Reviews

There are a few special movies that are both adored and loathed in equal measure by viewers, and "Blow-Up" is certainly one of the most discussed of these movies. I'll admit that I love thought provoking movies that stay with you long after you've seen them. Unlike most of the Hollywood tripe we get these days that you all but forget 5 minutes after the credits have rolled past.

A number of reviews point to the "confusing" nature of the story or that plot points are left unexplored or entire characters are disposed of without a second thought and so on. These reviews are however missing the point that Antonioni is trying to make as these are central to the very idea that the movie is exploring : the nature of reality. Thus the movie should not be viewed as confusing as it is left purposefully ambiguous by director Antonioni.

The central narrative of the film turns around a successful photographer whom unwittingly films an apparent murder in a public park. The problem arises when he starts to scrutinize the evidence. The closer he looks at his film the more ambiguous it becomes and at the end he, and the audience, is left wondering whether he saw anything at all.

The true brilliance of the movie lies in the fact the Antonioni never explicitly gives any answers to the questions posed throughout the film. Instead he leaves it up to the viewers to decide for themselves. In so doing he allows the audience to impose their reality onto the movie, instead of the director imposing his reality onto the viewer. Was any of it real or merely a far fetched fantasy? You be the judge.

On it's surface the movie is almost a detective story or murder mystery, but these waters run far deeper. As I mentioned above in "Blow-Up" Michelangelo Antonioni explores the nature of reality. When does something have meaning? Can you will something into existence? And if something loses it's meaning, can it then cease to exist altogether? Definitely a movie that demands multiple viewings, and one that is well worth the effort.

The questions posed have as much relevance today as they had in 1966, and the story is told in a highly entertaining and clever way. Granted this is not a movie for everyone, much like Mulholland Drive and Barton Fink are not for everyone, but if you have an open mind the I'll highly recommend this movie.

Orson Welles reportedly once told Peter Bogdanovich that he(Welles) will likely only be appreciated once he is dead. And so it seems was the case with "The Lady From Shanghai", considered a flop in Hollywood at the time of release. Today however, decades later it is considered by many to be a masterpiece and a highly influential work of film noir.

To be completely fair when I first saw the movie during my more formative years I didn't much care for it. I liked the look of the movie, interesting shots with Welles' fingerprints all over them. But it was more recently with subsequent viewings that the movie truly began to shine for me.

This is yet another example of how studio interference can ruin a good film. Orson Welles and studio boss Harry Cohn were at constant odds with one another about nearly everything. The story, the running time, the location shoots, the fact that Welles made Rita Hayworth cut her signature crimson locks and die her hair platinum blonde, production overruns, budget and the score.

I would truly love to see the "director's cut" as I suspect that it would be fantastic, but sadly it is lost to us forever. Harry Cohn cut nearly an hour of footage from the version that Welles submitted, 155 minutes was reduced to just about 87 minutes - one can just imagine what could have been. The single largest point for Welles was the score. He just hated the music and wrote an extensive memo to Cohn about how it can be fixed and why, every single point on the memo was ignored. And viewing the movie with these points in mind you can clearly see that Orson was right too.

Rita Hayworth simply steals the show, her performance as the consummate femme fatale with a shady past and sinister motives is enchanting, and I maintain that Welles did her a great service in the way he lit and shot her scenes(overall and not just the close-ups that were inserted on Harry Cohn's insistence). The movie also delivers some very memorable scenes. The Chinese theater sequence, the fun-house mirror finale and the shark speech at the picnic. The latter remains both chilling and relevant to this day.

The movie also has one of my favourite closing lines of all time in Michael O'Hara's(Orson Welles)epilogue.

Apart from the music that was misapplied the dialog and acting both tend to fade between brilliant and hammy at times. The movie was brilliantly shot though and is simply a pleasure to view, and so inconsistency is the real problem that seems to plague "The Lady Form Shanghai" and keeps it from being a true masterwork. Had the original cut survived and the sound issues been addressed, who knows? To bring this laboursome review to a point. The Lady from Shanghai is a great story told with style. It certainly does have issues and is not without fault but stands as a must see movie for anyone even remotely interested in the Film Noir genre.

I went into this movie not expecting much, the average dumbed down action flick with the Rock putting boots to @rses. Something akin to "The Marine". However, much to my delight what I received was so much more.

