Reviews

12 November 2000

Topaz is directed by the iconic director Alfred Hitchcock, this picture is based on the novel by the same name written by Leon Uris, it talks about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

The first 20 minutes of Topaz caught my interest right away, the plot was fairly simple and easy to understand, it was a pleasant story to delve into. Sadly that doesn't last for too long because around the 1 hour mark of the film, the story quickly becomes convoluted and hard to follow. Over-consumption, a term I would attribute to the general feel of the plot of Topaz, there were too many side-stories and characters. Especially when every character is given an equal amount of screen time. It evolves into something too grandiose for what it truly is. A simple, understandable and enjoyable premise later became messy and very confusing which is a shame because it has a lot of potential for being named one of Hitchcock's most ambitious movies. People may think that and I join them because I agree with that statement but I will have to tilt myself on the negative side. Why? Because his ambition ultimately destroyed this picture, Hitchcock simply went too far in his own imagination.

Frederick Stafford (André Devereux) performs as if he's unaware or unfazed by all the terror and danger that is surrounding his life. He does not seem to really get a grasp or understand what is actually happening most of the time, it looks and sounds very strange. Karin Dor (Juanita de Cordoba) she is perfect in giving the audience a genuine and realistic depiction of love and in one striking occasion, fear. Overall, a few actors hit some unpleasant bumps along the journey but it's nothing too alarming. Hitchcock always wanted to acquire the greatest actors and actresses in the business at that time. The cinematography can be beautiful at times, the scene with the purple dress is truly magnificent. There are so many different methods and techniques you could use to analyse that haunting yet mystifying frame.

In conclusion, Topaz has the budget, actors and high potential to create a riveting thriller but Hitchcock chose to take it one step too far and because of that regretful decision he ultimately confuses the audience. I don't recommend Topaz.

30 October 2000

Seven Years In Tibet takes place during the 1940s, we follow the adventure of Heinrich Harrer and experience his gruelling journey across the icy mountains, his dangerous and treacherous expedition brings him to Tibet. He grows a special relationship with the Dalai Llama but the peace and tranquillity doesn't last forever because the Chinese go on a murderous rampage whilst seeking control of Tibet.

Brad Pitt plays the role of Heinrich Harrer, as soon as the film started you could notice he was finding it hard to latch on to the strong Austrian accent because it sounds as if he was over-doing himself and pronouncing every word with a stronger tone in the early scenes and then as every scene would go on he would start losing grasp of his dominant and loud-mouthed intonations. This flaw can be compared to his character in Guy Ritchie's SNATCH where he chose a role which required him to speak in a very demanding Irish accent. The character itself and its motivations were very inspiring, the physical and mental torture he gets put through changes his way of thinking and his perception of life. Overall, Brad Pitt delivers a good performance when it comes to the character's progression and evolution and his motives and struggles look believable but he had to work on the accent a bit more and give it a more balanced, genuine and realistic feel to it. Ralph Fiennes seemed to fit the role as well.

The movie in itself is beautiful, the multiple locations are beautiful to look at and Tibet's rich, colourful and radiant setting is flawlessly executed. The Dalai Llama is well played by young actor Jamyang Jamtsho Wangchuk, his appearance and actions looked very believable. The cinematography is stunning, the landscapes are riveting. We get to view ice-covered mountains, the scorching desert and the combination of the two opposite weather conditions in Tibet. A multitude of different environments with diverse weather conditions. The editing is harsh and sudden, it takes the emotion of a certain scene and then quickly cuts away to something totally different. Anything special the viewer felt is suddenly interrupted because of a quick cut. A fade-out would would work a lot better and it would be able to maintain the emotion the viewer felt in the previous scenes.

Seven Years In Tibet is a very enjoyable movie with a few flaws that make it lose it's charm but it's nothing too problematic. It won't keep you away from having a good time. The adventure has many twists and turns, it'll keep you attentive. French Director, Jean-Jacques Annaud has made a film that is hard to dislike, it has heart, soul and a lot of energy.

27 October 2000

A Few Good Men is not an exceptional movie but the performances by Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise are exceptional and bring the film to a higher standard. The stiff and rigid chemistry between these two characters works so well and when an argument erupts, there is a considerable amount of empowerment, dominance and authority. When the characters open their mouth, the viewer closes theirs because they feel undermined.

Two young Marines are accused of murder, they face a life sentence. An indolent lawyer (Tom Cruise) must spill out the truth of the heinous crime and give out the true reason why everything happened the way it did, to do so he will have to expose and question high ranking officials which is not an easy job to accomplish.

The screenplay is problematic because it strips out all sense of mystery. There is no question mark that pops into your head, that could never possibly happen. The viewer is not allowed to figure out for themselves what could've possibly happened to the murdered marine. The truth is displayed to you from the beginning which is quite shameful because the film turns out to be a cat and mouse chase between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. The screenplay is extremely predictable thanks to the illiterate decisions of the screenwriter.

The love interest between Demi Moore and Tom Cruise was very well handled because they simply did not go for it. They threw the tired and annoying cliche out of the window, which is the right thing to do. It was so refreshing to notice these good decisions taking place because they are so commonplace.

The pacing can be a bit slow at times but it quickly redeems itself because of it's great performances. Tom Cruise has always been disregarded from the public and I say you're wrong, movies like Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, Rain Man and The Firm truly show his vivid capabilities in acting. He's a terrific actor but he always chooses the wrong movies. Jack Nicholson is grandiose and his power is felt in every scene he stars in. A truly wonderful actor, the casting director made the right choice.

