My Favorite Movies

Se7en (1995)
director: David Fincher
starring: Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Gwyneth Paltrow, R. Lee Ermey, Richard Roundtree

When I first watched this film four years ago, it was the most thrilling and exhilarating film I had ever seen. Nothing compared to it in terms of suspense and thrills. When I watched this film recently, I realized why this film had such an impact on me four years ago. This film is by far the most suspenseful film I've seen and it plays with your fears like they are toys. The direction is impeccable; David Fincher is highly aware of this film's genre and uses it to the best of his ability. He bides his time and keeps all of the thrills contained until the climax and definitely unleashes them in the conclusion. Comparing Se7en to thrillers released after 1995 is difficult because none of them hold a candle to this masterpiece. The only films of this genre who are anywhere near the quality of Se7en are The Descent, 28 Days Later and Zodiac (which was also directed by Fincher). Through examining the film's genre and visual style, it is easy for me to say that Se7en is one of the best films I have ever seen.

When thinking of the horror genre, the first thing that usually comes to mind is monsters, zombies, ghosts or some other fictitious creature that we normally see attacking people in films. When The Silence of the Lambs was released, it re-introduced the idea of realism in horror films. Realism had not been popular in the horror genre for decades; in the 1950s, most of the thrillers were in the film noir style where the villain was not a monster, but rather an insane human who was battling himself as well as others. The duality of the characters was what made them frightening. For example, Harry Powell (played to perfection by Robert Mitchum) from The Night of the Hunter was one of the most frightening antagonists from the '50s. But the idea of realism was lost until 1991, when it became more popular.

In 1995, Se7en introduced what would become one of the iconic villains of the 1990s: John Doe. He was a human. He was evil. He was real. He murdered people, but added a twist to his killings: he murdered them based on their sins, one death for every one of the seven deadly sins. The one difference between Se7en and other horror films incorporating realism is the fact that the villain doesn't have an inner battle with himself. Usually we know the villain's past and usually this past is what causes the villain to become villainous in the first place. With John Doe, we don't know his past, he doesn't have fingerprints and he is nameless. The fact that he has no identity is one of the most important bits of this film. Having the villain appear half way through the film and giving him no identity gives the evil deeds in the film much more ambiguity in terms of whose fault they were. The evilness ultimately lies in the victims. Yes, murder is a sin, and we see what becomes of John Doe in the conclusion, but his victims died because of the evil he saw in them. In terms of film history, Se7en is groundbreaking in the originality department. It establishes new takes on both the villain and on realist horror conventions. It's brilliance should be remembered for it brought around a totally new type of psychological thriller.

Se7en was not only revolutionary in what was aforementioned, it also exuded mastery in the editing department. The opening credits of this film are almost as intense as the film itself. They display graphic images of grisly murders, mutilated bodies and bloody jars. What we are watching is John Doe at work in his scrapbook where he keeps pictures of his killings. The sharp and jolting editing mixed with the also gruesome song "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails gives the opening credits an extremely eerie feeling. This is a perfect introduction for it establishes what we can expect from the film itself. Stylistically, this film is excellent. The editing, music, cinematography and art direction are used perfectly in accordance to the thematic elements. The dark look this film has diminishes hope and the dirty city gives the feeling of unease not only for the characters, but for the viewers, too.

Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman both give deep performances. The two characters they play each have their gloomy, secretive sides, but are likable characters nonetheless. Kevin Spacey gives yet another astonishing performance as the villain in this film, John Doe. Unfortunately, he goes uncredited on the film's posters and opening credits, but for good reason: shock value. His monologue in the police car as Brad Pitt interrogates and mocks him is amazing and proves why he is such a fantastic actor.

Se7en is one of the essential films of the 1990s. It redefined the horror genre and established new techniques and conventions that shocked the viewing public. It's a disturbing film which has poignancy in its core, but I wouldn't recommend it to the faint of heart. It's grisly and graphic, but the gore is necessary for such a film. It instantly became one of my favourite films and I think it could easily pass as my favourite film of all-time. An excellent thriller that will be recognized as revolutionary for years to come.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
director: Jonathan Demme
starring: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Scott Glenn, Ted Levine, Anthony Heald, Brooke Smith, Kasi Lemmons

Horror films have forever been popular in movie-going society, but not until The Silence of the Lambs was released did the genre take a drastic turn. Not only does this film excel at frightening its viewers and giving them nightmares about cannibalistic serial killers, more importantly, it breaks the the old horror film stereotypes and introduces fresh and very brave new film conventions. Horror films have almost always portrayed women as weak and helpless characters. They're always either the damsel in distress, being rescued one way or another by a man or the promiscuous teenager who is naked for half of the film. The Silence of the Lambs takes the weak female character stereotype and completely reverses it. In this film, the main character, Clarice Starling, is a strong, independent woman who holds her own in a male-dominated workplace and solves the mystery without any help from men. This may sound like a feminist rant, but this is a groundbreaking film in terms of female liberation and deserves high recognition.

This film is hardly geared toward women, but it does directly deal with the role of a strong woman in a male-dominated society. This political statement propels the main character into the history books as one of the most important heroines of all-time. However, Clarice Starling isn't the first female heroine in a horror film (even though she may be the most popular). Ellen Ripley from the Alien films made her debut in 1979 in the horror franchise and not only kicked alien ass, but film stereotype's ass into the history books as a strong female heroine in a horror film. Starling is played flawlessly by Jodie Foster, a role she was born to play. Foster shines in all of the scenes, but most evidently in the scenes with Anthony Hopkins. She is brilliant and their eerie chemistry is almost pleasing to watch. Foster was lucky enough to take home the Oscar for her portrayal of Clarice Starling which is, undoubtedly, one of the most deserved Oscars in recent memory.

Aside from the feminism, this film has other groundbreaking elements to it as well. The film's main male character is Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. Dr. Lecter was once a psychiatrist, but was arrested for murder and found to be a serial killing cannibal, hence the nickname he acquired. What's shocking about Lecter is his tone and diction. He's a very intelligent man, but uses his wisdom and serenity in a way that draws you in as he fools with your mind. What's groundbreaking about this character is that he is a villain, but he isn't the villain the protagonist is looking for. He actually aids the Clarice into finding the "bad guy" from behind his bars. Lecter is portrayed by the fantastic Anthony Hopkins, who also took home an Oscar for his 17-minute performance. Hopkins' performance is the shortest to win an Oscar for Best Actor, but it is far from small in power. Although given such a short amount of screen time, Hopkins steals the film as Hannibal Lecter and creates what has become one of the most popular and recognizable film characters of all time. He is frighteningly chilling and evokes such evil in his eyes that he becomes the character.

In the scene where Starling visits Lecter in prison for the first time and for most of the thrilling conclusion, the cinematography stood out as brilliant and I could not get it out of my mind. Cinematographer Tak Fujimoto has worked on many films (Badlands, Philadelphia and The Sixth Sense to name a few) and has been recognized by many critics and film institutions to be one of the best cinematographers out there. Fujimoto worked with director Jonathan Demme on The Silence of the Lambs so wonderfully and produced some of the most frightening scenes in film history. Fujimoto utilizes so many different camera angles in this film that intensify the scenes and generate such great suspense. He is a master of his craft and he proves this to us through his excellent work in this film.

Recognized as one of the greatest films of all-time by many sources, The Silence of the Lambs was a huge success when it was released in 1991 and has endured time and is still a huge success now. Creating two legendary film characters, one who is one of the most recognized villains of all time and the other who is one of the greatest heroines of all time, staying true to the novel which the film was based on and winning five Oscars in the major categories is only a few of this films' achievements. It's an iconic thriller and has gone down as one of the best. If you have been living under a rock and haven't seen this film, I cannot recommend it more. See it, you won't regret it.

La Haine (1995)
director: Mathieu Kassovitz
starring: Vincent Cassel, Hubert Koundé, Saïd Taghmaoui

As a critique on French society, a comment on the 1986 attack of a French-Arab by police, and simply a revolutionary work for actor/director Kassovitz, this film exceeds expectations and delivers more than any other film I've seen with these themes. The film is a shocking look at the lives of the people living in the French banlieues (slums). In the film we follow three young men, Vinz, a Jew, Saïd, an Arab, and Hubert, an African through their turbulent lives which end tragically with police violence. This film comments on important political and social happenings and through its narrative style and black and white cinematography, lets the audience feel the impact of the realism and understand the importance of the documentary-like style of filmmaking in relation to this topic.

Kassovitz isn't a very established director, but he is great and proves his brilliance through this film alone. His most acknowledged role was probably in Amélie as Amélie's love interest, Mathieu. He is also known for his direction of the poorly executed thriller, Gothika and his smaller roles in films like Munich and Jakob the Liar. What Kassovitz did for France with La Haine is close to what Scorsese did for the US with Mean Streets. More similarly, what Kassovitz did is more close to what Spike Lee did with Do the Right Thing or what Kurosawa did with Stray Dog. Either way, Kassovitz adapted a style of filmmaking from his American predecessors, but also introduced a certain flair to it that made it original and uncannily realistic. The film opens with footage from the banlieue riots which the film used as a basis for its story. The film, following this footage, is shown in black and white and has a realism quality to it depicted most notably through it's stunningly impressive tracking shots. The film's visuals and stylistics ultimately give it a documentary feel which allows it to resonate with the viewers more, especially in relation to the banlieue riots.

