My Favorite Movies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We've become a race of Peeping Toms. What people ought to do is get outside their own house and look in for a change. Yes sir. How's that for a bit of homespun philosophy?"

Rear Window is an undemanding lesson in accomplishing perfection from simplicity. This classic film was the creation of Alfred Hitchcock during one of his last grand creative spells. In the years to follow, the all-time master of suspense produced such classics as Vertigo and Psycho.

Rear Window is Hitchcock's supreme cinematic creation, his crowning triumph and the feather in his cap. With this particular production, the director influenced thrillers and their formulas still decades following its release. Rear Window is a film that invents the clichés. Preceding Hitchcock's masterpiece, said clichés didn't exist. The certain formula didn't exist either. Ergo, a modern audience labelling the film as "clichéd" or "predictable" is both unjust and unfair. Taking the film's age into account, this is a faultless production that unfortunately gave birth to millions of subsequent reproductions. The film is a multi-faceted production enriched and permeated with screenplay integrity, realism, credibility and originality. On top of this, Hitchcock's competently entrancing direction is capable of keeping an audience enthralled from start to finish.

Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, Rear Window, is a riveting thriller pervaded with tension and a spellbinding atmosphere. It's truly a gem and a half! Everyone has at least heard of this production. If one hasn't seen it, they're probably sick of the hype, praise and acclaim. Be that as it may, there is a reason why Rear Window is held in high regard over 50 years since its initial release. The crux of its perfection is within its straightforwardness. It's probable to argue that the film is supported by an exceedingly boring concept, as the film's events concern one person in one room. Mind you, that one person is actor James Stewart...and that one room is an intricate creation augmented with authenticity and absorbing panorama. Moreover, this is Alfred Hitchcock we're discussing. That director has forever been regarded as the master of suspense. Although countless have endeavoured, no other directors can competently tackle the genre like Mr. Hitchcock. His filmmaking allure lies in his ability to keep an audience captivated and interested. This is achieved by employing attention-grabbing camera movements and a succession of proceedings grounded in gripping realism.

This simple story is set in the apartment of successful, professional globe-trotting photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart). After an unfortunate incident during an assignment, Jeff becomes confined to a wheelchair in his boring apartment. Jeff is faced with sheer boredom and, with nothing else to do, he begins spying on his neighbours. With the occasional visit of his nurse (Ritter) and beautiful girlfriend Carol (Kelly), there's plenty of time for Jeff to become consumed in the private dramas of his neighbours. One night his voyeuristic activities pay off when Jeff believes that he witnesses a murder. Salesman Lars Thorwald (Burr), living in the neighbouring apartment building, begins acting suspiciously after the unexplained disappearance of his nagging wife. Gradually, Jeff builds his investigation and he becomes increasingly convinced that the salesman is guilty of murder. While he steadily gathers evidence, Jeff draws others to his intrigue.

Witty, enthralling, poignant, comical and prudent - Rear Window challenges an audience with its connivance in the stories witnessed. Hitchcock also works up the film to one of cinema's greatest hero-and-killer confrontations. This confrontation is particularly memorable for Thorwald's acquiescent perplexity that a stranger would be interested in his certain life, let alone keen to expose his secrets. Flawless...essential.

Hitchcock's camera remains in one apartment, with very few exceptions. Despite sounding quite boring as we remain in one location for the film's entirety, Rear Window is an absorbing film crammed with limitless suspense. Hitchcock is of course the master of suspense, so you'll find many moments here when it's difficult to draw a breath. The director keeps his audience enthralled and engrossed until the unforgettable climax. The classic touches from a classic director are truly hard to beat. He can raise a clever grin occasionally while keeping an audience riveted and on the edge of their seat.

The single location is also an extremely fascinating one. Cleverly, the focus isn't directly on the murder plot. The characters are occasionally entangled in the dramas unfolding in other apartments. We are introduced to a cavalcade of people, and the short character development is effective despite being brief. The script is always taut and there is never a wasted frame. Hitchcock always uses his visuals to tell his story with further intrigue and suspense without relying solely on music. Silence, in fact, provides some of the film's most terrifying moments. Even better, the focus is on the protagonist and his story. The ending may seem rushed as the explanation is revealed very quickly, but this is one of the best decisions on Hitchcock's part in my opinion. It reminds the audience that we're following Jeff, and only a few moments of pure exposition were necessary. It also shows the build up of tension in Thorwald that eventually bursts open forcefully...he becomes ready to confess. This is a rare film that flaunts excellence and perfection in just about every aspect.

James Stewart's performance was absolutely essential. As we're spending the duration of the film in a single location with a chief protagonist, it was a necessity for Stewart to exude charm and charisma to keep the audience enthralled. Stewart has always been one of the screen's greatest performers. Partner him with Alfred Hitchcock and you simply cannot go wrong. For every shot...every frame...Stewart never strikes a false note. He's also fascinating and he possesses a particularly engaging voice. The eminence of his performance is demonstrated in the nuances, and none are superior to the expression of reprieve as he relieves the itches caused by the plaster cast. Stewart is simply so darned excellent in any role he tackles! Alongside Stewart, the beautiful Grace Kelly appears as the love interest that becomes entangled and obsessed with uncovering evidence to prove a man guilty of murder. At the time of release, Grace Kelly was one of the screen's greatest beauties and she abundantly reminds us of this. Thelma Ritter brings a delightful comedic sense to her role as Jeff's nurse. Across the entire film, there is an evident ring of excellence around the entire cast (no, not the cast on Jeff's leg).

Not only is Hitchcock a master of the thriller genre, he's also one of the greatest directors of all time. In his career he directed several memorable masterpieces such as North by Northwest, Psycho, Rebecca, Vertigo and several others. No-one then or now could match Hitchcock's large quantity of quality masterpieces. They say it's impossible for a director to helm more than 2 or 3 masterpieces in his career. Hitchcock transcends this expectation. Rear Window is his best film in my opinion. Everything about the film is pure perfection. If there was a rating higher than 5/5 or 10/10, then Rear Window would undoubtedly wear that rating with aplomb.

Several film buffs and cinema enthusiasts would concur that there's no such thing as a perfect movie. In my opinion, that statement is highly incorrect. This is a masterpiece of the highest order: a faultless marriage of tension, romance, drama and mystery with undertones of intrigue. Cunningly manipulative in optimum Hitchcock elegance, as well as managing to offer us with a complete gamut of human emotions and intrinsic idiosyncrasies all from the vantage point of just the one room: there is good reason why Rear Window is regarded as a classic masterpiece. With an impeccably selected cast, a virtuoso script courtesy of John Michael Hayes and a man who was probably the most creative director to ever draw breath...it simply lacks nothing. The best aspect is in its ability to build effectively until you abruptly realise that you're completely engrossed in this cinematic universe and you don't want the film to end. You cannot afford to miss this one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Welcome to the party, pal."

Die Hard is considered to be the seminal action movie of the 1980s. Produced in 1988, this is the archetypal blueprint for the contemporary action thriller. It has been decades since this crackling action flick first hit cinemas in summer 1988, yet in the 21st century its influence on the action genre is still overwhelming. Die Hard is the smart-mouthed, high-rise thriller which launched Bruce Willis as an action icon. To this day, the world's greatest action hero (in my opinion) is Willis' John McClane. Willis portraying the New York Cop was a career-defining turn: he mixed comical repartee, action heroics and a grubby white vest to astonishing effect. Die Hard also vastly reinvented the action film formula. It introduced a hero that bleeds when shot, panics when people he's trying to protect are endangered, and conveys uncertainties about his ability to survive. McClane is a vulnerable Everyman as opposed to an unstoppable machine. Instead of dispersing bullets non-stop and regularly raising the body count, this hero prefers to employ his brain more frequently as an alternative. McClane was the lone Western hero transposed to a setting subjugated by skyscrapers rather than rock formations.

On top of this, Die Hard proved that action films could be genuinely original and break new boundaries whilst still awarding a mainstream audience the entertaining action they desired. By contemporary standards, the action in the film superficially emerges as fairly tame. Most films of late, such as The Matrix, depict over-the-top martial arts in irritating slow motion. The fight scenes in Die Hard are far more cramped and sweaty; saturated with a higher level of realism and brutality. These fights depict the way real men would do battle: with hard-hitting punches, struggles and a constant inkling of vulnerability.

The plot is as simple as it is involving. As the film opens, it's Christmas Eve and we are introduced to Officer John McClane (Willis): he's a New York City cop disembarking from a plane to Los Angeles. McClane's business in LA is to visit his estranged wife Holly (Bedelia) who had moved there several months beforehand with their children. Holly is in attendance at a Christmas function hosted in a high-rise LA skyscraper owned by the successful Nakatomi Corporation. Unfortunately for John McClane, the Christmas party is abruptly interrupted when a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (Rickman) seize control of the building and hold the guests hostage. McClane is, however, fortunate enough to be in a separate room when the terrorists make their presence known, therefore able to slip away. This consequently inaugurates an excruciating few hours as McClane works to evade the terrorists while also working to conquer them from the inside.

The film embodies all the customary action movie stereotypes: the hero, the nefarious bad guys, the trademark black guy (VelJohnson), the self-absorbed yet incredibly stupid police chief (Gleason), the despondently brainless federal agents (Bush and Davi) and the ex-wife who's still in love with the hero. However, all is fine as Die Hard spawned the majority of these clichés.

For an action movie made in 1988, the special effects (which secured an Oscar nomination) are still utterly mind-blowing. These special effects are still as effective today as their digital equivalent. The high level of practicality in these special effects is extraordinary, and they supply a valuable reminder about the dying art that's being rapidly replaced by CGI technology.
Prior to John McTiernan helming this 1988 masterpiece, he was only recognised for Predator and Nomads. I immensely adore Predator, however McTiernan's supreme cinematic creation will forever be the classic action romp known as Die Hard. The sense of claustrophobia is overwhelming, and we feel more riveted as the tension steadily increases with each passing second. His demolition-heavy vision - astoundingly captured with cinematographer Jan de Bont's lens - guarantees that the film is pure awesome mayhem...ensuring that it's fun no matter how many times one has watched it.

Die Hard also never conforms to the mediocre quality of a pure action fest. That said, there's still a decent dosage of gun battles, explosions and violent shootings. Decades on, and the gunshot wounds are still hard-hitting. Kneecaps being shredded by bullets, glass jammed into bare feet, bloody executions and fierce close combat are among the highlights. Like I said before, the violence probably appears quite tame when compared to contemporary action films, but it's stylish and used realistically. Despite all this action and violence, much of the 130-minute running time is dedicated to establishing the story and developing the fantastic characters. The script is impeccable. There's a great assortment of enjoyable scenarios punctuated with smart and fascinating dialogue. Die Hard also has the advantage of being largely unpredictable. We expect the hero to prevail, but there's a lack of sentimentality towards the characters, hence lending a hint of uncertainty.

The sound effects (which also earned an Oscar nomination) are ear-shattering and realistic. There are booming gunshots, brutal punches and deafening explosions. It'd be difficult to top even by today's standards. The film editing cannot be faulted either. The work of editors John F. Link and Frank J. Urioste holds up under close scrutiny. The directing/editing collaboration is terrific, resulting in minimal continuity issues. The remarkable definitive touch was eventually applied during the post-production period: Michael Kamen's score. There is no distinct Die Hard theme, yet there are countless segments of exciting, pulse-pounding music exclusive to the series. Kamen's musical composition for the film is perfect by action film standards. The intensity gradually elevates thanks to the amazing music. The film's key action sequences are even better with the inclusion of Kamen's efforts. The work behind the scenes is simply terrific!

Director McTiernan also ensured that no faulty performances would slip under the radar. As a result, the entire cast is amazing. Bruce Willis as John McClane cannot be faulted. The smart screenwriting provides Willis with a host of wisecracks and one-liners that are legendary, memorable and quotable. Willis also displays great versatility as an emotional side is expressed towards the climax. As he doubts he will survive the situation, McClane breaks down and lends a hint of vulnerability. The same cannot be said for Stallone, Van Damme, Chuck Norris or any other 80s action genre luminary. Prior to Die Hard, Bruce Willis was primarily known only for starring in the television show Moonlighting and the Blake Edwards comedy Blind Date. For the initial theatrical Die Hard posters, Bruce Willis' unfamiliar likeness wasn't featured because it was feared that this could be a major turn-off for cinemagoers. In hindsight, naturally, there is no doubt that the perennially smirking Willis contributed mightily to the film's enormous success as he traded blows and quips with equal assurance.
John McClane is essentially a Western hero like John Wayne or Roy Rogers. This similarity is referenced on several occasions. When McClane provides an alias, he asks to be called Roy. Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber even talks to McClane at one stage, and asks: "Who are you? Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshal Dillon?" To which McClane retorts with "I was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually". At the climax Gruber then says "Still the cowboy, Mr. McClane? Americans, all alike. Well this time John Wayne does not walk off into the sunset with Grace Kelly". "That's Gary Cooper, asshole" is McClane's response.

Alan Rickman surpasses perfection as the terrorist leader Hans Gruber. Die Hard already had the pleasure of featuring the greatest action hero of all time, but the film also boasts Rickman as the greatest action villain in cinematic history. Rickman's Hans Gruber is polite, witty and sinister. His character is well-written, and Rickman was the perfect man for the job.
But the screenwriter also develops a surplus of other characters as warm as toast. Reginald VelJohnson is highly likeable as the policeman inadvertently pulled into the situation. VelJohnson magnificently bounces off Willis' terrific dialogue. Although VelJohnson and Willis predominantly exchange dialogue via radio, their chemistry is solid.
Then there's Bonnie Bedelia as McClane's estranged wife. Bedelia develops a feisty character not afraid to make snappy remarks - even if a gun is pointed at her.
De'voreaux White contributes yet another terrific character. He provides comic relief and an easily likeable screen persona. I could keep going, but needless to say the supporting cast are devoid of flaws.

At the time of writing this review, Die Hard is two decades old. Even after those 20 years the film is a phenomenal action thrill ride of extraordinary proportions. It offers believable characters, staggering special effects, satisfyingly brutal action, as well as non-stop adventure and tension. Its success at the box office prompted studios to begin green-lighting a slew of knock-offs featuring other 80s action heroes: Die Hard on a ship (Under Siege with Steven Seagal), Die Hard in a sports stadium (Sudden Death with Jean-Claude Van Damme), Die Hard on a train (Under Siege II: Dark Territory with Seagal) and even Die Hard on a bloody big snowy mountain (Cliffhanger with Sylvester Stallone). All these younger siblings of this classic action film follow the same formula of the protagonist finding themself inadvertently entangled in a dangerous situation, and their daring-do is required. This is a testament to how brilliant, engrossing and influential this action masterpiece truly is. Furthermore, I've seen the film at least 60 times in the last few years (including a customary viewing on every Christmas Eve)...and I already want to watch it again. Films like these are simply too few and far between these days.

If you're a self-respecting action fan, Die Hard cannot be missed. If you enjoy watching smart, competent thrillers then this is an essential purchase. Or if you just like being entertained...Die Hard cannot be passed up. I'll be perfectly frank: Die Hard is damn close to being the zenith of filmic perfection. Even a five-star rating isn't sufficient. If this isn't the greatest action film of all time, then it's too close for words. This masterpiece ushered in a new era of action movies, bringing a human quality to the plethora of unbelievable situations in preceding incarnations whereby one man would take on an army himself.

"Yippee-ki-yay Motherfucker!"


Followed by three sequels, beginning with Die Hard 2: Die Harder.


"I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Mr. Takagi did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life. We can go any way you want it. You can walk out of here or be carried out. But have no illusions. We are in charge. So, decide now, each of you. And please remember: we have left nothing to chance."

"Oh, we have 12 vacancies. 12 cabins, 12 vacancies."

Produced during the period when Alfred Hitchcock created his most gripping work, Psycho is the original archetypal horror movie and an essential piece of filmic history. It's the ultimate spine-tingler, the definitive slasher, and the perfect chiller. In the decades prior to helming Psycho, Hitchcock had delighted in astonishing and scaring audiences. However, never had Hitchcock engaged in full-on, straight-up horror until this macabre riposte to the schlock frighteners of the late 1950s.

Psycho has been imitated often, but never surpassed. This is suitably evidenced by almost 50 years of slasher flicks (like John Carpenter's brilliant original Halloween and the crappy Friday the 13th series) including the film's own sequels (that varied in quality), a TV movie spin-off and, in particular, Gus Van Sant's utterly woeful 1998 remake. Furthermore, this Hitchcock masterpiece is a reason why people these days lock the bathroom door while having a shower.

Psycho is more than the great granddaddy of all slashers; it is also an excellent thriller, a quality black comedy, and a valuable lesson in filmmaking. It's a landmark movie for its application of realistic violence, shock, subtle humour and surprise. Virtually every modern horror film and thriller owes its allegiance to Psycho.

Back in 1959, no-one could believe that the Master of Suspense was going to direct a movie with a mere $800,000 budget in a measly thirty-day period (seven of these days were spent shooting the shower scene, which is packed with 87 cross-cuts in its frenzied 45 seconds) using the crew from his TV series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. People also couldn't understand why Hitchcock was helming a filmic adaptation of a pulp novel by Robert Bloch which was influenced by the gruesome career of the Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein. The audience reaction at the time must have been quite similar to the mutual bewilderment when news broke out that Gus Van Sant intended to direct a shot-for-shot remake of this very masterpiece.

Upon release, Psycho was panned by quite a number of critics across the country. Nevertheless people lined up for the movie for blocks (there are stories of queues as long as three miles at drive-in cinemas), it became popular among audiences, and within a few months most critics had changed their opinion. Before long Hitchcock was nominated for an Academy Award, and Psycho was considered one of the best films of the year. In the subsequent decades it was being featured on lists of the best shockers, best suspense thrillers, and, eventually, best films of all time.

All and sundry should be familiar with the straightforward plot of Psycho. If you're unaware of the storyline, surely you've witnessed at least one of the thousands of lampoons and parodies of the acclaimed shower scene. It's hard to imagine anyone not knowing the plot of this masterpiece. For the sake of this reviewer's writing traditions, I'll provide a reasonably brief synopsis.
Marion Crane (Leigh) works as an assistant at a real estate agency in Phoenix, Arizona. She's a struggling working girl, and she's fed up with the way life is treating her. The only way she can see her lover Sam Loomis (Gavin) is if she sneaks out during her extended lunch breaks. Marion wants to marry Sam, but they have insufficient funds to commence a new life together. On a seemingly regular Friday afternoon, Marion's employer entrusts her with an enormous cash sum of $40,000. She's instructed to deposit the money at the bank. However, Marion's instinct tells her that this money could be her last chance at a new life. She steals the money and leaves town. On a fiercely stormy night, Marion stops at the Bates Motel. At this enigmatic location Marion encounters Norman Bates (Perkins): the shy-but-kind manager who's happy to offer her a room for the night and a sympathetic ear. But too long has the Bates Motel been under the authority of Norman's mother, and this night concludes with the immortal shower scene. In the weeks following Marion's murder, her family and friends grow worried and suspicious. Unfortunately for Norman Bates, things escalate when the investigation begins.

Plot-wise, Psycho isn't anything extraordinary. The film's true ingeniousness lies in its edifice. Director Hitchcock and screenwriter Joseph Stafano developed this masterpiece in such a way that it constantly defies expectations and eliminates any sense of predictability. There are two key surprises: the shower scene murder and the final shocking revelation (this ending still shocks me even after watching the film countless times). A viewer who watches Psycho for the first time without any knowledge about either surprise will experience the full impact of Hitchcock's intentions. In fact, the impact is weaker these days because the shower scene is so frequently discussed and so well-known. The greatest shock for a first-time audience member is the early exit of Marion Crane. This is doubly unanticipated because up to this point the script has tricked us into accepting Marion as the main character. When events dispel that illusion, and the point-of-view shifts to Norman Bates, viewers are justifiably baffled. In order to keep this aspect of the film secret when Psycho opened in theatres in 1960, no advance screenings were held, no-one was admitted to a showing after the feature had started, and Hitchcock purchased every copy of Robert Bloch's novel he could find.

To this day, audiences never forget how scary and disturbing Psycho truly is. People still have trouble taking a shower because of it (Janet Leigh reportedly never took a shower ever again after filming concluded). If you're looking for blood and gore, look elsewhere. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or a Friday the 13th entry will be more to your liking. Psycho has a grand total of about two minutes (if that!) of actual violence in it. Yet these are the most unforgettable two minutes of violence in film history. Alfred Hitchcock was a magician and a director. The violence was done with mirrors, trick shots, and general illusions. The viewer comes away swearing they've witnessed more than they've actually seen. For example, at no point in Psycho do we ever see a knife penetrate the skin. The murders are done with quick flashes, expert editing, and realistic sounds (the stabbing noises were actually a recording of Hitchcock stabbing melons with a kitchen knife).
Let's not forget about the music. The film is offered an absolutely riveting score courtesy of Hitchcock regular Bernard Herrmann. Without the chilling sound of Herrman's music the film would lose about half its intensity. Psycho is probably the best instance in cinematic history of music effectively strengthening action and intensity.

Hitchcock purposely made the film in black & white because he thought it'd be too gory in colour! Hitchcock dabbled in cinematic taboos and pushed the censorship envelope with Psycho. In fact this was the first American motion picture to feature a toilet being flushed (up until then movies didn't even acknowledge the existence of toilets). Janet Leigh is also shown in her underwear on more than one occasion, and it's possible to see hints of flesh (mainly belonging to a body double) during the shower scene. The script also features a character speaking the word "transvestite" - a line that survived the censor only after a Herculean struggle on Stafano's part.

Anthony Perkins' perfect performance as Norman Bates is a brilliant mix of sincerity, charisma and impenetrable insanity. In the Robert Bloch novel the character of Norman Bates was a fat and balding middle-aged voyeur. To make the character more sympathetic, screenwriter Stafano reworked Bates in order for Perkins to suit the role.
Janet Leigh was nominated for an Oscar. Her performance is also quite extraordinary.
According to various actors who worked with the Master of Suspense, Hitchcock was a director never particularly concerned with the acting in his movies. Apparently he was more of a technician. Hitchcock (known more affectionately as "Hitch" to his collaborators) knew precisely what he wanted actors to do, and he expected them to do it. Most of the acting in Psycho is in fact quite perfunctory. Janet Leigh was the one who got an Oscar nomination, but it's Anthony Perkins' indelible performance that everyone remembers. Perkins delivers one of the cinema's most frightening and extraordinary performances. Perkins became so identified with Norman Bates that it changed the trajectory of his career. For years following Psycho, Perkins shunned talking about the part until he finally made peace with Norman in the 70s, and at long last returned to play the role in sequels.

Alfred Hitchcock's name has become synonymous with Psycho. If Hitch's name pops up in conversation, people will usually associate him with Psycho or Rear Window or Vertigo or The Birds. Hitchcock's Psycho is so incredibly influential and unspeakably brilliant. Many believe that John Carpenter's Halloween was the mother of the slasher genre. It became responsible for the Scream films and many other modern slashers. Yet, as important as Halloween was to the horror genre during the 80s and 90s, John Carpenter's thriller didn't invent this brand of terror...it re-invented it by paying tribute to one of the most frightening films of all time: Psycho. Not only did Halloween star Jamie Lee Curtis (Janet Leigh's daughter) but the character name of "Sam Loomis" was re-used.

Visually rich, unbearably intense and absolutely terrifying, no-one has ever done it better than Hitchcock and no-one ever will. As the film's shocking revelation is revealed, I always get goosebumps. These are the consequence of a combination of several elements: the shocking imagery, the sound, and the haunting music. Several argue that Psycho is Hitchcock's best movie. In my opinion that honour goes to Rear Window, although it's incredibly close.
Today, Psycho still holds up amazingly well. With the possible exception of Halloween and perhaps Scream, no latter-day horror/thriller has been capable of generating as many goosebumps as Psycho. The black and white photography is perfect for the film's tone and mood - colour would have blurred the nightmarish quality. The painstaking way in which Hitchcock composed every scene is evident in the quality of the final product. This is the most notorious title in the Hitchcock canon. It moves from one memorable scene to the next. It rattles along at a brisk pace, and before you know it the film is over. This was my introduction to Hitchcock and I've been viewing more of the director's work ever since.

"A boy's best friend is his mother."

"Here's looking at you, kid."

It has been over 6 decades since Casablanca was first released. That totals over 60 years of movie lovers and film enthusiasts alike admiring this masterpiece with the utmost praise.

Casablanca is a magical tale of loyalty, love and radiant romance that deserves every bit of praise it still receives, and then some. Casablanca is one of the only old movies that I could watch daily for the rest of my life and never get sick of. The film is a true original Hollywood classic that will always be thought by some to be the greatest movie of all time. It will always be in my Top 10.

Casablanca has not dated one iota; it's appealing, charming, magical and a downright masterpiece. Set during World War II, the main action of this exotic tale is located in the non-occupied French Morocco city of Casablanca, logically enough. The central character is a cynical café owner named Rick Blaine (Bogart), a discontented soul who "sticks his neck out for nobody". Rick finds himself coming into possession of two letters of transit; these can guarantee safe passage out of the country to whosoever carries the letters. Rick is informed that the leader of the underground in Europe, Victor Laszlo (Henreid), has arrived in Casablanca with hopes of escaping to America. But he needs these letters of transit that Rick is presently in possession of. The twist is that Victor arrives with his wife Ilsa (Bergman). Ilsa and Rick were lovers in Paris many years ago and departed under tragic circumstances. And now a classic love triangle emerges; two letters and three people that want the letters. Rick must now decide between being selfless or selfish.

Casablanca is an unforgettable film that is still mighty appealing in this contemporary age of cinema. It is classic and timeless in every sense of the word. Many people still regard the screenplay to be the best script in existence. Do I agree? Absolutely! The script is definitely the best script ever written for the screen. It contains some gorgeous lines that we often hear parodied and quoted. ("Round up the usual suspects", "We'll always have Paris", the list goes on) If you ever do a course on writing screenplays, Casablanca will be brought up as an example. The lines cannot be faulted at all. There is never anything cheesy and never anything too corny. The film is never boring and is also the perfect length.

Both the screenplay and the directing assist in making this perfect film into a reality. It almost goes without saying that the performances are fantastic. Humphrey Bogart was in his prime when this film was released. After The Maltese Falcon he was finally given his big break. And since this film in particular, Bogart has gone on to become one of the world's most memorable actors. Bogart's performance is masterful. Every line is delivered with such precision; keeping the audience interested and enthralled in everything that is going to happen next. The final line uttered in this movie is the greatest last line in cinematic history without question or debate. And Bogart's delivery is essentially flawless.

Ingrid Bergman was an extremely talented actress when this film was made. Her performance is sublime. The romance is never cheesy, and each line delivered by either her or Bogart glistens with perfection. The song As Time Goes By is the greatest movie song of all time. It will give one goose-bumps because of its poignancy and power.

I've seen this film broken down during filmmakering classes. Everything in this movie is to perfection. People will always suggest Casablanca as an example of a perfect movie. There is little wonder or debate surrounding that statement. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again, Casablanca could be the greatest movie ever made. If you want an example of a perfect movie then watch this one. If you want a good movie to watch with your partner, watch this one. Rush out and buy the movie with hesitation. I cannot put it clearer than that.

"It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us."

Based on a teleplay by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men marks Sidney Lumet's magnificent film debut. This masterpiece is a dynamic, intense, searing, spellbinding morality study and a brilliant portrayal of our justice system at work. 12 Angry Men was first released decades ago in 1957, yet this potent social microcosm still feels as relevant as ever.

On paper this straightforward courtroom drama probably wasn't much to get excited about - a single room setting (with little to no exceptions), a dozen old-timers arguing, and a first-time feature film director. But when preserved on the medium of film, 12 Angry Men is transformed into a consummate fermentation of acting prowess and dynamite direction. This is a movie that could stand as a screenwriting masterclass in the development of character and plot without resorting to big stunts, grandiose locations or special effects. From start to finish the film is just the story of twelve men on a hot, stuffy afternoon in a single room debating the guilt of a teenager on the wrong side of the tracks. The fact the film kept me riveted and entertained for its entire length is a gratifying testament to everyone involved. In an age dominated by summer blockbusters and teenagers merrily chatting about the latest action fest, 12 Angry Men serves a simple yet powerful reminder that a solid script, a good story and vividly-drawn characters are all that matter at the end of the day.

To the untrained eye, the plot of 12 Angry Men probably appears pretty straightforward and quite boring. Do not be fooled by the apparent simplicity of the plot. Instead of being single-note, it's a multi-faceted and deeply provocative examination of the flawed nature of the justice system. There are twelve main characters altogether (this is usually a recipe for cinematic suicide); however the complex story and dynamite dialogue allows an audience to get to know each and every main character in the picture. Even more amazingly, the characters are never given names (until the very end when two men introduce each other). As an audience member, you will never realise that the characters are nameless. The proceedings are so mesmerising to the point that character names don't even matter.

The central narrative of 12 Angry Men focuses on a jury's intimate deliberations on a capital murder case. The case concerns a teenage Latino accused in the stabbing murder of his father. The defence and prosecution have rested, leaving only the jury to contemplate the facts and reach a verdict. A guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. To the inexpert eye, it seems like a straightforward open-and-shut case: the defendant has a weak alibi, the key body of evidence points to the defendant's guilt and eyewitnesses have come forward, claiming to have seen the murder taking place.

Rather than chronicling the happenings of the trial and the pomposity of the attorneys, the film commences as the jurors are being released into the deliberation room. This sole location is where the film will remain for almost its entire length. As the twelve-man jury file into the cramped jury room of a hot afternoon, the men seem willing to take the case at face value and lock in the "guilty" verdict. The men are more concerned with getting to a ball game on time, and aren't even prepared to spend five minutes discussing the matter. However, the guilty verdict can only be reached if all twelve men agree on it. During the initial vote, eleven vote "guilty" whereas one member of the jury (Fonda) opts for the "not guilty" verdict. After the customary disparaging "there's always one!" comments are elicited, this juror begins to defend his decision: the boy may be guilty of murder, and probably is, but there is a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt to consider the "not guilty" verdict as the more appropriate decision. The rest of the film follows the escalating apprehension in the room, and the conflict between the jurors as they endeavour to reconcile their divergent beliefs concerning the guilt of the defendant.

In this day and age, 12 Angry Men is a forgotten gem overlooked by the current generation of movie-goers who tend to view the latest action/adventure flick in lieu of the classics. This is also a film with a fairly unexciting premise. It's also fairly offputting to set an entire film in the confines of a single room! Only three minutes in the film's 96-minute running time transpire outside the jury room. Needless to say, it'd take a filmmaking team of remarkable skill to achieve the desired result. Director Sidney Lumet was up to the task. He managed to have this film in the can after only 21 days of shooting! The director employed a number of subtle cinematic techniques to enhance the claustrophobic atmosphere of the jury room. As the film progressed, the camera levels kept descending. At first moderately higher than eye level, the camera steadily moves downwards to below eye level. In addition, the initial stages of the movie were achieved using wide shots. The shots progressively move further inwards as the film draws closer to its enthralling conclusion. Different lenses were also applied to elevate the claustrophobia levels. This approach serves the film well. One can almost feel the heat of the non air-conditioned room and the intensifying emotions of the jurors.

"Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?"

Lumet does a commendable job of building tension. The director also manages to deal effectively with the social issues (including racial bigotry) which arise in the course of the heated discussions in the jury room. Lumet accomplishes a dreadfully gruelling task here; by sticking to the format of the play and allowing almost all the events to transpire within one room, while still managing to keep things fresh and rattling along at a brisk pace.

The film's script explodes like twelve sticks of dynamite. Snappy dialogue and realistic human depictions are the highlights of the screenplay. It's also a multi-faceted tale, unfolding on various different levels. On the first level it's a mystery. The interplay between the jurors throws up several feasible scenarios for the crime. Although differing theories as well as inconsistencies in the official statement are raised, we're left to draw our own conclusions. On another level the film is a deep scrutinisation of human character as revealed by the actions of the twelve grouchy men in dealing with their dilemma. On top of this, 12 Angry Men is a study of the failings of the justice system which relies on imperfect human beings to determine its outcome. These small-minded humans are left to judge who should live and who should die. The film acts as a worthwhile reminder that our justice system is based upon the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" and that all have the right to a fair trial. The suitably idealistic message of 12 Angry Men is pure and simple, yet it offers so much more. We witness our own personalities as fragments in the twelve jurors, often times letting personal biases and impatience cloud our judgment.

One of the most stirring parts of the film is when the provocative question is asked: "What if it were you that were on trial?" If my life was in the balance I'd hope a juror like Henry Fonda would be sitting in the jury box. It's disturbing to contemplate the fact that so many men are willing to dismiss the case within five minutes because of other priorities on their mind. What about the poor boy whose life is in question? What if he isn't guilty and is consequently executed on false charges? It's easy to put oneself into the place of both defendant and juror, which demonstrates the potency of both the story and the performances.

Henry Fonda leads the cast as the juror who reminds us that we shouldn't be afraid to go against the herd. His character opposes the opinions of eleven others! The cast is a powerhouse. All twelve members of the cast (there are a few other minor cast members, but they aren't on screen for any more than a minute each) are impeccable. They bounce off each other's lines naturally and credibly. Each actor is brilliant and serves a purpose. The cast is a mosaic of the typical Average Joes compelled to do jury duty. There are the younger ones, the elderly ones, the impatient ones, the foreigner, the old crone, and the smart one. Just simply sit back and enjoy the scorching performances of Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fleder, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Joseph Sweeney, George Voskovec and Robert Webber.

"Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth. That's in the Constitution."

12 Angry Men has been classified as a "legal thriller". It's also known as a courtroom drama. Sidney Lumet's directorial debut is a sizzling courtroom drama done right: easy on the courtroom, heavy on the drama. Lumet went on to make such films as Dog Day Afternoon, Network and The Verdict. Not many of the world's greatest directors can boast a debut of this quality. Not even Alfred Hitchcock got it right the first time...neither did Steven Spielberg or George Lucas or Martin Scorsese. Even M. Night Shyamalan tried unsuccessfully before receiving critical acclaim with The Sixth Sense. 12 Angry Men is a lesson on the perfect film debut. No first-time director has ever done it better. 12 Angry Men is a masterpiece. It's an engrossing film that consumes you in its happenings. Filmed in less than a month on a measly budget, this shining example of efficiency has held up amazingly well for more than 50 years. I consider this an absolute must-see movie that's being overlooked far too often.

"For nearly three thousand years man has been searching for the lost ark. It's not something to be taken lightly. No one knows its secrets. It's like nothing you've ever gone after before."

The Indiana Jones films became the most influential adventure films in cinematic history. The films made their mark on the genre and still influence the way adventure films are made to this day. What's the allure of the series? Put rather simply, all the Indiana Jones films impeccably merge action, exhilarating adventure, dazzling locations, marvellous humour and a mixture of great characters. Raiders of the Lost Ark is the first instalment in the highly acclaimed Indiana Jones series, and still the superior film. The elegance and class of this movie is so far unrivalled and unsurpassed even after several decades.


Set in 1936 on the eve of World War II, Dr. Indiana Jones (Ford) is a renowned archaeologist and a famed adventurer. Jones grows tired of lecturing students at a university; instead he adores trekking through the jungle touting a whip and a gun while searching for ancient artefacts. After an incredibly memorable opening sequence set in Africa, Indy is hired by the United States government to investigate the possible existence of the 'Ark of the Covenant'; an ancient relic that appears to be the cause of strange doings by the Nazis. Indy is pitted against rival archaeologist René Belloq (Freeman) who is also searching for this illustrious ark that has been nothing but myth and legend for centuries.


This fascinating story is merely the beginning as the film rapidly moves to numerous different locations around the globe from Nepal to Cairo.


Harrison Ford is unreservedly perfect for the principal role of Indiana Jones. Ford possesses that certain look about him that suits the role of both an adventurer and a professor. His dialogue is delivered extraordinarily, and his on screen magnetism is one of the film's highest points. Ford has all the wit and appeal: the character of Indiana Jones is the essential embodiment of an adventure hero that encompasses all the qualities and the charisma that makes him one of the best action heroes of all time (as voted on several occasions). Ford is partnered with the equally charismatic Karen Allen. Playing Indy's love interest, this isn't the usual clichéd damsel in distress who can't fend for herself. On top of this there's a remarkable performance by John Rhys-Davis, and unforgettable performances from both Paul Freeman and Ronald Lacey.


Steven Spielberg's direction is magnificent. This focused directing and the lavish cinematography are qualities rarely seen in contemporary adventure movies. I particularly loved the old school effects and the elaborate sets. With such gorgeous images on the screen for every second of the film's duration, it effectively moves from one memorable scene to the next.


The opening artefact hunt is still my favourite film opening of all time. Not to mention all the other memorable scenes - the bar fight, the plane scene, the snake pit, the truck chase, the ship battle, the final showdown...it's impossible to spot a dull second amongst the action and adventure. The outlandish stunts are a requirement for an adventure film of this calibre. The filmmakers deliver a never-ending supply.


The film is only made better by the accompanying exciting music by John Williams. The classic Indiana Jones theme is still my favourite movie theme of all time! The exhilarating action is only made better by the triumphant, invigorating music.


The special effects delightfully hold up even after all these years. With filmmaking technology forever advancing I am pleased and happy to see such terrific old school effects that still look mighty impressive.


When I was a youngster I remember watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on various occasions. The first three Indiana Jones films were an essential part of my childhood. Now that I've aged and matured I still love these original three films tremendously. This is unquestionably one of the best movies of all time! Followed by several sequels beginning with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (this is actually a prequel).

"Apollo Creed vs. the Italian Stallion. Sounds like a damn monster movie."

The Rocky series may have ultimately degenerated into a flashy, soulless boxing franchise, but this first instalment is unlike the majority of its follow-ups - it is a remarkable, heartfelt, inspirational sports drama and a poignant character study concerning the determination of one man. It's easy to dismiss Rocky as just a motion picture about boxing, yet it works on several levels - the film is an inspiring fable of the underdog, a warm love story, and a dramatic tale of unrealised dreams all wrapped into one. While a low-budget picture without major backing, Rocky was a hit; earning a mint at the box office, transforming Sylvester Stallone into a star, and collecting three Academy Awards (Best Director, Best Editing, and Best Picture). The weight of multiple sequels and several imitators may have tarnished Rocky, but the movie nonetheless stands as a true highlight of classic American filmmaking, and one of the greatest movies of all time.

Rocky is the story of the Philadelphia inhabitant Rocky Balboa (Stallone), who earns a living by partaking in small-time boxing matches and working as an enforcer for a local loan shark. Whenever Rocky is not in the ring or twisting the arms of indebt Philadelphia residents, he socialises with the shy, reserved Adrian (Shire) and her brother Paulie (Young). By all accounts, Rocky's life is unremarkable, but he is soon given the chance of a lifetime. Heavyweight boxing champion Apollo Creed (Weathers) is seeking an opponent for his next fight, and decides that giving a low-ranked boxer a shot at the title would be a terrific publicity stunt. Apollo chooses Rocky on account of his moniker "The Italian Stallion", and believes the fight will be a walk in the park. Rocky, on the other hand, perceives the fight as an opportunity to go the distance with the champ and gain some respect.

Sylvester Stallone's inspiration for Rocky was derived from the boxing bout between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. In the 1970s, Wepner was a low-ranked boxer who surprised everybody (and probably bankrupted a few bookies, too) when he almost lasted 15 rounds in the ring with Ali while the champion was still wearing his belt. Impressed by Wepner's determination, Stallone (with a measly $106 in his bank account) worked in his kitchen to pen the screenplay for Rocky in 86 hours. He soon began shopping around the script, and insisted that he be the one to star as Rocky instead of a big-name actor. Producers Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff ultimately agreed, and the movie was filmed in 28 days on a diminutive $1 million budget. The rest, as they say, is history. While Stallone faced ridicule in subsequent years for ham-fisted acting within brain-dead action films, it cannot be denied that he created a magnetic character in Rocky Balboa; a figure whom many perceived as an inspiration to overcome the ostensibly impossible in their own lives. Rocky may adhere to clichés, but Stallone managed to effectively apply them in a way that captivated viewers and did not seem over-the-top.

The brilliance of Rocky is that it's primarily a drama concentrating on characters rather than sports. It would be erroneous to state that the climactic boxing match is unimportant (it is the centrepiece), but the production is not just about the action. In the lead-up to Rocky's match with Apollo, time is spent developing Rocky as a person. He is not traditional hero material - he's boorish, somewhat dumb, and has limited aspirations. Yet, there's something inherently endearing about Rocky, mainly due to the gentle, caring way he treats his new girlfriend Adrian. The relationship between Rocky and Adrian affords the film its emotional core, and it's key to making the ending so triumphant. Plus, it is a joy watching Rocky progress through the proceedings with confidence in himself while at the same time realising his limitations. Several dramatic moments within Rocky have been mocked over the years in parodies and knock-offs, yet it's still easy to let yourself be absorbed by this masterful film.

Rocky is widely considered to be Sylvester Stallone's movie since he wrote the screenplay, played the protagonist, and choreographed the boxing sequences. However, he did not direct the movie - John G. Avildsen was at the helm. Avildsen was a director of no particular distinction in 1976, yet the success of Rocky propelled him to a moderately rewarding career. And Avildsen's efforts should not be underestimated - while Stallone deserves some credit for generating the film's heart, Avildsen's directorial work was equally beneficial. Most impressive is the climactic fight, which in the hands of Avildsen feels like a real boxing match. There's a great deal of tension, too - you do not know who will emerge victorious. The definitive touch was Bill Conti's music. With an exceptional main theme, an equally exceptional title song (the Oscar-nominated Gonna Fly Now), and an all-round engaging score, Conti's contributions topped off the movie immaculately.

Prior to his performance in Rocky, Sylvester Stallone was virtually an unknown. Yet, this movie launched Stallone's acting career that catapulted him to the highest orbit of action stars where he ranked among the highest paid actors in Hollywood. In Rocky, Stallone displayed legitimate acting talent, and even acquired an Oscar nomination. He truly brought the titular role to life in endearing ways. We love Rocky not just because he's an underdog but because he's honest, caring, generous, humble and disciplined. It's nothing short of amazing that Stallone created a schmalzy character and a maudlin story, yet made the elements feel completely believable rather than sugar-coated. The supporting cast, meanwhile, is comprised of a number of low-profile actors. Burgess Meredith is a standout as Mickey; the old timer who trains Rocky. A colourful and tough performance, Meredith pulled off the role with commendable passion and conviction. Also in the cast is Talia Shire, who was known at the time for her role in the Godfather movies. Shire's performance as Adrian is tender and endearing - it's easy to understand Rocky's love for her. And as Apollo Creed, Carl Weathers is terrific, while Burt Young is excellent as Paulie.

Decades on, a lot of cynical movie-goers and critics still proclaim that Rocky did not deserve Best Picture at the 1977 Academy Awards over two of its competitors, Taxi Driver and Network. Nonetheless, this reviewer whole-heartedly believes that Rocky deserved Best Picture. Not only was it arguably better than its competitors, but the movie, like its protagonist, was the underdog - this low-budget film grabbing the Best Picture Oscar was as unlikely as Rocky going the distance with Apollo Creed. Added to this, the film was an allegory for Stallone's life in the mid-'70s. Prior to '76, Stallone was a low-ranked actor, but Rocky gave him the opportunity to become a big star. Much like what happened to Rocky Balboa, the gamble paid off. The film's success even spawned five sequels, beginning with Rocky II in 1979.

"Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?"

A Christmastime staple, Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life is a rare film which has withstood the test of time and continues to touch millions of people through its themes, boundless appeal, and emotional power. Placed alongside such movies as Miracle on 34th Street or National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, It's a Wonderful Life is not exactly a typical Christmas movie since only its finale happens on Christmas Eve and it has nothing to do with Santa Claus or gift giving. Nevertheless, it encapsulates the true spirit of the holiday: the value of family and friends, and the importance of giving rather than receiving. On top of this, It's a Wonderful Life can be watched any time of the year because of its feel-good themes and the message it conveys about the significance of a single human soul.

The story kicks off on Christmas Eve, as a chorus line of prayers are heard coming from the small town of Bedford Falls pleading for the angels to assist the despairing George Bailey (Stewart). The unsung hero of Bedford Falls, George was anxious to travel the world and head to University when he was a young man, but was forced to relinquish his dreams and manage his late father's business to ensure that it won't fall into the hands of wealthy schemer Mr. Potter (Barrymore). George has always acted in the interests of others before serving himself, and in his adult life he marries the beautiful Mary (Reed) and has a handful of wonderful children. However, financial problems and personal issues suddenly begin to mount, overwhelming George and plunging him into a tragic abyss of despondency. Enter George's guardian angel Clarence (Travers), who is sent from heaven to heighten the depressed man's spirits. In order to achieve this end, Clarence shows George what the world would have been like if he had never existed.

The first two-thirds of It's a Wonderful Life are spent in flashback, with Clarence learning about George's background and seeing the events leading up to his suicide contemplation. Such a device is a structural masterstroke; it allows a chance for viewers to see George's past and it permits room for George's character to be meticulously developed while the knowledge of his depression sits at the back of our mind. Conveying enough material to constitute a separate movie on its own, Capra accommodated the full breadth of George's existence and treated it with the care it deserved. We become immersed in George's existence and we fall in love with the man, and it seems impossible that anything could threaten to destroy his life. This kind of gentle, enthralling character development is gratifying and essential, letting us see what's at stake when Clarence at long last travels down to earth to meet George. And since we grow to love George so much, the climax is all the more poignant (almost unbearably so).

It's a Wonderful Life is such an effective feel-good movie because it asserts the notion that everyone, regardless of how insignificant they may seem, has the capacity to make a difference. Life is described as "God's greatest gift", and the film delivers the message that worldly riches mean nothing compared to love, family, friends, honesty and integrity; qualities which are far more valuable than other fleeting items of value which are so often held in higher regard. All of this converges for the goosebump-inducing finale which never fails to leave this reviewer a blubbering mess. Anybody who isn't moved by the flick's final few minutes should wonder what the heck is wrong with them. Additionally, It's a Wonderful Life is so often referred to as cheesy and sentimental, but it's surprisingly dark at times. The imminent lead-up to George's depression is heart-wrenching in how bleak it is, and George's lurid odyssey through Pottersville - a community in which he was never born - contains noir-ish traces, as it's realistically gloomy.

With Capra having made the most of his estimated $3 million budget, It's a Wonderful Life is a technically impressive picture indeed. The fictional town of Bedford Falls seems completely real, as Capra's crew constructed an elaborate main street consisting of dozens of buildings and stores. It feels lived-in and real, not like something situated on a studio back-lot. Additionally, filming took place during summer months, meaning that snow had to be artificially created. Fake snow often fails to convince, but every flake of snow in It's a Wonderful Life looks authentic. If anything is to be criticised (though perhaps that's too strong of a word), it's that there are a few technical faults, like a wide shot not precisely matching a close-up. But such shortcomings don't matter at all, as Capra's direction is stunning. His sense of pacing is magnificent, and each shot is infused with enthralling visual flair. And while the film is vehemently a drama, gentle humour is scattered throughout, making the film even more of a delight.

While Frank Capra and his team of credited screenwriters deserve some of the recognition for It's a Wonderful Life's brilliance, it's James Stewart's immaculate performance that truly makes the film work. Stewart infused George Bailey with a deft mixture of innocence and veracity, not to mention humanity and fallibility that has viewers rooting for him from the outset. Stewart fits the role like a glove - he's amiable and convincing, and his desperation and despair is increasingly apparent when he's submerged into the vision of Pottersville. Equally excellent is Donna Reed in the role of Mary. Reed wasn't Capra's first choice, but it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role, as she embodies the sweetness that was required to capture George's heart. Meanwhile, as George's guardian angel, Henry Travers is completely charming. The rest of the supporting cast is just as excellent - Lionel Barrymore's performance as the wicked Potter is full of cunning and malice, while Thomas Mitchell was a great pick as the lovable (albeit incompetent) Uncle Billy. Capra never allowed a faulty moment of acting to sneak into his picture.

With It's a Wonderful Life's strong reputation and almost unanimous acclaim, it's difficult to believe that it wasn't a hit during its theatrical release. Reviews were mixed and the box office earnings were underwhelming, dooming Capra's newly established production company. It was nominated for a few Academy Awards, but won nothing. Subsequently, It's a Wonderful Life fell into relative obscurity until the picture's copyright expired and it entered the public domain, meaning that television stations could play it ad nauseum without having to pay royalties. Thus, it was used as a time-filler for the Christmas season, allowing it to be rediscovered by a whole new generation. At last, reviews were almost uniformly positive and It's a Wonderful Life became bestowed with the love and acclaim that it always deserved. Indeed, if It's a Wonderful Life was never born, the world would have been worse off for it.

"You see George, you've really had a wonderful life. Don't you see what a mistake it would be to just throw it away?"

"The boy's alive and we're going to send someone to save him... and we are going to get him the hell out of there."

The directorial career of Steven Spielberg commenced in the early years of the 1970s. Spielberg originally directed Duel before progressing onto further projects such as The Sugarland Express, Jaws, and the excellent Indiana Jones adventures (beginning with Raiders of the Lost Ark). These few years established Spielberg as an accomplished purveyor of light-hearted blockbusters and good fun action movies. It was in 1993 that Spielberg demonstrated his ability to direct powerful and mature films. Schindler's List denoted a crucial addition to Spielberg's extensive résumé: a modern masterpiece that personified good (Schindler) and evil (Amon Goeth), playing out the struggle against the tragic backdrop of the Holocaust.

1997 marked the release of two further additions to the Spielberg canon - Amistad and The Lost World: Jurassic Park. These films are fine examples of Spielberg as a thinker and as an entertainer. For 1998's Saving Private Ryan, these two characteristics are deftly merged. Not only is Saving Private Ryan an extremely powerful and deeply philosophical affair, but it's also very entertaining and utterly riveting for its entire duration.

D-Day: Tuesday, June 6th, 1944. At 6:30am that ill-fated morning, an initial assault wave disembarked at Omaha Beach. This first assault wave comprised of 96 tanks, almost 1500 assault infantry, and a task force of engineers to clear the landing area of obstructions. In the hours preceding the landing, the German shore defences were heavily pulverised by Allied artillery, naval guns, and aerial barrages. However as the first landing craft came within a quarter-mile of shore...it became apparent that the German fortifications hadn't been neutralised. Rough seas and poor visibility had hampered the artillery bombardments, with overcast conditions amplifying the margin of error for the bombing runs. Consequently, a majority of the bombs hit too far inland. Establishing the beachhead would prove to be far more gruelling than originally envisaged. As the landing crafts hit the sand, the infantry immediately found themselves under concentrated small-arms, mortar and artillery fire from enemy fortifications that covered Omaha Beach. Burdened by heavy equipment, weakened by seasickness, exhausted, and disoriented by the mayhem surrounding them, the disembarking infantry had to travel through knee-deep to waist-high water, making them easy targets for the German soldiers. Upon reaching shore, they then had to move up 200 yards of open beach before reaching any form of cover. All this while avoiding enemy fire, which fell thick and fast all around them. This event was a violent massacre.

