Reviews

The third and final part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this is an entry that is once again visually impressive to the point of perfection, but also once again with little substance. Nevertheless, the film is to able better its predecessors in two key areas. It is less monotonous than the first two, and the characterisation is better than in the first two. However, by now better character development is of no use; the story has developed much too far without effectively involving the viewer. It is almost like a pretentious effort to suck in the viewers in the final part who were warded away earlier on by poor character development. Another point worthy of noting is that it is not overlong this time – that would be an understatement. It is severely overlong. The producers just do not know how to end a film. There are so many points when you think you have reached the closure that the whole last half hour is completely anticlimactic. To look at the films in perspective, they are all of about the same in quality, which is no surprise: they are just different cuts of one long film. All are above average films, as they have interesting technical elements. But they are not successes, because the writing is not up to the standard of the other aspects of the film. Adapting to the screen Tolkein's story was a massive task, and it did require a lot of effort, but what one looks for when assessing a film is was it successful? Film critique for me is about rewarding success – not how much effort one puts in. It is impossible to deny how much effort the whole cast and crew went to in order to produce this spectacular looking film, but they only ever half-succeeded in capturing the magic of Tolkein's tales.

A taut, tense and mesmirising film that unfortunately loses power due to its length, however it is otherwise good. The film is an interesting, well acted and for the most of it well shot cinema piece, concerning how one person can affect others unintentionally. It is, however, too complex and often hard to understand, which tends to lose a viewer's attention. In addition, the film is not dissimilar from other films about interconnecting lives that the film industry has presented before us. This one however tries to add some extra meaning to the genre, only in part succeeding, because although the philosophy at the start of the film seems appropriate, the end sequence metaphor seems somewhat ill judged. Tom Cruise's superb performance earned him an Oscar nomination.

A strongly acted and always interesting portrait of the hardships that came with the American Civil War, not only for soldiers but for those who did not fight too. The times are portrayed well, with sets and costumes that cannot be faulted. What can be flawed in the film however is the central romance, which is without much spark or realism. But all the action surrounding the romance is great, with some good-natured humorous touches, wonderful supporting characters and the perfect picture overall of life during the American Civil War. The cast is superb, with Zellweger in particular undergoing a superb transformation from her typical roles. The film is generally well written and well directed by Minghella, so that in spite of a lackluster romance, the film is still a captivating and entertaining watch.

A dreary and depressing look at unhappy New York, not unlike 'Taxi Driver', and it even has the same writer and director. It is hard to blame Scorsese for wanting to make another 'Taxi Driver', as it is perhaps his best film, but I really feel that Scorsese and Schrader fail to do anything new with the material here. It is rather drone despite all of the bright colours and inappropriately happy music (another link to 'Taxi Driver'), but one can argue that Scorsese still handles the film well at times, and there are some notable performances. But the overall film is simply nothing anyone would want to watch. And I have seen it twice.

A disturbingly graphic horror film, with an abysmal story and ordinary acting, is resurrected from the pits by some of the most creative photography ever used in a motion picture. A number of photography techniques are used and actually add to the viewing experience of the film, rather than just being decorative as in a number of horror films with fancy photography. There are so many unique camera angles used, that they keep one watching, just to see what the cinematographer will try to do next. The substance of the film is poor and the style is not too great, other than the cinematography. But with such good cinematography – and a good music score too – this is almost a good film overall.

A stylishly directed and photographed film that examines a number of themes, such a deception, death and depression, and explores well the emotions of its characters. It is rare to find a film like this, as it tackles various genres, ranging from being a romance to a mystery to a drama to even a comedy at times, and all without seeming pretentious. The cast is truly magnificent. Judith Anderson is a stunner is a quiet but sinister role, and George Sanders is even more impressive in lively but also sinister performance. Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine are perfect for their roles too. The film won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Cinematography quite deservingly – this is one of the best films Hollywood has ever produced.

