PvtCaboose91

"I know who killed me." (That's an actual quote...wow the filmmakers are trying to relate a quote back to the title...who would've thought. And I know who killed me: the filmmakers. For making this painful garbage!)

I Know Who Killed Me is officially career suicide for Lindsay Lohan: an actress who seemed to have a promising future as an actress after films like Mean Girls and Freaky Friday. The most unfortunate fact is that Lindsay desired to be taken more seriously as an actress by starring in a serious movie. Like most working actors/actresses, there comes a time to aim for an Oscar moment. Little did young Lindsay realise that this was the time for the Razzie committee to review her work. Lindsay became the honoured recipient of several Razzies: she tied with herself for Worst Actress, and she won Worst Screen Couple (once again shared with herself).

During 2007, audiences witnessed several inhumanely appalling horror flicks including Captivity, Hostel: Part II and even The Hills Have Eyes Part II. However, Lindsay's flick managed to rightfully beat the competition for the Razzie award of "Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie". Needless to say, I watched this film with shockingly depleted expectations. I knew that I was going to see a fairly poor flick...I just wasn't aware it would hold a convincing place on my 'Worst of 2007' list. Why is the film so appalling? Well, where to start...Lindsay's acting is dismal, director has no sense of style, the screenplay moves from one pointless scene to the next, it contains atrociously written dialogue, it's poorly made, and the film is also highly boring. I had to press the 'pause' button every few minutes to refill my coffee because I was falling asleep!

The plot essentially borrows from most commercial torture/horror porn witnessed over the past few years. We have elements of Saw and Hostel with a script that also mirrors police detective tales. This could have worked if done correctly. However, the film represents a Z-Grade version of all aforementioned elements. The horror scenes aren't even effective! Instead we have gore...lots of gore...nothing else.

Basically, Aubrey Fleming (Lohan) is a promising young teenage girl living off her parents' wealth. The idyllic small town in which she lives is soon rocked when a teenage girl is abducted and sadistically murdered. Soon Aubrey is abducted by (who we believe is) the same bloke. This is where the film goes from bad to worse. Flaws in logic begin surfacing multiple times every minute. I mean, they have one dead girl and a missing girl, yet the entire police force and even the FBI are called in to investigate! Talk about overkill. I mean, shouldn't they have dangerous fugitives or illustrious serial killers to catch? If not flaws in logic, it's things we simply find hilarious. An example? Well, the town sheriff resembles Santa Claus. So as Sheriff Claus makes his suspect list (and checks it twice) we also have unnecessary, tasteless scenes of pole dancing and nudity that make no sense at all. Oh, and there's a random gardener who decides to stroke a stick suggestively in order to impress Lindsay's character. No, I am not making this up. And of course, when the killer abducts Lindsay, her friends find a blue rose in her car. How did it get in there? Due to the futility of every other scene, imagine this: Lindsay asks the killer if she can quickly put something in her car, to which the killer responds "Oh yeah, sure. We'll do this torture and abduction thingy when you're ready". I can imagine that scene actually happening. Can't you?

Lindsay Lohan's acting is bottom of the barrel. 80% of the reasons why this film is so appalling are due to Lohan and her (*ahem*) so-called "acting". Every line she delivers is contrived, unrealistic or plain dreadful. At times she's meant to be screaming because of the unbearable torture. It doesn't sound like she's in pain. It's almost like she's moaning in pleasure...I'll leave that up to your imagination. To make matters worse, her pole dancing even looks incredibly trite! Lindsay spent time "researching" her character by spending time with real strippers and pole dancers. Whoa, you mean Lindsay wasn't doing this career already? Poor Julia Ormond...she looks like she's making an effort, possibly a few Oscar moments, but she wound up getting a Razzie award nomination.

The director and writer can't be let off too easily. Director Chris Sivertson has less talent than a film student. His uses of colour motifs simply do not work. Okay, so red signifies one character and blue signifies the other. Sure, we get it. But is it necessary? Nope. Not at all. And at the beginning there's a neon sign with a bulb darkening for the right arm and leg. Seems like the director wanted some foreshadowing in an attempt to look clever...but is he clever? The answer still remains an emphatic NO! Every scene in this movie is poorly written and its execution is distressingly weak. The result is boredom from the first 5 minutes. Highlights from these first few minutes: a few shots of Lindsay being a stripper (with no talent at all to show for), some blood dripping down her pole as she slides down (even blood dripping from where she never even touched...it's like witnessing the annual sap flow of the Stripper Pole Forest), and there's a few moments for Lindsay to read a story. Her writing is god-awful, and yet the class look so entranced and fascinated. On top of this, talk about a painful stereotype: Lindsay is wearing glasses in an attempt to look smart! Take the hint, Lindsay: if you wear glasses it doesn't mean you look smart. And you're starring in this film...so you're not smart at all!

The screenwriter should be banned from writing anything else in his career. The story is far from interesting and so cliché-ridden it's almost hard to comprehend! The whole concept is based on the myth of 'stigmatic twins'. Sound interesting? Didn't think so...because it's not! This film cannot be counted as a horror flick either. Aside from a few moments of gore that showcase decent prosthetics, there isn't a shock or fright in view until the finale when we've already lost interest. In between the torture of Aubrey and the rescue of Aubrey, there is a whole lot of nothing except for Lindsay showing the world her attempt to act like the daughter of a crack whore.

I Know Who Killed Me is a boring mess that fails to frighten, fails to entertain and has little to no redeeming value. After the first few minutes I found myself indescribably bored. The director has no sense of style at all. The result is a succession of pointless scenes with no abiding content. Heck, nothing seems vital except for the abduction and rescue. I wish this was a short film, because the filmmakers surely killed me with this film. At one stage the characters describe a serial killer who kills people in the cinema. If people were in the cinema watching this movie, it'd be a truly welcome favour. That scene is more irony than this film can handle.

"Those are sharks on steroids!"

The tagline for Dark Waters reads "No Air. No Time. No Escape." For the safety and well-being of all audiences worldwide, it would be a sublime marketing choice to add another two words onto the tagline: "No Good!" Dark Waters is dreadfully below average, even by customary standards of direct-to-DVD features. By the look of the film, it seems every cent of the budget went into creating an interesting DVD cover: it displays a few very realistic looking sharks looming underneath an oil rig. We know it's a direct-to-DVD feature and won't be a masterpiece, but you'll think that at least it'll be worth a shot, right? After watching 90 minutes of this garbage, I'm beginning to think the front cover was images from a David Attenborough documentary!

Those familiar with the résumé of director Phillip Roth know what they're in for. Remember Boa a.k.a. New Alcatraz? Credit must be granted for director Roth, as Dark Waters is far worse than his previous movies by incredible margins: Z-Grade special effects, hideous set design, no motivation...heck even the locations appear dull due to the disjointed nature of Roth's lens. Before reading any further, be warned that I have nothing positive to say about this movie so prepare for an exhaustingly long review diving into everything wrong with this shark action tosh!

The plot is a poor excuse to showcase a few poorly executed moments of shark mayhem. Basically, an Oil Transfer Station in the Gulf of Mexico is attacked by large Great White Sharks. The owner of the station, Allister Summerville (Gray), has no idea what happened and feels the need to investigate. Enter aspiring marine biologist Dane Quatrell (Lamas) and his assistant Robin Turner (Mackinnon). The two are drugged by Summerville who plans to hire the hi-tech submarine owned by the couple.

So imagine this situation: an underwater research station, a few highly intelligent sharks, and a few people to become shark food. What's that I hear you think? You're absolutely correct...this is the sub-par low-budget equivalent of Renny Harlin's Deep Blue Sea. The CGI effects in Harlin's picture were terrible enough, but at least there were practical sharks for higher realism. Deep Waters is all CGI...almost every shot. As a result nothing looks remotely believable. It looks like the graphics of a video game from 10 years ago! Even the opening shots are enough to leave a bad taste in the mind of the audience. After the first few minutes I was bored to tears, and I couldn't even laugh at the shark attacks because they're that bad. We can't even see sharks eating people due to the poor filmmaking!

