Top 100 (Progressive)

2001: A Space Odyssey, this is probably the most ambitious film of all time. It is also one of the greatest, top five material in my opinion, as well as many others. Kubrick has created one of the most controversial films in history; this film is not only masterpiece of science fiction, but also a landmark of human arts and a philosophical question upon creation. This to me is not a film, yet a medium of our human beliefs and our total ambitions of the extra-terrestrial worlds, and how we are created. This is one of the most influential products of art in our civilisation, and a man's complete madness portrayed right on the big screen. Kubrick creates a film that is in my opinion, the most frustrating film ever. It is just a magnificent indulgence of his mind, which probably has a few loose screws. The way the film is made is not everyone's cup of tea, in fact the reason for initial hatred. The film's best aspect is the way to become completely surrealistic and different to all other predecessors. The half told story, which has very little dialogue and detail, manages to be one of the most deepest creations in film. This film is nothing short of a piece of artwork, and the pinnacle of film and art.

Note: For this review, I will be analysing every part of the film, and describing my thoughts and beliefs of it in great detail. Therefore, there will be spoilers, and it will of great length. Therefore, if you have not seen this film before, I suggest you read the introduction, and avoid the plot explanations. I would like to conceal some parts, but to analysis it properly, some parts will have to be spoiled.

The plot is so odd and distorted, we wonder how Kubrick and Clarke managed to device such a story, one of seemingly great story becomes and a classic in storytelling is put up another notch to divinity. The film is broken into four parts: The Dawn of Man, TMA-1, Jupiter Mission, Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. The last two are most definitely the most distorted and visionary of the film. The Dawn of Man follows a group of herbivorous human ancestors (apes) in the deserts of Africa. Therefore, as we can clearly tell its use of evolution is one of the many reasons for being so controversial. The apes are easily killed by carnivorous animals, and are driven from its drinking place by another group of apes. The apes after being defeated take shelter in a small rock crater. Upon waking-up, the apes find a giant black monolith in the centre of their sleeping area. The apes' freak-out, they eventually begin to touch it, and after this, something changes. The next morning their leader "Moon-Walker" (in Arthur C. Clarke's novel) starts to use tools and weapons, and they manage to defeat the rival clan of apes. They become the superior breed and begin to advance and become omnivores. Moon-Watcher (Daniel Richter) then throws a bone into the sky, where it turns into a spaceship and the transition to 2001 is made, being one of the biggest time jumps in film history.

This in a sense is the most controversial part as far as religious aspects go. It is also probably the most confusing part and reason for bad general 'idiotic' public reception. As it contains no dialogue at all, or any narration and is not fully clear on what is particularly going on. Yet this captures evolution to the tee, and creates the largest mystery, what is the monolith? Kubrick's style here is not forgiving to the audience; it is a blunt and complex style. This is the opening, yet it will support almost none of the future part of the film. The only common factor in all the parts (accept the third one, which is implied and heavily associated with the four part) is the monolith. After touching the monolith, which appeared out of nowhere, the apes seem to advance. This monolith is a vessel of innovation and evolution. The apes start to eat meat, and use weapons and tools; this is the drive of evolution, from an allegedly extra-terrestrial. Imp sure you know what I mean by the controversy, evolution in a 1968 film! The catholics would have your head off for that, so that is part one for you.

TMA-1 is the only part without a title. The opening for this part, directly following 'Dawn of Man' is nothing short of a visual indulgence; my mind was blown when I first saw this, imagine how it would have felt when it was first released. It follows Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) as he makes a speech at Clavius, a base on the Moon. There has been controversy about a pandemic at Clavius. When he arrives there, that is not the case; it is that they have discovered an extra-terrestrial object (the monolith) forty feet under the surface of the Moon. Floyd is assigned to assess the situation and how this news will be broken to the public. He explains the cover story and its importance to the leaders of Clavius. It is established that the monolith has been there for a confirmed four million years, and that had no human interaction in the past. Floyd and his crew pose for a photo in front of the monolith - identical to the ones the apes encountered - as they do, a loud noise disrupts them and it cuts to the next part, eighteen months later.

This part was probably the most generic and dialogue heavy part. The techniques are still here in the long parts of watching the space flights. Yet there are a lot of scenes of talking, and I can really see much representation in this film, or influences. This part is in existence purely for reasoning for the next part. Clarke's story was a lot more detailed and insightful, but Kubrick distorted all these details. A great thing about this scene is Vivian Kubrick (Stanley's daughter if you did not know) was in this film, and she was nervous and very shy, in other words a great child act.

Jupiter Mission, this is the best part, and the reason for its greatness. This part follows Poole (Gary Lockwood) and Bowman (Keir Dullea). The two men and three others in cryogenics head towards Jupiter, but they are not informed on why they are going to Jupiter, although it is because the monolith on the Moon sent high magnetic fields to Jupiter. They are also accompanied by HAL 9000, an artificial intelligence controlling basically everything on their mission. We get a strange feeling, the soundtrack really emphasises this whole part. We get a feeling of loneliness, and the crew really have no idea what is happening, or what will.
Soon HAL 9000 starts to act strangely, and he indicates a fault with the communication array. After checking the power source of it, it shows no faults or errors, and the two starts to question HAL's abilities. Unfortunately, HAL manages to 'eavesdrop' on their conversation, despite their great caution on the conversation. From here, Poole attempts to yet again repair the Communications Array, and as they do that, HAL makes the little pod fly into him, severing his oxygen source. Yet Bowman does not see this, and rushes after him in another pod. After getting him, he tries to get in; HAL refuses to let him in. HAL has also killed all the crew in cryogenics. Bowman eventually gets in, and the beginning of one of my favourite scenes start. Bowman slowly walks through the space ship, as HAL pleas for him to stop. Bowman then enters his motherboard, and slowly destroys Hal by taking out his memory modules. HAL slowly dies off while singing 'Daisy'. After his disconnection (death), a pre-recorded video comes on explaining the mission. Next part begins.

This part of the film is the most epic part. It is the best part, and brings up a lot of controversial ideas of artificial intelligence. This segment also takes a less joyful approach to space travel, like the other version, here it takes a more solemn and fearful look. I think the opening scene and music for this part was excellent. The music plays ever so solemnly, while we see space, and the ship. We then see its crew as they deal with the day-to-day life of the ship, before the introduction. We also have excellent techniques from Kubrick; he manages to explain to whole story line on a news report seen by the crew, so we understand what is happening. Therefore, we still get the feeling of low dialogue and understanding, by being informed mostly through third parties - in this case the media. The part that got me the most was how HAL is. He seems so human like, and the talk he has with Bowman shortly after the news report is just chilling. HAL seems to have such a rich emotion, yet cold at the same time, he is one of my favourite characters ever. He is also debated to be the main character of the film. It is even stated "But to whether or not he has real feelings is something I don't think anyone can answer". This whole part is just so beautifully done and well executed, his to me is the definition of space travel and its perils. 'Daisy' is also the first words to be spoken by an Artificial Intelligence, Kubrick thought this would be appropriate for HAL to sing.
Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. This is most strange and odd part of all the films, I will keep this part secret though. My simple definition of this whole part of the film is that Bowman is looking into the divine creator, and extra-terrestrial life. The ending scene is really something that gets you thinking for a very long time. It is difficult to explain, but this probably one of the strangest endings ever. I could only explain this as Bowman reaching the creator, and he himself becoming immortal. There is also the controversial idea that we are the creation of extra-terrestrial life, opposed to the common belief of a higher deity.

Now after such a long explanation of the plot, I think we are longing for the basics. The acting for this film is solid, that's about all I can say really. It is not that the acting is bad, in fact, there is no weakness at any point, it's just that none of the characters is given a chance to create depth. That is why HAL is often cited as the main character, which actor Keir Dullea (Bowman) has accepted himself in an interview. I felt this was a good thing though, because the part with the most dialogue was in my opinion the weakest part. The lack of dialogue gives it the superior status above films, which TMA-1 seemed to be more like a normal film.

2001: A Space Odyssey has the greatest soundtrack in film history. The use of classic music, yet so loud and dominating the whole experience works so effectively. The sound in itself is amazing though. It is so realistically done, he trades comfort for realism. Parts of great excitement and climax would often be silent, because it happens in space. Therefore, instead of having loud noises, Kubrick has silence, and that was just grand.

The direction and cinema photography, absolutely mind-blowing. Kubrick is one of the greatest because his methods are always apparent in his films. Whenever you watch them, you get a strong feeling of Kubrick. This film is frustrating and bold techniques of loud music and quiet voices works so well, yet conflicts with the common order of reviewing. This is probably the best direction ever in a film, we at all times have something wondrous to watch, and it has that flawless effect, where there are no petty faults. An impressive aspect of his production was that Kubrick was set of getting this film accurate. It would not go in the film unless the science consultant. In the behind the scenes video you could see he took his time to make pure excellence, yet being accurate and realistic.
Some examples of his 'frustrating' techniques, which I think, are the main reason why many hated it on initial release. The beginning we have a blank screen with music for about four minutes, to "build suspense" although I myself question that opening. In addition, when Poole repairs the Communications Array, for about five minutes we hear nothing but breathing. This was all intended though, Kubrick does his best to avoid traditional story telling techniques in film. One way of knowing this of many scenes that further humanise the characters are cut from the film. He made this film not for a story, but a deep subconscious experience to tap deep into the emotion and philosophical aspects. No wonder why this was the film to see while under the influence of marijuana, which is one of the reasons this film as saved. While cinemas at first failed to fill, the idea of smoking marijuana and seeing it became a film fad. While I personally don't use it, I can see why it would be so effective.

Now, this film at first had received massive amounts of criticism. Now it is almost universally recognised by filming professionals as a masterpiece. Yet there are some who still criticise 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some examples of criticism are that it is no more different from Avatar, due to its great visuals and rather poorly developed story. I stand strongly against this belief, as 2001 has a more abstract narrative. While Avatar is nothing but a large advertisement, money vacuum. We must remember 2001 had a very low budget. 2001 is a visionary into the most deepest and elusive questions mankind has ever asked. It also creates a chilling portrait of the future of the Human race, and space travel.
Another criticism is that it has failed to be as effective as previous works. I find this absolutely ridiculous, 2001: A Space Odyssey is the first film of its kind to be so effect and powerful, and is yet to be matched.
There is even the ridiculous idea that, because the events in this film did not actually happen in 2001, that this is just a crazy film, which has no grasp of realism or meaning; that is one of the worst criticisms I have heard upon a film in a long time. Although I excuse that fact completely, we also must remember that at the time this film was made, we were in a space travel frenzy. USA was in a race with Russia to reach the Moon. This film was made a year before man landed on the Moon. Therefore, at the rate it was going, we may have reached this level portrayed in 2001: A Space Odyssey. After the Moon landing though, interesting in space travel depleted and the space race slowed.

Overall, this film is flawless. There is no questioning upon that, in all essence its techniques creates a picture like quality. There is very little room for error, and we have one of the most influential films ever created. It is not everyone's cup of tea, but neither is The Godfather, so that means nothing. Every time I watch this, I get a chill down my spine, on what the future holds for us. This is Kubrick's best, and this is why he is the greatest director ever. This film transcends other films, it makes some of the most controversial ideas ever, all which are done in abstract and none obvious way. This film questions evolution, artificial intelligence, extra-terrestrial life and our creator(s). This incomplete story is art, and the pinnacle of filming.

When one thinks of the perfect film; one with no flaws and is nothing short of a masterpiece, very few falls into this category. This film is coupled with immaculate acting, flawless plot. I am talking (typing) about The Godfather of course. The Godfather is the ultimate film, only those who are less learned would disagree when this is said to be one of the, if not the greatest film ever created in all of mankind's history. Well maybe I got a little carried away, or was I?
This film follows a Sicilian family living in America, who a running an organised crime syndicate run by who they call the 'Godfather', which is played by Marlon Brando who gives an unforgettable performance. Brando even goes as far as putting cotton wool into his mouth to get the performance wanted by the writer, which the book is based upon. Written and Co-Written by Francis Ford Coppola (Director) and Mario Puzo (Book Writer). The family undergo many things, such as murder and corruption.
WARNING: THIS SEGMENT MAY REVEAL MAJOR PLOT POINTS
It starts off with the day of the Godfathers daughter's wedding. The Godfather does request given to him, as it is his policy to grant the request of the people who ask on his daughter's wedding day. The film later progresses to an in-depth look on the family, which includes three sons of The Godfather, following the attempt assassination of their father: Vito Corleone (The Godfather). The eldest son Santino (James Caan) is a trigger happy wild-fire, which is the muscle of the siblings and the heir to his father's place. His violent ways soon lead to his demise as a reckless Godfather. The middle son Fredo (John Cazale) is the weakest of children, shown especially by how he drops his gun while his father is being assassinated. He is also passed for the Godfather role, by his younger brother Michael. Fredo is seen at minimal amount in this film, yet is a main character in the sequel. Michael (Al Pacino) is the youngest of the siblings, and is at first reluctant to join the 'family' business, but later commits himself after another attempt is made upon his father to kill him, while he is left unguarded in the hospital. Al Pacino does great as Michael and in my opinion deserved the Academy Award for best actor. He takes over as the Godfather when Vito semi-retires and Santino is dead, bypassing Fredo for the position.
Other honourable mentions would have to go to Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) who plays as the lawyer for the family, as well as an adopted brother and son to the family. He plays excellently and is very helpful towards the plot and should be highly commended for his role.
This film is nothing more than pure genius; it has my two favourite scenes of all time. My favourite is during Connies (Talia Shire: Michael, Fredo and Santino's sister, whom also did an awesome job) son's baptism service, when Michael does his part as the Godfather of the child, and the assassinations of his enemies take place.
My second favourite scene would have to be the very end, after Michael has Connie's husband, Carlo, who beat her often and was once beaten by Santino for doing so, but then did so again so Santino would be an easy target, after Santino leaves protection to find him, leading to his demise at another great scene at the tollbooth. Anyway, after Connie finds out about this she confronts Michael in his office in front of his wife, Kay Adams (Diane Keaton) and when she leaves his office Kay asks him if it was true. Michael lies to her saying that he didn't do so, implying that he didn't physically kill him himself, which Kay doesn't realise, when she leaves she looks back into his door where Michael is being 'honoured' by Clemenza (Richard S. Castellano) and others, and another closes the door while she watches in despair. While Brando was great here is how things should have gone, best Actor in leading role: Al Pacino -- he is not a supporting actor, but a lead actor. Best Supporting actor: James Caan, possibly Robert Duvall. Best Director: Francis Ford Coppola. Best original score: Love Theme from Godfather, was said to be plagiarised and that is why it didn't win, but it won the Oscar when played in part two. It already won best picture and best adapted screenplay though.
Overall this film is immaculate in all possible ways, some might say it's boring, but when one listens to what they are saying and follows the plot...
I find it hard to get bored, the film is nothing short of pure genius and in my opinion is the greatest film ever, and I am not the only one who believes so either.

[b] [i]"What's the use of worrying about your beard when your head's about to be taken?"[/i] [/b]

Is it just me or does Akira Kurosawa always managed to have some blundering loud mouth fool? Don't get me wrong I love the guy, I've grown quite fond of his character in the limited films I have seen of him - two ([i]Rashomon[/i] and now [i]The Seven Samurai[/i]). Oh wait, thanks to the lovely invention of the internet I found out he's the same guy, well in that case what an extraordinary actor. Sure, Toshiro is no emotionally deep Gregory Peck, but he certainly has mastered the laughing outcast. Anyway, not straining too far away, I watched highly acclaimed, [i]The Seven Samurai[/i], and before I watched this so-called Japanese masterpiece, I learnt a new plural! And yes, my second film of Kurosawa lives to its legend, I know this because it kept me glued to the screen till 2am - and inspired a late night review.

Our story is of a rural Japanese village, one villager conveniently hears the plans of local bandits, and cries fear to the villagers. Their decided option is to travel to what I assume is a city or large town, and try to hire samurai for a pittance. Eventually after the impressively detailed section hiring the samurai, they return to the helpless village and prepare for a huge amount of bandits, out numbering the seven greatly - although I'd class only five, since one was our colourful Toshiro, again playing the crazy buffoon, who in this case just follows them, and a younger samurai who is effectively 'cock blocked', because of his lack of action...
Now to get this clear and off the tip of your tongues', I would not class this as the best action film. Yes, this movie has a considerable amount of 'action' - specifically meaning one hurting another, which most films feel most inclined to exaggerate. I guess as far as classics go, [i]The Seven Samurai[/i] has quite a lot of violence, which is brilliantly directed, yet I just don't see the connection, since the vast majority is void of any 'action'. With this said, I'm not sure exactly which genre I could cast this film into, I'd like to say adventure, but all the adventure is effectively cut-out of the story, skipping the travel itself to the destination. Therefore, I guess the best place for this grand gem is a mix of action, drama and some sly comedy, or I may even be class this in the 'epic' genre, terminology I'm not so fond of, but alas that's all I can clearly place [i]The Seven Samurai[/i].

The performances are rather strong. Characters never really have what a modern film would constitute strong emotional development; many are more of an icon than the deep philosopher. However, I think this works to an advantage, this film had me convinced. There were times when a samurai would simply join the men, and immediately seem comfortable of the new men, and ask very little questions of his life-threatening mission, and I loved it because it feels real. Many of the easily accustomed characters just feels organic for its time, and it's rather nice to see a time when we weren't full of whinging Prozac addicts, the only complaining I saw was from the villagers about to lose their lives! In addition, that Toshiro Milfune is a delicious absurdity, brilliance in his ridiculously enjoyable performances, definitely one of my favourite actors.

I think what benefits our tale most is Kurosawa's genius. Often the direction uses different narratives and symbols; I could fill an essay with the little subtleties. One of the most notable forms of story telling was the parchment, which willingly compelled me. As the bandits were slowly killed, circles representing each man would be crossed out to symbolise the death - almost like a death clock. Kurosawa constantly uses little perspectives as a timer, for the survival angst throughout the film.
One of the most beautiful aspects is how simple and easily understandable the hectic battles can be, in fact, they can be often clearer then the stretches of dialogue. It is for these reasons (among others) I found myself absolutely in awe of the whole production. Although the white saturation is shocking, whites are [i]really[/i] white, that in itself is probably a good thing for a black and white film, yet it's unfortunate the subtitles had to be bright white as well. It wasn't long before my eyes in pain from straining to see what these people were saying; too bad, I'm restricted to the English language.

Overall, I'm dribbling at [i]The Seven Samurai's[/i] feet. Everything about this movie is powerful and brilliant, and I can't seem to find an issue beyond superficial ones (being an ignorant English speaking person and having invisible subtitiles). Not only are we told a story, but also we are told a story of a nation, Japan and all its culture is picked upon, including honour, traditions and even sexual freedom. As any great movie is so often labelled, [i]The Seven Samurai[/i] portrays the folly of man, not on a broad spectrum as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the confines of Japanese (and similar cultures) society. My best summary is of the famous Godard, 'Japan in 207 minutes'.

Comments/votes preferred on RT, but My Blog: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/10/seven-samurai-1954.html

[b][i]"Rosebud..."[/i][/b]

[i]"Welles's accidental semi-autobiographical film stops trying to tell a good story, but tells a story perfectly."[/i]
Is this the greatest film of all time? Well to answer this question we have to understand the type of person who watches this film. When someone out of the blue decides to become a film critic, of course they rummage through various critic's lists and polls', searching to see what 'the best' is. And of course it results in [i]Citizen Kane[/i], a towering figure in film. From here our young critical prodigy will watch the movie, and have two attitudes as the credits role, they will either chant, [i]"I have no idea what was going on, but that was brilliant!"[/i]. This is the predominant attention seeker of the critical world, going for 'the best' and going with the crowd, lying to themselves, for [i]Citizen Kane[/i] is extremely dull for a first time viewer, and in all honesty, I did the same as many; I smiled and gave the full thumbs and waved, taking the glory of being smart. And of course, there is the other type of reaction, the [i]"There wasn't a single gun in that whole movie! I'm gonna tell everyone how wrong they are and violently attack how boring this movie is, and tomorrow, oh and I gotta host my Avatar appreciation party tomorrow..."[/i]
It's a real shame that this common reactions of a first time reviewer, they either fall into a state of denial and lie to themselves, or become a massive cock, to which will result in the stroking of his ego till the grave. Luckily after two years experience I thought I'd tackle this colossal film once again, and I was overwhelmed. [i]Citizen Kane[/i] is really quite intimidating in all manner for up and coming filmmakers. Many call this film influential, I on the other hand see it as a dream crusher, especially when you realise Orson Welles made a movie about [i]himself[/i] and was just given the award for best of the business, leaving us wannabes to cower in our rooms, crying yourself to sleep as unworthy, and thereby settle for being an egotistical prick, hence my writing this. When you look at this film closely, there is so much method into every single shot being done, every shot is trying to say something, or trying to convey a point, then pull out your magnifier and look even [i]closer[/i] and your sure to see even more to the point of bring you to tears, because it reminded you of the bully teasing you about his superior muscles. The mere idea of writing an essay on this film puts my brains into shambles.

The film is a story of a newspaper tycoon (based upon William Randolph Hearst), brought up in an adopted family of huge wealth. For reasons I never quite grasped from the film (feel free to explain below), Charles Foster Kane is taken from his family, at their will for some pay, and then taken into the world of privilege, where he takes whatever he wants, and he chooses a small newspaper. It opens with a news reel, telling all there was to know, then follows a reporter trying to learn the meaning behind his final word, [i]"Rosebud"[/i].
Within all fairness, the film's story is a rather dull one, certainly understandably causing criticism amongst any modern audience, untrained in appreciating film. Yet in its entire plot, were told in such ingenious ways, brilliantly breaking conventions of the era in which it was made, and giving modern films a run for its money. What Welles does is effectively casting away the whole story of the film, but tells of a man, Charles Foster Kane. Often [i]Citizen Kane[i/] seems to be well aware of itself being a movie, the viewer is constantly aware that it is in fact a movie being watched, and Welles plays with this. Welles's accidental semi-autobiographical film stops trying to tell a good story, but tells a story perfectly.

