Reviews

Recently, "Home Alone" was added to the Library of Congress's National Film Registry, sort of a hall of fame for American movies or at least an acknowledgement of these movies being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". In the case of "Home Alone", its position as an enduring Christmas classic testifies to its cultural impact but, rewatching the movie for the first time in years, I was pleasantly surprised by its considerable aesthetic qualities.

To start with, "Home Alone" benefits greatly from a script by John Hughes. Although he never received any love from Oscar voters, Hughes had a knack for crafting relatable stories blending comedy & heart that often featured younger performers. He's the writer behind such movies as "The Breakfast Club", "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and another Christmas classic, "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation". Here, he created a story that somehow seems both nostalgic and timeless, which has no doubt contributed to its continuing popularity. While the high-concept premise of a kid getting left home alone and having to fend off a pair of robbers hopefully isn't a familiar experience for many viewers, the movie's core themes are universal. That being said, not everyone may be a fan of the movie's often slapstick style of comedy but I think that the script is clever enough to appeal to both adults and children.

Of course, writing a story is only half the battle. In order for the movie to actually work it requires the right people in front of (and behind) the camera. Thankfully, the cast is better than you might expect for a movie that's primarily aimed at kids. Macauley Culkin became an overnight sensation for his central performance as Kevin McCallister and he hadn't even reached his 10th birthday when filming wrapped. Considering how his character's first impression is somewhat bratty, another child actor could have easily turned out to be more irritating than endearing. Culkin, however, had a quality about him that seemed like a near-perfect balance between cuteness & mischievousness.

Beyond Culkin's breakout performance, the movie features several memorable turns from seasoned pros. Joe Pesci was an inspired choice for Harry, the more intimidating half of the pair of thieves rounded out by Daniel Stern. Both are fine actors in their own right and they had excellent chemistry together here. Similarly, John Heard & the always dependable Catherine O'Hara are good together as Kevin's parents. I was probably most pleased to see an appearance by the late, great John Candy but I have to admit that Roberts Blossom also made a strong impression as the mysterious 'Old Man' Marley. I should also mention Devin Ratray (Buzz), to single out just one of the other young actors.

Rather than John Hughes handling the directing duties himself, he handed the reins to Chris Columbus, another writer (responsible for both "Gremlins" & "The Goonies") with a couple of directing jobs to his credit, including 1987's spirited "Adventures in Babysitting". I think that Columbus did a nice job here but really the entire production showed plenty of care and attention to detail. The sets really enforce the Christmas feel and so does the memorable score by the legendary John Williams which is supplemented by a handful of well-chosen holiday tunes. The stunt work also deserves mention because there's plenty of it and it's all well executed.

Realistically speaking, I'm sure that at least some of my affinity for this movie comes down purely to nostalgia. I was a kid when "Home Alone" came out and, like most kids, I thought that it was a blast. However, watching it again has shown me that there is indeed some considerable filmmaking craft that went into the movie. I can easily see it enduring as a Christmas classic for years to come.

At the time of its release, "What We Do in the Shadows" didn't exactly set the world on fire. While it raked in a respectable two million dollars at the box office in its native New Zealand, the rest of the world unfortunately didn't show the same level of enthusiasm. Eight years later, the movie is probably as popular as it ever has been, thanks to the successful American television adaptation.

Like the subsequent TV series, "What We Do in the Shadows" uses a mockumentary format. In this case, the premise is that a documentary crew was given access to follow a group of vampires in the months leading up to the Unholy Masquerade (basically a shindig for the undead that takes place every few years). The film chronicles the daily lives of the vampires as they share a flat in Wellington, the capital city of New Zealand.

The setup is simple but part of the movie's appeal is how it marries mundane real world conflicts with the supernatural. The opening scene with the flatmates arguing about chores is a prime example and sets the film's tone right away. As you might expect, the script is a bit light on narrative but there are indeed distinct character arcs that play out over the course of the film.

The cast is nicely assembled, though not exactly star-studded. American audiences already had some familiarity with Jemaine Clement & Rhys Darby due to "Flight of the Conchords" but the rest of the cast (even Taika Waititi) were pretty much unknown. That actually works well for a mockumentary because it lends a sense of authenticity. In any case, from top to bottom, this cast delivers the goods.

Production-wise, I'm frankly amazed that the movie had a budget of only $1.6 million. Granted, it's shot documentary-style but you can hardly make anything for that kind of money these days. So, my hat's off to Clement & Waititi for the quality behind the production (and the direction). I also have to say that using Norma Tanega's "You're Dead" as the music for the opening credits was an inspired choice.

In the end, "What We Do in the Shadows" is among the very best mockumentaries around. If you appreciate the work of Christopher Guest ("This is Spinal Tap", "Waiting for Guffman", "A Mighty Wind", etc...) then I feel confident in saying that this will be right up your alley. Horror buffs ought to get a kick out of it as well.

David O. Russell's "American Hustle" is a dramatization of the "Abscam" operation conducted by the FBI in the late 70s & early 80s. For those who aren't in the know, this was basically a sting operation targeting high profile government officials who were suspected of corruption.

To be honest, I don't know how much artistic license the writers took with the actual events but I will note that it opens with the message "Some of this actually happened". There are indeed some ridiculous developments in the plot but nothing that strikes me as particularly unbelievable. In terms of tone, the screenplay is mostly comedic but it can get dramatic at times as well. Generally speaking, I'd say that the comedic aspects are probably better executed than the dramatic ones (or at least I find them more rewarding).

The movie's cast is enviable and includes several returnees from previous David O. Russell projects. Oscar voters must have been impressed because nominations were received by no less than four cast members: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper & Jennifer Lawrence. I wouldn't argue with any of those except for Amy Adams. She's a talented actress but I just don't think that she was right for this part. I also later read that she clashed with the director so that probably didn't help her performance. As for the rest of the cast, Jeremy Renner & Louis C. K. are a couple of standouts in smaller roles.

From a production standpoint, "American Hustle" does a lot of things right. After all, a film doesn't manage to garner 10 Oscar nominations by accident (though it didn't manage to actually win any Oscars). The production design & costumes were particularly noteworthy in my opinion. These did a great job of bringing the movie's period setting to life, as did the carefully chosen soundtrack.

And yet, while there's a lot to like about the movie there are also some unavoidable flaws that detract from the overall experience. As I said before, I think that Amy Adams was miscast and I also find that the movie's blend of comedy & drama isn't always successful. Don't get me wrong; I still think it's a good movie in the end but it irritates me that it could've been even better.

At the turn of the century, Guy Ritchie established his reputation with the one-two punch of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch". While bearing the unmistakable influence of Quentin Tarantino, these two crime comedies nevertheless stood out among the scores of imitators.

