Reviews

Production Values do not make a film, as this facet is a given in high budget movies. Adequate Actors do not make a film excellent if the script is poor - in this case mediocre - and there is a complete lack of characterization. A Screenplay with an interesting premise does not make a good film if the development is good but becomes extremely drawn out, then suddenly a rushed ending is thrown at the audience. The cliffhanger is great, though.

Allusions to stand alone classics and mythology do not make a film if they do little to nothing in contribution to the film in its entirety. People have lauded this film as if it is some avant-garde, incredible work of art for in the least its name being a reference to the Greek myth where Man is made, given the ability to make fire, as well as metaphysical overtones inherent of such, and the obvious reference to the story of the birth of Christ. All of this does little to actually help the film. If anything, these allusions are made to make the film seem deeper than it is.

Again, the premise is the best part, and while I was enjoying it so much as I am a huge fan of science fiction, there came a time in the film when I was struggling to come up with warrants to justify why the film was good, let alone why I should not walk out. I am capable to logic and reasoning- people complain at how analytical I am at times - yet, hopefully not to sound cyclical, it was when the film started to drag on that I, in retrospect, should have walked out.

I have never walked out on a film before (except for the second installment of Lord of the Rings, due to the fact I couldn't stand the directing). At least I got to watch that movie for free. I regret having spent $9 to see this movie. It had some good scenes though and I know not to watch this as if it is an Alien film, but treat it more like a separate sci fi film (given the ending, it is impossible to - I will say no more). To describe this film, only one word is required.

Terrible.

There are two aspects of Looper that cause it to be stifling: It tries too hard to be stylish and too hard to be deep. The production values are there, with the actors well cast - though, when it comes down to it Bruce Willis is cast as a character that is essentially himself in every single Die Hard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is cast as (and takes on the attempts at acting like) a younger Bruce Willis.

Here is where an interesting facet comes into play: The most basic -simplified, if you will- premise is that one person meets themselves in the future. With the help of some keen makeup and prosthetic, Gordon-Levitt was able to be given the jaw, cheekbones, and forehead of Bruce Willis. In addition, speaking in a raspy and sort of brooding tone, the film is able to pull off a decent narration. However, it just tries too hard to be "cool"; too hard to be "noir." The director, Rian Johnson, attempts to be the next Christopher Nolan by mimicking the deep provocations of Inception but fails due to the fact that the presentation is terrible. One moment he throws a concept at the audience and before one can really figure out any profundities or even specific relations to a plot, the scene following is an elementary action scene or something that is easy to conceive, partially due to similarities with action films hitherto. Perhaps with another viewing, aside from gawking at visuals, the viewer would be able to construe of something that is probably not there and, the undeniably corny plot "twists" thrown in make this film more than just a waste of money but also a waste of time. Inception was deep with the only real downside being that of the latter portion of it being drawn out - Looper tries with all of its might to be Inception, but can be evaluated from its ending which is, in the larger scope of cinema, a cop out.

The fact of the matter is that the only way to really appreciate and avoid some valid criticisms of Max Payne 3, one must see this game as more of a new envisioning of the franchise.

What made the original game stand out aside from the bullet time gameplay was minute details; the fact that groups of enemies had hilarious conversations between each other, or the ingenious narrative with catchy phrases that practically defines the noir genre, and the entire dark shades and tones that overtook the graphics- Max Payne 3 does not so much do away with these things as update and modernize the series to meet the standards of today.

For some players, immersion may be instantaneous from the hook, and for others, it may take longer, and there may be those who essentially give up because they find it mundane, however; the game is best seen like a playable movie that, by the second disc, truly shines: The narrative becomes more astute, the character of Max Payne becomes polished, and the story begins to pick up with quite some twists and turns.

The gameplay is so refined that this game is the pinnacle of its genre and with the graphics and attention to detail being by far the best for action shooters thus far, Max Payne 3 truly shines as the must have and must play for anyone who wants an experience beyond anything out in the market.

Another important note is the surprising amount of replay value and goodies, such as collectible "clues" and "golden guns" placed throughout levels that encourage exploration of detailed environments. This adds a definitive flair to what would otherwise be a straightforward shooter. The only real downsides are easily compensated, with the first being the minute skewering throughout some of the longer cut scenes, which is really just the game loading and also done deliberately for style, and also some of the numerous of cut scenes throughout levels – these can be skipped.

However, the fact that there are absolutely no traditional load times throughout any of the levels again strongly contribute to making this game one of the best of its genre, and between this and the 360 degree gameplay, polished and refined bullet time, a duck, cover and blind-fire system that is effective and at times necessary, and a script with clever dialogue that eventually does pick up throughout the second disc, Max Payne 3 is an authoritative must have for absolutely any fan even remotely interested in the genre.