The story conveyed in Saving Private Ryan is prefaced with the D-Day landing at Omaha Beach. This beginning is commonly regarded as the best battle sequence ever committed to celluloid. It's also frequently regarded as the best war scene in cinematic history. This sequence depicts the Omaha Beach landing from the perspective of the soldiers who fought it. This is a brilliant scene, not only in terms of technique but in its unparalleled ability to have a viewer completely immersed as the anarchic mayhem transpires. This is certainly the most violent, gory, visceral cinematic depiction of war I have ever witnessed. Spielberg spares the viewer nothing of the horrors of war as he uses every tactic at his disposal to convey the utter turmoil and futile waste that lies at the core of any engagement. The audience is presented with unforgettable, haunting images of bodies being cut to pieces by bullets, limbs being blown off, entrails spilling out, as well as a range of additional assorted examples of carnage. When the tide comes in at the battle's conclusion, with the waves breaking on the body-strewn beach, the water is crimson. It's jaw-droppingly compelling material, and all the more sobering when you realise that this isn't fiction - this actually occurred to the mostly young, inexperienced soldiers. Spielberg and his cast & crew have produced an astonishingly faithful recreation of the war experience. Shell-shocked D-Day veterans reportedly staggered out of theatres mumbling "someone finally showed what it was really like". Steven Spielberg won a Best Director Oscar for his efforts of course.

"This Ryan had better be worth it - he better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb."

The story following this phenomenal opening sequence is a simple one. A group of eight soldiers, led by D-Day survivor and hero Captain Miller (Hanks), are dispatched to find a soldier who is currently believed to be stuck behind enemy lines. This soldier they're searching for is Private James Ryan (Damon) whose three other brothers were killed in action. To avoid the devastation of Ryan's mother suffering the loss of her last son, General George C. Marshall (Presnell) orders these aforementioned eight soldiers to find Private Ryan and bring him back home. Screenwriter Robert Rodat adapted the story from a real-life situation.
This is an incisive, philosophical story. The underlying theme that runs the length of the movie is in regards to the value of a single human soul. As the eight-man platoon suffers casualties, is it really worth it just to save one man? Are there lives in this world more important than others? As the soldiers strive to complete their objective, their loyalties begin to blur and they begin to question the necessity of the mission. Spielberg vividly contrasts the faceless carnage of the Omaha Beach landing with the extremely personal and shocking deaths of some of the soldiers during their mission. Thousands died on Omaha beach, including many close friends of the surviving men. Yet the nature of this mission - which a majority of the men see as "Fubar" - causes them to question the value they place on their own lives as well as the lives of their friends. As events unfold, these soldiers commit acts of vengeance and rage that they themselves would most likely never have thought themselves capable of mere days beforehand.

"To me sir, this mission is a serious misallocation of valuable military resources."

The three-act structure of Saving Private Ryan is moderately straightforward. The movie is book-ended by two major battle sequences. In between these two major battles there are smaller skirmishes and relatively subdued character-building moments. Consequently the entire film is absorbing, engrossing, mesmerising and totally enthralling. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is an emotionally intense journey through the battlegrounds of occupied France during World War II. Director Spielberg delivers one of the greatest war movies of all time, if not the greatest war movie in history. But, despite being set against the background of WWII, this isn't just a war movie; this is a human drama first and a war adventure second. It commemorates the preservation of hope, courage, and sacrifice in the cauldron of fear and devastation that was WWII, or any war for that matter. These virtues shine brightest throughout humanity's gloomiest hours. Spielberg understands that in art one must show the horrors of a certain situation in order to suitably illustrate the full potential of the human spirit. All of the verisimilitude merely exists to transport us into the hearts and minds of those who tolerated such taxing circumstances so that we may perhaps identify with them, and maybe become acquainted with ourselves a bit better along the way.

As escapist entertainment (something that Spielberg also relishes) Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece that offers a rollercoaster ride yet to be equalled or surpassed.

"We're not here to do the decent thing - we're here to follow fucking orders."

The authenticity of its period depiction is truly astounding. Spielberg opted for the film to be shot in bleached colour, with lenses similar to those available during the 1940s to give the impression of actual documentary footage. The director employs other methods to encapsulate the essence of combat - gritty hand-held cameras, a slight speeding up of the images, muted colours, and an assortment of different kinds of film stock. Altogether this adds up to a dizzying, exhausting assault on the senses. Needless to say, the film confidently won the Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing.
The searing and uncompromising images of violence and gore almost earned an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. However the gore is by no means exploitative or exaggerated. Instead of dwelling on geysers of blood being spilled, the film continues to rapidly move along at lightning pace.

If you're avoiding the movie due to the three-hour running time, then you're avoiding it for all the wrong reasons. 160 minutes has never flown by so fast. You'll be so captivated by the brilliant filmmaking that you won't ever be reduced to boredom. The film is also remarkably visceral. Spielberg very sparingly employs CGI. Things are generally kept practical, and the rare instances of CGI are so subtle that you won't notice. Even about 20 amputee stuntmen were employed and fitted with prosthetic limbs.
Words cannot accurately describe how remarkable the sound design truly is. Loud accurate gun noises, deafening explosions and explicit stabbings are among the moments perfectly topped off by the terrific sound mix. Needless to say, the film earned an Academy Award for both Best Sound and Best Sound Effects Editing.

There's an absolutely astonishing cast at the centre of the film. Tom Hanks once again delivers an impeccable performance. He was nominated for an Oscar, naturally. The excellent ensemble cast also includes Tom Sizemore, Matt Damon, Edward Burns, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, Adam Goldberg, Barry Pepper, Ted Danson, Paul Giamatti and Giovanni Ribisi. They all look the part and convey the emotional necessities of their respective characters.
In the film there is no specific human villain. Even the harsh ideology and inhumane beliefs of Nazi Germany aren't presented as the evil to be overcome. Instead war and the blistering impact it has on soldiers is the real enemy.

"The more men I kill, the further away from home I feel."

John Williams was nominated for an Oscar for his terrific music. In my opinion this must be considered as one of Williams' finest scores. The music is touching and poignant, heroic and emotive. Music is never employed during the action sequences simply because (as Spielberg once explained) it reminds the audience that they're watching a movie. Instead of music, the ambient sound effects permeate the battles. This works perfectly. Other Oscar nominations included Best Writing and Best Make-Up. It deserved both of these awards in my books.

After the masterpiece of Schindler's List, nobody could imagine Spielberg crafting another masterpiece of such brilliance. But Saving Private Ryan is proof the director is capable of making another film of such a high standard. In my opinion, Saving Private Ryan earns the honour of being the greatest war film in history. It's gripping, engrossing, and uncompromising. Spielberg strikes the perfect balance of confronting horror and poignant human drama. The director's dexterous touch is readily apparent throughout this film, particularly in his inspired use of camera framing and movement as well as the soundtrack that plays a crucial role.

Saving Private Ryan is the most powerful and accurate cinematic rendering of World War II. Nothing you've ever read in history books can prepare you for the uncompromising way Spielberg brings the war to life...he does so with great attention to detail and a genuine passion for honesty toward his subject matter. Some bitterly complain about this film being potent American propaganda. The same can be said about any war film. This particular war film is based on a real mission that was carried out by American soldiers. If you think this is propaganda then you're unbelievably narrow-minded.

"Where's the sense of risking eight lives for one guy?"

In one of the biggest Oscar blunders in history, the Academy overlooked this masterpiece and awarded Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love. How this happened is simply beyond me...

"Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead"

The Terminator is one of the most important motion pictures of the 1980s - it launched the career of director James Cameron, and catapulted star Arnold Schwarzenegger to stardom. Cameron went on to helm a number of groundbreaking blockbusters in later years (Aliens, Terminator 2, Titanic, Avatar, and so on), while Arnie developed into a legendary big-name action star (with such movies as Commando, Predator, Total Recall and The Running Man). 1984's The Terminator begat these two Hollywood legends for good reason - this is one of the most remarkable, original science fiction/action films in history. While produced on a comparatively low budget, the film is suffused with a myriad of positive attributes and several justifiably legendary images and sequences. Benefitting from a number of still-impressive special effects, fine acting, lots of excitement and a mesmerising pace, The Terminator is one of the finest motion pictures of all time.

In the year 2029, future Earth is at war: man against the machines. Prior to this war, humans set up a defence system known as SkyNet that's based around a neural net of learning computers. The problem, though, is that the computers grew too smart and struck against humankind with disastrous consequences. In 1997, on a day known as Judgment Day, 3 billion human lives were killed in a nuclear holocaust brought on by SkyNet, and only small pockets of human resistance still remain. The leader of the resistance is a human named John Connor. SkyNet has practically lost the war, however, and is on the brink of extermination. To reverse this outcome, SkyNet sends a humanlike cyborg - a Terminator (played by Schwarzenegger) - back in time. His mission is to exterminate John Connor before his birth and thus entirely remove him from history. The Terminator is sent back to 1984, and his target is John's mother Sarah Connor (Hamilton). However, the Terminator is not the only one to utilise the time portal. In order to protect his mother from the ruthless cyborg assassin, John sends solider Kyle Reese (Biehn) back to 1984 to somehow destroy the indestructible Terminator.

James Cameron and co-writer Gale Anne Hurd structured The Terminator as an extended chase, with the vulnerable Sarah and Reese perpetually on the run from the relentless Terminator. Of course, Sarah initially distrusts Reese, but a bond gradually forms which develops into a romance. Yet, the film is as lean, economical and relentless as its antagonist; allowing limited opportunities for downtime or sweet conversations. Nevertheless, Cameron and Hurd infused the script with enough material to allow us to get to know Sarah and Reese, and come to care about them and their relationship. Lots of expository dialogue is doled out, but it's usually provided during hectic chase sequences, and thus critical information is conveyed without boring us to death. Thanks to these aforementioned characteristics, a question will be constantly evoked in your mind: can the Terminator be stopped? This generates the hard-to-nail asset of tension; keeping your eyes glued to the screen, and keeping you thoroughly engaged in the proceedings.

The primary strength of The Terminator is that it combines action with ideas. By no means is this a run-of-the-mill, turn-off-your-brain collection of fights, shootouts and car chases. The plot of the film involves time travel and the paradoxes inherent therein, which requires viewers to pay attention or risk being lost. Additionally, the philosophy surrounding the future war is especially thought-provoking. As demonstrated in several of his movies, Cameron is a filmmaker with a palpable ability to incorporate provocative sociocultural themes into movies which blow you out of your seat; thrilling both your heart and your mind. The Terminator is no different. However, noted science fiction author Harlan Ellison sued Cameron in the years following the film's release; claiming that The Terminator bore more than a passing resemblance to an Outer Limits teleplay of his. While the similarities are arguably insignificant, the settlement resulted in Ellison gaining an undisclosed amount of money as well as an acknowledgement to his works in the end credits.

The Terminator was produced for a paltry sum of $6.5 million, yet the believability of the sets and effects (for the most part) belie the low-budget nature. For the film, Cameron constructed a stunning, chilling vision of the future, and the movie is extremely atmospheric throughout. Late great special effects guru Stan Winston was responsible for the Terminator effects, and, while dated to an extent, there are still a number of impressive effects sequences throughout. Admittedly, the Terminator endoskeleton movement during the climax looks rather phoney, but the film's other attributes are solid enough to overcome such shortcomings. The soundtrack is largely impressive as well, with booming sound effects and Brad Fiedel's effective synth score. Upon release in 1984, the film's distributor - Orion - did not give The Terminator a large marketing push as they perceived it as a small, niche-market action film. As it turns out, they were wrong - the film was #1 at the box office for two weeks, and earned in excess of ten times its production budget.

In 1984, Arnold Schwarzenegger was a star of limited acting experience, but he provided precisely what Cameron required: an implacable countenance and an imposing physique. Schwarzenegger's Achilles heel was delivering dialogue convincingly, but this was no impediment in the case of The Terminator. After all, the role called for him to be an emotionless cyborg that kills without compunction - his actions and attitudes are governed by binary code rather than human morals. Arnie's deadpan voice affords an unnerving edge to the few lines of dialogue he was required to deliver. Additionally, Schwarzenegger's ability to effectively immerse himself into the role is what allows his performance to be so memorable. The Terminator is also the movie which introduced Arnie's catchphrase: "I'll be back". Meanwhile, the film's other two leads - Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton (as Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor, respectively) - are highly impressive. Neither star has tremendous range, but both of them managed to be charismatic, physically adept, and suitably intense throughout this film. The love story between Kyle and Sarah is believable thanks to the excellent leads, and this romance makes the film both raw and emotional.

Like its primary antagonist, The Terminator is relentless in tension and action. These days, some of the effects look dated, but the top-notch efforts in every other department ensure that this is a movie for the ages. With its thought-provoking premise, it engendered a new era of sci-fi/action films, and it has never been surpassed. The Terminator stands as a profound reminder that action movies can provoke an on-screen adrenaline rush without short-circuiting the brain. The success of the film eventually led to a number of sequels, beginning with Terminator 2: Judgment Day in 1991.

"So, you were scared, weren't you Goldie? Somebody wanted you dead and you knew it. Well, I'm gonna find that son of a bitch that killed you, and I'm gonna give him the hard goodbye. Walk down the right back alley in Sin City, and you can find anything."

Masterminded by Robert Rodriguez, Sin City is the most definitive filmic adaptation of a graphic novel to date. The movie was adapted from the pages of Frank Miller's similarly-titled comic book series, resulting in an indisputable masterpiece boasting gorgeously stylised visuals of a noir-esque world inhabited by ruthless characters and governed by violence. Indeed, Sin City is the ultimate proof that "comic book" does not always mean "for children", as this blood-soaked collection of stories are vile, repugnant and incredibly sadistic. Yet, for those able to stomach this material, Sin City is a blast from beginning to end. Not only this, but the film also serves as a compelling argument in favour of digital moviemaking (kick-started with 2004's Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), wherein actors appear within largely computer-generated environments. Due to this, the film sparked an entire new breed of graphic novel adaptations, with the aesthetic being recycled for The Spirit and 300, just to name a couple.

"Sin City" is the appropriately shortened name for Basin City, the seedy metropolis in which the proceedings take place. The narrative packs together three tales from the graphic novel series - The Hard Goodbye, That Yellow Bastard and The Big Fat Kill - into one long narrative with only a minimal amount of overlap, and they are bookended by the short story The Customer Is Always Right. In one story, a hulking thug named Marv (Rourke) spends a night having sex with an angelic woman (King) who's subsequently murdered right next to him. Framed for the murder and vowing revenge, Marv seeks answers, leading him to a cannibalistic hitman (Wood) who's part of a larger conspiracy. The next story concerns Dwight (Owen), who goes on the trail of the immoral Jackie Boy (Del Toro) after witnessing him roughing up his girlfriend (Murphy). Dwight finds himself on the side of town run by armed prostitutes who are determined to defend their territory. And finally, aging policeman Hartigan (Willis) spends years in prison after saving young Nancy Callahan (Alba), and upon his eventual release he goes looking for Nancy before realising he has fallen into a trap orchestrated by the very same child molester he stopped years earlier (Stahl).

Brought to life practically verbatim from the pages of Miller's graphic novel series, the stories are admittedly familiar-feeling and unremarkable, incorporating typical noir tropes and conventional character types. Yet, the execution is incredibly effective in every aspect. No script was written and no storyboards were devised for Sin City - rather, Rodriguez let Miller's comic books function as the script and storyboards, taking the term "faithful adaptation" to a new and more literal level. As written by Miller, the dialogue and hardboiled noir-esque voiceovers crackle with lyricism and badassery, while the action elements were competently handled by Rodriguez (a veteran action filmmaker). Like the comics, Sin City is not for all tastes - an omnipresent sense of the macabre pervades practically every frame, not to mention there's a lot of exceedingly brutal violence and seedy underpinnings which will not be comfortably consumed by the easily offended or those with weak stomachs.

Visually and atmospherically, Sin City is a fucking masterpiece. Shot predominantly against green screen in order to seamlessly facilitate digital backgrounds, Rodriguez has meticulously turned Miller's black and white images into cinematic frames, and his affection for Miller's work shines through in every one of those frames like a fresh diamond. The visuals are predominantly black and white with small bursts of colour, resulting in a colour palette that's uniquely fascinating and beautiful. There are plenty of visual nuances to behold here, from the perfect use of shadows to the stunning stark silhouettes of various characters throughout. Topping this off is the immaculate pacing (the film is constantly enthralling and never boring), and a suitably memorable soundtrack. Frequent Rodriguez collaborator Quentin Tarantino is even credited as "guest director" - he directed the scene between Clive Owen and Benicio Del Toro when they have an acting showdown in a car.

Of course, Sin City's excellence does not stop with the visuals. The movie's cast is equally terrific, and constitutes its second greatest strength. Despite the presence of big names, the cast seems like a proper ensemble rather than senseless stunt casting, preventing the film from degenerating into a "spot the celebrity" drinking game. Each and every actor suits their role to the ground, leading to a complete absence of weak spots. The highlight is Mickey Rourke, who was in career-resuscitating mode here. As the ruthless Marv, Rourke is a passionate scene-stealer, and this ranks as the actor's best work to date. Since Marv's story is the first to be told in its entirety, he sets the acting bar high, and is thankfully matched by his co-stars. Clive Owen is another highlight, delivering a trademark badass performance as Dwight, while Bruce Willis is extremely strong as the hardened, aging Hartigan. Despite Willis' Hartigan being a policeman, Willis did not abide by his usual John McClane-esque screen persona - this is something far edgier and darker. It would take all day to address every cast member, but, suffice it to say, they are all sublime.

Rodriguez considered Frank Miller's literature contributions to the film to be so major that he resigned from the Directors Guild and lost a studio project in order to have Miller be credited as co-director. This is a testament to his dedication in bringing Miller's visions to the screen in most faithful way possible. With its unique narrative structure, breathtaking visuals and badass noir dialogue, Sin City is an experience like no other. Not only will it please Miller's die-hard fans, but it will in all likelihood earn him new fans as well. Sin City is simply perfection, and it is difficult to imagine any fans of the graphic novel not being completely satisfied with this exemplary effort, especially with the availability of Rodriguez's recut & extended edition which presents each story separately in their entirety.

"You're gonna need a bigger boat."

Though decades have passed since it first entered theatres in 1975, Steven Spielberg's Jaws still assuredly holds its position as one of the greatest thrillers of all time, and remains an important cinematic artefact. Central to the film's brilliance is the riveting suspense, the colourful cast of characters, the humour, the terrific dialogue, the unforgettable score, the thrills, and, above all, the way it taps into the most primal of human fears: fear of the unknown. It was also a motion picture that changed Hollywood. The first film to gross over $100 million in domestic ticket sales, Jaws was seen (and seen again) by more than 70 million viewers throughout the season of its theatrical release, and its success inspired the Hollywood trend of summer blockbusters. Additionally, the film catapulted director Steven Spielberg out of relative obscurity and onto the A-list. Even today, fascination with Jaws is on a par with Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, and it never seems to age.

Upon agreeing to the task of helming Jaws, Spielberg (fresh off The Sugarland Express and Duel) was perhaps blissfully unaware of the challenges that awaited him during the task of adapting Peter Benchley's best-selling novel for the big screen. As he himself stated during interviews in subsequent decades, he was "young and fearless - or perhaps dumb." A pending Screen Actors Guild strike delayed filming, the main location (Martha's Vineyard) was not known for its cooperative weather, squabbles with Benchley broke out (who objected to changes Spielberg wished to make to the story), and there were troubles with the constantly-malfunctioning mechanical sharks (all of which were nicknamed Bruce, after Spielberg's lawyer). Days would pass when not a single shot could be lensed, either due to troubles with the sharks or trouble with the weather. It's a miracle the film ever reached theatres at all. Yet Spielberg eventually finished the movie, and the result is an engrossing, edge-of-your-seat thriller.

The protagonist of Jaws is Martin Brody (Scheider); the police chief of the small island resort community of Amity. On the week before the fourth of July, a 25-foot Great White Shark chooses the tranquil Amity as its private feeding grounds. While Martin is determined to close the beaches and protect the public, the devious mayor (Hamilton) is in favour of a cover-up to protect the town's reputation as a popular summer holiday destination. However, after further attacks, the mayor begrudgingly accepts that the beaches are being terrorised by a monster shark. A grizzled old sea-dog named Quint (Shaw) is hired to take care of the problem, and is accompanied by Martin and shark expert Matt Hooper (Dreyfuss) in his hunt for the shark.

For about 80 minutes of its runtime, Jaws is an exercise in elevating tension. During this period, Spielberg heavily favoured the "shark's eye view", which is complemented with John Williams' chilling score. The suspense generated through this technique is almost unbearable. Like master filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock once said, "There is no terror in the bang - only in the anticipation of it". While Spielberg does present a strong case for Hitchcock's words, he additionally manages to belie them. See, for the first half of the movie, musical interludes are generally an indicator that a shock is near, but once the shark is finally seen with no musical interlude and no build-up, it's a terrifying shock. Not revealing the shark's appearance until past the midpoint is a stroke of genius. Interestingly, this was not by design but by accident - the mechanical sharks were not working properly and could only be used for a limited amount of scenes, and the shark isn't seen during the first half of the film because of this. As it turns out, the nightmare of the malfunctioning mechanical sharks was a blessing in disguise - not only was Spielberg forced to rely more on creative photography, but also more on pacing, characterisation and editing. While the shark does admittedly look phoney at times, it still looks real enough. At no point does the shark look so fake it takes us out of the scene, which is a testament to Spielberg's masterful directorial touch.

Another beneficial decision was to use genuine footage of Great White Sharks, which was filmed by the husband and wife duo of Ron and Valerie Taylor. Meanwhile, the film's crowning touch was supplied by John Williams: the score. Williams has been involved in virtually every Spielberg film since The Sugarland Express, and for Jaws he provided a rousing, tense score which flawlessly underlines the proceedings. The music is not Williams' best work, but the shark theme is one of the most recognisable cues in film history. In fact, the signature tune has become as famous as Bernard Herrmann's music for the shower scene in Psycho. One can hardly think Jaws without thinking about the music, which has been parodied enough times to make it a legitimate part of our cultural heritage.

The real star of Jaws is the shark, and, for that reason, Spielberg was under no pressure to sign a big name actor for the lead role. Instead, he had the freedom to go with someone who suited the role. Playing Martin Brody, Roy Scheider conveys a sense of tremendous humanity, and it's easy to sympathise with the character since he seems so natural. Meanwhile, shark expert Matt Hooper was portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss, who effortlessly conveyed charm, energy and dry wit.
Robert Shaw as Quint was a remarkable piece of casting. There's a scene that occurs late into the movie in which Matt, Quint and Brody are comparing scars, and Quint is drawn into telling the tale of his experiences aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis; a Navy ship sunk by the Japanese during World War II. Shaw's performance is hair-raising as he tells the story of floating in the water for more than a week with over a thousand men while sharks slowly devoured them. Shaw managed to deliver the speech in one long take, and it's the most riveting instance of acting in the entire film.

The phenomenal success of Jaws (which grossed over $400 million worldwide from an $8.5 million budget) spawned three sequels, each of which was a step down in quality. Numerous copycat pictures were also churned out, but none could compare to Jaws in terms of sheer suspense. Look, Jaws is not perfect - some of it doesn't make logical sense (the ending defies the laws of physics), the shark is at times very fake, and there are technical flaws (such as glaring continuity errors) - but this is all so easy to overlook because it's such a terrific, expertly-crafted ride.

"You want to know who killed Dietrichson? Hold tight to that cheap cigar of yours, Keyes.
I killed Dietrichson - me, Walter Neff, insurance salesman, 35 years old, unmarried, no visible scars...until a while ago, that is.
Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money and for a woman.
I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?"

Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity has always been regarded as the archetypal film noir. If someone was to ask you what the term "film noir" meant, the simplest answer would be to show them Billy Wilder's 1944 masterpiece. If any movie could perfectly define a genre, it would be Double Indemnity. While some consider The Maltese Falcon as the first of the genre in cinematic history, some critics feel that the first real film noir was Wilder's 1944 film. All the crucial constituents we tend to associate with film noir are present: dangerous dames, robust but ultimately malleable men, expressionistic lighting and mood, as well as an incisive and darkly witty script. Double Indemnity also embodies the fundamental skeletal plot outline for a noir: an everyman falling under the spell of a calculating siren and is thrust into a world of sex, shadows, and crime.

Wilder joined forces with the equally inimitable Raymond Chandler to adapt James M. Cain's novel, and they ultimately produced one of cinema's greatest achievements. Wilder and Chandler indeed hated each other quite passionately, however they tolerated each other for long enough to script this amazing film. Together they flesh out characters so memorable, and dialogue so lethal. It's a film of indomitable cynicism and misanthropic acquiescence; the depiction of a world ostensibly unaffected by global war, but uniformly as degenerate and murderous as anything saturating the sands of Europe. Not only is Double Indemnity the ultimate - and greatest - film noir, but additionally it's absolutely perfect from the opening frame to the last.
This cinematic masterpiece is a study of deception, mendacity, self-indulgence, murder, and sex. If you like your film noirs deep, provocative, riveting and engrossing, then it's impossible to go further than these 105 minutes. How perfect are we talking, I hear you ask? To the point that I genuinely forget I was watching a movie. I became irretrievably immersed in the stylish black & white photography and the killer screenplay.

The film commences with an enigmatic, unforgettable opening image: a silhouette of a man on crutches walking towards the foreground as the credits spill onto the screen. From there, we meet insurance salesman Walter Neff (MacMurray) who wanders into the office late at night with a gunshot wound. Neff is arriving at the office this late at night to record a long confession for friend and colleague Barton Keyes (Robinson). Then the film is told in flashback, hence we're aware that there has been lust, murder and betrayal. Double Indemnity is not a "whodunit" crime film...it's a mesmerising "whydunit" film noir. This technique is innovative, and ultimately more effective. We know the conclusion of the story, but how do we reach this conclusion? It's this thought-provoking mystery that skilfully keeps an audience powerfully engaged.

"They've committed a murder and it's not like taking a trolley ride together where they can get off at different stops. They're stuck with each other and they've got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery."

The crux of Double Indemnity is then revealed: Neff heads to an affluent mansion to visit a client with the intention of renewing his insurance policy. This visit leads him to a fateful meeting with the beautiful Phyllis Dietrichson (Stanwyck). Phyllis appears to Neff at the top of the mansion's staircase (an emblematic position of power), wrapped in a towel. At that point she instantly has him...hook, line and sinker. From there, the scheming Phyllis seduces Neff into secretly setting up a life insurance policy for her husband (Powers). The two plan to murder Phyllis' husband and collect the insurance money. Furthermore, they plan to murder the man under peculiar circumstances that would facilitate double indemnity. Neff uses his expert knowledge of his business to conceive a foolproof plan to execute the murder and get away with it.

Billy Wilder is the master of great stories, and Raymond Chandler is the master of gab. People may remember Raymond Chandler penning stories such as The Big Sleep that were transplanted onto the screen. Howard Hawks helmed this particular adaptation. However, The Big Sleep was so convoluted and complicated. At one stage Hawks asked Chandler who had murdered a minor character...Chandler responded with "I don't know!" Yet, despite his reasonably weak stories, the dialogue he brings to the table is perfect word for word, sentence for sentence.
In the case of Double Indemnity, it was Wilder controlling the story and the proceedings while Chandler handled the dialogue. The screenplay is consequently perfect. The snappy banter between Neff and Phyllis in particular is highly memorable.

Phyllis: "There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour."
Neff: "How fast was I going, officer?"
Phyllis: "I'd say around ninety."

It's difficult for modern ears to become accustomed to the poetry of noir dialogue which has suffered severe parodying over the years. Once one has adapted, the effect is intoxicating. The film illustrates a world of dames and saps, sedition and sex. As some have observed, James M. Cain's original novella was perceived as daring (if not crude). Wilder was accordingly compelled to tread cautiously to avoid censorship. As it is, Walter Neff's fixation with Phyllis' anklet offers the film a fetishistic characteristic, and the atmosphere is constantly somewhat sordid.
Director Billy Wilder managed the production with great perception of every nuance. Wilder and his cinematographer constructed the ideal noir look: contrast of light and dark in every scene, as well as shadows and bars of light leaking through Venetian blinds.
Double Indemnity crackles with authentic hardboiled dialogue and sharp-tongued narration of such a standard that it could only have been conceived by James M. Cain and Raymond Chandler.

"It sounds crazy, Keyes, but it's true, so help me. I couldn't hear my own footsteps. It was the walk of a dead man."

The entire cast gleefully spit out Chandler's words with great conviction. At the time Fred MacMurray was considered a highly unusual choice for the role of Walter Neff. Someone such as Humphrey Bogart would have been the usual go-to guy for such a job, yet Wilder changed his mind about the character and settled for an actor more clean-cut. MacMurray plays a fast-talking, snappy, intelligent character. He really shines in the role and it's impossible to consider any other actor as the crucial protagonist. This statement is further solidified by viewing the 1973 made-for-television remake with Richard Crenna (yes, that guy from First Blood) filling MacMurray's shoes.
By the 1940s, Barbara Stanwyck was the highest paid actress in the world. Stanwyck had already done melodramas and screwball comedies before really displaying her range as Phyllis Dietrichson. Like many others, she of course was a tad hesitant to accept the part until Wilder laid down the challenge..."Are you an actress or a mouse?" Needless to say, Stanwyck was an actress and anything but mousy.
Edward G. Robinson became famous for his gangster roles, such as his performance in Key Largo. Here, Robinson is a pseudo-father figure to MacMurray's Neff. Robinson's character fulfils the job of sniffing out faux insurance claims. Unfortunately for him, his only blind spot is Neff. When Robinson smells something fishy about the murder at hand, Neff would be the last person he'd suspect. The chemistry between the leads is sizzling.

Following the release of Double Indemnity, renowned director Alfred Hitchcock took out an ad to praise Wilder's accomplishment, saying, "The two most important words in Hollywood are 'Billy Wilder'." It's easy to see why, and there's also weighty Hitchcock inspiration painted on Wilder's approach to the film. For example, there's that moment of extreme tension when Phyllis can't get her car started, as well as the effective, succinct conclusion that leaves the audience in hushed suspense.
Double Indemnity is an undisputed masterpiece from an undisputed master of cinema. Personally, the film quickly reached a high position on my list of favourite movies. It's a superlative film noir that single-handedly defined an entire genre.
In one of the biggest Oscar blunders, Wilder's masterpiece was nominated for several Academy Awards but didn't receive any. Instead the forgettable claptrap known as Going My Way earned Best Picture. I guess everyone occasionally makes mistakes.

"I love robbing the English, they're so polite."

How does one distinguish the difference between a masterpiece and just another ordinary comedy? For starters, an ordinary comedy is commonly clichéd beyond all comprehension - i.e. characters are standard, events are glaringly foreseeable and the structure is far too formulaic. In addition, an ordinary comedy usually features well-known actors who are so desperate for laughs that they overact (like Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey, and so on) rather than dispersing clever, witty, cerebral dialogue. In an ordinary comedy the laughs are also predominantly forgettable. And finally, an ordinary comedy is funny but nothing further. It doesn't break new boundaries...it's just another comedy that'll be long forgotten and relegated to the $5 bargain bin at your local shops. But when we're talking about Hollywood movie studios, the executives just want a quick buck to raise their annual profits. Ordinary comedies are easy to make, cheap, and quality is never the concern. Genuine masterpieces of the comedy genre are close to non-existent. Only John Cleese of the Monty Python fame could've been capable of developing the perfect comedy...and he succeeds!

A Fish Called Wanda ticks all the boxes to pull it out of the "ordinary comedy" territory. The film isn't clichéd at all; characters are extraordinarily well-written, the film isn't predictable, and the structure is original. The script is peppered with dynamite dialogue, in-jokes and memorable lines (that I continually quote almost daily) as it moves from one hilarious, creative scenario to the one succeeding it. It even breaks new boundaries with its prize-winning combination of laughs and creativity. It's purely one of the most entertaining films of all time! Best of all, despite countless viewing it always seems fresh and never fails to entertain me. And I'm not alone in my sentiments. The film pulled in $60 million in the USA, making it the highest grossing British picture in America at that time. All these ingredients ensure that A Fish Called Wanda is anything but ordinary.

On the surface, it probably seems difficult to imagine this film being even considered funny. After all, this is a flick concerning diamond robbers double and triple crossing each other, not to mention it's also somewhat mean-spirited at times and cruel to animals. But by golly the package works! The result will bring tears of laughter to your eyes and side-splitting pains to your stomach as you roll all over the floor laughing uncontrollably.
A Fish Called Wanda is reminiscent of the days of Fawlty Towers and Monty Python. This is Cleese in his element: finding himself in awkward situations and having to worm his way out of them. If you're a fan of Fawlty Towers (or is it Flowery Twats or Flay Otters or Watery Fowls?), like I am, you'll have a good grasp of the laugh-out-loud comedy I'm referring to. Considering John Cleese's mostly awful recent work, it's terrific to revisit those winners he scored back in his glory days. Seriously, not many comedies get nominated for Oscars! Let alone a comedy of British origins up for Oscar noms, ultimately walking away with one win. If you want the short version, here it is: if you haven't yet seen A Fish Called Wanda then you're missing out and should immediately visit your local shop to secure a copy.

A Fish Called Wanda is a simple tail...erm, tale about betrayal, love, lust, greed and seafood. Wanda (Curtis) and Otto (Kline) are a duo of American thieves who visit Britain to pull off a diamond heist. They team up with George (Georgeson) and the animal-loving Ken (Palin) to commit an armed robbery, walking away with a loot worth $20 million US. Trouble is...Wanda and Otto are lovers posing as brother and sister who plan to double-cross their collaborators, taking off with the loot themselves. But it also seems George and Ken are mistrusting of Wanda and Otto (despite George and Wanda commencing a relationship, which Wanda faked of course). George double-crosses Wanda and Otto by secretly moving the loot before Wanda and Otto have the opportunity to finalise their double-crossing of George! Anyway, George is dobbed into the police and is arrested. When Wanda and Otto realise they'll need to figure out the new location of the loot, a somewhat complex plan to find it becomes necessitous. This involves Wanda inveigling her way into the life of jaded Etonian Archie Leach (Cleese), George's barrister. However...what begins as a simple spot of using somebody to further her own means becomes more complicated as Wanda's attraction to this somewhat repressed and cute ("in a pompous sort of way") barrister grows. Oh, and then there's Ken's little project to dispose of the only witness to their diamond heist. Utter anarchic hilarity ensues.

The plotline is fun to be sure, but it's the characters that are at the heart of the film. The central appeal is the characters' faults and peculiarities - George is your typical evil mastermind, Wanda will sleep with anybody if the occasion calls for it, Ken prefers animals to humans, and Archie is a snobbish and repressed Englishman hen-pecked by wife (Aitken) and daughter (Cynthia Cleese, who's John's real-life daughter). Then there's Otto. He's...well...Otto. Kevin Kline plays the malicious and cruel but incompetent Otto with such wild abandon.

John Cleese is in his element as writer and an actor for the film. In addition to conceiving such rich characterisations and providing a tradition Cleese-esque performance, he also sprinkles the film with the kind of devilish humour he's revered for. His character of Archie Leach is a variation of Basil Fawlty from his popular TV series. He's a stiff-upper-lipped English barrister not above a little avarice and hanky panky. Cleese said he chose the name Archie Leach because it's Cary Grant's real name, and this was about as close as he'd ever get to being Cary Grant in a film. However, the film doesn't rely solely on John Cleese for the laughs as the rest of the actors are total knockouts.

Kevin Kline won an Oscar for his eccentric performance as Otto: an ex-CIA operative who reads the philosophies of Nietzche to make him look smart. But in reality he's so stupid! ("Don't call me stupid") He thinks Aristotle was Belgian, the central message of Buddhism is every man for himself, and that the London underground is a political movement. When Wanda calls him an ape, Otto replies with "Apes don't read philosophy". "Yes, they do, Otto," Wanda then replies. "They just don't understand it."
Otto's character is so well-written that there's always something new to pick up on. Kline never strikes an incorrect note, and definitely deserved the Oscar he received.

Playing Wanda, Jamie Lee Curtis is an absolute delight. She's as smart as she is sexy. From the deadly serious Halloween to a light-hearted comedy...Jamie Lee Curtis demonstrates her talents as a versatile performer. She even does a fine job of making Wanda curiously nefarious but intriguingly beguiling at the same time - when she's not snogging everyone that moves, that is.

Then there's Michael Palin (from the golden days of Monty Python) as the hapless K-K-K-K-Ken. He spends most of his time stuttering hopelessly (this is absolutely side-splitting at times) or tending to his animals. Kevin Kline is given a batch of hilarious lines in relation to Ken's stutter: "Are you thinking, Ken? Or are you in mid-stutter?", "...those phoney accents! Not you Ken, you've got a beautiful speaking voice...when it works" and so on. In Ken's assignment to kill a witness before George's trial commences, he instead accidentally targets the old woman's dogs in gruesome ways. This is all the more ironic because Ken is such an animal lover who wouldn't hurt a fly. Seeing him at each funeral for the dogs is just hilarious.
For Tom Georgeson's character, Cleese decided to do a clever name switch...calling the character George Thomason.

Despite its runaway success, A Fish Called Wanda wasn't all good news from the start. It was helmed by a director who hadn't worked for 25 years, it featured a male actor on the wrong side of 40, and it also featured a sexy female with a great body who refused to do any nudity. But those that gave the film a chance walked away raving. It established a template for the future of British comedy exports. Even Richard Curtis was taking notes at this time. The film walked away with a basket of awards. In order to reach such perfection, the script went through 13 drafts. Director Charlie Crichton and John Cleese got together three times a month for two-and-a-half years to give the script touch-ups.

When production finally started, they managed to wrap up filming in a mere four weeks. Crichton's economic direction meant not a day was wasted. This also gave the film its glorious fast pace. Before you realise it, the film is over and you're howling for more. Thankfully, though, none of the gags have dated and they seem fresh even after constant viewings. The snappy dialogue, the subtle images...even John Cleese's striptease are wonderful no matter how many times you watch the film. And finally, the film was given its definitive touch in post-production: the music. John Du Prez's music is catchy and atmospheric, and you'll be humming the theme for weeks.

Mixing Python-esque humour with a sweet touch of rom-com, A Fish Called Wanda is the greatest hour for any former Python. Originally known as the working title of A Wish Called Fonda, Cleese then reworked his original ideas and the result was this masterpiece of cinematic comedy. It even has a universal appeal, with characters being featured of different nationalities. This film is totally faultless. It's a solid movie that holds up surprisingly well after a number of decades. If the words uproarious, hilarious, or side-splitting mean anything to you, this is your film for sure! It improves with each new screening as a matter of fact.
This film doesn't rely on swearing for its laughs, nor does it rely on overacting either. It relies on its clever script and an impeccable bunch of actors instead. The same crew tried again about a decade later with Fierce Creature. A good attempt, but it wasn't the same. A Fish Called Wanda is one of a kind...and that kind is very, very funny and just plain FUN! Fans of John Cleese or Kevin Kline will not be disappointed. Come on, how can you resist the prospect of seeing Michael Palin running over Kevin Kline with a steamroller after Kline eats Palin's tropic fish?!

Highly recommended!

"Wanda, do you have any idea what it's like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing, of saying to someone "Are you married?" and hearing "My wife left me this morning," or saying, uh, "Do you have children?" and being told they all burned to death on Wednesday. You see, Wanda, we'll all terrified of embarrassment. That's why we're so... dead. Most of my friends are dead, you know, we have these piles of corpses to dinner."

"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or from the air, and I plan on doing both before the war is over."

John Sturges' The Great Escape is debatably the greatest World War II adventure film in cinematic history. Multitudes of film buffs will collectively agree that Sturges' classic action/adventure masterpiece is highly deserving of its reputation, everlasting acclaim and endless accolades. Through my eyes, The Great Escape is a rare film that undoubtedly justifies a score exceeding 5/5, 10/10 or 100%.

In the 21st century, blockbuster action films are characterised as cinematic creations flaunting masses of CGI and an abundance of action. Back in the 1960s, films such as this were the paradigmatic definition of an epic blockbuster. It's also a definitive blueprint of an action/adventure movie. Although many may not realise it, this production certainly is an action film. It's just gruelling to categorise it as such in light of recent action films like Rambo and Face/Off where things are blown to pieces and bullets are frequently dispatched. With The Great Escape it isn't the quantity or regularity of the action, it's the quality. Motorcycle chases, tense escapes and nail-biting foot pursuits are among the film's highlights.

How does one ascertain that they're watching a great film? Personally, there are two factors that typify a great movie. Firstly, you never get sick of it regardless of how many times you watch it. Secondly, the running time never feels as long as it actually is. The Great Escape clocks as a whopping 170 minutes yet it never feels that long. It's a lengthy saga for sure, but the excellence of the filmmaking and the brisk pacing never permits the audience to feel bored. Although made in 1963 (45 years ago at the time of writing this review), John Sturges' war epic has stood the test of time. While watching the movie, the transfer indicates that it's an old movie. However, the filmmaking is top-notch and every frame is lovingly crafted. Not to mention the high level of authenticity in the period depiction. These factors are rare occurrences in contemporary filmmaking. To be sure, some things have dated and there are a few anachronisms. These insignificant imperfections simply do not matter and can be easily ignored. Why? The filmmaking is masterful, to the point that everything else stands up during close scrutiny. This cinema master class is virtually impossible to match these days, not to mention effectively impossible to top.

The Great Escape is based on a true story of a truly remarkable and inspiring war tale. It's based on an escape that occurred in March 1944 during which 76 POWs escaped from a German POW camp, Stalag Luft III in Poland. The elaborate preparation and extraordinary implementation of this escape is truly mind-boggling and unbelievable...it must be seen to be believed. The film is primarily based on a novel by a former Australian prison of war, Paul Brickhill. Brickhill helped plan the escape, but due to claustrophobia he did not go through the tunnel. Instead Brickhill recorded detailed accounts of the event, later penning his novel that was then transferred into this engrossing movie.

The film is introduced with this prerequisite:

"This is a true story. Although the characters are composites of real men, and time and place have been compressed, every detail of the escape is the way it really happened."

The film's central characters are an assortment of nationalities. Australian, American, British, etc. The true story didn't include Americans as they were moved to another prison camp. However the filmmakers felt obliged to provide American characters as it would boost the film's popularity with an American audience.
Basically the Nazis opt to move all their worst prisoners to a single POW camp. In essence, the POWs that have a notorious history of escape attempts are bunched together.

"We have in effect put all our rotten eggs in one basket. And we intend to watch this basket carefully."

To the Germans it's the perfect plan, but they don't realise that they've effectively assembled the most efficient and talented escape crew in history. Hence all the POWs spend over a year planning an escape that results in 76 prisoners disappearing into the night. All the prisoners are allocated a job to complete, such as people to build the tunnel, people to forge documents, and even people to assemble outfits for the prisoners to don after their escape.
The film chronicles the POW camp's inauguration until the eventual execution of the escape, then the following manhunt and subsequent recapture of a majority of the POWs (during the real event, only 3 out of 76 remained at large).

The events depicted in The Great Escape are significant as it portrays the biggest and most famous escape from a POW camp in history. It also must be noted that the POWs weren't conducting the escape just to get back to their families, as they also aimed to create a diversion for the German army who would utilise their resources during the manhunt while invasions took place.

The Great Escape is a masterpiece for several reasons. I stated before of its entertainment value, but there are additional features that elevate this into the competition for a perfect movie, primarily the film's authenticity. All costumes and props mirror the period in staggering realism. The film was also lensed in German locations. The extensive POW camp recreation is another thing. It's intricately designed, with credible characters inhabiting it. More importantly, the Nazis are actually humanised. To be sure, no-one ever took Hogan's Heroes seriously with the humour and down-to-earth soldiers. Remove the bumbling antics as well as the humour, and what remains is what we see on the big screen here. Surprisingly, there's a faint camaraderie shared by the Germans and specific POWs. The proceedings are therefore more engrossing and charming.

Director John Sturges apparently tried to get this film off the ground for 13 years. It was only after he directed The Magnificent Seven that the film finally received the green light. Sturges' determination is obvious as each scene is crafted amazingly. His lens delicately tracks his actors through the convincing sets. There are only very minor technical glitches to be found amongst the otherwise faultless filmmaking. Sturges has the drama balanced with a great blend of subtle humour. Character interactions are filled with witty and fascinating dialogue. The final act of The Great Escape is a masterfully sustained quantity of action and tension as the assorted escapees strive for freedom via train, bicycle, motorbike, row boat and hitchhiking. Sturges brilliantly edits between all their activities and leads us to an inevitable tragedy. This tragic happening sets a new, more foreboding tone before returning to light-hearted humour for the concluding shot.

"Colonel Von Luger, it is the sworn duty of all officers to try to escape. If they cannot escape, then it is their sworn duty to cause the enemy to use an inordinate number of troops to guard them, and their sworn duty to harass the enemy to the best of their ability."

Sturges' World War II extravaganza is also blessed with an ideal cast. These actors are of such high calibre that they could never be replaced in a modern age of filmmaking. Steve McQueen is both cool and tough as the suitably cocky and brash American prisoner.
Richard Attenborough is in an early performance as the co-ordinator of the escape. If one is familiar with Attenborough's subsequent performances, such as Jurassic Park, it's almost impossible to recognise him. Here his acting is absolutely top-notch.
Charles Bronson is also worth noting for his portrayal of a rugged Polish tunnel king.
Donald Pleasence is most likely recognised for his performance as Blofeld in the James Bond film You Only Live Twice. Here, Pleasence puts forth a magnificent performance as a forgery expert.
Beyond these names, the entire supporting cast is sensational. Director Sturges scarcely lets a faulty performance slip through the cracks in spite of a few embarrassingly phoney accents (James Coburn's Aussie number takes a bow).

Eventually the definitive final element was added during post-production: the music. Composer Elmer Bernstein's famous theme music is instantly recognisable. The Great Escape is perhaps most commonly known for its wonderful theme. It always sets the proper atmosphere. Even during the opening sequence depicting the arrival of POWs, Bernstein's theme hits a defiant note. Bernstein is even dexterous with every other note of music. There are endless segments of music that you'll be humming for days due to how memorable and cheery it is.

Overall, The Great Escape is a sublime masterpiece of almost unrivalled quality. It's unbelievable that it took me so long to finally watch this movie. Its influence on cinema is profound and obvious. Films such as the animated Chicken Run shamelessly borrow the formula. This is yet another testament to the superiority of this masterpiece. It's a textbook example of a great film: even after numerous decades, almost everything holds up. Additionally, repeated screenings will only further increase your respect for this classic. The great cast, sharp storyline, astute directing, and humour manage to pervade an ultimately tragic tale, simply making this an unmissable film. It's not solely for war movie buffs, but for anyone that appreciates a story depicting the strength and triumph of the human spirit.

"Nazis. I hate these guys."

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the third, but not final instalment in the legendary Indiana Jones series. The first film is still one of the best movies in cinematic history, with the second film grossly incapable of recapturing the charm and appeal of its predecessor. This next Indiana Jones adventure is the best sequel thus far. The filmmakers have almost equalled the brilliance of the first flick. Just like the original movie, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a faultless blend of action and adventure with intrigue and romance thrown into the mix.


The opening sequence is always a pivotal part in the success of these movies. In this case the film opens with a prologue that traces the roots of Indy as we now know him. This prologue digs into his fear of snakes, delves into why he has a scar on his chin, the reasoning behind his passion for relic hunting and how he came into possession of his trademark items. This prologue also serves as an artefact hunt that acts as a bridge into the main plot.


Everyone's favourite treasure-hunter-come-professor Indiana Jones (Ford) whips back into action with a hunt for yet another ancient relic. Indy is taken to meet a wealthy ancient relic devotee named Walter Donovan (Glover). Walter explains that recent discoveries have been made that may possibly point to the locality of the Holy Grail - the cup Jesus Christ theoretically drank from at the last supper. Indy is also informed that the project leader has gone missing; said leader is none other than Professor Henry Jones Sr. (Connery), Indy's father. With his father's Grail scrapbook in his pocket, Indy heads to Venice in search of his father. The adventure then moves to Germany during the height of the Nazi regime. It then becomes a race against time as Indy and his father scramble to find the location of the Holy Grail before the Nazis get there first.


Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is of course filled with endless action and excitement. Just like Raiders of the Lost Ark this film is a myriad of now memorable scenes. Some of these unforgettable scenes include a desert scene with a large tank, Indy inadvertently getting the autograph of Adolf Hitler, avoiding a nest of rats in the catacombs underneath a library, a battle in the air and a great scene set inside a German blimp.


Harrison Ford is every bit as charming and appealing as he was when the series commenced in 1981. Ford is always fit for action and is given a plethora of clever lines to work with. The casting department of these films will endlessly receive compliments and recognition for their superb choice of actors. Sean Connery is perfect in the role he was born to play. Formerly playing the role of James Bond, Connery is an absolutely ideal choice. The chemistry between Ford and Connery never feels at all contrived. The two feel like a genuine pair of father and son. More appraisal for the casting department as the rest of the supporting cast is equally remarkable. Denholm Elliot, John Rhys-Davies, Julian Glover, Alison Doody...they are all outstanding.


No Indiana Jones film is complete without the brilliant directing from Steven Spielberg and the exciting music from John Williams. Composer Williams excels himself with the music in this film. There is plenty of action accompanied with a perfect score. The special effects still look elegant and hard to fault. I adore the use of old school effects. In this case everything is done practically and all special effects objects actually have a screen presence. The cinematography is also a major stand out with this film as well.


Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade satisfied my every requirement in an adventure movie. Loads of action, plenty of witty dialogue, well conceived characters and a high level of excitement. Many have tried, but no-one can ever match the brilliance of the Indiana Jones movies. They don't make movies of this elegance anymore. Followed 19 years later by Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

"Conscience. What a thing. If you believe you got a conscience it'll pester you to death. But if you don't believe you got one, what could it do t'ya? Makes me sick, all this talking and fussing about nonsense."

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a riveting classic adventure tale that made a huge impression on global cinema. Even though it's over 60 years old the film holds a major influence on the way adventure films have been made to this day.

Many will wonder what makes the film so special. For me it was a great way to spend two hours because it was highly entertaining, fascinating and has a high sense of excitement. Then underneath the surface we have a great underlying message about human nature and the lust for greed.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a tale set in 1920s Mexico. Two poor men named Dobbs (Bogart) and Curtin (Holt) are desperate for a pay check and will do anything to strike wealth. Lucky for them they run into an old codger named Howard (played by director John Huston's dad Walter) who endlessly drones on about mining for gold and knowing the spot where one can find gold worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And so the three men set out into the mountains for a spot of gold prospering after pooling together their funds to purchase all necessary equipment. During their adventure they encounter bandits and Indians but none of these threaten them as much as something they never anticipated - human nature and greed.