Now in a film I believe to be as close as you get to perfect, the weakest part of the film is its performances. The acting is shockingly mediocre, of course Welles tried to bring many newcomers to the industry, and for many it's their first. Now that's all well and good for a small independent film, a mere launch pad for future talents, but [i]Citizen Kane[/i] [b]IS[/b] film. It is perhaps the most important and powerful film to ever be made, and its unfortunate that the acting lacks any dynamic aspects, not to say its bad, but its small actors in a huge film.
However, Welles's performance, although not exactly a great one, is certainly a powerful performance, fitting the grandeur of the film. In a sense the second-rate performances are a part of Kane's success, as I had said the film is much like a documentary, or template on a perfect film, than it is an actual film. Once this is established, mediocrity is acceptable to keep the spotlight in the correct place.

Oh dear me, now to try explaining the genius in Welles's direction would be nothing but an understatement. It's as if every shot of this film was telling a story of its own, pushing boundaries on how something could be shown. Ultimately, the direction is perhaps the best to ever be contributed to the cinema, and it's Welles's direction, which carries the film to a completely different style of film, where it is more or less a handbook, than a film. Ironically direction will be my short coming of my review, since to even begin o explain the direction would result in an essay I neither have the time nor ability to complete.

Overall, [i]Citizen Kane[/i] is quite possibly the greatest film ever made. Although film is far too subjective to ever draw a conclusion to this title, Kane has won enough lists and polls to fill the shoes of an invisible film, an enigma. However, to call this film flawless would be completely wrong, for it has many problems, especially in its performances, yet perhaps all intended. It would be wrong to say the film is flawless, but it would be quite accurate to say [i]Citizen Kane[/i] has the most control and awareness of any other film. The only real problem I had with this film is it lacks an emotional touch, which perhaps is the reasoning for many disliking this film; as brilliant this film might be, I can hardly find myself visiting it again anytime soon. Welles has effectively made a documentary of film, and how to do it, which was all achieved at the young age of 26. It was from then on Welles proved that he had perhaps told his own future, making Kane a chilling autobiography.

Comments/votes preferred on RT, but My Blog: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/10/citizen-kane-1941.html

One of the greatest films of all time. This film goes deeply into the characters thoughts, making a highly developed character, rare in films. The film follows a distorted plot,which works perfectly. A film that is rivalled by no other.
The ending leaves many shocked. Some say that it was a fantasy, some say that everything that happened was literal. Was the last taxi driver for Betsy a dream, his dying thoughts?

The Conversation, this is my first non-Godfather/Apocalypse Now film from Coppola. Coppola has made some great films, but is now known for his ability to make mediocre films. Yet before he fell into this drought, he managed to make The Conversation, which makes this my first Gene Hackman film. This thriller delves into the use of modern technology and the effects it has upon the people, and these features are still apparent in today's society. Coppola also manages to bring some of his Godfather/Apocalypse Now cast into this one, including John Cazale, Harrison Ford and Robert Duvall.

The plot follows Harry Caul, a surveillance expert/private investigator. He is the best, no other man in his line of work is better. Yet not all is perfect, his social life takes the most damage. He suffers paranoia, knowing himself what can be used against him. He has many locks, empty apartment and never uses his home phone. Therefore, we open-up on a busy day in the park, buskers, and people having their lunch. Harry and his crew are trying to record the conversation of a man and a women walking through the park. Seems like an impossible feet, but he is the best at the work.
This is not the problem of the film though. In fact, this is the opening scene; he gets the sound he needs. It is what happens after where the film takes-off. We see his unsocial life. After he starts to clear-up the sound quality and so on, he cannot help but listen to it. Soon he starts to get involved with the clients business, what does this odd conversation mean?

Well as you have probably all ready gathered, this is a clever plot. It is also very different to Coppola's previous work. I also found the styles of direction very different, although he brought a rustic feel here as he did with Apocalypse Now. The Godfather also had a slight rustic feel, but otherwise perfect. This is also some of Coppola's most artsy work (not including modern work). The plot though, seems to go really slowly, not getting to deep into the whole conspiracy theory thing, which was a really great feature. We have no obligation to really keep-up with it as such, we just slowly follow Harry. It also is not a immediate goal of the film, if that makes sense. It does a few things at a time, with the mystery of the recording, just lingering in the background.

The acting, well I see why Gene Hackman is so well loved. This is a fantastic performance, perhaps one of the best. The greatest ability he has is not to over-act, but do precisely what is needed, and does not fall into to a typical 'loner' stereotypes, yet does it gracefully. The role is a sense is perfectly acted in method and really does make the film great. While the support cast is great, they actually have very little roles in the film, it is all mainly Hackman. Although a few of the support cast are just average, the Godfather/Apocalypse Now cast do great in their minor parts. So minor, Robert Duvall is not even credited.

The Conversation does not only make for interesting viewing, but also brings up many ethical questions. We must remember that this is not a science fiction. We also must remember this was made in the seventies. Yet he is capable of recording the voices of two people from a fair distance. So that makes us wonder, what can they do now? They can also tap the phones so easily, so do they listen to us? Maybe I am just throwing conspiracy theories at you, but it does make you wonder. It's the clear message sent through this film, have we gone too far? Well that is enough philosophy for today...

Overall, we have a masterpiece. The way the film is constructed, having mystery, but without shoving, it down your throat. Coppola makes one of his last masterpieces, and we see Hackman is a superb role. In the end, we have a film, which expresses the protagonist's paranoia, and sends a clear message to modern society. I would recommend to all Hackman fans, and just the fans of the seventies, and of course thrillers.

To Kill a Mockingbird, one of my absolute favourites, I just really adore this film too bits. This was also one of the very first films to get me into critiquing of film. Shortly after watching the abomination Avatar, I sought refuge for a great film. To Kill a Mockingbird is the film I found in great depression and anger. In fact, this used to be my favourite, and I stand sternly defending the fact that this is one of the best. This is also one of those rare films that breaks the curse of a film critic. After awhile of critiquing, one will often find themselves no longer enjoying movies, but searching for negatives, so you can tear it apart soon after. Alternatively, we will look carefully for the great aspects of the film, so we can give it great commendation later on, to express our love of films. Yet we forget to enjoy the movie, we say that we enjoyed it, but really, we sat there with a straight face analysing every step of the film. So like The Godfather, Donnie Darko and American Beauty. I was really excited about my viewing of this film, as the ABC was kind enough to play a decent film, opposed to those modern yuppie channels hell bent on showing us the latest generic action blockbuster. The channels intent on stealing our money and controlling our weak minds so we all bow before Friedberg and Seltzer, with their evil overlord Michael Bay! Anyway...

Moving on from my rant about how they plan to take over our minds with High School Musical and its endless amount if sequels and clones! No sorry I should continue. The plot, well the film is based upon Harper Lee's novel of the same name. The film follows Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) as he defends an African American man during the 1930's on the rape of a white woman. It is also set in a rural southern town! Does it get any worse for Atticus? Well apart from the horrible circumstances, Atticus himself cops a bit of bad reception from the town's people. Therefore, that is what one usually reads on the summary of the DVD case. Yet there is a whole sub plot, which many might argue to be the main plot. It also follows Atticus's two children Jean 'Scout' Louise (Mary Badham) and Jem (Phillip Alford). It shows their hardships and the lead up to the court case. Yet it is mainly them just playing during the summer, having their first days of school and dealing with the local maniac Boo Radley (Robert Duvall, don't get too excited he is in it for about ten minutes).

Therefore, like a recent film I saw, the plot is heavily off task. In fact, we do not get to the court scene, or fully understand what is happening over an hour in. Nevertheless, I liked this aspect, I actually enjoyed this a lot. The fact that it took out the time to develop its characters, as far as characters goes there is no more development needed. Therefore, all the characters are well set up and in the end. We enjoy this slow ride and hopefully get a heavy emotional experience from it. Yes I will admit it, this is one of the more boring movies one will come by, so those will a short attention span, save me the argument and do not watch it. The plot is clever, suspenseful and provides us one of the greatest scenes and stories to ever grace the theatre. The courtroom scene is one of mighty proportions and is about forty minutes in all. I will get into one the greatest scenes later on though.

Well let us get to the basics, before we delve into our deep analysis (well mine). The acting is solid, fantastic even. We have Gregory Peck's mind-blowing performance. It is not common for to be known as one of the greatest performances ever. Harper Lee expressed her liking of his accurate portrayal. Yes, he also won the academy award for best actor. His performance is just so natural and impressive; well I think you get the picture. To the two children, it is basically those three as the protagonist, but more or less Scout. Anyway, the children are great, yes I realise they are not perfect, but these are child actors! As we, all know that almost all child actors are little monsters that get a decent script, and destroy the film with bland emotionless dialogue and horrible facial expressions! Yet these children seem like actors who do a great job. While I will admit Scout's performance is weak compared to the others, we must remember it is a debut film for the young child, and she does a great job, despite her tedious voice. Jem on the other hand brings a very dominate and stern performance for such a very young age, and I can only commend him for it. The support cast does a great job, while it is not the ensemble like The Godfather; we have almost no weakness, and definitely no obvious ones that destroy the movie.
The direction and cinema photography for this film was nothing of a great stand out. Although I must say the opening, say was beautifully shot and nothing short of impressive. Yet it is no Pans Labyrinth, yet we must remember this was a black and white from the sixties, and I feel Mulligan made this a very interesting film. Yes I realise many will find this boring, but for what it is, he manages to construct this into something watchable.

The most impressive scene in this film, as well as the majority of cinema history was the courtroom scene. It is both powerful and effective. This is what really cements this as one of the greatest films, and again is one of the best scenes ever. No, it is not all single tracking shot, but the scene is around forty minutes. I have read about a film, Russian Ark, being all shot in one tracking shot for the entire film, which is right all the ninety-six minutes. Anyway, this scene depicts the case of Tom Robinson the African American up for trial of the rape of the daughter of the local white trash. This is a long scene, which is tense in all the sense. Atticus defends a man against all of the town's people's wishes. There is no spoiler behind this, just watching this the man is quite obviously innocent, yet the people side with the local white trash. Yet Atticus says a mighty defence that only makes you want to pause the movie, go to the hat shop, buy one, and return to your living room so you can continue playing the film and tip your hat to his excellence. He is not AfI's greatest hero for no reason, just who would have thought it would be a lawyer.

This film is generally considered great, and the general consensus is that this is a classic and landmark in cinema, yet some say otherwise. Therefore, for this part I wish to defend all your criticism. The main criticism I have come by is that this is too different to the novel, and no I have not read the novel yet. Well I detest this belief greatly, first off, I would like to sat Harper Lee was very happy with the film, so do not call up that card again, but I will indulge you. When we watch a movie, one must not question its origin. Otherwise, ne would criticise Battleship Potemkin's intention, some might say its Red Army propaganda! I also bring up The Shining, yes I have seen the film, and read the novel. I can tell that Kubrick got this novel and basically hacked it up and took only what he wanted for his liking, so I can understand why King would be, oh let's say unhappy about this. Yet we must remember Kubrick made a great film, and the fact it is not accurate to the novel is irrelevant. Therefore, this is not a film-novel comparison, so lay-off the film for that aspect and appreciate what is there as a film.
Another point of criticism is Scout's well voice. There is no doubting she is annoying, but Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone also had a distorted and sometime annoying voice, so...

This film stays true to its origin and makes an effective stance upon intolerance. Instead of showing how or why you should be intolerant, like many of those films they show us in school to stop future Nazis. It shows us the fallout of intolerance, and how ignorant those who are intolerant. Atticus is a learned observer of upon the savage; imbeciles that mindlessly blame the 'black man' and feel the need to wear ghost costumes. Therefore, that in my opinion is what this film does, although it does give those Southerner's a harder time. Yet there is no denying the courtroom showcases this, without being too violent like other films. The two children a merely innocent vessels who watch their father attempt the impossible, while they deal with less important matters. Although Atticus does seem to have a slave called Carolyn, I am not completely sure that she is a slave; he is awfully nice to her. Maybe we should just pretend that she is a friend of the family...
Still there is no doubt this film stands firmly against intolerance. It gives a less violent in your face perspective of racism and this in many ways is more effective.

Overall, what makes a great film? Well we have the general idea, yet very few have succeeded and many have failed. I may self-wish to be one of those who succeed, yet the amount of ambition in today's modern era is actually more competitive than many think. One thing that is even harder is to make a great adaption, and this is a great adaption. It does not only enhance one of the greatest novels ever, but is able to stand on its own feet as one of the greatest films ever. It also is the great take upon racism and intolerance, with all technical excellence to support it.

This film starts off, which seems rather sensless and stupid, but its ditorted plot starts to come together about half way through, revealing a masterpiece of comedy-action. This films comedy is versitile- suiting satire, action and even makes a rape scene funny.

[b]Dawn of the Dead[/b], from the time when zombies looked like people with a little grey make-up, and the blood looked as if it was fresh from the overly bright red paint bucket. Now this is what you call an intelligent horror, more specifically to the zombie sub-genre. Dawn of the Dead is describable as gruesome, dark, satirical, sadistic, sardonic, but all the most important sophisticated. It provides us with an even broader version of Night of the Living Dead, which includes social commentary upon our society. I think the most harrowing truth is it remains resonant to our present day. Throwing-out all clichés and scare tactics the genre often relies on, but Dawn of the Dead relies on the physiological aspects. Dawn of the Dead's subtext strikes at consumerism and the idiosyncrasies of modern society, not to say it is a hilarious satire though, but clever observation amongst a story. Lightning has struck twice for George A. Romero. Dawn of the Dead is without a doubt one of the greatest horrors ever and yet still manages to be one of the most entertaining horrors.

[b]The plot[/b] at first is little crazy. In whole, it follows four survivors living in a large shopping centre. How they manage to survive the zombies, making the shopping centre home. It starts though during a debate on ethical questions upon the zombie apocalypse. After that, a television set worker Francine (Gaylen Ross) talks with her boyfriend and pilot Stephen (David Emge), regarding them leaving the city in a helicopter. Cut to another scene, we follow a police raid on an apartment building. We are introduced to my favourite character Roger (Scott Reiniger) and this other nice guy Rod, so I start to get excited what adventures will these two get into, oh wait Rod gets shot in the head as soon as the bad guys come out the apartments. Then one of the other cop Willy starts shooting all the civilians, but some weird cop shoots him in the back. All of a sudden, zombies are in the apartment and the police kill them. Then Roger and the mysterious cop now Peter (Ken Foree) start talking about leaving, then a one-legged priest tells them there are zombies in basement.
Now I am thinking, "What the hell is this?" When we see the men slowly killing the zombies, you just picture this as being an absolute bomb. If I am not mistaken some scenes of the ending to Night of the Living Dead are shown, the farmhouse. One critic walked out at this stage, I do not blame them, but all of a sudden the movie becomes gold - so I question that critics credibility, I sat through all of August Underground Mordum, because I never analyze a movie I have not completed.
Therefore, from here Roger and Peter meet-up with Stephen and Francine who are about to take off with the helicopter. Roger just happens to be friends with the two, and thought he would drag a long Peter because their five minute conversation; they really felt a connection...
After awhile of seemingly other useless scenes, they reach the shopping centre. This movie just takes-off from here on. They decide to stay, and start by making it liveable and so on and it progresses. They start to close-off the shopping centre, and eradicate all that is inside. Indulging in the privileges on having almost everything they need for the taking. Perhaps the prologue of about thirty minutes is just ludicrous, but the rest of the two hours of the movie inside the shopping centre is pure excellence, although the ludicrous prologue makes the movie more likable in lack of perfection.

[b]The acting[/b] is a great improvement on Night of the Living Dead, but they keep their similarities. There is a lot of zombie killing and tasks made, and little character development, as speaking of past-life. Yet the characters all have their own ways of surviving the terrors thrown upon them. One could say the acting is realistic and average, with 2-Dimensional characters. One could rightfully say that each character is not a person, but a symbol representing a group of people in such events of hysteria. Much like Night of the Living Dead, the characters (as well as the audience) are thrown directly into the action, with very little background, but manage to live the actions so well, and re-create the situations so realistically. These characters are easily describable as perfect, unlike what most have to do to reach this level - a two-hour movie on one person explaining in detail their emotions. George A. Romero can create the perfect characters, the most appropriate representations of groups of societies by merely showing their actions and decision-making.

[b]George A. Romero[/b] has become one of my favourite directors. He has the ability to write such a well-thought script making highly developed subtext and observations. Unlike most horrors, Romero's movies (most) are about how 'we' the people struggle in such despair, in this case zombies. Beyond writing a movie, he has always had the great ability to make a movie; giving us interesting (not always attractive) shots, dragging the audience deep into the movie, as well as entertaining them. He has an ability to get a slow moving, mainly one location movie into something that it really should not be reading the plot blurb. In a nutshell Romero is one of the most talented directors ever, and has made one of the two greatest movies ever, although his work after was rather lacklustre.
For this case, he is also the editor, and you can tell there is a genius behind our movie here. Unfortunately, though a lot like Blade Runner, the films has been taken to the scissors due to violence, and sadly, the original ending was changed. The original ending was never filmed, so no such cuts show it, but it still leads up to the original ending, and it would have been a better ending. This is quite easily the worst part of the movie; I get the sense of 'American Propaganda and Post-9/11 Paranoia we are the Best in the World Patriotism' from this scene.

[b]Overall[/b], Dawn of the Dead is a masterpiece. Not only as an entertaining zombie gore fest, but a social commentary and observation upon modern societies' idiosyncrasies and manages to make a big joke of it all. Therefore, under the assumption you understand the beginning has no relevance to rest of plot this is a masterpiece you will enjoy it.

An extremely hilarious film, coupled with a serious aspect. Sellers acting is superb playing three characters. The story is realistic and possible, but not boring. Even thoughs who hate black and white would enjoy this film.
A true masterpiece from Kubrick.
One of the greatestt films of all time, and king of satire.

Jhon's Favourites Edition:Raging Bull

Director: Martin Scorsese

Starring: Robert De Niro
Cathy Moriarty
Joe Pesci

The opening scene starts, Robert De Niro jumps around in the ring in slow motion, with the beautiful Pietro Mascagni's music score, Cavalleria Rusticana: Intermezzo. This is one of the best openings ever; this is the opening to one of the greatest films of all time. I am not the only one has this opinion, I also share it with the list, AFI's 100 years... 100 movies..., in which the film came 4th. This is a high achievement, which it deserves, although I would give it a higher position. This film, based upon the memoirs -- Raging Bull: My Story, of real former middleweight champion Jake LaMotta.

The film follows the story of the book, with Robert De Niro playing as Jake LaMotta. It depicts how a man slowly causes self-destruction, and how this affects all those around him. LaMotta's violent ways, disrespectful traits and appetite soon make him lose everything he worked for, and is forgotten, eventually as time goes on, trying to survive as well as he can. The film uses excellent techniques, in-order to capture emotion, and right atmosphere. The cinema photography and the black and white capture every emotion, and every important punch in the fights to create a classic.
The fighting scenes are quite remarkable, when first hearing about the films general plot; I could not stop thinking about Rocky. I thought that this film might have had just been a rip-off Rocky, made four years after the great sporting masterpiece, it stood-out as an obvious copy. The two films turn out to be completely different though. The fighting sequences have a different style and keep individuality. Rocky has a more 'lift-your-hopes' feel to it, it makes you want to drop and do fifty push-ups. Raging Bull was a lot more bleak and sad. The times Rocky had a sequel, the bad times seemed ok, because he always came back. In Raging Bull, it is not always a fairy tale. The film does not have the "...And they all lived happily ever after" aspect. Despite winning, or reaching great feets, you still do not get happy, the film does not finish, and it keeps rolling. When the film keeps rolling, LaMotta does not always come back to beat-up Mr. T or a giant Russian to make another sequel and live 'happily ever after'.

Robert De Niro's acting exceeds the average expectations, by doing little things. When he shakes a man's hand, that he dislikes, he does not grip his hand, but gives a little shake. Using this technique is showing, "I don't want to know you, I don't care for you." De Niro uses these techniques like this, to not only develop his character, but to perform excellently as one of the best performances ever. De Niro plays Jake LaMotta, based upon the real person Jake LaMotta. Jake LaMotta is a middleweight boxer, who shows great talents and a brawling (violent) style of boxing. De Niro's character is soon swept-up with being a champion, and winning the title. As he chases that dream, his self-indulgent ways lead him to self-destruction.
LaMotta is a very dangerous, vicious and violent man. LaMotta has very little respect for anyone; he is willing to do anything to prove himself. LaMotta is very paranoid of the people around him, constantly making assumptions on someone's motives and actions on first meeting. He is constantly watchful of his second wife Vickie -- played excellently by Cathy Moriarty, in whom he watches every move she makes, and jumps to conclusions quickly, when seeing something, or communications between her and another man, which he believes to be an indicator of an affair. His paranoia even stretches to his own brother. LaMotta is also very abusive towards his wife Vickie and his first wife -- Irma, as well, which is why they divorce early in the film.

Joe Pesci plays his breakthrough role excellently as Joey LaMotta, LaMotta's brother -- who coincidently has a similar name to his character. He plays a loving brother that has trouble showing so. With violence is one of his main tools of love towards him. An example of Joey's anger would be the time he beats-up some men for talking to his brother's wife. Joey is constantly doing this, because Jake shows little affection and appreciation towards his brother. Jake is determined to make it on his own, wanting the title by himself, trying to prove him and the whole world. The behaviour Jake exhibits is a behaviour Joey tries to over-come, for the want to protect his brother from himself. Joey is also very protective of Jake's wife, from Jake himself in particular. Joey will often insult his brother, but even this is for the greater good, in helping his brother succeed. Joey is an extremely likeable character, unlike Jake.