The script had potential...I must grant them that. But that's not in the dialogue, the concept or the situations. The potentiality was purely in the use of hi-tech sharks, of which have 10 minutes of allocated screen-time. Half of that shows the sharks being mobile! So this is a 90-minute shark flick, with barely 10 minutes for the sharks. What's in the other 80 minutes? Laughable drama, incompetent action scenes, atrocious acting and clichéd situations! There are countless clichés that surface within each minute: marines who can't shoot straight, inexperienced civilians who can miraculously stay alive and shoot competently, loose air vents for a convenient escape, sharks never attacking a protagonist...the list goes on!

The plot is filled with plot holes aplenty, to the point that it's a slice of Swiss cheese in comparison. There are also script irregularities, factual errors that are impossible to overlook, and even logical flaws to boot. On top of this, Roth's usage of the camera is ugly. The central fault, though, is how impossible the task remains to categorise the film. The first scene is horror, then it's a drama, then it's a tense drama, then it becomes action before returning to horror/thriller before throwing it all together for the film's climax. The worst part is that there is no intensity. Even the editing is bad! Flashbacks are unnecessary, and there's fast cutting during the attacks that frequently employ close-ups. These looks so bad that it's not even worth a laugh! Dark Waters should sink into dark waters...forever.

"An innocent prisoner will become more angry by the hour due to the injustice suffered. He will shout and rage. A guilty prisoner becomes more calm and quiet. Or he cries. He knows he's there for a reason. The best way to establish guilt or innocence is non-stop interrogation."

The Lives of Others is an enthralling, provocative German thriller that accurately captures a truly horrifying time in the East Germany's history (a period that concluded less than two decades ago). This sophisticated narrative is brimming with rich characters, amazing imagery, expressive direction and credible performances from a foreign cast. The brilliance of The Lives of Others warranted piles of acclaim and even an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film (a controversial win over the highly favoured and much-praised Pan's Labyrinth). The film's story is stemmed from actual happenings that transpired during the recreated period. Secret police were essentially dominating the streets. The filmmakers encompass many of the horrific rules and unfair practises that permeated the former society being depicted. Due to the amazing efforts behind the camera, the film will leave the viewer transfixed and wholly immersed in the visuals infused with such legitimacy and intrigue. Aptitude in every filmmaking aspect results in a compelling experience, one that successfully displays the devastating effects of socialism.

Set in East Germany a mere 5 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the film conveys a beguilingly effective narrative using real events for its foundation. This was a time when the horrifying Stasi (the secret police) made it their business to employ an all-embracing association of spies and extensive surveillance to expose every secret facet concerning the citizens that surround them. This was an inhumane culture that victimised mankind's vulnerability. The Stasi possessed the ability to devastate everything it touched, and make every citizen a potential suspect. Soft-spoken, popular playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) lives a moderately private existence with his wife - accomplished actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck). Georg remains a loyal resident, and becomes a Stasi suspect due to the fact that he's never done anything remotely suspicious. The couple are placed under scrutiny with the brilliantly skilled Captain Gerd Wiesler (Mühe) assigned to the case. With Wiesler listening in, the officer starts learning of intimate details: information that implies unsuspected motives behind the wiretapping. Wielser evolves from a desolate spectator to an emotional participant, becoming embroiled in the lives of others. His involvement transports the film's story to unanticipated and fascinating places with cataclysmic consequences.

The Lives of Others marks the film debut of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, whose meticulous and expressive direction further compliments the brilliantly written screenplay. This well-crafted thriller rapidly grasps the underlying communal and psychological factors within the film's context. This extraordinary film is both a profoundly moving human drama and a political thriller with hints of seductive features to boot. Director von Donnersmarck takes the audience into the very heart of reasonably recent European history, tackling the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and its dreaded Stasi. The directing is both expressive and engaging. Although a directorial debut, the director's utilisation of the camera cannot be faulted. Every moment is riveting, and provides deeply insightful views on the slate of characters.

Ulrich Mühe's performance as Wiesler is absolutely astonishing. The actor (who tragically died due to stomach cancer in 2007) credibly undertakes a challenging role. From the outset we find his screen presence brutal yet slightly charming. As Wiesler is entangled in the lives of the two central characters, his sinister persona withdraws and a more palpable side of his personality emerges: a sympathetic nature. Sebastian Koch is realistic as the seemingly innocent playwright that evolves into a far smarter, deeper character. Martina Gedeck is also worth mentioning for her astounding portrayal as the girlfriend of Koch's Georg Dreyman. To his credit, director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck permits the characters and their circumstances (with the back-and-forth structure) generate a natural tension. He doesn't utilise any callous camera techniques that would remove us from the story. More importantly, his transitions are so smooth that we begin to feel the close connection of the hunter and the hunted. The Lives of Others was filmed in Berlin, and this aspect only adds to the realism that appears organic to the screenplay.

On the whole, every feature on exhibition is accomplished in every aspect. The film is potent, fascinating, inspiring, powerful, engrossing and compelling, while challenging the audience to also become emotionally involved in the challenging skirmish between the protagonists. It's a smart, skilfully crafted political thriller that perhaps runs a tad too long. With flaring emotional intensity and capable filmmaking, though, it's possible to overlook the running time. The music as well is absolutely masterful. An impeccable mix of classical piano, with authentic music from the 1980s that's truly irresistible, is the final touch in the already sublime atmosphere. If that's not enough, the bleak and cold nature of the German streets is captured wonderfully by von Donnersmarck's lens. At places a tad slow, but The Lives of Others is an intriguing glimpse at subversive life in the GDR that bristles with authenticity. Hollywood filmmakers should start taking notes, as foreign films at times surpass the quality of Hollywood productions in every respect. If only these films were eligible for the Best Picture Oscar.

"How many lives do we live?
How many times do we die?
They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death... Everyone.

And how much fits into 21 grams?

How much is lost?

When do we lose 21 grams?

How much goes with them?

How much is gained?

How much...is gained?

Twenty-one grams.

The weight of a stack of five nickels.

The weight of a hummingbird.

A chocolate bar.

How much did 21 grams weigh?"

21 Grams comes from the same creative team that were responsible for the successful powerhouse film Amores Perros (more commonly titled Love's a Bitch). Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu's 21 Grams is a moody, confronting, stimulating, mesmerising, often gut-wrenching and uncompromising character study that tackles some of humanity's darkest moral difficulties, in addition to delving into the fragility of life and relationships. Director Iñárritu proves his filmmaking skill with this production. In tradition with Amores Perros, he's delivered an equally gritty and challenging product here. The director is capable of managing this genre elegantly. This is a temperamental drama that won't be for all tastes. Similar to the director's prior movie, he again delivers a disjointed but engrossing editing technique capable of encompassing powerful, raw emotional exuberance. It's an unusual film generally devoured enthusiastically by those who can stomach it: a vibrant, riveting complex emotional tale concerning death, life, salvation, religious conviction, violence and confronting personal demons.

The film is fuelled by a multi-faceted plot that's difficult to outline without divulging regrettable amounts of spoilers. Basically, 21 Grams concerns interweaving storylines following three central protagonists. Paul Rivers (Penn) is a critically ill professor reduced to what he regards as "death's waiting room". Due to a grave heart condition, Paul has nothing to do but wait for a new heart to be transplanted into his chest. If no organ transplant is conducted, Paul will suffer a very unpleasant death. Cristina Peck (Watts) is a recovering drug addict who's also a textbook example of your typical suburban mother: with two beautiful daughters and a loving husband (Huston) back at her ranch. Jack Jordan (Del Toro) is an ex-con who's been an intermittent resident of prison since the age of 16. Now he's being supported by a family who are trying to help him get his life back together and keep it on track. Hoping to find redemption for the crimes he's committed, Jack has turned to Jesus Christ as his saviour and accepted Christianity as his religion. These three seemingly unconnected people clash in an unforgettable, unfortunate series of tragic events.

The critics wholeheartedly voiced their praises for Alejandro González Iñárritu's 21 Grams, to the point that it's worrying to consider that it was overlooked for Best Picture at the Oscars. The film is simply a brilliant creation frequently overflowing with risky, moving and unflinching performances courtesy of an A-list cast.