This classic tale is one high adventure film that you won't want to miss. It delivers a sense of true adventure; making the experience exhilarating and a whole heap of fun. But what really makes this one unlike all other adventure films is its subconscious message about how easily mankind can be corrupted and manipulated by the thought of money.

Some of the scenes throughout the movie during which characters quarrel over the gold is spellbinding. Because of the fantastic characters we can easily find ourselves engaged in what's going on for the film's two hour period.

And what was imperative for this to work? It's simple - the extraordinary performances from everyone in the cast. Humphrey Bogart was already an established star and was raking in lots of money. Especially after The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca this man was extremely distinguished amongst the thousands of other actors working at the time. Bogey's portrayal was captivating and brilliant. He got his role perfected in no time. He seemed like a gruff, poor beggar at the beginning of the movie. And by the end we get the sense of what occurred after he got his hands on such a large amount of gold. His lust for wealth got the better of him, and Bogart gets his character across in a stunning way.

Walter Huston, father to director John Huston, finally received an Oscar as the aging gold prospector. Clearly there are little flaws to find in his character. Tim Holt was only known for trashy B-Grade flicks up until he got his big break here. He is always so focused, and so dissimilar to the other two protagonists. With this in mind, each of the three title characters are so divergent.

John Huston both wrote and directed the film himself. He was without question the perfect man for the job. He excelled himself, and I liked this film better than The Maltese Falcon which is also among the screen greats.

Above all this, the cinematography is what sold the film for me. Each location was brilliant and looked completely gorgeous on the big screen. The use of such dense bush and the sense of isolation totally blew me away.

But wait - there's more. Just when you think things couldn't get any better, I also found the invigorating score by Max Steiner to be the perfect way to top it all off. I don't think there are any flaws to be pointed out in this classic production. Quotable lines, great messages about humanity and just all round inspiring filmmaking.

The Treasure of Sierra Madre is a phenomenal achievement and will forever be a movie that stands the test of time. It's groundbreaking, exciting and adventurous. Quite simply if you've never seen this classic cinematic gem then you have no idea what you're missing out on.

"Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast."

Godzilla may be the King of the Monsters, but 1933's King Kong shall forever remain the king of monster movies. With its state-of-the-art special effects, entertaining story and a touching climax, King Kong has rightfully earned its coveted label of "a classic". The forerunner of event cinema and one of the first productions to blur the line between fantasy and reality, the picture is a thrilling relic of old Hollywood filmmaking. Additionally, more than an early creature feature, the film actually has a message to convey. In the decades following the release of King Kong, several rip-offs, remakes, and movies such as Jurassic Park have come and gone. Thus, due to advances in filmmaking technology, aspects of 1933's King Kong have admittedly aged. Nevertheless, while watching the old black-and-white images which were assembled long before the advent of computer-generated imagery, it is impossible to not feel a sense of awe at the effects which were accomplished so many decades ago.

Whether you've grown up with King Kong, unearthed it from the annals of film history, seen Peter Jackson's 2005 remake, or simply caught most of the film's famous scenes in passing, chances are everyone should be acquainted with the tale. But for the uninitiated, a brief overview is in order. A documentary filmmaker named Carl Denham (Armstrong) wishes to run across the map to the uncharted Skull Island which is said to be inhabited by a ferocious demon. Sensing the chance to film the island and show it to the world, Carl hires a crew and charters a ship to the location. But he needs a beautiful female lead for his picture, too. While searching on the streets of New York, Denham meets Ann Darrow (Wray) whom he hires as his leading actress. On the voyage to Skull Island, Ann falls for the ship's tough-but-likable first mate Jack Driscoll (Cabot). However, on the island, Ann is kidnapped by the island natives and sacrificed to the giant gorilla known as Kong. Kong becomes utterly fascinated with the fragile female, though, and he kidnaps her himself, all the while a search party ventures into the jungles of Skull Island to rescue her.

The seemingly simple story was padded out with continual scenes of thrilling conflicts and chases, all set at a breakneck pace by directors Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack. Cooper and Schoedsack had a great eye for visuals, and consequently Skull Island feels like a real location rather than a studio set. The best-known part of King Kong is, of course, the climax set atop the Empire State Building after Kong runs rampant on the streets of New York City. The image of Kong grasping the top of the Empire State Building while attempting to swipe the attacking bi-planes makes a powerful statement regarding humankind's indiscriminate nature on the road to technological mastery. On Skull Island, Kong is king. In New York, though, he's a rampaging nuisance. In this sense, it's not so much beauty that killed the beast, but the inescapable march of progress. Kong has no place in the world of man.

It's easy to see why King Kong was such a success back in 1933 and why it's still hailed as a timeless masterpiece - it has lost little of its power to astound and astonish. However, viewers weened on slick contemporary cinema may not be easily wooed by the old-world cinematography, stop-motion special effects and stagecraft performances. Admittedly, these aspects make the film less accessible and less enjoyable for those unable to shed their contemporary sensibilities. Yet, all of these trivialities do not undermine King Kong's resonance and importance, nor do they diminish its value as a film. In an age of CGI-infested blockbusters, King Kong is an action-adventure with heart and soul that moves at an enthralling pace. Max Steiner's accompanying score is one of the best, most engaging and most influential movie scores ever written. In fact, Steiner's work for King Kong is often cited as the first full-length film score containing musical cues to underline specific segments of the story. It's also interesting to see just how shocking some of the content is - Kong stomps on people, puts people in his mouth, and drops a woman off a tall building. A sequence was even filmed in which a few of Carl's crew-members are attacked and killed by a bunch of spider-like creatures. This sequence - known as the legendary "spider pit sequence" - was excised, though, as it was deemed too shocking and it slowed the pace.

The performances, effective as they may be, are beholden to their specific place in cinematic history, and their grandiose gestures and theatrical expressions are barely acceptable in comparison to the top performances of today. Still, the lead three actors remain impressive. Robert Armstrong is solid as the excitable Carl Denham, with grand gestures and a booming voice. He actually feels like a film director, which is the greatest compliment one could pay the performer. Bruce Cabot is a tad wooden, but he's nonetheless a convincing Jack Driscoll - he absolutely nailed the dashing hero persona. Completing the trinity is Fay Wray, who died in late 2004. Wray shrieked her way into the history books as Ann Darrow, and it's consequently her most recognisable role. As with the rest of the cast, she largely went through the motions, but her innate beauty made her perfect for the character.

However, the real star of the production is the titular giant ape which was brought to life by special effects technician Willis O'Brien. Stop-motion animation and convincing rear projection was used to bring the creatures of Skull Island to life, with O'Brien refining the techniques he used for The Lost World back in 1925. Kong may not display the fluidity or grace of modern digital inventions, but this is compensated for in sheer personality - there's more character in the gorilla's eyes and facial expressions than in many of today's live actors. Kong's struggles, his capture and his eventual death all trigger staggering gut punches, and his love for Ann is so convincing that it's easy to overlook his waxy eyes and puppet fur. During the moments in which Kong sniffs Ann's clothes, touches his own blood in shock, swings angrily at the attacking bi-planes and takes one last longing look at his bride, he is intrinsically human. When the beast falls from the Empire State Building, he takes us with him. Kong is not a mere special effect or a puppet, but an actual character. The other creatures on Skull Island are equally impressive. While it is possible to see minor faults in O'Brien's effects, it barely matters.

After watching 1933's King Kong in the 21st Century, one question springs to mind: if you put aside the film's reputation in history and treated it as a piece of entertainment, does it still work? In this reviewer's humble opinion, it does. Be it the grandiose scale, immaculate pacing, charming performances, enthralling score, or Kong's undeniable humanity, this is a classic which deserves to be treasured. Watching King Kong reminds us of what blockbusters once were and what they had the potential to be. Cinematic special effects have improved over the years, but rarely are the effects complemented by the same amount of emotion or humanity that characterised King Kong. The film was a huge success back in 1933, to the extent that the studio - RKO - rushed out a hastily assembled sequel called The Son of King, which was released just nine months after the original.

"Remember, remember,
The fifth of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot."

V for Vendetta is a monumental science fiction action-thriller, denoting the duly excellent redemption of The Wachowski Brothers. After helming two horrendously disappointing sequels to their landmark sci-fi picture The Matrix, the brothers have irrevocably redeemed themselves for past blunders with estimable elegance. This outstanding comic book blockbuster is everything one could possibly desire - it's exhilarating, riveting, intense, chilling, electrifying, heartbreaking and extraordinarily entertaining. V for Vendetta is fundamentally a cautionary tale about the rise of fascism and totalitarianism, but it thankfully packs summer-movie pyrotechnics to accompany.

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."


Based on the Vertigo/DC Comics graphic novel (by Alan Moore, illustrated by David Lloyd), V for Vendetta is a futuristic action film set in a dystopian vision of 2020 London. In the wake of a series of devastating terrorist attacks, Chancellor Adam Sutler (Hurt) has ascended to unmitigated supremacy. The general public have forfeited their independence for security; accustomed to exist in a relentless condition of apprehension. Consequently, the perception of constitutional rights for citizens has vanished completely.

A freedom fighter only known as 'V' (Weaving) exercises terrorist diplomacy in an effort to combat the tyrannical society. On the night bridging the fourth and fifth of November, a young British woman named Evey (Portman) is caught by a horde of secret policemen violating the inequitable curfew. The swashbuckling vigilante anarchist V, concealed behind a mask of Guy Fawkes, rescues Evey and she develops into his dubious ally.
Invoking the spirit of Fawkes, V begins the fifth of November by blowing up the Old Bailey to the strings of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. He subsequently ignites a subversive rebellion, marching towards breaking down the fascist government that has taken jurisdiction of Great Britain and has committed atrocities that led the country to its existing condition. V endeavours to eventually reinstate freedom and justice to Britain, as opposed to a society burdened with malice and corruption.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."


The Wachowski Brothers humbly stepped away from the director's chair, instead adopting a sideline position as writers and producers. Newcomer James McTeigue is an ideal replacement, capable of infusing the film with breathtaking visual flair. Action sequences generally exercise slow motion, but it never grows monotonous. This is one of the only films in history to use slo-mo effectively, which is a testament to the direction and superb cinematography.

V for Vendetta is a solid action film that delivers an insightful political message. The film flawlessly merges a socio-political statement with highly intense stylised action scenes featuring some of the finest cinematic moments of 2005. V for Vendetta is saturated with issues and concepts that permeate the global political climate of the early 21st century, and is endowed with an immense timely relevance that belies its trappings as a mere action adventure. The film is equipped with an intelligent character-driven plot coalesced with greatly assured direction generating the illusion of complete immersion. The action is enthralling and the imagery is stimulating. In addition, the film is kept taut as it moves along at an invigorating pace. The script is smart, thoughtful and provocative. The powerful score is also incredible. Classic orchestral overtures are employed to astonishing effect as an act of anarchy is implemented.

" told you, only truth. For 20 years, I sought only this day. Nothing else existed... until I saw you. Then everything changed. I fell in love with you Evey. And to think I no longer believed I could."


The imagery of 2020 London is marvellously conceived and executed. The intricate metropolis has become grim, depressing and dark. Production design is first-rate, and the top-notch cinematography captures it with consummate skill. The world of V for Vendetta was created mostly with sets and miniatures in Berlin, with some local landscape to finish the portrait of a more noir-ish and sinister London. The filmmakers commendably eschew stereotypical futuristic concepts. There are no flying cars, nor are there any truly notable technological revelations - it never tries to predict any outlandish technology for the future. For this reason (and for many others, like the rare usage of special effects that never exhibit the slightest iota of phoniness), V for Vendetta will never grow outdated.

"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world."


Hugo Weaving is impeccable in his portrayal of the violent anarchist 'V'. Throughout the movie his face is never revealed as there is no need. V is permanently concealed behind a mask of Guy Fawkes. The mask is not to disguise his identity but it rather acts as a symbol to proclaim his rebellion. The real Guy Fawkes was a Catholic terrorist who unsuccessfully attempted to blow up the British Houses of Parliament in the 1600s. V is a violent man; however his actions are supported by strong logical reasoning. Society becomes governed by fear and violence. As a counteraction, fear and violence is therefore the ideal instrument for change. Weaving's role would have been tremendously challenging to execute as he is always donning a mask; relying solely on his gestures and voice. In all likelihood, V's face is never exposed on account of Weaving's appearance in the Matrix movies - there were so many copies of him (as Mr. Smith) that the actor probably opted to keep his face concealed throughout this film's duration.

Opposite the first-rate Weaving is young Natalie Portman, displaying her unremitting capacity as an actress. She even sports a symbolic Joan of Arc hair-cut in the movie's second half. Evey is the real anchor of the story. The audience automatically empathises with her. She's a reflection of their hopes and fears, and functions as a mirror. She has immense chemistry with Weaving as V, regardless of his face forever being masked. The character of Evey is more impetuous and independent than her comic book counterpart, to the betterment of the film.
The supporting cast is armed with magnificent names like John Hurt, Stephen Rea, and Stephen Fry in addition to numerous others. Hurt in particular is perfect as the narcissistic and cruel tyrannical ruler; ranting and salivating in true fascist style.

"Strength through unity. Unity through faith."


Believe the hyperbolic hype regarding this motion picture - V for Vendetta is an outstanding multi-faceted sci-fi production. In addition to being an astonishingly entertaining film it also poses the question of what you're willing to surrender for security. With the contemporary world ruled by fear and dismay, would you renounce your freedom to feel more safe and secure? The film also serves a reminder that the term "terrorist" is defined purely by perspective. As the media poisons us against terrorist actions and utilises propaganda to promote its country, V for Vendetta subtly questions who the terrorists actually are - the anarchists or the government?

V for Vendetta is a revolutionary production that uses its imagery and underlying philosophies as a medium to trigger thought. It's uncommonly provocative for a mainstream movie, and it's pervaded with a marvellous comic book ambiance faithful to its source material. Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving are a spellbinding duo, and first-time director James McTeigue (who was a second-unit director for The Wachowski Brothers during their Matrix years) demonstrates his ability to stand on his own two feet. In a modern cinematic world, blockbusters prevail and masterpieces are limited. V for Vendetta is both a blockbuster and a masterpiece. It's entertaining and enjoyable, as well as stirring, moving and filled with emotionality. You'll enjoy, you'll cry, and you'll be taking heed of V's immortal words.


"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."

"I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!"

Based on a true story, The Elephant Man is a drama that unconditionally blew me away.

The film is a dramatisation of the life of Englishman Joseph Merrick (Hurt), known as John in the film, who was born with a grotesque physical deformity. Due to the nature and severity of the man's malformation he is unfortunately condemned to a life as a circus freak as people profit by displaying him in a freak show.

But all this changes when a London surgeon named Frederick Treves (Hopkins) discovers John in a street freak show. Frederick notices that John is also suffering from severe injuries due to improper action on the part of his owner. To treat his injuries, John is moved to a London hospital where Frederick also studies John's anatomical structure.

But while John is in hospital it is discovered that although suffering from rigorous deformities, underneath he is in fact a highly intelligent man capable of discernable speech, cerebral thought and sensitivity. Frederick is determined to make sure John is never mistreated again and isn't looked upon as just a freak with a physically deformed face.

This altruistic act of compassion and benevolence alters John's life forever. The film was shot in grainy black and white. In many ways this style suits the film perfectly. The picture looks dated; almost like genuine footage shot during the turn-of-the-century in London. I couldn't fault anything that I saw on the screen. Everything was able to catch my eye. Costumes looked authentic and the sets create the desired atmosphere of 19th Century London.

The make-up was outstanding! Every time the character of John 'The Elephant Man' appears on screen you can't recognise actor John Hurt underneath the elaborate make-up. His face looks authentically deformed and helps the audience get engaged in the film a lot easier.

On the topic of the performance, though, I get goose-bumps at the thought. John Hurt was robbed of his Oscar. The man's performance was a textbook example of portraying a character perfectly. His character is so poignant and so powerful. The world around him is so malevolent and prejudiced due to his appearance and we feel his pain like it's actually happening to us. The first time he utters a word in character I was in tears. And I stayed like that for the whole movie. I cried like a baby. And the thought that it actually happened and there was a real man of such animalistic appearance...made me cry even harder.

Anthony Hopkins was the ideal choice for his character of a London surgeon. I couldn't fault him anywhere because he's always so focused on bringing life to his character.

Many will not recognise this work being under the cap of director David Lynch. The storytelling isn't as bizarre or unusual as the kind of movies he became famous for. Instead the film is told using straight-forward storytelling that sometimes uses peculiar imagery to convey the situation to the audience. These instances include montages utilising images of elephants that contrast to the title character's outward show. Editing was sublime in these certain instances.

Overall, The Elephant Man is a brilliant piece of filmmaking in every sense of the word. The film is powerful, moving and unfathomably astounding. I cried for most of the film's duration. You will too.

"He knew the risks, he didn't have to be there. It rains... you get wet."

Heat is an absolutely stunning film; this epic, brilliant crime drama is unmissable and unforgettable.

Many will lose interest due to the film's length, but I found the film essentially perfect despite the running time.

First of all, Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in the same movie. These are two of the best actors on the planet, and both are in top form. The script (written by director Mann) is nothing short of remarkable. The dialogue is always witty, realistic, and is never contrived. The actors further cement this realism in an amazing way.

Mann's direction for every second of the movie was stunning. The way Mann approached this movie was destined to equal excellence. First of all, he penned the damn fine screenplay himself and thus knew what he wanted on screen. Second, he employed incredible cinematographic techniques to achieve his vision. And finally, he knew what actors he wanted and was not going to stop until the result is exactly the way he wants it. Even a dialogue scene between De Niro and Pacino can sustain interest in the viewer without showing any action.

Neil McCauley (De Niro) is a thief who indulges in precision jobs along with his team of professionals. After the robbery of an armoured car, the police are now investigating. Vincent Hanna (Pacino) leads the investigation. Hanna is a master at his profession, and McCauley is at the peak of his.

This epic crime film then becomes a game of cat-and-mouse as Hanna works to bring McCauley to justice. In amidst this, we have plenty of time for a character study as Mann digs in-depth into the private lives of the protagonists.

And of course, the occasional action scene is both spectacular and incredibly violent at times. The action scenes are crafted to perfection, with cinematography that blew me away.

De Niro and Pacino share very little screen time together, but when those two are in a scene together the results are unbeatable. The memorable scene at the diner between De Niro and Pacino is something we rarely ever see in a movie - great script, great direction, great performances. And the final showdown isn't your usual "good guy/bad guy" showdown but something a lot deeper.

The highlights of the movie include magnificent cinematic techniques during the few action scenes, and the wonderful performances from everyone in the cast.

Michael Mann's Heat is absolutely unmissable. This epic crime story is most definitely one of the best movies ever made. If you have not yet seen it, I urge you to get a copy of this film in your hands immediately.

"Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window."

Once released in 1998, Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan ushered in a new type of war film for the mainstream market. The days of war movies containing sanitary, romanticised imagery of the battlefield had come to an end, and in their place were visceral, gritty war pictures conveying the true realities of wartime horror in an unflinching fashion. Although a big-budget Hollywood production created by a popcorn movie peddlers, 2001's Black Hawk Down abides by the Saving Private Ryan approach; offering an indelibly powerful look at the realities of modern warfare. Loud, relentless and brutal, this harrowing and raw motion picture places you in the moment and allows you to experience the sensation of being caught in combat with no place to go. Without any cheesy subplots to weigh it down, Black Hawk Down is almost wall-to-wall combat, and it is an utterly gripping cinematic experience.

Based on Mark Bowden's book of the same name, Black Hawk Down chronicles the true events that took place in Somalia in 1993. An elite group of Delta Force Soldiers and American Rangers were sent into Mogadishu, Somalia to help end the vicious civil war of the period, in which warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was seizing international food shipments, causing the starvation deaths of several thousand Somalian peoples. In early October 1993, American soldiers raided a major building in the densely-populated city, aiming to capture several of Aidid's top lieutenants. However, what was supposed to be a routine, half-hour mission transformed into a prolonged 15-hour bloodbath due to severe hostility and a few military blunders. Pitted against thousands of Somali militia, the American troops were left to fight their way out of the city.

Bowden's detailed book about the Black Hawk Down incident was about 400 pages in length, yet director Ridley Scott and screenwriter Ken Nolan managed to compress the dense source material into a 140-minute motion picture, resulting in an airtight adaptation conveying the essential facts within its restricted runtime. After initially concentrating on character introductions and dramatic growth, the film transforms into an extended action sequence. Imagine the intensity of Saving Private Ryan's opening Omaha Beach sequence extended to about 70 or 80 minutes with practically no respite. Furthermore, Black Hawk Down does not analyse what happened in Somalia or provide any political grandstanding. Rather than politics, Scott and co were merely concerned with staging a dramatisation of the 15 hours of combat that killed a number of American soldiers and injured dozens of others. On top of this, to the credit of Scott and Nolan, the chaotic events are shown without forgoing a narrative or reducing dialogue to generic background noise. The writing especially comes to life during a number of poetic monologues.

A master craftsman, Ridley Scott's depiction of the combat and violence is not sugar-coated. Scott (ever the perfectionist) and cinematographer Slavomir Idziak framed the action so precisely using such perfect camera angle placement that the illusion of being there is so real and immediate that you could be forgiven for ducking your head in a subconscious bid to avoid being hit by shrapnel. Indeed, the battle scenes are as accurate as a depiction of modern warfare can be, and Scott's exceptional skills as a visual storyteller help make Black Hawk Down such an unmitigated success. Furthermore, the special effects are utterly seamless, the sound design is ear-shattering, and the editing is spot-on. In fact, the film earned Academy Awards for Editing and Sound, while Scott and cinematographer Idziak received nominations. And then there's Hans Zimmer's amazing score, which is intense and harrowing, not to mention it was given a Middle-Eastern flavour to suit the visuals.

A veritable who's who of young and old Hollywood male actors, Black Hawk Down benefits from an extraordinary cast. The ensemble includes such names as John Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore (also seen in Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor...), Jeremy Piven, William Fichtner, Orlando Bloom, Jason Isaacs, Tom Hardy, Matthew Marsden, and even Australian star Eric Bana (who adopted an obvious but nonetheless effective American accent). All of these actors (and beyond) did an exceptional job; forming a tight, believable unit. Director Ridley Scott and writer Ken Nolan did not fall into the trap of letting these actors become interchangeable names with faces. Rather, each actor is unique and for the most part distinguishable during the scenes of intense combat (as much as they could possibly be without murdering the momentum).

Black Hawk Down is often charged with being racist, and people accuse it of not doing enough justice to the Somali viewpoint. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer delivered the best rebuttal to this: the film presents a viewpoint, not every viewpoint. Additionally, while there is a degree of flag waving and patriotism, this is counterbalanced by scenes showing that not all Somali militia are mindless savages. For instance, a scene between pilot Michael Durant and his Somali capturer gives a face to the indigenous population, and his sentiments allow us to understand things from their perspective. Furthermore, prior to the fateful mission, a character even explains his respect for the Somalians. Heck, at several times Ridley Scott even emphasises that the Americans perhaps did not belong in the country. For a film that is so frequently criticised as overly patriotic and racist, Black Hawk Down contains far more layers than some people care to notice.

No movie will ever be able to truly recreate the experience of being caught in combat during war, but the makers behind Black Hawk Down did everything in their power to get us as close as a television screen will allow, bombarding viewers with an unrelenting string of violence and action. Yet it's the heart, emotion, humanity and brutal honesty that allows Black Hawk Down to escape the derogatory "action porn" label. This is the type of film that Jerry Bruckheimer's Pearl Harbor should have been, but wasn't. While Black Hawk Down has its detractors, this reviewer is not among them. This is an important war movie, and it deserves to be seen at the earliest opportunity regardless of your political affiliations or opinions.

"It takes a certain kind of person to do what I do. No-one's ever impressed; no-one's ever fascinated. If you're a fireman, all the kids will want to jump on the back of the truck and follow you to a fire. There's going to be no kids willing to do that with me. So, I don't do it to impress people - it's a job, it's my trade, and I actually think I'm pretty good at it."

There is one undeniable, inescapable bona fide fact regarding humans that we rarely like to discuss or even mention: everybody poos. Generally speaking, mainstream movies exercise this fact for brainless comedy. Modern comedies usually toss in a fart gag or a diarrhoeic outburst in a desperate attempt for a laugh. From such scenes in Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle or Dumb and Dumber, to dramatic shit smearing in North Country...even to German hack director Uwe Boll whose films are pure cinematic semi-liquid nuggets of week-old vindaloo proportions.

Kenny serves a potent yet valuable reminder regarding everybody's need to poo. At first it most likely seems like a daft single-joke comedy overflowing with scatological humour. During its marketing campaign and preliminary hype, there wasn't much to convince anyone otherwise. But Kenny is something radically different. This is a hysterical, enormously entertaining mockumentary featuring an impeccable blend of humour, pathos and heart-warming moments. It delivers a poignant and effective snapshot of a forgotten cog in society who's frowned upon due to the nature of his trade. The character of Kenny (played by little-known actor Shane Jacobson, who won an AFI award for his performance) is commonly alienated from family and friends due to his job. But with this mockumentary we're reminded that he performs an essential public service: if the "Kennys" of the world didn't exist, where would we take a dump at a big festival? It's a trade no-one wants to think about, yet someone needs to do it.

The Jacobson brothers themselves were sceptical as to whether this concept would actually work as a film. Kenny was originally a short that debuted at a major Aussie film festival. Astonishingly, the audience reaction was enormously positive. Due to massive demand, Splashdown (the toilet company which the character of Kenny works for) persuaded the Jacobson brothers to develop the concept into a feature-length movie...and Kenny was eventually born.

Kenny Smyth is a typical Everyman trying to make a living. He works at a Corporate Bathroom Rental company known as Splashdown. Kenny is a knight in shining overalls, taking care of business with his faithful Splashdown crew by his side. The film follows Kenny as he tackles all troubles great and small...from the biggest festival to smallest social gatherings; Kenny confronts every septic challenge that comes his way. He also battles his way through personal problems, dealing with his bitter divorce during which he lost custody of son Jesse (played by Shane Jacobson's real-life son), and he also must tend to the blossoming romance between himself and an airline hostess (Bibra). Every challenge in Kenny's life he faces with charm, humour and unflinching dignity.

"I'd love to be able to say "I plumb toilets" and have someone say "Now that is something I've always wanted to do"."


Kenny lifts the lid on the very real issues in contemporary society. No-one is ever impressed or fascinated with what Kenny does. Kenny even expounds on the glories of his craft. It isn't as glamorous as being a fireman but it's also more secure than a desk job. ("It's not like my business is ever going to dry up overnight!") In addition, he's treated badly by the members of the general public he's forced to interact with. Barely anyone will shake his hand, his own father (played by Shane and director Clayton Jacobson's actual father) orders him to remove his work overalls before sitting down, and people shun him at social gatherings. When Kenny's son assists in cleaning the port-a-loos, members of the public complain indignantly and inquire "What kind of diseases could he get?". This film presents us with disillusionments and misunderstandings in relation to Kenny's trade. For its brutal honesty and realism, the filmmakers deserve to be lauded.

Director Clayton Jacobson (who gets a very small role as well) lensed the movie using suitable digital photography. It feels like a home movie at times, which is the desired effect. Lots of people (myself included) were under the false impression that Kenny was a real person, and that the events were real. Make no mistake: 95% of the film is staged and rehearsed, with the fantastic naturalistic acting generating the ingenious illusion that we're watching genuine documentary footage. The cinematography is extremely accomplished with its fly-on-the-wall style.

"There's another classic example of someone having a two inch arsehole and us having installed only one inch piping."


Shane Jacobson earned an AFI award for Best Actor. His acting can only be described as faultless. In real life, Shane doesn't have a lisp. I, like many others, was under the impression that the lisp was genuine. This is a testament to the masterclass of acting offered by Jacobson. Kenny Smyth is the best Aussie character to hit screens since Michael Caton's Darryl Kerrigan in The Castle and Paul Hogan's Mick Dundee in Crocodile Dundee. He presents the essential Australian: simple, hard-working and looking forward to having a beer at the end of the day. Kenny's naivety is emphasised by his family's simplicity. He's the first person in his family to fly out of Australia, and he's utterly curious about the workings of an aeroplane. When he arrives at Nashville, Tennessee in America for the International Plumper and Cleaner Expo - i.e. "Poo HQ" as Kenny affectionately calls it - he's bewildered by the size of the expo. Kenny is also your typical Aussie using ockerisms and slang that may appear pretty peculiar to an international audience. His similes are particularly amusing. "Sillier than a bum full of smarties", "Mad as a clown's cock", and so on. Kenny is irresistible and charming, humorous and kind-natured. He's part philosopher, part comedian and all heart. Shane Jacobson gives the film the gusto and momentum it needs.
The other actors deserve a brief mention. It was a family and friend affair, with Shane Jacobson's real father playing Kenny Smyth's father, and Shane's real son played Kenny's son. Ronald Jacobson was nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the AFI awards. He's brilliant, witty and quotable.

The Jacobson brothers may have built the film's premise around toilets and poo, yet a brown log is never actually shown at all throughout the entire film. They never cross the line...the "mud biscuits and apple juice" are merely referenced instead of being shown. The humour of the film is in Kenny's delightful matter-of-factness in his observations. He cleverly describes his trade and things going on around him...and it's hilarious. Better yet, it's all done with a straight face. At the beginning of the film Kenny is interviewing a potential client via phone. As he asks whether this client will be serving food or drink at the event, the implications of his questions are hilarious. "Are there any Indonesian foods or curries?" The opening 30 minutes are probably the strongest part of the movie. We are offered a very intimate insight into the life of Kenny Smyth. Kenny is developed as a three-dimensional human, and in his personality fragments we see ourselves. From start to finish, it's a mosaic of hilarious and quotable lines with an adequate dosage of pathos and heart. The concoction works incredibly effectively!

"There's a smell in here that is gonna outlast religion."


When all's said and done, Kenny simply reminds everyone that in the age of big-budget adventures and CGI spectacles, engaging characters and a good story are all that matter. Kenny has both. This is a little-known film that scored big at the box office. It remained in cinemas for roughly a year. Even after the DVD was released, selected Australian cinemas were still showing it. As a character study so singularly focused on its central character, a film like this relies on its central character for its success. Shane Jacobson delivers a delightful performance. Kenny is a man with good intentions, and this comes across very powerfully. Shane has impeccable comedic timing as he deadpans a series of hilarious lines in expert fashion. Aside from being consistently laugh-out-loud funny, the terrific script generates real affection for Kenny in order that we desperately root for him to succeed. The character makes several valid observations about family, work and the value of human dignity.

Kenny is a masterpiece for its expert amalgamation of great comedy, pathos and terrific touching moments. This is a hysterical movie that holds up admirably no matter how many times you watch it. I still laugh at every joke after 50 viewings. It's a very entertaining movie, and I absolutely love it. At first I had no interest in seeing this picture. But on a firm recommendation I attended a screening (which required a lot of searching to determine which local cinemas were showing it), and it was the best cinematic experience in my entire life. It was a full house, and every single person in the cinema was crying with laughter. It was the most entertaining two hours of my entire life, and now I constantly revisit the movie. This is the greatest mockumentary in history! Yes, it's better than This is Spinal Tap!!

Followed by a spin-off TV series entitled Kenny's World.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his."

General George S. Patton emerged as a prominent military leader during World War II. He got things done by way of heavy discipline and a dedication to his country.

Patton is a biopic of the life of General Patton during the Second World War and it contains one of the greatest performances of the 20th Century. George C. Scott won an Oscar for his portrayal of the man behind several illustrious military campaigns. And there is little wonder. Scott remains focused and full of concentration; never breaking his character for a moment.

Patton used drastic measures, even utilising some that made troops terrified of him, and made sure his soldiers were well trained. Patton was one of the greatest military figures of the modern era; he commanded many attacks that proved successful, and struck a massive blow to the German side. General Rommel was even petrified of the man, and Rommel was the one who had to plan the German attacks!

The film opens with a brusque, stirring and famous speech delivered by Patton before an enormous American flag. The speech proved inspirational to the soldiers in times of combat, and set the atmosphere for the amazing experience that was to come.

Although a brilliant general, Patton was well known for shooting his mouth off; saying inappropriate things, being too harsh on men and raising his voice at the slightest things. In some scenes the audience can empathise with the man's situation, in others we sit in awe as George C. Scott delivers lines that are so powerful that in turn the audience will become increasingly scared.

But there was a lighter side to Patton that was never seen by any of his soldiers that didn't hold a position of power, and this side is exposed frequently. The man had a sense of humour; he says some very amusing things that are blunt but true. In a word, the man was interesting; volatile temper, vast array of knowledge of battle tactics, belief in reincarnation, fascination with history and yet a very dry sense of humour.

Patton is one of the greatest war movies ever to hit the big screen. Although essentially a drama, the film has its fair share of elaborate battle scenes that aren't necessarily gory but with an enormous body count. The battles look spectacular, and that's only putting it mildly.

The scale is enormous; detailed costumes, genuine props, and tonnes of extras. Not to mention the very impressive array of tanks present during the battles that add to the high level of authenticity in the production.

The film also uses grainy black & white footage as a medium for outlining events that have happened between scenes. But the boldest aspect has yet to come. The film also examines the other side of the battle - the planning strategies of the Germans who are working to ensure they don't let Patton get the upper hand.

And as a result the film is an absorbing character study that is not action orientated but rather focused on the drama that unfolded in between the battles. We see the planning; the brains behind the operations that have now become famous amongst modern historians.

Patton is a moving portrait and a patriotic tribute to a man who was so dedicated to his career as a general. The film is long, but not overlong. It's drawn out, but always fascinating.

Patton is a film that will be remembered as fondly as the general whose life spawned the tale. A film you cannot afford to miss.

"We have 11 Palestinian names, each one of them had a hand in planning Munich. We want them all dead."

Steven Spielberg has always been capable of achieving excellent results when behind the camera. I have been a massive fan of his work for years now and I always anticipate the release of his latest movies.

Munich was a film that I had wanted to see ever since I learned he was at the helm. The film met with major criticism preceding its release because of the short time in which the film was made. Filming began in June 2005 with a December 2005 release date in mind. Spielberg has always been good at making films in a very tight shooting schedule.

While watching the movie I couldn't believe the focus and concentration that is obvious while watching each frame of film that has been produced.

Munich is a riveting, powerful, involving and confronting human drama that is one of the most important films of this century. It was a daring move to produce such a confronting piece of cinema due to how incomplete the facts are; make no mistake, the film is no history lesson. But then again it was never meant to be a documentary. The facts presented may be seen as agonizingly erroneous, but what actually happened will always remain a mystery.

Munich is also a milestone in Steven Spielberg's career. He has been well known for making family-friendly blockbusters that sometimes mirror his childhood. The film represents a step up for maturity in Spielberg's filmmaking.

Based on true events; Munich chronicles the fate of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes who were brutally murdered during the Olympics of 1972 in Munich. In response to the savage massacre the government commissions a group of agents to track down and eliminate those responsible for the tragedy that occurred in the Olympic village that fateful day. The five-man team carry out their mission with the knowledge in mind that they officially have had no contact with those who hired them. The mission is confidential and officially does not exist. As the team eliminate men in the most callous of ways and the body count rises - so do questions, uncertainties and sleepless nights. They begin questioning the justification of the counter-violence and loyalties begin to blur.

Munich is a film that asks a lot of its audience as Spielberg presents questions without answers; offering no easy answers and keeping firm focus on the human response and the conflict between the motivations behind their actions and the consequences.

The tension built up between the characters is insurmountable. Some of the pivotal roles are executed in outstanding style; the accents seem genuine and each line appears to be said with meaning. The film wastes no time getting into the nitty gritty suspense sequences.

Spielberg has also integrated archive footage that gives the film a high level of chilling realism. The beginning events are essentially told through the archive footage presented. And throughout the movie we are shown clips that look in detail at the tragic massacre during which 11 athletes lost their lives. Some of these clips are shown in harrowing realism; startlingly showing brutal violence and heart-wrenching sequences that will have your mouth gaping open.

Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski achieved fantastic results with this film. The action and suspense scenes were filmed extremely well. From the opening sequence I was already engaged in the film; although production was rushed it never feels this way.

John Williams' score creates a brooding, maligned atmosphere that is intense and malevolent. The key suspense scene had me sitting in awe at what was going on.

Munich was a daring film but was executed spectacularly. The film is challenging, pulse-pounding, captivating and involving. The whole film is an extraordinary experience marred only marginally by its over-length. Highly recommended.

""Treason doth never prosper," wrote an English poet, "What's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

JFK is an astonishing, riveting achievement in filmmaking and marks Oliver Stone's best movie to date. Stone has crafted a masterpiece, and although the film is controversial and always will be due to the subject matter (not to mention those who believe something different will hate the film in favour of their beliefs) the film has been approached exceptionally!

There have been many conspiracy theories in relation to the John F. Kennedy assassination, and all aspects and theories are approached by Oliver Stone in great detail and using all available evidence at his disposal.

The film is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Costner) who is the only man to date to take someone to court in relation to the JFK assassination. He takes it upon himself to open up a detailed investigation and finally crack open the conspiracy in relation to one of the worst tragedies during the 20th Century.

In creating such a masterpiece, Stone has also put together an unbeatable cast lead by Kevin Costner who delivers a flawless performance.

Stone's films are always going to be controversial, and many people believe that he tried to shove a viewpoint down out throats and make us believe what he wants us to. But this is only narrow-minded people, as Stone was only outlining the inconsistencies that question the official line of Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman. Until the government finally release the truth, we will never know how accurate the theories outlined here actually are.

Yes, the film is three hours long and many people lose interest, but the film is so well told and above all engaging that I was never bored. When the drama makes it to the courtroom for the final 40 minutes, I had my eyes glued to the screen as we are presented the facts in ways that we cannot dispute, and Costner's final monologue was Oscar-worthy.

On top of this, there are so many other qualities, like providing us with archive footage integrated into the dramatisations that are occurring. That Oscar for film editing was much deserved.

Love it or hate it, I leave it up to you. But if you dislike the movie due to its viewpoints that may question your beliefs; your narrow-mindedness shames our race. It's that simple. And if you don't wish to watch the film due to its three hour running time (God knows I didn't), I suggest that you cut out your stupidity and spend a few hours acquainting yourself with one of the most riveting, astonishing films ever made.

I never had much of an interest in investigating the truth behind the assassination of such a fine man that was JFK, but when I viewed this movie I now feel advantaged to have been presented with such facts, but infuriated that the government have never issued the truth that they so obviously hold. It also reminded me that the democracy we live in disadvantages us in terms of not being presented with vital information that we deserve to be given. And if Oliver Stone was able to trigger such thoughts in my mind, he has done his job correctly.

"She says the jungle... it just came alive and took him."

There was a period back in the 1980s when Arnold Schwarzenegger ruled Hollywood. He was the ultimate action hero, and it didn't matter in the slightest that he was a one-dimensional actor who favoured snappy one-liners over Oscar-worthy dialogue. Whether he was the action hero in Commando or the villain in The Terminator, "Ah-nuld" was a force of star-power to be reckoned with, and movie-goers flocked to see any of his action films. 1987's Predator is simply the perfect '80s movie, offering an amalgamation of the three most popular mainstream genres of that decade: action-adventure, horror, and science fiction - and it's a Schwarzenegger flick to boot. All of these components are mixed up to form this heady brew of violent action, macho posturing and ridiculously quotable dialogue, which is all set at a breakneck pace.

At its most basic narrative level, Predator is your usual men-on-a-mission movie (think The Wild Geese or The Dirty Dozen) with added flourishes of horror and sci-fi. At the beginning of the film, Dutch Schaefer (Schwarzenegger) and his battle-hardened squad of elite commandos begrudgingly accept a mission set by the CIA to rescue a group of political hostages from guerrillas in the remote jungles of Central America. The assignment seems simple enough, but shortly after rappelling into enemy territory, Dutch and his team get the feeling that something isn't quite right. Not only have they been set up by the CIA who in reality wants them to recover military intelligence, but there's also something lurking in the jungle...a creature from another planet watching their every move. As the men head to the extraction point, they are slowly targeted one by one...

The rest of the movie sustains a skilfully realised dance between the increasingly desperate commandos (who are stripped of their physical and military superiority, and must resort to any trick in order to stay alive) and the titular Predator (who mixes futuristic technology with a taste for sadistic rituals). The fact that the Predator never gives a reason for its presence on Earth makes its hunting far more ruthless. Moreover, this creature has no voice and it can't be reasoned with - it's a hunter; pure and simple. And it slaughters the commandos for no reason other than it wants to. Unsurprisingly, the movie eventually boils down to a mano-a-mano standoff between Schwarzenegger and the Predator, with the stakes more equal when Dutch discovers an invisibility method. At this point Predator announces its affinity for all things primeval, as Dutch has to reach deep inside himself and become a primordial warrior stripped of all guns and armour. The battles between Dutch and the Predator are highly exciting, and have been bestowed with an element of danger rarely felt when Arnie is typically dodging bullets - he's far more vulnerable when pitted against this strong otherworldly entity. Predator is a rare film in which a viewer gets the sense that something might just defeat Ah-nuld.

A huge part of what makes Predator such a top-shelf action flick is that it never stops charging ahead. There's a refreshingly uncomplicated plotline in place which is never dragged down by sprawling back-stories, rambling chunks of exposition or gratuitous distractions. Dutch and his commandos have a hell of a lot of personality, and the screenplay (credited to Jim & John Thomas) doles them out without ever stopping to catch a breath. The lulls in the action are always filled with something: mistrust, pig-sticking, pussy jokes, the nagging sense that something's not quite right, intense character interaction... The pacing never has the chance to drag. On top of this, Predator is one of the most quotable films in history (not far behind Arnie's Commando) - "If it bleeds, we can kill it"; "Get to the choppaaaah!"; "I ain't got time to bleed"; "You're one ugly motherfucker"...the list could keep going, but you get the idea.

This was director John McTiernan's second film, and his work here is brilliant. McTiernan has become famous for generating tension and suspense using confined locations, and for Predator he certainly uses the steamy jungle to great effect. His direction is claustrophobic and assured; confidently staging amazing action while also concentrating on tension and atmosphere. The jungle itself plays a crucial part in the proceedings, and it's wonderfully photographed by Donald McAlpine. Then there's the Predator itself. Despite being little more than a man in a suit that bleeds highlighter ink, it's a marvellous creation engineered by effects maestro Stan Winston (with some input from James Cameron). Played by Kevin Peter Hall (who stands an imposing 7'2"), the Predator is an unnerving combination of insect, reptile and professional wrestler. The creature effects are immaculate, with the invisibility camouflage optical effect still impressing to this day. Naturally, not all of the special effects stand up to this day. But happily, even the phoney-looking effects are still serviceable.

Predator features countless large and in-charge actors. Arnold Schwarzenegger leads the pack. He may not be Hollywood's greatest actor, but at the peak of his career he certainly knew how to entertain an audience. Interestingly, the film features another actor who went on to serve as Governor - Jesse Ventura. The most dynamic action sequences are saved for these two very large men, whose oversized physiques are in full display here.
Two of the most macho African American performers of the 1980s also feature in Predator - Bill Duke and Carl Weathers. Both men submit highly authoritative performances. Sonny Landham was hired for the film under one condition: that he had a bodyguard with him at all times - not to protect Sonny but to protect everyone around the actor (he was prone to starting bar fights). That trivia fact reveals pretty much everything you need to know about the badass Landham. Rounding out the cast is the endearing Elpidia Carrillo as Anna, in addition to Richard Chaves and Shane Black as members of Dutch's unit. This was the film debut of Black, who became famous for his screenwriting. Indeed, Black penned Lethal Weapon, and spent his free time on the Predator set writing his screenplay for The Last Boy Scout.

With its thrilling, high-octane mix of Rambo and Aliens, Predator certainly delivers on its promise of non-stop, energetic action - and it does not disappoint in the macho department. It's cheesy as hell, of course, and slightly dated, but it's also entertaining and cool as hell, with tonnes of quotable lines and an utterly unforgettable villain. Predator is an action movie with something for everyone, and a jewel in Arnie's career.

Bob Morton: "What are your Prime Directives?"
RoboCop: "Serve the public trust, protect the innocent, uphold the law."

RoboCop was released during a generation dominated by a studio obsession with futuristic science fiction action flicks. Prior to the release of RoboCop, James Cameron accomplished success with a low-budget old-school sci-fi action film flaunting muscle-bound actor Arnold Schwarzenegger portraying a killer robot in The Terminator. Even before that, there was Blade Runner and Star Wars - so it's safe to assert that sci-fi was the prominently triumphant genre throughout the 70s, 80s and beyond. Orion, the studio that distributed The Terminator, was more than happy to tackle another science fiction action film featuring an unstoppable cyborg...and found satisfaction when the script for RoboCop fell into their lap. The film's screenplay effectively masquerades as your customary superhero film in the same vein as Superman. Underneath it's possible to ascertain a far more complex multi-faceted production that wears several of its inspirations on its sleeves. This includes references to Frankenstein, Dirty Harry, Judge Dredd and Metropolis among many others. With a few similarities to formerly familiar films, the charm of this wonderful action flick continues to elevate.

It's the ideas that swirl around underneath all the action and killing (of which there is a lot!) that make this film interesting. Nevertheless it's an awesome action romp that still works well on the simple level of a superhero who is wronged, transformed, and ultimately rededicated to foiling evil. And of course, some of the robots and weapons are pretty fun - like those enormous cannons that the thugs employ to shoot up the city. The RoboCop firearm is just badass as well! Practically every aspect of the film remains virtually impeccable decades after the initial release.

RoboCop is set in a not-too-distant, non-specific futuristic time frame. The charm of the film is that no specific time period is disclosed. It could be 100 years into the future, or virtually present day. The film's central location is the city of Detroit that is falling apart as a consequence of crime. Police officers are unhappy with their work conditions, and a strike is in negotiations. A private organisation, Omni Consomer Products (OCP), eventually seizes control of local law enforcement to ensure security on the streets. Technicians at OCP begin developing a robot that can uphold the law and work diligently. Subsequent to a disastrous prototype, the technicians instigate a new program - the RoboCop program (therein lies the title) - as a follow-up to sustain the philosophy. When policeman Alex Murphy (Weller) is sadistically slaughtered by a street gang (one of the most brutal executions in film history), OCP technicians use his deceased corpse to manufacture a perfect cop with mechanical limbs and superhuman capabilities...a machine completely impervious to bullets and explosions. The results are highly successful as RoboCop begins abolishing crime in the city. However, RoboCop begins remembering some of his past memories and commences a rampage aiming for a goal of retribution.

Dutch director Paul Verhoeven contributes stellar direction to the production. Originally the director wasn't interested in taking the reigns until his wife talked him into it. Verhoeven seized RoboCop with escalating enthusiasm, seeing the film as a way of making keen annotations regarding the conditions of things in the USA from the perspective of an outsider. He conveyed an unyielding impression of pace and economy...with a few hundred litres of fake blood to compliment the action scenes. In addition to the ingenious creative concepts contributed by Verhoeven, there's the remarkable Ed Neumeier script that takes an enthralling look at a dystopian society of the future. Unfortunately, the film's marginal weakness is in the script. The film will surely be scoffed at by today's audiences. In tradition with typical 1980s action flicks such as those executed with Stallone or Arnie as the film's primary acting talent, the one-liners are badass but laughable. One of the film's principally stand-out features at the time was the work of gifted Rob Bottin who contributes special effects that still retain their 'wow' factor. Sure, some of the stop motion techniques look dated but they are still mighty impressive. The RoboCop outfit looks inspirationally spectacular. If that's not enough, the score by Basil Poledouris is truly wonderful. The theme is awesome! It sincerely delivers the correct messages and constantly portrays a sensation of exhilaration during the action scenes. Memorable themes are persistently absent from movies nowadays, and so it's revitalising to take a look back to when movie music meant something.

RoboCop is supported by an amazing cast! Peter Weller instantly perfects his role from his first line delivery. When Weller is placed underneath the elaborate outfit, all we see is his lower face. The filmmakers were apparently seeking someone with a strong jaw-line. This goal is achieved...and the altered, more mechanical voice sounds fantastic and perfectly suited to the corny lines assigned to the character. Kurtwood Smith is also very impressive as the film's central villain. Like many other aspects of the film, his performance will probably be regarded as laughable. Still, he seems evil and he does evil things. This is the period of the 80s action films in question!

Overall, RoboCop quickly earned a place among my all-time favourite action films. It's an extremely fun action flick that, despite all its predictability, delivers an engaging portrait of a futuristic superhero kicking arse and unleashing a one-man war on the bad guys. A commendable facet of the action scenes is that we can no longer criticise the appalling aiming of those firing at the hero. Instead RoboCop is hit several times...but of course cannot be wounded by bullets or weapons so he is able to continue his tremendous killing spree. It's a rare event to witness an action film of this stature anymore: instead the studios opt for watered down violence and kiddie action scenes to aim for a mainstream audience. RoboCop is everything one could desire from a hardcore science fiction action film. There's awesome production design, abundant action and plenty of opportunities for corny lines to surface while violence unfolds. In a sense it's a futuristic western that also borrows elements from other famous films. This is simply an awesome movie that is worthy of multiple screenings.

"It's been confusion from the word go!"

Inarguably, Brazil is the definitive Terry Gilliam movie. In a sense, it's Gilliam's Citizen Kane. Added to this, it was his first post-Monty Python feature. The Python troupe's final motion picture, The Meaning of Life, hit screens in 1983, and Gilliam perceived his liberation from the group as an opportunity to spread his creative wings. Brazil is pervaded with the type of dark humour that owes much to Monty Python, yet the absence of Python members (save for Michael Palin) allows this to emerge as a different animal. A hilarious, paranoid and chilling film, it's somewhat difficult to explain Brazil. In a sense it's several different movies, but it's predominantly a picture about escape; escaping from boredom, escaping from parental rule, escaping from our mundane jobs, escaping reality, escaping authorities, and the eventual escape from sanity. Or is it? Armed with a frighteningly prophetic social commentary, a nourishing dose of black comedy, an excellent sense of visual imagination, and a miasma of great actors, Brazil is classic Terry Gilliam filmmaking in every sense of the word.

