wola

by Sam

Now you wouldn't believe me if I told you, but I could run like the wind blows. From that day on, if I was ever going somewhere, I was running!


Directed by: Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Tom Hanks, Robin Wright-Penn, Gary Sinise, Mykelti Williamson, Sally Field

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance

Running time: 142 minutes




My review:

Forrest Gump, while not intelligent, has accidentally been present at many historic moments, but his true love, Jenny, eludes him.


Forrest Gump is without a doubt the most inspiring film that I have ever seen. It almost broke my heart because of what happens within it. It is a film that I think everybody loves in either the funny way, dramatic way or romantic way but I love it all three ways. I find it to be a story of hope, courage and pure adventure because Forrest sees life in all sorts of different ways because of the events that occur in his life. This is an inpriation to me aswell bercause of the different sorts of characters and how they combine together in their own little ways. I find it to be a very thought provoking film because of the measures each other character takes. It makes me feel good because all of the characters within the film are just adorable and loving. I really love adventurous stories and Forrests life was an awesome experiencing life that was very eventful. Now that is the life. I do think that Forrests life is something that everybody would probably wish for because of the beautiful moments in his life and yet some of very light downs in his life at the same time. I do have to say that this film can almost be a film for the entire family but without the war violence and the extremely emotional story but it would be a good family film because of the loving Forrest Gump character and his adventures in his life until he meets the ultimate gift later on which literally made me cry and made me feel great because that is a moment of how I would feel. Forrest Gump is one of my Five Perfect Films.

Tom Hanks delivers in my personal opinion the best leading male performance of all time because I could see everything that Tom was meant to be in this film. This film along with The Green Mile, Tom Hanks is the most inspiring actor that has ever lived and is my favourite actor. Tom isnt only playing Forrest Gump but he IS Forrest Gump and its as simple as that. Tom showed that Forrest has a really big heart and a real open mind but is quite stubborn in his own way. Toms performance is really awesome too because Tom isnt like Forrest Gump at all in real life. He made Forrest like a real life person which is what not many talented actors actually accomplish in their careers. Tom made me feel great because he is really good at being able to cry in a film and because of that he made me cry because of his inspiring ways of portraying the character. Tom is really good at playing that romantic type too. After seeing him in Sleepless In Seattle, he is a really good romantic actor. I havent seen that yet but will see it very soon. Anyway, Tom has shown more emotion than he has ever done in any film he has ever been in before. That is one of the main reasons why I find Toms performance so great. He makes Forrest Gump a character that I would have liked to meet because he seems like a really sweet and warmhearted man. Robin Wright-Penns performance is really good as Jenny Curran. She is a really gorgeous woman but has a bad troubled childhood and also because of her complete drug addiction and prostitution. Because of this, it affects her life deeply but Forrest is there to help her when she comes to him. I could feel the love between Jenny and Forrest but also I could see what Jenny has over Forrest like the smarter mind. Gary Sinises performance is really good because he is an arrogant Lieutenant in the Army who loses his legs after being shot in the legs by Vietnamese soldiers. I do find Lieutenant Dan a really funny character aswell as a really emotional character because of the typical bitter and strict character involved. He brings a comedy side to the film when he is scenes with Forrest. Gary Sinise is really good at playing that sort of character with a bitter attitude as he did as George in Of Mice And Men remake. He deserved Oscar nomination aswell as Tom Hanks deserved his win very much. Mykelti Williamson brings comedy with Forrest is this film which is really great again. The comedy never stops and neither does the drama nor romance between any of the characters involved in the film. Mykelti was a typical Alabama man with a passion for shrimping. Sally Field is really supporting in this masterpiece as Mrs. Gump who is the mother of Forrest Gump. It is quite ironic with Sally Field and Tom Hanks because Field is only 10 years older than Hanks and she portrays his mother. He is like old enough in real life to be her younger brother. That was quite bizarre but was an outstanding connection between the two. She should have had an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. She deserves the credit for the female acting in this film more than Robin Wright-Penn even though she was still really good. The Sixth Sense star Haley Joel Osment makes a mild appearance in this film too.

Robert Zemeckis direction was absolutely superb. He didn?t just make a film that can tell the future of ones life but also one that can be seen and loved in different ways. It was a cool film aswell as an inspiring film. This is Zemeckis best work and always will be. The script was really awesome. I havent read the novel but it must be as good as the film surely. It is written in a different mixture of genres.

This film is very similar to films like Rain Man, I Am Sam and Whats Eating Gilbert Grape? because of the character within it with a disability but all are different at the same time because they all have different problems in different situations in different places. But they all do have a meaning to what life can be like in different aspects.

The chemistry between Forrest and Jenny is in Forrests mind love at first sight because he fell for her at the first moment he saw her. In Jennys mind, it was really like friendship to begin with but when she needed Forrest in her desperate times because of her drug addiction and prostitution, she slowly started to fall in love with him. They are still best friends aswell though. Forrest and Dans relationship was unknown at first because they didnt know each other very well but when something happens to Dan, they become almost like best friends and talk to each other about each others problems and help each other. I find it to be the best partnership within the film. Forrest and Bubba almost became best friends since they first met because they were with each other all the time in the Army. Dan sort of takes that place after Bubba dies in the Army.

The art direction was really good in this film with a very casual scenery with a typical American style to it. The cinematography is a lot like that aswell with very cleverly used photography. The make-up is good on this film particularly in the war scenes. The music score was very soft with a lot of emotional music but with quite an upbeat tone to it. The sound effects were outstanding in the war scenes but also in the impactful and twisting scenes that occur in the film. Most of all the qualities, the visual effects are the best. They are mostly best on Lieutenant Dans missing legs even though Gary Sinise has legs in real life. Those visual effects with the missing legs look so realistic, it is untrue.