Branching out, Ritchie next tried something different. Unfortunately, his remake of Lina Wertmüller's "Swept Away" (starring his then-wife Madonna) turned out to be a disaster, both artistically & financially. His follow-up, "Revolver", played more to Ritchie's strengths but it was ultimately sunk by some heady philosophical underpinnings.

Finally, in 2008, Ritchie returned to his bread & butter with "RockNRolla". This tale of high- and low-class gangsters might not have quite the same spark as his earlier efforts but it definitely represented a welcome return to form.

All of the usual ingredients are here: a cleverly constructed plot, visual panache, well-chosen tunes and, perhaps most importantly, a stellar ensemble cast. It's an embarrassment of riches with the likes of Gerard Butler, Thandie Newton, Mark Strong, Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Tom Wilkinson and so on. Of course, it helps that they're delivering Ritchie's often quotable dialogue.

Overall, the screenplay is characteristically convoluted with plenty of unexpected twists and turns. I won't even bother to try to synopsize the plot other than to say that it involves a lucrative real estate deal that goes awry with potentially deadly consequences. Luckily, the script moves at a brisk pace so its complexities never wear on the viewer.

As I alluded to earlier, the movie is a visual and aural treat. The visuals are consistently vibrant and I have to appreciate some of the soundtrack's deep cuts like "Have Love, Will Travel" by the Sonics and "Funnel of Love" by Wanda Jackson.

Ultimately, "RockNRolla" may not qualify as top tier Guy Ritchie but it's definitely worth watching. Interestingly, Ritchie teased a sequel at the end of the movie but it has yet to materialize. Count me in as someone who'd like to see that happen someday.

Few actors have the good fortune to play a character that proves popular enough to spawn a long-running franchise. Even fewer are fortunate enough to play two such characters. Sylvester Stallone can count himself among that select group. By 1982, he already had three "Rocky" movies under his belt and he was just getting started with Rambo.

"First Blood" introduces us to John Rambo, a Vietnam vet whose combat experiences have left him psychologically scarred and unable to reintegrate into civilian life. After being unjustly persecuted by a small town sheriff, Rambo escapes custody and becomes the subject of a massive manhunt. However, with his training as a Green Beret, Rambo proves to be a highly elusive and deadly target.

This brief synopsis suggests plenty of action and that is indeed one of the hallmarks of the series. This particular movie is unique in that it basically transplants jungle warfare into a rural American setting. The forests of British Columbia stood in for locations in Washington and they provided an excellent backdrop for Rambo's personal war. However, the action is only part of the film's appeal. Instead of presenting Rambo as a mindless killing machine, the movie examines the mental toll of his training and experiences as a soldier. This thoughtfulness is what elevates this movie above a slew of other action movies, including its own sequels.

Stallone is the undisputed star of the picture and I'd have to say that he's not too bad at all here. He's well suited to the physical demands of the role and he contributed a memorable dramatic performance to the movie's climax. In that scene he played opposite Richard Crenna (as Rambo's former C.O.), who was also at his best in that scene. Overall, I think Crenna was pretty good but I'd love to have seen what Kirk Douglas would have done with the role, had he not dropped out just before shooting began. Outside of the impressive climax, the movie's best performance surely belongs to Brian Dennehy as sheriff Will Teasle. He excels as a villain who truly believes that he's the good guy.

With a script that was more intelligent than most and good production values (including a score by Jerry Goldsmith), "First Blood" stood out from the crowd and became the start of a highly successful franchise. The recent "Last Blood" was a disappointing finale to the series but the the first sequel and the 2008 reboot were both satisfying action spectacles. Neither approached the depth of the original but, then again, few action movies have been able to pull off the same mix of action & drama as "First Blood".

"The Others" was the English-language debut of Alejandro Amenábar, who was at that time best known for "Abre Los Ojos", shortly thereafter the recipient of a Hollywood adaptation in the form of "Vanilla Sky". Here, Amenábar crafted an original screenplay that managed to breathe new life into the age-old haunted house sub-genre. Following on the heels of "The Sixth Sense", this movie is another classy supernatural thriller that keeps audiences guessing until the very end.

The story's main character is a British woman (Nicole Kidman) who lives in a remote country house with her two children shortly after the end of World War II. Her husband went away to war and, having not returned, is presumed dead. With the previous household staff having recently vanished, a trio of former servants arrive to offer their services. They are accepted into the household and soon become acquainted with the children's unique medical condition. The ingenious premise put forth by Amenábar is that the children are highly photosensitive and cannot be exposed to light. Thus, the house is draped in shadow out of necessity. This sets the stage for mysterious occurrences that may or may not be supernatural in origin.

The cast is small but well-assembled. Nicole Kidman is the focal point and she delivered an impressive performance in a demanding role. This type of movie doesn't often get recognized by prestigious awards bodies but Kidman nevertheless managed to land both a Golden Globe nomination & a BAFTA nomination. The actors that played her two children (Alakina Mann & James Bentley) were also up to the task. However, the best performance in a supporting role has to be that of Fionnula Flanagan as the enigmatic Mrs. Mills.

Amenábar certainly knows how to establish the proper atmosphere for a good old-fashioned haunted house story. Not only did he bring his script to life with visual panache, he also scored the movie. "The Others" does such a nice job of sustaining its suspense that you don't realize until it's over just how simple the story actually is. It's a simplicity that harks back to the written ghost stories of centuries past but presented with a verve that has no trouble transferring the timeless appeal to modern viewers. It's also a presentation that's elegant enough to appeal to more than just watchers of horror movies.

These days, there aren't a lot of directors working in Hollywood that have a style all their own. Tim Burton is definitely one of them. His brand of quirky, often gothic-inspired filmmaking is ideally suited for a property like "Sleepy Hollow" with its legendary headless horseman.

Based on Washington Irving's classic short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", this movie adaptation definitely falls into the category of 'loosely based on'. The iconic Ichabod Crane is here in the form of Johnny Depp but instead of a schoolmaster he's a police constable dispatched from the big city in order to investigate a series of decapitations. I think this was a step in the right direction in refashioning the story for a modern audience. Depp's Crane is still a less than heroic character but his futuristic (at the time) methods of detection make him a more palatable protagonist. However, I think that the script goes too far with the mystery angle by presenting us with an altogether too convoluted plot.

Luckily, a fine cast was put in place to prevent the movie from completely losing its audience. As always, Tim Burton brings out the best in Johnny Depp and here he has no problem carrying the movie. Christina Ricci, on the other hand, seems miscast and fails to leave much of an impression. Instead, it's the fine supporting cast that stands out with the likes of Michael Gambon, Richard Griffiths, Jeffrey Jones & Michael Gough all contributing greatly to the film's atmosphere.