Award material? Certainly not, but one hell of a ride for sure. Technically this movie is average at best. The story is predictable, clichéd at times and we have all seen this so many times before. A character with a shady past returns after a long absence to take some well deserved revenge. People die, but wait there is a twist as all may not be as it seems. More people die, etcetera...

It takes some serious cues from old spaghetti westerns, perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in the alternate ending(which I actually heavily prefer over the theatrical ending). The character of Killer even has the theme from "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" as a ringtone on his phone.

I could personally have done without the rather heavy handed religious overtones at times. The themes of vengeance, forgiveness, redemption, pride and acceptance run throughout the various sub-plots. These do manage to nicely weave themselves into the main story later on in the movie. Giving a fairly acceptable reason for their brute force application.

As an all-out action revenge film "Faster" is great though, not the best one out there - but still great. The overall product seems to transcend it's various problems and deliver a solid revenge movie at the end. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie as a whole and had a great time watching it, just don't expect too much.

Critically I would hand "Faster" a 4 but from a more basal pure enjoyment level I might go as high as 7.5 handing in an overall score of 6 out of 10.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" deserves every accolade that is thrown in it's direction, no argument from me there. It is impactful, poignant, relevant even to this day and there is no mistaking it's overall message.

I truly wish I could rate this movie higher, and if it was produced only a few years before of after 1930 I likely would have. The film fell right into the middle of the transition between talkies and silent films(there were even parallel versions made for theaters that didn't have sound yet), and this is plainly evident on screen. But should I really hold this against the movie, or rather concentrate on what was achieved in-spite of it? And the achievement was considerable indeed. "All Quiet..." stands today as one of the most memorable war movies of all time. The action scenes do a fantastic job of illustrating the near futility of trench warfare. The evolution and growth of the main character of Paul, as played by Lew Ayres, from naive schoolboy to battle hardened soldier is one of the best in cinema history.

Perspective. That is where this movie truly shines. We get to see the war from the perspectives of schoolboys being recruited(almost goaded)into the war effort. The soldiers on the front lines both experienced and fresh out of boot camp. The old men back home arguing over their maps, completely removed from the realities of modern warfare. The families left behind and the civilians caught in the middle of two armies. As I said already there is no mistaken the anti-war message of the film but it is in the presentation of all the various points-of-views and the impact that war has on ordinary people where it shines.

In so the movie manages to rise above the technical issues and natural grow pains that movie makers experienced during this time. The end result being a remarkable experience sure to stay with you long after the film's end.

What can I say about Hitchcock that hasn't already been said so many times before? The man was an absolute genius and I adore his work. And just to get it all out of the way I love Psycho, just in case that wasn't already clear.

In the late '50's and early '60's there was a flurry of low budget, mostly B&W horror/thriller/suspense movies made. Think the work of Wiliam Castle(The Tingler, House on Haunted Hill, Macabre)as an example. These proved mostly very popular with audiences, and it was this trend that sparked Hitchcock to try his hand at the same formula. The result was Psycho.(as a side note William Castle in turn made "Strait-Jacket" as a direct response to Psycho) The true strength of Psycho, for me, lies not in the Famous Shower scene or the brief outbursts of violence(few as they are) heightened by Bernard Herrmann's now signature score. The true strength of this film lies in the casting of Antony Perkins and Janet Leigh. They portray their respective characters perfectly. Watching the subtle nuances in their performances, the minor changes in expression, the inflections and tone of voice is just fascinating. There simply is no Norman Bates without Anthony Perkins.

Even to the very last scene Psycho keeps you enthralled where the big pay-off of the story is not stereotypically the apprehension of a maniac(or psychopath if you will)or the solving of a crime with the comforting knowledge that all is well again. Instead it comes with the realisation of just how far down the rabbit hole you've truly gone, and that "Norman Bates" can be anyone or anywhere. Be it the unassuming shy owner of a roadside motel or even your neighbour.

Psycho is simply a must see picture.

I was actually extremely eager to watch this title, and rightly so. I mean : Billy Wilder, Willam Holden even Peter Graves. It's a WWII movie which is a particular favourite of mine to boot.