This film won 6 Academy Awards: Best Leading Actor (Tom Hanks), Best Director (Robert Zemeckis), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects and most importantly Best Picture 1994 by beating two films that are more famous than Forrest Gump. Those two films were Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption. It was nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Gary Sinise) but lost to Martin Landau in Ed Wood, Best Cinematography but lost to Legends Of The Fall, Best Art Direction but lost to The Madness Of King George, Best Sound Mixing but lost to Speed, Best Sound Editing but lost to Speed, Best Make-Up but lost to Ed Wood and Best Music Score but lost to The Lion King. This won 3 Golden Globes including Best Director (Robert Zemeckis), Best Actor Drama (Tom Hanks) and Best Picture Drama. It was nominated for Best Supporting Actor (Gary Sinise) but lost to Martin Landau in Ed Wood, Best Supporting Actress (Robin Wright-Penn) but lost to Dianne Wiest in Bullets Over Broadway, Best Screenplay but lost to Pulp Fiction and Best Music Score but lost to The Lion King.

This is Robert Zemeckis finest work to date. I think it will always be my favourite film from him. It is my favourite film from the 1990s and favourite film of 1994 after that was a great year for film. It is Tom Hanks best film and it always will be. I love him in The Green Mile and Saving Private Ryan too. It is my favourite drama film, my favourite inspiring film and most importantly, its in my top 5 films of all time and one of My Five Perfect Films.

by V

Take a deep breath, you only got one shot, make it count.

Director:Marc Forster

Writers (WGA):Paul Haggis

Genre:Action | Adventure

Starring: Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench, Gemma Arterton




"I think you're so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don't care who you hurt. When you can't tell your friends from your enemies, it's time to go."


THE MOVIE OUTLINE

"Quantum of Solace' continues the high octane adventures of James Bond from 'Casino Royale'. Picking up literally hours after the previous film left off, after being betrayed by Vesper, the woman he loved, 007 fights the urge to make his latest mission personal. Having captured Mr. White, and in pursuing his determination to uncover the truth, Bond and 'M' interrogate Mr. White who reveals the organization which blackmailed Vesper to steal Bond's casino winnings is far more complex and dangerous than anyone had imagined. "

MY APPRAISAL

To begin with, I don't watch too many Bond franchises so don't expect me to compare QOS with the previous Bonds. I've heard loads of comments about how QOS sucks and let me put it this way: I'm no movie critic. I'm just a normal movie goer. According to someone who've only seen Casino Royale and Die Another Day, QOS is a pretty much an entertaining piece of cinema and also a nice time killer. And I disagree with all the thoughts that Alicia Keys and Jack White's Another Way To Die wasn't a suitable theme song, because it certainly is the coolest James Bond soundtrack, equally hot as Chris Cornell's You Know My Name.

Quantum of Solace may not be the ideal Bond movie compared to its former. I also heard that in QOS, Bond lost his originality and even worse, he becomes the clone of Jason Bourne. And I agree on this part. The story seems messed up and dry. QOS also didn't have a ferocious villain and allow me to be frank, Mathieu Amalric looks anything but intellectual.

Despite the fact that QOS sucked at some part, Olgra Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton did nice performances. I was at first surprised when I found out that Olga Kurylenko, the creepy girl I saw in Hitman and Paris Je T'aime is the new Bond Girl. But she damn showed a star quality in her.

Craig. Daniel Craig. Can't get enough of him. Craig has all the charm, charisma, confidence and looks that are needed to play Bond. I wanna see more of him. I have to admit that he probably is the number 1 reason I love QOS. I love his version of Bond better than Pierce Brosnan. I've heard someone say this sadistically on flixster : Daniel Craig works for a production company that don't deserve him. Maybe he was all the reason this 4 stars for. Without him, QOS is just AN ACTION WITH NO SOUL when revenge is a dish best served with a revolver and bullets.





M: "It'd be a pretty cold bastard who didn't want revenge for the death of someone he loved.

James Bond: "I don't think the dead care about vengeance. "

by Alexander

''I don't know about Heaven, but I believe in angels.''

Coming together to solve a series of murders in New York City are a DEA agent whose family was slain as part of a conspiracy and an assassin out to avenge her sister's death. The duo will be hunted by the police, the mob, and a ruthless corporation...

Mark Wahlberg: Max Payne

Let's start of by saying I really loved the Max Payne video games, in their simplistic nature of fast paced shooting accompanied by an interesting concept of Matrix styled Bullet Time shoot outs. Also a hero with so much pain and anguish, so much so he has to take pain killers to numb himself from the experience. So how does the film live up to these expectations everyone asks? Well quite frankly it does not in the slightest match any of the games. The script is appalling, for it's genre there is no action, there is no decent dialogue, there are no similarities to the game for us to latch onto apart from the superficial visual ones we gained from the trailers.

Recalling my mind back to the action sequences in question, I can only recall only two main ones of consequence. Director John Moore succeeds in giving us no wish for any sequels and a comical rendition of Robbie Williams Angels song on the Credits, just to put salt upon the wound.
The Score and music on Max Payne is poor and executed to a point where it is hardly memorable or effective, some scenes being totally void of any music that would emphasis a standard fare of happening to a higher perspective of sorts. Yet no, we are given chaotic alternative loudness of no specific genre that gives the film no soul or resonance that it sorely needs. To say the least what I expected and what I was given on teasers was mysteriously missing from the proceedings.