Speaking of atmosphere, this movie is shrouded in a rich gothic atmosphere from beginning to end. The Oscar-winning art direction is exquisite, as are the Oscar-nominated costumes & cinematography. Add in a score by Danny Elfman and you've got a movie that unmistakably bears the imprint of Tim Burton. The only complaint I have is that some of the special effects are a bit cheesy, which may have been intentional.

"Sleepy Hollow" is a movie that does a lot of things right but its effectiveness is crippled by a meandering story that fails to keep you on the edge of your seat. As a horror movie it's fairly tame (despite all of the decapitations) and as a mystery it's not really that satisfying. It's definitely worth watching for fans of Tim Burton but it fails to wring all that it could have out of Washington Irving's template.

The 2001 crime drama "Blow" seems like an especially promising endeavor on paper. What fan of the genre wouldn't be interested in the real-life rise and fall of a prominent cocaine dealer in the 1970s? With Johnny Depp in the leading role, what could possibly go wrong? Alas, what resulted was a fairly routine imitation of past classics along similar lines.

The cast isn't too bad at all. The aforementioned Johnny Depp was among the most intriguing actors working in Hollywood at the time so securing him was a definite stroke of luck. However, I find that his performance here pales in comparison to the quirkier roles that he's most known for. His performance isn't bad by any means, just not that interesting. Penélope Cruz was mostly unknown to American audiences at the time, so at least she added a dash of exoticism. The supporting cast did have a few standouts, though; chief among them was Jordi Mollà as a fictionalized associate of Johnny Depp's George Jung. Overall, a capable group of actors that too often seem to be just going through the motions.

The main problem is one that would be difficult for any cast to overcome: The script mostly comes across as a rehash of other, better movies. The obvious template is Martin Scorsese's "GoodFellas" but there are also distinct traces of "Scarface" & "Boogie Nights" mixed in. "Blow" competently apes the style of these movies but it doesn't add much style of its own. So, we're basically left with a movie that we can't help but compare (unfavourably) to a host of well-loved classics.

That being said, "Blow" is still a decent movie of its type. The cast and production values give it a leg up on most other movies that don't have the benefit of such advantages. Although the movie generally seems like a lesser copy of better movies, there are nevertheless glimpses of something special from time to time. It's definitely worth watching for fans of the genre but, like me, they may end up frustrated with the movie's unrealized potential.

For those who are unaware, this movie is a remake of a classic British film starring Michael Caine. The 1969 original is a nifty heist caper that contains what is, in my opinion, one of the best car chases ever committed to celluloid. You would be right to assume that a remake would struggle to live up to the high standard of its predecessor but in this case the remake sets itself apart by not sticking too closely to the source of its inspiration.

This time around, the titular 'Italian Job' happens right at the beginning of the movie and serves as the impetus for the events that follow. The simple premise is this: Following a betrayal by one of their own, a team of high-tech thieves plan to take down their former ally and hopefully get rich in the process. There are definitely many elements from the original that found their way into the remake's script but the plot is distinct enough to keep you interested. What's more important is that the remake captures the same light-hearted feel of the original with its combination of comedy & heist-centric action.

The cast is better assembled than you might expect. This is definitely a Mark Wahlberg star vehicle but there were a couple of casting coups in the form of Charlize Theron (in her Oscar year) and the always-interesting Edward Norton. Granted, Edward Norton only took the role to fulfill a contractual obligation but he still excelled as the film's villain. Mark Wahlberg may be no Michael Caine but he was charming enough to anchor a cast that had undeniable chemistry with one another. The supporting trio of Jason Statham, Seth Green & Mos Def ended up being the unsung heroes of the movie. Add in Donald Sutherland and you've got a cast that's more than capable of stealing the show.

Being a $60 million production, "The Italian Job" had plenty of resources to draw on in bringing its heist to life. There's lots of stunt work here but it isn't just in the movie for its own sake. The heist does indeed come off as a carefully orchestrated affair, which is a credit to both the screenwriters and the crew. Personally, I don't think that it quite reaches the heights of the original but that was admittedly a tall order. The bottom line is that "The Italian Job" is a well constructed piece of Hollywood entertainment.

It seems that most people who dislike this movie do so on the basis that it supposedly pales in comparison to the original. To me, the movie manages the tricky balancing act of being faithful enough to be recognized as an homage without being overly faithful to the point of predictability. Taken on its own terms, this 2003 version of "The Italian Job" is quality popcorn entertainment.

Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Volume 2" followed less than a year after the first 'volume'. It concludes the story of the Bride's quest for revenge against her former allies in the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. As you may or may not know, "Kill Bill" was originally meant to be a single film but the distributor (Miramax) pushed for it to be split into two. Although they were probably more concerned about maximizing box office receipts, splitting the movie into two probably made it more palatable for most viewers as well. Whatever the motivation, I think that splitting the movie in half was ultimately for the best.

There isn't really a lot to say about the story since it just picks up where the first movie left off and puts us back on the road to fulfilling the promise inherent in the title. If you liked the first movie, this is more of the same (which isn't a bad thing). However, it must be said that this chapter is less action-oriented than the first one. There are both positive & negative aspects to that. On one hand, the violence is less cartoonish but, on the other hand, the pace can drag a bit at times. In an ideal world, the two movies would have been condensed just enough to strike the right balance between action & drama.

The cast is trimmed down a little from the first movie but we get to see much more from David Carradine (Bill), Darryl Hannah (Elle Driver) & Michael Madsen (Budd) this time around. All contribute good performances and it was also interesting to see Michael Parks & Gordon Liu return in different roles.

As with the first movie, the production values are top notch. Tarantino's direction & Robert Richardson's cinematography once again combined to produce a beautiful looking movie. Robert Rodriguez's music might not have produced as many iconic moments as The RZA's musical selections from the first volume but it's still a good soundtrack that gives the movie a unique flavour that sets it apart from the first one.

Overall, "Kill Bill: Volume 2" does a good job of bringing the Bride's story to a close. It may lack some of the excitement of the first installment but its measured storytelling is just as much a showcase of Tarantino's skill as a screenwriter and a director. Fans of the first movie will no doubt want to follow the story to its conclusion and I see no reason to dissuade them from doing so.

The two-part "Kill Bill" saga found Quentin Tarantino paying homage to Asian cinema, particularly martial arts & samurai movies. Originally intended as a single film, the story was split into two volumes at the behest of the distributor (Miramax). This is understandable since a four hour runtime would have been daunting for most movie-goers, regardless of the director's stature. You could certainly argue that the story's more digestible in two parts, though there's arguably a bit of imbalance as a result. The first volume is certainly the more action-oriented of the two, so I'm not surprised that it's (slightly) higher rated.

