cancercapricorn2002

This is one of those films that I hope the director's cut gets released. The film as it stands now is a great horror/fantasy film but you can see that the film was re-edited and just almost destroyed in post production. Hopefully Barker will get his promised directors cut out one day, Anyway Nightbreed is about Boone, a troubled young man, is having some very realistic nightmares about a place called Midian, where the monsters live. The dreams used to frighten him, but now they're almost welcoming. His doctor, Philip Decker, wants to keep him doped up and under surveillance. Decker wants Boone to believe that he is dangerous, uncontrollable and homicidal, when in fact it is Decker himself who commits gruesome murders and wants Boone to take the fall. When Boone is brought to a hospital, overdosing on the powerful hallucinogenics that Decker supplied him with, he meets another man who speaks of Midian. Midian is real, and Boone knows he must find his way there. But Boone is not welcomed by the monsters who live beneath an ancient cemetery...not immediately anyway. When one of them attempts to take a bite out of him, Boone runs for his life and directly into Decker and a wall of armed policeman. Boone is shot down, but is he really dead? Both Decker and Boone's girlfriend Lori are determined to find out, and there's only one place to look....Midian.

As for the cast and characters, David Cronenberg as the evil Dr. Decker is smooth and hypnotic and downright creepy in his S&M killers mask. The monsters are the good guys for a change, and they're really cool looking! My absolute favorites are the sexy but bad tempered Peloquin, the lovely quilled Shunma Sassi and the awesome god Baphomet, all created by Clive Barker's amazing imagination. Look also for Doug Bradley as Lylesburg. The underground city of Midian is an impressive set, as well as the gothically beautiful cemetery above ground. This is a film worth checking out if you can find it. A nice blend of horror and fantasy.

You know when you're watching a film by Clive Barker, that you're in good-hands. When I saw this film was floored by an oddly-believable tale of magic, both ancient and modern. It's interesting to note that Mr. Barker is well-versed in occult-lore, and that when you view his films he's trying to mess with your head on several-levels at-once. Magic is real, we do it every day, but it's seldom-acknowledged. When we think-of-something--an action, or a wish--and we externalize-it into-reality, we have done something that is magical. Animals are also capable of this, but none-so-well as human-beings. Technology is also an externalization of the human-mind (and body), and stems from a scientific-tradition that began with alchemy. In the mystery-traditions, an initiate would be immersed in a symbolic-environment, just as advertising does today for darker-aims! We live illusion every-single-day. If-only it wasn't dead in pustulent-Hollywood.

The battle-between the flesh and this world is eternal, and Clive Barker throws us into the midst of this battle. The film begins in-flashback to a cult-compound that looks a disturbingly-similar mix between the Branch Davidian one in Waco, and Spahn Ranch in Death Valley (once-populated by the Manson Family). This is the story of the birth of a religion, and where-else do they usually begin? The desert, of-course. But Barker takes-it-further, and we get what could be taken as an inversion of the Christian-myth of Jesus. Nix is the messianic-figure, who tells his disciples, "Fire spoke to me and said--NIX, you are the chosen-one, the Puritan." Unlike Christ's meeting with Satan in the desert, Nix succumbs-to-temptation, and his hatred for the material-world. Has he met-with darkness, or fire-itself, an elemental-force? Barker let's US decide throughout what we are seeing-and-hearing--yes, he's playing-with us. Maybe this isn't an inversion of Christianity, after-all...

But, Nix is betrayed in the opening-prologue by his chosen-one, Swann. 13-years pass, and Swann is an incredibly-successful stage-magician, using the skills taught him by Nix. He has a consort in Dorothea, and in a direct-reference to Gnosticism, a wizard's assistant in Valentin. Being our cinematic eyes-and-ears, we are introduced to the Detective Harry D'Amour, a gumshoe with a penchant for the unknown in the occult-underworld. We get-treated to some great film-noir moments thanks to Barker's genius-take on the P.I. character, and it blends with horror effectively. A lot of credit has to go to Scott Bakula for his performance as D'Amour, it's a tightrope-role that requires a subtle-approach, with a little humor and cynicism. He's our surrogate, and his disbelief is crucial to our accepting the realities of this story, a tall-order! I believe Barker and his collaborators succeeded in-spades.