We are introduced to Paris' culturally diverse middle-class population in the beginning of this film when we meet the three leads. They represent the diverse racial population and lead us through the film's often violent events. After meeting these characters, we learn that the night before, a riot took place where a friend of theirs was arrested and brutally beaten by police. This isn't anything new to this slum, this happens very often. Police brutality is common in these banlieues. Their friend is near death and the three young men want revenge for their friend. Miraculously something turns up which Vinz takes as a sign to avenge his friend: a Wesson .44 that they find in the streets. They find out one of the cops from the riot the night before lost this gun, but Vinz doesn't plan on being a good Samaritan and return the gun, he has other plans.

The intimate portrait of these three young men, especially Vinz, is fantastic; the character development is extensive and we learn a lot about these young men. Through their trials and tribulations in this film, we follow them like a magnet, only steps behind them for every move they make. This also adds to the realism of this film for we learn the true voice of the people (the people being represented by the culturally diverse group of lead characters) and their stance on the political and social problems taking place in the outskirts of the Paris banlieues.

This film was so powerful and culturally significant in 1995, but even more so in it's tenth anniversary release in 2005. In October 2005, riots and other acts of violence erupted in Clichy-sous-Bois, a suburb of Paris. Cars were being burned as were buildings and this violent nightmare began spreading through other small communes in France. Over the twenty nights that his occurred, almost 3000 people were arrested and over 8000 cars were burned. La Haine is now associated with this event and came back to the surface of popular culture and other news due to its relation with the 2005 riots. Kassovitz only had the [then] Minister of Interior, Nicholas Sarkozy, to blame and cited him as a major problem in French society, sticking to his political and social critique from ten years earlier in this film.

This film has become a very important and culturally significant icon in France. Unfortunately, it hasn't won a lot of recognition here in North America, but it is critically acclaimed and has recently been released on Criterion DVD which will allow more people to view this masterpiece. Kassovitz has created what is now one of my all-time favourite films; a stark, shocking and realistic portrayal of life in the Paris slums seen through the eyes of three racially different young men who are changed by the decaying society and end up in a battle for their lives. It's brilliant and strangely intriguing, I highly recommend this to everyone. It's a film which we all should see whether politics is relevant to us or not for it's a lesson learned in terms of ethics and morality.

Chung Hing sam lam [Chungking Express] (1994)
director: Wong Kar-wai
starring: Tony Leung, Faye Wong, Takeshi Kaneshiro, Brigitte Lin

Review coming soon .

This movie is so real... it's perfect. Fernando Meirelles is one of the best directors of our time and this movie is one of the best of the decade.

Perfection.

I... love... this... film. This masterpiece is one of the most captivating films I have ever seen. Gorgeous art direction and cinematography make this a rare treat. Wong Kar-Wai is absolutely, without a doubt, a genious. He became, in 1997, the first Chinese person to win the honour of Best Director at the Cannes film festival. Ever since then, he has created some wildly acclaimed masterpieces.

[i]In the Mood for Love[/i] is WKW's best. With this film he has taken a simple plot to places one would never think it could go. He wrote the screenplay and directed this film. His irregular style of story-telling is what makes this movie so appealing to me. The music is great, too. Although there are only two or three songs played in this film, the way they are used and the time when they are used are key. Wonderful to watch.

Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are absolutely fantastic. Their chemistry is subtle, yet very intriguing. Their scenes together are great, but it's in the scenes when they are not with each other and are longing for one another where their emotionally powerful acting comes in. They should have both been nominated for Oscars for this film. I know the Academy rarely honors foreign films in those categories, but if [i]Wo hu cang long[/i] can do it, this sure as hell can.

Hong Kong, 1962. Chow Mo-Wan (Leung), a newspaper editor, moves into a new building with his wife. The same day, Su Li-zhen Chan (Cheung), a secretary, moves next door with her husband. Both of their spouses are often away on business, so they become close friends. They have a lot in common and talk quite often. When they find out the shocking news that their spouses are having an affair with each other, they are both very hurt. Angry, they find comfort in their friendship as they try not to be like their unfaithful partners.

This (very) passionate film is the epitome of Asian cinema. A wonderfully romantic storyline which is hightened by sexual tension. This tension is brought through the music and fine acting of the two leads and mesmerizes the audience. I am glad I finally watched this because it is, perhaps, the best Chinese film I have seen. Absolutely terrific. A wonderful achievement from Wong Kar-Wai. Highly recommended.

2046 (2005)
director: Wong Kar-wai
starring: Tony Leung, Ziyi Zhang, Li Gong, Faye Wong, Takuya Kimura

One of the best films I have ever seen. Easily one of my absolute favourites and one of the best films of the 21st Century. The thing is, when people ask me if I like this more than In the Mood for Love, I won't be able to answer. They are both totally different films (even thought this is the sequel to In the Mood for Love). They are both equally amazing, but in terms of favourite, 2046 is mine (with In the Mood for Love just a small margin behind it).

I can't get over the mixed reviews I have been reading for this film. It deals with the beauty of love like no other film I have seen (save In the Mood for Love) and incorporates science fiction elements into the plot that makes the story so much more brilliant and the characters so much more real. Science fiction elements make these characters seem real? Yes, I believe they do. The scenes on the train to the year 2046 are not only superbly shot and masterfully visualized, but a good deal of the development and existential occurrences in the characters happen on this train, in the future. I haven't seen a film or read a book that put science fiction elements to such good use since I read Slaughterhouse-Five; or, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Wong Kar-wai has always been a favourite of mine ever since I saw In the Mood for Love four years ago. The plot of that film never interested me before I saw it, but that was around the time I began broadening my tastes and watching more foreign films. After I saw In the Mood, I was mesmerized and completely captured by the beauty of it. The story of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-Zhen made me feel uncannily close to them and I knew at that moment I had to watch 2046. For some ridiculous reason, it took me almost four years to watch 2046, but those four years let me mature that much more and see many more films that would allow me to appreciate this film like I have. I have never felt as close as I have with characters in a film as I do with the ones in In the Mood for Love and 2046 (I have yet to see Days of Being Wild, unfortunately).

The visuals are what keep me mesmerized and the screenplay is what keeps me emotional, vice versa even. When I say emotional, I don't mean bawling my eyes out sad, I mean infatuated. I am literally infatuated with this work of art. This film is a collaborative effort, I do believe. Wong Kar-wai is the mastermind behind this trilogy, of course, but credit also goes out to the actors (Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung, Li Gong, Faye Wong, Ziyi Zhang), Christopher Doyle the cinematographer (along with Kwan Pun Leung and Lai Yiu Fai), William Chang the production designer/costume designer/film editor, Alfred Yau the art director and Shigeru Umebayashi the composer of the original score. Combining all these talents together has brought the world two epic films that have changed my outlook on cinema and art in general.

2046 is the epitome of film, in my opinion. It has everything I look for in a film and it has pleased me like only a few select others have. It really is a masterpiece and I cannot recommend this more. I hope you all see this and take something away from it, whether it be visually or emotionally (or hopefully both).

This is one sequel that completely demolishes the original in almost every aspect. I only liked the original and I wasn't really excited to see this one, but when I watched it in my film class I was so surprised. This one is so amazing. The story is great and the effects are so much better. I guess becasue the original had a budget of $6.5 million and this one had a budget of $100 million... that can really make or break an action movie. Arnold Schwarzenegger is so great as the Terminator. He was made to play this role. Linda Hamilton is awesome, too. She really got in shape for this movie, I was impressed. Furlong was good, but this and American History X are the only 2 movies I really remember him from. Can't say he made a good career for himself. Robert Patrick is an awesome villain; probably one of the best and most remembered to this day. The whole conversion from 'bad' to 'good' by Arnold is great and the way James Cameron directs this movie is stunning, also. I have never been a huge fan of the sci-fi / action blockbusters, but this movie has a lot of meaning and cultural tone to it and I really, really liked it. This has to be one of the most entertaining and one of the best movies I have seen. I highly recommend this movie to everyone. Not a movie to be missed!

I wouldn't think that Pedro Almodovár could outdo his previous masterpiece [i]Todo sobre mi madre[/i], but I was wrong. This movie is much better than his other films and the most original, also. Almodovár knows how to handle his female cast beautifully and works so well with the women's emotions.

The story goes like this:
After an encounter at a theater, Marco (Grandinetti) and Benigno (Cámara) meet at a private clinic where Benigno works. Marco is there because his girlfriend, Lydia (Flores), who is a bullfighter and has just been gored by a bull and put into a coma. It so happens that Benigno is looking after a woman (who he is in love with) who is in a coma, also. Her name is Alicia (Watling) and she is a ballet dancer. The lives of these four characters flow in all kinds of different directions, past, present and future, dragging all of them towards an unsuspected destiny.

The cast is terrific and they work together perfectly, especially Cámara and Grandinetti in their scenes. The story is brilliant, one of the best I have heard in recent years. This film won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay of 2002. Before I had seen this movie I would have thought that it's competitor in that category, also a foreign film, would have won (Y tu mamá también). I bet that after anyone watches this they will have no doubt that it is the best story of the year.

The ending of this movie is tragic... actually, the whole movie is tragic, but the ending will shock you and probably sadden you, too. You get to know these characters well and what ends up happening to them is very sad. Like most of Almodovár's other films, this movie has tragic results with slight comic relief and some creepiness, also.

Almodovár as a director is a visionary. He earned an Oscar nomination for this film for Best Director and I completely understand why. He is a brilliant man with a passionate flare for filmmaking. His films can be labelled many things such as inspirational, heartbreaking and provocative. They'll suck you in and spit you back out with such force that you won't know what just hit you.

A brilliant movie from a brilliant director. Nothing more you need except an astounding cast, and with this film, you get that, too. Go rent this today and be amazed by its captivating story.