So Max Payne begins with a segment that is such a rip off, of the Bourne series, its untrue. Underwater and a growling excuse for narration, we are pummeled into boredom before things even begin to take flight. It starts to look up when we have a cool looking 'One Week Later' motto on a building come up, then some cool angles and shots, which happen to tell us the rooms of the Police Station, for us dumb Viewers which we assume the Director assumed. When we see Max Payne in his office, I'm scrambling my brain trying to decipher this filth...I mean how can this BE Max Payne when he resembles nothing of the games magnetism. If the story, plot and action had been the same as the game, there would be no problem. If it had some of the frantic action that drowned the first Max Payne, if it had the flaming romance and passion of Max Payne 2, then we would have a fine film in the bag, but it's worryingly void of all these, even bending the plot out of context. When we see a film that has nothing to keep us glued to the Screen we ask ourselves why? Maybe if the age restriction had been higher then the Makers would have had more reign to do more, but yet, I still doubt it.

Max Payne may look like a variety of different films, but unlike Hitman, Constantine, or Bourne Ultimatum it falls flat on it's face regarding originality and keeping its audiences interested. This film will anger fans of the game and non-fans in equal measure in all likely hood, with it's uneven threaded story that results in a jigsaw thats unfathomable.

The actual cast actually display some of the worst acting I've seen in a fair while. Mark Wahlberg emulates his The Happening choice of film, with this dud to follow.
Mark Wahlberg refused to play Rockstar's Max Payne game before performing in this film, but, in addition, I must assume that neither the director nor the screenwriter ever played this game before either. If there weren't so many shots of the background scenery that tied in with the game (although they were never fully or, in some cases, partially explored, such as the Subway, the absent dream sections, or Police Station or even Ragnarok), I would assume that no one involved in the movie had even seen cut scenes from the game. I would have assumed that they got a one paragraph synopsis on the game, with character names, and just made up their own story that barely connect to the games.

So the first problem with Max Payne is heavy handed and droning attempt to develop a two dimensional character? Why? It's not like Max Payne needs alot of development, he's a dude with a vengeance on, shut up and let it happen. Instead you're walked through all of these really bad scenes filled wit the worst dialogue put to page. It's like watching soft-core blue movies without a nut to bust. That's just the first 20 minutes. The movie continues, but first let me tell you how they open the film, because it really set the bar for the rest of really badness of it all.

We open on a man walking down a hallway towards a door cracked open and light bleeding through it? A baby is crying in the distance. The man moves closer to the door and on that door a big sign reading "Baby" is hung on it. If they're assuming that an audience is that dumb; they didn't just put a big old title on the screen, or put an interpreter up there to point and say ''Baby Come back'' I know it ties with the video game, but this is an adaptation, some changes for the sake of not raping the audience's intelligence have to be made. And, believe me, it doesn't stop there, the film is filled with some of the most heavy handed art direction, really bad sound design and some of the worst editing I've seen since Happening. It's that crud basically.

Later on in the film Max and the Mila Kunis, playing a Russian girl, supposedly to move the plot forward, but ultimately becomes a tragic and unfulfilled, unresolved and disjointed piece.
They stop into a goth tattoo parlor, where they go through a catalogue of tattoos and stop on the reoccurring one they see. They question the proprietor and at the drop of a hat, he pulls out an old book about Norwegian mythology and starts talking about Valkyrie's, the symbol and the significance of the mark/tattoo. This brief wikipedia presentation ends with such a blatant inconsistency with Mark Walberg/Max Payne asking one more question and then the shop proprietor responding with a really big and dumb "Huh?" So in one single turn he goes from Mythology and theology expert into dumb goth guy.

The movie spends so much time building to a conflict, but without any tension, just trivial scene after scene.

There were points in the movie that we were really laughing, but they really weren't supposed to be funny. Dramatic tension was the goal, but the exact opposite occurred. In particular Mila Kunis talking to Max about how much of a dark time bomb he is. The dialogue is all, poorly written that the scene becomes comedic, a piss take.
Beau Bridges(Podge) is also laughably bad.
Other miserable notes? Chris O'Donnell(Robin) is awful.
Nelly Furtado's cameo? Was one of the most laughably bad moments on the screen and the first shot of Ludicrous, was also really funny. Like ludicrously laughable.
It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that Payne tramples the detective genre for clichés that only someone who has never seen a movie before would be surprised by. Someone dies after ripping off another character and thus pinning suspicion on him, another leaves a frantic phone message about meeting up to discuss new details in a cold case and is found murdered in that other guy's home, and it turns out that you can't really trust anyone(obviously). Again, obviously the filmmakers tried to study the works of the detective genre of old, they just didn't bother to do anything new, which means it fails.

Thorne's script is so short on explanations that it barely holds together. The movie throws drugs, hallucinations, a murder mystery, attacking birds, a devil's army, and the cover-up by a pharmaceutical company and for the most part I felt like an ass for even trying to make sense out of anything this silly. The rest of the plot can be seen coming a mile away and the dialogue said is some of the most ridiculous I've heard all year long. A character says of Payne, "He's looking for something even God wants to stay hidden." What will probably disappoint fans, however, is how few scenes of actual action are really in the movie, and how utterly devoid of excitement those few scenes are. Moore is a hack director in every sense of the word, relying on senseless, video-game style shootouts (accompanied by vile mood lighting) that don't thrill as much as glorify the violence. Is there a more overused action shot than turning to slow-motion to present a gun battle? Most of his computer visuals smack of being stolen from Francis Lawrence's far superior "Constantine," except they look messier and far too overdone to really respect. And how many times can we see digitally created snow falling on the city in the dark night? This movie is style over-drive at its worst.