So Imagine my disappointment when this sometimes comedy, sometimes drama, mostly mystery unfolded on my screen over the course of 2 hours. What a sham! The poor directing, the over acting, the bad jokes and the rubbish story.

The story actually has some promise, were it to have received the right treatment. Surely the two largest problems I had with the movie is firstly the poorly timed, mostly unwelcome and often unwanted comic relief. The result is a movie that doesn't know what it wants to be : serious or silly. Secondly is the frankly abysmal mistreatment of the subject matter. This stems either from willful ignorance or shameful disregard. I'm not sure which is worse, especially considering that the movie was made less than a decade after the war in question had ended.

To be fair perhaps it is just a case of this movie not ageing gracefully at all. But for me this one is a confirmed miss at 4 out of 10. Go and see "The Great Escape" instead.

Let me start off by saying that if you are looking for a big action romp with things exploding periodically, naked people and over the top chase scenes get a copy of the Bourne trilogy or any other Bond film instead. Not to cast disparity on those films, but understanding the difference is crucial. I went into Syriana with no overbearing preconceived notions of what to expect, and in the end that is perhaps the best way to approach this movie. I found the number of negative responses to this film at the same time alarming and not very surprising. This is not a movie for everyone to be sure, if you prefer to switch your brain off when watching a movie then take my above stated advise for your own sake.

That being said, if you enjoy thought provoking intelligent film-making then please do see this movie. This is likely one of the best written scripts I have encountered in months. The fact that Stephen Gaghan, who also penned Traffic and Rules of Engagement, was both the writer and director naturally helps to see the film's vision to fruition. Some people have commented that they found the acting stiff, but it is precisely refraining from the type of overly dramatic acting that allows the film to exhibit it's strongest feature: The Script. This is also evident in the directing being very toned down (as in not being from the Jerry Bruckheimer school of directing) and allowing the actors to carry the story with their performances instead.

Instead of relying on big explosions or special effects the movie relies on the strength of the story. This movie does not, however, hold your hand and if you are not paying attention you will likely get lost between the multiple story lines and sub plots. One of the elements that I found very rewarding is that it does not glorify any of the characters or parties involved, nor does it choose a side. It merely presents the various situations and people for what they are. Not good or evil instead simply an honest portrayal of people living their lives and doing their jobs trying to achieve their goals in life.

It is simply a brilliant and sobering analysis of the impact that oil has on our lives and the lengths that will be gone to in order to control it. As well as the things that greed, corruption and power will lead us to do.

A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.

I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.

The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.

King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.

Daniel Ellsberg is a brilliant and impassioned military analyst who wants nothing more than to serve his country in the most meaningful way he can. However in the end it seems that his greatest act of patriotism is to commit an act of treason.

Sounds like gripping stuff, the kicker is that it is all based on real life events. Now these types of docudramas can go horridly wrong all too easily in so many ways, however "The Pentagon Papers" manages to cleverly avoid most of these. Half of this is down to a solid script and the other primarily to the director for clearly thinking his decisions through to completion and creating a cohesive film on the whole.

Now I have to confess that I am a fan of James Spaders' work and find him to be a very under rated actor over the whole. Now that being said he does do an admirable job of chronicling the characters proverbial decent into madness (if you will forgive the dramatized language) as he goes from being a trusted insider only three steps removed from the president to being branded a traitor and hunted by the F.B.I.

The movie has some shortcomings and most of them I feel are likely due to time constraints placed on made for TV movies. They could, for instance, have easily taken time to develop the gaps in the story some more. Specifically in terms of the inter personal relationships portrayed and in terms of Elsberg's ever increasing sense of disillusionment in the government he believed in so vehemently just a few years before. As it seems at times, though years have passed in the time line, nothing has really changed for the characters.

That having been said I am of the opinion that the film does capture the general feeling of mistrust in the government that was so prevalent during the early seventies, as more and more revelations of the abuse of power at the highest levels and the lies that were being fed to the public to justify even greater lies became known. Although it is all related from very personal perspectives.

One of the strongest elements was the visual style employed by the director. I was constantly reminded of Oliver Stone in that respect. The uses of period news broadcasts are very cleverly deployed throughout the movie.

So do yourself a favor and watch "The Pentagon Papers", it can be both enlightening and entertaining, definitely 90 odd minutes well spent.