Yes, the violence is unrealistic nowadays. Yes, the 'scary' moments aren't that scary at all and yes, Janet Leigh is killed off way too early, but this is still one of the greatest horror films of all time. Alfred Hitchcock, the master of horror films gives us one of the greatest and most memorable classics ever.

This movie is known for its famous scenes like Janet Leigh's death scene in the shower or the end scene where they apprehend Norman Bates. This film is full of excitement and suspense no matter how dated it might be. The one scene that freaked me out the most was the last scene in the film. Norman Bates sits in what seems to be an interrogation room with a blanket wrapped around his body to keep him warm and speaks thoughts in his head trying to scheme a plan of escape in the near future. He sits there and then at the end of his speech, looks up at the screen and gives that menacing grin. It's very disturbing and haunting.

Norman Bates (Perkins) is probably one of the scariest psycho killers in all of film. He doesn't have to be some mutated monster or deranged and deformed beast to be a killer, he is just a normal person with a slight case of schizophrenia. He is a very comforting person at first and you suspect nothing until you find out in the end that he is, indeed, the killer.

Janet Leigh is also phenomenal in her small role which earned her an Oscar nomination in 1960 for Best Supporting Actress. She plays Marion Crane, an officeworker who is trusted by her boss to bank $40,000 for him after work. Instead, she steals the money and heads for a private island where she can live a new life. On her way to this 'private island', she stops at a roadside motel (The Bates Motel) for the night and things become disastrous. She is terrific in her [unfortunately] small role.

Alfred Hitchcock makes some of the greatest films out there including this one, but I do believe that this film is overpowered by [i]Rear Window[/i] in almost every aspect. I love this film now, but [i]Rear Window[/i] [b]is[/b] better.

No matter which film is my personal favourite, Hitchcock has created some of the most well received films in all history. Go watch them if you haven't already and let them wow you like they did to me.

Review coming soon (03/10/07)

My personal favourite of Jean-Pierre Melville's masterpieces. This is one of the best films of the French New Wave of the 50s/60s incorporating not only existentialistic themes, but themes and culture of the Japanese samurai films of the early 50s.

Le Samouraï's lead character Jef Costello, a hitman, lives his profession and never displays emotion. His ever so bland stare is part of the honor he has to his rituals and lifestyle. He lives by the samurai code and stays faithful to it until the very end.

We don't know much about Costello for it isn't shown in the film, but we don't need to know a lot to understand his character. Unlike many other film characters of this genre, there is no transcendence in Melville's main character, but instead through existentialism this character thrives. I would like to call Jef Costello an existential hero, but unfortunately there is nothing heroic about him in this film. He is an existential human who lives by his own rules; he is his own boss.

When interpreting the ending, many different views come up. The only logical one is that Jef, who lives by the way of the samurai, maintains the honor and loyalty to his lifestyle and commits a hara-kiri (or seppuku)-like ritual. If this is correct (what Melville intended us to believe), then Costello is added to the list of noir's incredible antiheroes and this film becomes even more intriguing to analyse.

So many different interpretations can be taken from this film. Everything in this film is important to the character and conclusion. The stunning cinematography by Henri Decaë highlights the opening scene (and most other scenes following it). Costello lies on his bed, barely visible, smoking a cigarette while the smoke forms a cloud above him. The cloud of smoke looks somewhat striking though, because the faint sunlight through the rain hits the windows of his apartment and is piercing it in an odd way. The way the camera captures the scene is beautiful, yet gloomy, and represents Costello's life very well. This scene is terrific for setting up the character and situations to follow by displaying such gloom through pathetic fallacy and through the lighting/production design.

Jef's character is one of the most interesting characters to study and observe in any film I've ever seen. His genteel appearance and striking look make for terrific casting and the fedora and trenchcoat he wears make his character that much more mysterious.

Through the cinematography especially, suspense and mystery is created not only around the situation, but more so around the character of Jef Costello. A perfect film if I ever saw one. Jean-Pierre Melville is a genius and I intend on seeing all of his films now.

I highly recommend this masterpiece to everyone for it is one of the greatest films of the French New Wave/60s and one of the greatest films of all-time, also.

This film is flawless in every aspect. The animation is absolutely PERFECT. I hesitate usually when I want to call things perfect because they usually aren't, but here, "perfect" is the only word that suffices. Hayao Miyazaki is one of my heroes. He blends together his imagination with the most vivid and colourful animation you have ever seen and comes out with masterpieces. This film won an Oscar (2002) for Best Animated Feature Film and beat out four other films which were all American (Treasure Planet, Ice Age, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron and Lilo & Stitch). I am not saying Japanese animation is better than American animation (look at all the works of art Pixar has come out with), I just think that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius and in my books he is the father of animation and imagination. This movie is one of my favourites. People can criticize all they want saying how can an animated film be one of your favourite movies of all time, but if you've seen it, I am sure you can understand. Watch it. It's absolutely perfect.

Amazing film. Akira Kurosawa is a brilliant man and I cannot wait to see Shichinin no samurai now.

Review coming soon.

This is one of the greatest films I have ever seen with my two eyes. It's a beautiful movie even though it may sound like a sex fest. The sexual content in this film is not meant to be exploitative, but like a great piece of art.

The chemistry between the two main characters is fantastic. Mike Figgis' screenplay is brilliant. So touching and heartwrenching. These characters aren't your average day Romeos and Juliets, but they are some of the most likeable characters in all of film history, in my opinion. When you watch Ben the alcoholic and Sera the hooker, you get the feeling that you know them personally. Their characters are brilliantly written and their on-screen presence is luminating.

Nicolas Cage is brilliant in one of the best acted roles of the 90s and Elisabeth Shue is not only a sight for sore eyes, but she can act the roof of any house. Cage and Shue were both nominated for Oscars for their performances, with Cage bringing it home.

This film is mesmerizing. It's hard to watch because it's so heartwrenching, yet you can't take your eyes off of it because it's so sexy; almost hypnotic. One of the greatest achievements in cinema from the 90s, I believe.

This film will make your laugh, cry, get angry and sympathize over these characters and their decisions. One of my favourite films of all-time.

Notorious (1946)
director: Alfred Hitchcock
starring: Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains, Louis Calhern, Madame Leopoldine Konstantin

Review coming soon .

When I first heard of this movie, it was in 2001 upon its DVD release. I was sketchy about watching it for two reasons. I was only 11 years old and I wouldn't have appreciated it to its full extent and it seemed to be boring. Now, 5 years later, I have gathered my negative opinions about this film and Björk and thrown them away. I watched this with an open mind and was utterly shocked at how visually stunning and brilliant this movie was. It's the 2nd best film of 2000. It's very underrated and should not even be compared to other films that year like Gladiator and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. This film surpasses most films in its genre. The performance by Björk is not only Oscar-worthy, but is probably one of the most in-character performances I have ever seen. She was absolutely phenomenal. Catherine Deneuve has always been one of my favourite foreign actresses and her supporting role made the film that much better. Director Lars von Trier always knows how to make a movie. Ever since I saw Dogville, I have been watching his movies and loving them. I will remember this movie as one of the best ever. I am disappointed in myself for not watching this until now and I suggest this film to everyone and anyone. One hundred percent masterpiece.

The ultimate thriller of the 1970s is also one of the most interesting films to study. Adapted from the terrific novel by Peter Benchley [who also wrote the screenplay], this film comes to the screen with a splash and scares audiences across the world. This movie also became one of the biggest blockbusters of the 1970s grossing over $470,600,000 worldwide.

The story is classic, one of the best ever. A great white shark decides to make the small beach resort town of Amity his private feeding grounds. This becomes town police chief's [Scheider] main focus since the town of Amity is pretty much crime-free. He wants to close the beaches to chase the shark away. He is overthrown in his efforts by the town's mayor who finally relents when nothing else seems to work and the chief, a scientist [Dreyfuss], and an old fisherman with revenge on his mind [Shaw] take to the sea to kill the beast.

With only three main characters, the cast is small but still powerful. Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw all give Oscar-worthy performances. There are classic scenes in this film such as 'I think you're going to need a bigger boat' and the opening sequence, but the best scenes in the movie aren't the ones with the shark. The best scenes in the film, in my opinion, are when 1) Quint gives his speech about his boat and 2) Quint and Hooper share battle scars.

This is a classic film that has a classic story and is possibly my favourite film of the 1970s. Steven Spielberg helms this film which is also his first big-budget movie. He does a great job and this film started his prolific career.

Don't miss this classic. If you haven't seen it [which is highly likely], go out right now and rent it. You should not be disappointed.

One of the most exquisitely written films I've ever seen. Wes Anderson is misunderstood as a director, I think. His contruction and technique is quite obviously zealous, but this isn't appreciated by many people who see his films. His first feature, Bottle Rocket, isn't just that little indie comedy that stars the Wilson brothers, it's a film that deals with the seen and unseen troubles in these characters' lives. His films have improved over the years as well. Rushmore was a terrific achievement for him and proved his talents as an actors director. The characters in his films are some of the funniest characters who suffer heartbreak, depression and other trials, yet are still entertaining to watch for the subtle and dark humour.

In Tenenbaums, Anderson gives his best screenplay yet. This time, he wrote the screenplay alongside Owen Wilson (who also stars in the film). A simple story of a broken family that gets back together although they are all living through lies and secrets.

The best of 1997. Thousands time better than Titanic.

The most interesting and amazing movie EVER!

This is a remarkable film. Alfonso Cuarón's first amazing film is also the most amazing film of the year. 2006 is slowly turning into one of my all-time favourite years for cinema. It has already released six of my all-time favourite films. Incredible.