The story is much more basic than previous Tarantino scripts like "Pulp Fiction" & "Jackie Brown". One might even say that it's a fairly routine revenge story. However, you can rest assured that Tarantino dressed it up with his usual knack for tight plotting and quotable dialogue. In a nutshell, the story concerns a nameless character ("The Bride") who seeks revenge against her old allies after a wedding day betrayal that left her in a coma for four years. That's about it, though the exact circumstances of the betrayal and its aftermath are gradually revealed throughout the course of the story. It's a testament to Tarantino's skill as a screenwriter and a director that he was able to stretch such a threadbare premise into not one but two successful movies.

As usual with Tarantino, the cast is a big part of the film's success. "Pulp Fiction" standout Uma Thurman played "The Bride", which was a character that she & Quentin created together. Considering that the part was written with her specifically in mind, it isn't especially surprising that she did such a good job with it. She even received a Golden Globe nomination for her performance. Apart from Thurman, the other notable returnee was Michael Madsen, who played one of the targets of the Bride's revenge. However, most of his scenes are in the second movie. Sticking to the first movie, the other standout is another female - Lucy Liu, as the ruthless O-Ren Ishii, feared leader of the Yakuza. Her showdown with the Bride is unquestionably the centerpiece of the movie. Interestingly, Bill (David Carradine) isn't heard from much in the first movie, which proves to be an effective way of building suspense.

From a directorial standpoint, it's hard to find fault with Tarantino's work here. His visual panache is undeniable but the film's copious style serves the narrative rather than overshadowing it. Robert Richardson's cinematography is consistently impressive as well, resulting in a movie that's a sight to behold from beginning to end. Also, unsurprisingly, this is yet another Tarantino movie with a stellar soundtrack. This time around, Wu-Tang Clan's The RZA put together an eclectic mix of tunes that suit the action perfectly. There are enough iconic selections here that I honestly have trouble picking a favourite.

Ultimately, "Kill Bill: Volume 1" is a good movie but I wouldn't rank it among my absolute favourites from Tarantino. The main flaw is an abundance of over-the-top violence that I frankly find off-putting. I don't especially mind violence in movies but when it's cartoonish like this I find that it cheapens the movie, particularly when it's one that shows a considerable amount of care in all other areas of the production. There's also a bit of a disjointed feel to the episodic narrative but I can live with that, given the ambition of the overall storyline. The movie isn't perfect but there are definitely parts of it that are just about perfect.

When it comes to crime dramas starring Al Pacino and directed by Brian de Palma, the first film that naturally comes to mind is "Scarface". Released in 1983, "Scarface" is arguably the definitive gangster movie of the 80's, so the attention that it gets isn't undeserved. However, what a lot of people don't know (or have forgotten) is that de Palma & Pacino teamed up again ten years later for a markedly different gangster movie.

"Carlito's Way" features a more world-weary Pacino as a recently released convict who just wants to put his past behind him and fly straight long enough to retire to a comfortable but not extravagant lifestyle. Unfortunately, it isn't long before his acquaintances drag him back into the world of crime. Reluctantly bound by loyalty, Carlito's carefully laid plans start to unravel and it seems that he'll be lucky just to get out alive.

In the lead role we have Al Pacino, just one year removed from his long-overdue Best Actor Oscar win for "Scent of a Woman". He shows some bluster in the opening courthouse scene but, for the most part, his performance is nicely subdued. Pacino serves as the film's anchor and much of its success is directly attributable to him. That being said, there are a few standout performances in support, most notably Sean Penn's uncharacteristic portrayal of Carlito's lawyer and close friend, Dave Kleinfeld. Penn got a Golden Globe nomination for his efforts and so did Penelope Ann Miller as the romantic interest, though I found her to be a bit of a weak link. Meanwhile, John Leguizamo stole some scenes in a smaller role and Viggo Mortensen made a memorable appearance as well.

As you might expect, de Palma's direction is expertly handled, particularly when it comes to the showstopping chase scene that occurs late in the movie. Although not as flashy as "Scarface", there are some nicely executed artistic flourishes from time to time. In fact, the movie has nice production values from top to bottom, so it's a bit surprising that it got a lukewarm critical reception at the time of its release.

Despite the movie's initial tepid response it has endured to become a cult classic. It will probably always be overshadowed by "Scarface" but it's a worthy gangster movie that's more thoughtful than most of its brethren. I will say, though, that the way the movie starts at (or, rather, near) the end and flashes back seems like it would rob the movie of some of its suspense. In retrospect, I see what the filmmakers had in mind but I wonder what first time viewers will think of it.

Norwegian director Morten Tyldum's English-language debut "The Imitation Game" is the type of movie that seems custom built for awards recognition. This classy historical drama explores the life and contributions of a man whose impact would not be acknowledged until many years after his tragic & untimely death. That man was Alan Turing, a mathematician who played a key role in breaking Germany's "Enigma" code during World War II.

The screenplay is loosely based on a biography of Turing and, from what I understand, it isn't shy about bending the truth for dramatic effect. Personally, I don't find this to be a problem because the story is compellingly told and none of the fabrications or exaggerations strike me as being unreasonable in the name of entertainment. If you're only interested in stringent historical accuracy then you probably shouldn't be watching movies to begin with. That being said, for what it's worth, the screenplay was rewarded with an Oscar, which was surprisingly the only major award that the film received.

The cast is comprised of a fine group of British thespians, with Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead role. Cumberbatch is always good but this might be his best performance to date. Also notable was Keira Knightley in an Oscar-nominated supporting role. The rest of the cast is a model of professionalism and features the likes of Mark Strong, Matthew Goode & Charles Dance.

From a production standpoint, the movie does an excellent job of recreating its period setting, from sets to costuming. Morten Tyldum's direction is nicely handled and the movie also sports a score from Alexandre Desplat (one of two Oscar-nominated scores from Desplat in that particular year). Overall, certainly a prestige picture whose individual components all show considerable care and attention.

Although "Birdman" & "The Grand Budapest Hotel" hogged most of the awards recognition for 2014, I think that "The Imitation Game" is right up there with them. Sure, it may play fast and loose with the facts but it sheds light on an important subject, all the while giving us a fresh perspective on World War II. I certainly don't have any reservations in recommending it, though you've been warned about what I feel are justified liberties taken with the truth for dramatic effect.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade or so you might have heard of a little production company by the name of Marvel Studios. Creating motion picture adaptations of Marvel Comics properties, they've had a surprisingly consistent track record for delivering satisfying big budget superhero entertainment. The fact that they also managed to tie everything together into a cohesive shared universe is something that frankly hadn't been seen to that extent in movies before. All of the care that went into these productions culminated in 2018's "Avengers: Infinity War" and its direct sequel, 2019's "Avengers: Endgame". Together they proved to be a fitting capper to Marvel's journey that began with "Iron Man" in 2008.