A delightful cross-dressing comedy, this was one of the first of its type and it still is one of the funniest. It is very cleverly written, impeccably acted, particularly by Joe E. Brown, and features excellent chemistry between the two leads. There are parallels in the film to actual events and attitudes that existed in the 1920s, giving the film a historical insight as an extra virtue. The film works so well not just because of its historical parallels but also because it spoofs gangster films and not just the cross-dressing joke. Overall it is a wonderful film that sparkles along to its glitzy Academy Awarding winning costume design.

A whimsical, often spectacular view of a future in which advances in technology dominate the world. It is well shot and although slow-moving it is intense and enjoyable throughout. The featuring of classical music to establish atmosphere works brilliantly; it provides a feeling of awe, mystery and intrigue – the same aura that Walt Disney worked in creating 'Fantasia'. The special effects, both sound and visual, are still spellbinding by the standards of today's technology. Aside from the technical pluses of the film, it stands strong as it is one of not many films out there that has something important to say about humankind, and where the human race is heading in terms of our increasing reliance on machines and our unquenchable thirst to discover. Despite an ending that is hard to understand, it is even harder to overlook this film a true cinema classic.

A disturbing but yet very beautiful piece of film-making, Kubrick has created the ultimate study of mind manipulation in this film. It is a protest against reform programs that take away freedom of a choice, and the message of the film in terms of paying for one's sins in all eternity is inescapable, evident to a large extent in the sardonic nature of the tale. Although set in the future, it hardly feels like it is, this being because the message of the film is overwhelmingly powerful and capable of applying to any age. The film has a number of possible hidden meanings to it – a feat equaled on scale only by Kubrick's former film '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Besides for the meaning behind the film, there are still the marks of a masterpiece. Kubrick's direction is superb alongside the good photography, capturing shadows and angles needed to establish tone. The editing is excellent too, done in a flashy, brainwashing style at times to have relevance to the film. The choice of cast is again inspirational, however the film achieves the most in terms of music. Kubrick manages to use one of the earliest forms of art, classical music, and give it an unforgettable style and importance in the film. It is truly a difficult task to explain what is so great about a film such as 'A Clockwork Orange' – it is maybe best explained by watching the film itself.

Despite the mind-numbing subjectivity, the first half of this pseudo-documentary is interesting, and if Michael Moore had just stuck to his conspiracy theory with the September 11 terrorist attacks, he would have made reasonably good film. But the second part of the film, in which he attacks the war on Iraq, manages to present nothing that a well-versed viewer has not seen before. It is just the same old anti-war messages and sentiments. It shows the horror and suffering caused by war but hardly anything about the war on Iraq in particular. Films such as 'All Quiet on the Western Front' were made over 70 years ago with same anti-war messages. In many ways, Moore's pseudo documentary is best compared to the propaganda used in the Russian and the German autocracies of the 1930s. It tries to engage the viewer, it tries to make its subject matter interesting, but all that it is, is totally manipulative. In any war life will be lost, people will be unhappy and many will protest, so how then does any of this differ from what a C-grade history student at school already knows? A lot of what Moore says is not credible anyway, and since the release of the film over 50 deceptions have been pointed out, where Moore has doctored footage and used his information out of context. For the first half of its duration, the film is amusing and interesting, even if not credible, but the second half of the film is a routine bore – and that is certainly not what a viewer wants to be left remembering at the end of a film. Moore has admitted himself that the purpose of the film was to stop George W. Bush being re-elected, but it will fail to provoke such a view in a person who is not ignorant and who is not moved by age-old sentiments. As amusing as the film may well be at times, it is an overall failure – an utter failure.

A rather well researched, interesting and involving biography of an important man to science, the film not only provides an insight into Kinsey's life and the attitudes of the time, but it also digs deep into the characters. Superb acting assists too, with Neeson and Sarsgaard both in good form, however it is Linney who shines the most as Kinsey's wife. But what gives the film such an extra boost is how confronting it manages to be. It is a daringly different film, packing the punches and managing to even have a few good laughs. The style feels unique, yet the technical aspects of the film are rather ordinary. It is a bit too uncomfortable to watch at times also, but it generally succeeds. Condon has quite evidently put a lot of effort into writing and directing the film, and without much question, his efforts have paid off with success.