Spoilers:
It all starts with the look at the end, in 1964. In the beginning (end of plot) he is overweight, and reciting a comedy act he has devised before he does some stand-up. It than goes back to 1941, where he is in a fight with Jimmy Reeves, in which he loses by a decision after almost knocking him out -- the bell rang a second before knock-out was called. It than shows him in his apartment arguing with his wife, already showing that he is violent, and that his current marriage is already failing. His brother discusses that he is able to get him a shot at the middleweight title, with some mafia connections. LaMotta than meets a fifteen years old girl called Vickie. They soon begin to date each other, despite LaMotta's current marriage. It than jumps a head to 1943, he and Vickie are married and there is no talk of his previous wife Irma. The film than follows a long string of fights and the self-destruction of LaMotta. Through jealousy, monstrous appetite and uncontrollable rage, he slowly destroys himself. He does such things as beat up his brother Joey and his wife Vickie, because she admits to have had a sexual relationship with him (although it is not true, she just said it to make him angry, she says that she has slept with everybody in the neighbourhood, a lie which Jake could not realise, because of his rage). Jake then beats both his brother and his wife. After begging to his wife, she stays, but he does not speak to his brother again for many years to come.
In the end LaMotta loses to his old nemesis, Sugar Ray Robinson, who he had versed numerous times earlier most of the times winning, defeats him for the title. After retirement, LaMotta starts a comedy act, which is failing and very low in popularity. Vickie than divorces LaMotta and takes custody of the children. LaMotta is than arrested for introducing two under-aged women to some men, who told him they were twenty-one. After the police arrested him, he is than put in a cell, where he punches the wall repeatedly. LaMotta is now overweight, and has nothing left, having to destroy his middleweight championship belt to pay for bail, which did not work anyway. He later meets up with his brother Joey, who rejects his wanting to forget the past and become friends again.
In the end of the film, LaMotta is where he was at the beginning of the film. After reciting the material he said at the beginning of the film, he begins to recites the words from On the Waterfront starring Marlon Brando.

At the end, the following comes up on a black screen:
"So, for the second time, [the Pharisees]
Summoned the man who had been blind and said:
'Speak the truth before God.
We know this fellow is a sinner.'
'Whether or not he is a sinner, I do not know.'
The man replied.
'All I know is this:
Once I was blind and now I can see.'
John IX. 24-26
The New English Bible"

The credits role and the beautiful music score from the beginning of the film plays. This is one of the greatest films of all time. It is nothing short of perfect. I must say the ending was a bit hard to watch, for it was sad to see him in such a state. The film works in an interesting way, because the protagonist has very little empathy from the audience, but gains some at the end. This film is a prime example of self-destruction. How he rose to the top that fell shortly after, by his own actions. De Niro did excellent, in what I believe to be his best role ever, and one of the best roles anyone has done. The film is just so beautifully done and so good. This is certainly Scorsese's best film.

Das Boot, I must say where has this been all my life? I have never heard much from this film, and was really just suppose to be some filler movie that would have no review. I must say this is one of my favourite movies of all time. This is also one of my favourite war movies. If you do not include Dr. Strangelove as a war movie, then this is my favourite war movie. This is most definitely a masterpiece.
The film follows the crew of a German U-Boat in 1942. It is basically just the life that live while on it, and how they deal with enemy ships. The film does not really have a protagonist, but it is focused mostly on the ships lieutenant, captain and chief. The plot does develop; they face enemies and life threatening situations. I won?t go into full detail, but there is even a time when they all have to put their emergency oxygen tanks on, so the submarine does not run-out of oxygen.
The plot is perfectly crafted, showing the hard claustrophobic life on a submarine, to epic battles and violence. The plot may be a bit slow for some though. The acting is superb, all the actors, and cameos do perfectly. One thing about Das Boot, which is just grand, is the cinema photography. In such cramp little areas, the camera managed to follow men through tight areas, and capture all the action. So that was excellent, and the camera man kept-up with all the men as they ran and jumped through the little doors and corridors.
There are not many problems with this film. The only problem really was that it had no memorable scene. It was a great film, but a reason for not being as well known is probably that it has no memorable scene, like the shower scene in psycho. Another problem some may face with the film is that the main characters are German Nazis. They are generally disliked in modern society, and I feel some will dislike the film for that fact. There are moments in the film where they bad mouth Churchill. A good thing is they do not glorify Hitler a great deal, so it is not a propaganda film. I actually found myself having deep empathy for these men. This film shows you that the German men had emotions, and in the end, they believe what they were doing were the right thing. If they had taken over the world, most people would probably love Hitler, so really you need to look at it from another perspective and see that these men are just normal men, with different beliefs, but in the end both believe it is the right thing. So in the end I found myself going for the men, forgetting their long-term motives.
Overall, this film is genuinely suspenseful and sad at times. The film captures life in a submarine perfectly; as you watch the men slowly deteriorate in health and some in the mind. This film is a wonderful masterpiece and I absolutely love it. It would be recommended to all movie lovers who can handle subtitles, and can handle soe length in their films.

The best sequel of all time, but not only this, its a great film of its own, one of the greatest. Al Pacino's role in this film is outstanding, the plot is fresh, and the flash backs add that extra character to the original film.

The worst part was when Fredo is murdered by Michael, that really p***** me off. Fredo was being nice again.

Apart from that, it was a flawless film.

This film is just pure genius. I've read the book and saw the original film, there is quite a large difference, a huge difference!
But I must give the credit to Phillip.K.Dick for writing Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep-book title, for the ingenious idea. I feel the movie could have been better, certain things were bypassed throughout the film, which was from the book, but what was made was great.

A masterpiece, Harrison Fords best(I know people are going to be saying, Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I stand my ground).

A tragic masterpiece, this is a prime example of Neo-Realism. The film follows Antonio Ricci, a poor man living in Rome. The film shows the post-war life of Italia, in a harsh, realistic fashion. The film does not fail to make an impact, despite being over sixty years old.
Ricci manages to get a job, which will be able to pay for all his living expense, for his wife and his two children. The only requirement for this high paying job is that he has a bicycle. After he manages to get one by selling his own things, it is stolen on his first day of work. It then becomes mission, to find the bicycle, or he will lose his job, and fall into poverty, well the only way he can afford food. Ricci's son Bruno helps him out as they search for the bicycle.
Lamberto Maggiorani, who is not a professional actor, but a steelworker, plays Ricci beautifully. Bruno (Enzo Staiola), who was played remarkably, was his son, neither of them had any past training, or experience.
This film was a remarkable experience, and is definitely worth the hype. The ending is a reminder of the sad realistic world we live in.

Note: Because of RT's formatting, the essay is not properly written (alignments and so on). If you wish to read then follow this link: http://rantsofadegenerate.blogspot.com/2011/12/fight-club-essay-incomplete-unedited.html


Fight Club: Post-Modern Castration Paranoia
[i]I am Jack's Raging Bile Duct.[/i]

INTRODUCTION:
The 1999 film Fight Club is about..? Well what is Fight Club, here I am sitting on my sofa expecting a 2 hour blood fest of men beating one another within an inch of their life, yet I am served a cold, sardonic pitch upon 'us' - the consumer. Years ago, David Fincher served this oddity of a film to the mainstream audiences - ironically our beloved consumers and the impression left was not of the common film; controversy had spread for the films exploitation of filming style, often unconventional narrative structure and most importantly, the films 'violent' themes. Perhaps the most self-destructive effect Fight Club caused upon itself was the surprise audiences were given, not because of the films dark undertone, but the lack of violence and predictable plot; audiences were exposed to a film countering their original predictions with an insulting film, criticising the audience for their own admission. Now as time goes by, Fight Club reaches cult status, not necessarily just for its rich subtext, but its kickass approach which makes this film, for the lack of a better word, cool. We're given a cool experiences which has created what many believe to be a guilty pleasure in filmmaking, garnishing the award for "50 Best Guy Movies of All Time", perhaps the magazine itself doesn't realize the misogynistic themes, insulting men's lack of masculinity of the modern age often because of women and the removal of their endowments. Fight Club's multiple subplots and themes, ask the viewer to see past the surface, dealing with consumerism, emasculation and anarchy. So let's fall into the rabbit hole, which is Fight Club.

SYNOPSIS:
We begin with our protagonist, nameless - often referred to as Jack. Jack suffers insomnia from his modern lifestyle. The lifestyle he lives gives him very little reward for his boredom of an office job, requiring he endanger the lives of thousands (maybe millions) of people's lives. Unhappy with his life in an office and buried in the IKEA catalogues; he searches for medical help, only to be denied help and mocked by a mocking doctor. Searching for a cure, Jack finds liberty in support groups for people with diseases. When he discovers crying at these groups results in his loss of insomnia, he becomes addicted because people "really listen".

Soon the introduction of a fellow female liar makes him seek other outlets of his suppressed emotions. After meeting a 'single-serving-friend' on an airplane - Tyler Durden, a man who is the complete opposite of himself, strong, cynical and outspoken - Jack returns to find his condo has caught fire, as well as all of his possessions. From here, Jack moves in with Tyler, creating a Fight Club, for middle-aged men to express their oppressed masculinity. Soon though, their 'support group' spirals out of control into an anarchist group - Project Mayhem. The group then spread anarchy throughout the cities of America, becoming a powerfully organised terrorist group. It is here when Jack confronts Tyler, discovering that Tyler is himself. Tyler was an alter ego created, so Jack could cope with his fears and depression. From here, he attempts to stop Project Mayhem, but only failing, resulting in the destruction of America's credit companies.

NARRATOR/JACK/TYLER:
So who is our humble narrator? Edward Norton plays what is only credited as 'Narrator'. There has been large deliberation on what his actual name is, although some conclusions can be drawn in the novel (1), the film is a lot more complex in our protagonist's identity. In addition, the mere existence of Tyler is a complex one, for it is questionable how many things occur throughout the film. First of all, the name of the Narrator is a debatable one. Never is the name revealed in the film or book, only speculation can be made upon it. Our protagonist is a living MacGuffin, to clear the air; Jack is not his real name. Jack is a way for the Narrator to describe himself. The only other possible known name is Tyler Durden. At one point it can be confirmed his name is Tyler, when he calls Marla asking her what his name was, she answers Tyler Durden. However, just because she knew him as Tyler does not mean that he had not created this identity by himself, and later grew it into an alter ego. Jack had used many fake names at his support groups, Cornelius for testicular cancer, perhaps Tyler is for Fight Club. In fact, numerous times throughout the film it is specifically said that he is not Tyler, but simply becoming what he had created. Tyler is an improved vision of himself, as he continues he becomes that vision.

"I am free in all the ways that you are not. People do it every day: they talk to themselves; they see themselves, as they'd like to be. Nevertheless, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it. Naturally, you're still wrestling with it a bit, so sometimes, you're still you. Other times, you imagine yourself watching me. Little by little, you're just letting yourself become...Tyler Durden."

Such examples illustrate the slow transformation into another identity. The transformation itself is a long process taking "Jack" over a year to complete. Jack does not suffer insomnia contrary to his belief, but narcolepsy. Narcolepsy is the constant fatigue he suffers from his 'insomnia'. However, Jack never has insomnia, instead he spends his nights as Tyler - working night jobs at the Pressman Hotel and as a projectionist, and most importantly making soap. All of 'Tyler's activities' takes place while Jack is supposedly not asleep. "What about narcolepsy? I nod off, I wake up in strange places, I have no idea how I got there." It is shortly after this when Tyler Durden begins to become an image, slowly integrating into Jack's mind with short flashes leading up to their meeting. (4)

Tyler's lack of existence is obvious throughout the film (although these clues are not obvious until multiple viewings). There is a clever use of Pitt's character throughout, some examples are:

One: When Jack and Tyler both go onto the bus, Jack only pays a fare for himself. As well as that, when a man walks past, bumping both Jack and Tyler, the man only apologises to Jack.

Two: Often Tyler will speak for Jack, and Jack will repeat himself, without the third party noticing Tyler. During the hospital scene, Tyler tells Jack exactly what to say, and Jack repeats himself. Furthermore, while at the Paper St. Residence Marla and Jack speak, but Jack is disrupted by the sounds of construction in the basement, which Marla cannot hear. Again, in this scene he is told what to say to the third party - Marla.

Three: Jack attempts to call Tyler with no answer. Although, Tyler shortly calls him at the same pay phone he just tried to contact him. Tyler says he never answers his phone and he used '69 to call him back. However, later the Paper St. Residence is revealed to have only rotary phones, which would not be capable of redialling, therefore, Jack had imagined the entire phone call. Later when Jack and Tyler finish drinking at the bar and go home, Jack asks where his car is, Tyler then replies, "What car?" It is then questionable how Tyler managed to get to a bar from such an isolated area - Paper St.

Four: When Tyler finishes having sex with Marla, he opens the door to Jack who was 'passing by' and talks with him. Once Jack leaves Marla asks who he was talking to, since there was only two people in the house, this meant Tyler must have been talking to himself, or Jack was talking to himself.

Five: When Tyler (who is driving) purposely crashes the car, while recovering Tyler pulls Jack out of the driver's seat, implying Jack had been driving the whole time.

CASTRATION:
According to David Fincher, "We're designed to be hunters and we're in a society of shopping. There's nothing to kill anymore, there's nothing to fight, nothing to overcome, nothing to explore. In that societal emasculation this everyman is created."

Feminism is not a detrimental on society (although the film may say otherwise). Feminism in the latest decades has been highly successful in 'Western Societies' (I have a personal dislike for this phrase). It has lead to the equilibrium of sexes. Since feminism, many other minorities and groups of social change have arisen, debatably shaping the world into a better place. However, Fight Club's message is not necessarily that all this is a bad revolution, but it is being done to the point of reversing the problem, this time suppressing men; or alternatively, Fight Club mat very well show that equilibrium is an impossible feet. Of course at the present woman are not as powerful as men in previous ancient societies, but the beginning of this process is leaving men more damaged than ever before. The emasculation of men in society is not only taking the previous tasks that were once theirs, but also taking away the primal instinct of superiority. (2)

It can be seen that males are made to be a superior sex. Males generally are physically superior and evidentially more inventive - although women were never given the opportunity to make inventive and creative contributions to our societies. Perhaps the most powerful theme throughout Fight Club is not the irregularity of men assimilating to an equal level with women, but whether it's possible. In almost all (if not all) societies of past and present have seen men superior. The 'hunter-gather' lifestyle saw men the most important and physically powerful sex. What Fight Club asks is whether it is possible to ever fully lose this instinct of 'hunter-gather', whether it is possible for men to ever truly become equal - or if woman will abuse their latest increase in power. If men were one day capable of removing the shackles of primal instinct, at what cost would it be? Will assimilation conclude in ultimate depression and self-loathing?

It would be pure denial to say Fight Club is not a misogynistic film. The film screams of fear for the future of the male sex, predominantly at the latest ill attempt to reach equilibrium among the sexes - feminism. The fear manages to effectively mask any other theme of the film, by using hidden subtext, or obvious signs. Jack's condo and 'IKEA lifestyle' is the essential emasculation of our protagonist, quibbling over the fine details which would only gain attention of women in the pre-60's.

"Like everyone else, I had become a slave to the IKEA nesting instinct. If I saw something like clever coffee table in the shape of a yin and yang, I had to have it. I would flip through catalogues and wonder, "What kind of dining set defines me as a person?" We used to read pornography. Now it was the Horchow Collection. I had it all. Even the glass dishes with tiny bubbles and imperfections, proof they were crafted by the honest, simple, hard-working indigenous peoples of wherever."

Our nameless protagonist (referred as his own third-person description of him - Jack) is not the quintessential heroic, rustic man known to a previous lifestyle. In the eye's of Tyler Durden, Jack is a whinging little man, engrossed in the superficial world of consumerism and emasculation. Self-described Jack falls into the 'nesting instinct', miserable in the conventions of modern society's plan - equality. Jack is the model citizen, living to empty his wallet and die, "On a long enough timeline, the survival
rate for everyone drops to zero." At times Jack is shown wanting to be a women. Ever so sarcastically, we are given the obvious hints, "I want bowel cancer!"

The crippling disease is demonstrated in Jack's zombie-like state of self-loathing lethargy. Jack's miserable attitude is caused mainly by his work, often requiring him to rest on a lovely airplane seat. Physically, Jack deteriorates with his inactive lifestyle, and the crippling insomnia. As an insomniac, he searches for the miniscule excitement that is his impulse spending, rewarded with almost no sleep. With no excitement or rest, Jack's life becomes a slow debilitating death, not only physically, but also to his morals. Despite all his problems, he is not a wreck of a person, but a perfect person, "I am Jack's complete lack of surprise". Jack's lack of existence leaves him as a boring person. Perhaps one of the many reasons for this film's unpopularity too many is their narrator is a soulless bore spewing words of self-pity. Jack is non-existent to the point of having no name, credited only as 'Narrator'. It is for these reasons why Jack has Tyler, to support himself and bring out his own primal instinct of masculinity and impulse. For another alternative, Jack escaped his miserable state in various support groups. During the support groups, he was able to release his built up sadness and cry. Although his reliance on these support groups was a gapping weakness, it freed him mentally.

Of course, Jack's temporary enlightenment is put to an end, and you guessed it by a woman. As soon as Jack begun to escape his entrapment of consumerism and gain some of his primal manhood, a woman goes for a kick in the balls and throws him back into the even more pathetic state he originated. In this early stage of the film, there are two major allegories,

One: The main support group shown throughout the film is the support for testicular cancer. Here Jack meets Bob, "Bob, Bob had bitch tits." This is our introduction to the support group and semi-important character, Bob (Meatloaf). Already in the line above, our Jack uses a womanly insult 'bitch' to describe his now womanly assets - large male boobs. Upon that, Robert 'Bob' Pulson has a very soft, high-pitched voice, resembling a woman's. He also has a very kind nature about himself and no balls; Bob is the trigger for Jack to cry. Much like the rest of the film's metaphorical motifs, Bob is the example of a man hitting rock bottom. He had previously been a body builder, a profession that screams machismo, yet due to the modern use of steroids, becomes the womanly figure he is now. It is at this point, where the small manliness retained is destroyed by a womanly figure, causing Jack to cry and lose his composed self. The rest of the group is no better of an influence, for none of them have their testicles anymore. We hear a story of man, brought to crying because of his ex-wife. The support group itself is a pool of fear of women, and the slow transition to becoming one. Jack's reliance on groups of this general nature of weakness reflects his own emotional stability. For Jack to free himself of the constant pressure of his ideal modern life, he must further degrade himself, asking for help he does not even need, "And then... something happened. I let go. Lost in oblivion - dark and silent and complete. I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom."

Two: Marla Singer, our one and only real female character. "If I did have a tumour, I would name it Marla. Marla, the little scratch on the roof of your mouth that would heal if only you would stop tonguing it, but you can't." Marla's entrance into the support groups (and introduction to the film) results in the ultimate hatred of our humbly broken narrator. Marla is represented as a pest, infecting Jack's Zen with her mutual lies and constant smoking. Marla lives in poverty dresses darkly and is portrayed as an antagonist. Although she is no out spoken feminist (the enemy), she is the essentially the final straw of Jack's sanity (or insanity?) leading to the creation of Tyler Durden.

To conclude, Fight Club's message is not of hatred towards the female sex, but fear for the 'Westernised' males. Through capitalism and social revolutions, attempting totally equality has changed the primal role of a male. Our film suggests that this is perhaps impossible to ever achieve in a healthy manner. The broken Jack manifests his emotions until he reaches insanity - or potential enlightenment - forcing himself to create what he wishes he could be. This idol he creates himself is a force of inspirations, resurrections and jealousy, which extends to not only Jack, but also huge groups of men wanting to break free of their modern lifestyle, "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." Fight Club is ultimately, what Tyler Durden is fighting for, the freedom of men, destructions of corporations and business, and the revival of the 'hunter-gather' customs.

CONSUMERISM, ANARCHY AND SOAP:
According to Austrian neurologist, Sigmund Freud, the human psyche contains three main driving forces for our actions and desires. (5) Although rather complex, in short these three are what drives us to carry out what we desire - the Id, Ego and Superego. In Freud's theory, we are all born with id. The id is responsible for our basic desires, essential for infancy. Freud believes the id is responsible for our pleasure. To summarise, the id will want what is required at the specific moment, caring for no variables of the certain situation. When an infant is thirsty, the id wants water, thereby resulting in the newborn crying, regardless of whether water can be provided or the situation is appropriate for crying. The id can be describe as selfish as it cares not for anything else then satisfying its current desire. Therefore, the baby wanting water will cry until water is provided, the newborn doesn't care for time, or if its parents are preoccupied or unable to satisfy the newborn, it will still demand water despite practicality.

Freud believes that as a child further develops (age of 3) the ego will develop. The ego, theoretically takes into account the practicality of the id's desire. The ego understands and analyses variables. The ego ultimately satisfies the id's desires while taking into account other desires and the fallout its own.

At the age of five, it is said we develop the final drive, the superego. The superego develops as societal customs and restraints influence the child. The superego is the moralistic aspect of a person, taking into account normative of society. On whole, the id is responsible for our most primitive desires, taking in no consideration of potential hazards or impracticability. The ego controls the id with reason, and associates the superego, surpassing just logic to cultural preferences. The id is the aggressive and sexual desires, controlled only by modern civilisation's customs, Freud stated:

"Men are not gentle creatures, who want to be loved, who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them not only a potential helper or sexual object, but also someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him."


Jack's creation of Tyler and 'change' into him is explainable by the extreme differences in the superego. Jack had been raised in beliefs positive to consumerism. As the Freud theory surfaced, it was used by business to exploit the id's desire, replacing id's original desires (aggression and sexual) with the product being sold. Jack's altered id was responsible for his desire to fill his void will products, "What kind of dining set defines me as a person?" With the id effectively buried under the control of advertisers, his environment easily influences the superego. Jack's superego, or ideology leads him to believe his current life of depression and boredom is the typical ladder to stardom and wealth. The path he takes is what he is raised to attempt, fuelling consumerism. Tyler is the polar opposite to Jack; Tyler's superego is the same as his id's desires. Tyler's superego is as primitive as the id, being our desires without the account of potential hazard or fallout. Therefore, Tyler's ideology is pure to his ancestors design in thought, like in Freud's statement; Tyler's desires are violent and sexual. However, Tyler himself does not directly circum to primitive thinking without thought; Tyler develops a divine plan to do what he believes is correct and essential for the survival of civilisation, which is to restore our original ids - by returning to the dark ages. Of course, Jack's superego and suppressed id does not agree with Tyler's pure ideology, resulting in the creation of an alter ego - ego being the balance between the id and superego, with the conflicting beliefs and loss of balance, another ego must be created to support the psychological stress.