First of all, it's important to recognize that this movie is part one of a two part story. I didn't realize this when I originally watched the movie, so I was somewhat disappointed that the story wasn't brought to a resolution. Later on, when rewatching the movie ahead of the concluding chapter, I got a better appreciation of what the movie was meant to be.

As had been hinted at for years, "Infinity War" finally marked the entrance of Thanos into the Marvel universe as a major villain. He seeks to acquire the six Infinity Stones, which will make him powerful enough to restore balance to the universe... by laying half of it to waste. Naturally, our heroes the Avengers aren't about to just let that happen. However, Thanos's power increases with the acquisition of each new stone, so stopping him becomes a race against time.

For a movie that's the culmination of 19 previous films, a memorable villain was a must. Luckily, Josh Brolin's portrayal of Thanos is one of the most memorable in the Marvel canon. No doubt much of the credit goes to the original creator of the character (Jim Starlin) but the fact is that Thanos gives the impression that he's someone who could give the Avengers a run for their money. In fact, he's such a formidable foe that the threat of defeat is more palpable than in any previous Marvel movie. That his motivations are also interesting from a philosophical point of view is another point in the movie's favour.

Having a compelling villain is of course a crucial element in any superhero movie but in this case the sheer scale of the undertaking is impressive in and of itself. Featuring a star-studded cast of Marvel veterans in the various heroic roles, it's amazing that the producers managed to keep the shared universe alive this long just to be able to put this movie together in the first place. That they managed to keep the movie from collapsing under the weight of its stars is another testament to their commitment to quality. Despite a fairly hefty two and a half hour runtime, the movie is nicely paced and gives a reasonable amount of screentime to all involved. My only real complaint is that the final act's impact is somewhat muted by the utter improbability that certain characters will be gone for good since they already had sequels in the pipeline. Surely they could have stuck to characters whose fate was less certain?

"Infinity War" may not be the type of movie I'd watch for awards-worthy work on either side of the camera but as a feat of production I think that it and its (superior) sequel are nearly unparalleled. It makes me wonder if "Endgame" might be shown some love at the next Oscars ceremony. I mean, "Black Panther" was nominated for Best PIcture and that was arguably more about cultural impact than the actual merits of the production (though I wouldn't have argued if Michael B. Jordan was nominated). In any case, Marvel fans don't need any convincing to watch this movie. For others, this probably isn't the best starting point.

Rian Johnson's directorial debut has a simple but ingenious concept: What if you set a hard-boiled detective story in a modern high school? Retain the core structure, archetypal characters and colorful slang but instead of the protagonist being a world-weary gumshoe make him a teenage loner. This alteration turns out to be surprisingly effective in the hands of Johnson, who shows an obvious affinity for the genre.

In this case, our 'detective' is Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a high school student who at the beginning of the movie finds his ex-girlfriend dead. Suspecting murder, he delves into her recent past in an attempt to identify whoever's responsible. Along the way, we meet a varied cast of characters, from stooges to femme fatales, never knowing who can be trusted.

Rian Johnson's script revels in its use of the standard hard-boiled template. Core elements are given new life by being transplanted to a high school setting but what's really surprising is how well the material fits. For instance, high schoolers speaking in half-comprehensible slang is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. That being said, those who aren't familiar with hard-boiled detective stories and/or film noir probably won't get the most out of these references. Of course, since this is basically a detective story, the mystery at the heart of the movie is perhaps the most important element. The plot's twists and turns keep the movie interesting while winding towards a memorable conclusion. However, the fact that the story is characteristically convoluted may turn off some viewers.

The cast is decent but not great, which isn't too surprising given the miniscule budget. Joseph Gordon-Levitt basically carried the movie in one of his earliest breakout roles following "3rd Rock from the Sun". Lukas Haas was also highly memorable as the local drug kingpin. Besides that, there isn't a whole lot worth mentioning, though it was nice to see Richard Roundtree ("Shaft") in a small role.

Visually, the movie looks better than its budget would suggest. That being said, it isn't slick by any means, which actually suits the movie just fine. As a debut, it's an impressive effort. The music, by Rian's cousin Nathan Johnson, is reminiscent of film noir and I found it to be serviceable but nothing more.

Overall, "Brick" is a very interesting movie with its unique take on the mystery genre. The production may have been restricted somewhat by its low budget but the work of Johnson, Gordon-Levitt & Haas elevated it considerably. I'm certain that this movie won't be for everyone but for fans of hard-boiled fiction or film noirs this is a must see.

Ron Howard's "Backdraft" is a true blockbuster in the 90's mold. Star-studded and full of spectacle, it did good business in 1991 while garnering mildly positive reviews. It was apparently remembered fondly enough to warrant a straight-to-video sequel earlier this year which, to it's credit, at least brought back William Baldwin & Donald Sutherland.

As for the original movie, the story is set in Chicago and it focuses on a pair of firefighting brothers (Kurt Russell & William Baldwin). The older brother is a seasoned vet while the younger brother is a rookie who has previously tried and failed at other professions. The two butt heads repeatedly as they work towards bringing an arsonist to justice.

There's plenty of action here but also a strong mystery angle as well. This provides a welcome change of pace when it kicks in about an hour into the movie. Generally, the script is pretty overwrought most of the time with the story often veering into melodrama and action movie clichés. However, the plot is fairly satisfying in the end, with a twist that's better executed than most.

Arguably the movie's biggest asset is its nicely assembled cast. Aside from Russell & Baldwin as the aforementioned brothers, a critical role belongs to Robert De Niro as an arson investigator. He unsurprisingly delivered the movie's best performance, despite the role being fairly limited. Donald Sutherland also makes a memorable appearance as an incarcerated pyromaniac. Other notable supporting players include Scott Glenn, Rebecca De Mornay, Jennifer Jason Leigh & the always dependable character actor J.T. Walsh. As for Russell & Baldwin, I wouldn't call this one of my favourite Kurt Russell roles but William Baldwin was surprisingly capable, considering that his career never really developed like his older brother Alec's.

The other strong point of the movie is the visual effects and stunt work. It must have been an insurance nightmare to achieve these kinds of visuals in the days before widespread CGI. There's no substitute for the real thing when dealing with fire, so the results speak for themselves. The movie justifiably landed a few Oscar nominations for both its visual effects and sound, which demonstrates the expertise that went into the technical aspects of the production. Overall, Ron Howard's direction is quite capable with a mix of dramatic scenes and multiple action setpieces. I will say, though, that the bookending songs by Bruce Hornsby & the Range haven't aged too well in my opinion. They're no "The Way It Is", that's for sure.