A reasonably well done and fairly well acted biopic of T. S. Eliot, the film is at times delightful to watch, but it is always lacking. The information it presents about Eliot feels insufficient, as his background feels uncomfortably unknown, and there is also no real indication of the setting and time of the film. It is a bit long too, not always be interesting, and really a bit ordinary at times. But it is still well acted and it does have something to say about the position of women in society. Harris and Richardson were both nominated for Oscars for their performance, but Dafoe is the one who really shines here.

A powerful anti-war film, which captures both the awful experience of fighting in the war, as well as the disillusionment of those who were persuaded into enlisting. It is a remarkable piece of cinema for its time, with some cinematography that is still impressive by today's standards and high production values. Nevertheless it does feel slightly outdated, and there is a lack of authenticity, with an absence of any reminder that these are the Germans who are featured. Still this barely hurts a film with so much to say. The major flaw of the film is an ineffectual performance by Lew Ayres in the lead, as he is only ever half-convincing. But even if not a flawless film, it is still a remarkable film.

A fairly well done human drama about relationships, which manages to tackle the subject matter without becoming a romance, this is a superb film of its sort. The screenplay is excellently written, full of witty humour and biting satire, the film editing is admirable and the performances are excellent. Geena Davis won an Oscar for her role, but it is in fact William Hurt who stands out the most in the cast, in an unflinching but somehow amazingly poignant role. On the down side, the film is slow, a bit too meandering, and the final quarter is not really all that interesting, but overall it is an involving, very worthwhile watch.

In early 1995, Four Weddings and a Funeral became the first film in over 20 years to receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture with only one other nomination (Best Original Screenplay). It had no chance of winning the award, but it was a film popular with the general public, especially those from British extraction. The film was so popular in its home country that it won the BAFTA awards for Best Film and Best Director. Looking back almost ten years later, I am forced to wonder why the film was so well received.

The film stars Hugh Grant as Charles, a man who cannot commit to a relationship. He has had a string of girlfriends but nothing has ever worked out for him. But at the wedding of a friend, he sees a woman who he lusts after. He asks his friend about her, and he tells Charles that she is a slut, and that he should not go after her. This woman is an American called Carrie (played by Andie MacDowell) and she acts like a seductress and slut through the whole film. The film works around Charles being attracted to Carrie, and his interactions with her at various weddings.

Hugh Grant is perfect in the insecure but charming stereotype he has echoed in most of his films; Kristen Scott-Thomas is fairly good, but not great, in a BAFTA award-winning role as Grant's friend, Fiona; and the film itself has a small number of amusing moments, but the film often does not work.

For one thing, many of the jokes are not funny. There were a few funny moments and sketches here and there, but much of the humour did not work, at least for me, and I felt that the onslaught of jokes at the first three weddings did not mesh well together. I have been told that much of the humour came from how British people perceive Americans. Being Australian I can't really disagree. All I can say is that it would have better if the jokes tried to cater for an international audience. But then, I guess one has to ask if Newell intended his film to be the international success that it became.

Still, there is the problem of characterisation. All of the characters are shallow, except for perhaps Hugh Grant's. As the title suggests, one of the characters dies during the film. This character is one that been on-screen for a fair amount of time, so I supposed I am meant to feel grief for his or her departure. However, I felt no emotional charge. The supporting characters in the film all have no depth, so why should we care for them? Then the last main problem is the whole Carrie character. She is as annoying as hell. Why? Because she's slut, she's deceptive and she's manipulative. She does not appear to be a nice person at all. With a comedy, you don't really want to displease the audience. And what else are we meant to feel but displeasure when Grant is obsessing over her. He has, and has had, a number of chances to make it with a character that is not made out to be annoying in the viewer's eyes, so his obsession with Carrie violates what I, as a viewer, want from the film. In a drama it is sometimes okay to go against what the viewer wants. But comedy is different. In a comedy you don't generally want the viewer to walk out unhappy. And that's what this film did to me.