Interestingly, Clive makes a wonderful-homage to Orson Welles (himself an illusionist of high-caliber) in the early murder-scene of the fortune-teller. It's shot in the very-same Venice locations as Welles' "Touch of Evil" (1958), a noir-classic. In some-respects, this film also resembles Welles' "Mr. Arkadian", with a detective searching a man's past as the central-narrative--this was also copied by Alan Parker and his writers on "Angel Heart" (1986), another classic of horror. Barker also references Mario Bava's "Black Sunday" (1960) with the tale of a resurrected-witch/wizard, and the mask that punctures Nix's face into a ghastly-visage.

By the end of the film, it's clear that Nix has come to destroy the world, and we are shown realities we'd rather forget. In-a-sense, there are many criticisms of ALL world religions here, even esoteric-ones. Barker condemns the notion that it is the world that corrupts, and that material-reality is the only source-of-evil and destruction. Mankind can be that essential-ingredient ("Fire spoke to me and said...") of chaos and destruction--we hold our fates in our own-hands, we are that hand-of-fate in occultism.

We stare into-the-abyss, like Nix and Swann, and realize there is nothing, only ourselves. WE are the meaning in the universe, because we create that meaning. Nix, his followers, and Swann succumb to this, and decide non-existence is better. Harry D'Amour, and his allies in the story, do not. The battle, then, is between creation and destruction, not good-versus-evil. D'Amour and Dorothea are an erotic and productive-dyad, whereas Swann and Nix are not. The Apocalypse is always in human-hands when individuals succumb to the forces of the universe that are destructive. They have given-up.
Its too bad we didn't get any more Harry D'Amour films or tv series that was talked about at one time. This movie was a great start to new horror/fantasy series. Maybe we will see D'Amour back on screen one day

This dark and unnerving horror outing based on a story by Clive Barker and directed by Bernard Rose has quite rightly earned a reputation as one of the best horror films of the Nineties.

The story follows Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen), a researcher for a University as she works on her latest thesis regarding modern urban legends. After hearing stories about the myth of the Candyman (Tony Todd) she and her friend Bernadette Walsh (Kasi Lemmons) decide to investigate the myth further. According to the legend if you stare into a mirror and recite the word `candyman' five times then you will call him and he will come for you so obviously that is what Helen decides to do, but it didn't work?.or did it?

?Candyman' has to be credited as at least one of the top five horror films of the 1990's due to its interesting and unnerving subject matter. The story takes the ideas of harmless urban legends (much similar to the ?Bloody Mary' legend) and gives them an evil and physical form. While some people have slated ?Candyman' for ignoring its own rules I don't think it did. ?Candyman' is not a straight forward horror film; there is an intricate plot which requires thought to be fully understood. The Candyman is expected to act one way but chooses to do otherwise, he plays games and confuses people with riddles, why does he do this? Those are the type of things that people make complaints about when talking about this film, he should do one thing but does another, however the reasoning for this is explained in the film if people look for the answer. ?Candyman' itself is a rather interesting and complex puzzle that needs thought to figure out.

Bernard Rose does a great job of creating an unnerving and dark atmosphere which is complimented perfectly by the haunting music. The film has an almost religious feel to it without actually being a religious-based movie and an abundant sense of dread is created through some inventive and impressive direction. Virginia Madsen's performance should be acknowledged as well as she plays her role very well, even generating feelings of sympathy for her character.

The only thing I've heard some of my friends say as a negative is that this film lacks character development. I can't say I agree with this statement but their agruement is while Madsen's character is developed well the other characters in the film, including the Candyman himself, remain rather under-developed. I myself feel that leaving a certain air of mystique to the Candyman is a good idea and enhances the whole experience.
To sum up, for those who haven't seen the film ?Candyman' is definitely worth watching not only for horror fans but for even just casual movie fans. This is a quite ingenious and thought-provoking movie that doesn't rely on gore and cheap effects but rather its self-generated dark atmosphere to provide tension and shocks.

Some Minor Spoilers Here**********************************************************

What can I say but I loved this film. Robert Downey Jr plays Tony Stark a billionaire, genius weapons manufacturer who gets injured by one of his own company's bombs whilst travelling in a combat zone.

Not all the shrapnel can be removed from his body so to keep the shrapnel from puncturing a major ventricle he has an electromagnet inserted in his chest to hold the shrapnel in place and keep him alive. He then invents a tiny power reactor to power the electromagnet and a prototype armour that he uses to escape his captors whom are trying to force him to build them a missile.