This futuristic thriller is set in 2027, where no child has been born for 18 years and science is at loss to explain the reason. In a climate of nationalistic violence, Theo Faron, joins forces with his revolutionary ex-wife Julian in order to save mankind by protecting a woman who has mysteriously became pregnant.

That is the plot for this brilliant movie. Clive Owen is spectacular and so is Claire-Hope Ashitey. Julianne Moore has a very limited role, but it still shines. Pam Ferris was great in a surprisingly well done supporting role. Kudos to Michael Caine, also. I recommend this film to everyone. It's one that shouldn't be missed. Although it's fictional, it's important and informative.

The Oscars need to watch out for this one, Claire-Hope Ashitey is the real standout and she should be taken into consideration. This should also be nominated for Best Picture, Director and for its brilliant cinematography.

An instant masterpiece.

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 .

There has never been a better acted, better cast movie all year. I'd even go as far as to say in a decade there hasn't been a better acted film by an ensemble cast. This is one of those films you go to see and you don't quite know what to expect. You know it isn't going to be an all-out action fest. You know it isn't going to be a gore-filled thriller, this movie is something very special. It's outrageously funny and heartwarming at the same time. The characters are amazing and the chemistry between them is great. Also, Michael Arndt has written one of the best screenplays ever. Carell and Arkin bith give memorable performances as does newcomer Abigail Breslin. The movie is simply about Olive (Breslin), a 7-year-old beauty pageant hopeful who is accepted into "Little Miss Sunshine", a pageant in California. Her family gathers their things and heads out for a trip (which is full of twists and turns, both good and bad.. but mostly bad) in their VW bus to Redondo Beach to have Olive compete for the title "Little Miss Sunshine". The best film of 2006 so far and one of my new personal favourites. I smell Oscar for this incredible film.

One of the greatest movie experience anyone could ever wish for. This movie is thee prime example of a Hollywood masterpiece. It doesn't need fine acting or a well-developed plot to impress us, but luckily for the viewing public, it does. It's probably the most fun I've ever had watching a musical. This could take on My Fair Lady, Gigi, Funny Girl, West Side Story and Meet Me in St. Louis all at the same time and come out the victor. It's simply that good.

Aside from Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly is probably the greatest dancer who has ever graced the silver screen. He is just a pleasure to watch and his screen presence is terrific. He also took a try at directing with this film and proved that he can do that, too. Donald O'Connor is hilarious and he probably makes most of the musical scenes what they are. His Golden Globe win was overlooked when it came to the Oscars which is unfortunate, because he was surely the highlight (aside from Hagen).

The musical numbers are so wonderfully choreographed and very, very catchy. I couldn't get them out of my head today. There's the ever so popular "Singin' in the Rain" number (which is probably one of the most recognized scenes in all of film history) where we see Gene Kelly splashing around in puddles, singing happily down the street and twirling his umbrella around him. Also, "Make 'em Laugh", "Moses" and "Good Morning" are all amazing scenes with these sensational dancers who also happen to be wonderful singers, too. Debbie Reynolds has quite the voice.

In it's time (1952), this film must have been a smash hit. There was nothing like it and wouldn't be for another six years or so. People must have gone crazy for this film... I know I would have. It's been 55 years and this film is still one of the most popular musicals ever created. In my opinion, it's the best musical ever made.

There's not much to say about this film. You can basically sum it up in two words: musical masterpiece. This is a must see for everyone.

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.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
director: David Fincher
starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, Tilda Swinton, Julia Ormond, Jason Flemyng

I saw an advanced screening of this film tonight at an AMC in Toronto. I have to admit, I had high expectations from this film. What I am also glad to admit is that this film reached those expectations... and then some. David Fincher has created another permanently memorable film, in my opinion. This film had me on an emotional roller coaster from start to finish. It is brilliantly acted and wonderfully adapted by Eric Roth. I can't even explain how amazing the experience was.

One star of the film, Taraji P. Henson, was present at this screening for a question and answer session. She provided much insight into the production and her role along with what it was like to work with Pitt, Blanchett and Fincher. She's a lovely woman and her performance in the film is quite something, also.

However, the performance which I loved the most from this film was from the always magnificent Cate Blanchett. Her portrayal of Benjamin Button's normally aging lover, Daisy, was heart wrenching and sometimes hard to watch because it was so sad. The beauty she exudes is unbelievable and her powerful performance had me on the edge of my seat many times.

I will write more on this soon, but for now all I have to say is that when this is released on Christmas Day, you all have to see this. It's a must see movie and I have high hopes for it come Oscar time. I believe it definitely deserves many, many nominations.

This is a wonderfully magical film. It takes you away from the theater and makes you feel as if you are in the movie. That's what I love about this film. Guillermo Del Toro is one of the most imaginative directors out there. He can be compared to the likes of Hayao Miyazaki when it comes to his imagination.

His previous films [i]Mimic[/i] and [i]Hellboy[/i] didn't really interest me and I didn't like them at all, so naturally I wasn't expecting much until I saw this trailer. It looked so magical and beautiful and I had to see it.

Ivana Baquero did a absolutely terrific job. She had the character down perfectly and is a fine young actress. The movie is about a young girl and her pregnant mother who are traveling to a rural area in upper Spain so they can be with her mother's new husband. The young girl has a vivid imagination and loves to read fairy tales. She wanders off one day into the forest behind their home and comes across a labyrinth where she meets a faun who tells her she is the princess of their world. Her imagination leads her into all kind of trouble, but in the end it's her imagination that saves lives.

One of the, if not the best, fantasy movies I have ever seen and definitely one of the best pictures of the year. A job well done by Mr. Del Toro.

This film has been nominated for six Academy Awards this year and hopefully it can walk away with a few statues. I can see this film winning Best Foreign Language Film and Best Original Score. If it's lucky, it can take the Original Screenplay award, also. Amazing film. Go see it, you won't regret it.

Although it's only 80 minutes, this movie has a lot more than some do in 3 hours! Stunning scenery also.

Review coming soon (08/19/07)

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.

This is the best movie of 1980. I loved this film and it rightfully won its Oscar for Best Picture. So many times it has been argued that Raging Bull was a better film and should have taken the honour that year, but after viewing this masterpiece I can't go along with that anymore. This movie has one of the most perfect taglines ever: "Some films you watch... others you feel". It's so sad and depressing, yet uplifting at the same time. You are drawn into the lives of these characters and you feel for them as they go through this hard time. Calvin and Beth Jarrett (Sutherland and Moore) just lost their eldest son, Buck, in a boating accident. Their youngest son, Conrad (Hutton), blames himself for his brother's death and after an attempt of trying to kill himself, he was put into a hospital. When he returns, his father supports him all the way and tries to give him all the help he can. His mother, on the other hand, acts as if she hates him and doesn't treat him with anything close to the love she gave Buck. The family has crumbled and this is the story of the re-birth of relationships and love. Two outstanding performances in this film come from Timothy Hutton (who won an Oscar for his role) and Mary Tyler Moore (who was nominated). It's such a sad movie, a tearjerker, even, so I warn you, be prepared to feel this movie as if it was happening to you.

I just discovered this movie today. It was on sale at the local video store and I said to myself... "why don't you give the good old Canadian movies a chance? They're probably good." So I did and it turned out to be one of the best film experiences I have ever had. This movie is one of a kind.. a masterpiece! Nothing like I have ever seen before. Not many people have heard of this movie because it's Canadian, but it should be known worldwide. It's one of the best movies I have ever seen and I am proud that it is made by a fellow Canadian. Jean-Marc Vallée has definitely earned my respect. Making a movie like this is hard and he pulled it off. This movie took home thousands of awards here in Canada [10 Genie Awards and 12 Jutra Awards] which it rightfully deserved. I am still simply amazed at this movie's perfection. I will recommend this movie everywhere I go now and it is one of my new favourites. I love this movie. See it... see it again, and love it like it should be loved. It's amazing.

Cries and Whispers (1972)
director: Ingmar Bergman
starring: Ingrid Thulin, Liv Ullmann, Harriet Andersson, Kari Sylwan, Erland Josephson

Review coming soon.

This is the most underrated film of the past decade. It's brilliant. Gary Ross is slowly becoming on of my favourite writers. With such great films like [i]Big[/i], [i]Dave[/i], this and [i]Seabiscuit[/i] he should be receiving a lot of attention.

Ok. I am going to say it plain and simple: This film should have been nominated for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress in 1998. William H. Macy was terrific. He adapted to his character perfectly and was near-perfect. Now Joan Allen, she was superb. She could have easily won the Oscar, but no, she wasn't nominated. A shame.


This film earned three Oscar nominations in 1998, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design. With its 50s look and style, this film triumphed with nominations in the tech categories. A beautiful film to watch, especially with the colour bursts in the black and white world of Pleasantville.

Overall, this film is one of my new favourites. It's an amazing film and truly poignant. I recommend this film to everyone. Anyone can enjoy this film and take away an important message that can help change lives. It's an important film.

What a very, very creepy film. It's billed as "a psychic thriller" and that it is, for the supernatural feeling this film has is what makes it so eerily masterful. But this film is so much more than strange happenings; it's in the quick flashes of subliminal images that you soon realize this film is going to be much more than that.

Don't Look Now is a slow-moving film that may bore some viewers, but in it's slow pace many important and key moments happen that reveal details about John (Sutherland) and Laura's (Christie) crumbling relationship and about each of them respectively. The scenes are so emotionally heavy and you can feel a sort of cloud hovering over every second that the couple is on screen together (and even when they're not).