Mexican director Iñárritu tells the film in fragments. Short segments of the film are edited together in a non-linear structure. The interesting thing is that the plot is coherent and linear: the film could work as a logically constructed series of events as opposed to pieces of the puzzle being randomly scattered, leaving the audience to engage their minds to slide each puzzle piece into place. This technique is unnecessary, but it helps remind the audience that this is no ordinary drama. Also, perhaps with the film assembled in a linear structure it could be harder to watch. The film would still be essential viewing, but probably more hard-hitting as the audience wouldn't have time to recover before the next emotional issue is dropped on them.

At the centre of the filmmaking, the film's actual driving power is found in the enthralling performances. Sean Penn was unfortunately unobserved during Oscar season while his two co-stars were both recognised with nominations in their respective categories. Sean Penn's portrayal is convincing, credible, realistic and uncompromising. The character's major health problems are felt by the audience thanks to Penn's incredible performance. Every struggling breath...each labouring step is palpable and it's effortless to feel completely engaged. Naomi Watts was honoured with an Oscar nomination. Her performance is amazing beyond words. Every time Watts is distraught about the tragedy that has occurred, you will feel truly touched. However, both Penn and Watts are almost overshadowed by the career-altering performance of Benicio Del Toro. He was also granted an Oscar nomination. Del Toro is always infused with such incredible emotional power: he's riveting and believable. At times his character's rage feels like a kick to the gut. And at times you'll feel goose-bumps due to his capability as a performer.

The masterful filmmaking exhibited in 21 Grams in unlike anything preceding it. The director opted to film the movie employing a grainy look, almost like a home movie. Each assembled fragment is like one situation filmed by someone on their home video camera, and then all the tapes are being played in random order. It feels like the most haunting home movie of all time. The film was made on a tiny budget of only $20 million. This is absolutely mind-blowing when you consider the congregation of A-list actors that beautifully portray their respective characters. The filmmakers also decided to aim for realism as opposed to hyperbolic and Hollywood. The sound mix, music and ambience all conform to this creative decision. Of course this realistic edge makes the film even more riveting...never do the filmmakers tread a false step.

The realism conveyed in this visually arresting production will have you believing every frame. Unfortunately, on the other hand, the material isn't adequately illuminated as much as the filmmakers probably desired. In addition, there are several "fragments" depicted throughout the film's running time that seem either superfluous or of unnecessary length. As a result, the visual elegance and great performances aren't enough to prevent audiences from being bored to tears at times. Also, with fragmented storytelling the character development is slightly skewed. Hence this was a dangerous decision. Perhaps with a few rearranged "fragments" it'd be more effective. Naturally, more screenings will further allow the audience to see the characters as far more developed.

Overall, 21 Grams has been regarded as one of 2003's most essential films. It truly is! The masterful filmmaking being offered is of the highest regard: deep visuals, a subtlety touching score, thought-provoking dialogue, stimulating emotional intensity and thoroughly convincing performances that elevate the characters astronomically. You'll be baffled at how truly moving this film is. With no hyperboles in place, the audience will feel truly engaged in the proceedings and transfixed at the visually apprehending feast for the eyes.

"Love life, get paid, then get laid. That is the basic philosophy of... The Finch-meister!"

American Pie: The Wedding (known in America as American Wedding) was an inevitable event considering the box office success of its predecessors. The original two American Pie films were blueprint instances of contemporary American sex comedies: copiousness of profanity, nudity, sex references and plain lewd language...while still possessing an underlying poignancy. They weren't masterpieces at all, but in any case people could relate to the characters while reflecting on the rampant hormones of their teenage years. The first film examined teens enthusiastic to lose their virginity, the second film focused on college days, and now the third film explores some of these characters tying the knot. There never seems to be much point, does there?

The preceding American Pie films I didn't overly love despite a few laughs to be had. American Pie: The Wedding is the worst film in the series thus far. This third film is wholeheartedly superfluous. The studio got their box office profits, but this instalment makes the film as gross and vulgar as achievable...pushing things to maximum extremes in the faint hope of a laugh. However it fails quite unspeakably to the point that I was rarely laughing. In fact, the film is just plain sickening, repulsive and occasionally offensive! Half the original cast is missing for this film. At least some characters have finally grown up and moved on!

Jim (Biggs) and his girlfriend Michelle (Hannigan) have now been dating for a number of years. After college graduation, Jim proposes to Michelle. As the title would suggest, Michelle accepts and the wedding preparations commence. This thin plot is an excuse for a long string of pointless jokes. These gags frequently fail. It seems that the screenwriters have a clear idea that the audience desires more Stifler (Scott). Now Stifler has been promoted to a protagonist (obviously replacing Chris Klein as 'Oz') as he endlessly swears and desperately searches for sex. Throw in Finch (Thomas) and Kevin (Nicholas) as those present to support Jim in the lead up to his wedding, as well as Jim's sex-crazed father (Levy) who's there to make things more interesting (it seems).

Before the release of American Pie: The Wedding, the marketing tried to make us believe that this is the funniest "slice of pie" yet. Either they were amazing lyers, or the filmmakers are seriously self-deluded. What has become a supposed rites-of-passage trilogy initiated as a cunningly appealing amalgamation of gross-out comedy (sometimes amusing) and a credible set of characters. With disparaging predictability and mountains of clichés, the trilogy has devolved into this mess...effectively a remake of Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers and Father of the Bride. It's a clichéd wedding affair we've seen billions of times before! But this time, it's been given a makeover to suit the modern sex comedy genre.

Worse yet, this instalment never seems like it actually accomplishes anything. These characters are more of the same. Finch is there to confess his love for Stifler's mother, Kevin is there to whinge his way through everything, Stifler is there to shag anything that moves, etc. And of course Levy as Jim's dad is going to make a few more allegedly funny situations created at the expense of Jim's embarrment. The final insult concerns Stifler...learning his lesson and starting to change his ways. Yet this seems thoroughly pointless because by the end of the movie he's still foul-mouthed and he still just yearns for sex. Of course, for this genre it's customary for these unnecessary sub-plots to be included. The script seems to go no-where. It's drenched in dispiriting amounts of conventions leading towards the predictable wedding that we all know will turn out okay. Every other aspect of the filmmaking is standard. Acting is fair, with the exception of Jason Biggs who sometimes seems very disjointed and uncoordinated.

Overall, American Pie: The Wedding takes things too far. It's only for you if you find the following things hilarious: eating dog poo, shagging a granny, dance off in a gay bar, etc. Bottom line: mildly entertaining with a good soundtrack, but wholly unnecessary.

"...Then I go inside the airport and I'm watching. I'm watching on the television... and I... and I... I... I saw it. I saw it and I felt it at the same time. I thought about Geena's birthmark, and I... I felt them burning..."

Reign Over Me is an uplifting, emotionally-straining drama regarding friendships and heartbreaks set on the foundation of a person's life that was distressed by 9/11. It's intense but humorous, and heart-wrenching but touching. Reign Over Me also signifies an endeavour by Adam Sandler to undertake a serious role that espouses an unequivocally distinct style of humour. The former star of Happy Gilmore and other mediocre comedies attempts something dissimilar to anything he's done before. Instead of nonsensically overzealous and unnecessarily foul-mouthed, Sandler is poignant, challenging and moving.

If you're not in awe at the performances, you'll certainly find yourself profoundly amazed at the dazzling photography. This drama submerges straight into the intricate city setting: the grimy streets, the congested traffic, the regular appearance of apartment buildings...and yet the realistic view of the city is absolutely beautiful. The filmmakers opted to lense the film using digital HD in lieu of employing actual film. This look alone furnishes the film with an abundantly realistic edge. This incredible filmmaking, coupled with the equally moving music, will leave you completely transfixed. Regardless of a number of distracting script flaws, Reign Over Me is stimulating, thought-provoking and challenging - it's an extraordinarily rare event to behold this standard in a contemporary production.

Charlie Fineman (Sandler) is devastatingly afflicted with post-traumatic stress syndrome. His wife and daughters (even his poor poodle) were killed during the September 11 attacks on New York...they were passengers on one of the doomed planes. Now Charlie is distressed and living a desolate existence: he's neurotic and withdrawn...he no longer works, instead he lives off insurance money. Alan Johnson (Cheadle) is a lucrative dentist on the outs with his current dental colleagues. Alan remembers Charlie from college when they were roommates. A chance meeting between Alan and Charlie sparks an intimate friendship. In such a significant part of Charlie's life, camaraderie this special is critical to him. Alan takes a fascination in his erstwhile college friend, primarily by feeling of obligation. It's obvious that Charlie needs professional help to battle his condition that's spiralling hopelessly out of control. Alan becomes extremely determined to relieve Charlie from his grief, and help him escape from his emotional abyss.