Once Tony has returned to the United States he has a change of heart and announced that his company will no longer build weapons. This causes his company's stock to plummet and Obadiah Stane gets a court injunction freezing Tony out from his own company.

Tony perfects the Mark II armour and uses it to destroy caches of his company's weapons being stockpiled by warlords in the Middle East. In the meantime Obadiah Stane uses the remnants of Tony's prototype armour to create the 'Iron Monger' but needs the mini power reactor embedded in Tony's chest to power it.

John Favreau has done a fantastic job adaption Iron Man to the big screen. John's version of Tony Stark is spot on. Tony is arrogant, brilliant and compassionate in equal measure and all aspects of the character are explored.

I also liked how the military were portrayed. The Marines/soldiers were regular young people with personalities just like real life soldiers/marines are and it was the weapons corporations and top brass that were rightly the villains of the piece.

Obadiah Stane was also brilliantly realised by Jeff Bridges and the Iron Monger armour was truly menacing, the total opposite to Stark's svelte red and gold armour. The special effects in this movie were terrific and some of the armour's gadgets when used in combat were suitably advanced just like in the comic books.

Overall this is a great comic book film. There was plenty of action and comedy and a good storyline. If you enjoy superhero films or just good action films then I definitely recommend this to you if you haven't already seen it. I can't wait for Iron Man 2

How do you outdo one of the most notorious, extreme splatter movies ever made? Simple: make an art film. Though still chock full of the usual body bonking and assorted gross outs, this is a far more elegant and polished piece of work than its predecessor, more concerned with a mood of unease and melancholia than spraying bodily fluids (until the last five minutes, anyway).
Beautiful young nurse and fledgling necrophile Monika (Monika M.) steals into a graveyard and digs up the rotting corpse of Rob, our hero from the first film. She takes his congealed remains home and deposits him in the bathtub, where does some impromptu prep work and dresses him up to pose for homemade photographs. Of course, our happy couple becomes a love triangle thanks to Mark (Mark Reeder), a nice but slightly kinky guy who makes his living dubbing and providing sound effects) for hardcore porn films. When she isn't at home spending quality time with deadbeat Rob, Monika goes with Mark to pretentious art films and watches seal brutality videos, occasionally suspending him naked by his feet. The strain soon takes its toll, however, and Monika devises an ingenious and thoroughly perverse solution for the two suitors in her life.

Best known as the film that finally sent the German censors over the deep end (including a well-publicized theatrical raid), Nekromantik 2 uses its comparatively lavish running time for a more ambitious and densely textured narrative. While the corpse scenes are naturally gruesome, there's a strong surrealist sensibility at work that keeps it more curious than repellent. Apart from the aforementioned seal scene, an ill-advised attempt to outdo the bunny footage from the original film, Buttgereit strangely avoids any graphic bloodshed or nasty latex dismemberments for most of the running time. Of course, he's really just saving it up for the powerhouse finale, which amazingly outdoes the Daktari Lorenz's "climax" from Nekromantik. The narrative also has a stronger pull in this case, stopping along the way for some humorous and romantic asides before the ironic final scene. Much credit must also go to the alluring Monika M., a terrific lead who should have gone on to do far more work. (She even chipped in on the lyrical music score, along with five other people)
Iam a fan of the 1st Nekromantik film but I liked this one alot more. Not sure if everyone will see the theme of ( be who you are and not what your expected to be) that comes through in the film but thats one more aspect of this film that I really enjoyed.
To sum up if your not a fan of the 1st don't bother with this one but if your looking for something off of your usual path of film viewing this is worth checking out,

"Magnum Force," Clint Eastwood's sophomore outing as "Dirty Harry" Callahan, succeeds in giving us violence, funny lines from Harry and even in showing a more human side to the tough cop. But the movie fails in a crucial area: it lacks the unrelenting suspense and pace of its predecessor, and gives us villains who are not nearly as chilling or memorable.

This time, Harry is called upon to investigate a series of murders in which all of the victims are known criminals. It begins with the slaying of a mob figure who beats a murder rap. From the beginning, the movie tells us that the slayings are being carried out by policemen, and (potential spoiler warning) the killers turn out to be a squad of sharp-shooting rookies trying to take back the city by drastically reducing the courts' case load.