In the end, "Backdraft" is a bit overblown at 2 hours and 17 minutes. The producers were probably aiming for something a bit more intimate than "The Towering Inferno" but they ended up falling into some of the same traps anyway. So, I wouldn't count this among Howard's best but it's still worth watching, particularly given relatively small number of worthwhile firefighter movies.

To many who grew up in the 1980's (like I did), Joe Dante's "Gremlins" was (and perhaps still is) a particular favourite. It was produced by Steven Spielberg at a time when he was practically the King Midas of Hollywood. Although "Gremlins" may not have quite the polish of Spielberg's own directorial efforts, it remains an entertaining movie more than 30 years later.

The basic premise of the movie is this: A young man is given a strange, exotic pet by his father, along with three rules to be strictly adhered to. Predictably, those rules aren't followed and mayhem ensues. In a broad sense, the movie takes some of its cues from the monster movies of a bygone era but the titular creatures are actually pretty unique. Sure, some elements of the plot don't really make a lot of sense but this isn't really a movie that's meant to be taken seriously.

The movie's approach is definitely more comedic than horrific but the creatures are still fairly menacing, particularly for younger viewers. Naturally, the special effects are starting to show their age but they're not too bad overall. Although I'm not in the target demographic for this type of movie anymore I'd have to say that it's a very good example of its type. I mean, how many successful family friendly horror movies can you think of?

The cast is pretty decent, considering. Zach Galligan is just fine as our hero, Billy. He's likable and we can relate to him, much like how we can relate to his failed inventor father, played by Hoyt Axton. The gorgeous Phoebe Cates is also here as the requisite love interest, not to mention giving the movie's single most memorable line reading. Lastly, a couple of standouts in support are Dick Miller & Judge Reinhold.

From a technical standpoint, the movie is nicely assembled but not really exceptional. Joe Dante's direction is competent and the movie generally looks decent, including the aforementioned special effects. Jerry Goldsmith's score has some memorable themes but the sound is very much of the 80's, which isn't really to my liking.

Overall, "Gremlins" isn't exactly a masterpiece but it is a worthwhile piece of fantasy/horror that delivers where it counts most: entertainment value. It will probably help if you're viewing this movie through nostalgic eyes but it's hard to deny that there's just something special about this movie. In short, "Gremlins" still captures the imagination.

Following 2012's "Django Unchained", Quentin Tarantino once again returned to the American west for his next feature, "The Hateful Eight". With a title reminiscent of "The Magnificent Seven", you might expect a rip-roaring yarn chock full of action. However, the movie actually owes much more to mystery novels by the likes of Agatha Christie than it does to traditional Hollywood westerns. The narrative even follows a literary structure which includes some narration from Tarantino himself.

The titular eight are a group of nefarious individuals brought together in a cabin by a snowstorm. Two of the most prominent of these are a bounty hunter and his notorious prisoner who carries a price of $10,000 on her head. It isn't long before suspicions arise that one or more of the others might have a stake in seeing that this prisoner doesn't get brought to justice. There are shades of John Carpenter's "The Thing" in this setup, which probably isn't just a coincidence.

Despite being more of a mystery than a western, "The Hateful Eight" is nevertheless a more traditional Hollywood depiction of the west than "Django Unchained". That being said, the snowbound setting and the strong mystery angle give the movie a unique flavour. I can't really think of any other western quite like this. Tarantino's script has his trademark mix of violence and impeccable dialogue which in this case is in service of a well constructed mystery plot. The movie is dialogue heavy due to the confined setting limiting the amount of action taking place but it does move along fairly briskly. Still, the extended length (nearly three hours) will likely try the patience of some viewers.

As always, the casting is excellent. Several vets from past Tarantino movies returned here including Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, Walton Goggins and Bruce Dern. That's a great starting point and then you throw in Jennifer Jason Leigh, who ended up getting an Oscar nomination for what is arguably the movie's most memorable performance. To me, the movie harks back to "Reservoir Dogs" by having a relatively small cast strutting their stuff in a confined setting.

Tarantino's direction is flawless, as usual. That being said, he somewhat confusingly decided to go through the considerable effort of using 70mm photography for this picture, which was mostly wasted on an interior set. That approach would have been better suited to "Django Unchained", which had more varied environments. Be that as it may, the visuals are consistently attractive. However, they're overshadowed by Ennio Morricone's moody score, which is one of the movie's strongest points (and also the winner of an Oscar, Golden Globe and BAFTA).

Ultimately, "The Hateful Eight" doesn't quite stack up to Tarantino's best efforts but it's still a good movie. It contains some interesting commentary on race relations along with a subversion of typical feminist tropes whereby in this case we're treated to a strong female villain instead of a hero. I'm not sure how well it stands up to repeated viewings because of the whole mystery angle but it's intricate enough that you probably won't remember all the twists and turns of the plot.

"Django Unchained" was noted director Quentin Tarantino's long anticipated foray into the western genre. As with 2009's "Inglourious Basterds", Tarantino took a decidedly revisionist approach to the subject matter. As a result, the movie is inspired as much by spaghetti western & exploitation movies as it is by traditional Hollywood westerns.

The titular Django (Jamie Foxx) is a freed slave in the Antebellum South who teams up with a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) to track down and rescue his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of a wealthy plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio). That's the plot in a nutshell but at two hours and 45 minutes, the movie ends up covering a lot of ground. Throughout that time there are several memorable episodes demonstrating Tarantino's knack for plotting and dialogue. It should also be noted that Tarantino's script earned him an Oscar (not to mention a Golden Globe & a BAFTA), so that should give some indication of its merit.

Of course, a script is only as good as the actors that bring it to life. Luckily, in this case, the cast is exceptional. First and foremost are two supporting players - Christoph Waltz & Leonardo DiCaprio. Waltz earned his second Oscar (both for roles in Tarantino films) with his magnetic portrayal of charming bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz. Running a close second was Leonardo DiCaprio, as the also charming but equally malicious plantation owner Calvin J. Candie. It was a rare villainous turn for DiCaprio and one or his most memorable performances in a career studded with memorable performances. If star Jamie Foxx was outshone by these two actors it was only because he was merely very good rather than outstanding. The rest of the cast continued this level of excellence since even minor roles were filled with talented individuals. The movie brought together the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington, Don Johnson, Jonah Hill, Walton Goggins, Dennis Christopher, Michael Parks, Bruce Dern and, in a cameo role, the original Django himself, Franco Nero. What's not to like?