This film has been adapted into a Broadway play by the same name which is not all that surprising. It seems like an easy movie to adapt if you have the right budget and set design. I say this because the film itself doesn't really need to expand or break the walls of a couple rooms. The courtroom, interrogation room and apartment are the 3 set designs they need to acquire to make a memorable and clear play.

I recommend a Few Good Men, the performances and atmosphere of the film are splendid and slightly overpower the cons. If the screenplay was handled in a more mysterious and intricate way I would've liked the movie a lot more.

24 October 2000

Primal Fear is a thriller that wants to disguise itself as a film that should be taken seriously, the subject matter involves sexual exploitation and murder. It doesn't achieve the importance and significance it wants to obtain. It is covered with noticeable flaws that damage the viewer's experience drastically, these failed accomplishments create an irrelevant resolution to a story that is not too memorable.

A Hot-shot lawyer (Richard Gere) is the main protagonist of the picture and delivers a sleazy and monotonous performance. Laura Linney tries her best to pull off a somewhat adequate performance but that is a difficult task when you have to work with such a bland script. Her character is filled with cheesy one liners that sound and look cringe-worthy. Edward Norton is by far the most interesting aspect of the film, his character is intriguing and amusing to discover with extra detail and attention once you finally know his hidden secret.

The pacing feels very slow and it almost seems as if the viewer will not reach the end of the trial without losing interest in the process. The rhythm is sluggish and the execution of the plot doesn't help. They should've pushed the story even further because what we ultimately received was simply not interesting enough to hold my attention for 2 hours and 10 minutes. The cinematography focuses on a gloomy, damp and dreary atmosphere so it could match the dramatisation of the story. The romance and chemistry between Richard Grere and Laura Linney distracted me from the general plot and in the end their relationship amounted to nothing. Their complications about them two loving each other was unnecessary, strip all those scenes away and we would've gotten a more balanced pacing and a shorter runtime which would've helped.

I don't recommend Primal Fear. It's an unmemorable courtroom thriller with an unstable script. It takes too long to progress from one scene to the other and in the long run it pays for it because the ending did not captivate me like it normally should have. It tried to let go of me too early and I definitely did not hold on until the end.

14 October 2000

Analyze This is directed by Harold Ramis, the same director who made the wildly popular Ghostbusters franchise. He assembles a noteworthy group of actors to create a comedic film about how a notorious cold-blooded gangster can have sentimental issues just like anyone else. It brings up the expression of never judging a book by it's cover.

Robert DeNiro takes the personality he has in Martin Scorsese films and degrades it, he plays the role of a whiny New York gangster who cries over TV ads and has lost all the toughness his colleagues suppose he has. He needs therapy, a shrink that can take all the emotional baggage off his shoulders. Billy Crystal is the psychologist and Lisa Kudrow plays the role of his irritated wife.

We get to see DeNiro like never before, in many scenes he is crying heavily and uncontrollably. A comedic factor could concentrate just on this one aspect of the character, it looks and sounds amusing because it definitely doesn't look genuine. It's a hard thing to achieve, this could almost be perceived as being too far out of his ball game. Billy Crystal is very down to earth, his reactions are natural and would fit with the casual person's action. Joe Viterelli is DeNiro's bodyguard and he is the funniest element of the film, his facial expressions are hilarious and make every scene feel much funnier than it normally should be. Lisa Kudrow is decent, she doesn't go anywhere too far out of reach for her acting capabilities. She almost seems to be playing the part of Phoebe in the hit TV show Friends. All of her roles feel the same which is definitely not a good thing. The performances are decent enough though to be enjoyed.

The story is simple but can be exciting and intriguing if done right. This film has an old-fashioned comedic charm to it. Even though the film deals with the mafia, it has a lighthearted feeling to it. It's enjoyable and can be appreciated by anyone who has a sense of humour. I was entertained from the start to the end and I can assure you that that is definitely uncommon.

I recommend Analyze This, the performance by Robert DeNiro is hit or miss but the uncomplicated and smooth storytelling is very pleasant.

13 October 2000

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is based upon the book by the same name by Hunter S. Thompson. The story involves two drug addicts played by Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, they take a road trip to the eccentric and queer town of Las Vegas in the early 1970s. How will they cope in civilised areas, they are constantly under the use of a particular substance that separates them from reality? A question that seems entrancing but actually isn't.

The director (Terry Gilliam) displays a bold and sleazily energetic picture, the extravagant characters are constantly digging up their own grave. They consume a multitude of narcotics and they firmly invite the viewer to the psychedelic trips they experience. The film is visually creative, the imagery can be so bizarre and uncomprehendingly strange. Las Vegas is such a sensational, lively and dynamic town for our two greedy addicts, they can sink their teeth into the opulence and acquisitiveness that Nevada's heart holds onto so dearly and with such passion.

Repetitiveness, a thought that was stuck in my head after the 40 minute mark. The movie's look is thrilling and captivating but such effectiveness could only last for about half an hour. This movie would work better as a short film than one with a feature length runtime that only seems to have one sole purpose, damage it. It is an incessant whirlwind of rehashed material being re-introduced on what feels to be a limitless basis. It gets tiresome very quickly, discovering the adventures these characters go on almost feels like a chore. I ultimately became bored and uninterested in the aftermath of a bumpy and treacherous journey.