And the actors don't seem to care. They seem to be approaching this movie with all the subtlety and dramatic weight of a porno. Wahlberg walks through the movie with a bored puss on his face, never digs deeper to show the character's tortured soul, and throws out lines like he could really give a crap what he's saying. I don't really blame him either cause I felt the same way. Milla Kunis (That 70's Show) is in the movie for some unexplainable reason, and she puts on her tough face in a performance that can only be described as laughable. Chris "Ludicrous" Bridges seems to be playing a detective in this movie but for the most part he just seems to be playing Chris "Ludicrous" Bridges. Amaury Nolasco (Prison Break) is a charismatic young actor who I wish could string together some decent movie roles, but that string isn't going to start here with his performance in the role of "crazy guy who likes to stare at people and sometimes look down on them from stairwells and rooftops." I have no idea what happened to Chris O'Donnell but he's taken a sharp decline since Batman and Robin. Clooney seems to have surpassed it and made up for it, as has Arnie. And Beau Bridges comes off the best here but that's like saying that a half-eaten hamburger(Podge) in a bag full of soiled nappies, is the best.

What really bothers me about movies like this is that it's all just violence and how best to package the violence in enticing, simple-minded wrapping paper. The villains are a collection of junkies, prostitutes, pimps, killers, and thugs who wallow in the gutter and the hero isn't that much better because all he wants is vengeance and blood. Both shoot their guns with as much care as if they were shooting in a video game. Both savagely beat on other people, sometimes doing it till death. Is there a difference between the two? Are we supposed to care here or just watch the bullets fly? Why is it that a movie featuring characters that are just violent and bloodthirsty can get a PG-13 but a movie that dissects the violence and ideas of vengeance like "Unforgiven" gets an R? It doesn't make sense to me and it sends out the wrong messages. I wish the MPAA would learn that.

Overall, the real problem of this project(and why I was so disgusted by it) lies in the fact that they took a deep, layered and emotional story and made it into a big, dumb, boring action movie. Well, at least to a degree. On one hand, you've got ridiculous Matrix-indulgent action sequences. I realize this was part of the game, but at least in the game they were entertaining. If this had been done years ago, maybe it would've had some sort of impact. As for the other side of the movie, it tries to capture the game's mood-setting film noir storytelling, but ends up one big bore. Few of the important details at all are revealed in the entirety of the film, leaving a sort of Lost effect stagnating the air. But who knows... maybe they intend to save that for the sequel, God help us.
Best thing about this film was that they had the Watch-men Trailer at the start beforehand, which pretty much says it all really.

''There's an army of bodies under this river, people who ran out of time, out of friends. I could feel the dead down there, reaching up to welcome me as one of their own. It was an easy mistake to make.''

by justin

NARRATOR: "I started asking myself, what kind of living room suite defines me as a person"

As I write these first few words of this mammoth review, I feel that no matter what I write I am not going to paint an accurate picture of Fight Club for the unfortunate few who have not seen it. So bear with me and make up your own mind but trust me when I cock tell you that this is a movie that you have to see before you die. No exceptions.

Part of me doesent even want to give away how it pans out, because if your anything like me you would sit down to this expecting a mature kind of "Karate-Kid" that sets up one whole fight to be the resolution of everyones problems and thats just not the case at all. In Fight Club, the fighting means so little, and yet it is the core of everything. It's like the fuel on the fire. The fighting is the heart and soul of what drives this movie, but like any other heart and soul, it is rarely seen, it's just completely overshadowed by the effect it has on it's surroundings.

Edward Nortan's nameless characters is a sad, but accurate commentary on the way far too many of us are living our lives. He's a complete blank canvas. He's bored and he doesent even know it. Brainwashed by society cock into beleiving that paying his bills on time, wearing the right tie to work and watchting sit-coms every night is the greatest goal anyone can acheive in their life. He's a man who "has it all". A nice apartmant with gimmicky furniture, a paying job and a nice steady routine he can get bogged down in until he's so old that the best thing he can hope for is not suffering the embaressment of soiling himself infront of his attractive caretaker nurse. But he doesent know he is bored and miserable, so he develops insomnia, which miraculously leads him to his own self awakening nuzzled in the huge, sweaty man-tit's of a former steroid abuser in a prostate cancer self help group. Still what you expected? So he leapfrogs from help group to help group, deriving his own meaning of existence from having cancer one night and heart disease the next. Having people listen and care unquestioningly is something we would all like isnt it?

It could be argued that if we all lived our lives the way Nortans character does (many do) then people would become mechanisms, and the world a perpetual, useless machine. Enter Tyler Durden. The virus, the bug in the system who could make it all come crashing down. He is handsome, smart, charismatic and capable of doing anything he sets his mind to. Brad Pitt does a fantastic job of portraying this beautifully unconventional individual. His grin looks charming and warm, but all you can see is his malicious intent shining through his teeth.

Fight Club is all about boundaries, and breaking through them. This includes breaking the fourth wall. In one scene, both the narrator and Tyler talk to you as if they are completely aware of the fact that you are sitting there watching them, which is refreshing and a little scary at the same time cock.