There isn't much to complain about on the technical side, either. Tarantino can always be counted on for top-notch direction but a western presents its own set of challenges. Thankfully, the production design was very nicely handled, as was the costuming, though neither received any awards recognition. The soundtrack & score was also quite interesting, with its re-use of the theme from the 1966 movie "Django" along with some unique choices like Jim Croce's "I Got a Name" and "Freedom" by Richie Havens. If I have one complaint it's that I found that there were a few narrative quirks in the editing, which were probably unnecessary and/or out of place in a mostly traditional western.

Ultimately, "Django Unchained" is pretty much what we've come to expect from Tarantino. Unapologetically violent, intricately plotted, well acted and artistically presented while remaining accessible. In my opinion, it ranks among Tarantino's most memorable. Of course, if you just don't like his style then this probably isn't the movie to convert you.

George Romero's "Creepshow" was one of the earliest Stephen King adaptations to hit the big screen and to this day it remains one of the better ones. Following the now-classic adaptations of the novels "Carrie" & "The Shining", this movie was a bit of a departure in that it presented a series of five standalone stories. A couple of them had previously appeared in print form while three were newly written for this project. The common thread between the stories was their source of inspiration: the often lurid horror comics of the pre-Comics Code Authority 1950's.

For those unfamiliar with the comics of E.C. and their competitors, their stories were chock full of dark comedy and twist endings imbued with a sense of poetic justice. King's stories are a pretty good approximation of this approach and, as a result, the movie has a lighter feel than "Carrie" or "The Shining". To be sure, as with any anthology film, the stories aren't uniform in quality but even the worst of them aren't all that bad, just a bit slight or predictable.

The cast differs from segment to segment and is studded with a number of recognizable actors and actresses. Some of the standouts include Leslie Neilsen (cast against type as a bad guy), Hal Holbrook & E.G. Marshall. The movie also features early appearances by Ted Danson & Ed Harris, plus Stephen King himself. All in all, I'd say that the cast is better than average for a horror movie, particularly one with a comedic bent.

Horror veteran George Romero obviously had an affinity for this type of material, as is illustrated by some of the directorial choices that took their cues from the comics. While I probably could have done without some of the more garish visual touches I can't really complain about his direction overall. The gruesome special effects by Tom Savini are, of course, another crucial element in the movie's look.

While I suspect that the movie's approach & format isn't likely to appeal to everyone, "Creepshow" is a quality homage to the horror comics that Romero & King grew up with. If you're a fan of the "Tales From the Crypt" television show then this will be right up your alley. Others, such as those looking for something a bit more serious, will probably be less receptive.

Guillermo del Toro's "Crimson Peak" is very much a throwback to a bygone era of horror fiction. At first glance, the movie appears to be a standard haunted house tale like countless others that we've seen through the years. However, upon closer inspection the story's true inspiration turns out to be the archetypal gothic romances that laid the foundation for much of the horror fiction that has since followed. Successful examples of this approach in Hollywood are few and far between, with the likes of "Rebecca" (1940) & "Dragonwyck" (1946) being among the few that spring to mind.

To be sure, there are indeed horrific elements in "Crimson Peak" but I would hesitate to classify it as an out-and-out horror movie. del Toro is obviously familiar with the basic ingredients of a gothic romance and he wields them expertly in crafting his own story. While you might have a point in saying that that the formula is extremely derivative, it is nevertheless a formula that works. It basically wouldn't be gothic romance without a vulnerable heroine, a dashing but mysterious suitor and an ancestral home whose hauntings are both literal and figurative.

Given the somewhat rigid guidelines of gothic romance, del Toro's script is actually more intricate than it might seem at first. The movie is full of metaphors, many of them visual. This imbues life into material whose presentation could have been routine in the hands of another director. In particular, the use of colour in the film is especially striking.

Of course, a script like this needs actors/actresses who are up to the task of bringing it to life. Mia Wasikowska is suitably delicate for the role of the young lady who becomes ensnared in a perilous situation. Tom Hiddleston & Jessica Chastain have the juiciest roles and neither of them disappoint in supplying an air of subtle menace. Charlie Hunnam's performance is a bit below these three in my estimation but he still makes a serviceable counterpoint to Hiddleston. The supporting cast is similarly satisfactory but ultimately nothing to write home about.

del Toro's direction is well handled, as always. The beautiful visuals do not come at the expense of generating & sustaining suspense. The visual effects are a bit too grotesque for my taste but others may feel differently. The sets & costumes are also exquisite. Overall, the movie shows meticulous attention to detail in virtually every area of the production.

All of that being said, "Crimson Peak" definitely isn't a movie for everyone. If you're looking for horror then you might not find enough of it. If you're looking for romance then you might be turned off by the horrific trappings. To be honest, while I admired del Toro's craft the first time I watched this movie, the story felt a bit weak. It was only upon rewatching it that I was able to appreciate the intricacies of the presentation and appreciate it for what it is rather than what I initially expected it to be.

Dario Argento's "Suspiria" is routinely listed as one of the best horror movies of all time. Recently, a remake by "Call Me By Your Name" director Luca Guadagnino has brought it renewed attention more than forty years after its initial release. I haven't seen the remake so I can't compare the two but I suspect that it would be difficult to recreate the appeal of the original. Not that Argento's "Suspiria" is without its faults but it just seems to work in spite of them.

The story concerns a young American woman who enrolls at a prestigious German ballet academy and finds herself embroiled in a mystery connected with a series of grisly murders. I'm not sure if it's by design or not but the plot is generally fairly vague with only faint hints of what is actually going on and who's behind it. Sometimes the movie seems vaguely dream-like which may just be a side-effect of the script not being as tightly constructed as it could be. Whatever the case, the script by Argento and his then-girlfriend Daria Nicolodi is a serviceable enough framework for the movie.

As I see it, it seems that Argento put more emphasis on the visuals than the narrative. That's not such a bad thing, though, since the visuals are probably some of the best that you're likely to encounter in a horror movie. The movie's saturated colour palette creates images that are both beautiful and chilling. The soundtrack by Goblin (with input by Argento) is also pretty effective in establishing mood.

The acting is a bit of a mixed bag, though; some of which comes down to the dubbing. Foreign actors/actresses being shoddily overdubbed by English speakers is to be expected in a movie like this but lead actress Jessica Harper didn't have that excuse to fall back on. Most of her line deliveries seem pretty wooden, especially when compared to accomplished vets like Alida Valli and Joan Bennett. Overall, the cast is acceptable but nothing more.

In the end, though, the movie somehow works in spite of its flaws. The sumptuous visuals are clearly the major draw but even the movie's deficiencies in the script & acting departments often give the movie a somewhat surreal feel (which almost makes me wonder if it was intentional). Supposedly the story was inspired by dark fairy tales but I'm not really sure that I buy into that. Ultimately, I do think that "Suspiria" is worth watching but I would caution viewers to expect to have to take the good with the bad.