The film begins at the Baxter's home in London where John is examining old photo slides. Their daughter and son are playing in the backyard, but not together. As their son rides his bike through the wet grass, their daughter is walking dangerously close to the edge of the pond. Clad in a stunningly red plastic raincoat, she slowly makes her way down the side of the pond until she drops her rubber ball into the water. As John comes across one of the photos in his album, a picture of an empty church that's focused on the altar with only one person seated in the pews (a small person in a red coat), he spills his drink over the photos and sees a red mark begin to form around the figure in the photo. All of a sudden, he feels something is wrong, and runs into the backyard to find his daughter submerged in the pond. He runs to rescue her, but as he lifts her lifeless body out of the water he realizes it's too late. It was then, when he howls at the sky in anger, that I realized this film was already brilliantly constructed.

The previously mentioned scene is one of the most brilliant I have ever seen. It relies on its visuals and cinematic language rather than on its spoken dialogue and Roeg pulls off one of the most strangely beautiful scenes in the history of film. The colour red is prominent in this film appearing everywhere and anywhere the couple seem to go after the child's death. Their daughter wore a red raincoat - Sutherland wears a red scarf - Christie wears red plastic boots - the psychic woman wears a red sweater. The reoccurring colour represents the burden that the couple keeps on their shoulders. Even though they may deny it, they still feel guilty and think of their daughter every day and this colour reinforces their guilt and burden.

The famous sex scene in this film which lasts longer than most sex scenes might is one of the most acknowledged of its kind. It shows Christie and Sutherland undress and perform routine tasks in the nude before getting into bed. They sit and talk and as the lovemaking begins (which was quite erotic for its time) flashes of the intercutting scenes appear showing the couple getting dressed and smiling. These unexpected intercutting scenes showing these people doing normal things along with the raw erotic sex scene is Roeg's touch to make these people seem real and let us become personally attatched with them (a similar scene is used in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut).

Constant symbolism and metaphors have frequent roles in this film. The symbol of an arc occurs a few times: once, when the photo slide of the church starts turning red after the drink is spilled on it, an arc of red forms over the stained glass window, and a second time when we are first introduced to Heather (the blind psychic woman) who wears a arc-shaped brooch.

Also, during the film, John keeps seeing a red-coated figure run through the alleys of Venice. This figure becomes vital to the conclusion of the film (which is bloody frightening I might add) where John falls victim to his disbelief in the supernatural (which his wife strongly believed in). I can't say too much or I might just give away some bits.

Amazing performances that went underlooked and fantastic direction from Roeg contribute to the film's emotional impact.

A chilling stunner and aesthetic masterpiece, Don't Look Now is one of the greatest horror achievements of all time. Highlighted by Roeg's direction and the brilliant cinematography from Anthony Richmond (and Roeg), this film is a mandatory viewing for any cinema fan. I recommend this to everyone, but don't expect a quick-paced gore-fest. This film is a work of art so expect something brilliant.

One of the most perfect films I've ever seen. Masterfully written and directed by Gus Van Sant, My Own Private Idaho is one of the most essential films from early 90s. It's a film about hope, friendship, longing and heartbreak. All credit for the success of this film goes to not only Van Sant, but to star River Phoenix, also. He's the perfect actor for this film and he proves this in many scenes.

Van Sant used many different filming techniques for this film and blended them all together to create a brilliant collage of realism. Documentary styles, dream sequences, wide-angled track shots and a standout soundtrack contribute to this film's visual appeal and narrative. The narrative, which is completely seen through Mike's (Phoenix) narcoleptic consciousness, is what makes this film so unique. Mike is a troubled person who has a bad past and isn't currently looking forward to a good future either. The film's sharp editing makes Mike's confusion of past from present and dreams from reality evident and important in the progression of the film.

Filled with symbolism and metaphorical meanings (the falling barn, the salmon, the tableau sex scene, the smiling road, etc.) this film can be hard to dissect, but when understood it's such a beautiful film that you can fall in love with very easily. Phoenix's performance is true and very strong. He evokes emotions that an actor can only dream of. When confessing his feelings for Scott at the campfire, the mixture of hope and fright that you hear in his voice is saddening. He's a character you can't help but feel bad for and watching his heartbreaking journey for the rest of the film makes it that much harder to let go of his character.

It's with the last scene of the film where Mike is alone in the desert on the same road as the beginning of the film where the emotional impact finally hit me. Scott is gone, living a life of his own and Mike is in the middle of a empty street staring at the horizon, abandoned. He falls to the road in another bout of narcolepsy. A car drives up to his body and stops. Two people get out and walk over to his body to only steal the shoes off of his feet. They drive away. A next car drives up and stops. A person gets out and picks up Mike placing him in the back seat of his car. The car drives off into the distance and this is the last we see of Mike. The sad part is that Mike was alone, abandoned and weak. He's picked up by a stranger and taken away. What faces his character is what's left up to the viewer to determine for themselves. Seeing as how Mike's luck kept wearing out through the film and he kept plunging into worse and worse situations, I can only imagine what might become of him.

A film that has more important meanings in its narration and character analysis than any other film I've seen in a long time, My Own Private Idaho is a disturbing tale, but is also a tale that inspires and brings out hope. I love this film and I think everyone should see it for themselves to generate their own interpretation of the events. One of my new personal favourites of all-time.

All Time Classic.

The Dark Knight (2008)
director: Christopher Nolan
starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman

-Before you read this review, know that there are many spoilers herein-

If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair.

As you all have heard by now, this is the greatest film of the year. If you haven't seen this movie, you're behind and if you have seen this movie, you must understand that this is a great cinematic achievement. What The Dark Knight brings to the table is exactly what Batman Begins did, but with much more detail, gloom and realism. If you thought Batman Begins displayed a strong sense of realism, you're right, but it doesn't even come close to even compare with the unstoppable force called The Dark Knight. This film is epic, revolutionary and groundbreaking. Comic book films have never been known to be deep, dark or poignant. The Hulk, Fantastic Four and Daredevil, to name a few, were examples of what Marvel transformed into film versions in order to capitalize on the titles and make a decent dollar (which is exactly what happened). In 2004, Spider-Man 2 was released. This was the first comic book adaptation to actually delve deeper into social and political issues and tackle a much broader subject. Iron Man was the next comic book adaptation to have such success in both the box office and with the critics. However, no comic book film in history has ever amounted to the success of The Dark Knight. This second installment in the revitalized Batman franchise is perhaps one of the greatest crime dramas I have ever seen. It displays self-awareness in terms of genre, strong themes which aren't usually associated with comic book films and corrupt characters which have such profound importance that you can't help but find inspiration in Christopher Nolan's filmmaking.

This is the first Batman film that doesn't actually have the word "Batman" in the title. This film's title, The Dark Knight, is more suitable than any other title this film could have received and it's better this way. If "Batman" was in the title, it would have made the film seem less mature than it is; this film is an exercise of societal understanding. Through it's blatant corruption and downfall, this film automatically becomes one of the most dark crime dramas ever made and giving this film a title such as The Dark Knight allows not only Batman to battle his character, but gives us insight into the other characters' battles as well. This quote that Harvey Dent says perfectly describes the outcome of the film: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Ultimately, what this film depicts in its finale is the destruction of society's trust in a hero. After Harvey Dent is killed as Two-Face, Batman decides to protect society by posing as the villain and letting Dent be recognized as the hero. Even though Dent was corrupted by The Joker and went on a vicious killing spree, Batman and Detective Gordon both understood what needed to be done in order to preserve the stability of society in Gotham; Batman let Dent be seen as the hero for he believed that a hero should have a face and relate on a human level to the citizens (even though Dent later destroyed his "white knight" reputation). Batman knows he can no longer be acknowledged as a hero and finds it hard to relate to the public through his costumed self. Batman lacks human qualities and this adds to the study of his identity crisis, but in this film, the one thing that allowed us to see the humanity in his character was his love for Rachel. When that was destroyed, Batman hit a dead end and became corruptible again. The deep character analysis of Bruce Wayne/Batman is lengthy, but it is one that's more philosophical than any other character out there.

The character relationships in this film are somewhat complex, but very understandable. The three main characters are Batman, The Joker and Harvey Dent. In a detailed triangle of conflicts, all three of these characters are foils to one another. The most evident foil being between Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent. Aside from the main Batman storyline, Harvey Dent's storyline is probably the most important in the film. Dent is easily a character which we can sympathize with and feel his pain. Once Dent is transformed into Two-Face, he becomes an agent of vengeance and his character development deepens. Literally having two faces allows his character to openly battle his identity and dilemmas (good versus evil in most cases, which is why his coin is also an important symbol). He has incredible importance to this film in terms of exposing Batman's corruptibility and the degradation of law and order in Gotham.

The Joker is also a vital character in the film. His origin and motives are unnamed, but this is for a reason. The Joker doesn't need an origin for he illustrates mayhem and anarchy and isn't really that significant other than for the sole purpose of wreaking havoc and being a catalyst for the battle between Batman and Two-Face. Comparing The Joker with previous film villains might reveal other integral facts about his limited importance. Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men and John Doe from Se7en are two characters which come very, very close to The Joker in terms of origin and motive. Having none allows this character to be completely chaotic. As I said in my review of Se7en, the villain character completely goes against the normal conventions of cinema and takes it to another level. The same goes for this film. The normal film conventions of the villain are completely diminished almost instantly in the first scene of the film in which The Joker (masked as a bank robber), murders all of his accomplices and keeps the money to himself. Having no morals, values or ethics brings The Joker that much further in the state of corruption and evil that is being placed upon Gotham.