Johnny Depp delivers a memorable performance, his personality can be comedic at times. Benicio Del Toro is without a doubt a lot more dull and uninspiring compared to Depp's persona that he acquires just so well. Toro's role has no charm involved in it, he is just a hopeless drug addict. Depp's character has a lot of soul and enthusiasm, he shines on the screen and that's all due to his bipolarism. The ending is tasteless and insignificant and makes you think that the entire road trip was a complete waste of time for the characters and for the viewer.

I don't recommend Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas because it leaves behind a scent of indecisiveness. The film making and imagery is exciting and poignant but the main plot wears down rapidly and becomes repetitive. The conclusion of a faithless and violent journey into the bowels of psychedelics amounts to an aimless ending. Our characters learnt absolutely nothing and they will keep on ruining their health and risking their lives until death gets a hold of them.

9 October 2000

Subway is Luc Besson's first film, a french director who nowadays is known all around the world for his bold and striking films that all have a style of their own.

Here is a director from France who wants to give the audience something they're not used to seeing on the big screen. A fashionable, chic and new wave cinematographic style, bright colours and artsy shots in a sophisticated setting. Luc Besson gives real life a touch of inaccuracy and invalidness. The numerous characters are succumbed into a false reality. The location of the film is quite fascinating because the viewer gets introduced to a metro in France and step by step our main character Fred (Christophe Lambert) discovers hidden facets in an underground environment occupied by striking people with witty and flamboyant personalities.

This film is involved in the cinema du look movement that spanned out through the 80s and mid-90s in France. This film relies on style and the value of it's adventurous camerawork but not too much on substance. This film would've been superior if it had an interesting story to accompany the visionary style of Luc Besson. The story is extremely puzzling, you don't know why any of the characters are being portrayed as bandits. The opening scene is unbelievably confusing, it starts with a police chase, all I wanted to know was why he got himself in this situation and I never got an answer. They almost make it seem as if it's made to be that way, as if it's entirely normal that the viewer doesn't understand the reason of all the chaos that's taking place. I had to browse the internet to get my questions answered and now that I have acknowledged the entire plot of the film, it still feels the same way as when I watched it. An extremely thin plot that didn't captivate me at all.

I moderately recommend Subway, Luc Besson's imaginative, inventive, perceptive and innovative style of film-making is extremely interesting to delve into and analyse with a critic's point of view. However when it comes to the general plot of the film, it falls incredibly short. Subway should be thought of as a piece of art instead of a movie.

6 October 2000

A Bronx Tale starring Robert DeNiro and Directed by Robert DeNiro. 1993 was the year he unveiled a hidden secret of his. His directorial debut feels like it's made by Scorsese which isn't surprising, he influenced many directors with his unprecedented detail to storytelling. Gangster films have a grittiness and hard-boiled presence that they own so dearly. Unfortunately this genre possesses the word repetition, certain movies feel too similar to each-other.

The main protagonist is Calogero, a teenager living in the Bronx in the 60s. The character is not that interesting and his performance is just fine. In the beginning of the film we get introduced to a 9 year old version of Calogero, the child actor is infuriating to tolerate and his constant mischief only amplifies my frustration to a level that genuinely annoyed me. I understand that it's his role and it's all part of the story but there are so many negative aspects about this child's performance that can easily put someone off the film. Let me talk about one for instance, you'll have to put subtitles on because you can never understand a word this kid is saying, he is mumbling everything that comes out of his mouth. He also talks extremely fast so if you understand any of his lines whilst watching the film for the first time then I'll be surprised. An hour into it and finally we get to change time frame, 1960 to 1968. Calogero is now a 17 year old teenager, this version of the character is far superior, First of all you understand everything he's saying. He has a good emotional range, he can act well during heartfelt sequences and he is overall a better actor when compared to his predecessor.

Robert DeNiro as usual is amazing and his sympathetic and concerned character is definitely the high spot of the film for me personally. The untouchable love he has for his son feels authentic and very legitimate. I felt sorry for him and all of his issues, stepping into his son's shoes and making his life easier was an idea I had in mind during the film. Chazz Palminteri was decent, it was an easy performance to pull off. He is used to having these types of roles constantly handed to him. The movie's plot is painfully average and it concludes with a terrible ending. The camerawork is special at times, especially the shots of Bronx during the night. That's about it when it comes to cinematography, the entire movie has a damp and unsettling look. It seems as if the colours have been faded out and it creates this rusty, metallic look to the scenery which is very ugly to look at. The racial discrimination was an interesting topic to delve into and I also enjoyed the story of our protagonist's black girlfriend, it was hard to have a girlfriend with a different colour of skin in the 60s. Racism was evolving and becoming a very serious matter. The segment of the intolerant teenagers gunning down the store filled with black people and then throwing molotovs to it so they could create a dangerous fire was adequate but when they got one of their molotovs thrown back at them it became quite intriguing. It was a classic example of "what goes around, comes around".

The ending is terrible, it's an easy way out. We had a heated rivalry between Robert DeNiro and Chazz Palimentiri that was actually starting to amount to something vast and important but then one of them dies. Killing someone doesn't add anything interesting to the story, there's no proper meaning behind it. The gunman is unbelievably insignificant to the main plot. They cut away all the tension because of a useless death scene that results to nothing. I would've preferred if our protagonist chose himself the person he wanted to stick to instead of some purposeless scene automatically do the job for him. An unsatisfactory ending that leaves me dispirited. It's a happy ending for my favourite character but the lead up to the cherished moment was very badly done

I moderately recommend A Bronx Tale, Robert DeNiro's character is great and the racial discrimination was intriguing. Everything else was either flawed or just not that special to me. However, I was attracted to see a movie that DeNiro directed. Overall, it has it's problems but it can still be enjoyed by the casual viewer's eye.