Pros Gameplay, production values, graphics, sound, audio , script, replay value

Cons Long cut scenes cannot be skipped

Score 9.8/10

This movie is interesting & very entertaining, most definitely great for what it is. Similarities can be drawn with L.A. Confidential, in the sense that there is clear corruption within the police force present in the films & that as the film progresses towards the climax the viewer is slowly brought to understanding just how deep it runs. I would give it 8.5/10 but, given the scoring system on IMDb, rounded up as is custom with currency.

The plot is easy enough to follow, the premise standard enough to not require unnecessary devotion to the establishment of such & the actual execution being notably stylish. Cinematography is sophomoric however does not detract from the experience of watching it, so in a way keeping with this simplicity works in favor. The film grain used really adds visceral tones, which helps to accentuate the gritty ambiance necessary for the intents of the director.

What should be stressed is that I found this movie entertaining & thought provoking in the sense that it was very interesting to see how the plot unveiled, although there were some bits that were predictable. This, however, did not kill any of the entertainment value & plus, these days it is very difficult to avoid clichés set by classics that are now considered archetypes.

Given high production values, a great cast & above average performances, Street Kings will not necessarily be marked as a classic within the genre as it will a very entertaining crime thriller. I would strongly recommend to fans of this movie the movie Training Day, Dark Blue or L.A. Confidential & vice versa- if you enjoyed any one of the aforementioned titles, then Street Kings will be very likely to entertain you as well.

An Exploration of The Most Controversial Film in Decades In what will be marked in history as one of the most controversial, literally pornographic & thought provoking pieces of art within the film medium, Lars von Trier has presented an anomaly questioning the foundations of religions themselves, as well as an experience to enmesh the audience well into the film. From practically every facet of quality, Antichrist excels in all areas: Regarding special effects, film grain & use of colours; image filtering, characters, soundtrack, artistic literary techniques; dialogue & themes with direct connotations towards the human condition. This is naming but a few of a potential from a most complex myriad.

What will dissuade viewers is first & foremost the sexual content & violence. Albeit there is little to no actually violence throughout the film, many entrails & rotting corpses are wont to appear throughout the film. Fortunate for fans of indulgent exploitation flicks like the Saw series (2004-2009) there are a few scenes that they would find most enjoyable. The most brutally sadistic scene is the well sculpted climax, leading to such a poignant pinnacle. The protagonists, He & Her, are revealed early to be some sort of representation, metaphor or analogy for the story of Adam & Eve. The denouement is, in itself, as meaningful as the climax.

Again, however, other things present that may be of no interest to a viewer are the pace of execution & the slow, nonchalant style. Focusing on a significant lot of aesthetically pleasing shots, playing shots heavily edited to seem surreal when shot in slow motion. It recalled Alejandro González Iñárritu's Babel (2006), in which the scenes where Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchet are traveling filmed with a breezy, patient pace. The camera often pans slowly, or zooms in quickly during intense scenes to inspire such immense pathos. The characters themselves that are injected with such utterly human logic, feelings, anxieties, panic; all exemplified & elucidated clearly be means of talents of each actor.

Released in Denmark, it is in due likelihood against favors of having this film put in theatres across America. Realize it is not so much the subject content – inquiry into religion & witnessing the progress & downfalls-as it is the unwavering camera. In conjunction with the image filter that highlights warmer, bright colours & white, we feel as if we are there. A pseudo-voyeuristic feel, with extremely thought provoking subjects for debate presented. Antichrist is not by any means endorsing anything other than what you believed given all the themes, motifs, hints, metaphors & clues upon leaving the theatre. In fact, in concerns to religion & Christianity & Antichrist, specifically, the more well educated an individual is the more well understood are the relations to the human condition. On contraire not meant to offend any religious people aside from a few wonderments regarding "Satan," The only cons conceived, save for the pace & content, is that of one scene an hour & ½ in. The film spontaneously switches to the paradigm of the conventional orthodox psychological thrillers, similar to M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense (1999). Use of soundtrack can be likened to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960). Allusions are present, whether intentional or coincidence. This brings forth a notice concerning the notion of genres.

Considered by the Mass Mainstream Media (MSM) to be a horror or a drama, the array of subject matter provided within the movie far expounded upon any doubts of limitations. Given I was able deduce a list of themes: We can never escape decay; acceptance of fate; lust & carnal desire; Eden; the loss of innocence, exposure to sin & effects of sin- masochism, sadism & self-mutilation. The film begins as a drama, the progresses to become a surreal mystery psychological thriller with horror elements aimed at the higher age demograph.

The ending is so poignantly haunting & so very graphically rendered as to make one hard pressed to not cringe. This is far beyond Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange or the French films Man Bites Dog & Irreversible. However, stripped of its delving into religious metaphysical indulgences, Antichrist is an extremely well directed & acted drama albeit not one that standalone with warrant a great movie. You always get out of a film what you put it, so depending on how much time one wants to spend contemplating on abstract notions, the more appreciative they will be of the film. Although, objectively speaking no other film will ever surmount to the infallible depth of this piece, in direct concerns to the subject matter being the human condition.