Set "Somewhere in the 20th Century", the film's proceedings take place in a needlessly convoluted futuristic society; a giant bureaucratic mess whereby everything requires a signed form and all the world's citizens are being watched by a rather Orwellian Ministry of Information. Sam Lowry (Pryce) is a civil servant working at the Ministry of Information who types his way through a lifetime of meaningless papers. His only escape from this dreary existence is in his dreams, where he can fly away from technology and the overpowering bureaucracy to spend eternity with the girl of his dreams. The basic gist of the plot concerns a paperwork mix-up that leads to the imprisonment of a Mr. Buttle, who was arrested instead of suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle (De Niro). While Sam tries to rectify the wrongful arrest of Buttle, he finds the woman he has been dreaming about: Jill Layton (Greist)

This is the plot described at a very basic level. There are a number of additional subplots which seem unrelated to the narrative, yet serve to emphasise the type of world this is and sound a cautionary note about the direction of modern society. Sam's mother Ida (Helmond) receives frequent facelifts, and this highlights humanity's innate obsession with physical perfection. Jack (Palin) has a smiling ability to ignore the woes of his actions, which reflects politicians and company executives who defend their position without considering the consequences to others. Added to this is all the paperwork, whereby every act requires a signed form with a stamped receipt. While many would scoff if Brazil was filed under "Comedy", this is what the film is at its core - a sharp, comedic satire of the Information Age. The mockery is rarely subtle, yet it's frequently dead-on. Plus, a smattering of amusing physical humour is also on offer from time to time.

Throughout Brazil, a number of conflicting dichotomies are set up by Gilliam in order to pose difficult, complicated questions. It's key to the understanding of the film to realise that absolutely no answers are offered here, and there's no right or wrong. In this way, Gilliam capably engages his audience in a fashion that most moviemakers would baulk at, and he risked alienating and confounding those watching his flick. Clearly, Gilliam desired for his viewers to understand that nothing in life is understandable, and life has no clear-cut corners or any easily conceived answers. With this in mind, Brazil could have been a pretentious, artsy slog, but it's enthralling.

As the most visual member of the Monty Python troupe, it's unsurprisingly that Gilliam ended up as the most prolific filmmaker of the bunch. Brazil transpires within two different realms: the dreary "reality" where Sam spends his waking hours, and the airy fantasy world of Sam's dreams. Gilliam has always had a penchant for breathtaking visuals, and this is strongly evident in the various dream sequences peppered throughout the movie. Sam's reality, on the other hand, has been infused with a 1940s noir feel - more or less a view of what the '80s may have looked like from the perspective of a filmmaker from the '40s. Additionally, the mark of Gilliam's genius is that his visual gags clearly communicate the tyranny of a bureaucratic state. As a result, a 10-year-old could watch Brazil and grasp its message. Perhaps the best definition of Brazil comes from French directors Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet: "retro-futurism".

Due to the film's somewhat downbeat nature, Universal executives deemed Gilliam's initial edit unsuitable for release. They desired a picture with wide appeal, rather than an "art house movie". A re-edited version was thus sanctioned that later Gilliam disowned, which has since been dubbed as the "Love Conquers All" bastardisation. The entire "Battle over Brazil" (as it was called) basically boiled down to a public war of words between Gilliam and Universal executive Sid Sheinberg. In the end, Gilliam triumphed and his cut was the version that entered multiplexes. To gain this victory, Gilliam arranged a series of unauthorised screenings for Los Angeles-area movie critics, who in turn named it 1985's Best Picture. Somewhat embarrassed that a film he was holding from release was honoured in such a way, Sheinberg admitted defeat.

At the centre of the movie is Jonathan Pryce's exceptional portrayal of Sam Lowry. The role was written with Pryce in mind, and he responded by submitting this brilliantly nuanced performance of a mousy man desperate to be someone heroic. Gilliam reportedly had trouble casting the part of Jill Layton, and after filming he was dissatisfied with Kim Greist's work, so he cut down her screen-time. Considering this behind-the-scenes dilemma, Greist is surprisingly strong, though she is not as remarkable as the remainder of the cast. Meanwhile, Python regular Michael Palin managed to use his charm to emphasise the duality of his character; loving husband one moment, bureaucratic sleaze the next. Comedian Katherine Helmond's portrayal of Ida is replete with a dash of mad humour, while Ian Holm played Mr. Kurtzmann as a typical bureaucrat. Robert De Niro provided the star power of Brazil, and fought alongside Terry Gilliam for the film's American release. His appearance amounts to a cameo, which was quite a change for the star.

Brazil clocks in at over two hours, which is admittedly a tad long and thus the film tends to drag from time to time. This criticism aside, Brazil is a must-see. If you love Gilliam's work, see this film without hesitation. For those unfamiliar with his films, this is the best introduction to Gilliam's filmography. Interestingly, as many critics have noted, the film is startlingly prophetic. Movie-goers in 1985 scoffed at the concept of terrorists infiltrating the government, and the notion of police arresting people and holding them indefinitely in a secret prison to be tortured. They also scoffed at a world overwhelmed by technology, and where privacy is merely a word. Food for thought.

"See that clock on the wall? In five minutes you are not going to believe what I've told you."

For David Lynch, 1986's Blue Velvet was the motion picture which cemented his moviemaking credentials in a way that his prior efforts were unable to achieve. Such is the reputation of Lynch in the 21st Century that it's easy to forget that back in 1986 he was only predominantly recognised for his directorial efforts on The Elephant Man. Aside from the low-budget '80s cult favourite Eraserhead, Lynch had not yet found an outlet in which he could exercise his unique talent for darkly comic drama and visual poetry. Blue Velvet changed this, and consequently Lynch was never again a gun for hire on a movie which was not written or conceived by him. When cinema pundits refer to something as "Lynchian", they are typically referencing the stylistic approach and themes which are on full display in Blue Velvet. A thematically rich, disturbing, enthralling tour de force, the film peels back the curtains of picturesque American suburbia to shed light on the seedy underside which is rarely seen. In this way, it's the cinematic cousin of Sam Mendes' American Beauty.

In the sleepy, picturesque town of Lumberton, USA, young Jeffrey Beaumont (MacLachlan) is utterly bored with his life. After Jeffrey's father is hospitalised upon suffering a heart attack, Jeffrey has no choice but to help with the family business. While wandering through the fields near his home one afternoon, Jeffrey unexpectedly discovers a severed human ear. He takes it to the local police station where Detective Williams (Dickerson) opens an investigation. When he's bluntly told by Williams to forget his discovery, Jeffrey's curiosity is piqued and he becomes determined to solve the mystery himself with some assistance from Williams' daughter Sandy (Dern). Before long, a dark, seedy and evil side of town begins to surface, as Jeffrey encounters washed-up lounge singer Dorothy Vallens (Rossellini) and the out-of-control Frank Booth (Hopper), as well as a cavalcade of characters who are far removed from small-town sweetness.

Among the many pleasures of Blue Velvet is watching the multi-layered, intricate mystery unravel and develop. Consequently, it would be criminal to spoil anything else. The narrative is completely unpredictable, and the fusion of plot-based thriller, erotic drama, noir and surrealism makes this a truly enthralling experience. Blue Velvet is undoubtedly at the more conventional end of the Lynch spectrum, as the story moves in an uncomplicated, linear direction. Interestingly, the first act plays out like an edgy, '40s film noir pastiche. During this section, it does not take long to become drawn into the quirky but warm world and become intrigued by the mystery at the centre of the film. From here, however, Lynch steers the film in another direction - slowly and inexorably, the tension levels are ratcheted up as Jeffrey's investigation intensifies and crosses the line into voyeurism. Once Frank Booth enters the picture, though, everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Blue Velvet is also a masterpiece of style and atmosphere. Lynch generated an effective noir feel, but the movie is additionally permeated with a small-town essence, and these two feelings mix together to generate a unique look and feel.

Blue Velvet's opening sequence is a tour de force. Images are shown which are exported from the American Dream, with perfect houses complemented by white picket fences and immaculately manicured yards. Suddenly, the happiness vanishes as a man collapses to the ground. The camera follows him before burrowing into the ground; parting the blades of grass to reveal a colony of swarming bugs. This image conveys that perfection often hides deeply-rooted rot; that dreams can easily turn into nightmares; and that corruption is everywhere. Essentially, this opening scene holds the whole of Blue Velvet in microcosm; the contention that a malevolent rash of violence and moral decay festers underneath the surface of the American Dream. In this sense, Blue Velvet is a very downbeat picture. As a matter of fact, the only hint of optimism comes at the end: the sun emerges, the sky is blue, a jolly robin appears, and everything seems right in the world. Again, a veneer of perfection is presented. But then the robin is seen holding a beetle in its beak. The movie has thus come full circle brilliantly. It emphasises that the American Dream may be alive and well, but the rot and corruption nonetheless remains beneath the surface...ready to emerge at any time.

As Jeffrey Beaumont, Kyle MacLachlan is the perfect clean-cut boy. MacLachlan afforded a sense of innocence to the part which serves him well, and it's due to this quality that we can identity with the character as he begins his downward spiral into Dorothy and Frank's hellish world. In the role of Sandy, a young Laura Dern is the essential embodiment of the prim and proper good girl. Alongside this pair, Isabella Rossellini's performance is outstanding. Rossellini was able to capture the full breadth of Dorothy's complex personality - her vulnerability, degeneracy, desperation and longing, as well as her hatred for Frank and need for him. In all of her scenes, it's clear that Dorothy is mentally unstable and borderline psychotic, and Rossellini conveyed this with aplomb.

Also in the cast is Dennis Hopper. In his lifetime, Hopper played a number of vicious creatures, but never before or since did Hopper essay a role as sinister and purely evil as Frank; one of the most horrific, spine-chilling villains to grace the silver screen. Another masterstroke was to use Roy Orbison's song In Dreams during a number of Hopper's scenes. The tune contributes to the haunting disposition of these sequences, and, consequently, you will never hear the song the same way ever again. In Frank, Hopper and Lynch created such a spellbinding character that they inadvertently introduced the film's sole downfall - whenever Hopper is not around, the film is never as enthralling as it is whenever Hopper is on-screen. In fact, the lack of Hopper causes sluggish patches from time to time.

There is no doubt that Blue Velvet is full of disturbing moments, most of which involve sadomasochistic behaviour, degradation, sex, and elements of an even darker nature. But it is due to the inclusion of these moments that Blue Velvet succeeds in becoming a true masterpiece in all senses of the world, as none of these elements feel gratuitous or exploitative. Instead, the confrontational material is an intrinsic part of the story and mood, as these terrible things are part of everyday life in this quiet, peaceful little town. It drives the point home that no town is perfect, because something dark is always lurking beneath the surface called human nature. Thus, Blue Velvet is not an easy watch by any stretch, nor is it for people who like to watch pleasant, huggable movies. Those who can stomach this content, however, will find Lynch's movie to be the indisputable masterpiece that it is. And the more you re-watch the movie, you more you will appreciate it.

"It's been 84 years, and I can still smell the fresh paint. The china had never been used. The sheets had never been slept in. Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was."

With its budget said to have exceeded a whopping $200 million, James Cameron's Titanic was the most expensive motion picture in history upon its 1997 release. During production, the cards were heavily stacked against the movie; it starred commercially unproven actors, the story was derided as a Romeo and Juliet rip-off, and the film ran over-budget. Yet, nothing but phenomenal success welcomed Titanic - it eclipsed expectations, dominated the Academy Awards, and earned over $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office, making it the highest grossing film in history at the time. (The record was only beaten by Cameron's follow-up project, 2009's Avatar.) Grand in scope and emotion, Titanic proves that epic sagas in the tradition of Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur are not a thing of the past, and can still be successful and profitable in a modern age.

In April 1912, the "unsinkable" R.M.S. Titanic struck an iceberg and sank in the Atlantic Ocean during its maiden voyage, claiming the lives of 1,500 people. Titanic does not open in 1912, however - it begins in the late 1990s, when a salvage expedition is underway to recover a priceless diamond thought to have gone down with the famous ship. When the team recovers a drawing from the wreck of a young woman wearing the diamond, the discovery catches the eye of 100-year-old Rose Calvert (Stuart), who claims to be the female subject of the artwork. On a visit to the research ship over the wreck, Rose is drawn into telling her personal account of Titanic's ill-fated maiden voyage. Engaged to wealthy millionaire Caledon Hockley (Zane), the youthful Rose DeWitt Bukater (now played by Winslet) boarded the Titanic utterly bored with the life she was forced into. While contemplating suicide in a moment of desperation, Rose meets third class passenger Jack Dawson (DiCaprio) who compels her to reconsider. In following days, a romance begins to form between them, but it is placed in jeopardy due to the class separation. Not to mention, further peril emerges when the Titanic strikes an iceberg on that fateful night.

Short of discovering time travel, James Cameron's Titanic is the closest that any film-goer will get to exploring Titanic's decks. In each of his prior motion pictures, Cameron - who is a very hands-on filmmaker - has continued to push the special effects envelope in groundbreaking and inspiring ways. Clearly, each film for Cameron is not just another day at the office but another revolutionary breakthrough for cinema, and Titanic continues this tradition. From bow to stern, the unsinkable Titanic truly comes alive in breathtaking and awe-inspiring ways, blurring the line of what's real and what's digital through a seamless combination of enormous sets, model work, and flawless computer-generated imagery. At no point will viewers be consciously aware that digital effects are on the screen, which is a tremendous feat for a late-'90s film. It's impossible to overstate how flawless the recreation of the ship truly is, and the illusion is never broken - we always feel as if we're aboard the real Titanic. At certain times, Cameron even inserted genuine footage of the Titanic wreck lying on the bottom of the ocean floor, contributing to the sense of verisimilitude surrounding the production.

Many people understandably chortled at the prospect of a $200 million feature film with a foregone ending. However, while other cinematic retellings of the sinking of the Titanic were admittedly somewhat marred by a predictable narrative trajectory, Cameron's movie is about far more than an ocean liner sinking in the Atlantic Ocean. While some of the focus is on the disaster, Titanic is primarily a love story. Most blockbuster directors like Michael Bay prefer to use a thin story as an excuse for mindless special effects self-indulgence, but James Cameron uses special effects to serve his storytelling. Cameron is also a director able to generate emotional power amidst the spectacle, and Titanic reinforces this. It's challenging to not be genuinely invested in Jack and Rose's relationship by the time the iceberg enters the equation. Given that 2,200 souls were on-board the Titanic as she sank, it would have been easy to cram the film with lots of characters within lots of stories. However, the story of Jack and Rose is kept at the fore from beginning to end, and the camera only occasionally leaves their side for scenes of historical clarification.

During the sinking sequences, Cameron found time to craft some of the most powerful and emotionally devastating images of his career. Despite the rising water levels, Titanic's band continues to play on her decks, and the band's final tune - Nearer, My God, to Thee - gives way to a heart-wrenching montage. Also heartbreaking are the images of this absolutely beautiful ship being obliterated by the harsh ocean, such as the flooding of the Grand Staircase (and, for that matter, the breaking of the luxurious dome) and the ship's splitting. Most affecting of all, though, are the shots of hundreds upon hundreds of people thrashing about in the freezing sea, giving way to a field of floating, frozen corpses. Perhaps the most definitive touch was supplied by James Horner: the score. This epic tale required an epic score, and Horner was up to the task; providing an immaculate brew of intimate music for the quieter scenes, grandiose music to suit the sweeping imagery, pulse-pounding music to amplify the intensity of the sinking, and emotionally affecting music to underscore the tragedy of the fateful night. Anyone who watches this movie without getting a tear in their eye is a stronger man than this reviewer...

Titanic is often criticised for not focusing enough on historical detail. Admittedly, there are a few inaccuracies (the collapsible boats were inaccurately constructed here, for instance), while the stories of both the Californian (a ship in eyesight of the Titanic as she sank) and the Carpathia (a ship which answered the Titanic's distress call but did not arrive in time) were omitted. But the aim of Cameron's movie was not to provide the definitive retelling of the disaster, but to tell an account of the Titanic's sinking from a certain vantage point. The camera never leaves the decks of the doomed ocean liner as she sinks, which is beneficial for both the pacing and the building of intoxicating tension.

In the lead roles, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are both utterly flawless. As Jack Dawson, DiCaprio is likable, energetic and passionate, all of which were vital characteristics for bringing the part to life. Meanwhile, Winslet (who espouses a believable American accent) is stunning as Rose - the actress always appears completely focused and committed to the material. Alongside this pair is Billy Zane, who's a convincing villain; snobby, arrogant and dislikeable. He was joined by the equally commendable David Warner (who was in the TV mini-series S.O.S. Titanic in the '70s) as his no-nonsense manservant. The supporting cast, most of whom starred as characters from history, is excellent from top to bottom, including Bernard Hill as the Captain E.J. Smith and Walter Garber who makes for a very convincing, likable Thomas Andrews. Also worth mentioning is Kathy Bates whose portrayal of "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" never strikes a false chord, and Jonathan Hyde whose portrayal of Bruce Ismay is wonderfully conceited.

It's unfortunate that Titanic gets a lot of hate, and is frequently belittled as a lousy, cheesy chick flick. The criticisms are completely unfounded and unfair, as this is a wonderful motion picture which deserves its success and acclaim. However, in spite of its strengths, Titanic is not perfect. There are illogicalities (Rose knows of Sigmund Freud's work, yet it was not translated into English until a number of years after the disaster), some blatant technical faults (apparently this is the most goof-ridden film of all time) and a smattering of cheesy melodrama. More information about the science behind the sinking would have been valuable as well. Although it is possible to overlook these faults while experiencing this glorious motion picture, I cannot brand Titanic with a 5-star rating and call it perfect. I may love the movie, but I am a realist.

A dud ending could have destroyed Titanic, and the odds were against Cameron in this respect. After all, how could he possibly give satisfying closure to the story of a tragic disaster wrapped around such an affecting romance fable? Fortunately, the proceedings close with a beautiful, emotionally resonant scene that does the film justice and reverberates across the happenings of the past three hours. All things considered, James Cameron's Titanic is a dazzling work of cinematic art, and a remarkable mixture of style and substance. It runs for a daunting three hours, yet the time flies by with immaculate brevity. Most may not regard this as the best telling of the story of the Titanic disaster to date, but it's inarguably the most memorable and spectacular. After watching Titanic, you'll be in awe of the visual experience and teary-eyed because of the enormous emotive power as large as the ship itself.

"They've sent us a message... that they can take whatever they want. Well we will send them a message. That this... this is our land!"

With 2009's Avatar, visionary director James Cameron proves that there's at least one filmmaker in Hollywood capable of putting a $300 million budget (or was it $500 million?) to good use. Cameron's first feature film outing since 1997's Titanic, this hotly-touted flick has spent years brewing in post-production and triggered fevered discussion about the possibilities of its revolutionary digital effects (developed in part by the hands-on director himself). Up until the mid-months of 2009, Avatar had been shrouded in secrecy (dedicated internet fanboys can attest to this fact), but one thing was made clear: it would be a groundbreaking cinematic event, and the advanced motion-capture technology would elevate filmmaking to the next level. While the storytelling and characterisations admittedly remain stuck in the past, Avatar is visual moviemaking 2.0 in an extremely satisfying and exhilarating way. As long as you're not one of those people who've made up their minds prior to viewing Cameron's latest masterwork (in other words, if you're not one of those who brand the film as a Fern Gully rip-off and criticise the CGI as videogame-calibre), Avatar is a tremendously rewarding, soulful experience.

Set in the year 2154, the Earth is dying and faraway planets are being targeted for strip-mining. In a neighbouring star system lies the exotic-but-deadly planet of Pandora; the source of an ultra-valuable mineral known as Unobtainium. Naturally, a sinister corporation has set up base on the planet and wishes to commence their operation. Standing in their way, however, is the indigenous population of Pandora - the Na'vi; a race of tall, blue-skinned tree-dwellers whose civilisation rests atop possibly the richest deposit of Unobtainium in existence, but have no desire to relocate. Enter the "Avatar" program, which sees people transfer their consciousness to half-human, half-Na'vi hybrids which can be controlled telepathically. It's hoped that through this program, the aliens can be gently persuaded to move out of mankind's way. Soon, a disabled ex-marine named Jake Sully (Worthington) is unwillingly thrust into the situation when his twin brother suddenly dies. Through using his Avatar, Jake is accepted as part of a Na'vi tribe and falls in love with a female Na'vi warrior named Neytiri (Saldana). With an epic battle for the fate of Pandora drawing dangerously close, Jake must choose his side.

Cameron wastes no time before plunging viewers straight into the world of Pandora; not even allowing any time for an audience to adjust to this breathtaking new technology. In a masterfully efficient opening 10 minutes, writer-director Cameron introduces everything one will need to know for the following 2½ hours - about Pandora's climate and population, about Jake's situation, about the ruthless plans of the humans and about the Avatar program. From that point onwards, the film is off and running. At an intimidating 160 minutes, Avatar never feels too long or flabby - there's just so much movie crammed into these 160 epic minutes: the human stories, the Na'vi stories, the bio-diversity of the planet, and above all the warfare, with Jake joining the resistance against his former allies. While things are slowed down for the middle hour as Jake's infiltration operation gestates, it's astonishing how brilliantly-paced the film is. Unlike other CGI-heavy movies against which Avatar will be judged (including the abominable Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Terminator Salvation), Cameron's movie is superbly constructed; using all 160 minutes to judiciously build characters and establish relationships before all the strands culminate for an epic, action-packed climax. Since such a perfect emotional connection is built, a viewer will care about what happens to the protagonists and the Na'vi tribe.

In terms of storyline, Avatar offers nothing unprecedented. The plot is reminiscent of the likes of Dances with Wolves and The New World, in which a 'civilised' westerner lives amongst a supposedly backwards society and slowly sides with the noble savages. Heck, the characters are largely predictable too. But in the context of the movie, all these elements come together perfectly. The fact that it all succeeds is a testament to Cameron's skill at working formula and familiar story elements with a skilful dexterity very few can match. Of course, Avatar is not just about spectacle and action (though both elements are offered in spades) - it's primarily a love story. This is hardly surprising, of course, since more or less every Cameron film is a love story at its core (Titanic, The Terminator, etc). The surprise here is the effectiveness of the central coupling, thanks in large part to Weta's staggering digital effects. It's impossible to overstate how real the Na'vi look; every facial movement, and every movement in general seems organic. They may not always appear photo-real, but they do seem alive. The dead-eye problem plaguing motion capture movies for years has been well and truly solved - these CGI characters are imbued with a soul.

James Cameron and his crew created Pandora from the ground up using a mixture of motion-capture techniques and computer-generated animation. As a result, Avatar is an astonishing feast for the eyes, with ethereal, invigorating shots and sequences genuinely unlike anything you've ever seen before. The level of immersive detail displayed in this tour de force is extraordinary. But the true success is in the seamlessness - not a single shot stands out as blatant green screen. Live-action and digital elements are so skilfully integrated that the point where the live-action ceases and the digital effects begin is impossible to determine, which ensures the illusion is unbroken. Pandora truly feels like a living, breathing world, and it's as if Cameron is the planet's most enthusiastic tour guide. James Horner's score, meanwhile, is atmospheric and appropriate; gloriously supporting the exotic beauty of the jungles of Pandora (though it lacks a memorable underlying theme as a hook).

One thing that distinguishes Cameron from young pretenders like Michael Bay and McG is that he anchors his epic visions with relatable emotions handled with utmost sincerity. Of course, it also helps that Cameron remains one of the best action directors in the business. Avatar concludes with a climactic showdown between human and Na'vi forces - it's a battle royale of excitement, thrills and tragedy that's both truly epic and rivetingly intimate. It's a wonder to behold. In a decade where action choreography is constantly masked by frantic editing, Cameron proves himself once again to be the old-school master. Younger filmmakers should also take note of the prudent use of 3-D which is perceived as an enhancement rather than a gimmick. Cameron never garishly breaks the fourth wall since the 3-D is employed to generate a sense of depth - a viewer feels like they're glancing into an open window of another world. Never before has the effect felt so unintrusive; never before has CGI felt so natural, necessary and alive. If you plan to see the film in 2-D via DVD or a downloaded version filmed from within a cinema...there's no talking to you. Avatar is a cinematic experience and an event, not a mere film.

It's crucial to note that, in most cases, cinematic displays of new technology are rubbish. The technology is usually then refined, and applied to a superior movie. But this is not good enough for James Cameron, who has managed to push the boundaries with new technology while simultaneously creating an excellent, full-throttle piece of entertainment. Avatar is also rather reminiscent of the great epics of yesteryear - from Spartacus to Gone with the Wind. Such classics relied on universal themes and enthralling characters to drive their sprawling narratives, and Avatar is no different. It's stirring drama on a vast canvas painted with broad brush-strokes, and the audience is powerless to prevent themselves from being swept up in the action and emotion.

As Jake Sully, Sam Worthington places forth a charming and spellbinding performance (both in and out of his Avatar). His soulful eyes are an asset; a quality that's retained and magnified in his Na'vi form. Zoe Saldana, however, is the standout as Neytiri. For her entire performance she plays behind a CGI face, yet she makes Neytiri into a thoroughly multi-faceted character endowed with a fully conveyed emotional personality. Witnessing Sigourney Weaver re-teaming with James Cameron is a joy (a good omen, since Aliens is one of Cameron's best film). Even if it's only a small part, Weaver's role as the chief scientist is a memorable and integral part of the narrative.
Every minor character - no matter how clichéd - is played with gusto and earnestness by the marvellous cast (a group of talented thespians, rather than big stars). Stephen Lang clearly relished the opportunity to play the evil Colonel Quaritch. Also in the cast is an underused but nonetheless extremely effective Michelle Rodriguez as a sympathetic pilot, on top of the endearing Giovanni Ribisi who's pitch-perfect as another corporate scumbag.

In creating Avatar, James Cameron additionally inserts undertones relating to corporate greed, as well as complex questions about what it means to be human. Underneath the spectacle are subtle equivalences to the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, but these are not restricted by any means - the story is broad enough to apply to any indigenous race under threat from superior external imperialist forces. Avatar clearly sides with the Na'vi population, and portrays the Americans as the monsters. Some might find the environmental message of the film too preachy, but it never shoves openly this agenda down our throats; it simply sits beneath the surface, ripe for analysis if we choose to dig further. In spite of its strengths, Avatar does lean slightly towards spectacle over script; the story is no dud, but while discussing the movie you'll be inclined to discuss what you've seen, rather than quote lines (there's no killer banter). Minor script flaws aside, this is a superb blockbuster. It has to be seen on the big screen - in 3-D, no less.

"How long will it last, Woody? Do you really think Andy is going to take you to college, or on his honeymoon? Andy's growing up, and there's nothing you can do about it."

In 1995, Toy Story impacted the realm of cinematic animation forever; swapping sentiment and hand-drawn 2-D images for something distinctly more multi-dimensional. The first entirely digitally animated feature film, Toy Story was a worldwide smash, and, especially after the success of A Bug's Life (Pixar's follow-up feature), a sequel was inevitable. While originally envisioned as a 60-minute straight-to-video effort (reminiscent of the sequels to Aladdin and The Lion King), the folks at Disney sensibly realised that Toy Story 2 was of superior quality and demanded theatrical distribution. Thank God this decision came to pass, because Toy Story 2 is a top-notch follow-up which is larger in scope but retains the charms of the original film. This is also a rare instance of a sequel being more successful than its predecessor both critically and at the box office. It cost $90 million to produce (three times more than Toy Story), and earned approximately $485 million at the box office.

Reminiscent of its predecessor, the narrative of Toy Story 2 concerns the toys in young Andy's room pulling together in order to rescue a lost toy. During a yard sale, the spirited cowboy doll Woody (Hanks) heads out to rescue a friend, but ends up being stolen by diabolical toy collector Al (Knight). See, Woody is a rare relic from the 1950s. Al stole Woody in order to complete the set to which he belongs since he intends to sell the toys to a Japanese museum. Thus, Woody is reunited with the rest of his "Round Up Gang", including cowgirl Jessie (Cusack), horse Bullseye, and Stinky Pete the Prospector (Grammer). Leading the rescue effort is determined action figure Buzz Lightyear (Allen), followed by a motley crew of toys: Mr. Potato Head (Rickles), Rex the dinosaur (Shawn), Slinky Dog (Varney), and Hamm the piggy bank (Ratzenberger).

Once again, Pixar crafted an animated magnum opus with Toy Story 2, with a charming cast of delightful characters and a masterclass screenplay offering spirited humour and high-flying adventure. At its core, the original Toy Story was a movie about friendship and the importance of love in everyone's life, and this quality is retained in Toy Story 2. The toys are important to Andy (the young boy who owns them) because they're his pals, Andy is important to the toys because he lets them feel needed, and the toys are important to each other because life is meaningless without interpersonal relationships. On top of this, Toy Story 2 possesses an unexpectedly potent power triggered by an underlying story strand about toys pondering their fate once they become broken or replaced, or their owner outgrows them. A curious poignancy stems from the knowledge that the characters have a limited lifespan.

While Toy Story slyly poked fun at American pop culture, the filmmakers responsible for Toy Story 2 had an all-out party. Barbie dolls make an appearance here, and the notion of toy collectors gets a sharp grilling. In addition to this, the black-and-white segments of the old Woody's Round-Up television show simultaneously pay tribute and poke fun at the old children's TV shows which featured marionettes. With all these elements in place, those behind Toy Story 2 further expanded upon the idea of what can be done in a toy movie. There's even self-referential humour (such as cameos from the cast of A Bug's Life), and exhilarating set-pieces galore, culminating in a breathtaking finale that's epic in scope and scale.

Thankfully, the voice cast is equally as brilliant in this sequel. The principal actors all made their return here - Tom Hanks as Woody, Tim Allen as Buzz, Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head, Wallace Shawn as Rex, and many others, all of whom are impeccable in their respective roles. Toy Story 2 also boasts several new additions to the cast: Joan Cusack as Jessie, Kelsey Grammer as Stinky Pete, Wayne Knight as the unscrupulous Al, and Jodi Benson (who voiced Ariel in The Little Mermaid) as Tour Guide Barbie. Additionally, Toy Story director John Lasseter returned to co-direct the sequel with Lee Unkrich (who went on to helm Toy Story 3), meaning the spirit of the original film remains. One also has to marvel how far the animation had come since Toy Story, and how quickly. As the result of four years of advances, movement is far more fluid, humans are more lifelike, and hair is considerably more realistic. The camerawork is more interesting as well, with an effort to duplicate the type of shots obtained through live-action cinematography. For instance, lighting and filters are used to establish a mood (the flashbacks during Jessie's song), and techniques are employed at times to suggest depth of field (background images being blurred).

You would have to be a joyless curmudgeon not to be entertained by Toy Story 2. The balance between content for kids and content for adults is almost perfect. Toy Story 2 hits all the right notes, and proves that not all sequels are inferior to their predecessor. In fact, many have called this the Godfather: Part II of the animation realm. Who am I to argue with that? Once again, the film's box office performance prompted a sequel: Toy Story 3 in 2010.

"Directive?"

To the untrained eye, Disney-Pixar's WALL-E probably appears to be just another ordinary animated family film or just another commonplace Pixar escapade. But WALL-E should not be carelessly dismissed with these misleading labels. Director Andrew Stanton (who was behind 2003's Finding Nemo) has created a masterpiece on the same level as recent films like There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth and even The Departed. Put very frankly, this is a marvellous film with infinite appeal.

Over the past few years, Pixar's annual line-up usually receives its fair share of acclaim (from critics and audiences alike). In 2007, it was Ratatouille that had the Oscar committee talking. Other memorable titles include 2004's The Incredibles and 2006's Cars. Further animated films (courtesy of DreamWorks) include Madagascar, Shrek and several others. But 2008's WALL-E is an unprecedented event in both animated feature films and contemporary filmmaking in general. Through my eyes, this masterpiece deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Picture at the very least. No, not Best Animated Picture...I'm talking about the daddy Oscar statuette of Best Picture. I'm not the only person discussing this possibility, so that must tell you something.
This is a movie that the critics are raving about, and audiences are warmly receiving. The box office numbers are enough to convince you of that fact. As of late 2008, the film still holds a resounding rank on IMDb's Top 250. As much as it pains me to admit, I thought the hype and acclaim was ridiculous, and I misleadingly labelled the film as childish rubbish. However I'm extremely glad that I took a chance and gave this film a shot.

In the future, humans have abandoned Earth. WALL-E (voiced by Burtt) is the last of his kind: a small robot manufactured by the Buy-N-Large Corporation, created with the objective of cleaning up the rubbish left by humans. WALL-E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) lives a lonely life as he carries out the same routine everyday. He's a robot whose vocabulary never stretches past three words, and his sole friend is a mute cockroach. WALL-E spends his entire day rummaging through the rubbish. He compresses mounds of garbage into cubes (he also collects rubbish he finds fascinating - one man's garbage is another robot's treasure) by day, then spends his evenings watching Hello, Dolly! and longing for romance. Things drastically change for WALL-E when a robot known as EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, voiced by Knight) lands on his planet. It's love at first mechanised heart-beep. WALL-E and EVE are soon entangled in an outlandish space adventure with a host of fascinating robot characters.

So what makes WALL-E the masterpiece that has everyone talking? There are a number of reasons.
For starters, the animated is top drawer. All landscapes and locations are gorgeously rendered, to the extent that an audience will be stunned at the technological capabilities of modern computers.
Secondly, the kids will have an absolute ball. Even the adults will sit in awe. WALL-E will commendably keep both the kiddies and adults entertained for its entire running time. Thirdly, the film has great relevance to a modern society that's becoming increasingly reliant on technology. The film essentially acts as a social commentary. While the kids are greatly entertained, an adult will be able to comfortably absorb the film's underlying themes. It's a "green" theme that imbues the proceedings. Humans are depicted as obese, obsolete couch potatoes who rely on technology for their every whim. They no longer walk, and a transparent screen allows them to communicate with each other (even if they're sitting in arm's length). The human race aren't human anymore...in fact the robot characters are more humane. The implication is that this future isn't far off.

WALL-E is also a total blast: it's creative, clever, charming and comedic. You'll be laughing at the Chaplin-esque slapstick on offer, and you'll be sighing at the beautifully tender nature of the little robot. The film conveys a poignant and moving love story. It's an odd-couple romance tale that will strike a tone with its audience depending on generational reference points. There are traces of Charlie Chaplin and Virginia Cherrill in City Lights, Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in Titanic, with traces of Star Wars and E.T. thrown in for good measure (there's also a slight dash of Shrek and Princess Fiona). This may be a love story between mechanical robots, but it's incredibly heart-warming and appealing.

The final factor that ensures this film is an absolute masterpiece is that it will never grow outdated. DreamWorks animated movies are filled with pop culture references, whereas WALL-E is devoid of them. The character of WALL-E enjoys watching the musical Hello, Dolly! and at one stage we see him indulging in a game of Pong on an old monitor. Had this been a DreamWorks picture, WALL-E would be watching High School Musical and playing Halo 3 on an X-Box 360. This denotes the difference between the two animation studios: in fifty years WALL-E will play flawlessly to a new audience who will laugh at the timeless slapstick, whereas a DreamWorks film (after the pop culture references lose their potency) will play to almost complete silence. Yes, I do enjoy DreamWorks films such as Shrek (the first one...and the first one only!) and Over the Hedge, but it's doubtful that they'll hold up in later years.

Like Pixar's previous films, the meaning of WALL-E is deeper and more profound than the merchandising prospects found therein. The film is undoubtedly a love story, but it's also a story about staying true to your own heart in the insipidly malevolent face of authority. The film is a moving tale about saving the small things and treasuring the world you exist in, regardless of how imperfect its surface may seem.
Andrew Stanton won an Oscar in 2004 for his previous animation film Finding Nemo. Now the director has unquestionably earned his place in the pantheon of animation pioneers. With WALL-E, Stanton has taken not only the art of animation, but the art of storytelling to new and unimaginable heights. Previous landmark science fiction masterpieces include Star Wars and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. To me, WALL-E is the next landmark sci-fi masterpiece in the form of a simple animated family feature.
Perhaps the only drawback would be a script that turns formulaic in its final quarter. The concluding few scenes had me riveted in my seat, but in the long run most of it wasn't overly necessary. And the customary happy ending is quite predictable. However 80% of the film cleverly circumvents the clichés.

For an animated movie aimed at an ordinary family audience, WALL-E is unbeatable. The visuals are masterful, the animation is absolutely beautiful, the storytelling is fairly original and there are laughs aplenty. This film has a right to take its place alongside Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille and the countless other additions to the Pixar canon. To this day, WALL-E is definitely the best animated family movie in existence!

"We've done our duty. Andy's grown up."

Even for a consistently-reliable studio like Pixar, the notion of Toy Story 3 seemed risky due to the time-honoured tradition of part threes being unnecessary and below-par. The Godfather: Part III, Lethal Weapon 3, Batman Forever, Terminator 3, Alien 3, Jurassic Park 3 and Superman III are a few examples of "threequels" which took a drastic nose-dive in quality after two solid forerunners. But Toy Story 3 is not an addition to this list. Not even close. The folks over at Pixar Studios have done it again; extending their unparalleled streak of success stretching all the way back to the original Toy Story in 1995 (their feature-length debut). Arriving 15 years after the first film and 11 years after the sequel, Toy Story 3 is every bit as brilliant as its predecessors and one of the best movies of 2010.

Elements of the narrative are best left unspoiled, so only a brief synopsis will be included here. When we last met Andy (Morris), he was a little kid who played with his toys all the time. Many years have elapsed, however, and now he's a much older lad packing for college. This leaves his toys - who have been relegated to a spot in an old chest - in a frenzied panic. Their numbers have steadily dwindled over the years, so only a small group remains, including Woody (Hanks), Buzz (Allen), Jesse (Cusack), Rex (Shawn), Hamm (Ratzenberger) and Mr. Potato Head (Rickles), just to name a few. While Andy had intended to place the majority of his old toys (save for Woody) in the attic, a Toy Story-style series of mix-ups leaves the toys being donated to a daycare centre. From here, a plot unfolds that's too delicious to spoil, but suffice it to say there is an escape plan of sorts involved here. Frankly, though, these are the very basic constituents of the plot - at its core, Toy Story 3 is a beautiful, vibrant tale about memories, mortality, the passing of time and how you treat people in your life.

This leads to a conclusion filled with action, comedy and pathos. Truth be told, the climax is a bit of overkill and there are bits & pieces which don't work, but this can easily be overlooked due to how perfectly the film ends. Anyone who felt the ending for Toy Story 2 was too optimistic will find Toy Story 3's ending to be far more satisfying, as the toys are confronted with their own mortality and are faced with their greatest foe of all: time. The conclusion for the trilogy works on different levels for different viewers - while the youngsters in the audience will understand the importance of friendship, mature-age audience members will find the ending to be a reminder of the fleeting nature of childhood and how all things pass in the blink of an eye. There's a particular moment which emphasises this point but will likely go unnoticed by the kids: Andy experiences an epiphany. This is conveyed so effectively through mere facial expressions rather than words, and this is precisely why Pixar's motion pictures achieve greater respect than those produced by their less ambitious competitors.

Do not mistake Toy Story 3 as a weepy, depressing drama, however - Toy Story 3 was designed to provide a good time, and heavens me it does exactly that. All the emotional moments of the movie do not arrive at the expense of enjoyment, as Toy Story 3 provides huge laughs and enjoyable set-pieces (and I'm not spoiling anything). In fact, this is one of the most effective and well-paced comedies of the year. No doubt you will be laughing from the get-go at the sight gags, the one-liners and the pop culture piss-takes. Director Lee Unkrich served as assistant director on three previous Pixar features, including Toy Story 2, and was therefore well-suited for the job. Unkrich's greatest talent is attention to detail, as every frame of Toy Story 3 is bursting with visual splendour and smart touches. The way the daycare centre becomes an Alcatraz is a stroke of genius - the slide in the playground becomes a watchtower, the bead mazes double as razor wire, and so on. It's astounding how much creativity went into the feature. Unkrich and writer Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) also clearly spent time watching pre-schoolers, as the film highlights the notion that an unattended child is a walking WMD.

Naturally, Pixar's animation techniques have improved tremendously in the 11 years between Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3. Added to this, the 3-D effects serve to enhance all the rich texture within every frame, such as the fur of Lotso (Beatty) and the flashy clothes Ken (Keaton) wears. In 3-D, Toy Story 3 is amazingly immersive. Also, most of the original voice cast made their return here, and slipped into their roles as if no time had passed. Even John Morris (now in his 20s) voiced Andy once again. Other returning cast members include Tom Hanks as Woody, Tim Allen as Buzz, Joan Cusack as Jesse, Wallace Shawn as Rex, and many others. The only missing cast member is Jim Varney who died in 2000; his role as Slinky Dog was filled by Blake Clark, and the change is seamless. There are an array of newcomers here, too, each of which are standouts. The scene-stealer here is Ken, voiced by Michael Keaton. Keaton has always had impeccable comic timing (see Beetlejuice) and this role fits him like a glove. Jodi Benson (or Ariel from The Little Mermaid) had a small part as Barbie in Toy Story 2, but her role is expanded here as she becomes Ken's plastic soul-mate. Meanwhile Ned Beatty is effective as Lotso, Timothy Dalton is terrific as Mr. Pricklepants, and Kristen Schaal did a great job as Trixie.

A hint of familiarity pervades Toy Story 3, yet it never feels overly derivative while you enjoy the experience, which is a testament to director Unkrich's masterful handling of the material. In a nutshell, the film is a rousing adventure, a delightful comedy, a thoughtful drama, and a treasured reunion with a beloved group of fictional pals, and it provides exceptional entertainment for viewers of all ages. Toy Story 3 is also a weeper, particularly during the final 15 minutes or so which are poignant and overwhelmingly affecting (even by Pixar's standards). Those irritating 3-D glasses may be beneficial for hiding all your tears. Altogether, the Toy Story movies take the breath away. What a terrific, mature trilogy this has turned out to be. Thank you, Pixar. Thank you for providing three wonderful animation gems, and for showing the world the difference between paycheck efforts and actual hard labour.

"What chance does a toy like me have against a Buzz Lightyear action figure?"

In 1995, Pixar Studios permanently altered and impacted the medium of animation. Prior to this, the concept of computer animation was merely an intriguing gimmick; a gambit which never seemed destined for greatness. Yet, John Lasseter and his skilled team of animators demonstrated the merit of feature-length CGI-animated movies, and 1995's Toy Story launched a whole new industry. Toy Story took international audiences by storm, inspired an artistic revolution, and was a tremendous box office success; taking in $360 million worldwide. Ever since, Pixar has never looked back, as they went on to produce other successful movies like Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, WALL-E, Up and more. Fortunately, Pixar's team frequently work to ensure their products contain genuine heart, style and substance; reminding us that with a slick new look and presentation, computer animation can exhibit the same qualities that made Disney's hand-drawn efforts so memorable.

Like most Pixar stories, the plot of Toy Story is not overly complicated. The idea is simple: when kids are not around, their toys come alive and enjoy an existence of their own. In the story, Woody (Hanks) is an old cowboy doll, and the favourite toy of the young Andy (Morris). Andy has a lot of additional toys in his room, including a Mr. Potato Head (Rickles), a plastic dinosaur (Shawn), a slinky dog (Varney), a piggy bank (Ratzenberger) and a tub of plastic army men. Andy's birthday is always a time of tension and anxiety for the toys, as it brings the threat of replacement. Alas, upon Andy's birthday the young boy receives a Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger action figure (Allen) which immediately steals Andy's attention away from Woody. This sparks a rivalry between Woody and Buzz, leading to both of them being accidentally jettisoned from the house.

Essentially, Toy Story is a buddy comedy (similar to the odd couple cop movies of the '80s) and an adventure film concerned with loss, rejection, acceptance, loyalty, action figures, and the value of friendship. The film's only drawback is how confined the action is and the lack of scope compared to later Pixar efforts. This is forgivable due to it being the first feature-length computer animated movie in history, but it's hard to ignore all these years on. Thankfully, the animation, while not as impressive these days considering the advances in the technology over subsequent years, is marvellous. Rich in detail (the grain of a wooden floor, reflections in polished surfaces, etc), the colourful, brilliantly-rendered animation represented a breakthrough. Toy Story was created on a reported budget of $30 million, and required approximately 110 staff members to produce. 300 computers were utilised to render the film, with each of the thousands of frames taking up to 15 hours to process. This is why multiple viewings are essential; one cannot fully appreciate the stunning craftsmanship on offer in a single sitting.

Director John Lasseter conceived the story and penned the script with a team of screenwriters. Among his co-writers was Pete Docter (who went on to direct Monsters, Inc. and Up), Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E), Joe Ranft (who contributed to the story for both The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast), Buffy creator Joss Whedon, as well as Joel Cohen and Alex Sokolow. The idea of toys coming to life is probably as ancient as toys themselves, and is perhaps something most children ponder. Expanding this old idea into a feature-length motion picture, however, necessitated creative ideas regarding the lives of toys. After all, if toys were in fact alive, they must possess a sense of their own existence and role in the universe, and these notions serve to anchor the film's most whimsical scenes as well as allow the toys to emerge as something other than mere plastic creations.

Toy Story is also solid evidence that, from the very beginning, the Pixar team had the patience to do everything correctly. The writers conceived sympathetic characters that audiences would care about, in addition to writing complex character arcs. To capitalise on the feature's nostalgia factor, real toys were used for the characters, with the exception of Woody and Buzz (though these two became toys after the film anyway). Disney veteran Randy Newman was hired to write the songs as well, which are both memorable and enjoyable (the picture's best song, You've Got a Friend, was nominated for an Oscar). Added to this, there's action and adventure, as well as humour which is balanced with moments of pathos. With accomplished artwork and animation bringing this to life, Toy Story is a delightful fable. If one was to sample the animated misfires of following years - Planet 51, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, even Pixar's Cars - one would realise what Toy Story could've been, and that the film didn't simply live and die by its technological advances.

The voiceover performances, meanwhile, are top-notch across the board, particularly Tom Hanks as Woody, Tim Allen as Buzz and John Ratzenberger as the wise piggy bank known as Hamm. There's even a memorable turn by R. Lee Ermey as the leader of the plastic army men. It's clear from Toy Story that the Pixar wizards wanted to cast actors who could create characters, rather than lend a fancy name to the poster for the sake of box office returns. Just as Disney fans will always have a soft spot for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the first hand-drawn animation feature), Pixar junkies will forever revere Toy Story, and rightfully so. It stands as a wonderful encapsulation of what Pixar is all about: excellent animation, witty dialogue, emotion, great stories and an impeccable voice cast. The film was followed by two sequels, beginning with Toy Story 2 in 1999.

Thomas Andrews: "She's going to sink, Captain."
Captain E.J. Smith: "But... She can't sink. She's unsinkable."
Thomas Andrews: "She can't float."

An adaptation of the excellent best-selling novel of the same name by Walter Lord, the docudrama A Night to Remember is to date the most focused and accurate cinematic portrayal of the sinking of the RMS Titanic. The film's proceedings begin with the launching of the 'unsinkable' ocean liner, which is about to embark on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean from Southhampton to New York City. Unfortunately, the night of April the 14th and 15th was a night in which man's overconfidence in their technological creations was shaken to its core. On this night, the legendary ocean liner struck an iceberg, and the much-touted watertight compartment system which supposedly rendered the ship unsinkable was not designed to cope with the extensive damage it received. As the ship was thought to be unsinkable, there were not enough lifeboats to save even half the passengers, and the sinking claimed in excess of 1,500 souls.

A Night to Remember predominantly tells the tale of the Titanic's sinking through the eyes of Second Officer C.H. Lightoller (More); one of the heroes who survived the disaster. Prior to the fateful night, Lightoller is portrayed as a competent, affable officer. Once the ship is doomed, however, and the harsh reality of the situation sets in, he is shown as a rare man who not only copes with the surrounding chaos but thrives in it; trying his best to maintain calm and save as many lives as possible.

Walter Lord's novel was noteworthy due to how comprehensively and exhaustively researched it was. Lord went to a lot of trouble tracking down survivors of the disaster in order to preserve their testimonials. This incredible attention to detail was carried over into the movie through a superbly constructed screenplay courtesy of Eric Ambler. Happily, during the conversion from novel to screenplay not many aspects of the historical record were compromised. A few minor changes were made, though - individuals were packaged together into "composite characters", and certain events were modified to heighten the dramatic impact. Also, the film does not depict the ship's splitting during its final moments, but this is easily forgivable since the splitting of the ship was not in the novel and was not confirmed until 1985 when the wreck was finally discovered. Aside from this, A Night to Remember tells the events of the Titanic disaster pretty much how they happened (at least as far as we can theorise). Titanic's fourth officer Joseph Boxhall even served as the film's technical advisor.

The finicky attention to detail was carried over into the production design. Whilst re-creating certain areas of the ship, photographs of the original Titanic were consulted. The production design is top-notch for a movie from the 1950s, while the special effects hold up as perfectly serviceable all these decades later. However, compared to the sheer grandeur of James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster Titanic, the special effects are underwhelming and the model shots are obvious (especially since no moving people are visible on the decks during model shots). This hardly detracts from the experience, however.

Interestingly, since the filmmakers had no access to footage of Titanic's launch, the filmmakers cleverly spliced together archival material depicting other, similar ships being launched. Although it's pretty noticeable that we're seeing different ships, it's an atmospheric touch. In addition, the actors hired to play the various historical figures were chosen not only on the basis of their ability to portray the roles convincingly, but also on account of their physical resemblance to the individuals they were standing in for. The most outstanding performer in the cast (though this is mainly because he's given the most to do) is the engaging Kenneth More, who managed to play Officer Lightoller with stirring vitality and absolute assurance. Also of note is Michael Goodliffe as Thomas Andrews, Frank Lawton as the snobby Bruce Ismay, and Laurence Naismith who did a commendable job of portraying Captain Smith. The affable David McCallum, meanwhile, is another standout as assistant wireless operator Harold Bride. However, because there are over 200 speaking roles, there isn't a great deal of well-developed protagonists to care about or latch onto, which detracts a certain punch. As the film abruptly jumps from the ship's launch to the events of April 14th, there was no chance for character development, which would have been beneficial.

Another area where A Night to Remember excels is in its brilliant, moving account of the behaviour of those on-board the Titanic on that fateful night. It conveys the casualness and flippancy displayed by a lot of the passengers, even when the ocean liner is doomed. Additionally, the movie portrays the slow accumulation of panic which ultimately culminates with shocking, ugly moments of baseness as well as brave and noble deeds. Throughout the sinking, it's hard not to get a lump in your throat. One of the most powerful scenes depicts a man urging his wife and children to climb into a waiting lifeboat; his face exhibiting confidence, determination and love. But what the man knows is the fate of the ship and himself, and that he will never again gaze upon those he holds so dearly. Once the boat disappears, his mask fails, collapsing into loss and despair. It's heart-wrenching. Perhaps the most harrowing image is that of a gentle elderly man cradling a young boy as the ship begins its final plunge; blindly assuring the boy everything will be alright, when in fact both of them will perish in the freezing water.

A tremendous strength of A Night to Remember is the way the filmmakers effectively managed to balance the many stories of the Titanic's sinking with the indelible drama of the two other ships in the ocean that became intertwined with the disaster. The first, the Carpathia, was making full steam towards the Titanic as she was sinking but arrived too late, and was only able to save the survivors. A Night to Remember shows the happenings on-board the Carpathia that night, as the crew frantically attempted to reach the Titanic in vein. Meanwhile, the ship the Californian was stopped on the night of April 14th/15th about ten miles away and was in eyesight of the Titanic as she sank. The officers on-board the Californian saw Titanic's distress rockets and witnessed the lights going out, yet these signs were disastrously misinterpreted and the ship's wireless had been shut off for the night. The presence of these subplots deepens the sense of desperation.