Fight Club's intention was for the viewer to realise the change of nature and 'controlled' ids in our post-modern society. After the turn of World War Two, the "middle children of history" were bombarded with latest societal trend:

"Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. we've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."

Tyler's philosophy is the alter ego of Jack, conflicting with his original ego. His rebellion stems from his id, defying the damage that has been done to him by society's fast-paced consumerism. Tyler's desire is to return to 'the beginning'. This involves anarchism to counter modern technologies. Tyler's specific policy on government is never revealed. Capitalism is the opposition of Tyler. Capitalism is responsible for the surge of business and freedom to own and sell assets, resulting in the growth of consumerism. In this case, Marxism is the obvious approach as a direct retaliation to Capitalism, highly influenced by the Cold War. Tyler does use some Marxism for the sense of equality, but in the very same time includes Fascism and Anarchy. "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everything else." Here Tyler's words stay true to the sense of Marxism of 'equality' of all, but in at the very same time uses Fascist techniques to gain control. Through series of brainwashing and intense conditioning, Tyler exploits the men's weaknesses to gain full control. Fight Club and Project Mayhem are strictly for men only. Remembering the insecurities of post-modern men, Tyler offers the outlet for desperate men, thereby exploiting their desires - Tyler does this by appealing to their suppressed ids. Furthermore, although Marxism and Fascism is used for control and some ideology, anarchy is the ultimate tool of execution. Project Mayhem gains influences by committing acts of vandalism, often seeming random and for the sake of 'slowing progress'. However, beyond mere execution using anarchy, Tyler's final wish on society could quite possibly be Anarchism - returning to the dark ages. In Tyler's vision he speaks of roaming through ruins of cities, hunting wild animals are all signs of the vision of our now obsolete primeval lifestyles (in most parts of the world).

The infamous pink soap, like many other aspects of the film, is a symbol itself. Throughout Fight Club, pink soap is often just 'around'. The soap proves that not a single frame was wasted in this film, but everything shown has some level of subtext. The soap happens to be one of the most important motifs. When asked what he does for a living, Tyler identifies himself as a soap manufacturer, ignoring his other jobs as a projectionist and waiter at the prestigious Pressman Hotel. Soaps significance plays a crucial role, as Tyler states soap is, "the foundation of civilization". First, soap is used for the productions of nitro-glycerine, resulting in the explosives used for Tyler's ultimate plan; with this comes to explosives used to destroy Jack's apartment, which symbolises the beginning of Jack's new life, "the first soap was made from the ashes of heroes". Therefore, soap as Tyler describes is the root and foundation of society, and especially in this case, the actions leading to Jack's anarchist regime: purification, cleanliness and enlightenment. Furthermore, soap is also a drive for their plans.

If you wish to finish reading, continue too: http://rantsofadegenerate.blogspot.com/2011/12/fight-club-essay-incomplete-unedited.html

Night of the Living Dead, the king of all cult films. It is arguably the best zombie movie ever, although I prefer Dawn of the Dead. This is launched George A Romero's zombie legend, and many sequels, that do not have anything to do with each other, except the fact that the zombies are a growing epidemic. This movie was really good, and has the characteristics where I would say "I would have been proud to have directed this movie."
The plot follows Barbra and Johnny as they visit their father in the cemetery (if you have not picked-up on it, his grave). As they are at the cemetery, a zombie attacks them, and Barbra manages to escape to a barn house. Ben who arrives by a car then later on joins her. They start to barricade and discover other survivors, and that is the story. They try to last the night listening to the radio, boarding-up the windows, escape attempts and arguing.
The plot may seem simple, but is very interesting. This film is notorious for an ultra-low budget, and bad acting. Now just to start-off, the direction in this movie was excellent. It may be bad quality black and white, but the cinema photography/direction really made the film interesting, and created some memorable scenes. One of them is when they look out the window and see two or three zombies walking on the grass towards them. It has an eerie effective look.
Now the acting, I must say it was not that bad. Barbra was horrible, but luckily she faints early on and we do not see much of her (feminist have even said that this was offensive to women, because she was useless, they do not know when to stop do they). Ben, I thought he was fantastic (well not compared to Kevin Spacey in American Beauty), but it was not horrible, and he deserves more. The rest of the cast were fairly good, some were bad, but a few were good. So do not expect really bad acting, it is not regular here.
This film was very watchable, it is not all just in the barn, and nothing else. They have a radio, and the radio was done very well. The television was done professionally, and I really feel this makes it a good film, despite flaws. Now the zombies; sure they do not run around with missing limbs and big holes in their heads, but for what they had then, they were creepy and well done. They were done, with no ridiculous occurrences. So as far as films go, this is probably as likeable as it gets and great replay value.
Overall, a really fun and enjoyable cult classic, that is not so bad it is good, it was never bad in the first place. It also has a very chilling ending that, at first annoyed me, but I have grown to admire. The best part about this film is that whenever you watch a zombie movie, something really stupid always happens. Like in Dawn of the Dead, the biker goes on the heart monitor, with zombies all around him! (In addition, he is ripped out, with his arm still in the monitor). In Dawn of the Dead remake, a zombie gives birth to a zombie. In 28 days later, we just see a person naked for no reason. Something always seems to happen that is really stupid, but in here no, it is fairly grounded. Another problem with most zombie movies, is that people are never scared enough, they run past zombies like nothing, but in here they seem to be scared properly. I would recommend to any zombie movie lover, cult film lover and general movie lovers. If you are a fan of horror, this is a staple movie.

Twelve Angry Men, this was nothing short of a masterpiece really. This film is famous for having only one setting, a jury room, with the exception of three minutes either inside the courtroom, or just outside the building. The mere fact that one location (not a very exciting location for that matter) would be there throughout the whole movie may makes some people think that it would be boring. I bet that the minority who give this film a rotten review, really rely on the film being boring. I personally don?t find many films boring. The film was far from boring really. This film was absolutely flawless. The plot was great, yet very realistic. The acting was superb, one of the best group of acting I have ever seen if not the best. This film is a hallmark in films, and how people interact with each other. Some may say it is a courtroom drama, but to me it is not about the case, but it is the ultra-realistic observation of men under pressure, a psychological drama, where men are put under the microscope and examined in their vulnerability.
The film follows a jury who are deciding a case of an eighteen year-old boy who killed his father. At first eleven out of the twelve men don?t think twice about saying he is guilty, yet one man (Fonda, whose name is not said to the end, which I can?t remember now) says that he is not guilty. He isn?t sure, but says that they should talk about it, instead of sending him to the chair after five minutes of discussion. They all say why he is guilty, yet soon, the man manages to make some men think twice, and they start to look at the case in great detail. The film follows heavy observation as how the men interact and how they get to their end decision. There is a lot of disagreeing in the film, arguing, therefore it gets its very clever title, Twelve Angry Men. Although I would dare say a couple keep their ?cool?. I must add that as well as the famous location, I found that the beginning of the jury room was shot in a single frame for about ten minutes, with quite a lot of movement and dialogue; I was really impressed and thought I would add that.
This film for me was perfect. The plot, or murder case was heavily detailed, yet realistic and it was not obvious in which way the jury would go, contradicting evidence. It was amazing to see such a clear case turn into a mess of credible and non-credible testimonies and evidence. It makes you wonder sometimes if juries do not think the case through, and see the evidence as indisputable.
The acting in the film, well as I said it was probably the greatest gathering of acting I have ever seen. The actors themselves are rather unknown to me, the only one I heard about was Fonda, but I would be lying if I said it was not his daughter whom made learned of him. I would compare this gathering to the likes of the godfather. Each character is perfect in their detail, each having their own sort of back story, or way of thinking. This is as developed as you can get. The characters all move around the room in a different, yet realistic way. All the actors seem to be in character throughout the whole film, which includes the ten minute single frame. They all walked around the room, starting conversations with each other, walking and doing something that seems like what their character would do when they are not talking, or are of particular importance at the time. The characters all have a different take on evidence, either a very biased way where they take their own beliefs and experiences into the evidence, or if they look at it specific through a non-biased manner.
The talking and plot, despite being about the same thing, does not get boring. Perhaps some would not like the film, as a fourteen year old; I am one of the very few people in my school that would even look at a black and white film. I dare say I found probably be the only one who would enjoy this film, as they would not listen to the talking, yet wait for an explosion all some CGI. That is the main problem with the film. If you cannot appreciate dialogue in a film, then this will have absolutely no appeal to you. Those who love films and listen will love this film.
Overall, I loved this film. The film is not only a favourite, yet said to be a masterpiece over a great majority. The film has absolutely perfect characters, perfect acting and perfect plot. The only problem this film has is if the viewer of the film has a problem with attention. The5efore the incapable viewer would find this tedious, but no person who appreciates dialogue should find a flaw. I would recommend this to a select few, but would be sure that the return would unanimous in praise. Twelve Angry Men is a must-see for any movie lover, and a personal favourite.

This is one of those great movies you rarley come by.
This silent yet thrilling film that packs quite a laugh, as Buster Keaton chases the north and is chased by the north, during the civil war in America and also throws in a danzal in destress.
Excellent movie, also funny how he's on the south's side(the losers).

Rashomon, this film is often cited as a masterpiece, and is a favourite of many well-respected critics. Well I guess you are here for my verdict, yes it is a masterpiece. It was not exactly as good as I expected, but it was certainly a masterpiece. Rashomon has a fantastic plot, fantastic acting (difficult with language barrier to be accurate, but I will trust myself) and it brings up many questions upon crime and punishment. The questions brought up is also apply able to today's age, but is more relevant to the time before DNA. I must say this is one of a few amount of Japanese theatre I have seen, I am told this is one of the best, if not the best. Therefore, I am off to a good start.

The plot is quite clever, and is capable of rivalling some of the most complex crime films of the modern era. It follows a group of witnesses in 12th century Japan, as they give their stories upon a rape of a girl, and the murder of her husband. Each time one witness begins one side of the story is shown, each proving to be very different, complicating the case. It starts as a Priest, Woodcutter and another man take shelter in a gatehouse because of the rain. Here they recount the case, and from the case scenes, we go into more flashbacks. A renowned thief, the wife, the woodcutter and the Priest (who is supposed to speak on behalf of the dead man give their testimonies on what happened. The main problem is, each and every testimony is completely different from each other, bringing forth quite the compelling problem.

The plot is genius. It was way ahead of its time. It has great complexity, and is handled really well and was just a delight to watch. The thing that this film manages to succeed in, which many of its eras fail to succeed in, is to give the modern viewer a complex film. A story line that makes the audience think, which a rare type of film was in its era. Now they shoot these out over and over again hoping for fluke. I just must admire the way this film is made. The viewer is left with something, a message and despite classics and masterpieces; very few have a hidden message or thought provoking viewing. This is probably the reason why this is so highly acclaimed amongst well-respected critics.

Well let us cover the basics before we delve too deeply into the films motives. The acting was brilliant; at first I thought it was perhaps bland and well basic. Yet as the film progressed, the actors showed a lot of versatility, making one of the best ensembles of a film ever. Before you pan this thought really think of it. Each character gains their own identity and reasoning. They have their own way of reacting to certain events and problems. They are perfectly developed one could say. Now with each story told, the characters act different, perhaps they show more empathy towards a bounded man, or they are willing to cut his throat. Every time this transition is made, they become different, yet they remain similar and true to their original personality. It amazed me, especially the thief, how violence was also mixed with remorse, with some craziness the whole time in the mix. In conclusion, this film has some of the versatile acting I have ever seen.

We now come to the direction and cinema photography. The directing is close to flawless, a feet by the famous Akira Kurosawa, who has become quite the 'cult' director. He has managed to make such impressive list of films; he is adored by many film buffs. While this is the first of Kurosawa for me, I see his great ability of directing. The direction is great, he manages to fill most of the film with one single location, and the woods were the incident takes place. The other two settings (Courtroom and Gatehouse) is not only all talk, but all talk that keeps you anxious and keeping you at the edge of your seat, to find out what happens next. The fight scenes are violent and entertaining, without taking over the film. The flash back scenes, especially the dead man's has an eerie atmosphere to them. The technique used for his flashback was rather unsettling and really was ahead of its times. The cinema photography on the other hand - which I always consider very similar to direction - is beautiful. We see the woods as a scary terrain, where this horrible act took place, as well as some the courtroom scenes. The gatehouse scene used its space well, and the whole trapped because of the rain cause a slight claustrophobic effect, forcing the men to delve into the case.

Therefore, what did I get from this film. What is this thought provoking thing I was talking about earlier. The main thing I took from it was the distortions of the truth, especially in crime and punishment - or as I like to call it, a purple monkey dishwasher. We see many witnesses/victims say their testimonies with such confidence, such assurance that they are telling the truth. As we continue and the film progresses we learn that only one of these fourth testimonies are right. Yet the law must pick one of them. How do we know they chose the right one? Did they choose the right testimony? We never actually see the results of the case. So our imaginations are left to wonder, some still are not sure who actually killed the husband, although Imp fairly sure on who it was. We are just asked ourselves, how often does the law get it right, are so called 'innocent' men really innocent? Are some of the so-called 'guilty' men who claim to be themselves, really actually innocent?

Overall, Rashomon brings forth many ethical questions, as well as an entertaining viewing experience. The most amazing thing of this film is its ability to keep its quality, despite the action and very complex plot it has. There is no denying that this is a masterpiece and there is very little criticism for this film. The only criticism I can really see is perhaps people not used to films of this like e.g. Black and White, or Foreign. So people read of it being great, but upon seeing it believe it to be horrible, because they are incapable of understanding such types of films. I would recommend this to and film critic or buff, and is essential viewing upon those who wish to see the best.

[b]"Remember those posters that said, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life"? Well, that's true of every day but one - the day you die."[/b]

[b]American Beauty[/b], has sharp direction, top notch acting and a dark subtext placing itself in one of my personal favourites. American Beauty solidifies itself as a modern masterpiece, being one of the best observations of a suburban life is many years (if ever). What American Beauty manages to do, is break from censoring itself, being a mainstream film it remains exposed and 'un-pc'. With such a sentimental and relevant moral, it can resonate with the audience for a long time after a viewing. Although for those who don't connect with its important message, with the film's excellent craft, it manages to entertain you and have you intent on the lives of our messed-up characters, without explosives. By the end after weaving through the lives of a dysfunctional family, its neighbours and an ambitious model, we find ourselves caring and understanding, not only as if we knew the people personally, but if we had known their true feelings. This makes American Beauty so effective on a personal level, how these realistic characters take our empathy, which we give so graciously. The characters all represent a subtly satirised character in the suburban life, somewhat smug in all their actions and dialogue, but our protagonist; Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) takes us through a life changing experience. I'm not going to say it's going to change your life forever, but you're definitely going to make you re-think everything you consider significant.

[b]The plot[/b], we open upon a girl laying down, being recorded. It continues to become a devious discussion of the murder of her father. Then we start in a lovely suburb, we're introduced to a lovely family, the Burnham's. Our stellar Lester Burnham leads as one of the best protagonists/narrators ever, a poor broken man who works an office job, and drifts through his life, controlled by his wife. That brings us too Caroline Burnham (Annette Bening), a power hungry wife who no longer cares for her family, but seeks happiness in her paycheck. For Caroline's success brings her the purpose for her life. The unfortunate spawn of these two is Jane (same surname of course...). Jane (Thora Burch) much like her parents is followed by raining clouds to dampen her day. Lost, like any other teenager. In addition, with all that said, there's also a creepy boy (her neighbour) who loves using his camera to record what he is curious of, in this case Jane. The violent father, militarised gay bashing, and all that jazz can explain all the boy's odd traits.
After our brilliant introductions of life, Lester comes across Jane's best friends, Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari) at a basketball game. His pilot light is re-lit, and he has a new push in his reason to live. Lester hits a midlife crisis, and this leads down many sub plots into philosophical brilliance.

One of the greatest things about the plot is the lack of predictability. Apart from the fact we are told he will die, the rest is unknown. The plot weaves in and out of different stories, not concentrating on anyone greatly, but just everyone in general, with the exception of Lester, the shepherd for all the ridiculousness. American Beauty tells us a well-crafted story, representing our many social problems with an original plot of its own. It's often quite funny and inspirational as among all the depressing scenes, the film teaches us to see some happiness to it all. Somehow, American Beauty manages to pull in many genres, emotions and morals and has us care for every little thing to happen. In addition, it's all done beautifully.

[b]The acting[/b], astonishing. One can rarely pull out a modern performance and say how excellent it is, it's of course even rarer a whole cast rises to level of the best of acts. Kevin Spacey is perfection, having a sly, yet empathetic demeanour. Lester Burnham reminds us how to care for someone again, yet laugh at a poor derelict man. Spacey is strong in delivery, and has all the subtleties of all, he also seems to be so realistic, among everyone else who is a slight exaggeration. Lester is our guide through this messed up world, as he recovers we also recover with him on a thought provoking experience.
Annette Bening is one of the very few female performances that would be classified as daring. Woman rarely go beyond a side-kick for an all powerful man, don't get me wrong I'm no feminist, but woman rarely get out there. Bening is strong and is filled very convincing and powerful emotions. Her acting is slightly smug; and serves as a mockery of all those people who are really like her, and probably the main person American Beauty tries to point out; Bening is the materialistic monster we all can be at times.
Thora Birch is probably the weakest actor. However, that might just be rather convenient since she plays one of the most unlikable characters. Why is she unlikable, because she is like me, she is like every other teenager. Teenagers always believe they are alone, and that they don't belong, melodramatic in all the sense. Fall into love so easily, and so easily hate themselves and envy. This is Thora Birch's character, Jane in all. She is like every selfish teenager, but as Lester says,

[b]"Janie's a pretty typical teenager. Angry, insecure, confused. I wish I could tell her that's all going to pass, but I don't want to lie to her."[/b]

Wes Bently playing Ricky Fitts (the psychotic neighbour) tackles this role very respectfully. At times, I will admit some lines are a little too artsy, but his purpose is a strong one. Ricky can be described as the moral justice (despite his connections to drugs). He is one of the very few people who can be classed as 'happy' and has a grateful understanding of beauty. Ironically, he was taken to a mental hospital...

[b]The direction[/b], Sam Mendes's first movie is justifiably a masterpiece. The movie is yes, artsy. However, why is that a bad thing? Sam Medes directs this movie perfectly. He captures the moods perfectly all the shots are interesting. American Beauty is quite a joy to look at, capturing suburban life perfectly; replay value is quite high for an all-talking movie. The screenplay by Alan Ball is by far one of the best screenplays written in recent time. The dialogue (usually) is well-placed and well thought of.

Thomas Newman's score is easily one of the most powerful pieces of music in cinema history. Ridiculously simple, of a few piano keys, we are given precisely what American Beauty speaks of, beauty, particularly the scene where Lester confronts Jane in the kitchen. The soundtrack for American Beauty is just nothing to be forgotten for a very long time, and will haunt you long after watching the movie, especially the last song '"Because" - Elliot Smith.'

Like any academy award winner, there is criticism. Such criticisms are at American Beauty's satire and artsy nature. To justify these claims, of course its satirical, some people don't seem to understand that this movie has heavy subtext. As well as the question, why is artsy such a bad thing? Pretentious is a word thrown around a lot in this modern age, if a film as much as attempts to show some independence and originality, one must always says it's bad for it to be different. Many often forget those classics they cherish so much themselves are artsy, and in many cases pretentious. Unfortunately that is just the mentality that all great new things are too good to be real, and there all smug, 'try-hards'.

[b]Overall[/b], American Beauty reaches the level of masterpiece, not just because of how clever it is, but how it goes beyond excellent filmmaking and builds beyond it all, to a philosophical level, which is at the heights of 2001; A Space Odyssey (although 2001 is by far superior). Dark, satirical, funny and stellar acting, American Beauty is a great representation upon what beauty is. At the time when we scroll past the half-naked beauty, to see the clothed, lesser attractive girl, a chill goes down your spine. American Beauty has just challenged modern life, while gain empathy and emotions people rarely care to show to not only movie characters, but also real people. American Beauty challenges what beauty truly is, and as an often interpretation, people are left to ask,

[b]"What is beauty?"[/b]

This film is by far one of the best films of the twenty-first century. This film is what some might say is the perfect mystery film, or thriller. The plot is ingenious and original -- very original. The cinema photography of the film is immaculately filmed; by keeping, a well-developed theme of mementos used by the protagonist, hence the name 'Memento'. Despite what many may think about the film, Christopher Nolan has created nothing short of a masterpiece.
The film follows protagonist Leonard (Guy Pearce), a man who suffers short-term memory loss. It has Leonards struggle to figure out who killed and raped his wife, which is the idea of the whole film. Leonard uses pictures and notes to remember the evidence and his associates. The film also has a trait, which truly makes this film different, and exceeded past most of its rivalling thrillers and mysteries. The film plays backwards, in colour, while another part plays chronologically in black and white. The black and white part has Leonard in his apartment throughout most of the movie, while the colour goes backwards in Leonards usual sleuthing. A black and white scene follows every colour scene,, before returning to colour.
The film keeps a clever suspense, it manages to start at the very end of the story, and go backwards, yet keep revealing something new with each scene. The film manages to keep most of the 'climatic revelations' at the end of the film, or the start of the plot. It also keeps a good background story, which Leonard tells to various people. Scientists have also said that this film is the most accurate film, showing short-term memory. Guy Pearce does an excellent role as Leonard, a well-developed and likable character, in which you feel empathy for his character. The first time you watch this film, you do really want to know what is going on, while some might have to watch it more than once truly understand what is actually going on.
An argument that many bring up upon criticising this is, "How does he remember he has short-term memory loss?" While I do not know the answer to this I can back up its factual use, and that it is not a 'deliberate' factual error. My mother works at an insurance company -- like Leonard. One of her customers was someone with short-term memory, before they started their conversation he stated, "I suffer from short term memory loss... I am sorry if I cause any inconvenience..." He then forgot something from his car, and went to retrieve it, when he returned, he had forgotten their previous conversation, and restarted. Therefore, I am not sure how they know, but I know that they do know.
This film is not for the action junkie, while some might enjoy. Do not expect this film to make you cry either, although you feel empathy.
This truly is a masterpiece...