Keanu Reeves is a machinist working on an experimental project for clean renewable energy when all goes horribly wrong. There is a big explosion, people die and suddenly he and Rachael Weisz get framed for it all and find themselves the most wanted fugitives in America, and so the chase begins...

Did someone say fugitive? Hmm.. yes I kept getting flashbacks form "The Fugitive" when watching this. Not surprising as the similarities are startling when compared. The same Director, the same basic premise(ie. someone innocent getting framed, running away from law enforcement, uncovering the truth ext.), a number of plot points that coincide, several supporting cast members(bit roles mostly)are the same. This is in essence "The Fugitive" remade with a sci-fi twist.

The character of Dr. Lily Sinclair played by Rachael Weisz seems to serve little purpose other that a stray puppy for Keanu Reeves' character to look after. Now don't get me wrong - I love Rachel Weisz, her character here was just a little wooden. Almost an agitator character if you will, giving Keanu the motivation to advance the story. Flimsy but functional writing.

Morgan Freeman gives his now trademark "I know more than you do, and you know it" performance as the mysterious benefactor who clearly has his own agenda.

Nothing wrong with this film, at least nothing critical, but it wont be at the top of too many must have lists. So yes this movie does what it was meant to do : entertain you for just shy of 2 hours. Keanu Fans will enjoy it as should fans of the general chase movie genre, with a bit of (questionable)sci-fi thrown in for good measure.

OK Let's see. I watched a movie last night........what was it again??? Oh that's right...The Sentinel. That sentence pretty much sums it all up, unfortunately. In spite of how much I really wanted to like this movie I just could not bring myself to do so.

I mean it has Jack Bauer...er... sorry I mean Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Douglas, the lovely Eva Longoria and a host of other recognizable faces including Kim Basinger(as the 1st lady no less) and Martin Donovan. However regardless of all of this it turned out to be an utterly uninspired, predictable and forgettable collection of rehashed moments that seem all too familiar somehow. The blame can in my estimation not be laid at the feet of the principal actors here. Rather an uninspired script and less than adequate direction seems to be the main cause of this failing.

Eva Longoria's character gets a good introduction and is then barely heard from again for the remainder of the film. The bad guys' motives are not explored or explained at all other than some poorly contrived nonsense about the former KGB. The character of Douglas' informant seems to have no plausible reason to posses the knowledge he has. There are several missed opportunities and redundancies in the story, and the list just goes on, in short the script was poorly written, predictable and not thought through as well as it really should have been. The mess of sub-plots just become convoluted and a distraction after a while.

One could easily be forgiven for comparing "The Sentinel" to "In the line of Fire" which was by far a superior film despite having perhaps a simpler storyline. In short you know what "In The Line Of Fire" was about. It seems that the writer could not decide what "The Sentinel" should really be. Oh Well, next time maybe.....

A good idea gone horribly wrong. If you are in the mood for this kind of film rather get hold of a copy of "In The Line Of Fire" with Clint Eastwood or even Kevin Costner in "No Way Out" instead.

John Cena is ....The Marine! This is pretty much what you might expect from a movie of this nature. A big action packed romp with really bad bad guys and pristinely heroic good guys and exploding everything else. Which is not to say that it is a total waste of time, mind you. I have, perhaps sadly, seen far worse than The Marine in my time.

John Cena seems a little ill at ease at first but grows into the character of John Triton(I have to admit that is a pretty cool name)in the latter two thirds of the film. Robert Patrick is a gem in this role and he plays the subtle insanity of his character perfectly, after all it was not his fault that the role was woefully under developed. The saving grace of the movie is without doubt Kelly Carlson. She simply steals the movie in her role as John's wife.

The single biggest failing of this project, in my opinion, is by far the script. In fact I would not be surprised if there was no script at all, and just a loose amalgamation of stuff exploding and fight sequences. And they left it to the actors to improv the bits in between. The plot(where detectable)is barely kept together by spit and dental floss and the characters are under developed and one dimensional. As for back stories - Who needs 'em? The editing was also something I found annoying as it becomes a victim of itself in trying to keep the fast pace of the film up. The film is however very stylized and attractive to watch. Just check your brain at the door please.

So if 90 odd minutes of completely brainless fun is what you are after - then by all means have a look at The Marine.