4 October 2000

Life Is Beautiful is a depressing and gut-wrenching piece of art, by the end of it you feel hopeless. You get to appreciate these bright, diverse characters only to see them go through hell. This film is a journey, we venture and discover these people's lives and see how they evolve from the beautiful and promised land of Tuscany to the dark, ruthless and distressing concentration camps. We have to accept the fact that most of the people we meet on screen won't survive by the end of the film.

The movie sends an important message, if you're in a dangerous situation or are depressed or in any kind of trouble, there is always hope. Roberto Benigni's character has the courage to persevere and bring joy into negativity and make life jollier for the people he cares about, he sacrifices himself at the cost of spreading happiness and exultation in the hearts of his family. Philosophical undertones are present specifically when it comes to the character's calm attitude or the knowledge of reality. Reality is tough and demanding, this film proves that you can't change the course of history.

That closing sentence to the previous paragraph brings me to the ending of the film. The ending is devastating and sorrowful because it shows the true courage and endurance displayed in the film. It's a depiction of reality, millions of Jewish people died in WW2. Making our beloved character survive the pain and agony that takes place behind the walls of concentration camps could be deemed as unrealistic. Roberto Benigni wants to show us just how painful it was to live through this era of history and how the majority of the prisoners had to sign their own death certificate unwillingly.

The movie has certain flaws though. The last minutes of the film are glorifying America and it seems as if they are shoving the message into our faces, America is our hero and we should all love them for that which seems a bit weird to me. It's something I can't put my head around of, it seems misplaced to me. The concentration camp is not historically accurate and it looks that way, not knowing what the camp's name is plays a large part in that. Letting an Italian boy have the privileges of being associated with the German kids seems unrealistic to me, they didn't make the kid say a single word, they never asked him a single question, that sounds a bit ridiculous.

I recommend Life Is Beautiful because it tells a gratifying story that will warm your heart and show you just how precious life really is, it will also leave you weeping because of it's tragedy. Don't forget your tissue box, you'll be needing it.

October 3 2000

Psycho is considered a cult classic and it is directed by Alfred Hitchcock and this is without a doubt his most renowned film. I saw it for the first time today and I understand all the praise it receives, it's the definition of a perfect horror film.

Psycho tells a simple story of a woman who is going rogue with 40,000 dollars in her pocket. When she's in her car, rain starts pouring so she inevitably decides to stop at a tiny and secluded motel. Little does she know that the owner is a crazed psychopath.

Filming Psycho in black and white only helps the movie become the cult classic it has turned out to be today, imagine watching the shower scene without the B&W filter, it definitely wouldn't have the same effect. And it doesn't just help certain iconic scenes, it makes the whole movie feel ominous and very sinister. The characters are just remarkable and the most memorable of them all is Norman Bates. It's exciting to delve into this character's hidden psychotic personality. Throughout the movie's runtime he is almost winking at us, giving us hints that we shouldn't be fooled by his formal appearance, he is controlling his sociopathic behaviour inside of him. He does not want to unveil his second personality to the audience until the very end. He is a frightening character because he looks completely normal but there is this impending doom and terror that follows him around wherever he goes. You have the feeling he's a disturbed individual but you don't get enough proof to fully be sure of it.

The setting is very chilling and can often be hair-raising. There are multiple frames of the dreary, gloomy, dull and greyish mansion that Norman Bates considers his world. The cinematography is hauntingly beautiful. The camera setups manipulate the audience and ultimately hides them from the truth. Another element of the film that we barely ever see in modern films is when the main character dies in the first act. She was the central figure of the story but her sudden death moves her out of the spotlight and she inevitably becomes a false protagonist.

I highly recommend Psycho, it could almost be perceived as a character study. Every dialogue and frame is iconic, it stands the test of time and has the privilege of calling itself the greatest horror movie ever made.

2 October 2000

The Usual Suspects is directed by Bryan Singer who has recently shifted gears. He made X-MEN which has absolutely nothing to do with his early work. He made low budget movies and then went to 100 million dollar budget Hollywood blockbusters. The film that stands out in this director's filmography is his 1995 thriller "The Usual Suspects".

The Usual Suspects has a terrific plot that Bryan Singer executes perfectly. Every character has a different frame of mind and they all have enough screen time to make each of them feel important and significant to the main story. Character development is prominent throughout the film's runtime, it's a crucial element because the main plot concerns these 5 criminals. They accept dangerous and deadly missions without facing the consequences or imagining what the outcome could be and in the end, they pay for it.

Who is Keyzer Soze? A large question mark fills the TV screen, it makes the audience think and try to have their own opinion on who it could possibly be. It's a complex plot and the viewer needs to be attentive if they want to understand the motivations and characteristics of every character or to also feel the enormous gratification of knowing who Keyzer Soze finally is. This thriller is packed with mysterious undertones that are exciting to delve into.

The performances are sublime, the entire cast did a great job. This movie is responsible for sky rocketing Kevin Spacey into super-stardom and rightfully so. He plays the role of a lonely cripple and he masters his persona perfectly, every-time he is on screen he has a dominant presence of superiority even though his appearance could be compared to a limp noodle. The entire cast is memorable, Benicio del Toro is comedy gold and his nearly inaudible accent is hilarious to listen to.