I feel pretty confident in saying that "Swiss Army Man" has a premise that you haven't seen in any other movie. In this day and age, that's saying something in and of itself. Whether that's enough to carry an entire movie is another story.

The premise here is that a lonely & hopeless man stranded on a deserted island more or less befriends a corpse that washes up on shore. While trying to make their way back to civilization the two bond. The living guy teaches the dead one about life and the dead guy functions as sort of a human version of a Swiss Army knife. To say that the premise is off the wall is an understatement. Yet, there does seem to be a metaphorical underpinning to this relationship, though it's one that you'll have to infer for yourself since the filmmakers don't dwell on it. Of course, it's possible that it could all just be pure fantasy with little deeper meaning, though I doubt it.

Considering that almost all of the movie's runtime is focused on just two individuals, this is a movie that demands a lot from its actors. Paul Dano especially, since his character is actually alive. You might think that Daniel Radcliffe would have limited opportunities for expression since he plays a corpse but the role is more interesting than you might think. Strange as it may sound, Dano & Radcliffe actually have good chemistry together and you buy into their friendship as a result. The rest of the small cast is mostly undistinguished, though it does include Mary Elizabeth Winstead in a small but pivotal role.

Stylistically, the movie is nicely done, though it does have its eccentricities. Mostly, it's quirky in roughly the same way that other so-called 'quirky' movies are quirky. The music reflects this and just the general visual style (cinematography, editing, etc...). It's arguably a case of style over substance, though I do think that there is some substance at the bottom of this movie if you care to give some thought to what you're watching.

While I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend this movie it's definitely worth watching for someone who thinks they've seen it all. Even then, their reaction could just as easily be to hate it rather than love it. Personally, I think that the meaning of the story might be a bit too obscure for most viewers (at least as far as I've interpreted it) but it's told with enough panache to save the movie from being weird without being entertaining.

For those who aren't aware, the Hobbit movies are the prequels to the tremendously successful "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. While the original trilogy was based on a massive three-volume novel, the novel upon which the Hobbit movies are based is comparatively slim. Nevertheless, the studios involved managed to stretch this content out to three films spanning a combined total of 462 minutes. The term "cash grab" definitely comes to mind.

That being said, with "Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson returning to helm this trilogy, the endeavour wasn't purely motivated by profit. Jackson treats Tolkien's source material with respect and his intentions probably had more to do with fleshing out the story than with artificially inflating the overall runtime. Really, the studios would have been foolish to place arbitrary restrictions on what was pretty much a guaranteed hit. Still, I can't help but wonder if a more condensed version of the story would've yielded better results.

In any case, this time around the hero of the story is Bilbo Baggins, who (like Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings") is a rather reserved Hobbit who has adventure thrust upon him. In this chapter of the story, he's called upon to act as a burglar for a group of dwarves who are trying to reclaim their ancestral mountain home from the clutches of a vicious dragon. Naturally, Bilbo is reluctant to accept at first but he eventually relents and joins the group on their quest.

Apart from Peter Jackson, there are some other welcome links to the original trilogy. Chief among those is Ian McKellen, who reprised his Oscar-nominated role as Gandalf. That wasn't all, though. Other returning cast members included Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Andy Serkis, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving & Christopher Lee. Having all of these familiar faces around really helps to establish the movie as an extension of the ones that preceded it. The new cast members are numerous, though I don't really think that there are too many standouts. I will say, however, that Martin Freeman makes a very good Bilbo Baggins, so at least the movie has that going for it.

With Jackson in the director's chair again you pretty much know what to expect. The movie unsurprisingly has a very familiar feel, which is a good thing. This extends to areas of the production like screenwriting, cinematography & music, all of which were at least partially handled by returning crew members. Basically, if you liked the epic feel of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy then here's more of the same. There's a bit more of a lighthearted feel this time around, though, which probably isn't surprising considering that "The Hobbit" was technically written for children. Be that as it may, this movie adaptation is serious enough when the plot requires it.

All in all, this first Hobbit movie is a pretty good bridge from the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I certainly wouldn't call it a classic but it is a worthwhile and enjoyable return to the same world. These movies definitely turned out a lot better than the Star Wars prequels, though that isn't really saying much. Like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, I think that the middle entry is the weakest but the beginning & final chapters make the overall effort worth it.

These days, Michael Bay's name is synonymous with big budget action movies that are long on explosions and short on story. While that isn't an entirely fair characterization of his directorial output, it does ring true to a certain degree. "The Rock" was just his second feature film and, looking back, it's arguably his best.

The story concerns an imminent chemical weapons attack on San Francisco by a rogue group of military personnel. The bad guys are holed up on Alcatraz with a group of tourists held hostage. The government has hatched a scheme to break in to Alcatraz with the aid of a British spy who has been jailed for 30 years. You see, this man has quite a distinction: He's the only man to successfully break out of Alcatraz. Naturally, he can't do it on his own, so a group of Navy Seals accompanies him along with an expert on chemical weapons.

The high concept plot is a step in the right direction since the movie has a decent hook to separate it from countless other action movies. What's more, the movie's villains are even treated somewhat sympathetically, which is a welcome surprise. Sure, the movie may get a bit silly and/or unbelievable at times but the core plot is an interesting one that certainly ought to satisfy any action fan.

As with most Jerry Bruckheimer productions, the cast is one of the movie's strong points. Screen legend Sean Connery is the obvious headliner in what amounts to his last great action role while Nicolas Cage followed up his Oscar-winning turn in "Leaving Las Vegas" with his performance here. After all these years, I'm still not sure if I buy Cage as an action hero but he's an interesting choice, at least. In any case, for my money, it's Ed Harris in the 'bad guy' role who steals the show. Regardless, they were all given fine support by a nicely assembled group of supporting actors that included John Spencer, David Morse, William Forsythe, Michael Biehn, John C. McGinley and others.

Again, since this is a Jerry Bruckheimer production, you know that the production values are going to be up to snuff. He and producing partner Don Simpson had brought to the screen the likes of "Top Gun" & "Crimson Tide", so this movie was right up their alley. Even Michael Bay's direction wasn't as frenetic here as we've since come to expect. Sure, the movie goes over the top at times but, as far as big budget action movies go, "The Rock" is one of the last notable successes before traditional stories like this started getting completely overshadowed by fantasy & science fiction.

All in all, "The Rock" is a pretty good action movie. It's got plenty of spectacle but it doesn't forget to tell an engaging story as well. Even though it may not hold the same charm for me now that it did back when I was a teen, it still stands out as an above average action movie in the traditional mold.