Oddly enough I don't really feel any strong hatred towards the film even though it violated what I would want from a film, even though it was often not funny and even though the characters were never more than surface deep. I guess I found it amusing to a degree, and it did keep me watching, even if not liking it overall. Hugh Grant, Scott-Thomas and a few funny moments are vital in bringing a bad film up to scratch. But they are not enough to make it really worth the watch.

They say that if you are a fan of the TV series you will not like 'MASH' the film. I would not call myself a real M*A*S*H fan. Sure, I have watched a few episodes, but I don't really follow it. Nevertheless I have seen enough to know that it is miles superior to Robert Altman's 1970 film, in terms of acting, characters and especially in terms of jokes.

'MASH' was a highly popular film when it was released. Many saw it as the perfect epitome of rebellion against authority and anti-war sentiments. It even received Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Director. Nowadays it feels out-of-date and old-fashioned, and not even all that much fun. I have heard it compared to 'Animal House' for its humour and anti-authority attitudes, but what made 'Animal House' better than the average such film was the well developed and appealing characters, of which 'MASH' the film (certainly not the TV series) has next to none.

But with the TV series being a later spin-off from the movie, it is not quite right to compare and criticise. But the contrast is stark. However the film gets compliments for providing the excellent song score that would be used in the TV series. Here it has lyrics, and the song is memorable and rather well composed – its purpose however is not. The song is entitled "Suicide is Painless" and is sung to a MASH worker who wants to commit suicide. Some have taken offence to the song as its proposal as the suicidal in the film wants to die for being homosexual. There is a further reason for this, so the offensiveness is not 100% justified, but the song still feels in bad taste.

So what else is wrong with the film? It is episodic but disjointedly so. The small number of adventures of the characters do not fit in well together or flow well. There are also a number of irrelevant sequences that show rebellion against the system or the exploits of the MASH workers but nothing else. And the final main scene goes on for too long without much happening. One of the biggest problems however is that the characters talk over each other constantly. Not to mention, the jokes are dead awful.

What can I say? I strongly disliked this film and I feel that it is one of the weakest Best Picture Academy Award nominees that I have seen. Had it been adapted from the TV series and not the other way around it would be inexcusable.

One of the most influential films of all time, this is also arguably the best directed film of all time. Hitchcock brought a number of new techniques out in this film, and many clichés of the thriller genre originate from what was original when this was first released. The amazingly discreet shower scene is one of the best-filmed sequences of all time, put against the chilling music score by Bernard Hermann that haunts the whole film. The acting is also top-notch, especially from Anthony Perkins, who has never had a better role, and most importantly, it is a film that is thoroughly entertaining, even after multiple viewings.

An exquisitely haunting, very memorable drama, this is a uniquely directed, well acted and superbly photographed film of searching for what feels to be missing, and the tragic results that can occur. The Italian setting provides the film with a strong sense of the Gothic but also an ominous sense of otherness. In a foreign land with different customs, culture and architecture, the characters feel lost, but yet the mysterious, unknown element of the new setting provides a sense of hope. The director has used a number of tricks to emphasise certain details. These may have no meaning at the time, but their re-occurrence throughout the film adds to the haunting atmosphere. The film also has this amazing power to make almost anything seem foreboding and sinister. There is an undeniable musty B-grade feel to the film, but there is so much else to admire here, that it does not detract at all from the viewing experience. It is an intriguing, gripping and powerful watch.

A finely done web of many coming-of-age journeys, cleverly woven together with a number of interesting ideas, the film is an insightful and intense watch that can hardly be faulted. Conrad L. Hall's Oscar winning cinematography, together with a memorable score from Thomas Newman, set up a perfect atmosphere for the film. The set design and costumes are flawless and with notably good sound editing too, the film is immaculate in technical terms. The acting also admirable, in particular from Paul Newman, giving off one of the greatest performances of his career as an aging crime boss, and Jude Law, who is able to make his character frighteningly sinister. And in terms of substance, the film cannot be faulted either, presenting an interesting change to the ontological tale – this one of the most polished and still highly enjoyable films that I've ever seen.