The performances present in Reign Over Me are superbly compelling. Don Cheadle looks slightly out of place as the film's protagonist, but he gives the flawed material 100%. Adam Sandler is a scene stealer. The character of Charlie Fineman is challenging and very intricate. When the character breaks down to tears, Sandler is absolutely impeccable. If you lost family in the 9/11 attacks, you will be especially moved. Some people passed up the opportunity to catch the film during its theatrical run due to Sandler's status as a mainly comedic actor. It may seem difficult to accept the actor in a serious performance. Despite this predisposition, Sandler lets us quickly forget about being a typecast funny man. Liv Tyler looks perplexed among an otherwise stellar cast. She simply doesn't suit the role of a psychiatrist. Despite this piece of gross miscasting, top honours to the rest of the cast including Saffron Burrows, Donald Sutherland and even the writer/director Mike Binder appears as the character of Sugarman.

The director has skilfully crafted the film, employing spellbinding visuals and an equally amazing slate of dialogue. However, writer/director Binder's script feels far too cramped. He tries to incorporate too much into his screenplay. As a result, the film plods drastically during its mid section in particular. It's a moving tribute to those whose lives were affected on that fateful day in 2001, but despite solid filmmaking the film will occasionally bore you to sobs. Miscasting (looking at Liv Tyler in this instance) and occasional humdrum pacing prove lethal to this film, and it falls marginally short of its lofty intent. Also, the film loses the plot into its second half. Without a crackling story to maintain one's interest, it's impossible to feel entirely engaged in the proceedings as there's no underlying driving force. It's a succession of grand filmmaking featuring great photography and sublime acting with no glue to hold everything together. In the long run, you'll be baffled at the over-length. Although there is a clear message and a noble portrait on offer, it takes too long to paint a simple picture. Binder relies on its subject matter to see things through. But that's the fatal element - it's driven by concept instead of plot. With too many unnecessary sub-plots including a patient who wants to "go down" on Cheadle's Alan Johnson, there is lots of potential that is sorely wasted.

Overall, Reign Over Me isn't the clichéd drama that it promised to be. Underneath an ostensibly overdrawn succession of absorbing dialogue, there's a marvellous message to be uncovered. It encompasses foreign territory in relation to 9/11 - the consequences and repercussions of people whose lives were hopelessly altered by the tragedy. Reign Over Me is a truly enthralling character study that scrutinises the lives of two friends coming to terms with the world surrounding them. At times the film is simply faultless, but a tighter middle section and a better platform could have provided this film with tremendous benefit. It's far better than Sandler's brainless comedic roles; however it's clearly distant from Oscar material in spite of a potential to reach that quality.

"The battle of Helm's Deep is over; the battle for Middle Earth is about to begin..."

Through my eyes, Peter Jackson's much-anticipated and much-glorified The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the paradigmatic example of a perfect movie. The cinematic journey that initiated on Boxing Day 2001 and quickly received worldwide acclaim ultimately came to a conclusion with this final instalment. Personally, my passion for the Lord of the Rings trilogy never ceased and to this day I continue to view them frequently.

Just like its two precursors, The Return of the King was met with a congregation of positive reviews and of course recognition from the Oscar committee. I was ecstatic during the Oscar season at the beginning of 2004 when I discovered that the film was recognised with 11 Oscar nominations. Needless to say, I was even more ecstatic when Peter Jackson and his crew walked away with all 11 in their possession. The Return of the King won literally hundreds of awards worldwide and above all it accomplished a Box Office landmark: breaking the $1 billion milestone and becoming just the second film in history to do so. With this film walking away after sweeping the Oscars and sitting at a convincing second on the worldwide box office (as of mid-2008), this is indeed a rare event when it comes to a film offering of the fantasy genre. The technical proficiency is purely the finest that money can buy. Jackson's team at WETA workshop single-handedly created and rendered all special effects shots using software they had designed themselves.

This is by far the longest instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy; however it never feels too long. While many will complain (endlessly complain) about the length, I see the film in a completely different light. The way I see it the length is necessary to maintain a sense of fidelity to the novel and to successfully wrap everything up. If anything, I hate it when filmmakers rush things and end up with a missed opportunity on their hands. Peter Jackson had a modest budget and some astronomically amazing special effects on his side, so the work in every other department had to be top notch. Jackson's supreme gift is that of total immersion; the breathtaking lands of Middle Earth remain vibrantly alive. The film's pace may be reasonably slow for some, but the beauty soars with opulent layers of architecture, geography and complex storytelling.

Just like both entries thus far in the trilogy, The Return of the King reinvents the word "epic" completely. Many of the battles throughout the film display rich texture, and awe-inspiring showcases of visual effects. The action is emphatically extravagant and brought to life on an exorbitantly impressive scale! But what separates this from most fantasy epics is the heart at its core. Whenever there's a battle, you'll always find a satisfying serving of emotionally-charged moments featuring intimate scenes with the central protagonists. This coupling of visceral special effects and moving moments that display deep camaraderie is absolutely spellbinding!

This third and final instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy starts off almost exactly where The Two Towers ended. One must remember that all three of Tolkien's novels were written to plainly be one enormous piece of literature, and it was his publisher that insisted the novel should be split up the three shorter, more convenient components. In essence, all three additions to the cinematic Lord of the Rings trilogy can be edited together and the transitions would be seamless. The films are identical to the situation with Tolkien's novels: one big chunk of storytelling that's separated into three parts. You can never watch The Return of the King without first watching the initial two parts as this was never meant to be a standalone movie.

The first section of the plot here is concerned with Frodo (Wood), Sam (Astin) and the creature Gollum (a digital character played by Andy Serkis). As they move closer to the dark lands of Mordor, towards the fire of Mount Doom where the One Ring must be destroyed, the ring is becoming a heavier burden for the troubled young Frodo. As the quest perseveres, Frodo is becoming severely tested. Faith has been placed in Gollum to lead the Hobbits to Mount Doom despite the constant mistrust that Sam holds for the former Hobbit. On the outside this seems like a simple physically straining journey, but it's also an emotionally tiring journey on the inside for the three companions. While this story unfolds, the focus also alters to the remainder of the original fellowship. Sauron's eye has shifted to the city of Minas Tirith, the capital of Gondor, as the next target for his rampaging army. The fall of Gondor will mean the end of Men and the completion of his objective to clean Middle Earth of the species. A portion of the original fellowship, along with a horde of newer characters, move to the city of Minas Tirith to help build up defence for the impending attack and possible destruction of the White City. We find Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davis) through their more diverse journey into the cursed mountains to summon the legendary Army of the Dead.

This brief synopsis barely breaks the surface of this grandiose, all-round extremely satisfying epic film.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is an unprecedented milestone of contemporary moviemaking. If The Two Towers raised the bar with its epic battles, then The Return of the King knocks the bar cleanly out of the ground! This is so much more than just a simple fantasy epic, in fact this is multi-faceted tale about the strength of character, friendship, loyalty and love. Each shot is sizzling with visual elegance...the special effects are nothing short of breathtaking! Every battle is truly monumental in its sheer scale, as well as exciting and intense. Previously, I briefly touched on the emotionally-straining moments that this film has to offer. The cast pull off these moments beautifully and I was extremely close to tears more than once during the movie. There are several truly moving moments that still give me goose bumps at the simple thought of them. These moments are fuelled by not only the motivating performances, but the score courtesy of composer Howard Shore. The composer was recognised with an Oscar and I plainly cannot quibble with this decision. The music retains the elegance of the visuals, and even makes the epic battles look even grander.

There are only a few new additions to the cast that are introduced here, the most notable being Australian actor John Noble as Denethor who rules Minas Tirith with an iron fist. The Oscar committee barely gave any recognition to the actors (only awarding Ian McKellen with a nomination for Fellowship). I guess with so many people in the cast it'd be impossible to choose one or two for a nomination. Andy Serkis is one member of the cast that deserves particular credit. He's hidden behind digital make-up, but each line he delivers is potent and really hits home. The acting from Elijah Wood is truly a triumph to behold. His performance required a great degree of emotion to portray the ring's power to corrupt. His performance was critical in order to display the ring's influence, which needless to say is absolute. Each character has their own personal demon to confront, and each undergoes their own inner journey. Every cast member does their job stunningly.