Naturally, it's tempting to compare A Night to Remember to James Cameron's Titanic, but that would be as fair as comparing Gone with the Wind and Gettysburg just because the same historical event is a backdrop in both films. Titanic is a grand melodrama depicting two fictional characters caught up in a maelstrom of romance, danger, heroism, and adventure. A Night to Remember, on the other hand, is more reserved. It uses historical characters to tell an accurate story; relying on the testimonials of the Titanic survivors for nearly every sequence and line of dialogue. The two should be perceived as companion pieces which, when put together, represent the best dramatisation of the disaster to date. Of course, A Night to Remember is good enough to stand on its own (and many will argue it's superior to Cameron's epic), but it works on a different level when placed alongside its big-budgeted sister. Truth is, the tale of the Titanic is big enough to be witnessed from multiple vantage points, and Titanic and A Night to Remember offer the two most compelling perspectives.

"I chose this. I chose all this. This rock... this rock has been waiting for me my entire life. Its entire life, ever since it was a bit of meteorite a million, billion years ago. In space. It's been waiting, to come here. Right, right here. I've been moving towards it my entire life. The minute I was born, every breath that I've taken, every action has been leading me to this crack on the out surface."

Note: If you are not familiar with the story of Aron Ralston and wish to be surprised by 127 Hours, it is advised that you watch the movie before reading this review. Spoilers of sorts are scattered throughout.

In mid-2003, Aron Ralston developed into a media sensation when he became trapped in a canyon for 127 hours, and was forced to amputate his arm in order to save his life. Ralston's physically and spiritually transformative experience was chronicled in his 2004 book Between a Rock and a Hard Place, and has now been dramatised to harrowing effect in Danny Boyle's 127 Hours; the director's follow-up effort to his Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire. Unflinching in its depiction of what constitutes the will to live, 127 Hours is at once ruminative and frenzied, intimate and vast - it's a thoughtful, compelling character study, yet it's as energetic as its protagonist. Although the film bears little resemblance to Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours was largely created by the same crew: Boyle co-wrote the script with Simon Beaufoy, Anthony Dod Mantle contributed to the camerawork, and Indian composer A.R. Rahman wrote the score. It's a testament to the talents of these men that - superior craftsmanship notwithstanding - you would not guess the connection between the films unless you had prior knowledge.

Aron Ralston (Franco) is a skilled hiker who craves solitude; usually avoiding family and friends to embark upon adventures and be king of the wild. At the start of the film, Aron is bound for Blue John Canyon in Utah. Initially, he encounters a pair of lost female hikers (Tamblin and Mara, in what amount to cameo appearances) and helps them find their way before he speeds off to his next claustrophobic destination. Unfortunately, he meets a loose rock along the way, and subsequently finds himself at the bottom of a narrow crevice with his right arm trapped between a boulder and the canyon wall. The title refers to the amount of time Aron spends in the crevice with very limited food and water; enduring freezing nights and the growing realisation that no-one is coming to save him.

In adapting Ralston's memoir, Boyle and Beaufoy took what could have been the man vs. nature equivalent of torture porn and transformed it into a visceral drama about life and hope. 127 Hours is brilliantly crafted - it's an at times gruelling, but nonetheless deeply compelling study of the lengths a person will go to for survival. For the majority of the film it's just Franco, Boyle and the canyon - there are no scenes of concerned friends or relatives wondering where Aron is. Nevertheless, there's never a boring moment. As time continues to drip along, flashbacks reveal Aron's early life, and, as dehydration and fatigue take their toll on his mental state, he experiences dreams and hallucinations. Aron gradually comes to regret his antisocial behaviour; wishing that he spent more time with loves ones before the hour of his impending death. Aron has a camcorder with him too, and records a constant video diary of his thoughts and experiences with the hope that it will be returned to his parents. (In real life, Aron did record a video diary, though he never showed it publically. In preparation for the movie, Boyle and Franco were allowed to view it.)

Boyle has always been skilled in terms of his stylised shooting style, and this talent is evident once again in 127 Hours. The director and his duo of cinematographers - Enrique Chediak and Anthony Dod Mantle - chose to depict Aron's struggle through a complex series of edits and shots; creating a fluid sense of movement by switching between shooting styles despite most of the film being set in one claustrophobic location. Boyle loves to splash the screen with visual flair, and this creates an exhilarating experience which places the viewer inside Ralston's head. Perhaps the most effective sequence is the climactic arm amputation scene. Viewers have reportedly vomited while watching said scene, and it's easy to understand why. Boyle did not baulk at capturing the gory details - Aron is seen breaking the bones of his forearm and using the dull knife of a cheap multi-utility tool to cut the soft tissue. Especially with Rahman's harrowing score, the scene is almost unbearable to watch. Although less gruesome than Hostel or The Hills Have Eyes, the reality of the scene is what makes it disturbing. The film is also topped off by an uplifting conclusion which packs a tremendous wallop; elevating this challenging picture to unexpected emotional heights.

James Franco is an actor who, up until now, has always tried his best but never achieved anything truly remarkable in his career. He has always displayed an enthusiasm for acting and a degree of charisma, but these qualities were perpetually lost on thankless supporting roles. Thankfully, 127 Hours denotes Franco's first truly remarkable piece of acting work. Franco is on the screen for nearly every frame of the movie (often in close-up), and he was up to the challenge; delivering the performance of a lifetime, and overturning his reputation as a dramatic lightweight. For more than an hour, we're stuck in a hole with Aron, and the intensity and charm of Franco's performance keeps us engaged. It's a tribute to everyone involved that, despite being aware of the true-life story, a viewer will still hope that Aron will make it out of the canyon in one piece, and be hopeful whenever he attempts a new technique.

127 Hours is a cracking, extraordinary movie. It may be hard to imagine how a movie with such limited scope could remain interesting for over 90 minutes, but Boyle and his talented team managed to pull it off. In fact, the only disappointment is the film's brevity. Another full half-hour should have been added to truly drive home the period of time for which Aron is stuck. In spite of this, 127 Hours is a masterpiece. It's even superior to Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. If a film can be both brilliant from a critical perspective and mighty entertaining, it's a miracle.

"If I am King, where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because they think that when I speak, I speak for them."

Essentially the Rocky of speech impediment movies, The King's Speech is an engaging, well-made period piece featuring excellent performances, sublime character nuances, a touch of wit and top-notch production design, and it was all stitched together by Tom Hooper's consummate direction. Not to mention, the film delivers solid drama with a rousing climax, and it manages to be a both highly satisfying and uplifting picture which achieves its dramatic potential without sacrificing historical accuracy. In short, it's precisely the kind of Oscar bait that's distributed each December, but it is nonetheless one of the most accessibly entertaining and satisfying films of its kind to be released during 2010.

Faced with the prospect of life in the public eye, the future King George VI (Firth) - a.k.a. Prince Albert or "Bertie" - is plagued by a severe stutter which constantly embarrasses both him and his judgmental family. With his wife Elizabeth (Bonham Carter) by his side, Bertie has endured numerous treatments for his verbal handicap, but to no avail. Until, that is, Elizabeth brings Bertie to see an unorthodox speech expert named Lionel Logue (Rush) who comes from Australia and treats the future king like any other patient. Thus is born an unlikely friendship, the importance of which escalates when circumstances conspire to make him the king of England on the eve of World War II. See, after the death of King George V (Gambon), Bertie's playboy brother (Pearce) abdicates his position as king in order to pursue his own interests, which thrusts Bertie into the role of leadership and public attention he never expected to bear.

Interestingly, the "Speech" of the title bears a double-meaning: it describes both the king's address to the nation which declares war against Hitler's Germany, and Bertie's impeded speech which he's fighting to overcome. Unfortunately, the story of King George VI working to overcome his impediment is intercut with Bertie's interactions with his father and his brother, which slows The King's Speech to a crawl during the midsection and sacrifices the intimacy of the extraordinary early scenes. While it may have been necessary to clarify these events, the refocus disrupts the pace and is not as interesting as Bertie and Logue's story. Luckily, things get back on track for the sublime final act, which pits Bertie against his worst fear: addressing his subjects over the radio.

The finale of The King's Speech not only represents the movie's climax, but also the moment in which all the elements of the motion picture come together: Firth and Rush's acting, Logue and Bertie's friendship, the strains of the classical score, and the stark simplicity of the set design (the room in which the speech is delivered is, after all, unadorned and unspectacular). The microphone is depicted not as a mere aid for voice amplification and recording, but as an implacable, faceless antagonist which Bertie must defeat by exorcising his personal demons. It is, in a word, extraordinary; leaving viewers with smiles on their faces, goosebumps all over their bodies, and lilts in their hearts. Additionally, the emotional power is considerably augmented by the fact that these events actually transpired in real life. This is indeed an amazing story.

While The King's Speech is a positive and life-affirming movie picture, director Tom Hooper (The Damned United, John Adams) and screenwriter David Seidler have crafted a picture which, at its core, is a story more concerned with the unlikely friendship forged between Bertie and Lionel. Quietly respectful of one another yet stubborn and set in their ways, it's undeniable that - because the couple are so distinctly separated by class and profession - they would never have grown such a bond were it not for Bertie's speech impediment. Added to this - although The King's Speech is a historical drama, an underdog story and a buddy movie rolled into one - there are plenty of humorous moments throughout which are never overdone or out-of-place. Every single frame of The King's Speech evinces a refined maturity as well as a professionalism rarely witnessed in this contemporary cinematic climate.

In their infinite wisdom, the MPAA chose to give The King's Speech an R rating, believing that the picture contains too many uses of the word "fuck". Admittedly, there are several profanities, but they are anything but gratuitous - they serve a very specific purpose within the context of speech therapy. This decision once again displays the MPAA's narrow-mindedness, since these profanities are the only reason the film is R-rated (there is no sex or violence). Heck, in England the film's rating was downgraded from a '15' to a '12A', as the BBFC were able to recognise that the inclusion of profanities was essential for the story.

As exceptional as the writing and directing is, The King's Speech is ultimately a performance piece which lives and dies by its cast. Luckily, all of the stars were up to the task. Leading the pack is the phenomenal Colin Firth, who rightfully deserves the highest praise of all the actors. It would seem Firth literally shed his skin and crawled into the skin of Bertie - we believe he is the role. Most impressively, the stutter was not overdone - it feels natural and real as opposed to faux and contrived. Alongside him, Geoffrey Rush is the perfect complement for Firth; his performance is effortlessly energetic, focused and charismatic. The chemistry between the stars is triumphant as well; essaying a stiff-upper-lip standoff between teacher and student which ultimately melts into an alliance. There's also no shortage of chemistry between Firth and Helena Bonham Carter, who is a delight as Queen Elizabeth. Bonham Carter is sharp-witted and whip-smart, but able to express great caring and humanity. Meanwhile, the secondary cast is populated by notable names, all of whom delivered sterling performances. Most notable is Timothy Spall, whose portrayal of Winston Churchill is more than a mere exercise in mimicry. Also of note are Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce as King George V and King Edward VIII, respectively.

With all of the film's superlative elements combined, The King's Speech illustrates by example how disappointingly lacking so many would-be dramas and Oscar contenders have been (Winter's Bone, anyone?). For the picky crowd, the film may play out a tad too simply, but this does not even slightly matter, nor does it dilute the thematic resonance. This is simply a magnificent motion picture; one of the very best films of 2010, and one that's so engaging and uplifting that it deservedly became a box office smash once word of mouth hit the streets.

"What's so crazy about standing toe to toe with someone saying "I am"?"

Due to the decline in quality across the Rocky series, in addition to the lengthy period of time since Rocky V, the notion of sixth Rocky movie seemed scoff-worthy. Yet, against all odds, 2006's Rocky Balboa proved the naysayers wrong, as Sylvester Stallone (serving as writer, director and star) managed to deliver a heartfelt and entertaining conclusion to the long-running Rocky series. Generally speaking, the Rocky sequels were more concerned with Rocky, his nemesis and the fight, but, to conclude the franchise, Stallone dialled back the excesses to recapture the bygone gritty milieu of the 1976 original. Rocky Balboa is a character study concerning the titular character, and the boxing match feels more like a footnote. It is a great pleasure to report that Stallone found an ideal way to bring Rocky back to ground level, while additionally providing the fist-pumping and goosebump-inducing moments that made the series so enduring.

A widower of many years following the death of his wife Adrian, the fifty-something Rocky Balboa (Stallone) resides in his Philadelphia hometown where he spends his time running an Italian restaurant (named after Adrian) and telling stories of his glory days to patrons. After seeing a computerised boxing bout between himself in his prime and the current heavyweight champion Mason "The Line" Dixon (Tarver), Rocky's interest in the sport is suddenly sparked again and he plans to start fighting in local clubs. Meanwhile, the computerised battle suggested that Rocky would win the match by knockout, which inspires Dixon's greedy promoters to begin planning the real deal: an exhibition fight between Rocky and Dixon. Despite the odds being firmly stacked against him, Rocky eventually agrees to the match.

Soon enough, the film enters the land of training montages and "hurting bombs" as Rocky prepares for battle. These sequences are a cornerstone of the series, and they're highly satisfying in this particular instalment. Following about an hour of well-paced character development and dramatic growth, the strains of Bill Conti's exceptional Gonna Fly Now begin to blare. I defy any audience member to not cheer or find their senses roaring to life as they watch Rocky jog up the front steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art once again. And, of course, the climactic fight still stirs the soul. In fact, the final bout could be the greatest in the series; evincing a more refined, mature sense of realism and emotion than prior Rocky films. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that, for the first time, just about every punch you see is real.

Rocky Balboa does an incredible job of bringing us down memory lane and reminding us why we loved the original Rocky so much. Stallone returned the series to its roots in an effective way, with the tempo being slowed down to allow for character development and with gentle, poignant moments depicting Rocky as he deals with age and loss. These scenes are incredibly affecting. While Rocky Balboa is formula with a capital F, this works in the film's favour. After all, it would be silly to try and improve or update the formula (Rocky V tried and failed). Fans of the series wanted to see Rocky being put through the motions one last time, proving that heart, sweat and decency will forever trump ego and fancy workout equipment. The Rocky series has always been about the power of the human spirit as embodied in the title character, and Rocky Balboa continues this tradition. The only flaw with the film is that character behaviour seems perfunctory here - Rocky's decision to get back in the ring feels more at the convenience of the script, while Rocky's son (Ventimiglia) deciding to come around feels undeveloped and rote.

In Rocky Balboa, Sylvester Stallone pulled off some of the best acting he has ever done. His portrayal of Rocky is warm and nuanced, which serves as a reminder of how good the star can be when he cuts down on the machismo and doesn't let vanity pick his roles. Aging has also helped Stallone humanise the character - his work was imbued with heart and soul, and he regained sight of what originally made Rocky such a cultural phenomenon. This is the same Rocky we knew and loved in the '70s - he's not very bright, but he is a generous man who's not good at hiding his emotional pain. While writing the script, Stallone also inserted elements of his own personal philosophy, revealing his hurt at once being so highly regarded for his work before being mercilessly torn down by the same system that once celebrated him. This is exemplified most notably in a monologue Rocky delivers at one stage to his son. It's a poignant speech, and it's one of the most affecting moments in the entire series.
In the supporting cast, Burt Young is his usual gruff self as Paulie, and Tony Burton is solid as Duke. Young, Burton and Stallone are thus the only actors to feature in all six Rocky films. Milo Ventimiglia is believable as Rocky's son, while Antonio Tarver pulled off his role of Mason "The Line" Dixon with just the right amount of arrogance and machismo.

Rocky Balboa is not a gimmick, nor is it a last-ditch attempt to capitalise on the profitable series and earn a few bucks. Instead, it's an excellent, warm, engaging film, and far better than it ought to be. Stallone couldn't do much with Rocky except take him to the same places we've seen before with predominantly the same results. Yet, the film has heart, and the character has finally returned to his affable self once again. Rocky Balboa is as strong as the original film, and a fitting requiem for one of cinema's most popular heavyweights. If the series had ended with Rocky V, it would have remained a joke. With Rocky Balboa, Stallone has given Rocky a proper, dignified burial and told a genuinely heartfelt, entertaining story in the process.

"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

The first, and arguably the best feature to be inspired by characters born on Saturday Night Live, The Blues Brothers is one hell of a fun motion picture. Essentially, it is the Lawrence of Arabia of movies adapted from Saturday Night Live sketches - an epic yet intimate adventure infused with a wonderful blend of broad comedy and sly, understand wit. It more or less consists of one-third blues music, one-third character-based comedy, and one-third car chases. Yet, The Blues Brothers does not feel like a careless patchwork - it feels like an epic, flavoursome '80s action-adventure bound to erupt from the chaotic lives of the titular brothers. All these years on, the film retains a tremendous nostalgia kick, thanks predominantly to the easy rapport between Ackroyd and Belushi, a healthy smattering of witty humour, plenty of enjoyable car chases, and some iconic musical sequences.

For the uninitiated, the characters of the Blues Brothers were initially a warm-up act for Saturday Night Live before evolving into a musical group which people yearned for (since the late '70s witnessed a decline in popularity for disco). Soon enough, Dan Aykroyd penned a screenplay for the movie (which reportedly exceeded 300 pages, whereas an average movie script is 120 or 150 pages), and months later the feature-length The Blues Brothers hit multiplexes. The budget was an at-the-time gargantuan $27 million, which triggered fears that it may flop. To the fortune of the studio heads, though (and despite lukewarm reviews), movie-going audiences quickly realised the picture's pervasive charm and flocked to see it. The final domestic gross for its initial theatrical release exceeded $50 million, which was furthered in later years during re-release periods.

For such an exceedingly successful cult phenomenon that remains in the memory of every good film buff, the premise driving The Blues Brothers is exceedingly simple. The movie commences as Elwood Blues (Ackroyd) is collecting his brother Jake Blues (Belushi) from prison. Not long after this, they visit the Catholic orphanage where they were raised. They learn that the orphanage needs to pay $5,000 in taxes, or else it will be shut down. Following a chat with their old mentor (Calloway) and a sermon with Reverend Cleophus James (Brown), Jake sees the light, and the brothers become convinced that they are "on a mission from God" to get the cash. How will they do it? Reassemble their band, and play a few gigs.

As it turns out, Jake and Elwood are innate troublemakers and incredibly consistent chaos-magnets by their very nature. The task of rounding up their old pals and playing a few gigs transforms into an epic catastrophe, as the brothers manage to infuriate every law enforcement official they cross paths with, in addition to a group of Neo-Nazis, a country-western band, and a mysterious woman with a fondness for powerful firearms (Fisher). There's no point breaking down the story past this description, since The Blues Brothers is not a narrative-driven film; it's a vignette-laden film with little narrative cohesion. A string of set-pieces and excuses for celebrity cameos are scattered throughout the runtime that play host to gags, stunts and musical interludes. Whereas in most instances this sort of episodic filmmaking is a recipe for disaster, it works in this instance, with director John Landis at no point allowing the film's infectious energy to relent. Also, unlike other feature-length expansions of Saturday Night Live sketches, The Blues Brothers is clever.

Another of the myriad pleasures afforded by The Blues Brothers is the performances of John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd, both of whom were in their prime when the cameras rolled for this film. Their deadpan delivery is a frequent source of laughs, while the moments when the material is over-played (such as the iconic restaurant scene) are equally hilarious. Although the show is mainly stolen by this pair, The Blues Brothers is loaded with little characters parts which were filled by a dazzling array of guest stars. John Candy, Frank Oz, Ray Charles (in one of the film's best scenes), James Brown, Cab Calloway, Kathleen Freeman, Carrie Fisher, Charles Napier, John Lee Hooker and even Steven Spielberg earn a few laughs in their respective cameo appearances.

Additionally, The Blues Brothers features some of the most spectacular and destructive car chases ever committed to celluloid. The film even held the record for the highest number of cars crashed in a motion picture at the time. Heck, the car chases rival those within The French Connection and Bullitt. This is dizzyingly high praise indeed. There's a three-vehicle demolition of an indoor shopping mall, a police car crashing into the side of a truck, up to twenty cars piling up at once, and even the "Bluesmobile" leaping across a drawbridge. Gary McLarty's stunt crew deserve a standing ovation for their efforts. When it comes to this movie, there is simply so much bang for your buck. Full of belly-laughs, contagious energy, hundreds of endlessly quotable one-liners, toe-tappingly terrific tunes, sharp suits and cool shades, The Blues Brothers deserves multiple viewings. No matter what appeals to you, this is a movie that can sustain your interest for 140 minutes. Personally, I cannot imagine anyone feeling dissatisfied after indulging in this marvellous movie.

"We're on a mission from God."

Nathan Burdette: "I don't like that kinda talk. Now you're practically accusing me..."
John T. Chance: "Let's get this straight: You don't like? I don't like a lot of things. I don't like your men sittin' on the road bottling up this town. I don't like your men watching us, trying to catch us with our backs turned. And I don't like it when a friend of mine offers to help and twenty minutes later he's dead! And I don't like you, Burdette, because you set it up."

Rio Bravo is the quintessential Howard Hawks Western. Although patronised by reviewers at the time of its release, Rio Bravo is now regarded as an American classic and one of the greatest cinematic Westerns in history. The film is primarily recognised for its slick shootouts, masterful atmosphere and a congregation of characters as warm as toast. Not since 1952's High Noon had a Western been so influential. In fact, contemporary cinema still draws blatant inspiration from this timeless classic. John Carpenter's remarkable 1976 actioner Assault on Precinct 13 was a fundamental remake, transplanting the story into a cold, isolated urban location. The 2005 remake of Assault on Precinct 13 was likewise influenced by this timeless 1959 masterpiece. Even Hawks himself helmed two variations of his film with El Dorado and Rio Lobo.

However, Rio Bravo is the furthest thing from your customary clichéd Western. Gone are the extensive vistas, scenes that involve roaming the countryside on horseback, and not once did John Wayne utter the word "pilgrim". Additionally, the "damsel in distress" cliché is far removed. Also, the archetypal invulnerable protagonist is replaced with a character that gets scared, bleeds and makes mistakes. The atmosphere of pure tension is also lightened by humour. The wonderful screenplay encompasses witticisms as sharp as a dagger, and a group of characters that are well-written and acted wonderfully. This is utterly classic stuff. Although long, the film is undeniably fun.

John Wayne is in top form as the rugged, tough man's man known as Sheriff John T. Chance. Chance is faced with a dilemma: he has to hold murderer Joe Burdette (Akins) in his gaol until the U.S. Marshall can pick him up in roughly six days. The trouble is that Joe's brother Nathan (Russell) plans to spring Joe from prison by any means possible. Nathan is a local cattle baron who commands an army of paid professionals numbering in the 40s. Sheriff Chance needs to hold out until the Marshall arrives, but he only has two deputies by his side: a disgraced drunk known as Dude (Martin) and a cantankerous, albeit extremely spirited old cripple named Stumpy (Brennan).

Pat Wheeler: "A game-legged old man and a drunk. That's all you got?"
John T. Chance: "That's WHAT I got."

Howard Hawks was reportedly quite dissatisfied with the highly acclaimed 1952 Western High Noon. Hawks was quite disturbed due to how unrealistic the film was. In High Noon, Marshall Will Kane (played by Gary Cooper) was so afraid of his impending adversaries (a mere four men) that he spent most of the film's duration looking for help...only to be rejected by his supposed allies. Hawks decided to make a movie which would depict a more accurate response to the dilemma faced by Kane. In this case, Wayne as Sheriff John T. Chance has an abundance of men willing to help him. The trouble is that he prefers to only have the best men fighting for him. High Noon is a decent flick, but Rio Bravo is far superior due to its more realistic handling of the scenario and its higher entertainment value.

Howard Hawks is no stranger to the Western genre. Prior to Rio Bravo, Hawks had helmed Red River. His direction here is utterly perfect. Each frame shines with impressive attention to every conceivable detail. Like most Westerns, the period depiction is wonderful. Costumes and props are difficult to fault. Most of the interior scenes were filmed in studio sets; however Hawks' transcendent direction creates an ideal atmosphere. The script, as well, is superlative. Dean Martin even sings a melancholy tune at one stage. It's this variety that makes the film anything but an ordinary Western. There's catchy music mixed with hysterical dialogue, great shootouts and plenty of moments that'll make you smile.
However, there are a few excessive red herrings that could have been removed. Even with these unnecessary additions, the film provides solid entertainment. Many have criticised Rio Bravo for being too long and with too many uneventful scenes. To me, the film isn't long enough. I adored being in the company of these characters. If anything I was disappointed when the credits started to roll. The filmmakers have definitely performed their duties appropriately if one of my only criticisms is that the movie had to end!

The acting is first-class right down the line. John Wayne delivers one of the best performances in his career. When it came to making Westerns during the 1950s and a few decades beyond, Wayne was the essential go-to guy. After all, this is John Wayne doing what he does best. As Sheriff John T. Chance, he's right at home with the material. The 6'4" actor was a physical presence that dominated the screen, and was the definitive incarnation of a cowboy. Throughout the entire movie, Wayne is extraordinarily convincing and very watchable. Quintessentially, John Wayne is John Wayne in spades.
Dean Martin also proves an accomplished actor. At the time Martin was known for hard living and hard drinking, and his experience pays off as he is a credible drunk in this film. When his character of Dude is convalescing and trying to make amends for the various years of drowning in alcohol, the sincerity of Martin's performance is readily apparent.
However, while Wayne and Martin are both fantastic, it's Walter Brennan as Stumpy that steals the show. He provides delightful comic relief; lightening the somewhat dreary disposition of a number of scenes.
Ricky Nelson as the young gunslinger Colorado is yet another welcome addition to the cast. Just one week into shooting, Nelson celebrated his 18th birthday!
Angie Dickinson is the love interest for John Wayne. Interestingly, Wayne was slightly nervous about the love scenes due to the age gap: Wayne was 51 and Dickinson was 26.
On top of these five great protagonists, there are several other fantastic characters. Suffice to say, it'd be easier to just mention those who aren't good.

Overall, Rio Bravo quickly emerged as one of my all-time favourite cinematic Westerns. There are only very minor shortcomings, such as a few clichés and a bit of predictability, but for fun Western material it's almost impossible to do better. Rio Bravo is still considered one of Howard Hawks' finest and most influential films. It's a classic John Wayne escapade that has been remade and rehashed numerous times (twice by Hawks himself). This isn't the typical Western that finds tough-guy Cowboys battling violent Indians...this is a surprisingly original production that succumbs to only a few clichés. There's never a dull moment in this highly enjoyable romp that continues to provide sublime entertainment many decades following its initial release.

"If there's one thing this last week has taught me, it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

Due to his distinct directorial flourishes, it's easy to determine if you're watching a movie directed by Tony Scott. Likewise, the style of writer and director Quentin Tarantino is so unique that it's easy to tell if you're witnessing one of his motion pictures. There's a slight exception to these rules, however: 1993's True Romance. Those seeking a movie marked with either director's style will be pleasantly surprised by this Scott-directed, Tarantino-penned slice of filmmaking. Thankfully, the cinematic eyes of Scott and Tarantino form something organic; an irresistible mixture of both directors' strengths that's stylish and sublime. True Romance is simultaneously a drug picture, a chase movie, a gangster flick, and a wacky, turbulent romantic-partners-in-crime adventure. Think Bonnie and Clyde on speed.

Now, onto the story... Clarence Worley (Slater) is a loser who's reduced to spending his birthday watching kung-fu movies at a local cinema. On the night of his birthday, he meets Alabama (Arquette); a call girl (that's just a fancy way of describing a type of prostitute) who's hired to spend the evening with Clarence, but unexpectedly falls in love with him. Once they promptly marry, Clarence steals $500,000 worth of cocaine, and the couple flee to Hollywood in the hope of selling the drugs. Naturally, the owners of the merchandise want their cocaine back, and begin to ruthlessly pursue the couple.

From the outset, it's clear the runtime of True Romance will be spent tracking a bunch of low-life, homicidal maniacs. Is it possible for viewers to grow to like these people? Fortunately, the answer is a resounding yes, because, in writing the script, Quentin Tarantino possessed the talent to create vividly-drawn characters who constantly spurt instantly classic dialogue throughout jaw-dropping, extraordinarily entertaining set-pieces. This is likely the greatest Tarantino screenplay to date, which is probably because the writer was not allotted the director's chair. With a different director at the helm and another creative team handling this script, the reek of self-indulgence is not as potent or distracting. To be fair, it takes a bit too long for True Romance to hit is stride, but the unrelenting energy as a result of Tony Scott's superlative direction ensures that, although little actually transpires throughout the film's initial half hour, boring moments are at an absolute minimum. Best of all, though, the energy rarely allows viewers the opportunity to stop and consider the absurdity of this whole fairytale.

True Romance has a keen eye for brazen character risk-taking and capricious passion. Though the film begins as a contrived love story, it progressively morphs into a tangible, utterly involving tale tracking a couple of thoroughly appealing caricatures. Clarence's sudden transformation from lonesome, Elvis-loving counter jockey to wild-eyed risk taker and gunslinger feels organic in this script's hands, while his heavenly parlay with Alabama throughout their exquisite first date convincingly sells the prospect of instant love in a touching yet untamed way. At the heart of all great movies is the joy of discovery, and True Romance excels in this department - it entertains through an enthralling story and compelling characters. It's a hell of a lot of fun.

At no point is a viewer supposed to accept True Romance as realism, and we're never expected to believe a word of it. Instead, a few slightly realistic elements operate underneath the movie's ludicrous nature. Naturally, this is all part of Tarantino's writing modus operandi. In a sense, one can consider this film to be the cousin of Reservoir Dogs and the prequel to Pulp Fiction. Somehow, Tarantino managed to pen all 3 movies in a phenomenal spurt of creative energy never equalled in Hollywood history. True Romance may have preceded the more illustrious Pulp Fiction by a year or so, but it was infused with a comparable flavour - a mixture of black humour, violence, romance and dialogue drenched in geekdom euphemisms. As a matter of fact, True Romance played a pivotal role in launching Tarantino's Hollywood career. Funding for Reservoir Dogs was reportedly derived from the cash earned from selling the screenplay for True Romance, after which Pulp Fiction received the green light purely on account of the reputation he earned with these two prior films. Mind you, True Romance is not everyone's cup of tea due to Tony Scott's directorial zeal and Tarantino's flippant tongue, but it's a major crowd-winner for those who enjoy its flavour.

The strongest element of True Romance is the unending cornucopia of top-notch actors which constitute the cast. One of the biggest successes of said cast is the chemistry between Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. Their interactions are enthralling; mingling their animated personas in a slick, adorable fashion. As a result of such spot-on casting, their tumultuous, whirlwind relationship comes across as sweet, amusing and touching. Further high points arrive in the form of Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper, who at one stage share a brilliant, riveting dialogue sequence in which the two acting giants speak in Tarantino-esque language and one-up each other with every hilarious delivery. Val Kilmer also makes an appearance as the imaginary Elvis Presley mentor, who advises Clarence on matters of action and demeanour (bear in mind that Kilmer's film debut was Top Secret!; a spoof of Elvis movies for which he played the main role). Then there's Gary Oldman appearing as the slimy, vicious, violent, repellent white pimp who believes he's black.

Digging deeper into the cast, one will discover Michael Rapaport playing a friend of Clarence's, and Brad Pitt (who was a little-known actor during this period) as a druggie who's always in a daze. Samuel L. Jackson even shows up for a remarkable moment playing a drug dealer with a foul mouth, though Jackson's appearance is a classic case of "blink and you'll miss him". Finally, there's Saul Rubinek playing a producer named Lee Donowitz, in addition to James Gandolfini as a mob hit-man who makes the mistake of trying to intimidate the defenceless Alabama, and a few others. Good heavens, what a terrific group!

In essence, True Romance is a full-blooded, Bonnie and Clyde-style story of love at first sight through the eyes of a Pulp Fiction level Tarantino. And under the astute direction of Tony Scott, it becomes a savagely funny thrill ride of indulgent aesthetics and swoon-worthy romantic theatrics between two "damaged goods" characters.

"You don't get it, do you? This isn't "good cop, bad cop." This is fag and New Yorker. You're in a lot of trouble."

Razor-sharp, witty dialogue to complement explosive action sequences is a trademark of screenwriter Shane Black. Back in 1987, Black sold a script entitled Lethal Weapon. Over the subsequent decade he continued to purvey excellent screenplays, and at the pinnacle of his career Black was indeed the highest-paid screenwriter in Hollywood. From The Last Boy Scout to The Long Kiss Goodnight, Black served up popcorn cinema saturated with sarcastic, snappy dialogue and intelligent, engaging characters. While Black's screenplays frequently spawned enjoyable movies - appealing to audiences and studios alike - the writer has long argued that directors have altered his original ideas, causing a great deal of frustration on his part. Following a few box office bombs, Black vanished for the best part of a decade. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is the writer's comeback film. Inspired by James Bond, Pauline Kael, Raymond Chandler novels, and everything in between, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang could be the greatest comeback in cinematic history. In order to avoid frustration in the translation from page to screen, Black directed the film himself. The product is this flashy blast of unfiltered fun; an ingenious genre hybrid offering an encouragingly unique piece of cinematic entertainment. Unfortunately, poor marketing spelt death for Black's masterwork at the box office...it grossed less than $16 million worldwide during its theatrical run (from a budget of approximately $15 million). A real shame.

In LA, small-time thief Harry Lockhart (Downey Jr.) inadvertently stumbles into an audition while trying to evade the police following an unsuccessful robbery. Harry's performance amazes the casting agents, and he's subsequently thrust into the spotlight as he's flown to Hollywood for a screen test. Propelled into the cutthroat world of L.A.'s pros, cons, losers and wannabes, Harry is partnered with tough private eye "Gay Perry" who'll prepare him for his screen test. For experience, Perry allows Harry to help with his latest assignment. Harry is also reunited with his childhood crush - Harmony Faith Lane (Monaghan) - who has become an aspiring actress. However, when the mysterious suicide of Harmony's sister intersects with the seemingly unrelated case Harry and Perry are investigating, the duo find themselves embroiled in a real murder mystery. As corpses surface and re-surface, Harry, Perry & Harmony utilise their pulp novel detective skills to uncover the sordid truth of the case.

Got that? Good... Now don't worry about it.

"This is every shade of wrong."

If there's a single flaw in Black's action-comedy tour de force, it's the lack of a solid plot. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is an unabashed exercise in style and wit; its plot a mere rack on which to hang endlessly entertaining spectacles. Not that this is really a bad thing, however - each segment is infinitely enjoyable as Black's script is overloaded with beguiling characters who disperse incredibly witty dialogue. The screenplay bursts with sharp exchanges and one-liners ranging from pop-culture pisstakes (a head-to-toe soaked Robert Downey Jr. at one stage proclaims himself "wetter than Drew Barrymore at a grunge club") to sneering subversions of hard-boiled posturing (Perry employs the word 'pluperfect' at a rather peculiar time) to utter non-sequitor mania. Kudos to Black for successfully creating one of the most quotable films in history! However, one may be hard-pressed to nail each twist in the story as everything is fairly convoluted. Once again, though, a minor quibble as this is a film one will want to watch multiple times...and then some.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is (in part) based on the novel Bodies Are Where You Find Them by Brett Halliday. Director/screenwriter Shane Black has adapted Halliday's novel, added his own satiric slant on the story, inserted elements of Raymond Chandler novels, and produced this amusing concoction. References to the old masters of film noir can be found within - chapter headings are sourced from Raymond Chandler novel titles, for instance. Various other, more subtle homages have also been included. Visually, the film is a typical contemporary hodgepodge of quick edits, pans, zooms, fades, dissolves and crosscuts, combined with flashy colour alterations. However, none of these (usually irritating) gimmicks are damaging at all due to Shane Black's limitless elegance as a director. His exaggerated cinematic style is extremely appropriate for this sharp, biting Hollywood satire. Poking fun at everything from Hollywood storytelling clichés (Black conveys his overt awareness of these clichés through Robert Downey Jr.'s hilarious narration, slyly highlighting them continually) to the way filmmakers manipulate their "assets", Black has managed to craft a top-notch film that is simultaneously an engaging noir-style mystery and a hilarious observation of the film industry.

"Anyway, by now you may wonder how I wound up here. Or, maybe not. Maybe you wonder how silly putty picks shit up from comic books. The point is, I don't see another Goddamn narrator, so pipe down."

Black addresses the audience as peers; never treating them as fools. The man clearly understands that very film savvy audiences exist, and they're just as cynical about Hollywood conventions as he is. At one stage, through the voice of narrator Downey Jr., he remarks "Don't worry, I saw the last Lord of the Rings. I'm not going to have the movie end like 17 times". Throughout the course of the film, Harry the narrator also chastises himself for leaving out an important factor or making a seemingly pointless observation. This "breaking of the fourth wall" succeeds - it is sure to be appreciated by film enthusiasts and casual cinema-goers alike. A genuinely clever Hollywood script is a rare thing. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a diamond in the rough. Sometimes scripts like these are too consciously clever for their own good. The cynical critics may have slammed Black for revelling in the cleverness of his script...but it really works! It's occasionally silly, there are loose ends and it's pretty convoluted, but it's stylish, smart and fun. Naturally, witty dialogue isn't enough for Black as he feels the urge to throw in a number of action sequences for good measure. The climax is a doozy, but it's all in the spirit of the film.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is exceptionally well-shot owing to the exertions of director Shane Black and director of photography Michael Barrett. The budget was a minuscule $15 million, yet the low budget is never obvious. The photography is as glossy as any big-budget Hollywood blockbuster. Black's direction is also precise and tight, and the director appears to have a lot of fun with the story. There's a beer commercial with a surreal-slogan-spouting bear, Perry at one stage confuses Harry with a comment regarding a talking monkey, and Harry's narration at one stage interrupts itself to instruct some extras to move out of the camera's line of sight... Black's willingness to do the unexpected keeps his film fresh and funny. Most movies that lean heavily on self-satire exhaust the approach quite quickly, but Black and company evade this pitfall by defying audience expectations and indulging in the unusual...while frantically hopping from incident to incident. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a flick that sends up an action genre Black helped to create and pays homage to the hard-boiled pulp novels the writer/director grew up with. This is a film that improves with every new screening. It never grows old...it's enjoyable and hilarious no matter how many times you've seen it.

"Do not play detective. This is not a book. This is not a movie."

At the centre of this exceptional noir mystery is a top-notch cast. The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer is impeccable. They're the most downright entertaining screen pair since Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta from Pulp Fiction. Downey and Kilmer are an excellent buddy team, although by no means are they buddies in the traditional sense...Perry perceives Harry as a total idiot, and is only helping the crook-turned-actor because the studio is paying him to do so. If ever there was a role to shoot Kilmer's fading star back into the stratosphere, it's right here! As the ambiguously homosexual cynic, the actor steals every frame, delivering some of the best one-liners in recent memory with graceful confidence. Robert Downey Jr. (after suffering a much-publicised trip through the Hollywood wringer) is back in top form, showing a real sense of comic timing. As the narrator of the story, Downey is exceptional. He introduces himself by saying "My name's Harry Lockhart, I'll be your narrator" which establishes the film's non-serious tone. Interestingly, Robert's son Indio plays the young version of Harry at the beginning of the film.

The beautiful Michelle Monaghan also appears as Harry's former flame. She and Robert Downey Jr. share chemistry that's comfortable and exciting. Monaghan has the perfect look for the part, and the actress oozes sexiness when she wears tight dresses.

Aside from the three protagonists there's an amusing Larry Miller as Dabney Shaw (the producer who plans to screen test Harry) and a decent Corbin Bernsen as Harlan Dexter. Rockmond Dunbar and Dash Mihok also appear as a duo involved in the whole murder mystery.

Due to the extraordinary acting, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is infused with a sense of humanity not usually present in jokey actioners. Harry takes death very seriously...and when he's forced to kill, it almost kills him. You know actors have done their jobs correctly when you desperately crave more time with the characters once the credits begin to roll, and Black's masterpiece is such a case. This reviewer would be first in line for a sequel (a sequel which will probably never happen because this picture bombed at the box office).

If Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was not one of the best films of 2005 - and it was, in this reviewer's humble opinion - then it was unquestionably the most overlooked. Indeed, the Phoenix Film Critics Society voted it "Overlooked Film of the Year". Okay, so no-one knows who the hell the Phoenix Film Critics Society is, but they certainly have a good point. One should also bear in mind that the film received a standing ovation when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival.

Perhaps the plot is too confusingly dense (eventually you'll give up trying to follow the plot, opting to just enjoy the ride) and the plot careens forward a bit too quickly, but the rapid-fire pace and the brilliantly-drawn characters keep a viewer extremely involved (not to mention the precious little explication makes more sense with every viewing, ensuring you'll pick up on something new each time you watch the film again). A satisfying mixture of fun, intelligence and wit, this tight, über-slick film suffered a fate it did not deserve. If you love detective stories, action, humour, murder and a bit of nudity, you'll find it all here in this offbeat motion picture that never takes itself too seriously. What's not to like? Shane Black has outdone himself here!!

"Thanks for coming, please stay for the end credits, if you're wondering who the best boy is, it's somebody's nephew, um, don't forget to validate your parking, and to all you good people in the Midwest, sorry we said fuck so much."

Ted: "Surely you can't be serious..."
Dr. Rumack: "I am serious...and don't call me Shirley"

Airplane! (known as Flying High! in Australia) is cinema's seminal spoof movie. It was decades ago that the capable, imaginative duo of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker (ZAZ) wrote and directed what became, through my eyes, the funniest movie of all time. Up until 1980 when Airplane! was released, Mel Brooks was acknowledged as the guru of movie spoofs - with films like Blazing Saddles to Young Frankenstein under his belt. Apparently Mel Brooks viewed Airplane! and realised there were new kids on the block playing his game, and they were playing his game even better than he once did!

The three creators of Airplane! introduced audiences to an entirely new kind of comedy altogether. It combines sight gags, memorable dialogue and just plain random humour...creating unbeatable results! The film generated its own unique genre of comedy satire. Subsequently this style was to be copied and expanded upon in many different guises, both by its creators and countless others, but alas never again possessing the same freshness and appeal. The distinguishing feature is the sheer number of laughs incorporated into this film...it's almost sufficient to fill three movies! Breaking down just a minute of the film, you can literally find about 8 gags. They say you cannot analyse humour, but au contraire my friends...lo and behold a laugh count of about 500 an hour! Seriously, if you're not laughing uncontrollably by the film's ending you should check into a mental clinic, or get inspected for possible lockjaw.

Airplane! is ostensibly a spoof of the old, cheesy, terribly made 1950s disaster movies. Basically the almost non-existent plot concerns a perilous situation on-board a passenger plane. When a severe case of food poisoning breaks out, the crew are left incapacitated with several passengers becoming violently ill. Former war pilot Ted Striker (Hays) is the only hope for those aboard the plane. He must overcome the troubles with his former wife (Hagerty) and conquer his lack of enthusiasm to save the day. Along the way you'll find spoofs of everything from Jaws to Saturday Night Live. The plot is wafer thin, with no depth or attempt to make it more than just a comedy. The problem with most comedies these days is that they incorporate a bit of drama into the mix, fishing for a movie that amalgamates laughs and drama. The thing about Airplane! is that the creators want to make a comedy and nothing more...no drama, no seriousness. Just laughs and a never-ending flow of them as well. This is comedy done right, and even without much of a plot this is truly a masterpiece.

It's the gag density and the lack of gaps between the laughs that keeps this film fast-paced and thoroughly enjoyable. You will be wanting more when the credit begin to roll...I was certainly thirsty for more and set out to watch more films by the ZAZ threesome. It's not only the thickness of gags, but the actors that elevate this movie. Leslie Nielsen's impeccable dialogue delivery exalts the quality of this film astronomically. Before this film he actually did some serious movies. After this film, his career as a serious performer was destroyed. His deadpan nature can make you laugh just by looking at him. Heck, his introduction with a stethoscope around his neck will add to the already heightened urge to laugh. He steals the show. Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty have great chemistry whenever they feature in a scene together. And their dialogue is faultlessly written.

Airplane! deserves the appraisal and accolades it subsequently received. There are so many laughs included here that you will need to watch the film continually just to notice them all. I've watched the film repeatedly, and I'm still noticing new laughs. This is before sexual innuendo and puerile remarks became the foundation for humour. Maybe that is what's missing from modern comedies. Quite simply, you will never find a comedy that's more original than this! Check it out...immediately!

"What do you want me to do, dress in drag and do the hula?"

I still remember when I was a tender age of 3 and first saw The Lion King on the big screen. When it was released on VHS it became a film I watched almost everyday. I would not be alone in saying that this film was an essential part of my early childhood. Because I had watched this film so much I have basically committed every scene to memory.


It had been about 5-10 years since I last watched this brilliant Disney movie. Needless to say, a re-screening was highly necessary because of how powerful this film was on my childhood years. The Lion King was first released in 1994. Now the film is regarded as a classic. Currently as a teenager I can say that this film still has the same impact and power despite what age range you have reached. As a child you appreciate the slapstick humour on screen. When characters do amusing antics the kids will have a good laugh. Of course they don't know what is going on most of the time. In later years the magic is still present. You can devour the film for its plot and clever script. You can analyse how innovative the animation is. And yet, you can still laugh at the mannerisms of the animals.


The Lion King is the story of a young lion cub named Simba (voiced by both Thomas and Broderick) who is heir to the throne of Pride Rock now run by his father Mufasa (Jones). But Simba is forced into exile when he is at the receiving end of a treacherous, deceptive plot courtesy of his jealous uncle Scar (Irons). After the death of Mufasa the kingdom is now ruled by Scar who will essentially spell doom for Pride Rock. While Simba lives another life he becomes the unlikely friends of a meerkat named Timon (Lane) and a warthog named Pumbaa (Sabella). But as Simba's rightful kingdom is crumbling due to its poor leadership, his past returns and leads him to his rightful destiny of becoming king.


The Lion King has a fairly straight-forward plot that will work on the surface for the kids. As you grow older you look past its pretty pictures and see something a lot deeper than you would have originally remembered. In a nutshell, the film is loosely a Shakespearean drama rich in themes of jealousy, deception, betrayal, murder and redemption. In essence this formula we have seen countless times before. It's just not as noticeable because of its pretty new packaging for the clichés to breed inside. Of course this is a children's film so these clichés and formulaic plot points can be excused.


The Lion King is one of the cleverest Disney films in existence. Its appeal stretches to each and every age range. The film has its adorable moments, hilarious moments and of course the intense or tragic moments. This is not your average Disney movie at all!


The most memorable image for me was the introduction of the renowned Timon and Pumbaa. These two were a particular favourite of mine when I was a youngster. Nathan Lane is a piece of perfect casting. His excellent lines of dialogue had me in stitches. The rest of the voice cast are outstanding. Jeremy Irons is another stand-out as the sadistic, evil Scar. Many of his lines are memorable because of how brilliantly he delivers them.


The animation is indeed incredible even after all these years. The film is breathtaking in its amazing images shown using simple animation techniques. Naturally, the cherry on top is the music. Elton John contributed to the music here. In addition to Elton we also have Tim Rice and Hans Zimmer collaborating to produce the music, songs and score. Do you expect this to go wrong?


The Lion King is a treasure chest rich in nostalgic memories from my childhood. It has been so many years but this film is still one of my favourites. The Lion King is the fundamental embodiment of a children's animation film. Laughs, clever characters, witty dialogue and great animation. If you haven't seen this for several years I suggest another screening is required. You will become addicted once again.

Modern Times is classic Charlie Chaplin slapstick comedy, and a timeless experience. The film marks one of Chaplin's most potent movies that still has bucket loads of relevance to typical contemporary audiences.

In one of his final silent movies (more or less), Chaplin plays a worker at a local factory who struggles to live in an industrial society. In a nutshell, the film essentially examines the dehumanisation process of modern industries. In a time when people's lives hinge on getting a steady job and an income, Chaplin's character is still endlessly searching for work with the help of a young homeless woman who is on the run.

The whole movie is a collection of hilarious gags strung together with not much of a plot, which is the film's biggest downfall, but its entertainment value is what matters most during a silent movie. Like most of Chaplin's silent movies, the film is frequently hilarious.

As the title character, Chaplin is able to insert a plethora of side-splitting sight gags that never lose steam. I will admit that the opening gags were better quality than the succeeding gags, but I was still laughing from start to finish.

And Chaplin doesn't utter a word until the very end with his very amusing (and immensely random) dance number while he sings pure gibberish. For the most part, the film is silent. But there are minor instances when dialogue is used, but it is only used for voices coming from mechanical devices. This is another symbol of the film's theme of modern technology and its importance to the typical society at the time.

Modern Times is a highly hilarious slapstick comedy, but this is only what it seems on the surface. Below the surface; a sleuth of groundbreaking, amazing themes and motifs that seem to become more relevant as humanity becomes ever more reliable on technology. And the film also parallels the American dream in the way that Chaplin and his love interest (played by Paulette Goddard) fantasise about living in a beautiful home with the husband raking in cash while the wife stays at home all day to cook and clean.

I found the 1930s slapstick gags somewhat predictable at times, but I was always laughing incredibly hard. However, not all audiences will find Chaplin's antics as funny as some others do. In my opinion the comedy is classic and exquisite, and some of the slapstick stunts in the movie are highly intriguing (who could forget that classic image of Chaplin roller-blading blindfolded in a department store) not to mention just plainly uproarious.

The music used throughout the movie is extraordinary (essential to any silent movie is pertinent music to accompany the almost complete silence on screen). For a scene that includes some of Chaplin's hilarious dancing or otherwise, I found the music to suit the mood extremely well.

While viewing the movie I was completely amazed about the outstanding restoration job. I could not imagine the film being as entertaining if the transfer wasn't on par. Of course it's no-where near the quality of a film made recently, but for a film over 70 years old it's mind-blowing.

Modern Times is a comedy that has been regarded as one of the funniest movies of all time. Although not entirely accurate, the film has symbolic meaning under the surface as the filmmakers point out the ills of society. Running at a brisk 83 minutes, the film delivers its message quickly and doesn't overstay its welcome. For the reason of such contemporary significance, the film is groundbreaking and is a fabulous tale to watch even after the time of silent pictures has long passed.

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is hands down the greatest western of all time - the third and final of Sergio Leone's trilogy of westerns with Clint Eastwood is the best of the bunch.