City of God, this film is quite easily one of the best of the twenty first century, and is the true template of a modern masterpiece. This film is the king at something I have been searching for quite a while now, realism! A film doesn't get more gritty, sad and violent than City of God. It also manages to throw in some comedy and interesting narration to lighten-up the mood, and make this a somewhat enjoyable experience. While the film takes a true story, which being realistic may back-fire on entertainment, has this Fight Club-like narration and the occasional whit. City of God's story is so sad and poetically revealing upon the life in the slums, you are pleasantly surprised that it was a true story. City of God is not just a masterpiece, but a modern masterpiece, this makes it more accessible to a larger audience and it truly becomes a more effective film.

Just before I get too deep into the film, let's do a little history class. This is a true story, a story of the drug trafficking and increasing violence of Latin American countries. Cidade de Deus is a suburb in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was finished in the sixties, which is when the film opens. It was planned so that the government could get rid of the shanty towns and slums from the centre of Rio de Janeiro, and moves them away. Cidade de Deus (City of God in Portuguese translation) is a film, which opens an insight into what really occurred there. It shows one of the many reasons why this soon became one of the most violent and dangerous places to live, and the people who controlled it all. This is why this is one of the most effective films I have ever seen, while it would naive to say that this is completely accurate to the book, and the book is completely accurate to the events that occurred. We can leave satisfied knowing we saw an accurate description upon life in this horrid area, fiction or non-fiction.

The plot is clever, engaging and realistic (love using that word). The plot follows a bunch of boys as they grow-up in the slums of Brazil, called the City of God. It has many interweaving stories and we begin at the end. The main character and narrator is Rocket. At the beginning of the film we see him as a young man, but then we go back to his childhood. Yet often from a small amount of his story, the film jumps off into large tangents of the other life's of people he knows, or will soon know. So it's difficult to fully explain what exactly happens. The film is rich of interesting characters, both realistic and fun. The most notable one would be Lil Dice/ Lil Ze, one of the most violent and horrific bad guys to ever grace filming history - perhaps slightly exaggerated, but he is definitely a memorable character.

I am actually very impressed with the plot. One could call it one of the laziest plots ever. We often leave Rocket for twenty minutes at a time to follow the lives of someone who just dies, then we go straight back to Rocket. It was actually quite amazing, Rocket plays a very small part at the midpoint of the film, as many other characters over shadow him, but they bring him back into the limelight near the end. This technique is not the classical interweaving stories with say, like Amores Perros's technique. The narration is very interesting; it adds a charm to this film that despite all the mindless violence, we can still sit there and watch. There are also many other small things which I bring up later on.

The acting for this film is solid. It is difficult to critique an act in different language. I am confident that the acting in here was of great excellence. The shooting locations were quite difficult; one could see that this was a hard movie to make. Well as I said Lil Dice/Lil Ze is an excellent character, and is played well. This is the type of character that kills for fun, and he causes much of the distress in this film. The main character Rocket, the main problem is perhaps he isn't a very likable or applicable character near the middle. Perhaps we go off into too many tangents, or maybe it is a good thing. He becomes a pinnacle as the film nears the end, and he is a liable character, so it is nothing of great worry. Overall, the plot is of a drug trade throughout the slums, and how each of the individuals deals with it, change and so on. Rocket is an aspired photographer, and is on a mission to lose his virginity.

The direction was just a delight. As I said it has some Fight Club-like techniques and whit, and we all know that David Fincher is moving on to great things. Fernando Meirelles is a name that we should remember, he has shown great talent and I hope he doesn't go Richard Kelly or M. Night on us. Anyway, some of the techniques were great. He gives us mass violence in a cluttered area, with lots of people, yet we always seem to know what's going on. We know why they are fighting, or who is shooting, and whose getting the bullet in their head. We even have a few montages of mass murder, this no only sets-up Lil Ze's violent character and how much we should all bow to his fascist glory, but they way it is done is so respectful and controlled. A man could be laughing in the eyes of the person he just killed, yet the film will not disgust us, like say Salo may do.
A particular scene which I just loved was after Rocket goes into a druggie's house to score some, you guessed it drugs. Lil Ze abruptly enters. Freeze narration on, he tells about how this originated as a druggie house. It was quite humorous how it was done and adds some comical relief during a rather sad situation. From the view against the wall, we go through a montage of past residents and how they were taken over, or left and so on. This scene was just really clever, and its certain scenes like this where we can take a breath relax.
Fernando Meirelles truly captures the feel of the slums. This is the reason why we hang in for so long. The film is beautifully shot, and we really feel like we are there experiencing it. He also gets a two hour film, and makes it seems a lot longer, this too some may be bad. Yet despite the seemingly long time the film went, not once did I check the time, or leave for a snack. This in my opinion helped enhance the effectiveness of the film and atmosphere.

This film has been compared to many other great films. Such films like Goodfellas and Pulp Fiction. Quite obvious the general story of the Goodfellas as he tries to join the life of drug dealing. Pulp Fictions comparison due to the similar technique of inter-weaving story line. Unfortunately I have not seen all of the Goodfellas. I can say that in the Goodfellas it is a choice to join this world, while in City of God, rocket is almost forced into this dangerous world. While there is a similar technique between Pulp Fiction and City of God, one can firmly say that they are both original. Pulp Fiction is even more off target when it comes to main characters; in fact one can argue who the main character actually is in Pulp Fiction, while City of God is spot on.

While this film has gotten some criticism, I find most of the criticism quite ridiculous. The main point from many is the film is not enjoyable, that it isn't a nice happy story. I detest this belief that a film should be criticized for not being easy to watch, that some may not be able to stomach the brutal truth. I'm sorry if I offended any of you lightweights out there, but I just excuse any type of criticism of this type. When a film is criticized, one always must see what they criticize, some may be profoundly ridiculous. A prime example would be some person had written a negative review upon 2001: A Space Odyssey, his reasoning; because the events in the film did not occur in 2001, he basically said that the ideas were far-fetched and crazy, now is that not pathetic criticism?

Well City of God is just a masterpiece, and in my opinion the second greatest non-English film of the decade. It is just way too clever and well constructed to garnish any major criticism. It is rustic, gritty and not everyone's cup of tea. Yet it never loses sight of the people and the story trying to be told. It is an accurate portrayal of the horrors of the slums, it never tries to hide anything for its audience, and it is made for the sake of being a film with a message. Not the goal of getting as many people into the cinema as possible.

Overall, we have a true masterpiece. It provides and experience that is truly rare of contemporary film. It is one of the greatest films of the decade, and provided me with an experience like no other. It is not just a sad story, but a window to the true stories of slums, and how one young boy manages to not escape, but make something good out of it for him. I would suggest this to all critics, and is essential viewing.

Yes I know what your thinking Donnie Darko, you either hate it, or love it.
This is why we watch movies, first reluctant to watch it, because of the reviews given on Rotten Tomatoes, I now regret it.
This film left me confused and excited, leaving many questions unanswered. This film will make you want to watch it again and again, yet I still don't understand it completely. First time director Richard Kelly has struck gold, showing he has potenial in the non-mainstream film industrie. The plot follows no other movie I've seen and is completely original.
With "The Killing Moon" it creates a wonderous eighties style as it follows a young disturbed boy. Clever in all ways and really makes a basic storyline really interesting. The acting is fantasic aswell, no weakness during.
There are some flaws to this movie though. This film is not for the action junkies that are now the norm. Sadly the ending to this film is unsatisfactory to what we had been waiting for. Regardless of this the flaws are made up by its weird and creative storyline, which is like no other. That is why its one of my favourites. This one of those rare films you get lost in and don't want to leave.

M, I would like to start off by saying that yes, the film's name does have relevance, but it is not found out why for about one hour into the film. I thought I would clarify that for all the people confused of the film's name on first hearing of it. This masterpiece is directed by no one other then Fritz Lang, although he had made many films previously, this was his first film with sound. Fritz Lang has directed many masterpieces before M; a highly notable one would be Metropolis.

M is the ultimate struggle between morals, the classical right and wrong scenario. Many of the problems and tensions are apply to modern society and often asked questions on human morality. It brings up many strong questions, which are the pinnacle of criticism upon law and order of today's society. Lang's use of noir really gives a bridge between the two morals. Despite myself absolutely adoring noir, he manages to avoid the classical noir, by not having many features of the common noir, for example there is no femme fatale.

The plot follows a city of Germany as a child murderer is at large, starting from his eighth victim. We at the beginning of the film see children singing of a bogeyman coming after the children, as we lead to a distressed mother. Soon we see the mother's daughter Elsie who meets the murderer and shortly after we witness the fallout.All we have so far is the obscure whistling of the murderer. The plot has an unconventional structure, following no lead character, but more or less the wide reaction of the murders as they are committed. It mainly goes follows the police as they carry out their investigation, but later on follow a bunch of criminals attempting to also rid this man of their streets, so their business can continue. It also shows a lot of public paranoia, which really is the highlight of the film excluding the last scenes.

While the film has a wide range of characters, and very few would be considered main or lead characters, one actor who is often commended for his performance is Peter Lorre. Lorre plays Hans Beckert. Do not worry, I hope I didn't alarm you, a strange technique this film uses is that the killer is revealed very early into the film. While you could say this film's cast was perfect, they do not really exceed interest as individuals until the final scenes occur.

One of the highlights of M is the direction/cinema photography. Lang uses a lot of reflections and shadows, and some very impressive one shot scenes that can go for minutes. One particular example from the film that I really enjoyed was when we see the murderer looking in a store window. As he looks into he can see himself and a child, the reflection of a child in the mirror. He clearly seems unsettled by this, but when he looks behind him, there is no child; after you see him drinking, and attempting to stop these thoughts. Lang captures the cityscape and the large city, and the lone murderer alone as he is wondering the streets fighting himself, and trying to stop his undying impulse.

Another highlight of the film and all of Lang's genius is the fallout. The paranoia he manages to create is realistic and gritty, which is rarely found in modern cinema. You see the people on the streets going mad to read the latest news upon the investigations of the murders. The police raiding any place they can find, searching for the most insignificant clue and evidence, to only is left with no results. A scene that I really loved was when we see a little girl ask a man for the time. The man tells her the time, and out of fear for her safety asks where she lives. People nearby find this event suspicious, and make the accusation that he is the murderer. This really captures the paranoia that people feel and despite being set in a large city, we get the claustrophobic feel as we would watch Das Boot. We have even have the criminals desperate to continue their usual business, by doing the duties of the police and searching for the murderer.

Lang's plot structure is perfect. It follows the similar structure of Citizen Kane, we see how the world sees the murderer, but then we also see the real murderer. There is a certain scene where he has two meetings occurring at the same time, the police meeting and the criminals meeting. Lang goes between each meeting seeing one argument then going to the next, in capturing the different ways of thinking and abilities.

The main impact that M makes upon modern society, is the heavily shown in the final scenes of the film. The only way I can relate the two is the common case brought up today, shall a man be punished for actions he cannot control. This dilemma is brought up during the final scenes as he pleads his case of being incapable of controlling his want to kill children. While the murders are never said to be of paedophilia nature, nor is it likely, it also links to modern paedophilia. We often universally condemn them to the most server punishment that can be done. One of the cases they can bring up, which I believe is apparent in M, is that they cannot control their attraction or need to commit such crimes. While in the end say the insane shall be locked-up, we must really ask ourselves to what degree should they be handicapped for their disability or unstoppable urge?

Overall, M is the true look upon humanity and the difference between right and wrong. M shows how a whole city can be torn for the search of one single evil. Even the evil that everyone searches for is twisted into being good. I myself admit that in the end I felt some empathy for the murderer of young children. M manages to hold strong relevance to modern society, despite being over seventy years old. We soon began to question what is right and what is wrong. This is a true masterpiece, and the best of Fritz Lang.

The Social Network, well I think it is fair to say that I am quite slow on seeing this one. I must say for too long have we longed for a film of this time to be so effective, and is truly modern filming at its best. One of the greatest attributes for this film is its ability to be so interesting and easy to watch. Why yes I will admit as an hour or so passes it may not be as exciting as we expected, but in the end we are told a cleverly scripted, well acted story based on true and very relevant events. I think it is safe to say that most people of a younger age has got a Facebook account, even I have one myself. I can say it is a very clever idea and ridiculously addictive. So when one is brought for the idea of how it was created, a lot of people would be interested, not just critics of the like of us, but the millions of members of the popular site. Luckily this is not your average Documentary or Bio-Pic, it creates an interesting story which has substance as well as blockbuster capabilities, two statements not often given to the same film.

The plot is well, fantastic. It's complex and very insightful of the creation of this film. It follows Mark Zuckerberg (Jesses Eisenberg) as he slowly builds-up to the creation of Facebook. Throughout the whole time we weave in and out of lawsuits that he ended with, and as the law suits progress, we are updated through the actual story. It is more upon Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues that he meets on the way, opposed to the business. WE see friendships torn, and new ones made. The cover quote does make some very good relevance to the film, "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies."
The plot is very clever, a new challenge for most mainstream audiences out there. Although it would be safe to say this is not exactly the most complex plot us film buffs have come along. It is safe to safe this is one of the most well dealt plots for a long time on this genre. I think the main drive in the plot though is the intense pace; the dialogue is snappy and clever. Eisenberg really pushes forward on the dialogue, requiring attentive listening. The film also expects us to learn a lot in a short amount of time, and it does this in a lyrical and rather snooty way.

The acting is superb. This is all from such a young cast as well, and we all know young in the modern era is the ensemble for a cliché horror. Yet here they get a good group together. Sure there are weaknesses, but the lead roles are more than satisfying. Eisenberg as I have already said really sets the pace. I do not know how the real Zuckerberg is like, but they seemed to have created a great character; although the real Zuckerberg was not happy with the film, who would like a film portraying them as a prick? Yes Eisenberg does created a great character; he is fast talking, clever and sets himself up as a very intellectual character. Yet he does come around as an extremely unlikable character, even my mum was not too happy about his manners. He gives the whole film this snobby 'I'm better than you" feel. This in fact is the highest level of criticism for this film. I quite strongly stand against saying that it is all intentional and as far as Fincher is concerned what he wanted. So yes those attention seeking critics, Armond... have no credible line of criticism, only nit-picking is the when the flaws are found. When one has to nit-pick to find a problem, we have an at least fresh film.
The rest of the cast is fantastic in the most part. One notable act would be Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Eduardo Saverin. Eduardo is the co-founder, and best friend of Zuckerberg and the main relationship strain of the film. Fame and fortune can tear them apart and create enemies of each other. Both did an excellent job, and the way they interacted was superbly executed. Also we have Justin Timberlake, yes the female craze of male look. He has proved himself to be a reasonably talented singer, and in my experience has created some funny ones. Yet as an actor he has always been a worry. His portrayal of Sean Parker (creator of Napster) is surprisingly good; I mean it was not as great as the other lead roles. Yet he impresses me and does beyond my expectations of him. Timberlake is not great as such, but his role is solid.

Ever since Fight Club we have been waiting for Fincher to give us more clever, quirky film making. He has done so by doing a great direction job. Fincher has really asserted himself as one of the best directors of the current industry. His films always seem to have this light around them exuding quality and excellence. The cinema photography and editing is also above any previous standards set recently. We have a college setting, the most cliché of the teen movie genre, which fails in almost every film it has made (I personally liked the original American Pie). The whole time we are given the most simple and conventionally boring situations. Many examples of this would be the law suits taken place, a group of people discussing business and even Zuckerberg explain the programming and hacking for a whole site. Yes due to the clever scripting and exception direction, we never seem to get bored in the scenes just asking to bore us. While I will admit later in the film it starts to drag, yet not greatly to deter most viewers, but only the more simple minded.
Probably the most notable scene where the films flare and abilities is at its most boastful. During the early stages of the film when Zuckerberg creates Facemash.com after a break-up with his girlfriend, he soon retreats to his room to blog and create. He blogs about her, while intoxicated and the blog is not friendly at all, yet clever at the same time. While at the same time he makes Facemash.com, where it's a site where you compare two pictures of girls, and vote that is the most attractive. This scene, he explains throughout the whole time, how he got the photos by hacking, and how the site is created, the stuff he is saying is dry and very technical for most out there. Yet, due to his great narration, acting, directing this whole part is exciting. And no the scene is not exciting just because of the half naked drunk girls kissing and dancing, although I did enjoy that. It is just examples of that where it is so clever, fast-paced and enjoyable. It is for these reasons The Social Network is a class above most of its competition of this time in film.

Overall, this film is a class above the rest. I really loved it and could only admire the great work put into this film. Fincher handles this film with such care and pride; it's as if he polished every bit of it. Due to clever dialogue/scripting, fast-pace, great performances and interesting direction. We are entertained on what should be boring subjects. It has the substance and blockbuster appeal, while to some general 'idiotic' public it may be too complex at times, who cares about them. The only major problem would be the length of the film, and maybe drags towards the end, otherwise nothing but nitpicking. I believe this to be my favourite for the academy awards best picture, although Black Swan and The King's Speech is yet to be viewed by me. Excellent film, and probably the best of 2010, and a few years before it.

Jaws, well I think it's safe to say this is one of the most recognisable and adored films in all history. While this may seem like an obvious, it is without a doubt the best shark movie - which has very little competition, but I thought I would just put it out there. This film is more than capable of competing with the greatest and if you consider it one - which I will cover later on - one of the best horrors.
The plot, well basically everyone knows the plot, that's why it's so well known, but in case you're new, or my writing gives you reason to live, I will explain. It follows Amity Island, a small tourist island, which drags in the profits during summer. Martin Brody is the new chief of police who has a fear of water, boats, etc. Anyway a string of shark attacks occur, with first the Mayor tries to keep it all under wraps as Brody and Hooper (a Marine Biologist) attempt to close beaches, kill shark etc.
Eventually they hire some lunatic to take them out on a boat and kill the menacing shark. While the first half of the film was well scripted and directed, it's the boat trip that really defines this film. The plot may seem very basic, but it is as I said well scripted and really makes sense and all has reasoning. The use of suspense on wait late into the film to actually reveal the shark was genius. While the beginning had some memorable scenes (the whole movie is basically a memorable scene after another), the boat trip was perfectly directed.
Most people seem to get into the whole shark thing, but the cinema photography is really impressive, when you watch there a lot of long tracking shots, some last for minutes if am correct. The direction, well I now love Spielberg even more, he just knows how to make a movie. He does the close-up when it's needed, and the action at the right time.
The acting well, it was superb, maybe not quite on the list of greatest fifty acts of all time, but I think its damn close. Roy Scheider can act, he really got the first half perfectly, it was the last half when he got his two peers of equal acting excellence. Robert Shaw is the crazy fisherman Quint. Richard Dreyfuss plays Hooper. While Shaw's character is highly cliché, he wasn't when they made the film, he made the cliché. Each character has their own personality, belief and methods of doing task, such as dealing with the shark. So when it comes to action/horror/thriller whatever you call it, this is top-notch acting.
Now to the genre, what would you class it as? It's too violent for a drama, too well done for a simple action. We come across horror, now before you deny this, think about it; The Shining used wide open spaces and broad day light as a fear factor. Perhaps this is a branch-off the horror, with action.
Overall, we have an absolute masterpiece. Spielberg gets a really ridiculous idea really when you think about it. With great actors, great script and suspenseful soundtrack by the great John Williams, you get a recipe for greatness. The final scenes really put this in the most memorable films of all time and it becomes essential viewing, not just for critics, but everyone.

Metropolis, this was the first Fritz Lang film I had seen. I loved it, and know why it is recognised as a classic, and well received. This film was a masterpiece, and is a silent era gem. All though Fritz Lang hated this film (I think it?s fair to not like your own film, let?s not be a Tommy Wiseau), it still has the power to make an influence upon modern times.
The film is a dystopian future, set around the year 2000. The word is full of large skyscrapers, and luxurious indulgence. This may seem like a paradise, but underneath the city lies a ?workers city?. Here thousands of workers work on maintaining the city, with very little in return. This is the classical dystopian story. One-day the leader?s (mayor or something, the workers leader) son goes down to the workers area. Here he discovers that they are planning a mutiny, but a woman that is the rebel leader is urging them to wait. In the meantime, the metropolis inventor creates a robot that abolishes slave labour. The only thing is the leader has something else in store.
The acting was good, over-acted, but that comes with the silent era. The only problem was I had the actor who played Maria. She over-acted immensely; there is a chase scene that really bugged me. Other from that the acting is fine. The plot is something that could probably hold-up to today?s standards of filming (obviously, changes would have to be made). There is a lot missing from the film I watched, the entire film has never been fully recovered, so it is somewhat classed as a lost film. As far as visuals go, it is good for the 1925-1926. Lang manages to create an excellent world, which seems beautiful, but makes the worker?s area seem horrible and plain.
Overall, this film for me was close to flawless; the only problem was Maria?s over-acting. I also somewhat agree with Lang saying he did not like the ending. It was not a bad ending, but it is slightly propaganda ending like. This is masterpiece, and one of the best silent films. I would recommend anyone who can stomach a silent film.

Jhon's Favourites Edition: The Ring Finger (L'Annulaire)

Director:
Diane Bertrand

Starring:
Olga Kurylenko
Marc Barbé

Introduction:
The Ring Finger, this is one of my favourite films of all time, starring Quantum of Solace's new 'Bond Girl', the beautiful Olga Kurylenko. This little known film - that is very difficult to find - really provokes ones' imagination to a new height. This film leaves almost no answers, but many questions. This film is so beautifully shot, it soars into my favourites. This is based upon the Japanese cult book by Yoko Ogawa, which I want to read. The film follows a young girl and her saucy affair with her boss (not married, both single so not the affair as in cheating, just as in the event). Diane Bertrand read the book and wrote a screenplay, which premiered at the 2006 French film festival.

