The scenes may be very long and there may be more pictures than film, but it all works together to deliver a fantastic presentation that not only pleases the eyes but raises awareness and comments on ecological destruction in a very distinctive way.

This film is based on a project by photographer Edward Burtynsky. He travels the world and takes photos of the odd beauty of industrialization and its affect on mankind.

The opening scene to this film is a long, five minute shot of a factory where the workers there make irons. It's a scene that many people remember due to the fact that they were bored to death by it. I, on the other hand, found it to be quite fascinating. It's not an exciting scene, but it is necessary.

This film is beautiful and if you're a person who is interesting in any type of photography (especially photo journalism), this is a perfect film for you to watch. The beauty of this film is found in the strangest places like a junkyard or a beach in Bangladesh where oil tankers are dismantled and recycled. The way Burtynsky captures these not-so-attractive events on film is mind-blowing. He makes the most dull of situations look like a work of art (my favourite being a shot of a pile of microchips that workers have accumulated in China). Even if you find this film slow and tedious, you should appreciate the visual aspects of this film.

I recommend this to everyone. It's one of the most strangely attractive films I have ever seen and I would even categorize this in the same league as Koyaanisqatsi. Amazing documentary and one of the most memorable of the year, in my opinion.

With a film of this genre, there are many conventions that are usually explored. Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola (being the masters of this genre) have built a standard, I think, of what works and does not work in a crime drama. In American Gangster however, Ridley Scott takes the film in other directions that resemble too closely his historic epics (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven). Scott does not want this film to come off as another Godfather film or Goodfellas... he wanted to contribute to the genre with his own style. The only problem is that Scott's style is too familiar. It seemed to me that I've seen this done before.

A film that has a true story behind it is usually difficult to critique. Not knowing how faithful this film is to the real events is not something that affects the overall quality of the film, but it does leave an uneasy feeling about the experience. Also, not knowing anything about the story prior to the film might be a good thing in enjoying the film that much more. Aside from that, Scott does do a fantastic job in directing this film. Having two different storylines that do not intersect with each other until the last few scenes of the film and treating them both with equal importance is impressive. Not once did Scott favour one of the storylines over the other. This lets us experience both of these characters' stories and allows for a lot of character development.

When the two lead characters are finally brought together to share the screen, the chemistry between them is great. Unfortunately, prior to their meeting, each actor has to hold their own in their respective storylines, and one actor outperformed the other by miles. Russell Crowe did a great job, but nothing memorable, where on the other hand Denzel Washington embodied the character and brought Frank Lucas to the screen with such force and intimidation, yet with a softer side that let the audience empathize with him.

The supporting cast brings in some good performances, too. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Josh Brolin have great appearances, but it's the great Ruby Dee who steals her scenes and turns in an Oscar-calibre performance (as does Mr. Washington, naturally). The actress who played Denzel's wife in the film (Lymari Nadal) was truly awful and did not make me want to watch her at all. She was the weakest link in the acting area.

Overall, a great movie that displays Ridley Scott's directing abilities (as if we didn't already know he had them), yet doesn't fulfill my expectations of the crime drama genre. With great performances from Denzel and Ruby Dee, this film is not one to miss this year. It may be unlucky at the Oscars since it's following too closely in The Departed's footsteps, but it surely will be recognized.

Danny Boyle returns to the silver screen with a film that is even better than his previous achievements. Sunshine (not to be confused with the Ralph Fiennes film) is probably one of the most confusing films if you're not actually trying to understand the allegorical side of the things that occur during the short 107 minute runtime.

Writer Alex Garland reunites with Boyle after their first film together 28 Days Later and writes an equally impressive screenplay. The story is undoubtedly scientifically incorrect, but that doesn't stop it from being mind-boggling. Also, there are religious views mentioned in the film and near the end it's a person (who is embodying this religion theme) that becomes the villain. The symbolic meaning of this creature is a matter of interpretation, but I do believe it is based heavily on religious values versus scientific facts.

Fifty years into the future: the Sun is being destroyed from inside out by a type of highly stable form of matter that renders nuclear fusion impossible, by turning common matter on its own kind. The only hope is to send a team of astronauts to detonate a massive, highly energetic bomb, able to destroy this strange matter and restore Sun's natural state. This mission is earth's last hope for survival.

This film is similar to other films such as Event Horizon and The Core, but it also has traits that those films do not. It's actually good and it has a terrific screenplay for starters. It has a deeper meaning than just bombing the sun. Films like Sphere and Deep Impact do not even compare with Sunshine for it is far better. It's in the same league as 2001: A Space Odyssey and that's saying a lot.

Although many things in this film seem scientifically impossible, don't let that turn you away from enjoying it. Yes, if this spaceship was that close to the sun it would probably melt or explode. The earth is 94 million miles away from the sun and us humans are still able to be burned by it... the space shuttle in Sunshine is 36 million miles away from the sun at one point and it's perfectly in tact. I find that hard to believe, but who knows, this film does take place in fifty years so many things might be invented by then.