I recommend The Usual Suspects, it is a thought-provoking and intelligent thriller. All 5 characters are tangled in a cobweb of misery and confusion but only one person can find his way out, i'll let you find that out for yourself.

1 October 2000

The Crimson Rivers is directed by Mathieu Kassovitz, he brought us "La Haine" in 1995. A polarising, striking and thoughtful picture about the struggles of living in a crippled society. His new movie is definitely a step-down in quality.

This movie features the unparalleled duo of Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel. They have great on-screen chemistry and share a turbulent bond throughout their exchanges. The story is very confusing and goes in different directions without making sure if it would match the information the viewer has already received which makes it hard to follow the plot when they add additional layers of storytelling to an already puzzled tale. The narrative is not very interesting, it didn't catch my full interest. If it was told in a more linear way I would have appreciated it more or maybe they should've just simply changed the entire plot because it really is not that compelling to delve into. These top class french actors save this movie from being made for TV material.

The cinematography is haunting, dark, sinister and murky, the landscape differs constantly, a sombre and uneasy setting can quickly cut to bright and blazing ice-covered mountains. Gory and violent sequences are present throughout and make the film dig deeper into the dreary and bleak tone it tries to convey. I endorse this dirty and savage style of film making.

The ending is very bizarre, different side-stories are presented and very badly explained to the audience which makes the story even more incoherent and perplex than it already was. During the finale, which takes place in the icy mountains, our two heroes survive a shootout and a couple seconds later an avalanche builds up and goes on a destructive rampage. What are the odds? The entire idea of an avalanche taking place at the exact moment our characters arrive on the mountain is unbelievably stupid and ridiculous, it ultimately ruins the entire ending and climax of the film which is a shame. This is a startling and surprising decision made by the director which I personally do not understand the meaning of.

The Crimson Rivers has many faults when it comes to storytelling and direction. However, the cinematography is enticing and the characters are well-established and those two reasons alone make this a movie I would recommend but it's definitely far from being a masterpiece.

29 September 2000

I love the original Halloween movie that came out in 1978. It's a horror movie that works on every level. The sequel however is a massive disappointment, it follows all the slasher cliches and it is nowhere as good as the original.

Halloween 2 is not a very good movie but it seems as if the new director (Rick Rosenthal) did that on purpose. The flaws are not perceived as mistakes. It's very easy to understand the direction Rosenthal wanted to follow. He wanted gorier death scenes, nudity and overall he chose to take the high road which means pleasing the key audience demographic (teenagers and young adults). Back in the 80s slasher flicks were extremely popular and teens just could never get enough of it. Slowly that trend faded away and it's never been the same, thank god for that.

This sequel does not have the suspense and tension that the original movie owned perfectly. A serial killer in a house is a lot more terrifying than one in a hospital. Open space diminishes fear because the safety of an individual depends on the location they are in. The size of a typical house can give the viewer a sense of claustrophobia that will expand the fear they are feeling inside of themselves. That's only one of the many elements that make the original a frightening motion picture. Some of the cinematography is interesting because of how obscure some of the shots are and I just love it when they show Micheal slowly creep up to his victim, very effective and a great way of creating anxiety.

Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode) delivers an average performance, she doesn't know how to make her injuries look genuine because she can never decide when she has to stand up, crawl or run. The entire progression of her chase sequences feel uneven because of her misunderstanding of how she had to act in the specific scenes. Donald Pleasance is fine in the film, it's not a very demanding role and it doesn't require much skill to portray. Dick Warlock (Micheal Myers) is very good and he is ruthless and aggressive during the kills. The mask is wider and a bit less appealing when compared to it's predecessor. The fact that Laurie is the sister is interesting but they should've delved deeper into the idea.

I don't recommend Halloween 2 to a viewer who is not particularly into horror films but if you do like slashers and find them somewhat enjoyable then watch it even though i'm certain you probably did if you are into this sub-genre.

26 September 2000

Rope plays out as your typical straightforward crime story. The story involves two middle-aged men that commit a murder, they hide the body in a chest in an apartment located in the heart of New York, they plan a small gathering to celebrate the perfect murder but it doesn't go as planned.

The movie is filmed in long takes and it feels as if the viewer is present with the characters because the story unfolds in real time. We are defending these two criminals from being caught and the audience inevitably feels guilty. The entire cast delivers good performances. The film-making aspect of Rope is very impressive and that is the highlight of the film.

When it comes to moral sense however, I am struck at how these two murderers make the worst decisions. Why would you plan a party in your own apartment after killing someone in cold blood, they move the body in the living room and place it in a chest, all of the guests are about 20 feet away from the corpse. They committed the atrocious act in broad daylight, why not do it during the night where no one can see you dispose the body. Did they think the guests would never have realised that something peculiar or strange was happening if one of the guests never arrived to the party and doesn't even call to say why? Because they made these brainless decisions, it almost feels to me that they wanna get caught. I simply could not take the situation seriously when I know that they could've avoided all the hassle they put themselves in.

Rope is one of Alfred Hitchcock's least memorable movies for good reason, it lacks common sense. The film-making is inventive and interesting to look at and the performances are all adequate but overall this movie isn't that special. I recommend the film if you enjoy the macabre style of film-making Hitchcock excels at. However if you are not used to his work and have never taken a deep dive in his filmography then definitely don't start with Rope.