The story takes its time to get moving, and there are some pointless scenes (like one involving an airplane hijacker) that only get in the way of the main plot. The original "Dirty Harry" hooked us right from the opening scene and never let up. It was also rather different in the way it portrayed the character of Harry. In the first movie, he had no problems with shooting first, reading rights later, and so it may seem strange that he would object to the idea of police who carry out justice in their own way.

The difference is that the criminals being killed in this movie are not in the midst of performing acts of violence when they are killed (with the exception of one nasty scene in which a pimp pours Draino down a hooker's throat). The script by John Milius tries to present an interesting contrast between Harry and the rookie cops who presumably represent his darker side (there's one scene where they're even filmed in the shadows when confronting Harry in a parking garage), the line that he won't cross. But the violence and action sequences pretty much hamper the film's attempts at providing a thought-provoking story.

The rookie cops are not especially well developed as characters; the most interesting is the one played by David Soul (of "Starsky and Hutch") who bests Harry in a shooting competition. This could have set the stage for a really tense final showdown, but that's an opportunity the movie misses.

The movie also gives us a look at Harry's personal life. He has a tryst with a young woman who lives in his apartment building, and another character, whose husband has worked with Harry for years and now seems to be losing his marbles, has an unrequited attraction to Harry. Again, these scenes only get in the way of the main plotline. Do we really need to know what Harry does in his off time?

"Magnum Force" will certainly appeal to fans of Eastwood and "Dirty Harry," and Eastwood's charisma helps hold the movie up when it starts to sag. But compared to the original "Dirty Harry," it's disappointing and not as memorable but still like I said before its worth a look for Eastwood and Dirty Harry fans.