The performances of the characters were all round impressive, and they needed to be for this calibre of movie. Each characters is perfectly suited to their role. The wirey, exaushted, drugged out look of Helena Bonham Carter as Marla Singer. The depressed, bored, weedy little suttlebug of Edward Nortan as the Narrator. And the charming yet menacing persona of Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden are personalities that will pop up in your head when you come across certain social situations.

To sum this movie up in one word......PRIMAL. It is very very raw. The violence it quite brutal, the humor is dark and satyrical, and the entire experience presents you with an uncomfortable truth, a radical alternative, and one hell of a twist that will make you blurt out "No way!" regardless of whoever is around. Fight Club is comparable to walking up to a dwarf who prefers to be called 'little person', smacking him in the face and telling him to live with being a midget. It's the harsh truth. But in Fight Club, the truth is established at the beginning, the rest of the movie is a simple, systematic dismantlement of our lives. And I loved every second of it. cock

Justins Best Bit: The final half hour will blow you away. This is stellar, polished, movie brass that many others could never hope to hold a candle to.

by Sam

I don't believe in Heaven. I believe in Pain. I believe in Fear. I believe in Death.


Directed by: John Moore
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Chris O'Donnell, Donal Logue

Genre: Action/Crime/Sci Fi/Thriller

Running time: 100 minutes




My review:

Coming together to solve a series of murders in New York City are a DEA agent whose family was slain as part of a conspiracy and an assassin out to avenge her sister's death. The duo will be hunted by the police, the mob, and a ruthless corporation.


Max Payne is a film that I was predicting to be a bit crap but I wanted to watch it to see what it was like. When I did see it, it didnt surprise nor disappoint me. Also, a good friend of mine told me about it aswell about how bad it was. So, I took her review into consideration when I saw it. I did think that the story of Max Payne in this film didnt really feel like a story in the game. To me, I find the film a bad example of a great game like Max Payne. It is like a rip off of it. I love the Max Payne game but was deeply disappointed with this one. I used to play the game a lot when I was a kid. To be perfectly honest, I wouldnt call this film good and I wouldnt call it awful neither. I was hoping that it was going to be a complete action packed thrill ride but I dont think it was really. The action was really good but wasnt a thrilling film at all really. I find it to be a film that has all bad qualities apart from sound and visual effects.

Mark Wahlberg delivers a really bad performance as Max Payne. I do think that he had that body and facial type for the character but didnt really seem that acting type for the character. I find his performance as Max Payne like Nicolas Cages performance as Johnny Blaze in Ghost Rider. I didnt feel any emotional drama for Max at all. I feel that Max Payne was a different character with Mark Wahlberg when comparing the game to the film. It felt like Max Payne was reborn but into a different person but with the same name. I think that Wahlberg will earn a Razzie nomination or even a win for Worst Actor. For a moment, I thought to myself, if Mark Wahlberg was British and was charming with women he would have been a good James Bond but after watching Max Payne, I guess I was totally wrong. The rest of the cast including Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Chris O'Donnell and Donal Logue were all absolutely appauling too.

I thought the direction was absolutely dreadful too because it seemed to me like the director didnt have a clue what he was doing. I thought to myself after hoping that it would be as original as the game was: Has the director ever seen, played or even heard of the Max Payne game before?. I would consider John Moore for Worst Director Razzie award too. The script was pretty dreadful aswell which didn?t really connect with what the game is like.

This film in my opinion tries to take the reputation of visual effects from Sin City because of the dark colours and yet really colourful colours used in the film too but it failed miserably. The Max Payne character is like a real assassin or a bad cop so to speak but I dont think he felt like a cop at all. This was a lot like a science fiction film because of obviously the bird thing and also because of the stupid blue solution used too.

I couldnt feel any chemistry between any of the characters at all within the film. All I could feell was that Max Payne was getting revenge for his film. I couldnt really feel anything for Max and his involvement with the characters at all.

The setting was really good I have to say with a Sin City or Sweeney Todd like dark colours. The same with the cinematography and costume design. The sound effects were awesome but were a bit booming at times which were a bit over the top. The visual effects were good aswell. This film rips-off a lot of Sin City in my opinion and probably in most peoples opinion.

This film will earn a Razzie nomination for Worst Actor (Mark Wahlberg), Worst Supporting Actress (Mila Kunis), Worst Director (John Moore) and Worst Screenplay but not Worst Picture though.

This is my least favourite Mark Wahlberg film and is one of most disappointing films of 2008 so far. It isnt on list of one of best and one of worst neither. It was a bad film really that could have been better like any film can be. I dont think there will be a sequel to Max Payne and if there will be one, that will be even worse.

by Sam

Osbourne Cox? I thought you might be worried... about the security... of your shit.


Directed by: Joel And Ethan Coen
Starring: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Brad Pitt

Genre: Comedy/Crime

Running time: 96 minutes




My review:

A disk containing the memoirs of a CIA agent ends up in the hands of two unscrupulous gym employees who attempt to sell it.


I find Burn After Reading absolutely hilarious. All of the characters involved are just brilliant. It is a film that is like really original of the genre comedy but in a really dark way which is obviously called a black comedy. Other ones like Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Trainspotting, Fargo and Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb. I find it to be the black comedy of the year so far and is a contender of a few Oscar nominations next February. This film really made me laugh not really because of what the characters were like but what was said by the characters said. Mostly John Malkovich made me laugh because he kept saying "f***, f***, f***, f***" all the time which is obviously rude but is bloody hilarious. I was quite nervous about watching this film at first because my sister watched this film and said it was crap. But I didnt listen to her because she hated WALL-E too saying that was worst even than Cars and I loved WALL-E to bits. So, when I watched Burn After Reading, I told her that it wasnt crap at all and deserves a lot of credit. But the one thing that did disappoint me a bit with this one was that I dont think that it was as well adapted as I had hoped because it was quite confusing and quite complex too.