Overall, this film is very eye-opening. It made me wonder about things that I would never have wondered before. I love when films have a mysterious side to them and explore topics that humans are so oblivious to. Also, this film is very allegorical and leaves many of its symbolic parts up to the audience's interpretation. If you're turned off by films that make you think, don't judge this film just yet. It also has terrific special effects and an important twist near the end. You may enjoy that. I still highly recommend this film.

In 2002, 28 Days Later came out and was said to be the scariest movie since The Exorcist. After watching it, I agree completely. Alex Garland wrote a truly haunting story about a virus that spreads through Britain infecting people and transforming them into zombie-like flesh-eaters. He wrote it so well with not only very frightening sequences, but also managed to incorporate a political voice in his story. Luckily for Garland, director Danny Boyle helmed this film and did a fantastic job directing it and making the story all it was meant to be and more.

Five years later, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo spawned a sequel to the ever-so-popular gore-fest and this film is it. 28 Weeks Later. With a different writer (writers, actually), this film feels different than its predecessor (not in a bad way), but the screenplay and story aren't as strong. The political side is still evident, but unfortunately that is overpowered by the excess blood and guts. Strong abstract ideas have helped this film series become what it is.

28 Weeks Later takes place six months after the Rage virus has annihilated the city of London. The United States Army has restored order and has begun repopulating the city, when a carrier of the Rage virus enters London and obliviously re-ignites the deadly infection which begins to wipe out the population.

With a weaker screenplay than the first film, Weeks feels like an attempt to entertain instead of inform. With still a strong political side to the film, the action and gore overpower it making it almost invisible now. What is visible is the fact that the American Army is colonizing Britain and taking over control. The americanization of the country is what is in effect and all other plot developments are left behind so the director can showcase the scenes of execution and decapitation.

So, in the end, I am slightly let down with this film. Naturally, I am comparing it to the first one which leads me to the rating I have given it. If not for the first film, this would have half of a star more, but unfortunately the originality and basic idea of the first film is lost on the way to the second. Instead the movie becomes an unnecessary blood-bath.

I still recommend this to all horror fans and to fans of 28 Days Later. You might be slightly disappointed, but it's still a tremendous attempt and all-around good film.

I think it's quite noticeable that the series is maturing. With more adult subject matter and bigger responsibilities for the three main stars, they are maturing, too. There are many flaws, but that's nothing new to the series.

With not only a new director for this film, but a new screenwriter (for the first time in this series), this film actually seems like a movie and not a biblical epic. Trimmed down to a decent 138 minute runtime, this film feels more human than the others. Is this is a bad thing for the series? Making a Potter film that actually leaves out a lot of the magic could result in poor reception from die hard fans of the novels, but I think they'll be just as pleased with Goldenberg and Yates' effort to bring Potter and friends to the screen while still maintaining that magical essence.

I am pleased with David Yates' job as the director of this fifth installment because he actually made this movie feel different from the series... in a very good way. The series was becoming something of a nonsensical fantasy that didn't even offer logical explanations to even the most basic problems. Potter isn't a child anymore so he cannot be parading around with his wand spitting out abra-kadabra spells and making books levitate anymore, he actually has some responsibility and growing up to do and what better way to show that than with a grown-up film. Even the brilliant Alfonso Cuarón couldn't accomplish that with his third installment and the nearly-unknown Yates has actually made a decent grown-up Potter film. Impressive if you ask me.

I'm assuming the adaptation is decent on the account of I haven't read this book. I read Potter books #1-3 and stopped because the films began coming out and I didn't want to compare the films with the books since 'the book is always better than the movie'. Why would you want to be disappointed? Anyways, I found the story to be good, but with Steve Kloves no longer writing the screenplays, some of the supporting characters seemed to have disappeared. I must say that I miss Klove's writing, but not Newell, Cuarón or Columbus' direction. I guess you can't have it all.

The performances from the young cast are actually decent this time, especially from (the highly overrated) Daniel Radcliffe. Over the years, the Potter series seems to be the place to be for some of Britain's finest actors. Emma Thompson appears once again (in a brief cameo), Ralph Fiennes returns as the dark Lord Voldemort and Gambon, Coltrane and Smith all reprise their roles, too. What I was glad to see was Alan Rickman being given a somewhat more important role. Not so much a larger role, but a more important one in relation to the storyline to come. Finally, Imelda Staunton. She was perfectly cast as Professor Umbridge and gave one fine performance as the austere totalitarian.

Overall, not a perfect Potter film, but the best one I've seen yet. It does lack some magic which disappointed me a little (and I am sure I wasn't the only one), but I was glad to see the film as a whole maturing and becoming more adult-oriented. The younger Potter films were fun, but we can't live in childlike fantasy forever because as Potter grows up, we grow up with him.