25 September 2000

The Thin Red Line effectively encapsulates the fear and torment soldiers have to deal with on the battlefield. The battle sequences are well orchestrated and can go on for a whole hour which seems long and can sometimes feel that way, Terrence Malick wants to show us all the bloodshed, brutality and tragedy that takes place on the battlefield. The blood, sweat and tears these soldiers have to face and push through. The setting is unique, tall grass is an important element to the film. You can see some of the grass on the film's poster and you also get to see a large chunk of it in the film itself. The tall grass is defending the american troops to victory because when they crouch quietly they vanish from the enemies sight. Camouflage has different shapes and forms but only one kind is always present to save the troops, the tall grass that constantly ripples.

The cast is absolutely terrific but once you start watching the movie, that doesn't really matter and you understand why the director gathered such an incredible group of actors, for example George Clooney is present in the film for only three minutes. Anyways, everyone involved in the film does a great job of portraying emotions of sadness, desperation and numbness. It's an emotional roller-coaster and the magnificent soundtrack only heightens every feeling the viewer receives. It's beautifully shot and has mesmerising cinematography of warfare, crimson skies and the beauty of nature. The script is clever and philosophical.

I recommend The Thin Red Line, it's beautiful and captivating way of storytelling is going to touch you profoundly. The film may seem a bit too long for some people but I thought it was just fine the way it was, a 2 hour and 50 minute runtime isn't that surprising for a movie of this calibre.

25 September 2000.

Me, Myself and Irene is the latest comedy by the Farrely Brothers who are known for their ultra-successful 1998 comedy called There's Something About Mary, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Their newest movie is definitely a step down in quality.

Jim Carrey saved this movie from becoming a total failure. Without him, this would be one of the most lacklustre comedies ever made, the story is extremely uninteresting and the gags don't land most of the time. The plot of the story is handled really badly, everything goes at a pace you can't keep up with. You don't know the purpose of any of the characters or what their role is. All you are left with is an unmemorable and uncaptivating duo (Renee Zellweger/Jim Carrey) that really does not catch the interest of the viewer. Whilst you are lost in the clutter, which is the story. You are left with goofy, bizarre and downright hilarious facial expressions that can bring out the emotions of cringe or laughter. Renee Zellweger is painfully average, she never challenges herself as an actress. She should step out of her comfort zone and display everything she has in herself on the screen to create a good performance, if she has the skills. It has not yet been proven that she has what it takes. The jokes are standard, one or two stand out but nothing comes close to the effective slapstick humour of There's Something about Mary.

I don't recommend Me, Myself And Irene because it succeeds in showing how crazy Jim Carrey can become but every other character is incredibly dull. The story is dreary and surprisingly perplex to understand. It's a bump in the road for The Farrely Brothers.

23 September 2000

I have never read any of the Spawn comic books and I also haven't seen the animated TV show, needless to say I don't know anything about this superhero. And now that I've seen the movie, I'd like to keep it that way.

The first 25 minutes of the movie feel like it's made for TV. Absolutely nothing special, the acting isn't remarkable and the imagery looks damp and flat. As soon as our hero starts his plan for revenge and creates massive shootouts whilst wearing his slick costume, everything gets worse.

Micheal Jai White plays the main role in the film and gives us a performance that has high spots but overall it just doesn't resemble anything remarkable by the end of the film. I really disliked Martin Sheen's tedious performance, I felt as if he was playing a parody of himself, his character is extremely uninteresting. A laughably bad performance. John Leguizamo plays the role of Clown, this to me is the worst thing about this movie. The jokes this character comes up with are so unfunny, just downright terrible in every aspect. The reason why most of the performances are not memorable is because of the horrible script they have to work with. Every character has cheesy one-liners that are so cringe-worthy because you can tell it's forced and it never comes out naturally, for good reason.

The special effects can be hit or miss, sometimes the CGI would look great but in other times it would look ugly and very unpolished. The demon in hell looks horrific but the creature clown unveils, looks fabulous. They could've done a better job to make it look more balanced.

The action scenes are very well-handled and Spawn's costume was very well done. The story is generic and has nothing special to it, it's your typical straight-forward revenge story with sprinkles of past love getting involved in it. The narration in the beginning of the movie is so pointless, what's the point of telling the audience what's going to happen before they find it out for themselves. A very stupid and regrettable decision.

I don't recommend Spawn, it's an unmemorable movie because of how the people who worked on this project wanted the target audience to be for teenagers only. It definitely could've been better, if the script was taken seriously and the characters were a bit more refined, we would've got a better movie.

18 September 2000

Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman form an unlikely duo that works really well. Hoffman plays the role of a severely autistic man. This performance deserves a lot of concentration and substance to pull off well, you definitely don't want it to seem in-genuine or feel forced. He needs to stay in character at all times, there's a certain barrier he can't cross and if he does, he fails. Cruise's character is a selfish young man who only cares about himself. He plays the role perfectly and gets to act in heartfelt scenes that prove he is a diverse actor that doesn't deserve all the hate he receives. But that is gonna change when he meets his long lost autistic older brother, they will live together and soon enough learn to love each other.