As an ensemble, this cast is excellent and as singular performances the cast is even better. Assembling a cast of great actors like this and having them all play characters with such vital roles could not have been easy to do. Utmost congratulations to Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer for creating such terrific characters and a masterful screenplay. The Bruce Wayne/Batman character was written with much more depth than it was in the first film. Allowing Batman to have such a strong character foil that is Harvey Dent gave him a huge obstacle to overcome, which only lead to a tragic ending for everyone. Aaron Eckhart was also fantastic as Harvey Dent. Dent is a character that takes a great actor to play and that's what we received with Aaron Eckhart. He takes his performance to higher levels each time we see him on the screen, especially when he is transformed into Two-Face and exudes a dying hope in humanity that makes it easy for him to be compared to one of Shakespeare's tragic leading men. Supporting performances from Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are all fantastic and each of them have at least one scene in which they steal the scenes. Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes in the role of Rachel Dawes, the love interest of Bruce Wayne (and Harvey Dent in this installment). She is a vast improvement over the dull Holmes and gives an emotionally wrought performance that still sticks with me days after I've seen the film.

I've tried to leave the best for last and this is a better time than any to mention the powerhouse performance by Heath Ledger. The Joker is visibly an extremely tough role to play and Ledger not only played the role perfectly, he embodied the character and nailed every single intricacy. Talks of an Oscar nomination for his role are going around and I cannot help but support the campaign for a posthumous nomination. No one has ever played a villain with such commitment and Ledger's performance ranks up there with Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter and Perkins' Norman Bates. His portrayal blows Jack Nicholson right out of the water and makes him look like a fool for ever trying to play The Joker like he did. Not only is Ledger's performance the best of this film, but easily one of the best performances I have seen by an actor. I will continue to praise Ledger and spread news of his performance and I hope he gets the recognition he deserves for this performance which is truly haunting. Rest in peace, Heath.

In general, this film exhibits such mastery in its way of dealing with such topical issues. Christopher Nolan's direction is not only superior to that of his first installment, but superior to any other director that has attempted this kind of cinematic commentary before The Dark Knight. As Peter Travers stated, this film has come along way and breaks the barriers of being known as just a comic book film and delves into the depths of cinema and grounds itself with such masterpieces as Goodfellas, Heat and The Godfather. It's a crime drama like no other that not only displays an acute sense of social and political emphasis, but much more interesting relationships like that of William Shakespeare's tragedies. Many connections can be made between this film and Shakespearean plays such as Hamlet, Macbeth and even Romeo and Juliet. It would be ridiculous of me to even bother saying I highly recommend this, because that's obvious. This film is an epic masterpiece and a vehicle for success. It will go down in history and be praised for a long, long time, guaranteed.

This is a perfect movie. The screenplay is one of the best I have ever seen. Andrew Niccol is a genius and can compare to the likes of Charlie Kauffman with this. He hasn't done many other memorable works (Gattaca, S1m0ne, Lord of War), but this picture proved he has an imagination like no other. Peter Weir is a fantastic director and Jim Carrey.. well what can we say about him? He is absolutely and positively perfect for this role. His performance was left out when it came to the Oscars in 1998, but that's okay because he did win the Golden Globe that year. Ed Harris was fantastic and Laura Linney was great, also. Linney captured her character which was probably hard to do. She plays an woman who is an actress who is acting in the real life of Truman Burbank where she acts as if she is living her real life, although it's only a performance. She did a great job. This movie is probably one of the best of the decade and was not recognized like it should have been. It's the second best movie of 1998 and one of my favourites of all-time. Instantly classic screenplay. I will never forget this film.

What a beautiful mess of a film. Nonsensical circus-like fun that is nothing less than genious.

Review coming soon (11/02/07)

This is one of the most talked about movies of the 90s. It shouldn't be popular for it's action/sex scenes, but for its groundbreaking screenplay that took two women and placed them in male roles. The stereotypical housewife would not rob a bank or kill people. These two women have been placed in the roles of males which was something new to cinema. No longer were women portrayed as housewives or vulnerable sex slaves after this film came out because women understood that they have to be strong independent individuals. Although these women look happy and stable, under their core they are hurt. Hurt by the disrespectful men in the film and have had enough of it. Even though they are fleeing after murdering a man, they are still strong women and all they want is their freedom back and a chance to live a life where no one, especially a man, can tell them how to live. Another reason this film was groundbreaking was because the director was a man. Ridley Scott, the director of such films like [i]Alien[/i] and [i]Gladiator[/i]. Such a masculine man came along and made a film about two female buddies who go on an anti-male adventure to escape their decrepit lives. Sarandon and Davis are perfect in this film and both are deserving of their Best Actress nominations. Perfect acting and a perfect screenplay are two major components that lead to this perfect film.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
director: Danny Boyle
starring: Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor, Saurabh Shukla, Freida Pinto

Seeing this film tomorrow (Dec 10th).
Review coming soon .

Milk (2008)
director: Gus Van Sant
starring: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, James Franco, Diego Luna, Alison Pill, Victor Garber, Joseph Cross, Lucas Grabeel

Seeing this film tomorrow (Dec 10th).
Review coming soon .

I'm in the mood for praising this movie so I will get right at it. This isn't like a Martin Scorsese film at all and that's why I loved it so much. The subject of the film was similar to that of Goodfellas or Casino, but the characters and character development was something totally new. The three writers that worked on this film have brought something new for Scorsese to work with and I think that it turned out beautifully. Martin Scorsese is one of my all-time favourite directors and it's really surprising and pleasing to see him do something different.

All the historical events I was a little bit aware of (I should brush up on my history) and I thought were very well written. But I wasn't focussing on the screenplay so much as I was focussing on the actors and the character development. From the beginning of the film I could tell that this would be a huge character film and I was looking forward to it because the characters were very interesting.

We are presented with Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Day-Lewis) who is probably one of the best characters in recent film history. He is a ruthless killer who slaughters people for the sake of getting pleasure out of it. He's a very intelligent man with connections all over New York and conveys a frightening sense of an oddly vicious patriotism. His gang is also made up of ruthless killers and they are no better than he is when it comes to sympathy for the innocent. We are also introduced to Jenny Everdeane (Diaz) who first comes off as a very independent woman that makes her living going around the city as a pickpocket.

All the characters introduced are wild and villainous until we meet Amsterdam (DiCaprio). He has been raised amongst these villains after The Butcher murdered his father when he was a very young boy. Now, in his early twenties, he resurfaces and joins The Butcher's gang (with The Butcher being oblivious to Amsterdam's roots). Amsterdam now seeks revenge against his father's murderer and plans to take action as soon as he can befriend Bill.

The duality of the hero is one of the major themes in this film, but it's clear how the end will turn out when you realize how strong the character foils are. The Butcher, his gang and even Jenny are wild and unpredictable, but Amsterdam is cautious in his quest for revenge. He also shows his weak side when they hang that innocent father who says goodbye to his wife and son. Amsterdam shudders in disgust over The Butcher's actions and their blatant differences contribute tremendously to their respective character development.

Daniel Day-Lewis gives (what I think is) the best performance of 2002. He is brilliant as Bill "The Butcher" Cutting. He transforms into that character taking on the heavy accent and clever diction as well as the unhygienic appearance and intimidating gestures.

Overall, this film was terrific in every way. It was great to see Scorsese try something new, it was great to see a solid screenplay and it was very exciting to see one of the best performances of the decade from one of the best actors of our time. Daniel Day-Lewis, you have mastered the art of acting. I highly recommend this movie to everyone.

At first, this is a very hard film to watch. The cinematography is choppy as is the editing, but the quick cuts and uneasy transitions work toward Cassavetes' vision of the film. John Cassavetes is a legendary director; one of cinema's greatest. His style is incomparable and the way he handles his actors is absolutely inspiring.

It's quite difficult to understand what this film is trying to mean at first with what seems to be a bunch of nothingness and long, dreary scenes. The plot is vague and therefore many regular filmgoers may be turned off by this film, but if you really pay attention, this film is an absolute masterpiece that is Cassavetes' finest work. His direction is strikingly original; he works with human activity and interactivity and this is quite apparent in this film with the up close and personal cinematography. Every emotion is captured on film and that is the significance of the long, tedious scenes. After watching this film (quite a long film it is, too, at 155 minutes), you'll realize this film doesn't follow a concrete plot, but instead just follows the tribulations of this dysfuntional family (especially Mabel).

Gena Rowlands plays Mabel Longhetti, a depressed housewife who slowly and palpably goes insane and drags down the stability of her husband, also. This film is ultimately about the roles of the sexes in a household. Cassavetes writes Nick (Falk) as a strong working man, but lacking the family values a father should have. Nick is married to Mabel who is a good mother and has those family values, but unfortunately is mentally unstable to support the children in any positive way, but tries her hardest. After Nick sends Mabel away for 'special care', the family seems to be lacking a special something that made them happy although they were constantly angry. Mabel provided that central strength that ran the family even when she was unstable.

In one of the greatest films of the century there thrives one of the greatest performances put to film. Gena Rowlands is absolutely phenomenal in this role and steals every scene. She was nominated as Best Actress in 1974, but lost to Ellen Burstyn for her role in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Rowlands' eccentric performance with her over-exaggerated eye rolling, hand gestures and self communication captivates you and makes you feel as if you know her and you want to help her. There are many scenes that show Rowlands' indescribable talents, but the one that comes to mind is the scene in which Nick finally decides to send her away. She loses it and he holds her as her eyes wander aimlessly around her head as if she just discovered where she was. Rowlands works wonders when directed by her husband, Mr. Cassavetes, and she is a formidable talent that can only be matched by a few other actresses of her time.