I recommend this to fans of the Potter series and to anyone looking for a good summer film. It's far better than the botchy pile of so-called celluloid that they named Transformers.

The Jane Austen Book Club (2007)
director: Robin Swicord
starring: Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman, Maggie Grace, Hugh Dancy, Jimmy Smits, Kevin Zegers, Lynn Redgrave

This is the most obvious example of a "chick flick" from last year... and I really enjoyed it a lot. I loved the fact that literature was incorporated into the film as the central idea, it really made this movie a pleasure to watch. I've only read two of Jane Austen's novels myself, but I don't think you need to have read her books to appreciate the themes and morals of this film.

The cast is fantastic, but most of the praise goes to the incomparable Emily Blunt. She first caught my eye in The Devil Wears Prada in a fantastic debut and now she's actually making something of herself.

Full review coming soon.

Whenever there is a sequel that outshines the first it deserves attention. That is the case with Ocean's Thirteen and I am glad to say that. I have been looking forward to this movie since it was announced, but I did have my doubts. After watching Ocean's Twelve I had almost lost all hope in this series for reasons that are quite clear. I knew that this film was going to be given a gift when Al Pacino joined the cast and that reason alone made me want to see this film that much more.



With such an all-star cast and the classiest location in the world (Las Vegas), this film seemed to already be a hit even before it hit theaters. The one thing this has that the second didn't have was the original location. Vegas. It's where the best heists happen it seems. Ever since the first film in 2001, the score has been stuck in my memory since and thank God that was brought back. It adds such a lustrous atmosphere to the film and brings a cool and polished image to the screen.



The cinematography is absolutely something to watch for. The way it pans through the casino, ventilation ducts, hotel rooms... even over the strip itself, it's all magnificent to see. Bravo to the visual effects artists, too. The new casino on the strip, The Bank, looked too real to even be considered CGI. The film editing was sharp, too. It all fell together quite nicely and made a very gorgeous film to watch.



George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, although very good, weren't the ones who stole the show this time. All of the supporting cast was phenomenal and when they work together it's just a pleasure to watch. Don Cheadle, Andy Garcia, Bernie Mac, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Elliott Gould, Eddie Jemison, Shaobo Qin and Carl Reiner make up the infamous team and boy, they're even more clever than ever. The legend himself, Al Pacino, is terrific to watch, but his right hand "man", Miss Abigail Sponder (Ellen Barkin) is the scene stealer. She is 53 years old and she is still as sexy as ever.



If you didn't quite care for the second installment (which I don't blame you), I would still recommend you to see this because it is totally different. This one is more like the first which is what I love about it. It has the classiness and the overall feel of a terrific heist film and I am so glad that Steven Soderbergh got it right this time around.



If this is the way they are going to be, I would really enjoy seeing a fourth.

I highly recommend this.

Wow. I was really impressed by this movie. I didn't know what to expect, but what I got was one hell of a horror experience. I really like a good scary film and none of the ones that have come out in theaters in the past few years have been any good. I knew that this film was based on a short story that was written by Stephen King, the greatest horror writer ever, so I figured that it would be different than all of the other so-called horror films that have bored me to death lately.

This has to be one of the freakiest movies I have seen. I don't get scared easily (which is sad because Hollywood has de-sensitized us from being scared by anything nowadays by showing us gore and extreme violence), but with this film I almost jumped out of my seat. Most hardcore horror fans might now like this film because it wasn't as violent or gory as, say Hostel: Part II or Saw III, but that's a totally different kind of scary. 1408 is genuinely scary and I am glad I saw it because I needed a good scare.

The story is on par with most of Stephen King's previous work (The Shining, Misery, Carrie, Christine, etc.) and it's just as scary. Mike Enslin (Cusack), a novelist who writes about supernatural phenomena, seeks out 'haunted hotels' for the basis of his next book. None of the renowned 'haunted hotel rooms' have proven to be haunted after all, until he receives a postcard from The Dolphin hotel in New York warning him not to enter room 1408. He accepts this as a challenge and makes his way to New York to check out this room.

Through his research, he finds out that this notorious room has had over 56 deaths in it and, apparently, no one lives longer than one hour in it. Enslin takes these stories only as myths and proceeds to check into room 1408. However, Mr. Olin (Jackson), the hotel manager, tries to persuade him not to check into that room. He retells the stories of the 56 deaths and tries to scare Mr. Enslin away, but it doesn't work. After he is brought up to his floor, he is left to find his room by himself since nobody will go near 'the room'. After he examines the room for anything out of the ordinary, strange things begin to happen that only evolve to be full-out terrifying.

Really well directed by Mikael Håfström (a Swedish director who I have never heard of before) and very well shot, too. The suspense kills you, especially as it builds up around the point where he first enters the room. John Cusack gave a great peformance and worked well by himself and with limited space for most of the film.

Overall, a really well made film with great direction and many scares. If you appreciate good horror, then I highly recommend this to you. One of the best films of the year so far.