The handicapped are portrayed in a sad and melancholic way in films but in this film it feels real and honest because instead of being stuck in a mental institution throughout the entire movie, he gets to be free and do things he didn't think he was able to do. Cruise plays a part of that because most of the time he is trying to cope with living with an autistic person, he yells at him and sometimes insults him. The handicapped are treated with more realism than you would normally see in a movie, it's also interesting to see how they would react if they were out of their institution and had to live in civilisation with all the deficits they have to face.

As we see these two characters come together, there is a string of hope. The audience hopes that they will be able to look past the complications and negativity that surround both of their lives from that moment on, and finally learn to love each-other by the end of the film, and that certainly happens. The audience feels sympathetic towards the characters because they have both been treated badly in the past.

The ending is bittersweet and it doesn't work out the way you would want it to. It's not a happy ending, which to me is acceptable. It's very realistic, not everything works out. It's heartwarming and touching because these two characters evolved drastically and it feels as it it was the final goodbye, even though it's not.

I recommend Rain Man even though I feel as if the pacing could be a bit better mid-way during the movie. It's a tad bit too slow. Nevertheless it's worth watching.

11 September 2000.

Scary Movie is the new movie by director Keenen Ivory Wayans who is known for making comedies with very stupid humour that anyone can understand and you can either loathe it or just tag along and laugh. Scary Movie has hit mainstream success, the actors appeared at the MTV Awards earlier this month and everyone seems to talk about how ridiculous this movie is. It is extremely successful and has great box office results. I'm pretty sure they're gonna make a sequel. How could they not after the popularity their movie gained?

I really enjoyed Scary Movie, I laughed pretty much from beginning to end and yeah, sure it's dumb and can be over the top sometimes but this movie is all about just having a good time and making you zone out for a while so you can just simply laugh at how outrageous and witty the movie is. I thought that most of the gags worked really well and made me laugh like a kid. The movie is really short and feels that way, the runtime is 1 hour and 28 minutes but if you're enjoying the movie, it feels like half an hour. And that's a good thing, it means the pacing is on point, it's fast and keeps you attentive. Every character in this movie has a different attitude, different traits and it's all pushed to the extreme. The performances are over the top but in a good way because it never comes across as cringe-worthy.

I recommend Scary Movie, it's a fun movie that is in a sub-genre of comedy that certain viewers but mostly critics look down to for sometimes good reason, terrible movies have come out of this sub-genre (straight to video garbage). But this movie stands out because the gags are effective and work most of the time, the characters are interesting because they are all drastically different, it creates funny imitations of slasher movies and the ending is good because it's unexpected. Watch it and have fun.

11 September 2000.

I had seen Siskel and Ebert's review for Pleasantville and they both absolutely adored it and put it on their list of the best films of 1998. Me being a big fan of them two, I instantly bought the film.

In the 1990s, (David and Jennifer) two teenagers get transported into a sitcom that takes place in the 1950s. A world that is in black and white with people who have never seen any other colour in their life. They need to follow the formula of the episode that would air on TV to not confuse the neighbourhood and mess with the citizen's lives.

Pleasantville has a sweet and comforting atmosphere to it. Everyone seems so innocent because they have never experienced what the world is really like. They are hidden from outside interference and live a sweet and joyful life, away from all the problems today's society has to face. Everything is always the same, the entire town is in black and white so nothing feels different or stands out and everyone acts the same because they're supposed to act that way. Why wouldn't they, they live in a perfect world.

Seeing the citizens distance themselves from the fantasy they live in and gradually discover what real life truly looks like is extremely interesting and can be quite emotional. The entire cast does an amazing job with making the situation seem believable and realistic. The viewer is gonna get so used to the bittersweet tone of the movie because of the B&W filter. It hides beauty and the art of colour,so when we eventually see colour it can almost be perceived as a sigh of relief that natural beauty is still out there and is present in this fantastical town.

I highly recommend Pleasantville.

10 September 2000

Magnolia is an important film that many people should see because it tackles many issues that a wide majority of people suffer from, (child exploitation, depression, addiction, regret...). It is a serious and melancholic film that makes the viewer delve into the difficult lives of a group of people.

The performances are incredible, it's great to see A-list actors acting in a role that involves so much realism and sheer talent to convince the audience that they are in a tough position. There are plenty of different stories in the film and all of them have their own scenario and specific character tied to it. It's difficult to keep an audience interested in so many characters at the same time when there is so much going on. Paul Thomas Anderson succeeds in taking the attention of people and keeping it active for 3 hours, every time we delve into a different story it abruptly ends before something important will happen and that same rhythm goes on during the entire movie so that we never get bored or lose interest in what's going on. Nevertheless all the stories are interesting and have an important message to spread.

The movie is marketed as if the stories connect and interlink which is the case for the most part. The movie got a mixed critical reception because the audience was awaiting something obvious and that all the characters would somehow reunite at the end, which never happens.

Another element of the film that annoyed and confused people a lot is the ending. Don't get me wrong I appreciate an unorthodox ending, it's definitely not your typical Hollywood movie ending because it tries to be the exact opposite of a Hollywood movie. I don't understand the ending and that doesn't really bother me. If these stories never connected and had nothing to do with one another, that also wouldn't bother me. For me, the best part of this film is to get the chance to go into these people's lives and see realistic people face gruelling life challenges. These group of people were great and I love that the most in this film, the characters.

I recommend Magnolia but don't go into this film expecting everything to resolve and work out for the characters or end the way you think it'll end because that will never be the case, trust me. Magnolia is a perfect example of "you'll either love it or hate it."