One of my top five films. I seen Blade Runner in the summer of 82. I was 9 years old at the time and it was a experience that changed my life. I was pulled into the world of this film and in some ways I've never left. It a film that makes me think everytime I see it and I continue to see things I never noticed before and that is rare in any film. On to the review. Ridley Scotts' 'Blade Runner' is, by far, one of the greatest Science-Fiction movies ever made. 'Blade Runner' takes place in the far future where mankind has developed 'Replicants', genetically engineered robotic-human clones. 'Replicants' were designed to be physically superior to humans, but possess the same intelligence as the common human being. These androids are used as slaves for the 'hazardous exploration and colonization' of other planets in our solar system. At some point in time, (which isn't specified in the movie) a violent 'Replicant' revolt ensues on a colonized planet, this event causes replicants to be declared illegal on Earth, if a replicant is found on Earth it will be immediately destroyed. The title of the movie, 'Blade Runner', refers to a policeman whose job it is to shoot and kill any replicants they might find on Earth. (All of this, of course, is explained in the first three minutes of the movie, much clearer, and much shorter, but I decided to write about it anyways) The story is about a man named Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford), an experienced 'Blade Runner' who's unwillingly brought out of retirement to finish one last mission. Deckard has to track down four rogue replicants who have escaped from a planetary colony to Earth, killing innocent lives on the way. These four highly dangerous replicants are loose on the streets of L.A., and could kill again unless Deckard can deal with them first. This film wasn't the first time in the Sci-Fi genre for Ridley Scott. His previous film in the Science-Fiction genre is 'Alien', which is an extremely well presented Horror film in space. Ridley Scott knows how to establish a mood, in 'Alien' he makes the audience feel clustered, tense, and alone on a gigantic moving spaceship, the same in 'Blade Runner'. Deckard's' chase scene through L.A. in 2019, halfway through the movie, best describes the atmosphere of the film. Medium shots of Deckard running through the streets, culturally diverse extras constantly filling the screen, talking street lights, loud-annoying street sounds, all of the preceding things add up to a perfect feel of a technologically corrupted Los Angeles. The final segments of this chase scene use slow motion, and a very bluesy musical score that gives the scene such finesse that an audience can easily see the horror of what mankind, in the film, has become. The overall presentation of 'Blade Runner' is very much like a gritty 1950's detective movie, with Harrison Ford in a majority of the scenes, becoming the stoic private eye who is fed up with his job. Ford has a knack for playing characters that are down on their luck, because of this he pulls off Rick Deckard's character flawlessly. Ford's calm and collected manner of performing all his actions fit the experienced 'Blade Runner' very well. All the roles in the film are played with great skill by the cast, every supporting performance adds to the magnificence of this film. The creator of the combat 'Replicant' models J.F. Sebastian is a timid scientist who lives with his homemade midget robots. William Sanderson, who plays Sebastian, portrays the shy scientist exactly how one would expect. Joe Turkel plays Tyrell, the owner of a major 'Replicant' producing company called Tyrell Corporation. Turkel also gives a great performance as an arrogant corporate owner. Also we have Rutger Hauer who plays the leader and most dangerous of the four escaped replicants, Roy Batty. The innocence he gives to the ruthlessly evil character is a scary thing to watch at times. What truly makes 'Blade Runner' a must-see film is its' dialogue, every conversation between characters has an underlying theme within it. One of my favorite lines is when Batty says 'We're not computers ? we're physical'. The manner Hauer says it will get the viewer thinking. The writing also shines at the end with Roy's last lines in the film, overall a very moving script with a ton of different conversations that are worth listening to. From the opening scenes of a horribly industrialized Los Angeles, to the chase on L.A.'s crowded streets, and finally the gruesome fight scene which concludes the movie, 'Blade Runner' is one of the breakthrough films in the Sci-Fi genre. This movie is a non-stop journey through a very realistic rendition of the future. The thing to watch out with this movie is also considered to be a Film-Noir. This means that certain characteristics will constantly take shape in the film. For example a Film-Noir will only promote the cynical side of human nature, thus the genre 'Film-Noir' is a very ugly look at life. Many factors in 'Blade Runner' add up to a classification of Film-Noir some of them are: - Deckard's primary job is hunting and killing androids, not a very joyous job. Deckard himself has a very cynical way of saying things. - L.A. is portrayed as a city overrun by smoke and fog. The exterior shots of the city usually incorporate rain. Many scenes take places in dark, gloomy, and empty streets. - As you watch the film you will notice that bright colors are rarely used and the city streets are in constant darkness(because of the pollution blocking the sun). Film-Noirs are often filled with ambiguity and the protagonist is usually a depressing kind of guy. This might discourage people from watching it, but I highly recommend picking the 'Blade Runner' dvd just to see at least one Film-Noir in your lifetime. This genre is one of those things that you either love or you hate, a proper Film-Noir will usually not have a picture perfect ending so don't expect one from 'Blade Runner' It is a highly overlooked film nowadays, when the common movie-goer thinks of Sci-Fi immediately big name titles like: The Star Wars Saga, Star Trek, The Matrix Trilogy, The Terminator, etc. are what they would think of. Blade Runner is the true definition of the Sci-Fi genre; it doesn't have the fun and games of Star Wars, or the huge firefight scenes of the Matrix, but delivers thoughts on what it means to live, what our future holds, and a serious outlook on humans in general.

Best known for directing the classic independent horror film "Halloween", director John Carpenter works wonders in another of many of his movies that I absolutely love- "Escape From New York". "Escape From New York" is to give a quick plot rundown about Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), a former war hero who is now a criminal. He is ordered by Bob Hauk (Lee Van Cleef), the calm, but stubborn U.S. Police Commissioner to go into New York City, now the country's only maximum security prison and rescue the President (Donald Pleasence) in twenty-four hours. Some of the scenes in this movie are terrific such as Snake eluding the Crazies, Snake finds Brain (Harry Dean Stanton), an old friend of his who betrayed him in a robbery, and the car chase across the 69th Street bridge that is mined. To just name a few off hand. Kurt Russell gives a perfect performance as Snake and the film gets solid supporting performances from Cleef, Stanton, Pleasence, Ernest Borgnine as the last cab driver in the Big Apple, Adrianne Barbeau, Issac Hayes as the vicious Duke, and Frank Doubleday as Romero, who manages to steal some scenes in the movie with just his freaky appearence alone. The story was written by Carpenter and Nick Castle. It is smart and very well detailed. Also, Carpenter makes a terrific musical score that pays off in some of the key scenes. Dean Cundey's cinematography is top notch as usual. "Escape From New York" is as mentioned before one of my favorite John Carpenter films. I could go on and on about it. In the end even though its dated due to the timeframe its set in ( 1997) the film is a timeless classic