Characters:
Olga Kurylenko stars in her debut role, Iris (no last name digressed). Olga plays a young women searching for work after an accident at her previous job. Olga does a great debut performance. Iris does not really seem to have an outstanding goal, or ambition. No background of her family, or past residents are shown, only where she used to work. This may seem like a disaster and a failure to make a descent screenplay, but no this is all intended. There is not much dialogue, but with her dialogue, she is fantastic. What I am most impressed with is her body language, which is requiring for most her acting. As well as the other cast this is a full body language film - without silent movie over-acting - it is all subtle.

Marc Barbé stars as L'homme du laboratoire - which is 'The Skilled Laboratory' in English. Barbé is what really adds the common 'surreal' adjective for this film. He is fantastic in his role. He plays Iris's boss, who is cold, stern and mysterious. His character has a fetish for feet/shoes, and begins a sexual relationship with Iris. He is perfect for his role, and was perfect in body language. Despite the sex scenes, he still kept his stern controlling sense about him.

Plot:
Well to the plot, we open-up on a lemonade factory at the conveyer belt. Iris (Kurylenko) cuts off the end of her ring finger - hence the title - and presumably quits her job. We then open-up with an unknown country and unknown port town. Here Iris attempts to find a job, but eventually finds herself sharing a hotel/motel room with a sailor. Both their work shifts are opposite, because he works nights, and they rarely see each other (usually when they leave or come back from work). There is some small chemistry between the two in the brief moments were they see each other, will they take it further?
Sooner or later Iris stumbles upon an old girls school. In here, there is a preservation laboratory; here they preserve personal artefacts from normal people, so it can be preserved forever, almost everything can be preserved, except a shadow (which is asked in the movie). Iris gets a job as a secretary, taking names for the people.
The plot may sound bland, but it soon turns into an erotic, yet surreal and chilling tale.

Analysis:
This section may not make complete sense if you have not seen, but hopefully it will make you want to watch. The plot may seem very simple, but it is full of many surreal prospects and hidden metaphors. I believe the whole use of preservation of specimens is a metaphor. As Iris works at the former girls' school, she is not allowed into the laboratory where the actual preservation occurs. This often drives Iris's curiosity and jealously, but why can't she? She also comes across many people in this former girls' school, but particularly a little boy. He does not have any obvious relevance to the plot, and is rarely visible from some vantage point, with only one line, "Password". Who is this boy? Is he a ghost? Many questions are asked, but no answers. Do I think it is a ghost? Well this may be a small spoiler, but I remember one part where Barbé said that the woman from 223 left, but you then see her later on. Therefore, this does get you think; there is another when you see the boy, and the women playing with each other throughout the building. Iris watches, but they eventually disappear, so I am thinking ghosts, but then Barbé interacts with the women. So I concluded, "Are they all ghosts, and she's the only real one?"
The shoes, the shoes become a pinnacle point in this film; it is the boss's fetish and driving force in their affair. It is also quote that the shoes are taking her over. Lovely shoes they are, but why did the previous secretary in the photo have the same shoes? Why did he buy her the shoes? I think the shoes are a representation of Barbé's control over Iris, and their controlling relationship.
You come across to a Mah-Jong set, which is one of the best points of the film, as far as cinema photography and direction goes. In addition, the sailor sub-plot gains much interest, but again you ask the question why. I believe the Mah-Jong set, was really showing the cracks of their relationship. That he does not love her, but she is second best to the specimens. This clearly does not go with Iris.
In the end, I can shed nothing on the mysterious ending. It is a very challenging ending, more than Donnie Darko. Due to being relatively unknown, this film has been unanswered, nor has long pages of explanations have been written. I personally believe that there is no answer, and there never will be one. Just like man on Wire when he was asked why he did it, he replied, "There is no why".

Awards:
Unfortunately, this movie has no awards; its reviews were mostly positive, but still misunderstood. I will say this gets my award for favourite sex scene in movies.

Conclusion:
Overall, the film has sumptuous cinema photography, it was absolutely fantastic. The shots were cold, dark and eerie. It was a treat to watch (and with Olga my favourite erotic movie, if you know what I mean...). The acting was superb, despite the limited dialogue; it was the body language, which really enhanced this movie. The low dialogue and heavy use of bodily language created an eerie atmospheric viewing experience.
This film is heavily misunderstood, and deserves so much more appreciation and a larger audience. It often makes me wonder, "If I made a fantastic movie, or possibly the greatest, will it be remembered?" I bet you nine out of ten people do not know who Orson Welles is, or have seen Citizen Kane (do not think it is the greatest film, but for now it is). I would recommend this film to the best of the critics; the ones that I think understand movies and art. This movie has no obvious problems. The ones I can find is that it may be boring for some, but those willing to watch this in the first place would obviously have some knowledge of movies, so very little who watches this will be bored.
The other major problem is the lack of answers. Even Bertrand said in Q&A that this film gives very few answers. Therefore, this was no mistake. As far as I am concerned this is a positive, but some may not find this appealing. If you cannot handle the fact that nothing is set in stone, you will not like this, and it will not be easy for you to see positives. So when people watch this, I would expect mixed reviews, those who like the movie, should really like the movie to a high degree.
This is one of my favourites, and is for being impeccably shot cinema photography and perfectly crafted, yet confusing plot. This film will be an eternal mystery, which ending will be debated for years to come.

[b]"I can't swim anymore, Rowf..."[/b]
[b]"We must... be near the island..."[/b]
[b]"If... there is... any island, Rowf..."[/b]
[b]"There is. There. Can't you see it? Our island..."[/b]

[b]The Plague Dogs[/b], easily one of the most bleakest films I have ever seen. This movie was released with little audience, making it a much-unappreciated film. The Plague Dogs is also a movie based upon a story by Richard Adams, who also wrote Watership Down. The Plague Dogs is an absolute heartbreak of a film. It follows talking animals, and has the rating for children to watch, but this is by far too depressing for the common child audience. It can be quite a contrast when one looks out the era of hand drawn animations compared to the modern method, and you can see there is a lack of emotion and adult themes. The Plague Dogs is clever and depressing without trying like many other films. As a note, I watched the uncut version.

[b]The plot[/b], Rowf and Snitter are two of many dogs in captivity of a research company carrying out many ghastly experiments. One night one of the workers leaves Rowf's gate unlocked accidently, the two manage to escape their prison and gain freedom. The two then have to adjust to the wild, nearby a small town. As the two begin to starve, they begin to kill farmer's sheep, as the two continue to cause havoc out of survival, their previous captors and more attempt to catch the two, leading them to run for life. 'The Tod' a cunning fox who helps them survive, yet never fully gains Rowf's trust also joins the two in exchange for food.
The Plague Dog's plot is a powerful one. It cleverly uses survival as a strong sentiment throughout the whole film, yet reasoning for the two to be in danger is the more clever. Many people (including me) are heavily affected by animal cruelty; this movie is a perfect template for any distress message of the treatment. Such examples would be how the men so easily deal with a dead dog, while through the dog's perspective we are shown what could be described as a humanised version. The dogs feel for each other and protect each other, while the men so bluntly fire the trigger at them for being pests. It's chilling how we are portrayed in almost all cases ruthless killers, rarely shown are the faces.

[b]The acting[/b], well here is when the film becomes weak, but perhaps I am just biased. The copy I watched was very low quality, but the only one I could procure. The acting was great, but the sound quality of the specific copy I saw was poor, and at times, I struggled to properly hear what was said, so little can be said about it. What The Plague Dogs succeeds in most is empathy, easily one of the most heart wrenching movies I've seen, it's because we care for those being tortured.

[b]The direction[/b], it's all done quite ingeniously. Martin Rosen draws us between the human world, and the dog's world. Unlike modern animation, we are not fully absorbed into the world of talking animals, but we are stuck between. At many stages of the film, we are blatantly shown how men torture animals, but our heroes are mere dogs and nothing more. When we are shown scenes of our protagonists, we see how they are feeling and understand how they communicate, but we are never sure of them, in actions and emotions that we are sure in humans. We are also rarely given answers, but we are left to ourselves to conclude what happens, or why it happens, we spend our time in the grey area. It's this reason why The Plague Dogs is one of the best animations I have seen.
The animation itself is tough to judge. We are now bombarded with animated films from Pixar and Disney, we grow accustom to a certain quality in animation which for most in just unrealistic to reach. Yet despite what excellent productions Pixar may give us, with the exception of Toy Story I will always prefer hand drawn films. Perhaps a movie is not just the story told, but also the effort of the creators and hand drawn films can often show a lot more emotion. Although hand drawn films have many technical problems with realistic movement, which has been mastered now in modern methods. The Plague Dog's is a low budget film, but it creates a very dark, depressing atmosphere. In whole, it is beautiful to watch because of how much of a stark story and animation we are given.

[b]Overall[/b], The Plague Dogs is one of the saddest movies I have seen. We are given many prepositions, no l answers or conclusions, yet we use our own ideology. This film is one of the best observations I have seen upon animal cruelty and appropriately steps beyond a child audience to reach darker themes. The Plague Dogs is criminally underrated as a great film, especially with such a powerful ending scene.

In the Mood for Love, as far as I am concerned, this film is a modern masterpiece. This is my favourite Chinese film (not really a high achievement [for I have no seen many]). It is also one o my favourite love story, if not the favourite. Wong Kar-Wai directs this film. It stars Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung in their stellar roles.
The plot takes place in Hong Kong during 1962. Chow Mo-Wan played by Tony, a local journalist, rents-out an apartment room. On the same day SO Lai-Zhen played by Maggie, rents-out the room next to him. The two both have spouses - which we never see, well we never see their faces, and an excellent technique I loved. Their spouses are always working late, or working overseas. The two (Maggie and Tony) both seem alone and unhappy, despite their proprietors (who are good friends, who play Mah-jong a lot.) making a lot of noise and heavy in conversation. The two's lives often intersect, until slowly they conclude that their spouses are having an affair with each other.
This film was just grand. I never like love stories that much, but this was highly likeable. The films acting is excellent, despite the fact that the two main actors are very shy. The cameos are fantastic and the ac ting has no weaknesses. The technique of not showing the spouses was great, it de-humanised them, which is what we wanted. While there were quite a few amounts of characters, they were the focus.
A part of the film I adored was the cinemaphotography. It just transcended the standards of your average drama/romance. The cinemaphotography really gives it a sixties feel, but does not stop there. It captures scenes in perfect ways. For example, one very basic boring scene that was not particularly interesting had the camera outside the window and moving around, just creating a lovely affect. My absolute favourite was when she went to collect noodles. The noodle store was down an alleyway, that you had to gone down stairs to reach. The camera would follow the container she brought for the noodles (a coffee container) and go down the stairs, where Tony appears and passes, it may not sound great, but it is done perfectly and is so beautiful.
Overall, this is a fantastic film, and my favourite love story. The acting is perfect, the cinemaphotography is perfect, the plot is simple, but so humbling. As far as I am concerned, it is a modern masterpiece and will be up there with all the other classics in a few decades. I would recommend to all movie lovers, even if you do not like romances, but do not expect gunfights and explosions.

Misery is an immaculate film. Despite the title, it is the name of a character, although there happens to be some misery. The story devised from Stephen King, it is one of his first non-supernatural and scariest tales. The film is well adapted to a movie. I have read the book, and I have obviously seen the film. While there are differences, it keeps the whole basis true. The film starts James Caan (one of my favourite actors) Katy Bates, and Richard Farnsworth. There a very few cast beyond these three, even Farnsworth is used considerably rarely. There are few cast, such as the agent, and Farnsworth's wife.
The film follows the story of Paul Sheldon -- a character I believe to be an unofficial Stephen King, for they are both writers, so he knows what he is talking (writing) about. Paul Sheldon is a famous author who has written many books, including his most popular series 'Misery'. Misery is a girl, it is a bloated love series, which Sheldon now hates with passion, and has recently killed her character in his new book. After leaving Silver Creek, after writing his new book, Untitled or Fast Cars in the book -- where he always finishes his books, has different name in book, same name as town from the Shining, cannot remember now. Sheldon has a crash in a blizzard, and luckily is saved by someone on the road.
He then wakes up in a room, which is in a house, far from the town. Annie Wilkes a former nurse who takes care of him for a few days.
After taking some painkillers, Annie says she will get help for him as soon as the weather is suitable, as well as proper function of the phones. Sheldon allows Wilkes read his new manuscript Untitled so far, or Fast Cars in novel. After awhile she has a little loss-of-temper after the profanity in the manuscript does not agree with her tastes. Then she reads the new Misery book, when complete, finds out she is dead, oh wait -- Wilkes is Sheldon's "...Number One Fan..." and has all his books and is lost in her own little world. Anyway, after finding out that Misery is dead, she goes off her head. Soon she reveals that contrary to what she had said earlier, she had not contacted in authorities of Sheldon's whereabouts, and that is when the film turns from a drama, to non-supernatural horror -- if there is such a thing, a thriller perhaps. I won't tell the whole plot.
There is another sub-plot, which is not in the book, following the sheriff of Silver Creek, played by Farnsworth. It has some short parts of him investigating his disappearance. Sheldon is thought to be buried in the ice and dead when they find his car. Farnsworth sees that someone had helped him out of the car and he starts his own investigation.
This film is immaculacy acted Kathy Bates won best actress, if im not wrong the term actress is politically incorrect.
James Caan does fantastic, I believe his role was highly under-rated and over-shadowed by Bates excellent role of a psychopath with a shady past, and bad temper. Farnsworth does an excellent job, he does excellent, yet his role was sadly not large enough for people to recognise that. The rest of the cast did well, no weak actors wrecking the film.
The whole atmosphere of the film is done perfectly and the showing of a psycho, and a man's survival was excellent

The best animation of all time.
Plain and simple...

I have never felt such empathy for a movie character before, and the fact that this is based upon true events and characters, it makes all the more better.
David Lynch brings a lovely tale of a true man, whom was never truly accepted and never felt love. The Elephant Man had one of the most worst lives and this film shows this with imaculate cinemaphotagrahpy and plot.
The film manages to engrose a lot of sadness in this film. How many people sreamed at first sight of him, this is a clever a brutually true observation. The mere fact that this is a true story makes this film better. John Hurt does terrificly at what seems like a loty of make-up and character to live up to. Anthony Hopkins plays his part well, a man whom cares for The Elephant Man and accepts him for what he is, while at the same time exploiting him, which he later regrets.
An imaculate masterpiece...

The Bridge on the River Kwai is an excellent war film. It is probably one of the best war films ever. It is extremely well thought-out, with an excellent plot, which goes beyond killing the enemy. While it is fiction, the book it is based upon, it is an idea that originated in a bridge built in Myanmar -- to those slow people Burma. The film I admit starts a little shaky, it is difficult to realise what is actually going first, but it soon becomes clear.
The film starts with the camp and the English slave army entering Base Sixteen with that lovely whistling tune. It has how they go one strike, or the officers do so, when not wanting to do manual labour as all the rest of the men. I realise it sounds horrible, but when you watch it, the officers are still likable characters. After the Japanese leader of the group allows them to lead the group instead of do manual labour, after they isolated them in horrible hot conditions. The men start to build a descent bridge that the British Colonel becomes quite fond of and gets a dedication for the enemy's bridge. Despite the absurdness, you can understand why he has such a passion for it.
While all this is happening, an escape attempt earlier on in the film, that was thought have all three who attempted to escape killed, had one survivor. After he was helped by a local village and was taken to the British Army base, is than later asked to return to the bridge with three other men, so they can destroy it. After a bad start they eventually reach the bridge and load-up the bridge with explosives.
The ending was extremely good, and thought there to be a little comedy amongst the bloodshed. I will not tell you how it all ends, but let's just say I was p***ed-off, and also happy, it went all-over the place. It was great and the closing credits had the funniest music.
One of the greatest films of all time, as well as one of the best war films ever.

Alien, rarely does one come across the words 'Horror' and 'Science Fiction' in one film. In fact, it is even rarer for this combination to result in a masterpiece, and one of the best horrors ever made. While to call Alien an authentic horror would be a little naive, it definitely fits in the genre somewhere. I of course watched the director's cut. The great thing with Alien is it's a fresh changed from all the cliché horror tricks, instead of an old haunted mansion, we have a giant transport ship in the middle of space. As well as the Science Fiction point of view, in Alien, it is less concentrated on space itself; in fact, space seems to be well conquered in Alien. Although for a Science Fiction, it holds-up well against the ravages of time. Is it just me though, or were the 70's infatuated with grids? They just assumed the future of navigation would be on a grid format, well Ridley seems hooked on the idea. Now we have holographic screens, let us see how that looks in thirty years.
I think the saddest thing of all with Alien was that the cover of the film said "From the Director of 'Gladiator'" It's like Blade Runner just doesn't exist...

The plot, well after the millions of sequels and spin-offs the Alien/Predator franchise has spat-out, the plot is well known. Yet for all those who love the latest instalments such as: Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, I will indulge you with some GOOD plot work.
As it is well known, it follows Ripley (Sigourney Weaver, sounds suspiciously like Ridley?) - well actually no, despite the sequels, Ripley is quite a small character until the end. Therefore, it follows the seven-crew members of the Nostromo a commercial transport spaceship, on its return from Thedus back to Earth with a load of mineral Ore. On the trip, they get an unknown transmission from an uncharted planet. After exploring the distress call (or warning) and finding an alien ship, one of the crewmembers - Kane - is attacked by a little alien, which attaches itself to his face. They take him back and try to get it off him. Yet, the creature has acid blood, despite how silly this sounds, it works well and causes a dilemma, which is until the alien dies and Kane is fine. Well Kane is fine until an alien burst outside his stomach during dinner and disappears into the large ship. The crew search for it as they slowly disappear one by one.
The plot is not the most complex of plots, but it does a reasonably simple plot to perfection. Throughout the whole film, we always have an eerie suspense. It also has a little Das Boot in it as it goes through the life of the average commercial space ship. The whole uncharted planet thing is not exaggerated, but treated as just an average day on the job. In fact, it is very realistic; they worry more about their paychecks then the dangers of space and so on. I think what the main drive for the whole movie, is mainly the search for the alien, like what is it? They have created quite an interesting alien, so most of the audience is in engaged in what's the alien like, as well as crew survival. It also gets a little Jaws-ish, it does not flaunt the alien around like nothing. Very little of the alien is on screen, and it is a great effect Ridley manages to pull-off.
Unlike 'horrors' though, Alien seems to be like a survival tale, with horror elements. It has all the scares and shadows for a scary horror, but a story and scale to be a fun Science Fiction, although it takes on a more dark and poetic aspect.

The acting is exceptional. Sigourney may be the main character and pull-off a great performance, be we do not really see that until the end of the movie. In fact, this guy Dallas seems like main character material, he's good looking, macho and so on and his name comes first in the ending credits! It really does not centre any particular character, but they all are great actors. To say they are a landmark in acting would be wrong, but for their shared performances together, they are all fantastic. They all fit their characters, but do not rely on poorly made cliché characters.

Ridley seems to be quite fascinated with the idea of Androids. Although in here it is not the main ethical question like Blade Runner, we get the idea Ridley likes to put them in his movies. Truth is, Ridley is not the greatest director, he is good, but really does not have the level of many others. He also is rather poor outside Science Fiction, yet he continues to leave the genre to take on films that are more mediocre, like Robin Hood (2010). The direction and Cinema Photography are excellent. It shows Ridley has the potential, and with two of his movies, the direction is of the highest quality, absolutely magnificent in this film. Ridley has made a suspenseful and memorable film. The special effects are so memorable, the alien design is probably the most famous type of alien in film. The Chest Bursting scene and the Face Hugger are all well known and so notable. Therefore, Ridley has already succeeded in giving us a visually memorable movie, which is what Lucas did with Star Wars, but Ridley does a lot more to Alien. Ridley gives Alien substance, which Star Wars lacks in many parts.
Ridley gives us similar direction to Das Boot, a claustrophobic feel inside a large ship, with the fear of an alien lurking in the shadows. The use of the shaky camera is superb; an often-hated style of camera work is one of the highlights of direction with Alien. Watching Ripley run through the dark corridors with the camera shaking all-over the place, the suspense goes through the roof. Beyond those attributes, Alien is also an easy film to watch. A Modern Classic it may be, but it is still enjoyable for the simpletons of our Earth, although James Cameron's Aliens has a lot more action. Alien on itself is a highly entertaining horror, which is seldom boring. There is always something happening to keep you captivated, and it is all well balanced. "In space no one can hear you scream." - now that is memorable stuff Ridley has made.

So are there any major problems with Alien? No not really, the whole film is imaginative and well directed, and perfectly acted. Alien is well loved by critics and the general 'idiotic' public alike, although there is small amount of criticism. Yet I can confidently say that criticism is not credible. Such criticism Alien receives would be that it does not reach the chilling potential we expect; people's problem is they expect a horror movie. Alien is not a horror, but a horror sub-genre, so do not expect the scares of say Halloween or whatever trash horror shoots out. I personally believe this is some of the best horrors out there, despite it being a sub-genre. I think my personal criticism would have to be that instead of helping the crew load up for their escape, Ripley goes to get the cat! That was just so frustrating to watch, I wonder what happens to the crewmembers...
As well as substance and entertainment, Alien crosses many ethical questions as well. Although in some cases, Androids are shown in a bad light, that is not the focus. We are asked the question to what expense will we sacrifice for a new weapon, or unstoppable force? That really is the main idea of the story, which is similar to Aliens. It really makes you wonder what is happening out there, what missions are just phony so someone can reap the benefits. Just off the top of my head, many claim the Gulf War to be a conspiracy to get free oil. This is what Alien portrays, people being played as puppets for someone else's greed wants and needs. So maybe the Android just happens to be that cause of it this time, opposed to Ridley trying to warn us how much he hates them.

Overall, Alien is a landmark achievement in modern film. It's one of the greatest Science Fictions ever made, but manages to be as entertaining as it is a masterpiece. While it may be a little too unconventional to full throw it into the horror category and say it's the best horror, but in sub-genre horror it's definitely one of the best. It really is essential viewing for critics and the general 'idiotic' public alike, unless they are a really narrow-minded Avatar junkie. Alien resides as one of the most notable and recognisable films.