The Return of the King has of course been filmed in Peter Jackson's homeland of New Zealand. The Kiwi landscape is vast and beautiful. Whenever one views the film we're taking a step inside the gorgeous land of Middle Earth. Peter Jackson is a visionary, and like all the preceding films the attention and care to every conceivable detail is incredible.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a build up with an even share of action and exposition. The Two Towers is more exposition and build up followed by some action. With The Return of the King, the build up is definitely worth it...every second. The exposition has already been established in the other films, so this film is short on exposition and instead stocks a great supply of action scenes that are truly a cinematic marvel. The battles are lengthy but never suffer from over-length...each second is as intense as the one preceding it. Then the conclusion to the film is wholly satisfying. Some people complain about "too many endings". Okay, so there were many instances when the film could have ended but instead moved onto something else. Fair enough, but I mean this trilogy has already gone for like 9 hours...they can't wrap everything up in a hurry and leave plot holes or stories that haven't been concluded. Instead of rushing everything, each second is lovingly created in all aspects: filming, editing, colour scheme, special effects, acting, scripting, etc. The best part is that this end remains faithful to Tolkien's original novel. Thus the fans needn't worry...for the novel has been properly transferred to the medium of film.

There are far too many pointless and vain arguments between the haters and the lovers of the trilogy. The bottom line is that we're all entitled to our own opinion, and we can't all agree. Thus labelling Peter Jackson's masterpiece as "overrated" only proves that you are too narrow-minded to accept the fact that you are just a component of the minority that disagrees with the majority.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is the crowning achievement of the fantasy genre. In terms of a conventional fantasy with wizards, magic and mythical creatures, this is as good as a fantasy film can get! Since 2003 this film has been my favourite of all time. In the number of years since the first time I saw it, I have never seen a film that can top the quality and escapism of this masterpiece. All three Lord of the Rings films score top marks from me, which is a rarity when it comes to a trilogy or series. All three films are truly an unfathomably excellent work of art. J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy that was preserved on pages is now preserved on film for the audiences of the contemporary age. The Return of the King is one of the most finely tuned and cinematically perfect films ever made. Winner of 11 Oscars including Best Picture 2003, Best Director, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Score among others. Also available in an extended edition that adds 50 minutes to the experience.

In the common tongue it reads "One Ring to Rule Them All. One Ring to Find Them. One Ring to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them."

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring marks the first ambitious film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's highly praised and acclaimed series of fantasy novels. Naturally, transferring one of the world's greatest fantasy novels to the screen would subsist as a daunting undertaking. For the die-hard fans of Tolkien's legendary novels, uncertainty was always an issue when small-time New Zealand born director Peter Jackson took the reigns. Although Jackson is an accomplished director who had previously helmed such films as Heavenly Creatures and Bad Taste, no-one knew for sure if the Kiwi was up to the task. The results are absolutely outstanding: a ripping yarn of a fantasy film rich in extraordinary production values, astounding special effects and never a dull moment.

The hordes of Tolkien fans must have breathed a collective sigh of relief when Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring thundered across cinemas worldwide and became an instant hit. The film grossed millions of dollars globally and was being met with cavalcades of acclaim including mountains of positive reviews. What's more - the film also scored 13 Oscar nominations and subsequently walked away with 4 wins. Although previous stabs at adapting Tolkien's novels to the big screen yielded embarrassing results, Jackson's prior experience and familiarity with the fantasy genre translated into a respectful, lavish, gorgeously-mounted production that breathed fresh cinematic life into Middle Earth.

This first instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy introduces the characters and establishes the story. An ancient ring of power was forged several centuries ago by the Dark Lord Sauron (Baker). Sauron's master ring, known as the One Ring, was filled with Sauron's sinister power and contains the capability to rule all peoples of Middle Earth. After an impressive opening montage that recaps the integral events of Middle Earth that have occurred thousands of years ago, the story then picks up at Hobbiton: a village that is largely inhabited by the Hobbit race.

After being lost for centuries, Sauron's One Ring is picked up by a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Holm). Fast forward a few decades and it's Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday. As the celebrations rage on, Bilbo should be happy but feels empty as his life is seemingly winding down and there are still a lot of things he wants to do before shuffling off. Bilbo departs Hobbiton, leaving the One Ring to be inherited by his nephew Frodo Baggins (Wood). Frodo soon learns that this ring is Sauron's master ring, and it must be immediately destroyed. Now Frodo must embark on a journey to the fires of Mount Doom. Only in the flames of that mountain can the ring be destroyed. If he fails and a resurrected Sauron reclaims the ring, he will bind the other 9 subservient rings to his will and cast a pall over the lands of Middle Earth.

The film's subtitle, The Fellowship of the Ring, is drawn from the milestone in Frodo's journey to Mount Doom that occurs: Frodo collects a band of companions who swear to aid in the quest and protect Frodo at all costs.

The film's easy-going first hour quickly transforms into a heart-stopping, exciting, powerful and violent saga that is truly difficult to find boring. Although audience reactions were mixed and many complained about the film's length, I frankly cannot imagine myself being bored.

To say that I loved this film is a gross understatement. Not only is Tolkien's novel one of the greatest books ever published, but Jackson's film adaptation now confidently places itself amongst the greatest movies of all time. This first instalment in Jackson's trilogy is a labour of love - he and his team were determined and worked endlessly to accomplish the best possible product. Jackson's first LOTR film is visually astounding, as well being outstanding in terms of audio and atmosphere.

While so many battles were created using computer technology, this is the blueprint of "epic". Over the years we've seen "big" films like Titanic and Braveheart, but this film simply dwarfs most movies in terms of sheer production size. Every facet of the movie has been done to perfection - every chair, every sword, every location. Why has it taken so many decades to finally get this ambitious project off the ground? Simply because the sheer scope and size of the production would cost far too much. Even in the age of advanced digital technology and big-budget epics, it took countless years to finish. It's refreshing to see so much determination to reach perfection. The descriptions of everything in Tolkien's novel are brilliantly matched by the ideal creative team.

Pale imitations like Harry Potter are a regularity. In the years succeeding this film's release the world was exposed to failed fantasy epics like Eragon, just to name one. The brilliance of Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy will always remain unmatched. To quote a music reviewer, this film is the "blueprint for a trillion inferior facsimiles." With the aid of contemporary filmmaking technology and the diverse New Zealand landscape, the visual result is simply impossible to match.

Special recognition must go to Howard Shore for composing the music that won an Oscar! I own the soundtrack CD and can't get enough of the music. It's exciting, intense, grand, passionate and even heart-breaking at times. This is the cherry on top.

The film is astronomically elevated by the marvellous cast. Elijah Wood makes an exceptional Frodo Baggins. This is an emotionally challenging role for the youthful actor, and nevertheless he nails it perfectly. Sean Astin plays the exigent role of Samwise Gamgee. The role called for an endless assortment of diverse emotions that Astin strikes faultlessly. Ian McKellen is utterly flawless as Gandalf the Grey. McKellen was acknowledged with an Oscar nomination for playing Gandalf with equal parts of underhanded humour and shrewdness. McKellen IS Gandalf and there is no doubt about that. Viggo Mortenson convincingly pulls off the dashing Aragorn: a ranger who becomes determined to help Frodo. Credit must also go to Sean Bean. I am a great admirer of Bean, and must mention his outstanding performance. His versatility is tested with this challenging role: like many other additions to the cast, a collection of emotions are pivotal. Bean passionately pulls off the role of Boromir.

I'm not even halfway through mentioning the cast! Orlando Bloom got his big break playing the loyal elf Legolas. This is the single role that Bloom was meant to play. The character is flat and emotionless...and this describes the nature of every single Orlando Bloom performance. John Rhys-Davis is sublime as the dwarf Gimli. This is one of the veteran actors included in the cast. I couldn't imagine anyone better suited. Finally there are great portrayals from Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan as two Hobbit companions, in addition to sublime elf portrayals from such actors as Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler. The cast is truly a wonder to behold!