This film succeeds in every aspect where its predecessors failed, making it the essential spaghetti western. Clint Eastwood rides back into action as "The Man With No Name" - the good - who is now living in the time of the Civil War. Eli Wallach is a filthy outlaw named Tuco - the ugly. And finally Lee Van Cleef (returning from the cast of the previous film playing a different role) is a man known as Angel Eyes - the bad. In a remote cemetery an outlaw has buried a stash of $200,000 which immediately sparks interest from the 3 protagonists. Tuco and "The Man With No Name" form an uneasy alliance and have no choice but to trust each other when it's discovered that each possess half the information of the location of the hidden treasure.

Angel Eyes is also focused on finding the money and thus begins a race as the three men move through rugged landscape and across harsh deserts to get to their desired destination.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a very unconventional western. The plot of this third instalment is actually pretty easy to follow, and this simplicity makes the film not as confusing as its predecessors.

Each moment of the film is enthralling, and exceptionally created. Although clocking at almost 160 minutes, the film is not too long. My interest was sustained for each minute of its running time; containing intriguing characters and clever set-ups.

Clint Eastwood is fantastic as always. As always he plays the part to perfection - never showing signs of emotion and always being dark. Eli Wallach was a welcome addition to the cast. He portrays a very realistic outlaw, and his character is most certainly "the ugly". I was disappointed that Lee Van Cleef didn't stick to his original character from For a Few Dollars More, but he still plays this new part exceptionally well.

Of course what addition to this trilogy would be complete without Sergio's magnificent direction and Ennio Morricone's triumphant score. Ennio's music is nothing short of remarkable.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is an enthralling western. For those with short attention spans, go rent a Michael Bay flick. But for those who enjoy good quality westerns and don't mind the slow pacing then go right ahead. One of the best movies of all time!

Max: "I can't drive you around while you're killing folks. It ain't my job!"
Vincent: "Tonight it is."

Collateral was released in the summer of 2004, and therefore emerged amidst an onslaught of big-budget, special effects-laden blockbusters. Yet, Collateral does not adhere to the standard summer season template - rather than a brain-dead action fiesta for the teenage crowd, it is a challenging thriller for mature audiences that was puppeteered by the boundlessly talented Michael Mann. As was the case with Mann's 1995 film Heat, Collateral is imbued with a sense of stark realism rarely witnessed in ordinary Hollywood products. The film may be escapist entertainment at its core, but Mann perpetually insists upon plausible scenarios and a gritty tone to ensure the film never drifts too far into the realm of fantasy. Most commendably, Collateral is a summer picture that eschews big explosions and gunfights in favour of suspense, intrigue, plot twists, and an understated style.

Working the streets of downtown Los Angeles at night with his taxi, Max (Foxx) is a soft-spoken man with big ambitions who's tragically stuck in his dead-end job. After meeting beautiful U.S. Justice Department prosecutor Annie (Pinkett-Smith) during his shift one night, a mysterious fare enters Max's cab in the form of Vincent (Cruise). Vincent explains he has five appointments to attend as well as a plane to catch, and offers Max $600 cash if he agrees to be Vincent's personal chauffeur for the night. Seeing this as an opportunity to jump-start his dreams, Max hesitantly agrees. Shortly after, it is revealed that Vincent is in fact a contract killer travelling around the city to put several people on ice. Max is unwittingly pulled into Vincent's world of systematic murdering for this single night, leaving the frightened cabbie with no means of escape.

To be sure, the narrative is not particularly groundbreaking and it's predictable to a certain degree, but Stuart Beattie's smart script and Mann's sharp-eyed direction compensate for this. Collateral is not a surface-level flick - there are intelligent layers and nuances to both the narrative and the characters which take multiple viewings to pick up. For example, it's initially perplexing as to why Vincent wants Max to be his chauffer, but character interaction reveals he is just looking for someone to frame - Mark Ruffalo's detective role at one stage tells his colleagues of a story about a cabbie who supposedly killed three people before committing suicide. On top of this, exploring real ideas and themes is also on the agenda for Mann and Beattie. For instance, Vincent ruminates on his personal philosophies about the world and on the insignificance of a single human being. Similarly, Max aspires to start his own limousine company and insists his taxi job is temporary despite being a driver for twelve years, and this relates to the way people realise that their lifelong dreams are slipping out of their grasp through cruel passages of time and inertia. Indeed, Collateral is far from an excuse for exploitative violence in the name of entertainment.

Of all his directorial characteristics, Michael Mann is perhaps best known for attention to detail - he has the ability to make environments into characters, and lend realism to gunfights which are not glamorised or over-the-top but instead based on realistic scenarios, tactics and training. This remained unchanged for Collateral. Predominantly lensing the picture with digital cameras, Mann and his two cinematographers pervaded the film with an immersive authenticity, and neglected typical Hollywood sheen. Indeed, Mann centred his attention on developing atmosphere, building suspense and manipulating tension. Through using digital photography and as much natural lighting as possible, Mann achieves the verisimilitude he clearly strived for; transforming what could've been a cartoonish blockbuster into a thoroughly realistic yarn. Additionally, Mann and his crew assembled a soundtrack mixing pop, rock, jazz and classical tunes to match the moods of each respective scene. Michael Mann is the furthest thing from an ordinary action director - he is an expert craftsman.

Another of Mann's strengths here is pace, and he clearly understands the need for humanity and character building. It is possible to end up caring far more about Max's predicament after watching some very human moments between him and Annie. Through this, Max is efficiently developed into a nuanced three-dimensional human being. The extended scene within Max's cab that depicts Max and Annie's initially meeting is so expertly conceived, natural and charming that it could easily stand as a short film on its own. Beattie's script is another asset in this sense, since it gives the characters some sharp, honest dialogue. Likewise, the interactions between Vincent and Max are never anything less than enthralling. Also commendable is the fact that this is a Hollywood production where none of the characters seem to be safe, no matter how renowned the actors are. The ending may seem pat and clichéd, but is pitch-perfect; it's ultimately ironic, it underscores themes introduced throughout (such as Vincent mentioning Darwin's theory of evolution), and it brings closure to character arcs.

Though the script is magnificent and the filmmaking is top-notch, Collateral ultimately works due to the pair of performances courtesy of Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise, both of whom disappear into their roles. Cruise had an excellent opportunity to flex his antagonistic muscles, and pulled off what was required of him to great effect - his performance as Vincent is riveting. Likewise, the usually comically-oriented Foxx managed to deliver a superb, warm, understated performance that earned the star a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Both performances are also reflective of Mann's realistic insistence - Cruise underwent extensive firearms training, and in turn demonstrates outstanding pistol-handling skills throughout, while Foxx comes across as a run-of-the-mill everyman. In the supporting role of Annie, Jada Pinkett-Smith is absolute dynamite - she has never been more charming than she is here. In the more minor roles of the investigators hot on Vincent's trail, Mark Ruffalo, Peter Berg and Bruce McGill are all highly engaging.

Whereas most summer movies are action pictures with slight traces of drama and character development, Collateral is an intense, character-oriented drama-thriller with slight traces of action. And it is directly because of the drama and character development that the movie works so well. Collateral is a smart, mature and involving, and it is also the best motion picture of 2004 bar none.

"This is the nature of war. By protecting others, you save yourselves."

In the hands of legendary filmmaker Akira Kurosawa, a simple tale of seven samurai hired to protect a village from marauding bandits is transformed into a unique and mesmerising action epic of sustained tension and stoic humanity. It would ostensibly seem that stacking further praise onto Shichinin no Samurai (Seven Samurai) is futile after over five decades of critics doing so already, but there's no harm in offering a little more warranted love for this masterpiece.

Inarguably, Japan's most prevalent cinematic export is the samurai movie, and the most important samurai picture in history is Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. An action epic 18 months in the making, Seven Samurai impacted the way the samurai genre was viewed, and advanced its status. In addition, Kurosawa's 1954 masterwork shattered the formulas for both the jidai-geki (Japanese period film) and the chambara (Japanese swordplay film) by deconstructing and reassembling the Bushido samurai code, and by gazing through the lens of history at Japan's post-war struggle toward capitalism, democracy, and a new social and cultural identity. In the process of altering Japanese genre forms to suit his own proclivities, director Kurosawa created an engrossing, timeless tour de force. While critics during the '50s were dismissive of Seven Samurai, it has since achieved an almost mythical status, and was selected by a group of '00 critics as the Best Japanese Movie of All-Time.

Set at some point during the feudal era of Japan (circa late 16th Century) when lawlessness was rife and bandit gangs roamed the country-side, Seven Samurai concerns a small village that faces the prospect of again losing their valuable crops to a band of vicious marauders. The villagers abide by the advice of their elder, and set out to hire Ronin (masterless Samurai) to defend them. Despite offering little reward in return, a veteran samurai who has fallen on hard times answers the request and proceeds to round up a group of warriors. Upon arriving at the village, the samurai begin preparing for the impending attack, and teach the villagers to fight.

Curiously, for a film which is customarily perceived as the standard-bearer of samurai movies, Seven Samurai is an atypical entry to the genre. More typical samurai pictures concentrate on a sword-wielding, superhero-type protagonist who triumphs over an overwhelming horde of foes. Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, on the other hand, offers a group of flawed protagonists, some of whom are not skilled fighters. And, in large part due to the melancholy tone adopted by Kurosawa for the film's dénouement, the samurai's victory is ultimately hollow and unsatisfying; it feels like more of a defeat than a victory.

The premise may appear straightforward if examined at face value, but the execution is brilliant. Kurosawa allows the narrative to unfold quietly and calmly over three distinct acts. Act 1 establishes the plight of the villagers, and tracks the characters as the samurai are rounded up. In the second act, the samurai arrive and train the villagers to prepare for battle. The third and final act chronicles the epic battle between the bandits and the samurai. Once again, straightforward if taken at face value, but Kurosawa was deft enough to allow space for meticulous character development. Thus, during the passionate, riveting and intense final action scene, a viewer will care about and consequently cheer for the protagonists. The only fault of Seven Samurai is that, despite the daunting 210-minute runtime, only three of the samurai are fully realised - the other four "secondary" samurai are only sketchily developed, and are therefore poorly delineated when it comes to the battles.

Those who've never seen Seven Samurai may be intimidated by both its foreign origins and its three-and-a-half-hour running time, but they shouldn't. Seven Samurai is blessed with the type of momentum that long movies usually lack. True enough, the proceedings get somewhat tedious at times during its mammoth runtime, but the pace is generally strong. Additionally, the film displays the mastery of the technique of "deep focus" - Kurosawa continuously presents everything in focus, and different things usually transpire at different depths. These compositions are impressive, and fascinating to behold. The incredible action sequences within Seven Samurai, especially the final showdown, set a new precedent not only for samurai movies but also for Hollywood productions and all forms of foreign cinema. Let's not forget that Kurosawa's notion of epic cinema precedes the work of such esteemed filmmakers as David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia).

Seven Samurai may be an ensemble motion picture, but none of the cast members shine brighter than Kurosawa's favourite actor; Toshirô Mifune, whose character of Kikuchiyo is larger-than-life. Mifune was given a prime opportunity to show off his range here, playing Kikuchiyo as a stumbling drunk, a playful clown, a brooding man who reflects on his unhappy past, and a skilled fighter. Veteran performer Takashi Shimura - yet another of Kurosawa's frequent collaborators - provides the voice of wisdom, reason and patience in the role of Kambei. Standing in direct contrast with Kikuchiyo's flamboyance, Shimura presents his character as an authority figure who commands respect through mere presence. The third major samurai of the titular group is Katsushiro, who's played by Isao Kimura with an effective mixture of energy, naïveté, and the eventual realisation that battle is not all glory. Of the four remaining samurai, only Kyuzo, played by Seiji Miyaguchi, stands out, primarily because he's so different from his comrades. Soft-spoken and reserved, Kyuzo primarily uses his sword as his voice. The other three samurai are largely interchangeable, and their personalities won't begin to distinctly emerge until one's third or fourth viewing of the movie.

It's difficult to single out the elements which make Seven Samurai such a masterpiece. Everything, from Kurosawa's meticulous attention to detail to the amazing action to the genuinely heartfelt human drama unfurling beneath, comes together wonderfully. A few years following the movie's 1954 release, Seven Samurai was remade by John Sturges as The Magnificent Seven, which replaced 16th Century Japan with the American West, and replaced samurai with cowboys. The tremendous success of The Magnificent Seven inspired an international trend towards samurai imitations, and ultimately led to the "Spaghetti Westerns" of Sergio Leone and others. A well-deserved reputation.

"Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage, and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution."

It has been decades since Lawrence of Arabia first astonished the world when it hit cinemas back in 1962. In the years succeeding the film's release, it has become one of the highest regarded movies in cinematic history. Lawrence of Arabia has been bestowed with endless accolades, awards and tributes. Reviewers worldwide to this day still continually express their perpetual love and admiration for this passionate historical epic. Frankly, this reviewer feels fairly overwhelmed as everything that can be said about the movie has probably already been said. I'm most likely forty years too late to be offering my 2 cents on the movie. However, life as a microscopic sperm back then made it kinda difficult to both watch a movie and review it (I doubt I even existed as a sperm back then anyway). Therefore, as a reviewer in the year 2008, I still feel a sense of duty to express my opinions on this magnificent epic (even if these views have already been voiced billions of times before).

The scope and scale of Lawrence of Arabia is enough to astound its audience even in the 21st century. David Lean was at the helm after all. Beforehand Lean had directed such films as Bridge on the River Kwai and Summertime with many more great titles to follow. David Lean led such an exquisite and remarkable directorial career that even a modern-day director would have difficult matching it. There have been very few filmmakers capable of boasting the meticulous attention to detail, character and story that director Lean brought to the table. At the end of the day, this is exactly the reason why his films will remain cherished for a long time to come - and why great directors such as Steven Spielberg turn to these films for inspiration today.

The enduring appeal of Lawrence of Arabia is a combination of the exhilarating, exotic sense of adventure and an intensely personal, intimate human story. It's a majestic four-hour epic that still dwarfs contemporary epics. As the film was made in such a primitive CGI period, the filmmakers used the 'what you see is what you get' method - therefore hundreds of extras fill the screen, and all the action is done without the aid of digital imagery. As a result, the film will never grow outdated.

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."

This mythic blockbuster is both a spectacular epic and a sensitive portrait of one of the most enigmatic legends of the 20th century - "poet, scholar, warrior, exhibitionist" T.E. Lawrence (O'Toole). The film opens with Lawrence's tragic death in the 1930s. From there it eschews a detailed account of Lawrence's life in order to instead tell the story of his defining moment in history...his role in the Arabian Desert revolt of 1916-18 - as exaggerated by the real T.E. Lawrence in his book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, which was adapted for the screen by Robert Bolt and (the uncredited) Michael Wilson.
According to the story, Lawrence helped the divided Arab tribes to unite against the Turkish Empire during the later years of the Great War (a.k.a. World War I). Lawrence's hit-and-run guerrilla warfare tactics won him triumphs in the desert no-one thought possible. Through a series of audacious conquests he earned the trust, respect, and loyalty of the Arab peoples. He became a hero to the world, even though this almost drove him mad.

At a personal level, the leading characters are intriguing and unpredictable, worthy and fearsome. None of these protagonists are one-dimensional caricatures. There are so many interesting and fully-developed characters that are so brilliantly portrayed by a top-notch cast. The themes of myths, tribal antipathy, nationalities, war, alliances, promises, leadership, corruptibility, savagery, affection, arrogance, pride, delusion, audacity and pomp are admirably tackled and handled.

This is a beautiful and mesmerising film, making full use of the expansive vistas in its original 70mm format (one of the last films in history to do so). Production on location was an absolute nightmare for everyone involved. Extensive preparation was followed by fourteen arduous months of location shooting. Filming took longer than it took for the real Lawrence to fulfil his quest, interestingly. The film won an Oscar for Cinematography, and there is little wonder why. There is magnificent cinematography to behold throughout the entire movie. The battles are particularly well done. They may appear tame by today's standards, but they are still visceral.

The raw film was then given to editor Anne Coates who proceeded to construct the masterwork. The iconic scene of Peter O'Toole blowing out the match before the sharp cut straight to the desert sunrise is a moment brought to the film thanks to the marvellous editing. This film is full of such fantastic moments. Maurice Jarre was then brought onboard to compose the music. Maurice put together a truly memorable score. Editing and scoring may seem like little things by themselves, but when amalgamated in the final finished product the result is a masterpiece.

A great script was vital for the success of this film, which runs almost four hours. There are fascinating script lines delivered frequently by a more-than-capable cast. But it has to be said...at times the film seriously lacks momentum. There are sporadic instances when the film is infused with momentum and great energy, but these are followed by scenes that are more low-key and occasionally a tad self-indulgent (like the sometimes tiresome images of the desert...they're beautiful but excessive). This film is four hours long, though, so I don't think anyone expected to be riveted for every second of the film's duration. But, as a consequence, Lawrence of Arabia isn't as perfect as it's made out to be.

"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies has forgotten where he put it."

Over the years there have been several different versions of the film. The theatrical cut which was completed soon before the premiere was about 220 minutes long. This was a very long film by any standard - and one theatre owners bitterly complained about as it restricted the number of sessions per day. David Lean, Sam Spiegel (the producer) and Anne Coates got together and hacked off 20 minutes for a revised theatrical cut. Television reared its ugly head years later. Aside from creating a Panned & Scanned abomination, a further 15 minutes were cut from the film. Finally in 1989 the restored version of the film was released. This arduous restoration effort went ahead with financial assistance from Steven Spielberg. This version restored much of the missing footage that had been found in an archive. However, whilst they had the film negative in hand, the soundtrack was missing. David Lean and Anne Coates undertook re-recordings of the dialogue, bringing all the cast involved back into the studio one last time. The restored version is how we're supposed to see the movie, and it's a beautiful effort by everyone involved.

"Nothing is written."

Like I stated before, not much can be said about Lawrence of Arabia that hasn't already been said countless times before by critics and viewers. But this film deserves the praise it has received. Lawrence of Arabia is, for lack of a more original word, a masterpiece. This is one of cinema's most highly regarded classics, forever occupying an impressive position on the AFI 100, the IMDb Top 250, and several other lists. Additionally, it won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director. Peter O'Toole was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Gregory Peck for To Kill A Mockingbird.
Sorry to sound like every other critics worldwide, but if you haven't yet seen Lawrence of Arabia then you're missing out on the most essential screen epic in history.

"The truth is: I'm an ordinary man. You might've told me that, Dryden."

"I saw your face. It was the face of a depraved, murderous beast. Only two things ever meant anything to you: power and cruelty. You can't feel pity. You can't even feel guilt. You knew they were innocent, but you were crazy to see them hanged. And to make me watch it. I could've stopped you with a gun, just as any other animal can be stopped. But I couldn't do it because I'm a coward. Aren't you glad you made me go? Weren't you proud of me? How does it feel to have begot a weakling, Major? Does it make you afraid there may be some weakness in you, too? That other men might discover and whisper about?"

Director William A. Wellman's The Ox-Bow Incident, adapted from the novel by Walter Van Tilburg Clark, was so far ahead of its time that audiences were turned off upon its theatrical release. However critics of all stripes were smitten, and over the decades the film's reputation steadily grew. The film preceded the Gary Cooper/Grace Kelly Western classic High Noon by almost a decade. This aforementioned Gary Cooper Western is typically considered the benchmark of its genre; the first of a new brand of Westerns that was lean, incisive, and unflinching in its representation of the uglier facets of humanity. High Noon was also responsible for numerous John Wayne escapades, the Sergio Leone spaghetti Westerns, etc.

But The Ox-Bow Incident came first, and it shares the same psychological density and raw simplicity, not to mention a similarly concise running time as the later film. The Ox-Bow Incident was, in many ways, High Noon before the world was ready for High Noon. It's an astonishing tale delivering an uncompromising message about mob mentality. This is no mere museum piece or ancient artefact solely for cinema enthusiasts...it's a remarkably poignant, powerful and entertaining picture that more than holds its own all these decades later. This sombre, somewhat simplistically liberal Western is also one of the first films to condemn frontier machismo. This taut little film eschews Hollywood sensationalism to centre on America's violent core, which is still relevant even today.

As the movie opens, two itinerant ranch hands named Gil Carver (Fonda) and Art Croft (Morgan) ride into a small town in 1800s Nevada. Stopping off at the local saloon for a drink, the two are soon informed that the local ranchers have been plagued by cattle rustlers. A young cowboy soon enters the picture, spreading news that a popular rancher has been brutally gunned down and cattle stolen. The enraged townspeople, joined by a few drifters (including the reluctant Gil and Art), immediately congregate to form a posse to catch the perpetrators. The posse is nothing more than a lawless lynching mob, led by a surly deputy who abuses his power in the sheriff's absence. In the dead of night the mob stumble upon three men (Andrews, Quinn and Ford) embarking on a cattle drive. On the basis of flimsy, circumstantial evidence the mob assumes these three are their prey. A majority of the mob appear determined to see that justice is done on the spot, whereas only a few wish to see the case taken to court before any hangings occur. As it becomes apparent that blood-lust may win out over rationality, the tension mounts in this uncompromising study of mob violence.

The weight of having to make a life-and-death decision weighs on the soul of each man in the posse, and we're therefore compelled to share their burden. The Ox-Bow Incident builds to a shattering and admirably unconventional conclusion. This conclusion is unrelenting in its determination to be both realistic and faithful to the book. It postulates that each man should stand up, stand apart and be counted as a man of individual opinion, even if it means not following the will of the majority. The movie becomes a treatise on the dynamics of mob rule and vengeance for the sake of vengeance. For the film's final half it's utterly gripping and transfixing.

William A. Wellman directed the picture with stark realism that is as sharp as a knife from a script by Lamar Trotti which is beautifully brief with situations and words. Wellman blesses the film with tersely economic pacing and a tense atmosphere. At a brief 75 minutes, the film is brisk in delivering its message with only minor digressions into cheese territory, such as Carver's ex-girlfriend briefly entering the picture. This aforesaid sub-plot is planted but not adequately nurtured. It's slightly detrimental to the otherwise brisk pacing, unfortunately, and it's the most unnecessary scene in the film. Aside from that slight plot deviation, it remains quite on track. Taking its cue from its title, the film is succinct and brief, primarily concerning the one "incident" without wasting energy on superfluous characterisations or extraneous action. It's all for the best, and is all the more effective for it.

To cut costs (the film was made in the grim early days of WWII, thus budgets needed to be as small as possible) the movie was shot on sets. For the most part this technique works extraordinarily well, increasing the tone of claustrophobia. At other times, such as the aftermath of the incident, it feels a tad artificial and phoney.

The Ox-Bow Incident bears an unmistakable affinity to film noir, not only due to the moody shadowy photography as there's also a gallery of grotesques that inhabit this decidedly uncelebratory depiction of the frontier spirit. After a gloomy climax that refuses to let anyone off the hook, The Ox-Bow Incident concludes in a very non-Hollywood fashion. Gil and the wounded Art limp out of town, passing the same draggy dog that was visible when they initially rode in. William A. Wellman also adds a masterly wrinkle to the sentimental scene of Fonda reading a letter by obscuring Fonda's eyes with a hat brim. The director did this habitually when he wanted an audience to concentrate on a message as opposed to a personality. Wellman's direction also circumvents the typical Western clichés. He keeps the action enclosed in a small setting where most directors would broaden the horizons in favour of scope and scale. A subtle yet effective melancholy tune accompanies the visuals.

Leading the cast is recognised actor Henry Fonda who turns in a superlative performance. His lackadaisical persona melds interestingly with his character's ornery temperament to generate a moral ambiguity. This ambiguity clouds his character's allegiances in the "vengeance vs. justice" debate in mystery until the moment when he's strained to overtly choose sides. Fonda's Gil Carver is no solid, gallant, upright citizen. He's an errant cuss who gets himself entangled in a bar fight moments after arrival at the small town. Yet he's one of the few characters in the story who has a conscience and uses it. In a way, this is a peculiar foreboding of his role in the 1957 film 12 Angry Men.

Lamar Trotti's screenplay torments us with hints of mystery about the three men who stand accused; it is only through the heart-wringing performance of Dana Andrews, who admirably outshines his co-stars, that there's a definite sense of the trio's innocence. Andrews as the bewildered and helpless leader of the doomed trio exudes character and integrity, and does much to make the film an overpoweringly distressing tragedy. It's impossible not to feel for Andrews' character: heartbroken over the probability of his wife and young children being left to fend for themselves in a rough frontier if he is hanged.

An excellent complementary performance by Anthony Quinn as one of the suspected murderers is another highlight. Quinn's brash confidence and fearlessness as a Mexican outlaw (operating under an alias) undermines any faith we have in the trio's innocence. Francis Ford (who got his son John into the industry) is amazing as a disorientated old man unable to comprehend what's actually happening. Frank Conroy's performance of the demagogue (donning a Confederate officer's uniform) is authoritative and utterly stunning. Harry Davenport and Leigh Whipper are more emotionally affecting as champions of the right. Mary Beth Hughes was pulled in for one brief, ironic scene with Fonda which gives a justification for his mood. The rest of the cast can take bows for their small but impressive roles. All these actors have their moments to shine towards the climax when something tragic is revealed. There are emotive expressions of guilt in each man, effectively conveying the lightning bolt they've all be hit with. These precise performances, coupled with a brilliant, tightly-written script, keep our hearts and minds at constant war with one another.

There's something extraordinary about the way in which The Ox-Bow Incident places joint emphasis on its characters and storytelling, as opposed to the simple genre norms John Wayne films adhere to. This is an ugly study in mob violence, unrelieved by any human clemency save the vain reproach of a small minority and mild post-lynching remorse. In 75 minutes, the film exhibits most of the baser inadequacies of men - cruelty, blood-lust, ruffianism, pusillanimity and sordid conceit. It offers a catastrophic infringement of justice with little repercussion to sweeten the bitter draught. The Ox-Bow Incident is a top-tier Western as powerful, unsentimental and thought-provoking as it was decades ago. The film won't brighten your day...but for sheer stark realism it's hard to beat. The film is a quietly compelling argument against the human tendency towards irrational behaviour. This is a true landmark movie, one that delivers a worthwhile message: betray your conscience and it will haunt you forever.

"My dear Wife, Mr. Davies will tell you what's happening here tonight. He's a good man and has done everything he can for me. I suppose there are some other good men here, too, only they don't seem to realize what they're doing. They're the ones I feel sorry for. 'Cause it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives. A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurtin' everybody in the world, 'cause then he's just not breaking one law but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people ever have found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity. There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived? I guess that's all I've got to say except kiss the babies for me and God bless you. Your husband, Donald."

"We deal in lead, friend."

It's strangely appropriate that John Sturges' The Magnificent Seven is a Western remake of Akira Kurosawa's Japanese epic Seven Samurai. After all, Kurosawa has repeatedly said that his work is inspired by American Westerns. While The Magnificent Seven cannot compete with Seven Samurai in terms of visual dexterity or profound thematic complexity, John Sturges' Western-ised adaptation holds up as a rousing action-adventure story as well as a fascinating turning point in the history of films about the Old West. Not only does The Magnificent Seven contain a pitch-perfect cast and a satisfying amount of exciting, gun-slinging action, but it additionally finds time to explore deep contradictions of the mythic noble outlaws which proved so endemic to the American Western genre.

The plot is a simple one, and follows the template established by Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. A small Mexican village is repeatedly raided by a bandit gang led by the menacing Calvera (Wallach) who constantly leaves the villagers destitute. Desperate and fed up with living under Calvera's thumb, several of the villagers travel to a nearby border town in the hope of purchasing guns to defend themselves, but end up simply hiring professional gunmen instead. A total of seven men are recruited, who travel back to the village to confront Calvera and his gang of bandits. Each of the seven men has their own reasons for being involved, but all are united under the common goal of removing fear from the village and overthrowing the evil marauders.

The Magnificent Seven is divided into two distinct halves. The first chronicles the rounding up of the seven gunmen, while the second half recounts the epic battle fought between the gunslingers and Calvera's gang of bandits. Taken at face value, this is standard good vs. evil stuff. But if scrutinised further, one will uncover something much deeper. Sure, the good guys fight off the bad guys heroically, but each character is imbued with a finely-drawn, distinct and interesting personality. The gunmen are masterfully humanised; they're tough guys who have regrets and fears, but manage to do a commendable job of hiding them. Things steadily intensify during the lead-up to the final showdown which displays no mercy even towards the film's most likeable characters. The Magnificent Seven also remains vital and interesting due to departures from the genre norms it opted to take. This was probably the first Hollywood Western in history to delve into the emptiness of the life of a gunfighter; they're confident in their profession, but are unable to hold down a stable home and family life. In a wonderfully judged scene, the seven men discuss the pros and cons of the life they've chosen, and it's apparent this life hasn't greatly rewarded them since they were poor enough to accept this job for which they'll receive little pay.

Of course, The Magnificent Seven wouldn't be considered such a success on characters alone; there are rousing action sequences here as well. In this respect, much of the credit belongs to director John Sturges, an 'outdoor' director who keeps the pacing efficient and has an eye for action set-pieces. Prior to The Magnificent Seven, Sturges was experienced in directing both action films and Westerns with such titles as Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and Bad Day at Black Rock. It's due to the director's extensive experience that when the action happens, it's taut, motivated and convincing, with a strong sense of urgency and a clear notion of what's at stake. The expansive vistas of Western scenery, the codes of honour among the gunslingers, the camaraderie they find in each other, as well as the shootouts so common in Hollywood Westerns are all included here in spades. This fusion of so many irresistible elements raises the film several notches above more typical tales of simplistic cowboy heroes.

Yul Brynner was initially suggested to direct this movie, but Sturges ended up getting the job. Instead, Brynner settled for one of the protagonists - an excellent alternative, because Brynner's performance is outstanding. Another inspired casting choice is Steve McQueen as a member of the titular team. McQueen, who eventually went on to star in Bullitt and The Great Escape, imbues his performance with cool and intensity. He was the ultra-cool male film star of the 1960s, after all. The other five champions of the film are James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn, Brad Dexter and European film star Horst Buchholz. It's easy to see why these men were cast: all have unique, memorable faces that convey both conviction and desolation. A number of actors got their big breaks in this film, including Steve McQueen, James Coburn and Charles Bronson. It's funny to imagine these actors being relatively unknown at the time. It's also interesting to note that there was a tremendous rivalry between the actors, in particular between Brynner and McQueen. Meanwhile Eli Wallach is superb playing the menacing, no-nonsense villain. Too many movies allow the lead villain to remain two-dimensional, but this is not the case here.

Upon close examination, there are no real flaws to point out within The Magnificent Seven - it's just flawed in the sense that it feels like an abridged reiteration of Seven Samurai. Other than that, the film is top drawer. It offers drama, strong characterisations, clever writing, action and suspense. It's exciting, witty, smart and sometimes even sweet. Added to this, it's a Western actioner that crosses the line to appeal to movie-lovers of all sorts. Deep down, you know it's not as brilliant as Kurosawa's Seven Samurai...but very few films are.

"The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn."

On the surface, Léon is an easily dismissible film because it just seems like a simple French drama. But Léon is something far from that. Léon is an absorbing character study that has all the elements of gripping drama mixed with the elements of an exciting American action film. The combination equals one of the most intelligent American action films in cinematic history.

Léon is the first American film by director Luc Besson and it's a masterpiece. The film is exciting, suspenseful, taut, smart and awesome.

Jean Reno plays the title role of Léon; a professional assassin with a robust reputation. In his apartment building an abused, alienated 12-year-old girl named Mathilda (Portman) is left alone when the rest of her family are slaughtered courtesy of crooked, two-faced, psychotic DEA cop Norman Stansfield (Oldman). Léon reluctantly takes Mathilda under his wing; providing care and a place to stay because she has no-where else to go.

But Mathilda is intrigued by Léon's profession of being a hit man. In order to avenge the death of her little brother (the only one in the family she cared about), Léon teaches Mathilda the art of his trade and reveals the secrets of how to become a professional cleaner. But this blooming friendship opens up new doors for Léon; he feels the ability to care and love.

Léon brilliantly combines scenes of violent, awesome action with some compelling drama that showcases wonderful performances. Jean Reno begins as a cold assassin who feels nothing. Every turn for his character is felt strongly by the audience. He's reluctant to shelter young Mathilda but when he finally does it alters his life forever. Being a professional hit man he should not have the ability to love and strongly feel emotion. Jean Reno never breaks his profound concentration for the film's duration. The opening 20 minutes showed Reno as ruthless and cool; everything one should find in such a character.

Natalie Portman is in her film debut with this role. She's extremely young, but her acting can't be faulted. Her performance is heart-felt and sincere. Whenever she cries it doesn't feel at all contrived. For someone in their early teen years, this is a quality almost unheard of. Kudos to Portman for pulling off such a convincing first role!

Gary Oldman is sadistic and cynical but at the same time energetic and occasionally amusing. His character was despicable; however Oldman plays the role to perfection.

Luc Besson really knows how to direct a film like this. The cinematography in particular was outstanding! The action scenes don't suffer from the usual fast cut syndrome. They are filled with creative camera angles, ultra violence and the camera was utilised in a highly inventive way.

Léon also boasts a great story that suffers from a very small number of typical clichés. Sure, the love story was a little embarrassing at times but that's only a marginal fault. Aside from that the script is smart, the action is taut and the film is dazzling entertainment.

Léon is highly recommended for a night of action, laughs and drama all rolled into one masterpiece.

"In this world only the strong survive. The weak get crushed like insects."

Shine is a deceitfully straightforward and disposable title for an unreservedly amazing motion picture. This low-budget Australian feature illuminates the strength of the human spirit and the triumph of the heart as it depicts the tremendous courage of a troubled individual. The story it conveys is incredibly poignant - a young man driven to breaking point by his father, and defying his father's wishes in order to pursue his dreams. Provocative, enthralling and potent, Shine offers a tale of insurgence and individuality through the eyes of a pianist whose sole form of self-expression is in the ivory keys of a piano. Shine may superficially appear uninteresting and depressing - yet, quite simply, it's anything but. Writer-director Scott Hicks' biopic is an astonishingly well-made saga of triumph over adversity and the destructive power of love that's compelling viewing; leaving no emotional chain unyanked.

At the Sundance Film Festival of 1996, Shine was among the hottest properties being offered. This unforgettable tour de force ignited a distributor bidding war between Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and Bob Shaye of New Line. Upon its eventual theatrical release, Shine was acclaimed by critics and movie-goers alike. Despite its low-budget origins, this film was among the must-see movies of 1996. It earned 9 AFI (Australian Film Institute) Awards, including those for Best Picture, Best Actor (Geoffrey Rush) and Best Supporting Actor (Armin Mueller-Stahl). Noah Taylor was additionally nominated for Best Actor, competing against Rush.

Astonishingly, Shine even reached the Academy Awards! Geoffrey Rush received the Oscar for Best Actor for his memorable performance as the mentally unstable adult David. The film was nominated for additional Oscars - Best Picture, Best Director (Scott Hicks), Best Supporting Actor (Armin Mueller-Stahl), Best Screenplay, Best Editing and Best Music. Although it only gleaned a single Oscar at the ceremony...for a little Aussie movie it's extremely impressive nonetheless. On top of this, it also acquired an incalculable amount of prestigious awards worldwide. This includes awards at the BAFTAs and the Golden Globes (Rush continually won Best Actor). After viewing the first frame of Shine, it's already obvious why it garnered so much acclaim. This is a testament to the glorious filmmaking in all departments.

The film is a fictionalised account of the life of Australian pianist David Helfgott. Shine chronicles David's life from childhood (played by Alex Rafalowicz), through to adolescence (Noah Taylor), and onwards to adulthood (Geoffrey Rush). David's father, Peter (Mueller-Stahl), is a Polish Jew who settled in Australia following his devastating experience during the Holocaust. The anguish of losing loved ones impels Peter to keep his family together at all costs, and his drive to teach David music from a young age is a direct reaction to his own father's dislike of music. As a little boy, David is a child prodigy who shows phenomenal promise. After performing at a school recital, music teacher Ben Rosen (Bell) notices David's obvious talent and offers to teach him. As an adolescent, David wins several competitions and is offered a scholarship for the Royal College of Music in London. Even despite his father's pungent objections, David departs for London...and Peter summarily disowns his son. In London his brilliance flourishes, and he opts to attempt a notoriously difficult piece of music. The cumulative pressure overwhelms David, and after playing a perfect rendition of Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto he suffers a mental breakdown. Ten years on, David resides in mental institutions who frown upon the piano in fear of a relapse. An unlikely romance eventually brings stability, and through several twists of fate (more unlikely than those told in the film) he makes his return to the concert stage.

Gillian: "How do you feel?"

David: "I'm shocked, stunned and amazed."

In 1986, Scott Hicks read a newspaper story about David Helfgott - a pianist who performed a flawless classical catalogue at a Perth restaurant. Hicks' interest was immediately ignited, and he arranged to witness Helfgott in concert. For the majority of the following year, Hicks worked to earn Helfgott's trust with the goal in mind of committing his story to celluloid. Jan Sardi's screenplay was admittedly fictionalised to an extent, in fact Hicks is emphatic Shine is not a straight biography despite including real people and events. Although it'd be interesting to behold a more faithful telling of David Helfgott's life & career, Shine is 1996's most stirring and inspirational movie. The decidedly inaccurate story is both powerful and affecting. It's riveting from the first frame 'til the last, which is a combination of the wonderful script, the engaging performances, the focused direction and the banquet of striking locations. The passion for the music incessantly clattering around in David's head fuels the film. Handsomely photographed concert scenes are bequeathed with the energy of a shootout in a John Woo picture. It's pianist vs. music in a contest of wills, and this is embodied by swirling, dizzying camera work.

Sardi and Hicks elected to tell the story of David Helfgott in a non-chronological manner. While the structure isn't totally jumbled - ala Pulp Fiction - the film is predominantly told through flashbacks. This bestows the movie with a unique dynamic. Fortunately, there is no voice-over narration - the proceedings speak for themselves without the support of a disembodied voice adding "valuable" comments. Those behind the camera have made few, if any, mistakes with Shine - and the fashion of its unique presentation is just one example of a perfect creative decision.

Love can flaunt various different faces, and Shine illustrates two of the most extreme. The first is Peter Helfgott's compulsive, domineering love. Mueller-Stahl's performance challenges a viewer to label Peter as just another abusive father attempting to live vicariously through the talents of his son. Peter can be consoling and gentle every so often, and there's no denying that he holds genuine feelings for David. Nevertheless there are instances when his outbreaks cause violence, and cruel results are the outcome.

The other face of love is the healing, undemanding one - as personified in a middle-aged astrologer named Gillian (Redgrave). As the two fall in love, Gillian offers her strength and understanding to David in order to help him rebuild his life. The final scene depicts the synthesis of both these faces as David attempts to at long last bring closure to one of the great, unresolved issues of his troubled life.

Ardently character-driven from the opening sequence, Shine is carried by phenomenal performances right down the line. Geoffrey Rush makes short, infrequent appearances during the film's first half before being brought to the fore for the film's final half. Rush's Academy Award was well-earned (as was his AFI Award, for that matter). His stuttering delivery exemplifies the unbridled genius of the adult David Helfgott. Noah Taylor was also nominated for an AFI Award as the adolescent David. Even though the two actors worked together to perfect specific mutual mannerisms, each offered a unique interpretation of the character. Taylor is young, energetic, and highly-strung. Rush, on the other hand, presents a recuperating David who - while still hyperkinetic - is progressively learning to face the world as opposed to hiding from it.

David's childhood is dominated by Armin Mueller-Stahl as Peter Helfgott; a man who recognised his son's remarkable abilities and pushed him to practice and learn. Fatherly love becomes single-mindedness - when David is accepted into prestigious international music schools, his father refuses him permission to go due to an obsession with family unity, strength and pride. "You will destroy your family!" he screams.

The supporting cast includes Alex Rafalowicz as a wonderfully assured infant David, Googie Withers, Lynn Redgrave, Nicholas Bell and John Gielgud as a crusty, cravat-sporting piano teacher.

"No-one will love you like me, no-one like me."

Shine primarily concerns building strength from weakness. It's inspirational due to the fact David fights his way back. He never renounces, and his triumph becomes ours. David may not have experienced these precise events, but he most certainly endured the basic outline - becoming an exceptional pianist, collapsing, and putting himself back together again. This basic structure alone is astonishing, and perfectly conveys the consequences of a strong human heart. Shine is extraordinarily compelling for essentially a character study of one man, and director Scott Hicks masterfully uses the camera to capture an inner turmoil. The acting is immaculate (Rush's frantic babbling as the insane David perfectly encapsulates the nature of the real-life David), the classical soundtrack is stirring, and the story is told with warmth and humour that prevents it from being the self-pitying wallow it could easily have become. The protagonist veers between poignant depression and touching eccentricity, coming across as an adorable innocent and giving rise to an uplifting ending. The picture also presents its own inimitable impression of genius, arguing that even the greatest talent needs to be nurtured. Through the power of David Helfgott's virtuoso musical performances, Shine illustrates that there are other, more effective ways of self-expression than mere speech.

"You must play as if there's no tomorrow."

"Believe me, you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head."

Michael Mann struck moderate success with a 1986 thriller entitled Manhunter. This film introduced us to a brilliant psychiatrist/cannibalistic serial killer named Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lector. First played by Brian Cox, the role was then filled by actor Anthony Hopkins.

Based on a novel of the same name by Thomas Harris, The Silence of the Lambs is one of the greatest movies of all time and one of the world's most effective thrillers. If you have never seen this absolute classic thriller that redefined the serial killer genre you have no idea what you're missing out on.

Clarice Starling (Foster) is a brilliant FBI agent-in-training who is assigned to assist in the hunt for a serial killer known as Buffalo Bill who has been kidnapping, murdering and skinning young women. The head of the FBI Behavioural Sciences section Jack Crawford (Glenn) sends Clarice to a mental institution to confide with once-renowned Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lector (Hopkins). It is hoped that Lector will provide a detailed profile of Buffalo Bill and perhaps aid in his capture. Lector only agrees to help if in return Clarice feed facts about her life to his morbid curiosity just for his own amusement.

The Silence of the Lambs is a stunning, taut, intelligent thriller that was an unexpected hit when it was first released. The film also made a successful trip to the Oscars; becoming the third film to clean up the top 5 Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Surely this profitable Academy Awards evening should be enough motivation to warrant multiple viewings.

The Silence of the Lambs is also quite a terrifying experience. It's not the kind of horror you'd find in a typical slasher flick; it's a psychological thriller that makes the audience petrified of the grim characters, and it's played exceptionally well on the underlying modern fear of the lethal human predator with no conscience, remorse or perceived reason. Hannibal Lector looks normal on the surface, but is revealed to be twisted and disturbing on the inside. It's also the macabre images present in the basement of a serial killer that adds to the film's terrifying nature. It will give you the creeps.

The film is also held together by the extremely strong interaction between Lector and Clarice. It's no wonder that both of them received Oscars. Anthony Hopkins cannot be even slightly faulted as the twisted psychiatrist. This was truly a career-changing role of Hopkins. I personally prefer Hopkins as Lector over Brian Cox. Although Cox did a great job, he just wasn't as creepy or spine-chilling as Hopkins' sublime portrayal. It's a close call, though. Jodie Foster's performance also holds the movie together. She always seems so vulnerable with an outward show that suggests a tough-spirited character. Foster always looks somewhat scared whenever she has a conversation with Lector - or even so much as glances at him.

Jonathan Demme's direction is masterful. I'm not sure if it was the direction or the editing - either way, the film is highly suspenseful and effective. Especially towards the climax. Demme keeps the dialogue taut and interesting; receiving engaging performances from the spirited cast.

The Silence of the Lambs is entertaining, smart, effective, imaginative, gory and scary with a high level of intelligence. The thriller genre does not get any better than this!

This is the film that redefined serial killer movies. I have enjoyed viewing this film after multiple screenings and the DVD will continue to be replayed. The Silence of the Lambs can't be missed at any cost.

"It's official. I'm in love with Summer. I love her smile. I love her hair. I love her knees. I love how she licks her lips before she talks. I love her heart-shaped birthmark on her neck. I love it when she sleeps."

(500) Days of Summer is a romantic comedy designed for viewers who don't usually like romantic comedies. Or, to rephrase, it's a movie for those who appreciate the emotional resonance of a rom-com but are unenthusiastic about the clichés and formulas associated with the genre. In fact, what sets (500) Days of Summer apart from its cookie-cutter rom-com brethren is its subtle mocking of convention. Much like Woody Allen's Annie Hall did for a previous generation, this is a film that best captures a contemporary romantic sensibility. For his feature film debut, former music video director Marc Webb has done so much right that it's hard and perhaps borderline mean-spirited to point out the few minor foibles.

The protagonist of the story is hopeless romantic Tom Hansen (Gordon-Levitt) who reflects on the several hundred days he knew Summer Finn (Deschanel). The moment Tom spots her in the workplace, he's instantly smitten. After a few encounters at work, the two become romantically involved. But there's one crucial obstacle in their relationship: radically opposing perceptions on love. Despite Summer's firm stance that she's not looking for anything serious, Tom harbours delusions that she's falling head-over-heels for him.

The story of Tom and Summer's relationship is not conveyed in a simple linear progression, but rather told out of order (with a counter that reveals which day it is). As the narrative whipsaws back and forth, the film allows us to see moments of happiness and sadness, tenderness and anger, togetherness and separation...all right next to each other. It shows how memories of the good and the bad intertwine and obscure each other, depending on the moment. The screenwriters brilliantly realise that, even in the pain of a break-up, all the happy, earlier memories of a person will forever exist. It's unbelievably difficult to just get over someone when you can still vividly recall how they used to look at you.

In a sense, (500) Days of Summer feels like an anthology of bits and pieces that don't often feature in rom-coms. Adamantly eschewing convention (no cute meetings or last-minute dashes to the airport), this is a movie concerned about the thrill of realising a girl you desire has similar taste in music, and the hollowness of going out on dates when you're still pining for your ex-girlfriend. Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber's screenplay is smart, witty, frequently hilarious, and rooted in recognisable truths that give weight to what would otherwise be merely amusing. Also, viewers aren't damned to endure gross-out gags or unfunny pratfalls, because the comedy (of which there is a lot) evolves organically. The script isn't ridiculously profanity-ridden either, though the sole use of the f-word perhaps provides the biggest laugh. Not everything works - an omniscient narrator seems lazy and overused, and Tom has a kid sister (Moretz) who's wise beyond her years - but even if something falls flat, there's plenty of charm to allow us to discount these misgivings.

Director Marc Webb brings the script to life with the utmost pizzazz; indulging in a full armada of visual tweaks and ocular gags. There are faux old movie recreations (most notably of Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal) that place Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel in the action, a clever split-screen sequence that balances Tom's hopeful fantasy with the less optimistic reality, and a wonderful song-and-dance number to convey the joyfulness of Tom's first night with Summer (set to You Make My Dreams Come True by Hall & Oates). This breezy song-and-dance sequence is especially critical to putting the movie in proper perspective - for the entirety of the film, viewers are not objective voyeurs...they're gazing through Tom's eyes.

(500) Days of Summer has quite a neo-Woody Allen vibe, calling to mind two classic romantic comedies courtesy of the writer-director: Annie Hall and Manhattan (though Joseph Gordon-Levitt is better looking than Woody and infinitely less neurotic). These aforementioned films recognised a simple fact that few rom-coms acknowledge: not all romances, no matter how promising, end happily. (500) Days of Summer also understands this, as well as the fact that every high of a relationship has a matching low.

The amount of movie-goers who develop crushes for Zooey Deschanel is borderline embarrassing, and this reviewer is as guilty as anyone else. But you can't help it; every time she appears in a movie, she's absolutely enchanting. (500) Days of Summer cleverly trades in on that - an early sequence (with wry narration) explains "the Summer Effect"; presenting hard data which reveals, for example, that she substantially increased profits at an ice cream parlour during her time of employment there, and the average percent of the asking price she usually pays for an apartment. Summer is always in danger of becoming a romanticised abstraction, but Zooey's wonderful performance and inherent beauty keeps the character profoundly human. Her charm is effective, and a viewer can easily understand why Tom would be so enamoured with her and want to hold onto her, even when she's clearly and defiantly pulling away from him.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (best known for his recurring role in the TV series 3rd Rock from the Sun) is note-perfect, and so effortlessly charismatic that it's hard not to like him. Thanks to the flights of fancy taken by the script, Gordon-Levitt must speak French, sing awful karaoke, and lead a song-and-dance number in the streets (among other things), all of which he accomplishes with marvellous aplomb. Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel are an outstanding screen couple with unusually brilliant chemistry. The entire cast is simply perfect from top to bottom.

Romantic comedies are too often robbed of integrity on account of the constraints of the traditional hackneyed formula. Movies such as (500) Days of Summer, with a willingness to deviate from convention, therefore seem more honest and excellent than usual. With its boundless charm and witty screenplay, this is an easy film to fall in love with.

"I feel like I've been in a coma for the past twenty years. And I'm just now waking up."

American Beauty is a virtuoso, provocative, multi-faceted, incisive and unconventional drama that takes a comprehensive glimpse at the American dream gone wrong. I had approached this movie with a great deal of hesitation. There were reviews aplenty from people who praised this film as a wonderful masterpiece of the highest order. Before watching this film I could never have believed that making a film of such stature and power would actually be possible.


American Beauty is a magnificent psychological drama that takes a satirical at the American community. The characters are versatile and intricate. The movie demonstrates the darkest things of a person's personality. Even though the characters do some truly appalling things the audience can still be involved with the characters because although bad, they are still shown as unexaggerated and human.


Lester Burnham (Spacey) is a forty-something year old suburban father who is depressed and unhappy. He has a wife (Carolyn; played by Benning), who is looking for sexual pleasure elsewhere, and he has a daughter (Jane; played by Birch) who hates her father and falls in love with their new next door neighbour Ricky (Bentley). Lester's job is leading nowhere when his company decides they have to cut back on their staff due to money issues. Lester also becomes fascinated and infatuated with one of Jane's friends; Angela (Suvari). Lester's behaviour drives him further and further away from his family that already detest him. From there, we follow each family member who are on their own emotional journey of life.


American Beauty is an extremely powerful drama carried by some superb performances. The acting is truly amazing with Kevin Spacey in a performance that won him an Oscar. Spacey has the look and feel of your usual stereotypical suburban American father. He may seem conventional but these stereotypes are explored; revealing a personality with a lot more depth and complexity. There are several horrible character traits he exhibits; however it's impossible not to empathise with him. His family drifts away from him and we can genuinely feel his motivations.


The driving force behind the film is not only the performances but the screenplay. Each line of dialogue is intriguing and enthralling. There is never a wasted minute during the film's duration because of how meticulously the dialogue was written; intelligent, fascinating and profoundly insightful.


The direction, which also gained an Oscar, is utterly flawless. Sam Mendes compliments the great screenplay with equally accomplished directing. Each scene is both engaging and meaningful; it gives the audience further insight into the characters that are being examined so deeply. On top of this, it's compelling storytelling as well as being occasionally humorous.