George Clooneys performance was quite good because Harry is a complete slimeball because of his having an affair with a married Katie Cox. That is what is so good about Clooney at times because he is like an irresistable man in his films by playing a charming and irrestable character. He did make me laugh in some ways because of how much of an arsehole he is and the awkward position he gets himself into when he accidentally does something. Also, the situation where he is seeing two women by cheating on both of them with the other. Basically, two-timing them both. Frances McDormand makes me laugh as an actress not just as some of the characters she portrays. Her performance is really quite bizarre really because she wants to be in a relationship with a man and "get laid". She mostly makes me laugh by the desperate measures she takes by sleeping with any man. Frances does have those sorts of looks to look like a middle aged woman who is wanting a relationship. John Malkovich delivers in my opinion the best performance of the whole film and also one of the best performances of the year. He makes me laugh so much because he swears so much and says some things that he shouldnt really be saying to the people he is talking to. He is a bit of a slimeball aswell as Harry. I am predicting Malkovich for an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor but not a win. Winner for me will obviously be the late Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. Tilda Swinton is really good as Katie Cox because Katie is like a cold character which is like her character Karen Crowder in her recent Oscar winning performance in Michael Clayton. Brad Pitt was in my opinion totally miscast for this film because I dont think he quite got into the character that much but he did have the arrogance look for the character.

The Coens did another good job in this film. They made it a very original film with a big meaning. It is the Coens funniest film since The Big Lebowski. I did really like how they both pulled off a masterpiece No Country For Old Men and they pulled off another awesome follow-up but not a masterpiece. This film was well written by the Coen Brothers because it was really original and really quite masterful which is what the Coens are really like. But No Country For Old Men wasnt really an original story, it was more of a really hard thinking adapting story. Cleverly written scenes especially involving Osbourne Cox.

This film was similar mostly to Fargo because of the black comedy humour used not because of the violence between the two films. But they are both different stories which is like all the Coen films are like. It was different aswell because of the much brighter story. The level of brightness with the story is like The Big Lebowski because of the hilarious comedy in that film but funnier comedy though. This film shows in my opinion that the Coens can recreate black comedies after doing a tense action thriller like No Country For Old Men.

The chemistry between Harry and Katie was obviously love but I was more focused on George Clooneys with Tilda Swinton because I can remember when Tilda Swinton won her Academy Award and said her speech and she said about George Clooney being a total b****** in front of everybody. So that is where I didn?t really like Harry and Katies relationship. I did like the chemistry between Linda and Harry because they are both middle aged people who are both sort of mixed up in their own way which is a way of how characters can join together and form a relationship that changes their personality slightly. I find Lindas relationship with Chad to be like mother and son because she treats him like a little kid even though he does behave like one at times. Also, because of how he appears aswell. I know that they are Chads work clothes but they seem a bit dorky so it might seem a bit like Linda can treat him like a little baby. She sort of uses him to get to people. For example, that call that they both made to Osbourne Cox. That was what she treats him like at times. I liked Katies relationship with Osbourne because it is a really argumentative, disagreeable and bitter relationship which brings even more comedy into the film which is really great. Also, I could tell how unhappy both of them were with each other which is why Katie had the affair with Harry in the first place.

The costumes were really good because they were so original and were just ordinary and casual which is what every day people wear. I liked the cinematography used in this film too.

This film will earn I can guarentee maybe only one Oscar nomination and that will be Best Supporting Actor for John Malkovich but wont win because Heath Ledger will win for The Dark Knight or maybe Best Original Screenplay.

This is my least favourite Coen Brothers film even though I really enjoyed it. Like films like Fargo, The Big Lebowski and especially No Country For Old Men more. This is my favourite George Clooney of the films I have seen so far from him even though I dont really like him at all. Frances McDormand didnt dissapoint me but she is better in her Oscar winning performance in Fargo than in Burn After Reading. Burn After Reading is a film that should be considered as one of the must-see films of 2008.

by Sam

Oh, great... terrific! He decides to keep the zoo open, so you kill him! Brilliant! Well done! Thank you so much, especially for shooting him right between the eyes, so that it doesn't look like an accident. Because the people at Octopus will know that he was coming here to close us down, so there's our motive for murdering him. Stunning! Well, Mr. Brain of Britain, what are we going to tell the police, who are, of course, already on their way here? Another example of the thoroughness of your plan! Go on, I'm all ears.


Directed by: Fred Schepisi and Robert Young
Starring: John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin, Ronnie Corbett

Genre: Comedy

Running time: 93 minutes




My review:

The executive of a homely little English zoo is desperate to keep all the cuddly animals sae when he realises that the owner wants to replace them with fierce creatures.


Fierce Creatures is a really funny film featuring the same cast as A Fish Called Wanda. This film isnt a sequel of that because of the completely different story and characters within it. It was a funny film but wasnt as clever as A Fish Called Wanda. It still has that typical clumsy slapstick comedy involved in the film. It was the original comedy style that made me laugh so much. But the things that were a little disappointing was I dont think the characters were as clever as A Fish Called Wanda. The story seems a bit like a family type. I honestly think that not many people like it is because of the weaker story and not as funny story and trys to rip-off a great film like A Fish Called Wanda.