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring will forever be one of my absolute favourite movies! I still recall the first time I saw this movie: it was Boxing Day 2001 and my favourite uncle dragged me along to the cinema with my brother and cousin. We had booked tickets in advance and it's a good thing we did as there was a sign outside that strictly read "LOTR sold out!" Ever since that first screening I viewed, I subsequently saw it many more times at the cinema (about 5 more times, actually) as well as watching it at marathons and in the comfort of my own bedroom where I can watch the DVD.

Peter Jackson and his creative team have achieved a cinematic marvel! Even with characters and segments of the book being removed, this will remain the definitive cinematic vision of Tolkien's novel for many decades to come. One of the most anticipated cinematic events in history has finally transpired and in my opinion it is completely worth the wait! Some will love it, some will hate it: I will always be part of the former. Critics and audiences alike will always praise this film, and who's to quibble? It's a fine movie! Winner of 4 Oscars. Later released in an extended version.

It's Hebrew, it's from the Talmud. It says, "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."

Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List is a challenging film to review. The incentive behind this is not because it's a bad movie...but that it's such a powerful experience to exhibit and it's virtually unfeasible to illustrate its power by employing words. In a sense, Spielberg's Schindler's List is something much more than a movie: this is a phenomenon!

When it was announced that director Spielberg was taking the reigns, this declaration encountered nothing but abject incredulity. Beforehand the director had only helmed mainstream blockbusters and films exhibiting bright exuberance like Jaws, Always, The Sugarland Express, Raiders of the Lost Ark and several others. Questions and uncertainties began to surface concerning the director's aptitude and capability to tackle a project of such enormity. There comes an occasion in the career of a director when they step away from the genre in which they take an interest, instead attempting something new. Certain directors have failed, some have prevailed. When Schindler's List was set for release, audiences sharpened their knives due to their qualms regarding the director. But make the film Spielberg did, and the world came to watch.

Spielberg achieved his goal beyond all initial comprehension...this was a step upwards for the director and a significant milestone in contemporary cinema. For the film's three hours duration audiences sat under an overwhelming collective spell - horrified, beleaguered, fascinated, inspired. As movie-goers stumbled, erratically blinking, from the theatres of the world, moist-eyed and moved, it became clear that a new era of filmmaking had commenced. Spielberg traded in his stereotyped career in the year 1993 with an astonishing double-whammy - he envisioned an unparalleled Holocaust template with Schindler's List, as well as resurrecting the dinosaurs with his astounding vision in Jurassic Park. By 1994 Spielberg was presiding over the most lucrative motion pictures of all time, and finally he received his cherished Oscar.

The subject matter is correctly a delicate topic. After all, it was only a number of decades ago that Adolf Hitler instigated a policy that necessitated the annihilation of Jews. Personally, I have studied the Holocaust in detail and am knowledgeable in the intricate, heart-wrenching niceties regarding the events leading up to mass murder. On a daily basis throughout the Holocaust, thousands of Jews were executed in sadistic ways - people were cooked alive, some shot, even some were exposed to poison gas. The disturbing factor is that the Nazis never felt an iota of sympathy due to the attitudes they were so severely lead to believe.

The focus of Schindler's List is not to portray the horrors that unfolded in extermination camps at all. Spielberg keeps the focus purely on the more minor events, and above all the viewpoint from a select few characters. The heavy nature in its depiction of executions challenges out notion of tolerance. We are challenged not only by the staggering acts of cruelty we see, but by the equally confounding acts of kindness. As we observe these ghastly proceedings unfold, we are strained to identify those virtues within ourselves that are equally light and dark. Schindler's List is not a film that we can impassively scrutinize. We are propelled into the dismay and the panic...the indignity, the brutality. As the title would suggest, this film is mainly the story of one man: Oskar Schindler (Neeson). Schindler is a Czech of German ethnicity who travels to Poland with the intention of becoming a war profiteer. He employs assistance from Jewish investors in order to buy his own pots-and-pans factory. At the outset, Schindler uses forced Jewish labour because it was inexpensive compared to hiring Polish workers. However, Schindler witnesses as World War II and the Holocaust develops with devastating results. These events are too overwhelming to fathom, and Schindler begins experiencing a slow, subtle moral awakening. His poignant story of bravery and generosity launches when Schindler cons the Nazis as he places more than a thousand Jews under his protection. By the conclusion of World War II, Schindler had exhausted his whole war-generated wealth to guarantee that his Jews would never again be touched by the Nazis.

On a more subtle, thematic level the screenwriter portrays a battle for Schindler's soul between camp commandant Amon Goeth (Fiennes) and Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern (Kingsley). Schindler's story is a staggering one. In a cacophony of death clouding his existence, one man managed to save roughly 1,100 Jewish lives using charisma, bluster, and trickery. The Holocaust has been previously described as a mechanical insanity because of the enormity of people who followed the philosophies: they are like cogs in a machine. It took a single person...a single machine cog with alternative ideas and an ethically problematic lifestyle (Schindler treasured alcohol and womanising) to mislead the Nazis (who regarded him as their frivolous comrade).

At the centre of the film we have a simply sublime group of actors. Liam Neeson nails the character of Oskar Schindler in a satisfyingly brilliant performance. Neeson perfectly displays Schindler's quiet method of expressing his morals. His outward show suggests he is a close buddy of the Nazis, but on the inside he's resentful and anguished towards the brutal, arbitrary termination of Jewish lives. Neeson was nominated for an Oscar. Ralph Fiennes was also nominated for an Oscar. His performance is utterly terrifying: he's intimidating and unnerving whenever he steps into the frame. His sheer established cruelty and viciousness will be enough to leave you in complete shock. This actor is focused as he portrays a character that appears to be soft-spoken when in fact his intentions are cruel and inhuman.

The meticulous screenplay was penned by Steven Zallian, and was based on the source material by Australian writer Thomas Keneally. Interestingly, Keneally was an accomplished author when he strolled into a luggage shop and immediately struck up a conversation with the shop owner. Said shop owner was one Leopald Page, formerly Poldek Pfefferberg: a Schindlerjuden. During their friendly conversation, Pfefferberg conveyed to Keneally the story of Oskar Schindler: the German industrialist who had saved him and 1,100 others from certain death in occupied Poland during the 1940s. Schindler was a Nazi who had not stood back. Keneally was so inspired and moved that he transformed this story into the Booker Prize winning novel Schindler's Ark. The rights were soon purchased by Universal boss Sid Sheinberg, and the transformation from book to movie was soon initiated. When Spielberg was involved in the project he originally offered the film to director Roman Polanski, but his own experiences in Polish ghettos were too tender for him to accept the director's chair. Thus Spielberg, who was at the time ensconced in post-production work for Jurassic Park, decided to tackle the directing duties himself. The director flew to Poland and began his masterwork for which he accepted no salary, saying that it would be akin to taking "blood money."

Spielberg worked intimately with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, and the project was lensed using stylish grainy black and white photography techniques. The film was undertaken without any storyboarding: Spielberg planned each shot instinctively as the cameras were about to roll, where all of his God-given skills as an accomplished director were distilled into something intuitional and turbulently expressive. The cinematography techniques created a realistic atmosphere of almost documentary footage: he utilised jarring hand-held filmmaking to portray the intense confusion for the Jews during times of complete chaos. Spielberg evokes these creative techniques to create the illusion of complete immersion: for the 190 minutes that make up this film's duration, you will feel transported to an entirely different world...you will feel engrossed in the occurrences. The music by none other than John Williams (Spielberg's trademark composer), is a poignant composition that adds to the atmosphere. But it's not the music that ultimately helps the audience get involved: it's the visuals. One scene was played to very little music; however it always makes me cry. The scene in question is when we watch as corpses are transported past Oskar Schindler to be dumped into the ground without an iota of sentimentality towards any of the victims. No matter how manly you consider yourself, your eyes will be moist.

Spielberg does not want his audience to endure a fun romp that you'll want to immediately watch again...he instead tells his story straight and with the utmost sincerity. World War II films cannot come more personal than the masterpiece that is Schindler's List. The reviews were exultant and the Oscar committee rewarded the film with twelve nominations. Although Spielberg did receive some criticism in relation to several aspects of the film, such judgements are hard to swallow after watching this film. While some slam the director for not including the prejudice towards the handicapped and the homosexuals that were also prosecuted, or that the focus was shifted away from the concentration camps...quite simply it does not matter at all. This is the story that Poldek Pfefferberg wanted told: a story that intimately examines one man and his struggle to come to terms with his morals during an internationally horrific event. This was never meant to be the definitive Holocaust film and hence doesn't need to concentrate on all aspects...this is a personal movie based on a personal experience.