American Beauty is a lot more complex and eloquent than it sounds; it's a brilliant and amazing story that constructs an indication of the sad reality of contemporary American society. I never expected a film like this to be as brilliant as it turned out to be. It's relevant to today's society, it carries a good message about life and it is extremely potent. Winner of 5 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Cinematography and Best Writing.

"You are my best friend. You are my only friend."

In this cinematic era of computer animation, the art of claymation (for which hand-moulded figurines are painstakingly photographed one frame at a time) is slowly dissolving. Aardman Studios (the guys behind Wallace and Gromit) seem to be the only ones who still possess the patience required to continue the practise into the 21st Century. It's therefore refreshing to witness the Australian film Mary and Max (the feature film debut of Adam Elliot, who won an Oscar for his short film Harvie Krumpet), which was created using this claymation method to tell a bizarre, sweet and mature story. Tremendously inventive, clever, hilarious and wise, Mary and Max is a sublime movie of warmth and compassion about life's dissonances. The animation is superb, the characters are endearing, the humour is abundant, and it honestly and thoroughly explores several topical themes. If American Beauty director Sam Mendes collaborated with Aardman Animations, the product would be something like Mary and Max.

Based partly on Elliot's own life experiences, Mary and Max is a feature about two people leading a mundane existence on the fringe of society; finding solace only in their heartfelt pen-pal letters to each other. Mary Daisy Dinkle (voiced by Bethany Whitmore and Toni Collette) is a chubby, friendless 8-year-old living in the suburbs of Melbourne with her neglectful parents. One day, Mary randomly selects a name from the Manhattan phone book and writes a letter to him. She chooses Max Horovitz (Hoffman); a severely obese 44-year-old Jewish man with Asperger's Syndrome living in the chaos of New York City. It turns out they have a lot in common - beyond loneliness and a complete lack of friends, they share a love of chocolate and a TV show called The Noblets. Thus begins a 20-year correspondence, with their friendship surviving more than the average diet of life's ups and downs.

There's plenty of playful narration (almost constant) courtesy of Aussie legend Barry Humphries which gives the film the feel of a children's tale, but Mary and Max is not for kids. The movie doesn't shy away from covering an array of mature, confronting issues, such as depression, sexuality, suicide, obesity and mental illness. Unlike most mainstream movies in which friendship saves the day and everybody is happy, Mary and Max is unmistakably dark - both physically dark, and dark in its depiction of reality. Max is never able to lose weight, and Mary can never escape the shadow of her parents. Mary eternally resides in her brown-tinged Melbourne suburb, while Max's New York City is depicted as a grey metropolis whose only bright colours are those that come from Mary (a red pompom, for instance). The predominantly colourless and ominous cityscape of NYC is clearly symbolic of Max's melancholy, mental distress and isolation. The ending in particular underlines the film's dark disposition; showing that in real life there may be happy middles, but happy endings are almost non-existent. But despite this, Mary and Max is by no means a highly depressing venture; it's a cinematic delight, with its downbeat content matched by constant laughs, a super-abundance of heart, and several deeply moving moments. Somehow, all of this is squeezed into an 85-minute timeframe, which at times feels longer due narrative simplicity and the occasional pacing issues. This is probably to be expected, however, as Elliot has only previously worked on shorts.

Even though a mere claymation short could take up to a year to create, old-school animators such as Adam Elliot and his team display a palpable affection for this approach. Mary and Max spent a total of five years in the making, with six dedicated animation teams working under Elliot's direction in a converted factory in Melbourne, and each team creating an average of 4 seconds of footage per day. A huge kudos to Adam Elliot and his claymation team for creating such a vivid, picturesque world here, with the grim landscape evoking a film-noir feel. Every one of the characters, created from plasticine, is intricately and lovingly detailed. The detail does generate the illusion that we're watching a computer-animated movie, yet the painstaking claymation process affords a look, feel and soul that has yet to be replicated through computers. One must have patience and passion to undertake a stop-motion feature of such scale, and these are two qualities Adam Elliot infinitely exerts.

Another tremendous pleasure of Mary and Max is the voice cast; a cornucopia of vocal talent from across the globe. Without a doubt, Philip Seymour Hoffman has proved one of the most versatile actors of recent years with his exceptional vocal work (Capote, anyone?), and he's virtually unrecognisable here. This is, of course, the true essence of voice acting - a viewer should not be given the chance to focus on the actor providing the voice, but instead the character they are voicing. Meanwhile Bethany Whitmore is effortlessly endearing as the young Mary, and Toni Collette is pitch-perfect as Mary in her later years.

Through an immense artistry as well as an evident maturity emanated by the makers, Mary and Max affirmatively and genuinely answers a potent question: is there someone for everyone? In adulthood, we understand that we're born into our families but choose our friends, and the 20-year friendship between these two vastly different yet curiously similar individuals proves the theory. Adam Elliot's ambitious first feature-length claymation movie is an absolute delight, merging witty laughs with heartfelt emotion to generate this genuinely moving slice of animation. Mary and Max is, at least for this reviewer's money, the best animated motion picture of 2009 (yes, better than Up). After the terrific Harvie Krumpet and now this, it's clear Elliot is a highly talented filmmaker one should keep an eye on in future years.

"After I killed him, I dropped the gun in the Thames, washed the residue off me hands in the bathroom of a Burger King, and walked home to await instructions. Shortly thereafter the instructions came through - "Get the fuck out of London, you dumb fucks. Get to Bruges." I didn't even know where Bruges fucking was."

Highly acclaimed Irish playwright Martin McDonagh accomplishes his feature film debut with the fantastic In Bruges. McDonagh served as both writer and director for this poignant, powerful morality narrative that merges equal quantities of humour and pathos. It seems McDonagh has a fondness for unrelenting violence and brutality, not to mention vibrantly-drawn characters that are predominantly contemptible.
In Bruges is an extraordinarily well-written story that never loses you during its slightly excessive running time. It's an ardently character-driven drama that draws palpable influence from the works of Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarantino. McDonagh himself even stated that Nicholas Roeg's 1973 film Don't Look Now was among his inspirations while penning his screenplay. On that note the film isn't for all tastes, in fact the violence is hard-hitting and blood is splashed around with sickening realism. There's also sufficient profanity to rival Martin Scorsese! Yet, despite the insalubrious nature of the film's proceedings there's a deep, expressionistic character study lying beneath.

McDonagh has always been talented in creating fascinating, multi-faceted stories in his successful Irish plays. Not to mention his dialogue is clever, engaging and frequently encompass very subtle humour. However, the playwright also displays competency as a director. His script was already extremely effective, but he provides additional assurance for a successful script-to-screen transformation by taking the helm. As a result of McDonagh's directing the film is suitably intense, compelling, entertaining yet also emotionally-affecting. The product is a terrific, provocative black comedy with surprising depth.

Ray: "Bruges is a shithole."
Ken: "Bruges is not a shithole."
Ray: "Bruges is a shithole."
Ken: "Ray, we only just got off the fucking train! Could we reserve judgement on Bruges until we've seen the fucking place?"

In Bruges is permeated with three indelible characters - four if you count the quaint Belgian medieval town in which the film takes place. McDonagh chooses for the film to track two Irish hit-men: Ken (Gleeson) and Ray (Farrell). Said Irishmen are ordered by gangster kingpin Harry (Fiennes) to leave London immediately when Ray's latest hit ends with devastating consequences. Harry sends the two to the well-preserved medieval town of Bruges until he provides further instructions. Haunted with recurring memories of what he did, Ray is profoundly unimpressed with the tourist attractions on offer and finds the town excruciatingly boring.
"If I grew up on a farm and was retarded, Bruges would impress me," Ray whinges. "But I didn't, so it doesn't."
Ken takes advantage of the trip as he spends his time revelling in the fascinating locations and serenity of the town. He acts as a father figure to Ray, trying to let him forget about the past by introducing him to the culture of Bruges. Their experiences progressively grow more surreal as they encounter weird locals, violent medieval art, and potential romance for Ray in the form of Chloë (Poésy) who's working on the production of a European art film featuring racist American midget Jimmy (Prentice).

The real strengths of In Bruges are abundant. First of all, McDonagh allots the film's first half to developing his characters. Moreover, the engaging dialogue creates thoroughly entertaining viewing. It's McDonagh's gift for language that makes this film distinctively succulent. The writer-director even integrates a scene from the classic Orson Welles 1958 movie Touch of Evil to signify where he's at in terms of crime drama, essentially warning a viewer about the rug that's about to be pulled out from under them. In Bruges doesn't concern the narrative logic espoused by television...it's about injuries inflicted on the human heart. McDonagh also peppers the happenings with a child's death, graphic violence, drug use, politically incorrect witticism, irreverent remarks and adequate profanities to fill numerous Rob Zombie movies. The edginess nonetheless is never affected. In Bruges is an energetically character-fuelled tale that seldom misses its mark.

The skilful merging of genres should also be lauded. Throughout the entire duration there's definite dark comedy emerging. This comedy is very subtle, such as the witty dialogue or the amusing scenarios McDonagh has plonked his protagonists into. The second half speeds things up slightly, leaving the audience with a shocking conclusion. It is a testament to McDonagh's screenwriting that such plentiful cleverness never bogs the film into being a self-reflexive intellectual goof. Far from it, in fact. Anchored by Carter Burwell's magnificently melancholy score, In Bruges is an emotional and pungent drama/comedy complete with a lean script and lurid characters. The recurring motif of a fairy-tale is also extremely effective. A viewer should easily find themselves immersed in McDonagh's incredible world, and at the end you'll be so emotionally attached that you'll be left wanting more. This is quality filmmaking, and this standard is rarely seen in an ocean of contemporary tongue-tied Hollywood claptraps.

However it could have done with a trim. It's never boring and you'll be sad when it's over, but it still sometimes feels a tad excessive. Also, it's sometimes hard to suspend your disbelief. Like wondering when the cops will show up during a ballet of bullets, or when someone leaps off a bell tower. Any sirens? Not at all. What about someone driving a boat that doesn't appear to mind when a gun-shot is discharged and a passenger is lethally wounded? A train stopping for a police check in an isolated spot where there couldn't possibly be roads? Silly stuff for sure...still, you'll be entertained enough to overlook this.

At the centre of the film, the performances are absolutely remarkable. Colin Farrell redeems himself for all prior misdoings. After misfiring in such films as Alexander, it was a perfect move to team him up with McDonagh. Farrell's acting is so convincing that words fail me. He competently submerges himself into the character. The emotional edge Farrell brings to his portrayal at times (through either narration or character interaction) is amazing. In one particular scene, Farrell breaks down about the accidental bloodshed in London. Also, Farrell at times is like a child who's reluctant to sight-see. This amusing persona keeps us interested in the character.
Brendan Gleeson also puts forth a believable portrayal. We've never seen Gleeson of this standard before. He's a great father figure for Farrell's Ray as well. At times Gleeson will almost have you in tears.
Ralph Fiennes doesn't appear (we do hear his voice a few times, though) until the second half. He's a psychopathic marvel as the ferocious, relentless gangster kingpin with little affection for anyone ("You're an inanimate fucking object!" he screams at his wife at one stage).
The chemistry between the leads is sensational. Gleeson and Farrell are the unfortunate odd couple who periodically seem displeased to be in each other's company. Then there's Fiennes who appears to like the protagonists, but favours his principals even higher.

"There's a Christmas tree somewhere in London with a bunch of presents underneath it that'll never be opened. And I thought, if I survive all of this, I'd go to that house, apologize to the mother there, and accept whatever punishment she chose for me. Prison...death...didn't matter. Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in fuckin' Bruges. But then, like a flash, it came to me. And I realized, fuck man, maybe that's what hell is: the entire rest of eternity spent in fuckin' Bruges."

Overall, In Bruges is definitely among 2008's best movies. I doubt anyone expected Martin McDonagh's film debut to be this terrific. Similar to his renowned plays such as The Beauty Queen of Leenane, The Pillowman, etc, there's interesting characters and dialogue that's effortless to enjoy. The dialogue feels naturalistic and is loaded with profanity. Without the profanity the film couldn't have made the profound impact it was aiming for. We swear at work, we swear in everyday speech...it reveals character. For the most part we're meant to abhor these men due to their disgusting actions.
All in all the film is haunting and hypnotic in addition to being extremely good entertainment. As it is, McDonagh - with the help of an outstanding cast - has fashioned a knockout movie that I highly recommend.

"Adventure is out there!"

In the past, Pixar have tackled talking cars, washed-up superheroes, a rat who cooks and a mute garbage robot in a post-apocalyptic environment. For Up, the revered animation pioneers deliver something unexpected: a melancholy action-adventure concerning a 78-year-old widower and an obese young boy. No doubt on paper this idea seemed impetuous, but the Pixar squad have hit the pay dirt once again; scoring over $400 million at the worldwide box office and garnering the sort of acclaim that Michael Bay and McG could only dream of for the idiotic blockbusters they create. For their 10th motion picture, Pixar have weaved together a strange and shrewd amalgam of comedy and heart-rending pathos in the form of a visually dazzling, high-flying marvel of an adventure.

At the centre of Up is aging, bespectacled curmudgeon Carl Fredricksen (Asner). Reeling from the death of his beloved wife Ellie, Carl is caught in a mournful stasis; maintaining his curmudgeonly senior citizen lifestyle while an encroaching development threatens his comfortable old house. When Carl is forced to move into a retirement home, he senses the opportunity to pursue the life of adventure that his wife had always dreamed of. Attaching hundreds of balloons to his house to lift it off the ground, Carl travels in the direction of South Africa in the hope of landing near the jungle stomping grounds of his boyhood hero - adventurer Charles Muntz (Plummer). Inconveniently, however, he has a stowaway onboard: pudgy, devout boy scout Russell (Nagal) who hopes Carl can help with the achievement of his "Assisting the Elderly" badge.

Up is vehemently an old man/young kid "buddy film" transplanted effectively into the animation format - on that note, it's practically James and the Giant Peach meets Gran Torino. Chief among the film's myriad pleasures is watching this unlikely inter-generational friendship take root. It's even more satisfying to watch the relationship blossom given its unpromising and highly amusing beginning. The vocal work is top-notch right across the board. Instead of seeking big names to fill roles purely for the novelty value, Pixar found the right voices. Edward Asner and Christopher Plummer are not unknowns, but neither are they A-list stars. They're perfect for their respective characters of Carl and Muntz, and viewers are not left with the afterimages of their real-life features burned onto the animated characters.

The brilliance of Pixar is their ability to say more in five wordless minutes than most other films can say in ten pages of dialogue. Pixar understands that this is a visual medium, and the team strongly believe in the old adage that a picture says a thousand words. From an emotional standpoint, the greatest thing about Up is its prologue - running at approximately 10 minutes, it's a masterpiece of economy and could stand on its own as a self-contained short. It tells the story of Carl and Ellie, whose childhood meeting (when they were both adventure-spirited kids) is charm personified. The episode that follows has a certain grace that's seldom seen in a motion picture - it's an emotionally resonant, beautiful montage that exquisitely captures the couple's young love, marriage, hopes, dreams and heartbreaks. But Ellie eventually dies and Carl is left alone in a house rich with memories where every floorboard is imbued with Ellie's presence. It brings a tear to the eye. Furthermore, this is all communicated brilliantly and mutely by the filmmakers who utilise the gift of elegant animation and well-lubed character expressions to lend the audience a glimpse into Carl's stubborn psychology. Through this, a viewer gets to know everything there is to know about Carl... We understand him, and feel with him. His decision to abandon the world and float away seems sensible and right. All the central characters are brilliantly developed; Pixar understands that the action set-pieces are far more nail-biting with likeable characters entangled in the perilous situations.

Every frame of Up is meticulously constructed to the finest detail, with every behaviour (be it dog or human) carefully observed and replicated. The film is constructed with all the required narrative elements in place, yet the functionality is rarely obvious. There's a villain in the film, as well as conflict, but that's all external. At surface level, Up is the story of an elderly man and his boy scout sidekick wandering through exotic jungles and fighting dastardly air pirates. But in truth, this is the story of Carl coming to grips with the loss of his beloved wife and struggling to find a way to move on. The rest is just window dressing. See, above all else, those who constructed the movie never forgot that entertainment is job one. The film itself is therefore a piece of entertainment which can also be appreciated for what it carries underneath its surface.

As always, the animation in Up (a marvellous blend of realism and caricature) is breathtaking - especially in 3-D, which is the best way to experience the movie. Pixar have become so excellent at what they do, it's almost no longer a requirement to stop and marvel their artistic efforts. The filmmakers' attention to detail borders on pathological, from the way Carl's beard subtly grows as the days roll by to the vivid candy colours of the beautiful mound of balloons. There are a number of images here that would be considered amazing in any film (animated or live-action). On top of all this, the stunning visual world is set to a wonderful musical score. Composer Michael Giacchino recalls the lushly orchestrated compositions of cinema's golden age; providing ebullient pieces of music perfectly suited to Carl and Russell's lofty adventure.

One thing's for sure: Up is very touching, but it's also hilarious. There are sequences included here with the inventiveness of a Charlie Chaplin comedy, not to mention an abundance of clever laugh lines with nary a pop-culture reference in sight. One of the greatest pleasures of Up is a bunch of talking dogs. Anyone who has ever spent time with a dog will find infinite pleasures in the spot-on approximations of what might be going through a lovable, slobbery mutt's mind at any given moment. It's comedy gold. Granted, some of the characters feel more like the product of a DreamWorks animation film, but they're grounded with a glorious Pixar sensibility (for instance, if this was a DreamWorks movie, the talking dogs would all carry iPhones and the giant bird would be voiced by Eddie Murphy). In a way, Up does succumb to screenwriting clichés towards the opening of its third act; hatching a break-up-to-make-up scenario that feels alien to the material. Yet this is only a small objection within a film of boundless beauty and gorgeous cartoon buoyancy.

A motion picture like Up makes it clear that Pixar has moved beyond the point where they need to pander children. Unlike DreamWorks, Pixar allows sophisticated themes and ideas to seep into their movies and they don't feel the need to oversimplify everything. That's not to say Pixar creates family unfriendly art films - Up includes plenty of jokes that kid will get, and its appeal is boundless. To describe the pleasures afforded by Up is ultimately an exercise in futility because it wins you over in so many ways - alternating between solid belly laughs to cliffhanger thrills to gorgeous imagery - that one is simply left wondering what they're smoking over at Pixar studios and why more filmmakers aren't smoking the same thing.

"It's awfully easy to lie when you know that you're trusted implicitly. So very easy, and so very degrading."

If one mentions the name David Lean, the director's grand, big-budget spectacles will likely come to mind. Among them are such motion pictures as Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai and Doctor Zhivago. Yet, one of the most enduring of Lean's works is 1945's Brief Encounter; an intimate, romantic film which eschews Lean's trademark grand style in favour of taut melodrama. The result is a masterpiece of style, mood, acting and direction. An expansion of Noel Coward's short play Still Life, Brief Encounter - while rightfully regarded as a classic in this day and age - was a box office failure upon release in 1945. Lean - who was nominated for a Best Director Oscar for his efforts - attributed this commercial failure to the presence of middle-aged actors, the lack of recognisable stars, and the downbeat tone which contrasted the desire of post-war movie-goers to embrace expressions of optimism. Additionally, it could not have helped that the overlying theme of infidelity was a little scandalous for the period.

The story of Brief Encounter is simple to tell. Doctor Alec Harvey (Howard) and housewife Laura Jesson (Johnson) briefly meet at a railway station when Alec removes a speck of grit from Laura's eye. This chance meeting begins a remarkably chaste yet overwhelmingly passionate affair. Both are happily married and have children, yet their relationship rapidly deepens. In the weeks to follow, Alec and Laura meet every Thursday to talk, have lunch and go to the pictures. Though they only see each other once a week, their meetings gradually become more charged with passion, and ultimately they both realise that they have fallen in love.

Brief Encounter begins with a painful scene of Alec and Laura saying their final goodbye to each other at the railway station where they first met. We have not seen any of their relationship yet and hence there is no context, but the sad expressions on the characters' faces effectively convey what's happening. Suddenly, one of Laura's chatterbox friends enters the room, and, unaware of the situation, sits with them to begin rambling. By this point, the movie has not formally introduced either character yet, but Laura and Alec's longing for each other is instantly evident, as is their frustration that their final moment together has been ruined by an intrusion. A few scenes afterwards, Laura begins narrating, and flashbacks illustrate the circumstances under which Laura and Alec met and ultimately fell in love. Certainly, their romance is mundane; primarily consisting of eating lunch together, seeing movies, going for drives in the country, and stealing kisses in dark tunnels while trains rumble overhead. Yet, the mundane, everyday details coalesce into a stark realism that makes the romance more affecting.

The screenplay was written by Noel Coward in conjunction with Anthony Havelock-Allan, Ronald Neame and director Lean, but it bears the stamps of a solo Coward effort. Simply put, the script is extraordinary; pinpointing the essential characteristics of the protagonists, the lives they lead, the social restrictions they live under, and the dreams they have. All of the above were perfectly and efficiently captured through precise, subtle, eloquent dialogue for which the words hint at a far deeper meaning. Additionally, Brief Encounter is very much tied to a specific time and place; a post-war England which is permeated with particular attitudes that are virtually unrecognisable compared to the circumstances involved in 21st Century extra-marital affairs. Even the locations where Alec and Laura's furtive encounters take place seem strange and part of another epoch. Beneath all of the trappings and mannerisms of the period, though, it's the human qualities at the heart of the film which remain timeless. Lean's masterful ability to bring these qualities out of Coward's words and breathe life into them is what ensures the film's greatness.

In the hands of another filmmaker, Brief Encounter would have been a recipe for disaster - not a great deal actually happens, the ending is telegraphed at the very beginning, the sets are mundane, and the leading roles were not portrayed by enduring stars. Lean overcame these obstacles, though, by employing interesting filmmaking techniques. Lean especially exhibits a mastery for catching little details. Nothing in the film feels out of place or exaggerated, and each scene was held for just the right amount of time. There are a few minor lulls, but for the most part the 85-minute runtime flies by at an immaculate pace. Additionally, Robert Krasker's black-and-white cinematography is superb - the combination of stylisation and low-key realism enhances the story with the right shades of mood. Meanwhile, Sergei Rachmaninoff's music was put to good use; it highlights the overpowering emotions of the characters and contributes to the haunting atmosphere.

Lean was additionally aided by the remarkable performances courtesy of Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard, both of whom were blessed with exceptionally expressive faces. The performances may be old-school, but only in so much as they are of the bygone school of stage acting; studious, refined, and capable of tremendous subtlety and nuance of expression. The gradual development of Laura and Alec's affair feels so organic and unforced that it's never precisely clear when it moves from friendly companionship to romance. Johnson's voiceover narration sets an elegaical tone for the film, while Howard is ruggedly handsome and very British.

It's extraordinary that such a simple, unassuming little movie could work such powerful magic over so many movie-goers for so many generations. Superficially, there's nothing about Brief Encounter to be excited about, yet Coward's words, Lean's filmmaking and the performances elevate it above the ordinary.

"I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies."

Apocalypse Now is a genuinely revolutionary war movie from legendary director Francis Ford Coppola. The film is a confronting, haunting war epic that is stimulating and monumental. Not only is it a fantastic war movie but it's also the most honest account of the futility of war.


Loosely based on Joseph Conrad's classic novella 'Heart of Darkness'; Apocalypse Now is a film that tells a story set in the Vietnam battlefields. The year is 1969 and the Americans are still battling the on-going Vietnam War. U.S. Special Forces Captain Willard (Sheen) is sent on a confidential mission that officially 'does not exist - nor will it ever exist' to terminate a renegade Green Beret named Walter Kurtz (Brando) who has established himself as a God amongst a local tribe. Captain Willard travels up the Nung River in a U.S. Navy Patrol Boat into Cambodia to carry out his mission. He is accompanied by a faction of soldiers who don't have a clue about the nature of the mission due to its high level of confidentiality. As Willard descends into the jungle, he is slowly taken by the jungle's mesmerising powers. As he battles the insanity around him, the journey slowly makes Willard more and more like the man he was sent to kill.


Apocalypse Now is a harrowing war film that will always be distinguished due to its power as well as its hypnotic, virtually unsurpassed brilliance. The unnerving, unforgettable images only heighten the film's reputation as one of the most graphic war films ever made. It will take days, perhaps weeks, to get over the haunting visual images that are a prominent element of this outstanding movie.


The production was plagued with troubles; including wild weather that destroyed the sets, and the elongated production period due to unforseen consequences. Regardless of this troubled production director Francis Ford Coppola delivers an extraordinary, controversial addition to the multitude of Vietnam War movies. And of course the film was shot beautifully on location; showcasing some utterly gorgeous landscape and some eye-catching dense jungles as well.


However the film is about 150 minutes in length, and unfortunately outstays its welcome and loses the attention of the viewer at about the two hour mark. Of course, it was still tremendously well made but I felt that some trimming would have been necessary. And that's only the theatrical version - there's also a 200-minute 'Redux' cut.


Although my attention was thrown a few times as I was watching the movie, Coppola's directing always ensured there was something fascinating going on during the film. This could be a battle, an absorbing dialogue scene or some haunting voice-over narration.


Martin Sheen makes a very credible American soldier. There is always something about him that keeps the audience enthralled during the scenes of heavy drama. Marlon Brando had already made a name for himself after such films as The Godfather and On the Waterfront. Surprisingly his role is very minor in this movie. Nonetheless his performance is superb. During his final monologue it felt like he was a man on the edge; someone who is very close to insanity. His credibility is never thrown. As Brando aged he only became better. The supporting cast is a mixed bunch of now-famous actors including Robert Duvall, Laurence Fishburne, Harrison Ford and Dennis Hopper. All of these actors made an appearance before they became really famous. With this film they are given the opportunity to display talent while still youthful.


Apocalypse Now is a stunning film that will always be not only one of the greatest war movies, but also one of the greatest movies in cinematic history. This Vietnam tale is one that does justice to its source material. Be warned that the film is quite painfully long.

"I'm an eating, drinking, shitting, fucking Santy Claus."

Are you sick and tired of the recent glut of strictly by-the-numbers, saccharine-coated Christmas movies? If so, then praise the skies for Terry Zwigoff's Bad Santa; a no-holds-barred misanthropic black comedy that casually takes every cherished cliché of Christmas movies, tears them to shreds and takes a piss on the remains. Crude, vulgar, crass and frequently side-splittingly hilarious, Bad Santa is a kick in the teeth to every exhibition of seasonal greetings. The one binding characteristic of virtually all Christmas films (from It's a Wonderful Life to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation) is that a character learns an important lesson, but in Bad Santa this is reduced to a child learning to kick bullies in the balls when he's being picked on. How's that for Christmas spirit? To an extent this is a one-joke film, but it's a rip-cracking one at that.

The "hero" of Bad Santa is Willie (Thornton): a hard-drinking, heavy smoking, no-hoper sexaholic who is fed up with life. Every year, Willie and his partner, an African American midget named Marcus (Cox), pull off the perfect scam. They get a job at a department store as Santa and his elf, and once the mall closes on Christmas Eve they use their insider knowledge of the security system to disable the alarms and rob the place. They use the loot to live comfortably the following year before returning to pull off the heist again at a different mall. But the scam is becoming endangered due to Willie's excessive drinking problem and uncontrollable urges to fornicate with anything that moves. Trouble also ensues when Willie is forced to move in with an 8-year-old dweeb (Kelly) who has no friends, lives alone with his dim grandmother, and believes that the frequently intoxicated Willie is actually the real Santa.

Bad Santa did not receive its R rating from the MPAA due to one or two uses of the f-word... The whole movie is crude, foul-mouthed, dirty, disturbing and perverted; containing about 150 uses of "fuck" and its variations, as well as several other profanities, sex scenes and explicit sexual dialogue. These characters make Ebenezer Scrooge look like a pleasant, mild-mannered eccentric. If you're in the mood for Christmas cheer, then go rent It's a Wonderful Life again, because Bad Santa is for the crowd who've had enough of Christmas carols and artificial goodwill. It may be true that Bad Santa manages a happy ending of sorts, but the filmmakers have their tongue firmly in cheek even for this final scene of faux optimism. Is the film at all realistic? Fuck no! It's unbelievable that girls find a man as seedy as Willie so sexually attractive, and it takes a healthy suspension of disbelief to accept that Willie hasn't been fired since he continually spouts profanity in front of small children. But let's face it, since when have Christmas movies been at all realistic?

To some, Bad Santa will be perceived as mean-spirited, and that's more than justified. But that's a point of praise - the film was designed to shock. Willie is shown urinating in his suit early into the film, and the contempt in which he holds kids is outright unsettling. The character is simply beyond redemption. He's so foul, misanthropic and downright pathetic; a prick throughout every frame who shows no restraint whatsoever as he fires off venomous language to child after child without even flinching. In an absolute raping of convention, the character never undergoes some lame third-act epiphany before going about changing his ways. And that's the film's brilliance: the way it mocks convention. Even more effective is the little kid, who goes against every "cute movie kid" cliché imaginable. He's not chubby-cute, but rather disconcertingly obese and impossibly blank. For most of the movie, the kid relentlessly questions Willie about the North Pole and only receives verbal abuse in response, yet it never appears to register or hurt the child...his first instinct is to offer Willie some sandwiches.

Willie's alcohol-fuelled descent into personal self-destruction is at times hysterical but at other times sad, and it's a testament to both Zwigoff's focused direction and Thornton's spot-on performance that the character never feels overplayed or contrived. Thornton was born for this role; effortlessly playing the last guy you'd ever like to see slipping on Santa's big red suit. And as Marcus, Tony Cox is pitch-perfect, while Brett Kelly clearly understands what it takes to portray a dork. Bernie Mac (R.I.P.) is his usual larger-than-life self as a store investigator whose dialogue with the late John Ritter (who plays the mall's manager) constitutes some of the film's funniest dialogue moments. Ritter died not long after filming, and the movie is dedicated to him.

The biggest success of Bad Santa is the way it provides line upon line of boundlessly witty, endlessly quotable and hysterically funny dialogue. The movie is a riot from beginning to end, and best of all the replay value is through the roof. Upon viewing the film for the 50th time, you'll still laugh hard. In fact, you'll probably embrace the movie more and more with each new viewing. Furthermore, Bad Santa is infused with a quality that Hollywood has continually neglected while producing conventional Christmas romps: heart. This is simply the best Christmas film to hit screens for decades.

"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts."

Christopher Nolan's 1998 feature-film debut Following failed to earn much worldwide recognition for the director, but his follow-up project Memento certainly managed to compensate for this. Initially, Memento was shrouded in relative obscurity until it made its rounds at film festivals and people began discovering it, after which momentum steadily built to the point where it's considered a true cult classic. Adapted from the short story Memento Mori (by Christopher's younger brother Jonathan), the film offers a fresh take on the psychological thriller genre. Equipped with a routine plot that unfolds in a brilliantly-conceived manner, writer-director Chris Nolan managed to pull off a stylish, intelligent and taut masterpiece with Memento.

Having witnessed the violent death of his wife in their apartment, Leonard Shelby (Pierce) has one thing on his mind: tracking down his wife's murderer (or murderers) and reaping bloody revenge. Leonard's problem, though, is that he was badly hurt during the attack and has developed a rare form of brain damage known as anterograde amnesia that prevents him from forming new memories. He can remember events preceding the incident, but nothing after it. Unperturbed by this disability, Leonard relies on a system of note-taking to get him through - he carries a series of Polaroids wherever he goes, and he tattoos important facts about the murderer on his body. Essentially, the film tracks Leonard as his investigation intensifies. Along the way, he is aided - or perhaps hindered - by the enigmatic Teddy (Pantoliano) who's always on hand to help, as well as the equally mysterious Natalie (Moss) whose motives may not be as straightforward as they appear to be.

The premise behind Memento is nothing special, to be sure. But the film is such a standout because of the brilliant, innovative structure that conveys the narrative in reverse chronological order. You see, the movie begins with the story's end as Leonard completes his quest, and from there the plot is conveyed in reverse. The film is made up of short vignettes, each of which start at an unspecified time and finish at the point where the previous vignette began. If this confuses you, that's the point, and once you grow accustomed to the structure you'll realise it perfectly complements the premise. See, the unconventional progression of the narrative allows us to get into the mindset of the main character and evoke the feelings of confusion and displacement that's suffered by Leonard. Where is he? What was he just doing? Like Leonard, we know things from the past, but not the recent past, and we are presented with cryptic clues to decipher. If told in a linear fashion, Memento would have been an ordinary mystery/thriller, though still interesting enough to warrant attention. With the gimmick in place, the movie is a potent, twist-laden flick with infinite replay value. This is a potent mind-fuck as well, with various narrative elements left open for endless different interpretations.

Director Nolan is renowned for being a master of his craft, and Memento is further evidence of his skilled cinematic eye. Nolan's direction is immaculate, while David Julyan's score is subtle yet mesmerising. Unfathomably, the film gets progressively better as time elapses, and it's almost impossible not to inch closer and closer to the edge of your seat with each new scene. Of course, technical excellence is half the battle - the actors needed to sell their characters as well. Thankfully, the incredible assemblage of talent managed to pull off their roles with spellbinding acting ability. At the centre of Memento is Guy Pearce, who delivered an incredibly convincing performance as Leonard. Pearce (once seen as a drag queen in the classic The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) managed to convey the character's loneliness, acute vulnerability and all-consuming conviction with aplomb. The other key actors in the film, most notably Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano, are exceptional too.

Of course, a film like Memento will be hindered by a few easily-spotted plot holes. For instance, how does Leonard know about his short-term memory condition if he's unable to remember anything after the accident? By the same token, how does he keep remembering to check the photographs he has taken? These script holes aside, Memento is a rare cinematic gem that simultaneously stimulates the brain and entertains; it's an immaculately constructed picture that builds suspense and intrigue until the very last frame. Chances are you'll be glued to the screen and hanging on every word.

"I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house and I sleep like a baby."

Unofficially billed as Clint Eastwood's swansong to acting, Gran Torino is an arresting and poignant drama infused with Eastwood's brilliantly distinctive filmmaking style. Eastwood's second directorial undertaking for 2008 (previously helming Changeling) and his first screen performance since 2004's Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino is an excellently written, well-performed character study of racism and redemption that fits contentedly beside the rest of Eastwood's cinematic oeuvre. This is a potent, effective and emotionally affecting drama - it's slow-paced yet subtly engaging, moderately unexciting yet it's virtually impossible to lose interest and it's never boring. Working from a script penned by first-time screenwriter Nick Schenk, Eastwood has utilised old-school (albeit somewhat outdated) filmmaking techniques to convey this gripping tale. Gran Torino doesn't offer avant-garde visual effects or glossy action sequences - it offers Clint "I'm still badass at 78" Eastwood, meticulous characters, and first-rate storytelling. It merges compelling drama with terrific subtle humour, and the product is simply outstanding.

Gran Torino stars Clint Eastwood as disgruntled Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski. Walt is a widower; a grumpy, tough-minded, unhappy old man whose family relationships are shaky, and who's openly racist against his Hmong neighbours - maintaining a rich passion for bigotry since enduring dark days in the Korean War. This prejudice explodes when Thao (Vang), the teenage son of the Hmong family next door, tries to steal Walt's prized possession - a 1972 Gran Torino, kept in mind condition - as part of a gang initiation. Several days later, upon observing a violent predicament concerning Thao, Walt feels compelled to intervene (in a classic Eastwood stand-off), and ultimately earns the respect of the Hmong community. Despite initially disliking the culture, this post-9/11 version of Dirty Harry Callahan warily develops a relationship with his neighbours. Walt aims to reform Thao, and soon begins taking steps to protect the Hmong family before the gang activity worsens. Serious questions soon begin to arise...questions of responsibility, of retribution...of the efficacy of blood for blood.

The majority of Gran Torino involves Walt coming to terms with his new Hmong buddies. Despite originally reluctant to befriend them due to his openly racist perspective, he eventually grows respect for them. The movie's supreme moments depict Walt finding his footing at Hmong congregations, failing socialisation prospects, but lovin' the cooking. The crux of the story belongs to Walt and Thao as they develop a special bond. The relationship isn't played for Odd Couple chortles, but as an unlikely father/son partnership with Thao learning to improve his life through gruelling work and learning to avoid the lure of crime. While Bee Vang's performance appears to lack polish, this relationship remains an absorbing central piece of the Gran Torino puzzle.

"If I have to come back here again, it's gonna get fucking ugly!"

Nick Schnek's screenplay for Gran Torino is imbued with textured Midwestern civilisation, utilising the discomfort between aged military vets who refuse to depart from their contented residences and the melting pot that surrounds them. Through this, Schnek has constructed a human story of tentative reverence and the clearing of conscience. Gran Torino doesn't present a scholastic version of race relations; however Schnek evidently understands the rancorous mentality of men like Walt who live and breathe outdated American values, and find their faith rewarded by the degeneration of respect in contemporary youth and the rise of foreign cultures in their own backyard. Schnek and Eastwood's joint efforts have turned Gran Torino into a motion picture that ponders violence, its place and its cost. Perhaps the greatest aspect of Schenk's screenplay is that it enticed Eastwood to finish his self-imposed acting hiatus and bring his unique aura back to the big screen one final time.

Gran Torino is no action movie; this is a lengthy character study that spends the majority of its two-hour runtime developing the characters through dialogue and bonding. Schnek endows his script with witty dialogue and fascinating conversations. Humour additionally plays a key role in the screenplay. However, the comedy isn't restricted to slapstick or juvenile humour...this is sophisticated humour, mainly concerning Walt's relationship with the contemporary world around him. Eastwood's snappy dialogue is guaranteed to provoke a laugh or two. Had this been a straight-up drama, the film would fail to properly engage for its duration. Had Gran Torino been imbued with an onslaught of hilarity, its impact would severely dissipate. The correct balance is achieved, which is certainly among the film's main strengths.

"Oh, I've got one. A Mexican, a Jew, and a colored guy go into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "Get the fuck out of here!"."

Gran Torino is predominantly naturalistic and grounded as opposed to Hollywood. It eschews the proverbial clichés in favour of producing something original. The film's climax is perhaps most commendable - unconventional, unpredictable and overflowing with emotionality, yet satisfying, symbolic, haunting, and ultimately very appropriate. This is a rare movie that doesn't implode in its final reel; in point of fact its dénouement elevates the flick tremendously. It's evident both Eastwood and Schnek put much thought into the best way to construct the conclusion. It's a credit to the film's ending that Walt exorcises his demons without violence or bogus redemption.

If this were a Hollywood production, Gran Torino would conclude with the villains receiving their comeuppance by means of a violent, preposterous shootout (Death Sentence, anybody?). In a Hollywood movie Walt would also magically transform into an old softie; he'd admit his mistakes, and reconnect with his family. These clichés never surface in Gran Torino, therein lying justification as to why it's so damn excellent. By the end Walt and his neighbours share an obvious affection, but at his heart he's still the same callous, pungent, elderly badass and his loneliness is satiated. Instead of Walt becoming changed by his new acquaintances, he intends to change them by taking Thao under his wing and aiming to build character...to transform him into a proper man. It's clear Walt loves both his Hmong neighbours and his family. Nevertheless he continues to call them racist slurs - not out of malice...plainly because it's just Walt's nature. Thao and Sue manage to look past Walt's exterior shell, understanding that they're merely words. They've seen the good in him, and this outweighs the factors that make the old man such a curmudgeon. Gran Torino is NOT Hollywood...this is Eastwood.

"We shot men, stabbed them with bayonets, chopped up 17 year olds with shovels."

In the past, Clint Eastwood has earned two Academy Awards for directing - Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven. His direction is once again sublime. Outstanding cinematography is employed, capturing the ambiance of suburbia with consummate skill. Music is applied sparingly. Barely 30% (give or take) of the two-hour runtime contains music, yet this approach succeeds remarkably. The Gran Torino song (played in full during the closing credits, with lyric-less notes used at select points throughout the film) is a poignant synthesis of beautiful singing (Clint Eastwood himself even sings!) and subtle, eloquent piano music. I continued to watch until the end credits expired...riveted, moved, and on the verge of tears. Motion pictures rarely, if ever, move me on such a profound level. Top honours to the filmmakers for pulling this off.

Envisage every unflinching, badass character Clint Eastwood has ever played. Now imagine these characters in their twilight years; wrinkled, fatigued, on death's door, and spitting in the face of death one last time in order to help a friend. Eastwood as Walt Kowalski is simply stunning; imposing, intimidating and realistic. Eastwood's raspy, growly acting denotes the actor's return to his teeth-clenched, asphalt-voiced roots - virtually an aged version of Dirty Harry Callahan. Discharging every Asian racial appellation known to man to sell Walt's cruel exterior, Eastwood assembles a character of gun-happy action, beer-soaked contemplation, and passionate defiance that could only be tackled by the screen legend.
Cocking his rifle when gang members intrude on his territory, Walt snarls "Get off my lawn" in a moment destined to become classic Eastwood, comfortably standing alongside "Make my day". Things get better when Walt confronts hoodlums playing grab-ass with Sue... "Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while that you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me." This "me" isn't just Walt Kowalski... It's The Man with No Name taking aim in those classic spaghetti Westerns... It's Dirty Harry Callahan levelling his Magnum, asking "Do you feel lucky, punk?"... It's William Munny (Unforgiven) digging deep to note "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have"... It's Frankie Dunn (Million Dollar Baby) who knows "tough ain't enough".

Sharing the frame with the screen legend is a mixture of mostly first-time actors. Bee Vang and Ahney Her are watchable as Thao and Sue (respectively), but they occasionally lack a requisite spark to truly elevate their performances. However, as naturalistic actors they succeed. This isn't Hollywood material teeming with overacting...these are actors grounding their portrayals in realism. Despite terrifically playing the naturalism card, the cast do seem contrived from time to time. The worst offender here is Christopher Carley as the concerned young priest.

For Clint Eastwood fans, Gran Torino cannot be missed at any cost. If your admiration for Eastwood is based on the hard-edged characters he's renowned for playing, you'll love Gran Torino. This is a touching farewell and a hell-raising salute to every badass Eastwood character in existence. It's been hinted that this is Eastwood's final movie as an actor, and if so it's an extremely suitable goodbye to such a screen legend. This is a movie you must see - a poignant, touching, gratifying cinematic experience. Gran Torino is far smarter, broader, and funnier than it seems. This is the Eastwood we all remember in a pitch-perfect final performance. Whether you seek humour, drama or an onslaught of touching moments, this film will provide. Gran Torino - named after the 1972 car that Walt polishes like a symbol of his idealised past - is a humdinger of valedictory.

In a nutshell: Clint Eastwood went ahead and made my day.

"Jesus, Joseph and Mary. These Hmong broads are like badgers."

"I feel like the carpet's been yanked out from under me."

One thing's for certain: no-one could ever accuse Joel and Ethan Coen of selling out. After the duo achieved perhaps their greatest critical success with No Country for Old Men (for which they collected multiple well-earned Oscars) immediately followed by the box office triumph of Burn After Reading, they've created one of their most befuddling pictures to date. 2009's A Serious Man is a Coen-esque, oddball mixture of black humour and dramatic pathos told from a profoundly Jewish perspective, which simultaneously highlights the film's deep Old Testament roots and offers a unique cultural backdrop rarely seen in Hollywood films. Many critics have highlighted the ostensibly personal nature of A Serious Man, but the Coens (who aren't devout Jews by any means) seem to have just once again selected a specific area of American culture and skewered it to death - and for this venture it just happens to hit a little closer to home.

A Serious Man is essentially a contemporary re-enactment of the Book of Job which transpires in suburban Minnesota during the late 1960s. Physics professor Larry Gopnik (Stuhlbarg) is married, has kids, and holds down a good job, but he becomes trapped in misery: he's up for tenure but anonymous letters are being submitted urging the committee to deny him, his wife is leaving him for a mutual friend (for vague reasons), a frantic Korean student is trying to bribe his way out of a failing grade (then tries to blackmail him for supposedly accepting the bribe), his brother is lost in depression, and his offspring are predominantly disinterested in him (the only thing his son wants is for Larry to fix the TV aerial so that he can watch F-Troop clearly). As the strands of his life begin to unravel, Larry is left to question whether he's been a good man or a serious man, and whether God is even paying attention.

What Larry is unable to understand is why God would force someone who follows all the rules of decency to suffer so much while others seem to get away with anything they want. The Coens present Larry's dilemma without offering any solutions; suggesting that when life gets tough, one has little recourse but to stand firm and take it. Moreover, Larry seeks an answer to explain the troubles suddenly befalling his life by visiting several rabbis. In every case, however, they merely speak in aphorisms and metaphors, and generally beat around the issue without every getting to the heart of it. And this is precisely the point, of course - the Coens don't shy away from the interpretation that it may all mean nothing. The answer Larry seeks is nonexistent because to answer the question of human suffering would be to forever close the gap between humankind and the eternal. It's due to this that the best answer he receives is one he never recognises as such: "Accept mystery". Perhaps if Larry had heard the Hebrew proverb that prefaces the film - "Accept with simplicity everything that happens to you" - the words might have given him solace in his time of need.

An ode to Midwestern Judaism and the havoc of guilt, the Coen Brothers have woven together a truly masterful tapestry of neuroses and personal damage, intercut with enough black humour to alleviate the pervasive dread. By this stage in their career, Joel & Ethan Coen have perfected the art of quirkiness without contrivance. For each new film, they construct their own bizarre universe governed by chance and indifference to the well-being of its inhabitants, while the characters that are subjected to the whims of this dimension are charged with finding a way through it. Like most Coen productions, A Serious Man is inscrutable and challenging, which is most evident during the opening scene: a parable entirely in Yiddish about a husband who invites over to dinner a man who may or may not be a ghost. This parable's relation to the main story is tenuous, but it acts as a nice introduction to this world.

The direction by the Coens is pitch-perfect - it transforms material which could have easily been painful in the hands of others into a hilariously discomforting and mordant comedy. A Serious Man also benefits from remarkable performances from the mostly unknown cast (this is not the type of film that would benefit from the presence of George Clooney). Due to stage actor Michael Stuhlbarg's big-screen anonymity, a viewer can concentrate entirely on the character rather than the actor, and the result is a sensitive, riveting performance. Alongside Stuhlbarg, Fred Melamed is particularly hysterical; he plays a man who cuckolds Larry, and insists on making it up to him with a bottle of wine that he uses as a metaphor for justifying his behaviour. If there's a flaw with A Serious Man, it's the inclusion of oddball divergences that don't have a compelling reason to exist...other than self-indulgence.

Each Coen Brothers production has an immediate, distinct and memorable visual impact (from the snowscape of Fargo to the scorching desert of No Country for Old Men), and this is unchanged here. Technically and artistically, A Serious Man is pure class; capturing the mid-Western Jewish enclave of the '60s with realistic period recreation and comic exaggeration. The neighbourhood in which Larry resides is an immaculate evocation of the suburban neighbourhoods that existed across America in the '50s and '60s (with the widely separated, flattened houses, narrow driveways, and treeless yards). Roger Deakins' exceptional cinematography brings out the right notes of alienation from the expanses of blue-sky suburbia, while further menace is added by Carter Burwell's score and the ominous sound design. That this technical excellence was achieved on a $7 million budget is a miracle.

While A Serious Man is very funny, it's far removed from mainstream cinema, and wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting made without the Coen Brothers having earned the right. This is largely because the ending (like the beginning) feels random and unsettling; playing out like a spiteful poke in the eye to those who disliked the ambiguity of the final scene of No Country for Old Men. The ending may not bode well for reliable box office, but it stays true to the film's overall tone; reminding viewers that the journey doesn't end just because things are starting to look up. One of the primary themes the film tackles is the randomness of existence and the futility of figuring everything out through mathematical formulas, thus the apparent abruptness of the ending appears to highlight this theme. It also allows plenty of latitude for interpretation. A Serious Man is cinema at its best, leaving your mind in motion long after the credits have rolled.

A Serious Man manages to be at once laugh-out-loud funny and deeply serious. It's also simultaneously troubling and satisfying, warm and bleak, and respectful of its Jewish heritage while mocking its restrictions and false comforts. This is undoubtedly one of the best films the Coens have made to date, and it reconfirms that they are among the most daring and audacious filmmakers currently working in the movie industry, though it's doubtful this film will catch on with a mass audience.

"Bring the noise!"

After the great success of the 2004 British comedy Shaun of the Dead it was inevitable that the filmmakers would team up for another spoof. Unlike the brainless spoof films created by the Americans who never have any conception of plot, Hot Fuzz is unique and brilliant. Instead of brainlessly spoofing films while focusing on the laughs, Hot Fuzz is a parody of the action genre as well as an addition to the action genre. There are plenty of clever laughs that improve with every screening, not to mention a lot of high-energy action and a genius amalgamation of every action film cliché under the sun. It would take a very talented bunch of filmmakers to actually make this idea work; needless to say I was very impressed with the efforts of everyone who took part in the filmmaking.

Simon Pegg is a big city cop named Nicolas Angel who has a mighty impressive record during his career: an arrest rate 400% higher than any other police officer, and very skilled in every aspect of being part of the force. Nicolas' jealous colleagues conspire to get rid of him because he is making them all "look bad". And hence Nicolas is reassigned to the sleepy, pleasant little village of Sandford.

He is teamed up with an overeager police officer named Danny Butterman (Frost) whose father runs the local police force. Danny is an eager action movie fan who is desperate to see real action; that is, intense gun fights and high octane car chases. Danny's enormous ego really gets on Nicolas' nerves. But the sleepy town is soon rocked by a number of gruesome deaths that are dismissed as accidents. Nicolas, however, becomes convinced that these people were in fact murdered. As the intrigue deepens, Danny's dreams of explosions, high-octane car-chases, gun fights and all-out action becomes more and more like a reality.

In tradition with Shaun of the Dead, the filmmakers spend plenty of time fleshing out a discernable plot while filling the screen with laughs. Unlike the brainless laughs supplied by American films, it seems the British gags are a lot more cerebral. And it's this fact that moves the film out of the "brainless entertainment" category; instead becoming a damn fine piece of cinema that is also quite groundbreaking and creative.

For a comedy, the filmmakers made no attempt to hold back on high levels of strong gruesome violence during the action scenes. The action scenes were filmed using shaky cam style and quick cuts for the modern action movie-goer. This may be looked upon as a negative aspect, but the point of using this style was to spoof the modern action genre. And it's a lot more kickass than the usual Bad Boys II kind of action scenes.

Hot Fuzz is nothing short of a brilliant movie. It's superb entertainment filled with laughs and jammed with references to classic action films. Although a bit of a slow build up, the final action scene is a no-holds-barred piece that last at least 20 minutes. Even though it's a long action scene, the filmmakers sustain the intensity and excitement from start to finish.

Hot Fuzz is immensely superior to the usual American spoof movies we've seen far too much of these days. The film is creative, enthralling and extremely entertaining. The creators of Shaun of the Dead have recaptured the magic and spoofed another genre. I hope the team spoof another genre sometime into the future.

"Goddamn it, I knew I should've listened to my mother. I could've been a cosmetic surgeon, five hundred thou a year, up to my neck in tits and ass."