John Cleese was hilarious again. He looks a lot older now than he does in A Fish Called Wanda. I know there is a 9 year different between the two films but the rest of the cast apart from Cleese don?t look any different as far as looks of age is concerned. Jamie Lee Curtis is once again as hot as anything. She is obviously a different character but she does have that hot irresistable character to it which is where it is quite similar. Jamies hair is really long brown hair in Fierce Creatures but really short brown in A Fish Called Wanda. Kevin Kline is really hilarious again as both Vince and Rod McCain. It is clever because obviously they are both same actor but both look like Kevin Kline even though I know it is. I do think that both characters do seem a bit different from Kevin Kline in a slight way. Michael Palin has a mild appearance in this film which did slightly disappoint me but he was still funny though. Ronnie Corbett is pretty damn funny in it too.

The direction was fair enough from Fred Schepisi and Robert Young in this film. The script was original again what comedies are like really. There were some flaws involved but I did adore the screenplay in A Fish Called Wanda.There were some very long extended scenes involved but that didnt really effect the film because it adapted together really well which really impressed me.

This film was similar to A Fish Called Wanda in a lot of ways particularly cast, type of story but different story on another side because about a zoo in Fierce Creatures but about lawyers, fish, crime and seduction in A Fish Called Wanda. It is similar also because they are both really original with not just the script but also the characters too.

The chemistry between Rollo Lee and Willa Weston is just like Archie Leach and Wanda Gershwitz because of the slow falling in love technique that is used between them but Wanda uses Archie in A Fish Called Wanda. There is a scene where Rollo reminds Willa of the Wanda name that is used in A Fish Called Wanda which was really clever and absolutely awesome. The relationship between Rollo and Vince McCain was really funny because it was like Archie and Ottos in the film before. It is like Rollo is like an enemy to Vince for Willas heart like Archie is to Otto for Wandas heart. I loved the chemistry between Rod McCain and Vince McCain because they are both the same person in real life but are both typical Kevin Kline characters that are both like humourous psychopaths which is what Kline is really good at just like Kline did in his Oscar winning performance in A Fish Called Wanda.

The setting is awesome. I think it was used a real zoo used where it was filmed. If it wasnt, it was awesome setting anyway. It has a beautiful setting that makes this one a bit of a family film. The make-up was really good on Kevin Kline for Rod because it obviously does look like Kline because it is him but it is that sort of make-up that is used on a character which tries to make it not look like the actor that character is portrayed by.

I do have to say that this film was hilarious but I did like A Fish Called Wanda way more though. The acting was awesome again but not as good as A Fish Called Wanda. That beats Fierce Creatures in every single way. It is on the list of one of the best films of 1997. It is an underrated film that should be considered by more people about it being a loving comedy.

by Sam

In that raging nowhere was a lone cabin, and another lone man, Black Larson, an unmitigated, predatory scoundrel.


Directed by: Charles Chaplin
Starring: Charles Chaplin, Mack Swain, Tom Murray, Georgia Hale, Henry Bergman

Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Family/Romance/Western

Running time: 69 minutes




My review:

Prospector - Chaplin - travels to Alaska looking for gold, and also finds the love of his live, Georgina. This is, naturally, interspersed with the usual Chaplin moments.


I loved this film to bits because it is a family pleasure even though it is silent. That is in the original version. On the other hand on the reiss that was released in 1942. Chaplin narrated the film and spoke for the characters even though Chaplin was in it 17 years before he narrated it. That doesn't make it better. It just adds a bit more understanding of what is going on and also a different point of view of how you can feel about it. This film really inspired me because of the really adventurous journey. Despite of how scary it can be it can be the trip of a lifetime and can be really exciting. When I watched the 1992 biography film about the life of Charlie Chaplin, there was a scene about Chaplin's early work and Chaplin (Robert Downey Jr. in film) was watching his work on The Gold Rush but that starred the real Charles Chaplin. That is another reason why I love The Gold Rush. I find it a heartwarming experience that not many people would choose to watch because it is silent and is in the 1920s.

Charles Chaplin's performance is awesome as the Tramp character again. Chaplin always appears the same when he is in films as the Tramp but has different personalities for each film. Chaplin is hilarious again which is who Chaplin really was in the past.

This is a direction from Charles Chaplin that was absolutely great and realistic because of the way it is filmed and also of when it was released aswell. I personally think that this is Chaplin's most hard-working project that he ever did because of the filming characteristics that it has.

This is similar to all of Chaplin's films because of Tramp character and the style of comedy involved. However, it is quite different because Chaplin's Tramp is different in every film he has been involved in. I think that this was the first ultimate family film until others like The Wizard Of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life and Great Expectations straight after it.

The chemistry between Tramp and Georgia is obviously love but almost like love at first sight. It is like the factory worker's relationship in a slight way to the young girl in Modern Times who was Chaplin's third wife.

The upbeat music was very delightful and heartwarming which is very typical Charlie Chaplin.

This film was nominated for 2 Academy Awards: Best Sound, Recording but lost to Yankee Doodle Dandy and best Music, Scoring Of A Dramatic Or Comedy Picture but lost to Now, Voyager.

This is my favourite film of the 1920s of the ones I have seen so far. It is one of my new favourite family films. But The Gold Rush isn't my favourite Chaplin film. Modern Times takes that place at the moment and the place of the greatest silent film of all time.

by Sam

The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is - you DO NOT talk about Fight Club. Third rule of Fight Club, someone yells Stop!, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule, only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule, one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule, no shirt, no shoes. Seventh rule, fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule, if this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.


Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter, Meat Loaf, Zach Grenier

Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller

Running time: 139 minutes




My review:

Fight Club is a total masterful work of art from David Fincher. Fight Club is a film that is just complete kick ass all the way through it. It is one of those films that is very violent even before you watch it because the two words in the title are ways of violence. Fight Club is a new cinematic experience that truly reveals human behaviour not only because of the fighting in Fight Club but also because of the psychological side of humans. It is a film that some people wouldn't like because of the violence but would because of really cool characters and actors involved. I find Fight Club was underestimated at first because it came out but now it is a cult masterpiece with a lot of meaning to it. It is a little overrated but can't help but adore it to bits as I do.

Brad Pitt is awesome in this film as Tyler Durden. He makes me laugh in this film because Tyler can be a total arsehole and a slimy arrogant character but in a humurous way. Tyler is described just the same as Brad Pitt as far as appearances is concerned. He was a very hard leader at Fight Club. Tyler is a very manipulating character because of what he does to the narrator in this film and what he usually likes to do. Edward Norton is really good too. I think he was chosen to be in this film because his character is slightly similar to his character in American History X. Edward told a story in that film as he does in Fight Club in which he is really good at. I find Marla Singer a typical Helena Bonham Carter character because she is a very unusual and mysterious character and also because of Marla's appearance. She is like a really heavy smoker and a mixed up slag. It is really unusual when she attends the testicular cancer obviously because she is a woman. Marla is a sort of character that Helena hasn't ever portrayed before but now feels like she should portray characters like Marla now. Marla's bizzareness is sort of like Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street.

The direction from David Fincher was simply outstanding. I liked it more than Se7en. I loved the instant camera angles that Fincher has in this film particularly the fight scenes. The script was very original which is what most cult films are like as far as screenplay is concerned. It was written to catch the audience's attention and to keep their eyes on it because it is so breathtaking.

As I said, I find Marla Singer quite similar to Mrs. Lovett. Tyler Durden is in my opinion a tie with Jules Winnfield as the coolest charact in cinema history. This is where Fight Club is quite similar to Pulp Fiction.

The chemistry between narrator and Tyler Durden was very manipulating because Tyler was always pushing him into doing awkward and bad things. I really loved narrator's with Marla because they both always have a change of heart with each other. It was quite tense at times because of the relationship between the two.

The sound effects were fantastic because it was so realistic especially with the Fight Club scenes and the fights. The setting was outstanding. It seems like it was set around the 1990s at least. The settings were especially good in the Fight Club cellar and also Tyler's house. It was really poor and crammy but it was really well designed. The make-up impressed me too with the blood that appeared on the men after they were fighting. That was realistic aswell.

This film was nominated for one Academy Award: Best Sound Editing but lost to The Matrix. It should have earned or should have been close to Best Leading Actor (Brad Pitt), Best Director (David Fincher), Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound Mixing and maybe even Best Picture 1999.

This is my favourite film from Fincher so far. It is my favourite film from Brad Pitt and Edward Norton so far but it is my second favourite Helena Bonham Carter film after obviously Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street. Fight Club is my favourite cult film and second favourite film of 1999 after The Green Mile. It is on the list of favourite films without a single doubt. Also, it has the greatest plot twist that I have ever seen and in my opinion, the biggest twist of all time. Masterpiece!!!!!

by justin

BUTTERS: "How am I ser'posed to git home?"
MAYOR: "Oh, well, all you need to do is click your heels together three times" BUTTERS: "Wow, really?"
MAYOR: "No you f*cking dipshit! that was a joke!"

South Park has never, ever, ONCE, in all it's seasons, failed to make me laugh. Truly, Imaginationalnd is a real jewel on the South Park crown. It's got everything that makes South Park great. It's got vile, twisted humor, it's got the sharp, witty pokes at society and the government, it's got the "I've learned something today" speeches that speak volumes about the world we live in, it even has the diobolical Christmas Critters and even ManBearPig in the flesh! No matter how much the DVD shop charges for it, buy this or Season 11 (season 11 includes all three Imaginationland episodes) because it will be well worth your money.

It all begins with a bet between Kyle and Cartman. The both of them agreeing that if Cartman could prove leaprochauns exist then Kyle would suck his balls. If not, Cartman owes Kyle $10. As it turns out, Cartman was right, they encounter a Leaprechaun and Cartman begins an obsessive vendetta to force Kyle to suck his balls, no matter the cost. But the leaprechaun had come from Imaginationland to warn of a terrorist attack, a fact the boy's discover when the Imaginationland mayor whisks them off in a balloon to his world. In the attack, all the boys except Butters manage to escape. Butters then witnesses the terrorist blow up the barrier that keeps the evil of Imaginationland at bay, causing our imaginations to start running wild! The rest of the story concerns the struggle for the preservation of Imaginationland and Cartmans quest to make Kyle suck his balls.

It's really a brilliantly constructed story and one of South Parks finest hours. Hearing the defence force issuing a statement about an imaginary terrorist attack, then turning to Mel Gibson for help, is just priceless. There are loads of evil and good imaginary characters for the keen eye to spot and it's nice to see Butters finally having a bit of good luck thrown his way. Do yourself a favor and watch this, because whether your a South Park fan or not, you will find alot to enjoy.

MEL GIBSON: "UUUUUGGGHHHRR my nipples they hurt!!!!!!!"

Justins Best Bit: This is one of those occasions where the entire event itself is a best bit. It's more like one of lifes best bits.