The most amazing thing about this film is that it was not made to be an epic or an acclaimed film. Spielberg made it as a personal film for himself and other Jews affected by the Holocaust. There is nothing flashy about the film except for Neeson's bravura performance. Spielberg's usual style is invisible, and the cinematography and editing, although excellent, are not shown off to make a spectacle of the film or give it an epic feel. Yet it is still a compulsive, involving, and utterly heart-wrenchingly moving filming of a part of history that should not be forgotten. The screenplay is one of the best ever written: it captures the stories of so many Holocaust survivors but without distracting from the main story at hand. The black and white photography and editing is perfect, and John Williams provides a perfectly subtle but nice music score. The acting is simply brilliant, with Liam Neeson towering as Oskar Schindler, and Ralph Fiennes bringing out the Nazi character Amon Goeth into full flesh. And Ben Kingsley and Embeth Davidtz give off excellent performances too. The film also has a lot to say about absolute power corrupting and spiraling out of control, and such a message of the film can be applied to any time and crisis, not just the Holocaust. This is not just one of the the ten best films ever produced, but it shall remain so for years to come, because its messages in terms of power and racism are applicable in any age.

Clever and amusing fun, Soderbergh puts in some nice touches here and there, but the film is weighed down by being a bit of a conventional crime caper, with nothing new to add except a different clever theft scheme. It is, however, the character that Julia Roberts plays who really brings the film down a lot, as she is unnecessary to the plot, except for spicing up a familiar revenge theme, which the film does not work all that well with, and hence could have done without. As entertaining as the film is to watch, it is far from perfect, not only because of Julia Roberts, but a number of others marks of conventionality too.

Mostly notable for Marcia Gay Harden's stunning performance that won her one of the biggest surprise Academy Awards in the history of the Oscars, this is rather a mundane biographical film, only saved by some occasional interesting moments and good acting. Harris has good material to work with in his directional debut, but besides for in the acting arena, he makes nothing special out of it, and the film is drowned in its long length. Quite okay to watch, but one could just as easily gone without. In spite of the Oscar success the film still did not find a distributor in the United Kingdom until May 2002 and in Australia until October 2002.

A heartfelt drama about all the different troubles one is faced with in life, the film is done in a superbly realistic manner. The characters are well developed and the relationships between them are well defined, but it is perhaps the acting of the characters that is the best part of the film, especially from Michael Sarazzin. However, the storyline itself is not all so great, as it is too familiar and too ponderous. The film also feels rather musty and B-grade, like a standard midday movie on television. But for the characters and the acting, the film is worth the watch. Great characters and acting… just not such a great plot.

A heartfelt human drama, written with a sense of honesty and poignantly acted. It is lusciously filmed in black and white, capturing something beautiful about the title city that is notorious for crime and poverty. The editing is superb, the use of George Gershwin music is excellent for creating the appropriate mood, and the screenplay is simply superb. The film is intelligently scripted, and melds in the typical humour of Woody Allen without creating a comedy out of the film's most serious issues. Meryl Streep shines despite small on-screen time, and Michael Murphy and Mariel Hemingway both give off very powerful performances. A great artistic and storytelling triumph, this is the best film Woody Allen has ever made.

A spectacular epic western, well done in a number of aspects, but yet the film is uneven in its execution, resulting in a film that is far less than perfect. It is often involving and some of the scenery is captured by the cinematographer very well, but yet at times it drags and tends to bore. The acting is generally good, overall it is a very well-done film and was well awarded seven Oscars, but at twice the necessary length it is a shame that it cannot go down as a masterpiece. If it had been a half or even three quarters of its length, Costner would have directed a masterpiece – instead this is just a very good film, but nothing special.