The one last thing I noticed about this film is the interaction of the family in the house. The house itself is a character on its own and aids in the storytelling process. The scenes on the staircase are reminiscent of the great Rebel Without a Cause and are quite important to the dramatic evolution of the family.

Overall, this is one of the greatest films of the century. Many people will not understand this film's importance to social culture or the sexual political agenda, but the one's who do are in for a rare film event. With an exceptional performance from the amazing Gena Rowlands and the avant-garde style of master filmmaker John Cassavetes this film not only becomes one of my new personal favourites, but one of the greatest achievements in American cinema.

In what was Stanley Kubrick's last film, his best work shone through. This is nothing like Dr. Strangelove or The Shining. This isn't like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Barry Lyndon. It's better. When you finish watching this film, you cannot come to a sudden conclusion like "I loved it" or "I hated it". You have to interpret everything and understand the picture before you judge it. It was the most strangely beautiful movie I have ever seen. A shocking masterpiece from the mastermind himself: Stanley Kubrick. What a way to go out, Mr. Kubrick... with a masterpiece. The way you interpret the film can ruin it for you or make it for you. Dissect each scene and understand how things link together. For example, understand that this movie cannot be taken seriously all of the time. The whole 'masked ball' scene could possibly be a figment of Bill's imagination... or maybe we just saw it differently that he did. After all, Kubrick wants to leave the audiences with something to discuss after the film. There are many loose ends which I personally like in a film. Cruise and Kidman were fantastic in this movie. Kubrick's finest work which was unfortunately not acknowledged like his others. It was misunderstood by the public which lead to its downfall and negative reviews from the critics. What the hell do they know anyways? Simply an amazing movie. One of the best and most underrated pieces of art out there.

Dark and gloomy, but reveals the true sides of humans. It is a genuine movie with a strong ending and moral.

Sideways can be easily considered the best movie of the year. If it wasn't for Million Dollar Baby, this film should have easily grabbed Best Picture. Paul Giamatti was robbed of an Oscar nomination and that will forever go down in Oscar history as one of the worst snubs. Thomas Haden Church and Virginia Madsen both received nominations, as they should have, and Alexander Payne was nominated for Best Director. This film won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar (won by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor) and finally broke the barriers for Comedies to go beyond stereotypes and win Oscars now. This film is incredible. The dramatic atmosphere, yet subtle comedy makes it so enjoyable. It is a touching movie that everyone should see. It's not boring, it's creative and artistic. I love it. Quite simply the best of 2004.

Very similar to [i]Crash[/i], yet totally unique. This is one of the best films of the year and one of the most emotional films ever made. Alejandro González Iñarritu takes four different stories from four different locations around the world, which are uncannily similar in many ways, and shows how they are interconnected. He incorporates all the stories into one delicately, yet with power that will rip your heart out and let you feel it. It's almost painful to watch these characters go through what they do in this film over little things like misunderstandings with identity and communication. Iñarritu shows how even the little things like these can steer our lives into disastrous directions which in the end affects the world and mankind. The actors in this film are incredible, especially Brad Pitt in his supporting role. He should definitely receive and Oscar nomination. This film should also receive Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress and Best Original Screenplay. In the end, this film is more memorable to me than [i]Crash[/i] with its messages and morals. This is an important film, probably the most important film of the year. This has earned a spot on my all-time favourite films list. It's mesmerizing, beautiful and portrays such a strong message. I highly recommend this to everyone.

After Almodóvar brings us such masterpieces like [i]Todo sobre mi madre[/i], [i]Hable con ella[/i] and [i]La mala educación[/i], one wouldn't think he could create another. If you are thinking this, you are absolutely wrong. [i]Volver[/i] is nothing short of a masterpiece.

With a strong female cast, like in all of Almodóvar's films, this movie explores the ups and downs of a close knit family struggling with a tragic death, murder and the ghost of their late mother. The story deals with the lives of three women. Raimunda (Cruz) is a young mother who is married to a sleazebag husband and is working hard to take care of her daughter (Cobo). Her sister, Sole (Dueñas), is a divorcée who runs a private salon in her apartment where she does her hairdressing. Augustina (Portillo) is their close friend who lives next door to their sick aunt and takes care of her everyday. She is also looking for answers about her mother's disappearance. All three of these women have secrets and when these secrets are revealed their lives will change.

Raimunda secret is that her daughter killed her husband and is trying to secretly dispose of his body. Augustina's secret is that her mother secretly had an affair with Raimunda and Sole's father and that is why their mother left him and Sole's secret is that she is secretly hiding the ghost of their mother (who apparently died in a fire three and a half years ago) in her apartment. Sounds like a soap opera, I know. But it is so much more than that. The only person who knows everyone's secret and can help in any way is Irene (Maura) and she is being hidden away because she is a risen-from-the-dead spirit.

A very original screenplay makes this movie quite entertaining. I'm never disappointed with an Almodóvar film because I can always count on him for his wonderful screenplays. He also directs these women in a way that makes their characters so loveable and intriguing. Penélope Cruz is absolutely terrific in this movie and has rightfully been awarded with an Oscar nomination. This is the performance of her career so far and she will be remembered for it. Dueñas, Maura, Portillo and Cobo are also all terrific. The six main women of this film were awarded at the Cannes Film Festival for Best Actress. All six women received the honor.

A realistic and quite detailed look at the ups and downs of family and what tragic events can do to their relationships. It's the end of the film that ultimately explains that family is what keeps you alive and helps you push through the hard times no matter what. A very touching film by the master himself, Pedro Almodóvar.

Clearly the best one out of the series. Usually the first ones are better and this film proves that.

One word... "WOW". This was amazing.

Brilliant... just brilliant! Darren Aronofsky is a genius and this is in the same league as his previous masterpiece Requiem for a Dream. With so many people disliking this film and many people I know telling me to avoid it, I was hesitant to see this. However, after I watched it for the first time I was amazed. Not only amazed at the mindblowing film experience I had just had, but amazed at why so many people hated this film.

It is absolutely brilliant; one of the most original and thought-provoking films I have ever seen. I believe that many people disliked this film because their tiny minds couldn't understand the very beautiful plot. It's really not that confusing when you think about it. If you have the patience and attentiveness, you'll understand it.

Between Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain, there are large differences, but they are still both very similar. His imagination and creativity are evident in both films, but with The Fountain, you just have to expand your mind a little bit more. In both films, the acting is top notch. One of the best performances I have ever seen has come from an Aronofsky film: Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream. Hugh Jackman was phenomenal in this film. He did everything right, everything that would help the film's plot progress he did and he did it so well. I was very impressed with him. I no longer see him as Wolverine, but as a great actor. Rachel Weisz was, of course, terrific as well and it was great to see Ellen Burstyn, too.

The technical aspects were mesmerizing especially the cinematography. Matthew Libatique is a wonderful cinematographer and his work on this film is Oscar-worthy. Unfortunately, this film was snubbed of all it's potential Oscar nominations just as Requiem for a Dream was (minus the Burstyn nod). The original score was absolutely beautiful, too. Clint Mansell was also snubbed by the Academy, but did receive a Globe nomination. Even the visuals were terrific. I just feel that these people aren't being acknowledged as they should be.

The critics were very harsh towards this film and I really don't understand it. I can understand how many of the stupid little people out there don't like it since their small and feeble brains can't comprehend such brilliance, but the critics have disappointed me (as always). As long as some people out there appreciate this masterpiece, then I'll be happy.

In the end, my appreciation for Darren Aronofsky has grown immensely. He's one of my favourite directors of today. Everything he produces is genius and I hope it remains that way. This film is breathtaking and I can't even express how much I loved this film. I just hope that all of you who haven't seen it will watch it and open your minds to absorb an amazing story. I also hope that all of you who have seen it and didn't like it, perhaps rewatch it and give it another chance, because you might just notice something that you missed the first time around. Highly recommended and one of my new personal favourites.

Just from watching most of the scenes in this film (ex. the burning red knight) you can tell that this is a Terry Gilliam film. Gilliam's style is quite evident in all of his films and this one is no exception. The funny thing is, Gilliam didn't write the screenplay or story for this film, Richard LaGravenese did. LaGravenese used to be a stand-up comedian and shares the same sense of humour and style as Gilliam, so fortunately it worked out for both of them. They make a terrific pair combining one's screenplay and the other's style to make this wonderfully vivid and original movie.

Just looking at the movie and its wonderful art direction and costume design is enough to make me love this film, but it doesn't stop there. The performances are top-notch especially from Robin Williams and Mercedes Ruehl. Jeff Bridges gives one of the best performances of his career, too.

Gilliam proves his directorial capabilities with this film not only bringing the style of the story to the screen but directing his actors in amazing performances. It's probably very hard to control Robin Williams on screen and usually the director that works with him in a comedy has a rough time since Williams seems to direct himself, but here, Gilliam (being a man of strange comedy himself [see Monty Python]) works quite well with the cast. If it wasn't for the other tremendous directing that occurred that year, Gilliam would have, without a doubt, been nominated for the Oscar.

In my opinion, Gilliam works better on films like these (director-wise) than with films like Brazil. There's no doubt about it that Gilliam has a fresh and unique imagination, which can be confused with corrupt and disturbing (see Tideland), but when given another person's screenplay he can do wonders with imagery and other forms of visual artistry.