Blog Spot keep votes and comments on RT: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/02/alien-1979.html

Rocky, without a doubt it is the height of inspiration in our cinema history. Rocky has asserted itself so well into our essential viewing collection, its spawned many parodies and memorable scenes. A tall order to call for Stallone who both wrote and acted as the main character, to create a decent drama, when he's given himself the reputation as a bad acting action star. Truth be told, Stallone has never been close to matching the Rocky series, although he has made a few actions, which the average rev-head would love. So you start to ask yourself, how can someone like Stallone make a masterpiece about boxing? The whole story was written in three days, it has a miniscule budget and of course, we got a big meathead with the lead role; all that Rocky gives us is quite easily a recipe for disaster, somewhat like The Room, a low-budget drama with an all-rounder on and off stage. Yet Rocky excels past your average low-budget independent film, it just has that extra little spice, which truly inspires you. I do not know about you, but I found myself trying a few push-ups during the work out scene.

The plot is quite a pleasant tale, although very simple. A washed-up amateur boxer lives a slow easy life. Just making his way by, earning an odd forty dollars a fight, doing a few little side jobs for the neighbourhood crook. Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) also has a female conquest, where he tries and fails out of her shy nature. Meanwhile, in the evil headquarters - Apollo Creed's (Carl Weathers, the current heavyweight champion) manager's office - Apollo and his managers/trainers and whatever else a boxer needs discuss the recent boxer drought, them all being too scared to fight him, as he has never lost before. Therefore, with no professionals left, he gets an amateur at random, it happens to be Rocky, or the Italian Stallion. Apollo makes it out as an 'opportunity' for the average America, but really, it is just self-promotion. Rocky reluctantly accepts, and he gets ready for the fight. The problem is Rocky Balboa does not know it is a show.
The plot is simplistic, but most of it is Rocky sorting out his life. In hindsight Rocky is three-quarters of solid talking, which too many would be unappealing. Yet Rocky uses very realistic and humble story telling. The whole movie is about one man, but it does not seem like self-indulgence, Stallone always manages to seem like the underdog and highly likable, opposed to other pretentious Wiseau's. As well as surprisingly entertaining and emotionally moving slow-paced story telling, you will be rewarded with a fantastic boxing match. The Rocky series always creates a great fight, always interesting and well-made fights, well maybe with the exception of Rocky V.

The acting is probably one of the biggest points of criticism. Stallone is not a good actor, his actions lack the egotistical steroid madness, which he really needs, but Rocky is different. Stallone does a really lazy performance, it's as if he's not even trying, and when he does it's not very good. That is exactly why Rocky is so great though, Stallone and the support cast all bring a sense of realism to the film, the conversations at times are pointless, but that makes them all the better. The acting is probably the highlight of Rocky, Stallone brings such a strange act to the screen, and it is really just interesting to watch. Stallone has this trait, he rambles on screen, so you cannot really hear him too well and it seems to have nothing to do with the story sometimes, but when put in context, well all tend to ramble when we are trying to talk to a girl who is so shy she can hardly look at you. Therefore, all this nonsensical ramblings of Stallone start to make sense, agree?
Therefore, Stallone does a fantastic job, probably by accident, but it still is a great performances, he is just not a good actor. The support cast on the other hand, are a little more refined than Stallone; in fact, I do not think there is anyone else who could have pulled-off Rocky. Talia Shire, Burt Young, Carl Weathers and Burgess Meredith, all do fantastic jobs. They all create a great character, and they do not fall into cliché too much, although Apollo is a little under-developed, he becomes a well-known character as the series continues.

Rocky did not win Best Director for nothing. John Avildsen uses the million-dollar budget, and creates a really well made film. As I said such a boring idea is made entertaining. He gets a lower levelled poor feeling around Rocky, but still gives us rustically pristine shots. Probably the most famous parts of Rocky would be the running up the stairs, very inspirational, and throughout out the whole time the camera and music all follow his workout, and creates such an inspiring image.
There are always the boxing matches. Rocky brings us some of the most beautiful use of boxing matches in cinema, while Raging Bull concentrated more on the mental state of Jake LaMotta in the ring, Rocky concentrates on the actual fight. This will always hinder Rocky from being better than Raging Bull, but they really are vast in comparison. In conclusion, Rocky maybe a little slow for some, but there are always entertaining and well-made fights that are always guaranteed to spark the inspiration-o-meter.

I have already explained the criticism for Rocky on acting, so what else do people whine about? Probably the worst aspect of Rocky would be how predictable it is, for some people it just reads too easily. Yet I feel that we have enough tragedy in the boxing movies of pre-1970. It also is not as predictable as many claim it to be, in fact, the ending was quite a surprise. This is no Eraserhead, but Rocky has too many great attributes to let the predictable nature destroy it. Let us not forget we all need the occasional predictable masterpiece, otherwise the twists and surprise would be the new predictable, sometimes we need a tale of inspiration to be successful, but is it really with Rocky?

Overall, Rocky is a truly inspiring movie. It is such a calm relaxing masterpiece, and Stallone remains humble in all the possible self-promotion opportunities. Rocky cements itself as a masterpiece into our cinema with great acting, great story telling, and the ability to get the most lethargic of people and have them doing push-ups.

My blog: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/03/rocky-1976.html

No Country for Old Men, this was my first viewing of the Coen brothers. I am deeply impressed, and Fargo is now on my radar. This film uses suspense, a clever plot and extreme violence in one neat package. The films cast also is immaculate, no lead weakness, nor major weak brief characters.
The plot follows Moss, on a hunting trip he finds a drug trade gone wrong, where everyone, except one almost dead person. He finds a suitcase with two million dollars, and a truckload of heroin. He takes the money, but greed he goes back for the drugs, when he gets there he is attacked. He escapes but they have his plates and know who he is, so he goes on the run, while all this is happening a Hitman or Psychopath (Javier Bardem) is hired to recover the money and kill him. Therefore, it becomes a chase, and Tommy Lee Jones plays the cop following them, but very lethargically.
The plot is very good, while I thought the beginning was slightly muddled and difficult to fully understand all details, it all comes clear as the film proceeds. The plot balance suspense very well and the chase have a non-cliché. The way things are done are really creative, and does not rely on past films. The ending also shows great complexity and challenges the modern day conventions.
The acting was superb, some of the best acting I have seen in this decade. Javier Bardem has been compared to Marlon Brando, while I cannot say that is true, he was fantastic. Although he was good in this film, I fell he needs a film where he can really define himself, like Vito Corleone. The rest of the cast as I said earlier are great. He plays the psycho excellently, and he just does not hold back in the people he kills, well except for the coin.
Overall, we have a gem of the modern day films. I would not say masterpiece, for it was slightly muddled, and a bit too long. I would recommend to basically anyone who can handle a long film with heavy dialogue.

Eraserhead, this film is without a doubt the weirdest film I have ever seen. This film is directed by David Lynch, he says it is his most spiritual film. The film is shot completely in black and white. Upon the release of this film, it managed to baffled critics; I will try to explain why.
The plot follows, well starts with a man inside a planet. The man pulls a lever, then what seems like a sperm falls into a pool of liquid (not suppose to make sense). It then goes to Henry, as he is walking to his apartment in the dystopian world. Then he sees his attractive neighbour, and eventually, he is going to his girlfriend?s house to have dinner with her family. They then find-out she had a baby, and it is severely pre-mature, but alive. They then agree to marry under pressure of her mother. They then tend for the baby, the bay is crying a lot (looks completely different) and eventually Mary X (his girlfriend) leaves. It then follows Henry as he tends for the baby.
Now it did not sound too weird, but I did not want to tell the whole story. Trust me this is the weirdest movie I have ever seen. The film is dark and so quiet. The film contains very, very little dialogue, and in-between short conversations it is almost silent. There is just a little light eerie music in the background and that it. The film does make you want to bash your head in.
Now the baby, I did not say much about it. I can say one thing; it looks nothing like a baby, as if they were not even trying to pass it as a baby. There is a rumour that it is a cow?s foetus (real) that they killed and used as a puppet. I personally do not believe it, for the body would decay and cause a bad working environment, but there was something wrong with it. The baby actually disgusted me a bit, especially when it gets sick.
The next strange thing about this film is that there is a woman in the radiator, or Henry sees one in there, but when it gets a close-up on the radiator. It reveals a stage, where a woman is standing in the middle. The woman has deformed cheeks; this was the most sickening part of the film and made it hard to watch. She later began to sing ?In Heaven? which was just disturbing.
The acting for the film is all very good. All the characters are stiff and ?one dimensional?, but they are supposed to be, especially the protagonist Henry, whom is probably the one character, which shows the least amount of depth or emotion.
Overall, there is not much to say about this film. It just left me confused; I had almost no idea what was the point of the film, or what happens. It resides as the most confusing movie ever for me. I have heard of the fact that there is a meaning behind it, and that there are long explanations available. I feel that it is best to avoid these, until I have a second viewing. My review may have seemed brief, but that was because it made no real sense to me. This film will spin your head around a million times and give you headache. I got a massive headache after this. This film makes The Science of Sleep as difficult and detailed as Avatar (the simplest film ever). I would recommend this film to the brave. It definitely needs to be seen more than once to get a grasp one what is actually happening.

Well, what is there to say about Back to the Future? This was a interesting, exhilarating thrill ride, that proved itself to be clever as well. I first thought that this would be really basic, just average plot and idea, because it was one the first time-travelling films. The film is quite the opposite; the film is very clever in plot. The linkage from the past to the present (or as they say future) that is clever, and still keeps-up with modern day time-travelling standards.
The film uses fresh new ideas to create an absolute classic. The protagonist, Marty Mcfly is played excellently but Fox. The professor is an excellent character and really adds to the film. The film is funny, as well as serious. When Marty goes back in time, he goes through a lot of problems; he meets-up with his parents when they were his age. It's when Marty accidently stops himself from existing, the film really takes charge, I thought it would be bland and average, but what's bland about a teenager trying to get his two parents to date. The problems stem greatly, like his own mum hitting on him.
This film is excellent and a Science Fiction classic. The film is just fun to watch, it is exciting, and hasn't aged since it was made twenty-five years ago. The young children now would probably enjoy this film, the special effects are still acceptable. The film is pure genius.

Aliens, this is not only a sequel, but also an equal!
Ok maybe I got a little ahead of myself then. Aliens is the sequel of masterpiece Alien by Ridley Scott. Upon hearing on the idea, Cameron just stole this from Ridley, I was not too impressed, and I found this out shortly after watching Avatar as well. It turns out Cameron can make a movie, he's made a few great movies, but there's no denying his ability to 'sell' a movie no matter how bad it is. Aliens is a large exception to the common rule of sequels being a horrible excuse to make money, many say that this is better than Alien, which I do not agree with, but I can accept that they are close. Although Aliens has many differences from Alien, such as a larger scale and A LOT more action, the similarities is what makes Aliens such a great sequel. Cameron's eye for detail is the most impressive aspect of Aliens, it does not throw-out all of Ridley's ideas and start fresh, and instead it handles the plot and alien species with great care. Although Alien creates such iconic scenes and an alien species, Aliens admirably and respectfully builds onto the story and legend. Aliens asserts itself not only as one of the best sequels, but a fantastic movie by its own rights.

The plot well as I said it is dealt with such care. It starts directly where we left in Alien, well kind of; it is 57 years later, but it is still Ripley in the cryogenics machine. Shortly after hearing the news of her long 'hyper sleep', she finds out she out-lived her daughter. Ripley tells the board of whatever about her encounter, they stick their heads in the sand and talk about how she destroyed company property, no sign of the Alien apparently. Anyway they lose contact with a colony, which has been settled on the planet for about twenty years, Ripley think it's the aliens again, and a military group convince her to go and check it out. Therefore, Ripley goes as a consultant with a small military group and the lawyer/science guy, which asked her to come in the first place. So off they go to this planet, with the military guys/girls (which look like guys) just laughing at whatever Ripley says. Then they get to the small colony, its empty, they find a little girl, the only survivor. She likes to be called Newt, child actor alert! Then they find out where the aliens are hiding, they get their asses kicked, and the remaining soldiers get a reality check as it turns out Ripley was telling the truth. Now with the limited resources they have, they must try to survive and find a way off the planet.
The plot, is nothing drastically experimental, it reads as you're above the average action/science fiction, yet the substance levels in here make Aliens one of the best actions ever. Of course, I watched the director's cut, and the story is well developed, and most importantly grows on Alien, opposed to remaking the idea completely. Yet we are given a more entertaining and less scary perspective of the story. For example, one alien for Alien, in Aliens there is probably a couple hundred of them, but it still does not go ridiculous like Alien vs. Predator.

The acting is surprisingly good. The common rule of action is you trade acting for large explosions, but both acting and action are so organic in Aliens, it has a natural relationship, which is what makes Aliens such a success. Unlike Alien, we have a main character, which is of course Ripley. So in turn, Sigourney does a much more effective performance, that does not mean that it is better, it just means she is given a lot more material to work with, which does not make that a better aspect. Cameron probably pushes the heroine idea a little too much, which Alien did not do. With that said, this would probably be one of the best female performances ever, rarely do women really step outside the boundary, which men do often. I'm not trying to be sexist, but women tend to just be the support cast, yet Katy Bates and Sigourney Weaver are both prime examples of strong performance with some risk taken. I really do not think there is a another female actor who could have pulled off this role as well as Weaver. She gets loud, dirty and highly unattractive at many stages to do this role, which very few women are willing to do.
The support cast are not as perfect as in Alien. They have distinguished characters and they are well developed for an action, well for any genre really. Unfortunately, Cameron shows one of his many weaknesses by having some cliché characters, but that is to comparison with Alien, compared to the average action, every character is like a Donnie Darko. The support is well set up, and although they are not exactly new, for a support cast they are fantastic. The acting itself is generally good the child actor is awful. She is responsible for one of the most frustrating plot turns as well. Like in Alien where Ripley risks her life to save a cat, Ripley does the same for this little girl Newt. That really frustrates me; it makes me want to smash the projector when Cameron uses one of the most tedious and oldest tricks in the book. If it were I, I would just leave; I am not risking my life for some little girl who cannot act. The military are great for their characters. A few such as Hicks have emotional effectiveness as well, but even the manly girl is tolerable in the most feministic cliché ever made. These days it's as if they have to slap a steroid fuelled girl into the battlefield, because war is for men and women the feminist union will tell you.

The monster himself James Cameron, the responsible for that desecration of a film Avatar turns out to be a good director, well used to be anyway. It turns out he can make the best sequels around, Terminator 2 being his other success. Yet even in his masterpieces, they are always an action, which is one of the lowest forms of filming, and he always as a commercialised presence in his films. He never escapes cliché story and characters; Avatar was just him suppressing it for too long, and it all just bursting out into one of the worst movies ever. It is kind of sad actually, because he directed Aliens beautifully. Aliens is well edited, entertaining and has a style, which is a stamp-proof of a great film. Cameron never rushes the film, when most films reach a climax; they often get bored and just rush everything. Cameron of the other hand carefully builds suspense and never rushes the story. The violence is also well controlled and not just mindless. Although the ending gets some, well not exactly plot holes, but plot stupidity?

Aliens has taken out almost universal positive reception. Like Alien, it is seen as a masterpiece. Easily one of the best sequels ever, there is not a lot wrong with Aliens. It is just Cameron getting a little too cliché at times and protracting the plot too much near the end. Let us not forget the whole, risking everything to save someone who is probably dead, that was just as frustrating as it can get. Yet in saying all this, we must remember it is an action, and it is really amazing just how well an action can be. It is the lack of style, which most actions fail. Cameron was lucky because he already had something to work with; he just respectively built on the story.

Overall, I am not one to say this is better than the original, although it is more entertaining and reaches more of a modern audience. Aliens manages to continue the story with great care and diligence, while still adding a different aspect to the story. By adding action/science fiction/horror in one, we get a truly entertaining ride, with the substance to back it all up, although it does get slightly cliché and protracted.

My Blogspot, still vote and comment on RT: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/02/aliens-1986.html

Mary and Max, I really do love an animation, especially clay-animations, such as Harvey Krumpet. This one is nothing more than excellent and a fantastic meditation on friends and life. Oh and what a sad one it is. This film has flown under the radar for me, I had heard very little about it, until it was on my favourite television show. Was I disappointed? No my expectation were too low for this film. I am really proud to say this was a great film. Mary and Max was charming, sad and humorous. It was surprising how insightful it was on such an unconventional friendship; by unconventional I speak of the Pen Pals.

The plot follows Mary and Max as you have probably already guessed. Mary Daisy Dinkle (Toni Collette, Bethany Whitmore) is an Australian eight-year-old girl who has countless family issues, and finds herself very unattractive. Her mum is a drunk, her dad is a hermit, and she has no friends apart from her Rooster companion. One day while Mary is at the post office with her mother, she finds a New York White Pages (a book with references to peoples address and phone number). Due to a few questions about Americans and curiosity, she picks a random address, and writes to it.
Shortly after sending the letter, Max Jerry Horowitz (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), a lonely forty-four year old man living in New York, whom suffers Asperger Syndrome. Therefore, he finds it very difficult to socialise, understand people (particularly their facial expressions) and constant anxiety attacks from change. He surprised and delighted tells Mary of his odd, yet sad boring life. Therefore, she replies and they continue to write to each other as years go by. All, which is excellently narrated by Barry Humphrey.

The plot was excellent, absolutely brilliant. It was so original as well, one of the reasons I love clay-animations. They always seem to have such an interesting idea and story. Sadly, one of their downfalls is short length, like Harvey Krumpet. Luckily, this one is long as you average feature film. I will not lie, I cannot say I was at the edge of my seat the whole time, due to the rather calm pace and topics. The way this was made was excellent though. As well as said and well written, it is also quirky and very funny. While they speak to each other, we do not just get friendship, but also a story of their life, as they slowly grow older, one being a child into a young adult, and the other being a forty year old to his very old age.
The life stories were very interesting. The characters all were well developed; they all had a story, hobby or sad demise. All these important things were told through the power of the letter. In addition, if the letter were not enough to tell us what was happening, we would get some wonderful narration. In fact, speech came very rarely, only some statements here and there. The only time we got heavy speech was when they read what they had written to one another. Never was the film boring, and that was the excellent feature of this one. Although die to long running length, it could get repetitive, but I would not say boring. It always has something new to tell; just in the demeanour, it does so can lose its novelty. However, the quirkiness and excellent storying telling gets us through in the end, and we will only be sad, as well as feel humble.

The acting, well voice acting was spot on. There was an Australian actor, for Mary and the narrator, so there was an American actor for Max. I could not be more happier with them either, while Imp sure it was the charming animation and story. The use of occasional voices and frequent letter reading was perfectly executed. Humphrey's narration was also surprisingly great. I have never truly liked him; I find his characters just annoying and un-funny. You may have heard of Dame Edna, yes not funny, just annoying.
The animation, well as you probably know, Imp not one to be swayed by the latest animation craze. I often loathe them for style over substance. Here though, there is a clear and abundant use of both. As I have hopefully well explained, the plot and development is phenomenal and more than excellent, while the animation is clever, poignant and fun to watch, opposed to Avatar. The film in a sense is very dull, well animation anyway. The whole film's colour is washed-out and very faint. The Australian scenes are lightly coloured, with a sepia tone tinge. The New York scenes are grey, where the colour is even fainter, only a few colours a distinctive. There was even a scene where Mary is in New York, yet she seems to be more colourful than anything else around her.
The direction by Adam Elliot (as well as writing) was just grand. He wrote an excellent story as I have already stressed. He gets a dull and very boring use of colours and setting, and makes it a treat to watch. Is it candy for the eyes? Yes. I was just really impressed, and I can only wait for more of his work, and similar works of this animation.

I think what makes Mary and Max so interesting despite what should be dull. Is the relevance to modern life (although it is set in the seventies, which I guess is modern life), and yes relevance to our own lives. While I cannot say I resemble them greatly, I think at one stage we all suffer or feel the same as they do. If not there is always our friends, and the way each has a first person view on each other, really shows the perspectives on how others may see you. It really is a poignant, yet saddening true look upon our interactions and feelings of loneliness.

Overall, this is an excellent meditation and showcase of the unconventional friendship. While love is a common factor, is not directly in the relationship. So it is also not your usual love story, love is shown quite rustically and mysterious in this film. Opposed to those endless amounts of Romantic Comedies they constantly spit -out, take a look at this one. A rather humbling feeling you will get, you may shed a tear or two, but for me the sadness only made me happy. To top this all off, it would not be hard to do what Mary did. It would be quite interesting to try actually. Just find someone random out there, send them a letter, see if they reply, you never know who you could meet.

Mulholland Drive, the word pretentious comes to mind, wait that is not fair this is Lynch were talking about. While watching this film, I could not help but compare this too Eraserhead. The qualities of Lynch's directing are apparent in both these films. It also proves that Eraserhead was not exactly a fluke. This is definitely his most ambitious, while it does not exceed Eraserhead in film qualities, nor does it exceed in obscurity, although it does come close. Mulholland Drive is without a doubt one of the strangest films I have ever seen, and definitely the weirdest modern film.

To the plot, well it is as I said very weird. When I strange I mean strange at the level where scenes will have no apparent meaning, nor certain characters. Therefore, I will give the general idea of the plot. Therefore, after some odd scenes, we have a girl almost killed while in her limousine, by the driver and passenger. The limousine crashes and she wonders off with no memory of what happened, or who she is. She hides in a apartment thing in a villa, where Betty (Naomi Watts) discovers her, and befriends her. So basically it follows them trying to understand her past, and it also follows a director, and some characters that have no apparent reason for existence.

Maybe I have not exaggerated this point enough this is a strange film. Therefore, the plot is a lot more complex then I said, but too difficult to properly explain without going into a deep description. At the end of the film, there is one of those twists, where it goes back on other scenes, and people are different and so on. I guess this is suppose to give some reason to what I saw, but I still got nothing, yes there are long analysis's out there, but I choose not to read them. While the plot is somewhat muddled and very confusing, it is well structured, we are confused because we are suppose to be, and we do not fully lose connection on the film, which is a big problem with most weird films.