A fleeting glance at the cover art, trailer or plot synopsis for Romancing the Stone, and it would seem that this Robert Zemeckis-directed picture could have easily bore the title Raiders of the Lost Stone. However, this would be writing off a film that deserves far more credit and attention. While it does at times play out like an Indiana Jones-style action-adventure serial, Romancing the Stone was written before Raiders of the Lost Ark even went into production, and the film's Saturday matinee spirit is merged with outright romance. In addition, a certain kitschy, tongue-in-cheek tone and spirit permeates this little-known 1984 gem, to the point that it could be foremost considered a comedy. In short, this is a superbly entertaining blend of humour, action and romance, all the while retaining a 1980s vibe in terms of soundtrack and flair for theatrics.

Romancing the Stone begins as frumpy romance novelist Joan Wilder (Turner) completes her latest romantic saga and passes it onto her publisher. Not long afterwards, she receives a mysterious package from her sister Elaine (Trainor) and soon finds herself embroiled in a ransom scheme, with a couple of criminals demanding Joan travels to Columbia to deliver a treasure map in exchange for Elaine's life. Fundamentally stepping into one of her own adventure-romance novels, Joan heads to the dangerous jungles of Columbia where she meets dashing treasure seeker Jack T. Colton (Douglas) who agrees to help (in exchange for money). Together, Jack and Joan race to save Elaine, all the while being pursued by a moustachioed villain (Ojeda) who is also determined to obtain the map.

For all intents and purposes, Romancing the Stone should not have been the massive hit that it was. At the time, Michael Douglas was known as a bit player and a producer, while Kathleen Turner had only starred in one movie of note (Body Heat) and screenwriter Diane Thomas was merely a wannabe working in a diner. Douglas hired Robert Zemeckis to take the helm, who hadn't worked in four years and had not directed anything of note at this early stage in his career. The film had all the earmarks of a failure and studio insiders expected it to flop, and yet it was a hit - Romancing the Stone hit a nerve with feminists and hopeless romantics, and was adored by movie-goers simply seeking a good time. In fact, it grossed over eight times its production budget, leading to a sequel (Jewel of the Nile) and allowing Zemeckis to make Back to the Future. The success and long-term staying power of Romancing the Stone can mostly be attributed to the way the filmmakers melded action, adventure, comedy and romance with such ease and charisma. Diane Thomas' screenplay also deserves credit. Sure, the structure is basic and the characters are obvious, but that's the point. It's simple, and it works because of how witty it is. There are enough hilarious one-liners here to sink a battleship. It's a damn shame that Diane tragically died before she could complete another script.

Movies like Romancing the Stone are not about thematic depth or insight, but pure, unadulterated fun ladled up in scoops as large as the audience can swallow. With this film, Robert Zemeckis was handling a large canvas and a bunch of soon-to-be-major stars for the first time in his career, and his efforts are without a fault. Opening with a fast and humorous fantasy sequence, Zemeckis managed to keep the pace taut and the energy levels high from start to finish while effortlessly handling the tonal changes of this multi-faceted jewel with great panache - the comedic scenes are hilarious, the action scenes are fun and exciting, and the moments of peril simply drip with a sense of danger. All these years on, this film still retains its hard-to-nail charm. Furthermore, Romancing the Stone is sure to trigger a nostalgic smile due to the '80s hairstyles, costumes and style, not to mention the delightful, jazzy, instantly recognisable soundtrack.

Of course, the script's brilliant integration of styles, well-written characters and classic love story would mean nothing without the talents of the right stars, and, in this regard, Romancing the Stone is an unequivocal success once again. As Jack T. Colton and Joan Wilder, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner share a sizzling chemistry that seems to defy the laws of cinematic convention. The relationship they strike up is not only believable, but it feels wholly organic in its formation, progression and solidification; all within the film's 100-minute runtime and all being born out of the action, drama and humour of the story. Douglas' superbly charismatic performance exudes tough guy bravado and is infused with a boorish attitude; the polar opposite of the heroes Joan writes about in her novels. Turner, meanwhile, has never been more beautiful, and she captured the lonely heart spirit perfectly. Another standout is Danny DeVito, who provides an extra dose of humour to help make the experience the utter delight that it is.

Romancing the Stone is straightforward and hokey, to be sure, and not a little silly, yet it is always exciting and light on its feet; never taking itself too seriously, and at no point outstaying its welcome while trying to supply a thrill (or a laugh) a minute. Infused with an '80s persona, this is the type of film which reminds viewers of a time before big-budget superhero movies and CGI infested blockbusters produced on an "everything must be bigger" mentality. They just don't make films as bright, fun and witty as Romancing the Stone anymore. It is easy to fall in love with this overlooked, forgotten little gem.

"Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to. Don't you see? It's not just Kris that's on trial, it's everything he stands for. It's kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles."

Nothing says Christmas quite like the classics can. In a contemporary cinematic age governed by a desire for cash over quality, few - if any - modern Christmas flicks are destined to be as popular as the seasonal favourites of old. One picture which ranks highly in the category of Yuletide classics is the 1947 masterpiece Miracle on 34th Street. It's interesting to note just how unlikely this film's success was - back in the '40s, it was a film the studio had no idea know how to handle. It was selected for a summer release (in America, that is, when movie-goers aren't in the mood for movies about Santa Claus), it was armed with a surprisingly astute social insight, it offered subtle jabs at festive commercialism, and was infused with an intersection of law and politics. But Miracle on 34th Street found its audience, and was bestowed with acclaim and Oscars. Anchored by a winning combination of warm, sincere performances, magical moments, and a screenplay that's both sentimental and smart, Miracle on 34th Street should be required viewing on Christmas Eve. Children will find it a rewarding fantasy about the existence of Santa, while older, more mature viewers will be rewarded with an intelligence often lacking in Christmastime entertainment.

As the film begins, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York City is about to take place. The Santa Claus hired for said parade is found to be slightly inebriated, and the parade organiser, Doris Walker (O'Hara), is left with no other option but to hire an elderly man she encounters (Gwenn) who happens to look remarkably like Santa. Due to the success of the parade, this old man is then hired as the department store Santa at Macy's, and is a huge hit: he's wonderful with children and is genuinely full of the Christmas spirit. In fact, this man claims that he actually is Kris Kringle himself. Problem is, Doris is raising her daughter Susan (Wood) with directness and honestly, meaning a complete absence of fairy tales, myths...and Santa Claus. Kris' ostensibly ridiculous claim is challenged, of course. Ultimately, rationality and the fantastical meet head to head in a courtroom where the sanity of Kris Kringle is to be determined.

Similar to other Christmas films set during the first half of the twentieth century (like A Christmas Story and It's a Wonderful Life, to name a couple), Miracle on 34th Street evokes and captures a time of sheltered innocence far removed from this day and age. It's almost impossible to imagine a period ever existing - a time when a trip to the department store meant dressing in your very best clothes, and when a stranger across the hall could be trusted alone with a little girl. To view Miracle on 34th Street is not to step back in time per se, but to enter a nostalgic dream wherein an array of wonderful moments unfold: Kris Kringle singing with a little Dutch girl, the great Thelma Ritter in an unbilled cameo as an early benefactor of Kringle's natural goodwill, and the United States Postal Service opting to dump all the undelivered Santa letters on Kris when he's in court.

George Seaton started as a radio actor before moving behind the camera during the 1930s. Miracle on 34th Street was only his fourth movie as a director, but he shows a solid sense of craftsmanship. Seaton's visuals may not exactly be outstanding, but he shows a true gift for working with actors (which comes back to the fact that he was an actor himself prior to his directorial career). Edward Gwenn's performance as Kris Kringle, for which he earned an Oscar, is wonderfully endearing - he's the perfect movie Santa Claus. Gwenn portrays the jolly fat man as the embodiment of goodwill and kind-heartedness; the type of person that makes you smile just by seeing them. Best of all, he deftly keeps his character ambiguous as to whether he genuinely is Santa Claus or just a sweetly deluded old man. Either way, you can't help but love the guy. Further additions to the cast include the wonderful Maureen O'Hara who's very convincing as Doris, and the precocious young Natalie Wood who's an utter joy as Susan.

Miracle on 34th Street also stands out due to its innovative (for the time) and extensive use of authentic locations - Seaton managed to integrate his actors into the real Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade (Gwenn even played Santa for the event), and a few specific scenes were shot inside an actual Macy's department store with real workers and customers in the background. Such techniques are highly effective, as is the film's extraordinarily clever ambiguity. No-one ever definitively declares Kris to be the real Santa Claus, nor does the movie prove in any way that Santa exists, and there isn't a single shred of hard evidence to suggest Kris truly is Santa. Just as Doris and Susan slowly begin to gain faith in the unprovable, so does the audience. Sure, hints are presented in Kris' favour, but nothing is solid. It's up to us to believe and interpret the ending however we want.

It may not approach the dizzying heights of the brilliant Christmas staple It's a Wonderful Life, but Miracle on 34th Street remains a smart, immensely enjoyable festive fable that carefully hedges its bets in playing the line between reality and fantasy. In this regard, Edmund Gwenn's performance as Kris Kringle is pitch-perfect because he's able to generate the belief that Santa Claus is not just a mere impossibility, even for the adults (both in the audience and in the film) who should "know better". Yet, this movie refuses to get mushy on us. The sentiment is earned and genuine, but never forced. Seaton's screenplay is sharp; the tender drama is deftly combined with sly humour (this is actually a very funny movie) and a knowing, biting commentary on the commercialism of Christmas that grows more relevant with each passing year (I wonder what Kris would think about the state of Christmas commercialism today...). Miracle on 34th Street is not some cornball effort that uses the Christmas backdrop as a way to cheaply jerk a tear...it's a simple story of how decency and kindness will win over the most cynical of hearts. Here is a movie that doesn't push the materialistic aspect of the festive season (Jingle All the Way, anyone?) but rather the spirit of the holiday. It is, quite plainly, the Christmas spirit put on film.

"Where do you think you're going? Nobody's leaving. Nobody's walking out on this fun, old-fashioned family Christmas. No, no. We're all in this together. This is a full-blown, four-alarm holiday emergency here. We're gonna press on, and we're gonna have the hap, hap, happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap-danced with Danny fucking Kaye. And when Santa squeezes his fat white ass down that chimney tonight, he's gonna find the jolliest bunch of assholes this side of the nuthouse."

Ah, the joys of Christmastime. Stress levels skyrocket, families fall out, and the suicide rate increases substantially. But, even worse than all the above (at least for cinephiles), it's also the time of the year when Hollywood upchucks Christmas-themed motion pictures, most of which are of a low standard. In the grand pantheon of Christmas movies, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation - the third (mis) adventure of the Griswold family - is undoubtedly one of the best (if not the best) on offer. Everyone has a favourite Christmas movie which they view as part of their annual Christmas Eve customs, and for many (this reviewer included) it's Christmas Vacation. This is the ultimate family holiday flick; a prize-winning blend of hilarious gags and a poignant sense of the Christmas spirit. It's more enjoyable and charming than A Christmas Story, far jollier than It's a Wonderful Life, and far better than the trite Hollywood festive flicks which pollute multiplexes every year.

In the preceding Vacation flicks, Clark Griswold (Chase) and his wife Ellen (D'Angelo) took their family across America and across Europe. For this particular entry in the series, however, the Griswold family remain at home in the snowy Chicago suburbs because Clark wishes to provide a "fun, old-fashioned family Christmas". Clark is not willing to let anyone or anything prevent him from accomplishing this objective. Both sets of grandparents show up along with other unexpected arrivals, and his teenaged offsprings aren't exactly interested in quality family time... But nonetheless, Clark continually marches on - he's determined to achieve his selfless goals. Things progressively go from bad to worse as the holy day approaches, however. With irritable neighbours, odious relatives and plain bad luck, the festive season continues to test Clark's endurance as he tries to weather the storm and work towards providing a memorable, picture-book Christmas.

Don't expect much of a solid plot - the film just observes Clark as he staggers from one disaster to another. The struggle to go above and beyond for the sake of family constitutes the core of Christmas Vacation. Clark (God bless him!) is prepared to move heaven and earth to fulfil his goal of guaranteeing the best "Griswold Family Christmas" possible. He may be a tad over-the-top and disturbingly committed, but on the inside Clark is just a hardworking family man struggling to ensure the contentment of his family. In amongst the hilarity, Christmas Vacation conveys a strong message, as all Christmas movies should. It has nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the Three Wise Men, though - it merely speaks volumes about finding fun and laughter in the little moments that make life special. Without ever becoming mired in cringe-worthy sentimentality, it also reminds us that familial relationships are what truly matter regardless of what disasters befall us. It also reminds us that you should never light a match near a sewerage drain...

One particular factor that can be appreciated about Christmas Vacation is that the humour is clever and subdued. There are understated, hilarious one-liners ("Dad, you taught me everything I know about exterior illumination!") and subtle sight gags (a Christmas present is wrapped in Happy Birthday paper). Added to this are moments of great physical comedy, as well as the priceless juxtaposition of Cousin Eddie (Quaid) and the civilised family members. Furthermore, this is a film which never gets old. Even after watching it multiple times, it's still funny. Scene after scene, it's so consistently hilarious that it easily puts other Christmas comedies to shame. Christmas Vacation was written by John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Home Alone), making its wide appeal unsurprising. It's the genuine heart that distinguishes this movie from more generic Christmas offerings, as well as the fact that Hughes was able to encapsulate the spirit of the festive season. Christmas Vacation is simple to enjoy, and even easier to relate to - be it troubles with the Christmas tree, irritating oldies, the decorations, the gifts, or the turkey; all the familiar dilemmas of the period were captured with sugar-coated merriment. Better, Hughes rarely felt the need to go over-the-top.

It's a bonus that the pacing is immaculate, and that director Jeremiah S. Chechik was able to craft such a technically competent motion picture. On top of all this, the soundtrack is an enchanting cocktail of timeless Christmas tunes and original music. From the Griswold rendition of Deck the Halls to Ray Charles' The Spirit of Christmas and the terrific opening tune, the songs included will further evoke the holiday spirit in a viewer. Furthermore, the film is tagged with a great opening sequence; a wonderful nod to the classic animated holiday movies of old.

Christmas Vacation is also fascinating in an historical sense: it proves that Chevy Chase was once funny. Even if you're not Chevy Chase fan, it's difficult not to laugh at his blundering antics as he fumbles his way through the jolliest holiday of all. Chase may not be the most honoured thespian in history, but he has the role of Clark Griswold down to a tee. Initially a merry soul before descending into frustration and anger, Clark is the definitive embodiment of everyone who has endured the trials and tribulations of the Christmas season. But not all the best laughs were left to Chase - he received great assistance from Randy Quaid playing the repulsive Cousin Eddie (it's hard to believe Randy and Dennis Quaid are from the same gene pool). In the cast there's also the charming Beverly D'Angelo whose interactions with Chase are hysterical, and Johnny Galecki and Juliette Lewis as Rusty and Audrey, respectively. Galecki and Lewis are arguably the best actors to tackle these roles. Other memorable characters mixed into Christmas Vacation include Eddie's off-colour family, a disgusting dog named Snots, two sets of grandparents, a cantankerous uncle, a clueless aunt and two arrogant neighbours condemned to suffer through Clark's shenanigans. So many greatly realised characters vying for screen-time...

Frequently cited as the best of the Vacation series and one of the greatest Christmas films ever made, nothing can derail National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Director Chechik transformed John Hughes' masterful screenplay into a tour de force of comedy; a rare film balancing laugh-out-loud moments and poignancy. Every scene will become eternally embedded in your memory, yet you'll want to watch it again after the end credits expire. If Christmas Vacation doesn't make you laugh, then you obviously don't understand the true meaning of Christmas - which is, of course, flammable toilets and electrified cats.

"As much fun as I've had on this little journey, I'm sure one day I'll look back on it and laugh."

Planes, Trains & Automobiles represented a unique and unpredictable cinematic undertaking for prolific filmmaker John Hughes. After all, prior to this 1987 feature, Hughes was renowned for his contributions to the '80s teen movie genre. Unlike other filmmakers who made teen flicks, Hughes opted to eschew cheap exploitation and sex in order to focus on character interaction and relationship building. Moreover, Hughes demonstrated that he had a talent for mixing the comedic with the poignant. Thus, after creating such teen movies as The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, making the leap to adult-oriented cinema with Planes, Trains & Automobiles was a huge risk, but it paid off. Easily on par with Hughes' earlier efforts, Planes, Trains & Automobiles is of a rare breed of comedy; it's humorous and affecting, and there's a genuine heart amidst all of the hysterics. It's difficult to imagine the film having any detractors since it's simply impossible to dislike.

With Thanksgiving drawing near, Chicago marketing executive Neal Page (Martin) has only one goal in mind: to leave New York City and get home to see his family in time for Turkey Day. This ostensibly simple goal proves to be rather tricky, though, as Neal begins to encounter mishap after mishap with transportation. To make matters worse, Neal is perpetually stuck with smothering slob Del Griffith (Candy); a shower curtain ring salesman who's on the road and who never shuts his mouth. Del is well-meaning, but Neal finds him to be constantly frustrating. Additionally, much to Neal's chagrin, the two always end up together. Thus, Neal and Del set out to use various methods of transportation (guess which) to get Neal home for Thanksgiving, all the while being hindered by bad weather, robbers, and other assorted obstacles.

Without a doubt, Planes, Trains & Automobiles is one of the most successful one-joke movies you will ever see. Like all of the best odd couple comedies, the film throws these two mismatched individuals together and allows us to watch them suffer through all sorts of bizarre misfortunes as they try to reach Chicago before the turkey is served. There are countless moments of sheer hilarity scattered throughout Planes, Trains & Automobiles. The humour partly comes from the outrageous nature of many of the situations, but is more directly derived from the unexpected ways in which Neal and Del react to said situations. For a good example of this, see the legendary car agency scene which earned the film its R rating - Neal's f-word-laced diatribe is side-splitting. But to describe anymore of the film's funniest moments would be unfortunate spoiling for the uninitiated and redundant reiteration for the fans. Planes, Trains & Automobiles is only marred by the ending which becomes unnecessarily mawkish and sugary, while Ira Newborn's musical score is overly repetitive and at times utterly grating.

Of course, Hughes' film is primarily a comedy - it's a travel farce showing that anything which can go wrong will go wrong, regardless of mode of transportation. Yet, the reason that Planes, Trains & Automobiles worked so well in 1987 and still works today is that Hughes had the good sense to imbue the pair of protagonists with real human emotions and flaws. Neal and Del are stereotypical character types, to be sure, but they are endearing and feel like actual people due to the depth that Hughes provided them with. Additionally, there are a number of bittersweet and dramatic moments to tug on the heartstrings which would likely feel forced if they were present in another comedy. However, these scenes work in Planes, Trains & Automobiles because Neal and Del feel like genuine flesh & blood human beings. Thus, the humour constitutes the "hook" which initially draws in a viewer, but the drama and the well-written characters add to the appeal and allow the movie to make a lasting impact. Sure, this is not high Shakespeare, nor does it want to be, but this type of material is not normally present in mainstream comedies.

While it's mainly concerned with the trials and tribulations of holiday travel, a theme of friendship also runs throughout Planes, Trains & Automobiles. Neal and Del are the typical "odd couple", and their friendship is unlikely, yet the development of said friendship feels organic in the hands of John Hughes. For the film, Steve Martin was the straight man for most of the humour, and his performance is without a flaw. Martin is very likeable, and many viewers should find the character to be reminiscent of somebody that they know (that is, someone who tries to maintain their dignity through all sorts of humiliation, and who deserves better than what they get). Opposite him, the late great John Candy is a real standout. His comic timing along with his lovable doofus persona creates an altogether memorable character. Candy's Del Griffith is a man who drives Neal insane with his big mouth, but he's decent to his core. Plus, Candy infused the role with an unexpected depth; his buffoonery hides loneliness and sadness, and this is conveyed very clearly through Candy's mannerisms. Meanwhile, in the supporting cast, nobody gets much screen-time to make an impact, but look out for Kevin Bacon and Dylan Baker who made cameo appearances.

Planes, Trains & Automobiles is a fine cinematic treat which should be required viewing on Thanksgiving. Hughes' expertly-written comedy does not demand much from a viewer, but gives a lot back in terms of both laughter and good feeling. With its endless highlights, this is a delightful film, and you will want to keep coming back to it after you've experienced it. Be sure to keep watching until the end of the credits, where a joke from the film's beginning receives its brilliant punch-line.

"Life will find a way."

Jurassic Park is a truly amazing movie, and one of Spielberg's true masterpieces.

Although made over a decade ago, the special effects still look phenomenal and fundamentally flawless to this day. The powerhouse effects make the dinosaurs live and are truly breathtaking at times.

Based loosely on the novel by Michael Crichton, billionaire John Hammond (Attenborough) creates a remarkable theme park on an isolated artificial island filled with real dinosaurs that have been brought to life using huge advancements in state-of-the-art scientific technology.

Hammond invites a group of special guests to the island for a weekend, to show them the park and hopefully get their stamp of approval. But on the first night a security breakdown is succeeded by the dinosaurs escaping their enclosures and roaming free around the park. What starts as a pleasant weekend becomes a race for survival.

Jurassic Park is a groundbreaking production. Never before have we seen dinosaurs with this degree of realism, and never before had audiences witnessed dinosaurs that look so breathtaking. The special effects are still almost impossible to fault. And even with CGI in its infancy, it still looks fantastic on screen.

The film is a definitive blockbuster and still one of the greatest movies ever made.

As a child of the 90s I still remember watching this film constantly and even now I love the film as much as I did when I was a youngster obsessed with dinosaurs.

Sam Neill is an amazing actor and was the perfect choice for the role of a palaeontologist. Jeff Goldblum was also extremely good. As one of my favourite characters, I always found his performance to be fantastic.

It would take a long time to mention all the members of the tremendously good cast, needless to say they all did a remarkable job.

John Williams' evocative score, including the memorable theme, is also hard to fault. It gave the film its 'wow' moments, its exciting moments and its tragic moments. Williams is a composer who knows his stuff very well and is without a doubt one of the greatest film composers of all time.

It goes without saying that Spielberg's direction was phenomenal. The man has a clear vision, and knows how to accomplish it.

Jurassic Park is a much loved screen gem and a sensational experience. For those of you yet to see it, do not hesitate to get your hands on a copy. Followed by The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

"'Twas a long time ago, longer now than it seems in a place perhaps you've seen in your dreams. For the story you're about to be told began with the holiday worlds of auld. Now you've probably wondered where holidays come from. If you haven't I'd say it's time you begun."

A 75-minute charmer of a motion picture that transcends age, Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas should be part of every household's annual Christmas traditions. Everything a movie-goer has come to expect from the imagination of Tim Burton is presented here in stop-motion form: it's bursting with visual majesty, populated with lovably morbid creations and filled with ornate Danny Elfman compositions. It's an instant classic which bears the esteemed title of being the first feature-length stop-motion animation picture. Certainly paving the way for other greats like Chicken Run and James and the Giant Peach, The Nightmare Before Christmas manages to capture the undeniable Christmas flavour which is blended perfectly with the maudlin imagination of childhood.

The story revolves around a straightforward premise: each season has a town (there's Easter Town, Christmas Time, Halloween Town, etc), and none of these towns knows of each other or their respective festivities. Jack Skellington (voiced by Danny Elfman and Chris Sarandon) resides in Halloween Town, but upon completion of the same old annual routine he grows bored, and loses faith in his own holiday. After Halloween night, Jack saunters off into the woods and stumbles upon a door leading to Christmas Town. He is so taken by the concept of Christmas that he takes it upon himself to take over Santa's duties for the year.

Jack Skellington is a uniquely-designed bunch of bones who inhabits a fantastic world brought vividly to life with the first big musical number; This is Halloween - an energetic, sumptuous feast for the senses. The Nightmare Before Christmas contains some of the most ornately detailed and expertly captured shots in the history of stop-motion, and animation altogether. There's so much eloquence in the visual "voice" the film exhibits, and each shot is so rich with an almost immeasurable amount of creativity that there's always something eye-catching to focus on. Tim Burton's shooting schedule for Batman Returns conflicted with the long, arduous three-year shoot for The Nightmare Before Christmas, so he hired stop-motion veteran Henry Selick to tackle the directorial duties. Burton may have receded to producer status, but every frame resonates with that distinctive Burton sensibility. As one watches the film and marvels at the visual splendour, one can't help but admire the fantastic, painstaking job Selick and his team did of bringing Burton's vision to life.

As it turns out, holiday commercialism is to thank for this film's existence. Burton reportedly got the inspiration for his poem on which the film is based when he witnessed a store taking down a Halloween display and replacing it with Christmas merchandise. The jarring exposition of Halloween and Christmas was all it took to inspire Burton to write a tale of Halloween Town and Christmas Town; two phantasmagorical cities. The Nightmare Before Christmas also showcases one of Burton's key influences: German expressionism. The dark, foreboding sets, high-contract lighting and stark angles (also seen in Burton's Batman movies) harken back to German films of the silent era, such as Nosferatu, Metropolis and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. If there's a flaw, it's that the story is a bit too simplistic and drawn-out, with occasionally sluggish pacing.

The Nightmare Before Christmas follows the tradition of employing music and songs as a means to progress the narrative. As this is a Tim Burton movie, the songs are provided by his frequent collaborator Danny Elfman (who used to be the lead singer for Oingo Boingo, but found a far more successful career as a film & TV composer). The music and visuals of The Nightmare Before Christmas are inseparable. Elfman's first-rate compositions support the visuals in grand style; whether it's a tender moment, a celebratory scene, or a frightening sequence. Fortunately, the songs are both memorable and catchy (don't be surprised if you feel the urge to sing while the music assuages your ears). Elfman also provided the vocalisation of Jack Skellington's singing voice, while Chris Sarandon voiced Jack during the dialogue sequences. Another well-achieved role comes in the form of Catherine O'Hara's honest and eclectically sweet Sally. This handmade character, stitched together by a half-hearted creator, shows the most human of emotion in Halloween Town.

Parents wondering if The Nightmare Before Christmas is suitable for their children should know that the frightening aspects of the picture are nicely blunted by humour and Elfman's music. Jack Skellington isn't the frightful creature one would assume him to be...he's just a misunderstood hero. There are so many enchanting sights and sounds to behold within this cinematic tour de force that there's not enough room for anxiety and fright. In short, The Nightmare Before Christmas is a fun holiday romp with something to offer everyone. For the children, it's a fantasy celebrating two holidays. For the adolescents and adults, it's an opportunity to experience some good, hearty entertainment while marvelling at how adept the animators have become at these techniques.

"The boy they brought back is not my son."

An ambitious historical drama helmed by the legendary Clint Eastwood, Changeling is without a doubt one of the best pictures of 2008; a thoroughly engrossing, powerful film able to entertain as much as it provokes. Eastwood's latest masterwork is based on a true story, and it chronicles the appalling events surrounding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders that occurred between 1928 and 1930. It must be stressed that this feature isn't just a simplistic story of a mother's heroic quest for truth... Beneath its exterior, it's an excellent exposé of crime and corruption during the early 20th Century. Changeling is the first of Clint Eastwood's two 2008 productions (the brilliant Gran Torino being the other), and it is a mature, mesmerising saga made far more compelling by the director's masterful handling of the material. Eastwood has employed the same sparse, unadorned yet exceedingly watchable filmmaking style throughout his several decades as a director, and this style is prominent here. His films rarely drag as well - they're lean and efficient; rarely wasting energy or becoming bogged down in sentimentality. Considering the subject matter, Changeling could've been created as a maudlin, melodramatic mess with exaggerated performances and telegraphed emotion. Under Eastwood's direction, however, it is none of those things. Changeling is unforgettable... It's unforgettable for its extraordinary story, for the cinematography of ethereal beauty, for the haunting performances and for Eastwood's stylistic directorial style. But most of all, Changeling is unforgettable for its sheer impact. This is a devastating and touching story which has been beautifully told by a filmmaker who remains at the top of his game.

The story commences in 1928 Los Angeles. Hard-working single mother Christine Collins (Jolie) returns home from an impromptu shift at work to discover that her 9-year-old son Walter (Griffith) has mysteriously vanished. Five months after Walter's unexplained disappearance, the LAPD - anxious to get some good publicity to help their tarnished image - insists they've found Christine's son. Delight soon turns into horror, however, when Christine lays eyes on the young boy the police have found and instantly realises it's not her child. But the LAPD, worried about further bad press, arrogantly refuse to admit their mistake. As she questions the tactics of the police on an escalating scale of hysteria, the LAPD attempt to silence Christine through iniquitous methods and begin using the press to discredit her claims. But when a campaigning clergyman named Reverend Gustav Briegleb (Malkovich) comes to Christine's aid, the whole rotten system of lying officialdom is tackled and they begin to expose the LAPD's epic web of deception. As the mystery of her missing son deepens, Christine is forced to face an awful possibility about what might have actually happened to Walter...

During 2008, Eastwood turned 78 and still shows no sign of stopping. Most people in any trade retire at 65, but Clint was merely warming up; going on to produce some of the finest work of his directorial career (Oscar-winning films like Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River and Letters From Iwo Jima). The esteemed actor-director has effortlessly segued into a no-nonsense, old-fashioned filmmaker in the mould of John Ford, Sergio Leone, and (his mentor) Don Siegel.
For Changeling, Eastwood allows the events to unfold slowly and quietly without resorting to the over-the-top performances or a roaring soundtrack a lesser director would have employed to highlight the drama - Eastwood recognises that this tale requires no exaggeration. Put simply, Eastwood is the best classical filmmaker working in contemporary Hollywood: his pictures are never flashy or gimmicky, as he recognises these as distractions from his primary job, which is to pay service and respect to a story. However, the man is not a simplistic filmmaker either. Here, Eastwood has crafted a motion picture that moves with ease and grace from potent drama to dark thriller to a tale of corruption echoing such films L.A. Confidential and Chinatown. The ability to work on various levels and shift gears with such skill comes from years of practise...Changeling represents another career high point of one of this generation's finest directors.

Historical relevance notwithstanding, Changeling emerges as a contemporary morality tale as well. After all, Walter is abducted when Christine agrees to work on her day off (a day that she promised she would spend with Walter). By agreeing to work, Christine not only chooses her job over spending time with her son, but she also breaks a promise. The consequence of this decision is that she loses her young boy forever. The film is possibly making a statement regarding single mothers, as well as reasserting that nothing is more important than family and moments spent away from children are moments lost forever.

"I used to tell Walter, "Never start a fight...but always finish it." I didn't start this fight... but by God, I'm going to finish it."

No original book or magazine article exists detailing the Christine Collins case. Screenwriter (and former journalist) J. Michael Straczynski had to conduct meticulous research, developing the story using newspaper files and old records (from city hall, the courthouse, and the city morgue). The extraordinary story of Changeling starts as a flapper Erin Brockovich before turning into Silence of the Lambs by way of L.A. Confidential. Truth is stranger than fiction, as they say. The fact that Eastwood's flick manages to morph from one genre to another is a measure of how truly unusual the story is. It can certainly keep an audience off balance...there are a lot of surprises. Admittedly, Changeling boasts a story far better than the screenplay, as Straczynski's inexperience as a feature film writer is occasionally evident. The one fault of the script is simple: the dialogue sounds a tad too contemporary from time to time. The period detail mixed with this modern-ish dialogue can be very jarring. Dialogue aside, though, Changeling is pervaded with an immense emotional weight that consistently feels earned and sincere as opposed to cloyingly manipulative.

The most striking element of Changeling is the look of the film. With top-shelf production values and excellent visual effects, Eastwood's feature is imbued with an evocative mood of Depression-era L.A. without missing a beat. The digital recreations of 1920's Los Angeles are marvellous, and there are moments when it looks as if Eastwood managed to get his cast and crew into a time machine. Every cent of the $55 million budget (estimated) is used sparingly and put to great use. Tom Stern (Eastwood's expert cinematographer since 2002's Blood Work) paints a muted palette of dehydrated colours reminiscent of the 1920s, punctuated with subtle splashes of colour (like Jolie's red lips) as beacons of hope.
Not only does the aging Eastwood direct his pictures, but he also produces and carries out several additional duties (hence the astounding low-budget nature of his films). Changeling has been beautifully scored by the director himself with lilting pianos and blustery strings. This sweetly melancholic music subtly comforts our souls.
If there's one thing to savour about Changeling, it's the graceful way it transports the audience, taking them back in time to this famous era with traditional Eastwood ease. The 140-minute runtime (approximately) may seem daunting, but it never really seems that long. All pieces of the puzzle merge together, forming a remarkable motion picture which rarely feels its tremendous length.

Clint Eastwood has the ability to coax the best from his actors. Changeling is propelled by an array of wonderful performances, headed by Angelina Jolie whose shattering portrayal of Christine Collins was deservedly nominated for an Academy Award. Choosing to underplay her character's rage and sadness, the actress escapes into her role, painting Christine as a determined woman whose sombre and steadfast nature in the wake of her son's disappearance occasionally gives way to an incendiary temper... Jolie brings every ounce of motherly love and anguish to this part. Appearing in most scenes and carrying the emotional weight of the entire picture, Jolie gives one of the most nuanced performances of her entire career.
There is scarcely a bad performance in the entire film. Jeffrey Donovan is arrogantly loathsome and slimy yet entirely credible as Captain Jones, who seems bereft of humanity as he tries to defend the inexcusable behaviour of the LAPD in unacceptable ways. Playing his superior with gusto, Colm Feore's Chief Davis is equally adamant to push the dirt under the rug without any regard for justice or for Christine. Also first-rate and suitably hateful are the actors portraying the unscrupulous doctors supportive of the corrupt cops - Denis O'Hare as the psychiatric hospital's nasty head doctor, as well as Peter Gerety and John Harrington Bland. Michael Kelly is an especially memorable addition to the cast playing the detective who investigates the dreadful Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. As the psychotic Gordon Stewart Northcott who executed these murders, Jason Butler Harner is exceptional. The moderately unknown actor paints one of the most skin-crawling portraits of pure evil in recent cinematic memory.

John Malkovich is a particular standout as the crusading clergyman who uses Christine's plight to further his own agenda. He's understated and terrific, bringing considerable authority to his character of Reverend Briegleb who's armed with a radio station microphone and rants against the corrupt cops of Los Angeles.

Changeling is one of 2008's best movies. What begins as a simple mystery-thriller soon takes a number of devastating twists and turns, bordering on noir before dipping into dark, bloody horror, and culminating in a courtroom drama for the well-paced and tense climax. Changeling travels to dark places, with scenes and circumstances that will haunt you long after the credits expire. It's not exactly an easy movie to watch, but it's very classy and it adroitly avoids exploitation for the sake of drama. The muted colours, the simple but effective period design and the plot-driven editing grab our attention and emotions with a firm grip as Eastwood tells this elegant story. Changeling is visually sumptuous as well; both its cinematography and art direction were justly nominated for Academy Awards. As long as Clint Eastwood continues to make new movies, this reviewer will continue to pay to watch them. This is a gorgeous, underrated masterpiece and a perfect example of fine art...how the Academy overlooked this tour de force for Best Picture is simply beyond me.

"You know, I had you pegged right from the jump. Just a spoiled brat of a rich father. The only way you get anything is to buy it, isn't it? You're in a jam and all you can think of is your money. It never fails, does it? Ever hear of the word humility? No, you wouldn't."

Throughout his filmmaking career, Frank Capra directed a number of revered classics, including It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Arsenic and Old Lace, and others. Also on the director's résumé is 1934's It Happened One Night; a funny, breezy romantic comedy which hit the right spot with Depression-era audiences. Due to favourable word-of-mouth, the film was a box office smash that put Columbia Pictures (a "Poverty Row" studio) in the big league as a real player. Interestingly, while this is one of the most beloved movies in history, during pre-production the screenplay was deemed so uninspired that numerous stars turned down the chance to appear in it, and even the eventual leads expressed reservations. Despite such concerns, and in spite of the fact that It Happened One Night is essentially a light and fluffy comedy, the film went on to win all the Oscars for which it was nominated: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Screenplay (i.e. the five major categories). Try to imagine something like When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle accomplishing that!

The story of It Happened One Night is simple, and was based on a short story called Night Bus which was featured in Cosmopolitan magazine. Ellie Andrews (Colbert) is the spoiled daughter of a rich Wall Street newspaper magnate who's used to having her own way. Ellie married fortune hunter King Westley (Thomas) against the wishes of her father (Connolly), but her father retrieved her before the marriage could be consummated and practically holds her hostage on his boat. To escape, Ellie jumps overboard and swims for shore. Incognito, she boards a bus bound for New York City to go see Westley. On the bus, she meets Peter Warne (Gable), a down and out reporter who has been sacked by his editor. The two immediately dislike each other, but soon form a pact: Peter will get the inexperienced Ellie back to her husband in order for them to have a "proper" wedding if Ellie gives him the exclusive story.

While this masterpiece was hardly the first screwball comedy (or, according to some, a screwball comedy at all), it proved to be very influential for the burgeoning madcap genre which dominated Hollywood during the tail end of the 1930s. Unlike most modern rom-coms and screwball comedies, Capra's film takes time to develop its characters. Ellie would have been unlikeable and unrelatable if she was left as a stereotypical spoiled rich girl, but Capra unobtrusively included glimpses of her back-story to allow us to see her as a virtual prisoner and a rebellious spirit against her pampered existence. Admittedly, It Happened One Night begins wearing thin towards the end, especially when the story creates a misunderstanding that results in Ellie almost going through with her ill-advised marriage. The pacing slows to a crawl for this section, yet it's truly worth the wait for the picture's final moments, which make good on the longstanding promise to bring "the walls of Jericho" crashing down.

The screenplay by Robert Riskin was so well-written that one may almost believe the hook-up is not going to happen. The pacing throughout is almost uniformly perfect, teasing us until we cannot stand the thought of Ellie and Peter being apart. Far from lovey-dovey or mushy, the dialogue is sharp, witty, and at times heartless. The outcome may be obvious from the onset, but the road to this predictable destination is paved with anger, arguments and misunderstandings. The road is also frequently funny, clever and at times risqué (especially for a '30s movie). Being a Capra film, It Happened One Night was blessed with several Capra-esque flourishes. Yet, unlike other notable movies such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It Happened One Night does not have a real social commentary. Instead, the storyline is surface-level; purely revolving around the warring couple and how they change, with Ellie realising she knows little about the real world and with Peter softening his hardened exterior.

Frank Capra was not exactly a technical director - he did not have a knack for setting up exciting shots or utilising new ideas with his camera. Capra was, however, a master of getting the most out of his simple, linear directorial style. It's not always about complicated set-ups or fancy shots - it's about getting the characters from point A to point B, and ensuring a viewer will enjoy the ride. It would seem Capra had a firm understanding of this, and that's why he stands among the greatest directors in history. Like the best romantic comedies, It Happened One Night is primarily fuelled by the interactions between the protagonists - not only the comedic bantering, but additionally the slow burn that melts away their friction and reveals the full bloom of unlikely love. This is not a forced motion picture - the story flows naturally and the characters seem real, and therefore we can laugh at the jokes, find the romance heartfelt, and follow along with the message about love and not short-changing people.

As the script for It Happened One Night was deemed by many to be uninspired, Capra was unable to recruit the pair he originally wanted for the lead roles (Myrna Loy and Robert Montgomery). Consequently, the director ended up settling for Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert, neither of whom were exactly enthusiastic to do the gig. Remarkably, considering the reluctance of the pair to participate, Gable and Colbert's fabulous chemistry is what makes the film so endearing. Gable displayed a playfulness here that's not often evident in his work, while Colbert managed to make her spoilt brat role likeable. Needless to say, Gable and Colbert were happier about their work when both of them earned Oscars. Gable was nominated three times in the Best Actor category (also for Gone with the Wind and Mutiny on the Bounty), but It Happened One Night earned the actor his only Oscar. Likewise, this was Colbert's only recognition by the Academy. Interestingly, Friz Freleng noted on several occasions that the fast-talking manner of Bugs Bunny is based on Gable's performance here, right down to how he eats a carrot.

Seen in the 21st Century, It Happened One Night feels more familiar than it did back in 1934, but this is a case of a movie being victimised by its popularity and influence. Countless copycat stories have been produced over the decades with similar plots which diminish the freshness and spontaneity associated with Capra's original masterpiece. Nevertheless, nothing can diminish the strength of Gable and Colbert's performances or Capra's deftness in crafting this type of feel-good movie. The screwball comedy elements of It Happened One Night work as effectively as the love story, which is almost unheard of when it comes to romantic comedies.

"I could have killed 'em all, I could've killed you. In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it go. Let it go."

On account of Sylvester Stallone's reputation for playing tough, invincible action heroes, the star is often typecast as an action super-star incapable of proper acting or depth. 1982's First Blood, however, is evidence that Stallone can act if working with the proper material. Additionally, this first instalment of the Rambo franchise is not as brain-dead as most will assume it to be - the movie acknowledges the possibility that movie-watchers may possess a functioning brain. The trio of writers who contributed to the screenplay (Stallone included) were adept enough to realise that the appeal of John Rambo is not limited to bulging biceps or the character's ability to massacre legions of bad guys with an arsenal of weaponry. First Blood is thus a powerful character study rather than a brainless blockbuster, and it benefits from an immaculate mix of heart and action.

John J. Rambo (Stallone) is a disillusioned Vietnam veteran and an ex-Green Beret who is reduced to the life of a drifter eschewed by a prejudice society. Towards the beginning of the story, Rambo drifts to the small town of Hope where he is made unwelcome by the local Sheriff Teasle (Dennehy). Rambo merely wants something to eat, yet he is unfairly turned away. Unable to understand Teasle's hostility, Rambo defiantly refuses to leave town and is arrested as a result. When the police officers mistreat Rambo, he snaps, escapes custody and flees into a neighbouring forest with the entire police department on his tail. Employing his extensive knowledge of guerrilla warfare, Rambo begins a one-man war against the police. Soon, Rambo's former commander in Vietnam - Colonel Trautman (Crenna) - is sent in to help the situation, and finds his loyalties divided between the man he trained and those seeking to bring him down.

First Blood is an adaptation of David Morrell's novel of the same name, and the material was heavily softened for its translation from page to screen. For starters, Rambo killed hundreds of police officers in the novel and was in fact the antagonist, whereas this film version posits Rambo as a mistreated hero who does not willingly kill anyone (the only death is accidental). Additionally, Trautman killed Rambo at the end of the book, yet the movie's ending deviates from the source material in this area as well (though the decision to alter the ending was ultimately made after initial test screenings). First Blood was initially meant to be a standalone feature, but it went on to gross enough at the box office to justify a few sequels. Considering the cash-cow the franchise turned out to be, the executives at Orion Pictures must have been thankful that Rambo was not killed at the film's conclusion.

In the hands of director Ted Kotcheff, First Blood is a movie of exciting action, compelling drama and gut-wrenching emotion. The pacing is notably terrific, with bursts of intoxicating tension to keep viewers riveted throughout. Another memorable constituent of First Blood is the remarkable, heroic score by Jerry Goldsmith. Nearly as iconic as the muscular protagonist himself, the music complements the action, emotion and drama impeccably - every note enhances the visuals. Additionally, while this is primarily an action film, First Blood is at its core an absorbing character study about a man pushed over the edge who's coming to grips with a world that does not want him. When Teasle harasses Rambo, it's just another insult hurled against him for no reason. As he is physically abused by the police officers, flashbacks are triggered of Rambo's dark Vietnam days. Is it at all surprising that he reaches breaking point and reverts to doing what he does best? The sympathy the film generates for Rambo is commendable, as is the way that the film turns the police into antagonists whose comeuppance we crave. Once Rambo turns the tables on the police, we're thoroughly on his side.

Buried beneath the action is a powerful message in regards to the awful treatment of Vietnam vets, and the plight of returned soldiers in general. After these highly trained men returned home, they were discarded by the government and country they risked their lives for. While a fictitious character, John Rambo is representative of many true stories. Additionally, for a character that's often perceived as an unstoppable force, Rambo is shown to have a vulnerable side: he bleeds, he screams, he feels pain and he emotes. Interestingly, Sylvester Stallone was not the first actor to be considered for the role of Rambo - he was only hired after actors like Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman turned it down. In retrospect, it's impossible to imagine anyone other than Sly in the part, and the star's capabilities as an actor are on full display here. His extraordinary monologue towards the film's end should have earned Sly an Oscar nomination. In the supporting cast, Brian Dennehy (as Teasle) and Richard Crenna (as Trautman) are terrific.

It's too easy and unfair to dismiss First Blood on the basis of what the Rambo series became: an over-the-top action franchise. First Blood is significantly different, and superior to its sequels in spite of a few credulity-stretching scenes (like Rambo surviving a large fall without injury). The dark tone and sombre subtext of this film was only matched by the third sequel in 2008. Those who enjoy an engaging action-drama with intelligence, poignancy and substance should find this to be a highly satisfying 90 minutes of cinema. The film was followed by three sequels, beginning with Rambo: First Blood Part II in 1985.

"You know what you are. What you're made of. War is in your blood. Don't fight it. You didn't kill for your country. You killed for yourself. God's never gonna make that go away. When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing."

John Rambo has always gotten a bad rap, as he's perpetually misconstrued by both the supporting characters in his films as well as the cynical movie-goers of the outside world who dismiss him as a joke. This is, of course, because the iconic action hero is best remembered as a cartoonish, buff instrument of American vengeance from 1985's Rambo: First Blood Part II and 1988's Rambo III. Due to this, people have forgotten that the first outing of John Rambo, 1982's First Blood, was an action-drama dealing with America's post-Vietnam disillusionment and one man's failed fight to reincorporate himself into society. For 2008's Rambo (a.k.a. Rambo IV), Sylvester Stallone (who co-wrote and directed in addition to starring) returned the character to his roots; emulating the tone and emotion of First Blood in order to craft a gritty, poignant war picture that doesn't skimp on the action. What's truly daring about Rambo - and what a lot of critics have missed - was Stallone's decision to resurrect the ironic warrior to lament his soul rather than celebrate his strength.

The story, expectedly, is simple and direct. Twenty years have passed since John Rambo (Stallone) saved Colonel Trautman from Russian forces in Afghanistan, and he now lives the life of a recluse in Thailand desperate to evade his personal demons. As the film opens, a group of Christian missionaries approach Rambo seeking passage into the heart of Burma, as they wish to bring medical supplies and prayer books to the war-town country. Rambo reluctantly accepts the offer, but is wary of the dangerous terrain. Days after, Rambo learns that the missionaries were captured by the Burmese military. Choosing to assume his psychologically tattered soldier mentality and launch into battle once again, Rambo joins a group of mercenaries as they head into Burma on a rescue mission.

Stallone chose to preface Rambo with authentic documentary footage depicting the actual situation in Burma, which has endured what is described as the longest-running civil war in history. This horrific footage effectively places the story in a real-world context - it's made clear that the atrocities taking place in Burma are real, rather than part of the screenwriter's imagination. In this sense, Stallone and co-writer Art Monterastelli utilised Burma as a framework within which they constructed a typical action movie. Yet, within the simplistic framework there are layers of complexity that may be easily missed. For instance, the Burmese soldiers appear to be the epitomy of one-dimensional evil since they slaughter villagers and enjoy gang-raping women. However, the documentary footage prefacing the film reveals that thousands of these soldiers are kidnapped boys who are forced into the army and dehumanised into soulless killing machines.

Ultra high body counts have become a staple of the series, and Rambo does not disappoint in this sense. The levels of gore push the R-rating to the very brink, yet the unremitting violence is not as joyously self-indulgent as previous Rambo adventures. See, there's more to Rambo than just carnage. The film builds with a palpable intensity, and the first half depicts Rambo reluctantly working his way back to his former self to confront the life he tried to leave behind. Through depicting the Burma atrocities in explicit detail, the film additionally offers a social commentary and manages to shed light on the realities of life in the country (the film has done more for Burma awareness than the UN). Thus, this entry to the series is more about authenticity and gritty realism, mirroring the tone of First Blood. Rambo is not perfect, of course - it's largely generic (at times painfully so), the dialogue is risible on occasion, and the tonal shifts can be problematic - but the positives outweigh the negatives.

Yet, all of this is probably looking too deeply into what is a taut, expertly crafted shoot-'em-up of pure awesomeness. You attend Rambo movies to watch the titular badass laying waste to hundreds of bad guys, and this fourth instalment offers exactly that. In prior Rambo sequels, Rambo was dropped in some hellhole to rescue a bunch of people before he breaks them out, kills the bad guys and escapes. Rambo '08 stays true to the formula, except - as previously stated - there's a lot more grit. Stallone is never shirtless at any point, and the cheesy music was replaced with Brian Tyler's harrowing, exceptional score. Rambo even works as a member of a team, as opposed to taking down hundreds of soldiers single-handedly. Up until Rambo, Sly had never directed an action film, but his excellent handling of the material here belies his inexperience. Sly may have utilised a shaky-cam approach, yet the style benefits the picture and is at no point distracting. And my word, the picture delivers in terms of action - the final battle is a celluloid tribute to the blood-soaked mayhem of the '80s. For all the criticisms Rambo endured, the violence is deserved: it characterises the villains, and provides the audience with a sweet sense of vengeance.

Sylvester Stallone is cold as ice in his performance as Rambo, and he brought to the role a sense of menace that has been lacking in previous entries. John Rambo is truly scary here; he's a powder keg waiting to explode, and he certainly does explode once the action shifts to the camp where the missionaries are held captive. It's not an Oscar-worthy performance, but it is more nuanced than most will admit. Julie Benz is also effective as a Christian missionary named Sarah. While Rambo jumps through hoops for Sarah, she is not a love interest. Sarah is Rambo's prime motivation for battling the Burmese army, but it's because she profoundly touched his soul. In the supporting cast there's also Matthew Marsden and Graham McTavish, both of whom are standouts as mercenaries. There are others in the cast, but suffice it to say every actor hit their mark.

Infused with a poignant social commentary to provide sufficient context for the action, Rambo exists to call attention to the atrocities in Burma in addition to providing a fitting end for John J. Rambo. In First Blood, Rambo's breakdown in the film's final minutes left us with the sense that he wanted to discover who he is and put the past behind him. This theme was never brought full circle in the following two sequels, but Rambo '08 does exactly that: providing the ending that fans have yearned for since the commencement of the franchise. One could argue I've read too much into Rambo, but I believe critics are not reading enough. It would be a shame for a viewer's preconceptions to overwhelm Stallone's achievements, which goes for both the cynical critics looking to be critical as well as the action fans seeking a fix. There is a beating heart at the core of Rambo, whether you wish to notice it or not.

Interesting to note, Sylvester Stallone's director's cut of Rambo is the superior edit. It fleshes out the characters more effectively, and the film as a whole feels more cohesive and complete. However, the director's cut excludes a few moments which are sorely missed (for instance, Rambo's badass monologue while forging his machete).