"Escape from New York" is to me a classic film, it's memorably dark, seedy, suspenseful and even funny. Alas, "Escape from L.A." is not nearly as memorable - in fact, it plays out as nothing more than a remake of its far more thrilling predecessor. Both films have essentially the same premise; corrupt government officials send criminal tough guy "Snake" Plissken to infiltrate the ruins of a once-great city and retrieve some MacGuffin for them. In both films, Snake is reluctant to cooperate, but the government secures his compliance by threatening his life. So, Snake duly treks off to an urban wasteland, wasting thugs and meeting a variety of wacky characters on his way to completing his desperate mission. This sequel is a step down from the original movie. The villain is inferior, the president is inferior, and even the special effects are inferior (note the positively laughable CGI when Snake pilots his submarine to L.A.; the approach to New York in the first film is infinitely classier.) And, though both films have some very dark humor, I find that the jokes in the first are simply better. In "L.A.," there are some attempts at social satire, but by and large they don't work to well. For instance, the much-praised "plastic surgery" segment feels really isolated and pointless to me. It's a one-joke sequence that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the plot. Ultimately, I think the first film has the edge in the humor department because it was co-written by Nick Castle, who reportedly lightened up the script and was quite a wit in general (though Castle is credited on this movie, I believe it's only because he wrote the original film.) One thing I loved about"Escape from L.A." is its social commentary. I agree with some of this film's criticisms of the religious right, some may find the presentation of these criticisms to be superficial, condescending, and obnoxious. To me I guess its just fun satire, even though some aspects of the film hit close to home. Suffice to say, if you're conservative, this movie will annoy you, and who knows even if you're an open-minded liberal, it might annoy you. To each his or her own. To sum up here Escape From L.A. has got some good cameos, a few decent scenes, but in the end...it just ain't the original. A fun film to watch but not a great film

What can I say but I love this film. Its one of my all time favorites. I will try to keep this as short and sweet as I can because I could just go on and on about this film. Angel Heart is a winding psychological thriller that -- in 1987 -- was far ahead of its time. So far that audiences didn't `get it' and the film bombed at the box office. Only now over the past few years are we beginning to see endings like this one surface in horror movies. Had Angel Heart been made a decade or so later, perhaps it would have succeeded. As it is, the movie which has a strong cult following is still nothing short of mesmerizing. I would even go so far to call it a masterpiece. It is scary, disturbing, influential, thought-provoking, and a lot smarter and more atmospheric than most movies being made today. It stars Mickey Rourke as Harry Angel, a private eye from Brooklyn in the 1950s who is hired by Louis Cyphere (Robert De Niro) to locate a mysterious singer named Johnny Favorite, who disappeared in the early ?40s and hasn't been seen since. Angel's journey takes him from the streets of New York to jazz clubs in Harlem and, finally, to the sweltering swamps of Louisiana. He meets a variety of characters, all of who have little to say about Favorite. All we seem to know is that he was a singer, entered the war, and was shot, had his face reconstructed, was taken out of hospital care, and apparently vanished from the face of the earth. Most people who watch it now will see the twist coming a mile away but that's not to say that the movie won't affect you. Notorious when released for some controversial scenes (including a sequence involving Rourke and The Cosby Show's Lisa Bonet), the movie's moody atmosphere is its strongest element. The acting, too, is very strong. This is Rourke's finest performance, as Harry Angel, a scumbag detective with nothing to lose. Rourke's acting here is Oscar-worthy. The role of Louis Cyphere is also one of De Niro's most interesting and ambitious performances; he delves entirely into character and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer. The film was directed by Alan Parker, the famous British filmmaker (of, among others, Midnight Express). Some say this is his finest film ,wonderfully crafted, beautifully shot, masterfully edited and I'd have to agree.