• 2009 Sam Johnson

Beneath the seemingly superfluous violence, cool imagery and stage persona inherent within Wong Kar Wai, lies a deep character study between five people: A hit-man and his partner, an old classmate of the hit-man, and a mute with an eccentric woman. However, like the previous film that was supposed to be included with Fallen Angels, titled Chungking Express, what the director is more than likely intending is a clever romance film, despite the former being of much more traditional standards.

This film is recommended for those who like the concept and genre of hit-man films, though by no means does this fall in the cookie cutter cliché of such better known films as The Godfather, Goodfellas, The Professional, and The Untouchables. While not mainly focused on the actual killings performed, the relationships are where the real substance lies.

With amazing cinematography (as should be expected by Wai) and a soundtrack that adds to the flavor and ambiance of the film, fans of Hong Kong cinema, foreign cinema, and even those who have never been exposed to this niche within films, will more than likely enjoy it.

| Plot 7.8/10 - While not extremely gripping, the plot adds as a vehicle to move the story along. | | Script 9/10 - Filled with mildly humorous | dialogue, the meat of the script lies in character interaction and occasional philosophical contemplations upon the human condition. | | Characterization - 9.8/10 The characters, as Wai is wont to establish, are eccentric and memorable. | Soundtrack 8/10 - A stellar soundtrack, used well in conjunction with the cinematography. Some songs are used to establish themes, which is always effective though rarely used in the majority of films | | Cinematography 9.9/10 - Simply amazing, colourful and aesthetically pleasing, the cinematography helps in enmeshing the viewer and also in building the already stellar development of characters. | Overall 9.2/10 - An enjoyable film. Fans of his work have absolutely nothing to lose! Score not based on average of hitherto listed scores. |

A Scanner Darkly Starring Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder, and Rory Cochrane Written by Richard Linklater Based on the Novel by Philip K. Dick (novel) Directed by Richard Linklater Genre: Animation, Mystery, Psychological Thriller, Drama, Sci-Fi

A Scanner Darkly portrays a dystopia in which the government has the ability to monitor everything the individual does. A drug, named Substance D, is a plague within the society, causing the government to create a specific unit, Newpath, to investigate and arrest those who are pushers and users.

Bob Arctor (Reeves) plays an agent of Newpath, who is given a "scramble suit" - a uniform that allows for his appearance to change and makes his voice different, hence giving him an ability of incognito to help infiltrate drug rings. As an undercover narcotics officer, he is assigned to join a group of substance D abusers in order to find the high supplier to the drug itself. He lives with three users, and participates in substance abuse in order to remain unsuspicious to his peers.

Done in animation reminiscent of Richard Linklater's Waking Life (2001), it enhances a surrealistic feel that gives an ambiance fitting for the hallucinatory affects of substance D. While used in a different manner than in the aforementioned film, Linklater is ingenious in employing black and white scenes ("the footage is shown in black and white for screener purposes only. Final product will not be alter in this manner") in addition to flashing "PROPERTY OF WHV NOT FOR SALE OR RENTAL" and "IF YOU HAVE RENTED OR PURCHASED THIS DVD PLEASE CALL 1-800-NO-COPYS." There is a point to this, though it may take an additional viewing to fully comprehend the gravity of this perk.

What follows is a very bizarre and peculiar series of events, with stellar performances by Reeves, Ryder, Downey Jr. in addition to the entire cast. Throughout the entire story, because of the ability for "scanners," or undercover agents such as Arctor, to change their appearance, the paranoia felt by his friends leads to some hilarious scenes. Downey Jr. has an uncanny ability to play a hopped up junkie, along with Harrelson, and what adds the movie an even more complicating flair is the fact that the men Arctor works for are accusing his character of something that he is unsure of.

While the plot twist in the end leaves the story off on a somewhat ambiguous note, this brings up one of the films downside: It may be hard for the viewer to keep their attention or interests within the film, if such brief references to neuropsycholgy and also slow character development, plus the entire seemingly cliché premise seems uninspiring. However, with a hook very, very reminiscent to William S. Burroughs' Naked Lunch, those who are interested in narcotics crime films may find themselves very enticed.

The title A Scanner Darkly refers to the passage 1 Corinthians 13 of the Holy Bible, which states:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (Verses 9-12, King James Version)

And on a final note, the best quote which can somewhat act to summarize a theme is said by Reeves-

"What does a scanner see? I mean, really see? Into the head? Down into the heart? Does a passive infrared scanner … see into me — into us — clearly or darkly?"

I would recommend this movie to those who like to analyze, as it may take two or more viewings to fully understand the plot. Dick, the author of the original book, asserts in an interview that all of the events within his story he actually saw. Upon contemplation of the film itself, the eerie reality expounding from his words make it seem very likely, actually.

| Cinematography 9/10 | Acting 10/10 | Character Development 8/10 | Soundtrack 9/10 |--Final Score: 9.2/10--|