With The Fisher King, Gilliam and LaGravenese's vision is put on the screen quite visually especially through production designer Mel Bourne's work. He transforms the low parts of New York into a beautiful place and through a homeless person's point of view, this is their kingdom.

Robin Williams is absolutely perfect in this role. He plays Parry, a homeless man who believes he is a knight in search of the Holy Grail. When he meets Jack Lucas (Bridges), he is told by his miniature imaginary friends that Jack is "the one", the one to retrieve the Grail from a rich man's home on Fifth Avenue. Lucas, a man already in shambles, befriends the bum and soon learns that when he was a talk DJ his crooked advice to one listener caused him to go on a shooting spree that coincidentally killed Parry's wife. Jack now feels indebted to Parry and will do anything to help him restore his life. With the help of Jack's girlfriend, Anne (Ruehl, in an Oscar winning role), he guides Parry in the right directions to get the girl of his dreams, Lydia (Plummer), who he has been following for months.

A wonderful screenplay and very interesting characters makes this film a true gem. Mercedes Ruehl was very deserving of her Oscar and gave one of the best supporting performances of the 90s. She epitomizes the trashy, yet sexy woman in this film and in one of the film's best scenes, she cuts right into your heart and makes you sympathize for her.

So with a wonderful combination of brilliant screenwriter, ever-so visionary director and amazing actors, this film launches itself into the memory as one of those movies that you will remember.

I highly recommend this movie to everyone who breathes and has a soul. If you have a chance before you see this, look up the fable of 'The Fisher King' and read it prior to watching the movie. It may provide some insight into the characters and situations. It's funny, it's sad and it's really, really original.

Amazing! The best animated movie of all time. Funnier than most live-action movies that have been made in the past 25 years. Brad Bird deserved his Oscar.

Funny Games (1997)
director: Michael Haneke
starring: Ulrich Mühe, Susanne Lothar, Arno Frisch, Frank Giering, Stefan Clapczynski

After a few months, I've finally come back to review this film. I'll be honest, it wasn't the easiest film to watch or the easiest film to understand at first, but after reading about this film and watching it two more times, I think I finally understand what the point of this film is. This film wasn't made with intentions of generating a fan base or hitting it big at the box office, it was made in order for director Michael Haneke to show us how disgusting we, the viewing public, are.

Haneke shatters film conventions and presents us with material that we normally would not see in a movie. Violence is used, but we don't see it on the screen. People are shot, killed and tortured, but we never see it happen. We hear it, we see the aftermath and we resonate as the characters do over what just happened. It's so real and comprehending why something so vividly disturbing is in a film makes us want the scene to be over with. Haneke uses techniques such as breaking the fourth wall, the real-time method and, most famously, a reverse effect to contest our regular film experiences. What we expect to come from this film is not what we get. I don't mean there is a twist ending or some surprising character reveal, but we get exactly what we don't expect: reality. People die in this film. There isn't a dramatic rescue scene and the protagonists do not win in an epic finale. This film is brave and it lets its audience see the opposite side of formulaic thrillers.

This film is not hypocritical. Many have accused this film of being hypocritical in its depiction of violence, but it's exactly the opposite. This film is ultimately a criticism on the use of violence in contemporary culture and media. Why the violence in the film then? The "violence" in Funny Games is used to satirize all other films that exploit their characters and their situations by showing blood, guts and nakedness. This film is like a kick in the face in terms of its bravura, it's saying "Watch this!" to its American counterparts and shows everything that we usually don't see, but cuts out everything we normally do see. We are shown the raw emotional impact that is thrust upon the victims in this film. We don't need to see the gruesome deaths when such emotion lets us know how bad the situation is. The actors in Funny Games (most notably Ulrich Mühe and Susanne Lothar) omit such painful emotions and this is Haneke's way of countering the exploitative violence from other films of this nature. We are shown a side we normally wouldn't see and this shocks us, angers us and, for a select few, pleases us.

Haneke presents situations in this film that normally would result in a bloodbath or nudity, but holds back when given the chance to show such content. One scene in particular, perhaps the most famous scene, involves a shotgun and a remote control. The violence isn't shown, it's out of the frame, but the result we do see. One of the antagonists has been blown away by the shotgun. But this isn't supposed to happen in this film, the antagonists aren't supposed to win or even be granted a speck of hope. The remaining antagonist picks up the remote control from the table and quickly rewinds the film to right before the incident occurs and prevents it from happening. Now everything is back on course and the hope for relief is diminished.

One of the antagonists in this film constantly breaks the fourth wall (the fourth wall being when a character from the film gestures or talks to the audience). This brings us, the audience, into the film even more to experience the torture and pain this family is going through. At one point, Paul addresses the audience saying, "We're not up to feature film length yet" and we know we're still in for more torture.

This film was made to shock us, torture us and make us realize who we are and what we have grown to expect from a film. When Schorschi is killed, we do not see it on screen. The viewers probably sighed for they don't get to see any blood in this movie. When Paul makes Anna take her clothes off, we don't see it on screen. The viewers probably sighed again, for they don't get to see any nudity in this movie either. As a film-going audience, we have grown to expect certain things from films. If someone is going to be shot, we expect to see it. If someone is going to have sex, we expect to see it. With Funny Games, Michael Haneke literally laughs at us because with this film, filled with violent happenings, we don't see anything violent on the screen, but only the emotional lapse that follows.

People can either view this film as a pointless exercise in attacking violence in films or a masterpiece that has shattered conventions, played with our minds and presented something brave and new to the cinematic table. I agree with the latter statement and I know I am not alone, but I also know how many people despise this film. It's a shame that Funny Games isn't widely appraised, because I do think that this revolutionary approach is not only audacious, but artistic, too. I have only good things to say about this film and Michael Haneke. He has presented something to us that everyone else fears to. He is a fantastic director and doesn't have to rely on formula to make a film work. He has stepped up to new extremes and his originality and bluster has made him very well respected by myself. I highly recommend this film, even though I know many of you will not like it. However, I do believe that everyone should watch this film and experience the masterpiece that is called Funny Games.

This is the best movie of 1996. Not my favourite, but the best. Fargo will always hold the title of my favourite movie from 1996. This movie was a masterpiece. It was made by Mike Leigh, one of the greatest dramatic directors of today. This film is so incredible in many ways. The story is ingenious; after her parents die, a young black woman (Jean-Baptiste) seeks out her natural birth mother only to discover her mother is white. Equally shocked to learn her daughter is black, Cynthia (Blethyn) insists it's a mistake. But she soon realizes it's true and when she springs her newfound daughter on the rest of the family, the resulting chaos leads to a series of secrets and lies being revealed at last. A true Best Picture contender if I ever saw one. I wish this would have won Best Picture because movies like these need more appreciation, I think. Brenda Blethyn gives one of the best performances in years. It's too bad for her she was competing against the amazing Frances McDormand that year. Marianne Jean-Baptiste is also incredible. They both garnered Oscar nominations in 1996. This isn't a movie to be missed... if you haven't seen this, add it to your "too see" list and watch it as soon as possible. A true masterpiece.

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.

Perfect. One of the best animated films of all time! Incredible voice work and beautiful animation and colour.

The Shining (1980)
director: Stanley Kubrick
starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers, Barry Nelson, Joe Turkel

Reading the novel before seeing the film is almost always recommended, but in the case of The Shining, I would stay as far away as possible from the novel and focus on the genius of this film. Nothing against Stephen King (I'm a fan), but the novel and the film are two totally different experiences. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, this film, along with The Exorcist, is my favourite classic horror film. As always, Kubrick didn't take his film down a simple path and that's what I like about this particular horror film. With so many loose ends and unexplainable happenings, this film is truly frightening and a masterfully directed work of horror.

If Kubrick had not directed this, it wouldn't be half the film it is or have half the popularity it has. It's one of the most well-known films of the 1980's for certain scenes alone. If Kubrick wasn't enough to make this film a huge success, we're also lucky to get Jack Nicholson in the lead role. The performances in this film are impressive, yet some seem to think they are overacted and too hysterical. After watching Making 'The Shining', a 1980 short documentary filmed by Stanley Kubrick's daughter Vivian (which is a special feature on the Stanley Kubrick Collection edition of The Shining), I've learned that Kubrick worked his actors to an extreme limit, until they broke down and gave the performances we see in the final cut of the film. Shelley Duvall's shrieks and hysteria may be annoying at times, but her performance is quite impressive knowing what she went through to get through filming.

The psychological side to this film is what frightens me the most. It's not the axe rampage that Jack goes on or the elevator spewing blood in the corridor, it's mostly the scenes of silence where we see what seems like Jack dealing with his growing insanity or Danny being taken over by his "imaginary friend" and writing haunting messages in lipstick. The ending to this film is also confusing and affects the film as a whole and how true the film has been up to that point. I love the mystery that this film has and doesn't quite solve. Leaving the ending open and up for interpretation is something Stanley Kubrick is known for in many of his films and I admire that greatly. He can accomplish a solid film that will become critically and commercially successful, and still have a cinematic masterpiece that can be analyzed conventionally and contextually from top to bottom and still not be fully examined.

I could talk about this film for hours because it had such a great effect on me and my mind. One of the greatest horror films of all time and probably my favourite Stephen King adaptation (even if it may not be 100% faithful to the novel). Bravo to Stanley Kubrick for another showcase of excellence. He certainly is a master.

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.

Amazing and groundbreaking.

Rachel Getting Married (2008)
director: Jonathan Demme
starring: Anne Hathaway, Debra Winger, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin, Tunde Adebimpe, Mather Zickel, Anna Deavere Smith

Seeing this film tomorrow (Dec 10th).
Review coming soon .

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.