This version of Solaris has a very different feel to it than Tarkovsky's original, this is, by Soderbergh's admission, one third the original, one third the novel (by Stanislaw Lem) and one third Soderbergh's own imagination. Its also somewhat of a departure for all involved, particularly Clooney and Soderbergh, though bearing the fingerprints of his style. It must be said that this is not the film that the terrible marketing campaign at the time of it release offered - it is not a funky space-set romance, though it does take place in space and is a romantic story. It is however, a very slow, deliberate film. Only essential information is given and, going from a 61-page script to a 90-minute film, there is little dialogue but a lot of detail. Many will find it too slow and possibly boring and I do have to say its not a film for everyone. But there is so much here to appreciate. It is a film of mood and feelings, creating a beautiful and emotional atmosphere, in which events unwind gradually, rather than an intense plot-driven mish-mash of ideas. Soderbergh's intention is to question the very nature of existence and of love - if you knew something wasn't real, would you avoid getting attached to it, even if it was the one thing you always wanted, more than anything? If it meant never seeing home again, but spending forever in a tiny space with just that person, would rationality cease to exist? Do we only need that one thing that we crave to survive? Beyond this, there are semi-religious overtones added as well - is Solaris heaven? A place where all wishes are granted at the cost of "human" life? The aspect that stands out first and foremost the acting. Viola Davis is wonderful, Jeremy Davies is never less than interesting, and finally Clooney and Natasha McElhone deliver great performances, some of the best of their careers so far. Expanding his range even more after Out of Sight and O Brother Where Art Thou?, Clooney reaches depth you wouldn't have expected of such a matinee-style star. His Chris Kelvin is sad, intense, smart and realistic - the scene where Clooney wakes up to see his dead wife is a wonderful moment of acting, watching him try to bring himself round and shake off the image, only to realise its real. And McElhone is perfectly cast and surprising as the other half of the emotional core. Having been efficient in Ronin and The Truman Show, she seems to have acquired untapped gravitas and beauty in this film, looking absolutely beautiful in a very virginal, pure sense, belying the complexities and internal grief of her character. She too has many moments that just seem incredibly real, as if she forgot to act and just believed in what was happening. The cinematography and effects are very proficient without being showy, creating a believable environment within which the bizarre events are grounded in a reality not so unbelievable. Solaris itself is simply gorgeous to look at, conjuring up images of planets and cells at the same time, hinting at a universality which is not one thing nor the other, but all things which cannot be explained in one term, again suggesting a godliness to it. And the music is brilliantly subtle, flavouring the images to give it that atmosphere of longing and loss and also beauty, never suggesting what we should feel but rather what the on-screen characters are feeling. Soderbergh has made a very mature film here, eschewing the "cool" editing and camera tricks of films such as Traffic, Erin Brockovich, The Limey and Out of Sight for a more stately, sophisticated tone. It never feels forced or unbelievable and, while some of its twists are somewhat predictable, you dont feel cheated at all by the end, rather that everything played out as it should: dramatic and sad in places, beautiful in others, unsettling at times and ultimately quite profound. There really isn't anything wrong with this film, if you are in the mood to have a film wash over you and cause you to ruminate on the ideas of mortality, loss and redemption.

Thriller: A Cruel Picture also known as They Call Her One Eye ( the title I prefer)is among the most infamous films in exploitation cinema. It was eclipsed by I Spit On Your Grave which was made a few years later. I can honestly say it fully deserves its reputation as a truly depraved film. Its also a rather original film that remains unique even today. The art-house approach to grindhouse material isn't always successful, I've seen some that have been a little too pretentious, This is one of those b-films where the filmmakers obviously wanted to create something quality as opposed to just collect a rent payment and yet not slide into the pretentious category Bo Arne Vibenius's direction, as mentioned earlier, makes a unique aesthetic. The material is great exploitation film fodder, some of the grittiest and sleaziest stuff ever caught on camera. However, he manages to make a sympathetic protagonist out of the main female character who always remains easy to root for even when he revenge becomes just as sadistic as her previous tormentor's actions. There are some flaws to the film, mainly the overuse of slow motion when the violence occurs. While it can sometimes lend an eerie, almost poetic quality to the film (such as the scene with the cops in the warehouse), it detracts the sudden impact the material could potentially have. The film would've moved at a better pace without this unnecessary technique. Also, the hardcore porn inserts are often awkward and really interrupt the flow. I really wonder what Vibenius was trying to achieve by inserting these sequences. However, whenever Vibenius occasionally fumbles, the lead performance of Christina Lindberg is always fantastic. She never speaks during the entire film but her performance has the subtlety many other aspects of the production lack. Shes also an incredibly beautiful women capable of projecting both innocence and sex appeal. Its no wonder she has a sizable cult following - shes an extremely talented performer. "Thriller: A Cruel Picture" is a completely successful exploitation cult film, despite the flaws I mentioned it works really well and is a film worth checking out if your a fan of grindhouse cinema.