After trying with such dedication since the commencement of his career, Steven Spielberg has finally achieved a mature production with Schindler's List. An extraordinary work by any standard: this intense historical and biographical drama, about an amazing Nazi industrialist, evinces an artistic intransigence and unsentimental intellect disparate from anything the world's most successful filmmaker had previously demonstrated. Infused with a brilliant screenplay, outstandingly sinuous cinematic techniques, three astonishing lead performances and an approach toward the traumatic subject matter that is both passionately felt and impressively restrained, this is the film to win over the Spielberg skeptics.

Even now, all these years after its cinematic release, Schindler's List remains an expressive, heartbreaking and remarkable slice of filmmaking that transcends all obstacles of theatrical disbelief. The film successfully draws us personally into the dark hearts of a dark age, and then liberates us with the few beams of light produced by the actions of the righteous few. The harrowing detail and poignancy of this production will enthral audiences for generations of movie-goers to follow. After you finish watching this movie you will have the words of Schindlerjuden profoundly present in your heart - "That it may never happen again." Winner of 7 Oscars including Best Picture 1993, Best Director (for Steven Spielberg), Best Cinematography (for Janusz Kaminski), Best Music (for John Williams), Best Film Editing (for Michael Kahn), Best Writing based on other material (for Steven Zallian) and Best Art Direction/Set Direction (for Allan Starski and Ewa Braun).

This film is definitely without doubt Hitchcock's best film! And I say this after having Psycho in my top 10 for years, and thinking that was his best film! Hitchcock is nothing less than the greatest moviemaker that ever lived, and has never - nor will ever - be beaten. Rear Window is so innovative, captivating, clever and extremely intelligent. The acting is brilliant and the directing is next to unbeatable. James Stewart here plays a photographer named Jefferies who's confined to a wheelchair after breaking his leg, and has nothing to do but watch his neighbours from the window of his New York apartment. He believes he's witnessed a murder, but the police do not believe him. As evidence keeps pouring in, Jefferies further concretes his investigation with the help of his girlfriend and nurse. The film is so suspenseful that I literally could not pull my eyes away from the screen. Hitchcock will always remain the master of suspense. But what I though was most unique about this film is we never leave the apartment. The entire film we are confined in this small space, and that really works! This is a classic murder mystery not to be missed. I highly recommend you take the time to watch this film! One of the greatest films of all time!

"There was a barber and his wife...and she was beautiful..."

Tim Burton is unquestionably one of my favourite directors, if not my absolute favourite director. It's a fact that no matter what the film or the subject matter, I will view a film helmed by Tim Burton (at the time of writing this review, I have seen all of Burton's work and own all his films). The partnership of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp will forever be a movie occasion to treasure, be it Ed Wood or Edward Scissorhands among an enormous number of others. It was the end of 2006 when Dreamworks fast-tracked Burton's latest collaboration with Johnny Depp...and I initially discovered Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. The plan was to transform the lucrative Broadway musical into the world of live action cinema. The best part is that Burton promised a full-on musical to maintain a sense of fidelity to Steven Sondheim's brilliant Broadway production. Before the announcement of Burton's cinematic version of the musical, I hadn't possessed any prior knowledge of the source material. I had no idea what the film was about until my interest suddenly flared and research followed.

If you're familiar with the Broadway musical, you'll be aware of the dark humour and gothic style that is such a prominent feature. Sweeney Todd is a story intended for Tim Burton. The director possesses a distinctive superiority when it comes to the macabre and gothic tones. With the completion of creepy period films such as the wondrous Sleepy Hollow, director Burton demonstrated a special ability to deliver dark humour and elegant visuals. Burton is a director who can bring flawed and unusual characters to life. He is the master of darkness and has adapted a penchant for tossing a little blood around his sets in an exaggerated, albeit entertaining manner. Since the beginning of his career, stunning gothic visuals and extravagant production design has been his forte. Sweeney Todd is a film regarding a central character who is a sorrowful, vengeful and formerly caring individual. This character finds redemption for crimes against him and his family by slashing the throats of the innocents of London while hoping to one day slash the throat of the man who stole his wife and daughter from him. What better plot and central character could possibly be better suited for Tim Burton to bring to life?

2007 was a year that beared the release of several great films, but the year also saw its fair share of bad films (in my opinion, there were more bad films than good films throughout the year). Tim Burton's cinematic vision of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a masterpiece of epic proportions, and ultimately ended up being the best film of 2007 without question or debate. After mentioning so much about Burton's brilliant work, I must admit I was a little worried because Burton's last movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, was disappointing to say the least. With this film, however, Burton patches up the scars. Like I previously mentioned, I didn't know much about the source material before walking into the cinema and had no idea that this film was going to be so good. Within the first few seconds of the titles commencing, I was completely enthralled in Burton's universe.

The film is so poetic, stylish, beautiful and so incredibly emotional at times as well. Every shot has been conceived beautifully, and every line delivered remarkably. This is a musical of course, so naturally the songs being interesting is a vitality. All the songs are utterly stunning and are crafted beautifully. Combine the witty lyrics of Steven Sondheim with the musical stylings of a successful Hollywood composer...suddenly things are looking interesting. The songs are both memorable and remarkable. I purchased the soundtrack CD immediately and now it's my default channel.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is the story of a man named Benjamin Barker (Depp) who once had everything; a wife, a child and a successful career as a barber. For Barker, life could not be better. But a false conviction of a crime he did not commit destroys his happiness and his life, causing him to suffer through a massive, heart-breaking emotional trauma. Upon Barker's London homecoming by boat 15 years later to right the wrongs against him, he comes home to nothing. His family has been ripped apart. He forms an unlikely partnership with Mrs. Lovett (Carter), a creepy old woman who owns a pie shop. Benjamin Barker, who now goes by the name of Sweeney Todd, wants revenge on crooked Judge Turpin (Rickman) who convicted him out of sheer jealously. Sweeney re-opens a barber shop on Fleet Street, with the intention of getting sweet revenge on Turpin if he comes in for a shave. Sweeney uses his sharp silver blades to slash the throats of the innocent London public that come in for a shave, before destroying the evidence of his crimes by allowing the troubled Mrs. Lovett to cook the human corpses into her pies.

From start to finish, I was completely hooked. I literally couldn't tear my eyes away from the screen. Its combination of a superb cast, excellent music, exquisite production design and gorgeous cinematography creates a flawless movie. I remember goose-bumps literally covering my body as soon as the music commenced at the start of the opening credits...the outstanding organ music that successfully creates the desired atmosphere and tone for what is about to come.

Burton's unique colour scheme depicts the grimy streets of London with extremely drained colour that predominantly makes use of grey a black among other dark colours. The sky is always dark, with never a ray of bright sunshine poking through. This is the depressing, gothic mood that the director aimed to achieve. During the flashbacks that depict the events of the past, the colour scheme has been changed to show an array of bright colours as the sun lights the cheery streets. This symbolises Barker's emotions, so to speak. When Barker is happy with his life the colours are bright and joyous. Then when he returns to London and the life he once lived has been destroyed...his depression is reflected in the gloomy visuals.