The acting, I heard Naomi Watts does a great performance. As I watched this, I could not see any great acting, very basic, if not slightly over-acted. Yet, there was scene that made me think twice, where Betty (Naomi Watts) is at an interview for an acting part. Her acting of acting was superb, so then I came to the realisation, that Lynch probably has them over-acting, for a very effective effect. So in conclusion the acting is great, no stellar - with the exception of that one scene - but great for modern cinema, and does exactly what was needed.

The direction/cinema photography, well was it good? It was good, but not the visual treat people have raged about. Its more or less a mind trip, where we have no idea what's happening. So what is this film's meaning? Well Lynch must have a reason for this film, or he has made a lot of flukes. While I had an idea with Eraserhead - the exaggeration of the fear of parenthood - I was not sure with this one. It is like the Hollywood life being mocked, but it seems so much more than that, so I am left with a blank.

Overall, I was thinking nothing but pretentious, but about the half way mark you begin to see the real quality of this film. I cannot quite see the 'masterpiece label' in front of this film, but as far as weird and complex this is one of the greatest, but I still side with Eraserhead. I do see this is so much more then pretentious, but the film never seems to be able to escape the trashiness and flaws that haunt its greatness. Certain techniques like the over-acting, do the film justice, but prevent the film from becoming a masterpiece. I would recommend to all those looking for a massive challenge.

Rear Window is an excellent view into people's private life, through some very well thought out and clever observations. Rear Window is another Alfred Hitchcock masterpiece. James Stewart does excellent, as a photographer with a broken leg, who takes a fancy in watching his neighbours.
The film follows James Stewart, who is a photographer who broke his leg taking a photo during a race. He then is in a wheelchair for seven weeks, in that time he watches the neighbourhood. There is a songwriter, a couple which sleeps on the balcony, a newly married couple, a young attractive ballerina -- who likes to keep her curtains open, a suicidal woman and so much more.
The most interesting neighbour though is a salesman, and his bedridden wife. Soon he notices that the salesman's wife disappears, and the salesman starts acting suspiciously. No one believes James Stewart, no matter what he tells them, the salesman -- Lars, just keeps putting holes n his evidence.
This film is an exciting thriller/drama; the film uses clever observation to make a realistic ensemble of characters and activities, as well as a breakthrough performance by James Stewart.
An excellent film, one of the greatest of all time.

[i][b]"Honey, what if I'm wrong? What if I just don't got it?"[/b][/i]
[i][b]"Ed, it was only one review."[/b][/i]
[i][b]"Orson Welles was only 26 when he made Citizen Kane. I'm already 30."[/b][/i]
[i][b]"Ed, you're still young. This is the time in your life when you're supposed to be struggling."[/b][/i]
[i][b]"I know. But I'm scared it's not going to get any better than this."[/b][/i]


[i]"Burton's faithfulness and Depp's striking performances makes this biography a terribly sad film, for success that's never met, with a side of hatred and mockery as a legacy."[/i]
I've never had a film that told me to kick myself in the balls before, until I saw Tim Burton's [i]Ed Wood[/i]. I, like many people watched Citizen Kane for the first time, and after feeling underwhelmed at 'the best' film ever, I decided to go the other way and watch 'the worst'. With my endeavour I watched [i]Plan 9 From Outer Space[/i] and whole bunch of films from the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr. Of course, like most the world, we all laughed and enjoyed the absurdity of his films - full of countless mistakes so obvious I'm not sure how post-production didn't die of laughter, and pretty much anything else that could go wrong with a movie, did. Although I don't believe Ed Wood's films are 'the worst', and he didn't merit the Golden Turkey for 'Worst Director of All Time', he certainly fits a template of public demand, ridiculously entertaining. Anyway, back to the kicking of my balls, which I intrigued you with earlier, [i]Ed Wood[/i] is sad! I wouldn't compare [i]Ed Wood[/i] to the likes of [i]Kramer vs. Kramer[/i] - in the sense of tear jerking. However, [i]Ed Wood[/i] may not bring you to tears, it does make you question your own self-worth, especially if your aspiring into the film industry like little naive me. What this film tells is the unfortunate tale of a director (which we can all relate in some degree) just never making it, and leaving a terribly humiliating legacy, and to see Johnny Depp's smile after the biggest rejection of what he tried so hard, I just want to kick my own balls for ever mocking his films.

It's a fairly truthful biography, although not perfectly accurate, it follows the general idea. Edward D. Wood Jr. - a man born with one of the coolest names ever, continues his life ambitions to become a director, following the footsteps of his idol, Orson Welles. Through pristine black and white, we are served a comical and often strikingly accurate portrayal of the infamous director. Although much of the details are fiction, you get a very satisfying feeling while the film 'nit-picks' the mistakes of Plan 9 (among others), and even re-enact them perfectly. With that said, I never had the urge to wander off and play Tetris like I usually do, there I was, three in the morning, thoroughly entertained and laughing.

The performances and plot are made for each other, the relationship between the two are best describable as covering your body in butter, then sliding down a giant pile of butter - smooth. What makes [i]Ed Wood[/i] such a fun and enjoyable film is the entertaining, yet faithful plot, and the comical performances. Johnny Depp is perhaps one of the most enjoyable actors ever; with every role, he emits an energetic burst of excitement. In this particular role, he has a painful optimism, which makes me just want to drown him with money in the hope he can make something good! Depp fills the shows of a legend in filmmaking, and adds dynamic of sympathy, which previously never occurred to people, but now Plan 9 brings me closer to weeping than laughing.

Let the towns people celebrate in Tim's latest contribution to the world. Burton, directing or not, has always brought a gothic aesthetic to all his works. Burton has always had what I would call reliable work, and to some degree always making entertaining films, despite their quality. Although Burton never seemed to quite make his masterpiece, he's perhaps been close (not necessarily directing), and [i]Ed Wood[/i] is his success, however, I do feel he could maybe make a larger impact. As far as [i]Ed Wood[/i] goes, its brilliantly directed, and adds to its overall, likeableness.

Overall, like butter on butter, with some extra butter, [i]Ed Wood[/i] is smooth, it's a film of extreme likability and quality. Burton's faithfulness and Depp's striking performances makes this biography a terribly sad film, for success that's never met, with a side of hatred and mockery as a legacy. I think [i]Ed Wood[/i]'s greatest achievement is to not only tell a quality story, but to send a fear into any aspiring filmmaker, that you may one day fail, go into porn and be known as 'the worst'.

Comments/votes preferred on RT, but My Blog: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/10/ed-wood-1994.html

This is a visual elight, creating a lovely gothic look. Gel De Toro creates his best film yet, taking a lot of detail in the film.
The idea and acting are well done, many of the creatures are creative and intersting. The monster with hands on its eyes, that scene will be remembered for awhile. The faun adds the whole quest thought to it - faun is not Pan, Pan is the international name for labyrinth. The film doesn't crumble at the end either, yet keeps a strong story throught the whole film.
The only negatives I would have for this film is that it can be a bit fast-paced at times. Trying to cater for a audience that cant handle length in their film viewing. The frog scene was to short for me, otherwise it is a reletively flawless film. The fantasy parts arent as corny and pathetic as one would imagine, but are done quite respectively.
The ataganist ( dont know actor) was brilliant, the bottle scene was a bit excessive, but he did a great job. One of the worst villians ever, and took awhile to die.
It has immaculate cinemaphotography, yet to be rivalled - that includes Avatar, I think visuals are better.
It is one of the greatest non-english films I have seen.

Requiem for a Dream, every so often you just come across a movie that blows you away, just gets you completely off guard and leaves you speechless. At first I sat there briskly, looking at this film seeing only a pretentious mess, but the ending just blew me away, and then I managed to read a message of love from the girl I love, only problem it was to another guy. It was then I realised how powerful this film is, although it has nothing to do with my situation, it has just hit me so hard. Requiem for a Dream is just a tragic story, so horrible to see the effects of drugs on the group of people it follows, although at the same time it is a complete misfire. Requiem for a Dream is riddled with faults that I was willing to pass this as pretentious and prepare for some controversy, but it gave me a feeling like no other. I have been left with such a fulfilling feeling, not sadness, nor was I euphoric.

The plot follows a mother, her son, his girlfriend and his friend. The mother, Sarah Goldfarb (Ellen Burstyn), a sad lonely old woman who watches this show - I am not exactly sure what it is game show/self -help programme - anyhow she is addicted to the show. Her life seems dull as she gets the odd visit from her junkie son Harry (Jared Leto) and his visits are not usually pleasant. Although she gets a call saying that she will be a contestant for the show she loves so dearly, and her life is revitalised and she suddenly has meaning to her life. So apart from having an extra motivation, she tries to fit in her old red dress of great sentimental value, only to see she does not fit in her proudest moment. That red dress is what she's going to wear on TV, so a friend suggests these pills a doctor prescribes to help her fit in the dress, the problem is she starts to get addicted, and cannot stop.
The other story follows Harry, his girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) and Tyrone (Marlon Wayans). They are all Heroin addicts and enter the life of the drug trade attempting to get the good life. Unfortunately, they manage to overlook some grim events by dreaming of their happy future together. The group only go from worse to worse after their string of luck, just ending in tragedy.
There was something odd about this movie. I was about to throw this away into the bin of over-rated trite like I have done with a few others. The plot was very cloudy, the one of Sarah was well made, but the one following Harry was confusing and never caught your attention. I could not go into to a great detail of what happened, because it never seemed to be effective in the parts it needed to be, or never gave you a clear picture on what was happening. Although Harry's story is filled with such effective tragedy, I could sit here telling you how it is unbalanced and sketchily executed it all is, yet in the end I was given a feeling like no other film. Requiem for a Dream is the closest I have gotten to the feeling of when I first watched Donnie Darko, which is the single best movie experience I have ever had.
The story Sarah on the other hand was excellently executed. I think with more development her story itself could have made whole movie, although Requiem for a Dream goes for a broader look upon the consequences of drug abuse, instead of restricting itself to the one instance.

The acting on a whole was odd. With the exception of Ellen Burstyn, the acting is mediocre; they never seem to rise above anything great, due to low character development. Although it is seemingly bad acting at the beginning, as you grow attached to the characters, they seem to get better and they never do particularly bad. One of the main problems I found with the story of Harry is there is a lack of empathy. You know they are going through difficult times, but due to the confusion, you never feel for them until the ending, where the empathy-meter goes through the roof. I think probably my main problem with the film stopping it from becoming one of my favourites is the characters never get grounded and focused until the ending, which is why I have grown so fond of it in the last thirty-odd minutes.
Ellen Burstyn's performance on the other hand is something that keeps you going through the whole film. Her performance at first is placid; you picture her as just the old woman who cannot really act. To a degree, it is true; she has a strange demeanour about herself that makes her realistic. As the movie progresses she deals with the difficult material she is given well and perhaps her only problem is giving the senile act too early in the film, but when the senile is needed, she perfects it.

Darren Aronofsky's direction is highly experimental. He is a fan of the "Hip Hop Montage", which is fast editing and shot cuts. While the average movie has about 600-700 cuts, Requiem for a Dream, being a reasonably short movie has over 2000. Darren at sometimes can be pretentious, but the direction is without a doubt the most powerful tool Requiem for a Dream has; it is also has some of the most distinctive direction I have ever seen. He also uses a double screen technique where the screen would show two separate things happening, often from different perspectives of one occurrence. While the direction can be off-putting at times, being perhaps too complex for the common audience viewer, it is effective, as you will get in a film. The tight editing also keeps your mind stimulated, keeping you interested in boring moments, but helps this tragic story come to life. Unfortunately, due to the low-budget and odd direction, Requiem does miss out on great visual, while myself am not a visual junkie, movies like this really can add an extra punch with great visuals. So at times, you could say we have highly experimental and interesting cinemaphotography, opposed to attractive cinema photography. In the end, though all this rustic work Aronofsky loves to do can be a visual letdown, Requiem manages to pays off as one of the most effective films I have ever seen.

Overall, I could sit here all day listing the problems with this movie, Requiem for a Dream itself is as much as a tragedy as the story is portrays. Yet to be left speechless, getting a similar feeling to which I got from my first viewing of Donnie Darko, you know this film matters. The acting is not perfect, the plot is cloudy and it can be an eye sore; although it has such a powerful ending, moral and direction like no other movie, you can easily overlook all these problems. Requiem for a Dream successfully demonizes addiction, but also gives a powerful and realistic tale to send a chill down a spine.

My blog, still vote and comment on RT, this is just a novelty to be honest: http://movieswithjhone.blogspot.com/2011/03/reqiuem-for-dream-2000.html

Man On Wire, there are so many things to like about this documentary. There is very few not to like. Yes, this infamous documentary used to be the ?best? reviewed film on Rotten Tomatoes. It has only been recently been pushed to second place by Toy Story 2. I enjoyed this documentary a lot, and is one of my favourite documentaries.
The documentary follows the story of Philippe Petit, a tightrope walker who managed to walk across the Two Towers only on a line. This may seem like a large feat, especially which it can never be done again, but the fact that it was done illegally, that adds to the story. The film goes through a series of interviews, real footage of the actual events and reenactments. It starts with what seems like a heist movie beginning (which is the reenactment) and some narration. It then goes to the beginning of where Philippe started, a bit on childhood and so on. It then goes back to continuing heist story as it slowly progress through the towers. It then does this until they transcend after awhile, I suppose you could say a bit like Memento (but not so detached from each other).
The story is very clever, and constructed well. While we know what is going to happen, you still stay focused. A good thing was the length was not too much either, nothing worse than a documentary going too long. The plot further progresses and you see how much planning really went into this attempt. It gets to the stage where they hide under tarp on the top floor of the twin towers, while a security guards patrols for three hours. It does get exciting, and may pass for an actual film, if more detail was added. All the real footage was also a very good insight, and stayed true with the story. The real footage actually added more, and fit perfectly, usually it can throw the documentary out of balance, but not here.
The interviews are also very good. You feel the passion of the interviewees. While many are no longer dating, or friends who never see each other anymore, you can still see the event is still with them. It is still deeply affecting them; I also believe there is an interview where a man cries. This shows that this is not phony, and this had a major impact.
So what is wrong with the film? The main problem was Philippe?s interview. I just found quite annoying. He did not destroy the film, nor was he hated, but... He did think of himself of a poet, so you will get some philosophy throughout the film, which seemed slightly self-righteous. The main quote that got to me, and you may agree with, ?My life is like a fairytale...? I think that explains all my problems, a little more humble please.
This film actually had an impact on me. Watching him walk the thin line, with the mist dying down, and he then just comes out. The people, all at the bottom were gasping. It looks like he is walking on the clouds, just seeing a little spec so high. The line becomes hardly visible. Knowing that this can never happen again, and then he lies on the line, his back to the ground as he stares upwards. My favorite part was when it shows the police report, and it goes to the extra description part, all it says is, ?Man On Wire?. Another would be when the reporters asked, ?Why did you do it?? and he replied, ?There is no why.?
Overall, Man On Wire is compelling documentary. It shows a surreal event, with the planning to reach it. I absolutely loved this film, and as I said earlier, this is one of my favorite documentaries. I would recommend this to any documentary lover, and movie lovers beyond action.

A funny film, with comedy that takes more thought, than most in face comedy. Yet has concealed comedy, except the massive gun fight at the end, some of the dim-whitted may even mistake this for a serious film.
Pegg and Frost bring a lot to the table, which I believe is better than Shaun of the Dead.

[b]"There is no right or wrong, only popular opinion."[/b]

[b]Twelve Monkeys[/b], five billion people are dead, but how is it caused by the Twelve Monkeys. A better question, who are the Twelve Monkeys? Long ago I attempted this movie, and I was left gobsmacked. Terry Gilliam had yet again created a truly bizarre movie, different from his other works, in fact different from all previous works. Upon my second viewing, yet again I remain undecided on this movie. I cannot tell if this is a comedy, dark comedy or with the lack of the better word, serious. We are hinted comedy at first; it almost mocks itself in every way, from the performances, characters and the story itself. The performances at time seem purposely ridiculous, or cliché. The characters never seem to hit a serious tone, which never seems to be a flaw of this movie, yet another reason this movie falls into the category of film I like to think as a clever blend of many categories, much like Donnie Darko or Eraserhead.

[b]The plot[/b] follows James Cole (Bruce Willis) is an odd post-apocalyptic dystopian society living under the surface of the planet (Earth). The way of the actual way of life is not shown, nor are we told what year it is. With an indeterminable repetitive dream Cole, which continuously occurs throughout the movie, we are thrown straight into the action. Taken for involuntary voluntary work, he is sent back into time, to understand the cause of their way of life. A virus caused the death of five billion people and the condemnation to live under the surface. Cole is not sent to stop the virus, but find the "how, what, when, why, who". They send him to the wrong time, and of course being a man from the future, they take him to a mental institution, yet this is the very beginning of a very odd and muddled plot, including Dr. Raily (Madeleine Stowe).
This plot is nothing new to the common science fiction, perhaps one of the most common types of story found in science fiction. Yet this one has a very odd twist, it never takes itself seriously, and always remains a constant mystery. It continuously jumps back and forth non-stop, really leaving you confuse as the whole conspiracy theory is jumbled and baffling.
It takes much inspiration from Vertigo, which is even shown in the movie.

[b]The acting[/b] is another aspect too difficult to fully grasp. Bruce Willis creates an odd character that at times is funny and mysterious. Although Willis is almost mocked by the movie around him the whole time, creating such a surreal affect. It's rather strange and frustrating how he never fully explains himself. An example would be when he is dropped in the middle of a war in WW1, but never cares to explain that situation and the co-star Madeleine Stowe has to find that out on her own, so at times his counter-productiveness does get on my nerves. Madeleine Stowe does a reasonable performance, although she is like a Jodie Foster from Silence of the Lambs at first, soon becomes more of a cliché non-believer, turned believer. Brad Pitt continues to amaze me, said to be one of the most attractive men according to the endless women's magazines (sad exploitations of celebrities and their sex lives to amuse the bored housewife, that's right I said it). You would imagine Brad Pitt to be a 'trophy actor', placed to merely look good in an action, but it is of course quite the opposite. Brad Pitt happens to be a fine actor, much showcased in Fight Club. In Twelve Monkeys his over-acting fits perfectly with the sardonic tone of this movie, and his ramblings are such a joyful listen, much like Jules Winfield's (Samuel L. Jackson) tone ultimate coolness.

[b]The direction[/b] is much like most of Terry Gilliam's work, strange and at times unappealing. He never really was one of visual feast, but portrayed odd visuals, which some incorrectly describe as visual feasts. In a nutshell his movies aren't really kind on the eyes, Twelve Monkeys is no exception, at times he gives us an imaginative dystopian world, but simply casts all the potential 'advertisement time' for this movies crazy story. Which is some cases just doesn't work, but Twelve Monkeys has provided one of the most interesting movie experiences. This is a success in creating a memorable experience which Gilliam can so often do, but of course when he fails, it's quite an unpleasant one; Dr. Parnassus.

[b]Overall[/b], Twelve Monkeys has many flaws, and manages to be one of the strangest movies I have come by. It always leaves me baffled, if this is a comedy or a dark comedy, and yes of course it could be serious! Whatever this is, it is a mix of everything, certainly creating an uncomfortable viewing, and the plot is not great towards the end, but it creates an experience like no other, and is now essential viewing. The ending is guaranteed to leave you frustrated and disappointed, as the scene itself is the most bizarre of all, such a serious scene manages to be so funny, but you soon realise it how humbling the experience you have just undertook.

This film was excellent, at first I thought this was just some trashy crap, but was I wrong. The film is actually very funny. I will admit the beginning was a bit boring, and drawn-out. The prison section was good, just how they visited the church, than the orphanage, it seemed a bit bland. Then the comedy began to role in, and it was hilarious, every joke they made came-out of a straight face.
Aykroyd and Belushi were excellent, what an awesome duo. Well the film may seem plot-less, but there is a plot deep under the confusion. When you are able to understand the plot, it is very enjoyable. The film is full of celebrities taking part in the film. The film is, I suppose a musical. That makes this film one of the very few musicals that I like, while it was not my kind of music, it worked perfectly. The comedy well-paced and not over-the-top, nor was it rare and bland.
It follows two brothers; the Blues Brothers trying to get five thousand dollars to save an orphanage, the nun (or penguins as they call them) would not accept any stolen money. It is then up to them to get some legal money, by getting their old band together and getting some paid gigs. It follows them trying to get the members back, as well as getting the gigs. It was hilarious every step of the way. Obviously some would not like the film, if you do not understand the comedy, it won't be very enjoyable.
The end scene was excellent, that's what got this film from 80% to 90%. The ending was just making fun of all cop chases in movie history. The ending was appropriate and added to the films comedy. This film was cleverly written, and keeps you interested from start to finish.

An excellent love story, which uses the vampire idea quite well, withut over doing it like many others.

About Schmidt, Jack is back and enough of that romantic rubbish he has been in as an oldie, this is a comedy/drama, and a good one too. This movie is mainly drama, but the comedy lifts it from seriousness, and ultimately eluding a boring cinematic viewing.
The plot follows Warren Schmidt, and if you could not tell, is played by Jack Nicholson. He retires at the age of sixty-six, and is starting to see the problems with his life. Here he starts to get bored with his life, and despise his wife. Well she dies, he starts to regret it and realise how much he needs her. The daughter is getting married to Randal. Randal is not the husband Schmidt had in mind, and starts a journey of self-discovery around in his Winnebago. Throughout the whole movie he is writing a note to a sponsor child in Africa, so a lot of narration.
The plot does sound bland, but it is quite funny. It even has some profound things in it, Jack kissing a thirty year old, a naked Kathy Bates... It blends comedy and drama perfectly, but not quite a satire. He visits childhood locations, and all that stuff. He eventually goes to his daughter's wedding. Well not a lot to talk about, but trust me it is not boring.
The acting was exceptional, well the whole cast except Jack and Bates were average, but they were not heavily used. Jack, well I cannot imagine anyone else fitting that well so perfectly. I must admit I expected a satire with him having a funny accent, but a last it was his normal Jack Torrance accent. That is not so bad once it gets started, but not what I expected.
Overall, we have a very good drama/comedy, which shows Jack in a very different role. It is nice to see him still making movies, the plot is clever, and the ending is very sad. I would recommend to all Jack lovers. The movie turns a boring plot into a fun movie.