8 September 2000

Orgazmo is so weird and pitiful when you think about it. You have a hard time understanding why Trey Parker and Matt Stone would even accept doing this movie whilst reading the plot. (They made this before unveiling South Park to an audience by the way). They must've wanted to boost their careers before South Park so they could get public recognition and so more people would tune in to watch the show in the future. (That's my guess). Don't get me wrong, I love South Park and it's dark humour. I think Eric Cartman is one of the funniest icons in television. I also enjoyed their 1998 movie Baseketball, I thought it was extremely funny and when you compare Orgazmo to it, Orgazmo falls short.

It's low budget creates a damp and unpleasant look to the movie and it's lack of funny jokes results in a somewhat funny movie but could have been better if was a bit more creative in terms of storytelling and humour. Trey Parker is the main character of the story but most of the laughs come from Matt Stone's character. Matt Stone is hilarious and I loved him in this movie even though he does play a small role which is too bad because he was a lot funnier than Trey in my opinion.

This is the type of movie you watch without paying attention, the plot is so simple and straightforward that you don't need to concentrate for a single second. You come back from work, you're tired and want to relax in front of a movie that's not too complicated, this is that type of movie. You know what I mean.

I can't recommend Orgazmo because it just isn't that good as a comedy movie. It has some funny moments but overall it just isn't creative or intriguing enough to interest me. If you want to see a good movie with Matt Stone and Trey Parker then look no further than Baseketball. If you like South Park then you'll definitely like it.

5 September 2000

I missed this movie when it was in the cinema. I didn't have enough time to go see it because it came out a couple weeks before the end of the school term. Thankfully now that I have a copy of the DVD I can watch it and overall it's actually pretty good.

It portrays itself as a horror movie with some teens dying one after the other but it's smarter than that because it comes up with an interesting premise that will grip you. Originality barely exists in this specific genre of horror but this movie has that and owns it.

Alex (Devon Sawa) is a young adult who can anticipate the deaths of others before it actually occurs. When his class take a trip to France, he has a premonition of the plane crashing. He quickly gets off the plane with the teacher and a few other students. Whilst everyone else is on board, the plane takes off but a few seconds after, the plane crashes. The students who left the plane just in time were supposed to die, they cheated death but not for long. A pattern is discovered showing the order in which the students will die.

The deaths in this movie can be very brutal and are taken very seriously. The viewer wants to protect Alex from being accused of the murders by the police. The story is entertaining, there is not a second to lose, it's fast paced and keeps you attentive.

I really enjoyed the movie, the performances were good and the high energy of the movie was present throughout it's entire runtime. It definitely stands out in the teen horror movie genre for taking chances in presenting the audience a well thought out plot. It's a good summer movie. It's a popcorn movie though and there's nothing wrong with that because it's a good one and that's why it's getting a good audience and critical reception. I recommend Final Destination.

3 September 2000

Twister is a catastrophe movie that has great special effects that look real. Action sequences that can be considered silly but the imagery and chaos is too well done to be made fun of. We get a good cast with a mixed performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, his attitude in this film is annoying and pointless. Why does he not act like everyone else instead of acting like a goof. Helen Hunt is okay in the movie, it's nothing to write home about.

The movie is seriously flawed when it comes to storytelling and the poor direction they chose to go. A love story and pointless side-characters damage this film for me. People expect disaster and chaotic imagery to be displayed on the screen when they watch this type of movie and we get that but the main premise of the movie which involves a torpedo has to be slowed down because of boring love complications between certain characters.

Now without a doubt, the worst thing about this movie involves a group of rival scientists which is being led by Dr Jonas Miller. The movie wants us to dislike them. In the first hour of the movie they almost seem to be the villains, what about the torpedo? Most of the time I was irritated at how I was forced to get involved with these uninteresting people when all I really wanted to see was the status of the torpedo.

I was impressed with the effects and how real the torpedo looked in the movie but the uninteresting characters and the laughable competition of who's better between the two scientist groups was just a waste of time. The script was not so good, the dialog felt forced and sounded stupid. I do not recommend Twister, it is a below average action movie.

2 September 2000

Fargo is a captivating thriller that has a straightforward story but it's effective because it catches the viewer's attention in it's artistic value. The performances are sublime, every character is interesting.

Steve Buscemi and Peter Storemare are great together and both play their roles perfectly. Frances McDormand won an oscar for her performance. William H. Macy makes you sympathise for his character because of how desperate and troubled he looks throughout the movie. The performances are top notch, the entire cast did a great job.

The cinematography is beautiful, the scenery is ominous and can feel quite claustrophobic. It seems as if the snow adds tension to the story and keeps these characters in a bubble of trouble. A place you can't escape from. Every shot feels precised and intricate as if it was meant to be this way.

The story caught my interest throughout it's entire runtime. The movie creates tension in a subtle way by quickly showing the viewer the danger without notice, all of that is done without a single sound signifying danger is on the way. This technique should be used more often in horror movies because it creates a tense atmosphere for a considerably long amount of time as opposed to a few seconds of jumpiness, it is the opposite of a "jump scare". I might not be picking the best film but there are other films that prove this technique of film-making is one to keep.

They could've improved the pace of the movie if they got rid of the useless side-story of the former high school friend trying to seduce McDormand. That scene should've been included in the deleted scenes. It would've also been a bit informative if we could understand how Mr Lundegaard got himself in this tough situation.

I recommend Fargo for it's interesting plot, enticing characters and overall artistic value.