Johnny Depp, playing the demon barber, is absolutely remarkable. Before this film Depp had never displayed his singing abilities on film. Before he was an actor he played guitar in a band with never an attempt to handle any vocals. If it weren't for his close friend Tim Burton asking him to consider a singing role, he would have gone through his whole career without singing a note. Thankfully, Depp's former career in the music industry allowed him to sing a brilliant tune. Before the film's release, Depp singing was a big question mark. As the film was not marketed as a musical from the previews, we were therefore never given the opportunity to witness the actor handling a song. When I first viewed the film in the cinema (on opening day) I sat in complete awe at the beauty of Johnny Depp's breathtaking singing. The actor was recognised with a Golden Globe win and an Oscar nomination for Best Actor (I still believe he wholly deserved to win). Helena Bonham Carter was the only member of the cast I was reluctant about, but my fears were soon alleviated by her stunning acting skills. She is able to carry on a brilliant duet with co-star Depp. Her singing is amazing. Alan Rickman is brilliant here, as are the rest of the supporting cast. This includes Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen (whose singing is quite incredible), Jamie Campbell Bower, Laura Michelle Kelly, Jayne Wisener and Ed Sanders. Every member of the cast can sing to perfection.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a brilliant mix of dark humour, horror, romance, drama and tragedy. The ending is very sad, but very poetic at the same time. As the credits start to roll (with every screening I watch) I am a complete mess. Usually tears are escaping my eyes...I'm left speechless and stunned. The film is very violent, and when the exaggerated bloodshed begins it is very relentless and there is no stopping it. With Burton's direction the violence is very stylish and extraordinarily beautiful. Of course Burton's direction is the icing on the cake here. The man is a visionary and a wizard of filmmaking. His films are simply close to unbeatable. I am not a fan of the musical genre (interestingly enough, neither is Burton); however a musical of this superiority is a rare event. With each new screening I am always captivated.

Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a modern masterpiece. It's an acquired taste and will not be liked by all of course, so you're welcome to disagree. Every aspect of the filmmaking is absolutely stunning. Without argument or question, this is the best movie of 2007. Since first watching this film, I cannot prevent myself from indulging in repeated screenings. To date, this is Burton's finest hour. Winner of 2 Golden Globes including Best Picture (Comedy or Musical) and Best Actor (for Johnny Depp).

"All our hopes now lie with two little hobbits, somewhere in the wilderness."

I still remember leaving the cinema subsequent to the first session I saw of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Little did I know that the screening I attended would cause a never-ending obsession with the epic trilogy. Instantly I was completely hooked, and the cliff-hanger at the end of the first film made my anticipation even higher for the second. Alas, 12 months later Peter Jackson and his talented creative team reeled out the second instalment for which I waited with baited breath. Just like the first film, I remember booking tickets in advance and heading to a screening on Boxing Day of 2002: exactly one year since I initially saw the first film. Just like its predecessor, I absolutely loved The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

The reception from critics and audiences was a mixed bag. Be that as it may, I will always adore all three additions in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like its predecessor the film flaunts visceral filmmaking: astounding special effects, mind-blowing cinematography, amazing locations and incredible production values! Where the first LOTR film was essentially a road story of epic proportions, The Two Towers is a rich, heroic epic containing powerful and moving themes of friendship and courage in times of peril. With so many powerful underlying messages, the film also moves at a brisk pace with testosterone and intensity during the action scenes.

Like the first film, The Two Towers was acknowledged worldwide with critical acclaim and recognition from the Oscar committee. This film scored a mere 6 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture), ultimately walking away with two wins. In addition to this, award ceremonies globally recognised the film with several awards. There can be no disagreeances on this front: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is an exceptional movie that even dwarfs the original film with its increasingly expanded definition of the word "epic".

This second instalment in Peter Jackson's epic trilogy continues the story where it concluded at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring: basically, the fellowship is broken with groups of characters being separated from each other. The film does not open with any flashbacks or lines of narration: there is no help to assist first-time viewers to find their footing. Instead we're thrown straight into the action. If someone was to edit the first two films together (erasing the opening titles, of course) the transition would be fundamentally seamless.

Anyway, the original nine members of the fellowship have been broken apart. Frodo Baggins (Wood) is now travelling to Mordor with companion Samwise Gamgee (Astin). The camaraderie of the two is what keeps the flame of their spirit and determination burning. However they strike a hindrance when they discover that they are hopelessly lost. A ray of hope begins to shine as the tragic creature Gollum (a digital character played by Andy Serkis) is visibly following them. Gollum was once a Hobbit named Sméagol...who became a deformed creature because of the effect of the ring he now refers to as his "precious". Gollum is the ultimate expression of the One Ring's corrupting and draining influence, and serves as a reminder of the urgency of Frodo's mission while guiding him towards the boundaries of Mordor. Upon capturing Gollum, Frodo and Sam convince the troubled creature to act as a guide to help them navigate the difficult lands through which they are crossing. In an alternative storyline (that is vitally linked and occurring simultaneously) we find Aragorn (Mortensen), Legolas (Bloom) and Gimli (Rhys-Davis) who are tracking the Uruk-Hai warriors that kidnapped Merry (Monaghan) and Pippin (Boyd). Their pursuit of the Uruk-Hai brings them to the land of Rohan that is under threat. King Théoden (Hill) has too long been under the treacherous influence of his advisor Grima Wormtongue (Dourif). With the land of Rohan under threat of imminent attack, the inhabitants are advised to leave immediately and flee to the stronghold of Helm's Deep. Meanwhile, Saruman (Lee) is raising an army of several thousand Uruk-Hai warriors to advance on Helm's Deep. In the neighbouring forest of Fangorn, Merry and Pippin are under the very safe guard of the Ents. These Ents are creatures that are essentially walking trees. On the eve of the fight for Middle Earth, the Ents are reluctant to get involved. Most of their story is concerned with their decision-making process and subsequent battle.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is a truly spectacular second part of an excellent trilogy. This film is darker, more focused, more deeply emotional and overall more exciting than its predecessor! Identical to the first film, The Two Towers is filmed against the magnificent scenery of New Zealand that is marvellously showcased as Middle Earth. This film is simply a visual enchantment. Even after repeated screenings you will still be trying to grasp the attention to detail in every single shot.

The special effects work is nothing short of mind-blowing! There's a spectacular assortment of technical wizardry on exhibition here, highlighted by the amazing CGI creation of Gollum. The character was created in a computer, using actor Serkis as a model for which to animate his mannerisms. Every piece of Gollum has been inserted by computer, and yet it's almost impossible to point out any flaws in the CGI. Shadow detail, skin texture...everything has been brilliantly detailed by the ideal creative team! Even though Gollum is a computer creation we can experience his emotions with a great deal of potency. His story is tragic and enough to make you cry. His mannerisms and voice by Andy Serkis is just the icing on the cake. There are certainly multiple facets to explore with this character, especially with dual personalities buzzing around in the mind of Gollum. This is all shown extremely well. I can't compliment the filmmakers enough!

Of course, The Two Towers features an outstanding cast. In my review of the first film I mention most of the cast in-depth. I will prominently mention the new members of the cast this time. Bernard Hill is an exceptional character portrayal of King Théoden. At first the king is weak and dying...then he becomes rejuvenated and younger. Hill plays both of these character personalities to perfection. I simply cannot imagine anyone but Hill pulling off this role. Miranda Otto is stunning and idyllic as Éowyn: a confident and feisty woman (also very beautiful) who spends most of the movie proving her worth in combat. Many of these bonding scenes with co-star Viggo Mortensen are very compelling, and their chemistry sizzles. Karl Urban's best role is on display here as he portrays the soldier Éomer. His lines are never contrived and he looks the part. David Wenham is yet another commendable addition to the cast as Gondorian ranger Faramir. During combat his lines are delivered with great intensity. Wenham never strikes a false note. There's also a powerhouse performance by Christopher Lee as the powerful white wizard, and a sadistic-looking Brad Dourif as the deformed Wormtongue. John Rhys-Davis also voiced Treebeard the Ent who is fittingly introduced in this second instalment.

Overall, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is every bit as stunning as its forerunner. With a gorgeous, motivating score from Howard Shore (that establishes a number of trademark themes for characters, locations, etc), exquisitely dazzling visuals, a solid script and plenty of testosterone this is indeed a film for the history books. The Fellowship of the Ring was a hard act to follow, but Jackson and his superlative creative team pull off a film that suitably matches its predecessor in terms of visuals, heart and intensity. This film created further reason for my never-ending obsession with the trilogy. I have so far attended 2 marathons, and I viewed The Two Towers singularly in the cinema on multiple occasions. It's a grand achievement of contemporary filmmaking...a cinematic rush of blood to the head that exhilarates, astounds and enchants; leaving you hungry for more.

The Two Towers continues Tolkein's trilogy in grandiose style, casting a spell that is impossible to resist. The Battle of Helm's Deep is possibly the greatest battle scene in cinematic history. Winner of 2 Oscars. Later released in an extended edition.